header-logo header-logo

The Referendum Leave Campaign & electoral breaches

05 March 2020 / Amanda Robinson , David Wolchover
Categories: Features , Brexit
printer mail-detail
Amanda Robinson & David Wolchover ask whether we should be grateful to those who violated electoral law in the EU referendum for highlighting deficiencies in the UK’s electoral system

The advisory status of the EU referendum in 2016 did not diminish the need for lawful participation in, and compliance with, the primary and secondary legislative requirements governing its proper management and outcome. Accordingly, Parliament enacted detailed rules for ensuring a real and fair reflection of the views of the electorate, transparency, and public confidence in the democratic processes. Expenditure was controlled and limited to requiring participants spending more than £10,000 to register and declare expenses and donations received, to designate two ‘lead’ campaigns which would have special status and entitlements and to control co-ordination between campaigns. Of particular importance was the prohibition on donations from foreign sources in order to prevent external interference.

However, soon after the referendum took place on 23 June 2016, reports began to circulate of instances of electoral malpractice allegedly committed by certain groups

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll