A case is due to start in the High Court on the 7th of December 2018, by an anti-Brexit group, claiming that some of the money used to fund the Leave campaign came from outside permissible sources, hence in violation of the UK campaign finance laws.
Allegedly, you guessed it, money came from some “Russians”, and as such the Brexit vote according to the group should be null and void. Some of the people who helped bring the case to court include Sue Wilson, who has resided in Spain with her husband for the last 11 years, according to the Independent, and Ben Bradshaw, Labour MP.
These individuals have helped and pressured the Electoral Commission, the UK watchdog on elections, to bring the case against one of the Leave campaigners and donor, Aron Banks.
The BBC report on November 1st 2018 stated, “The watchdog said it suspected Mr Banks was not the ‘true source’ of loans to the campaign and the money had come ‘from impermissible sources’ ie foreign sources.”
Mr Banks denied any wrongdoing and said he welcomed the police investigation.
He said he was “confident that a full and frank investigation will finally put an end to the ludicrous allegations levelled against me and my colleagues.”
During the Obama Presidency we saw the Obama administration and others use the law to silence opposition to his policies. The law became a tool to shut down opposition, not to carry out justice.
One such case was the case of Dinesh D’Souza, who had created several Movies and books criticising the Obama Administration’s policies. Dinesh also highlighted the history of the Democratic Party.
We are seeing the same thing happening to Arron Banks. In the UK the “gang” has gone further, not only using the law to attack opposition but using the law to subvert a democratic vote.
The claim is since the Leave team allegedly broke the campaign finance rules, the Brexit vote is therefore illegal and Void. The Independent newspaper used an analogy of an athlete on drugs, ie the athlete has an advantage over the other athletes not on drugs.
That analogy might be logical if the Leave campaign had in fact spent more than the Remain campaign, giving Leave a financial advantage, but that was not the case. Remain also was able to use tax payer funds Leave was not given.
What advantage financially did Leave have with less funds than Remain who had more funds and were backed by the resources of the State? Answer: None.
It just sounds like some individuals are clutching at straws, and using the law to subvert a democratic vote.
(Articles reflect the views of the author, and not necessarily those of Luke Nash-Jones, The Red Pill Factory, or Make Britain Great Again.)