Questions for the Electoral Commission

There are serious questions to be asked of the Electoral Commission in regards to the 2016 EU referendum. Why did the Commission tell the High Court that it never advised Vote Leave, the official pro‑Brexit campaign, that it could lawfully donate around £620,000 to a separate group? Last week, two judges ruled that this assertion was misleading – as proved by emails between Vote Leave and the Commission. How could it possibly have come to this? Electoral bodies must be seen to be entirely neutral arbiters. It is time for the Commission to face scrutiny by a parliamentary committee, to determine if it is still fit for purpose.

It should be noted that, earlier this year, the Commission also rejected a complaint brought by Priti Patel that Britain Stronger in Europe may have failed to report joint spending with other campaigns. Parliamentarians need to make sure that this wasn’t an example of double standards.

In any case, there is a problem at the heart of the current rules: they allowed the Government to spend £9 million on a one-sided propaganda leaflet, a sum that wasn’t included in the official Remain campaign’s spending limits. The referendum was never a level playing field.

Now that it is long over, it is a pity that some sore losers still feel it necessary to contest the result through the courts. Yes, democratic campaigns must be conducted legally and transparently. Nevertheless, the ongoing litigation smacks of a Remain side that cannot accept its defeat – despite its enormous, inbuilt advantages.

Whether they are trying to mount a parliamentary insurgency or meeting with European leaders to drum up support for a second referendum, the objective is still the same, and betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what occurred in June 2016. The referendum happened, Leave won, and the public overwhelmingly wants politicians to respect the verdict and get on with it.

There is a fair debate to be had about the nuances of how we leave. But trying to cancel the referendum, question its legitimacy or engineer a Brexit in name only would be a flagrant reversal of what the people voted for.