Remain Campaign Cheating

Remain Campaign Cheating

Priti Patel exposes Electoral Commission double standards

Ms Louise Edwards
Head of Regulation Electoral Commission
3 Bunhill Row
London EC1Y 8YZ

Our Ref: ZA4904816 January 2018

Dear Ms Edwards,

Thank you for your letter of 15 January 2018. I appreciate you taking the time to respond to me, but I must voice my serious concerns about your decision to not open an investigation into any of the points  that I have highlighted. 

Remain tactics exceeded anything Leave was accused of


 Joint spending and co ordination between groups

 In response to my concerns about joint campaigning between the various Remain groups, you state that ‘the evidence indicates that the meetings were advisory in nature, focussed on communications’ (my emphasis added) and that you do not deem that there was a common plan. This is in stark contrast to what the Electoral Commission’s own guidance states: ‘In our view, you are very likely to be working together if… you coordinate your regulated campaign activity with another campaigner – for example, if you agree that you should each cover particular areas, arguments or voters

’ (Electoral Commission, Joint Campaigning for non-party campaigners). You will also note that the same guidance makes clear the direct link between ‘working together’ and having a ‘common plan’. With this in mind, I again refer you to the passage from Sir Craig Oliver’s Unleashing Demons

‘I join a 7.30 a.m. cross-party call chaired by Will Straw. It’s designed to catch up with what the In campaigns for the various political parties are doing that day. I want to get across a blunt message :this matters. We failed on immigration yesterday, hardly anyone stuck to our line that we accept it’s a problem, but Leave’s solution of trashing the economy is no way to deal with it.’

 It is extremely hard to see how this is not clear evidence that the Remain campaigns were agreeing to, in the words of the Electoral Commission, 'cover particular... arguments' and were coordinating what they said. You do not provide any explanation for why you deem the described actions to be merely ‘advisory’ - this appears to be pure assertion on your part. The above passage reads far more like an instruction and - in any event - demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt the existence of coordination when it comes tousing detailed, common ‘lines’ which were spelled out by Britain Stronger in Europe to the various Remain campaigns (each of which then presumably spent money publicising this message - coordinated communications activity necessarily involves incurring referendum expenses).

It is near certain that similar early-morning phone calls were made between these groups - and highly probable that more common lines were agreed over the course of the campaign. You also provide no basis for your confidence that these conversations only covered communication. In addition, the allegation made in Tim Shipman’s All Out War that ‘[Britain Stronger inEurope’s] field operation was effectively subcontracted to the Labour Party, since the Tories had little or no presence in the working-class areas which the Brexiteers were targeting’ is, once again, highly suggestive of a ‘common plan’. I would argue that the Electoral Commission has a duty to investigate such allegations thoroughly - and would be failing in its obligations if it were to simply dismiss such concerning assertions after a mere few days of assessment.

What is particularly concerning is that you decided on 20 November 2017 to re open an investigation into Vote Leave Limited and Mr Darren Grimes, in spite of the fact that there is much less evidence of a common plan. As you acknowledge at [25] of the Review of Assessments - ‘there are no direct indications of the campaigners working together’ (myemphasis added) and that - as you state at [31] - that ‘the Commission is not aware of what any such communications [between Vote Leave and Mr Grimes] contained or whether it indicated a common plan or arrangement was in place’. In other words - despite the fact that there is no evidence of Vote Leave Limited or Mr Grimes engaging in joint planning (even of an advisory nature) - you have been persuaded of the need for a full investigation.

However, when clear documented evidence of the Remain campaigns coordinating specific messaging is presented to you, this is dismissed as ‘advisory’. This would appear to be a clear case of double standards.

Spending controls

 I am also very concerned by your response to my point about the apparent efforts of Remain campaigns to evade spending controls. You claim that because I have failed to‘provide evidence that the rules may have been broken’ the Electoral Commission will not pursue these matters. This would appear to be not just demanding more exacting requirements than what is needed in legislation, but also another clear case of double standards by the Electoral Commission. Schedule 19B of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (as amended) states that the Electoral Commission shall have the power to investigate, if the‘Commission have reasonable grounds to suspect… a person has committed an offence under this Act’. The meaning of ‘reasonable grounds’ - as a concept that is well defined in law - is not something for the Electoral Commission to determine. Your response on 8 January 2018 appears to suggest the Electoral Commission has adopted the position that ‘reasonable grounds’ cannot exist without direct evidence. That is wrong in law - I refer you to pp 1252-1253 of Blackstone's Criminal Practice 2018 which makes clear that ‘reasonable grounds’ can be based, inter alia, on allegations and inference from circumstantial evidence.


 In any event, the Electoral Commission’s own track record on what it considers to be ‘reasonable grounds’ can be garnered from its decision on 20 November 2017 to reopen it's investigations into Vote Leave Limited, Be Leave and Veterans for Britain. It is clear that this decision was not based on the production of new evidence. In your Assessment Review, at [27] and [28], you state that (with my emphasis added): ‘the Commission notes it's increased awareness of the significance of digital campaigning as a key technique in the referendum … Given this new information [note, that there is no indication of what this new information was], together taken with the existing evidence, the Commission has considered whether there were inferences that might on investigation be drawn from the evidence obtained that did indicate a plan or arrangement was in place’. At [29] you state ‘It may be possible on investigation to infer from the sequence of events summarised above that there may have been additional communication, verbal or in writing, between Vote Leave and Mr Grimes...This can be inferred’.

The reasoning, in other words, is not based on evidence but only on possibilities and supposition - directly contradicting the Commission’s assertion that an investigation can only follow the production of evidence.

Conclusion

 Based on all of the above, I have to conclude that the Electoral Commission appears to have used an extraordinarily low bar – arguably, far too low a bar— when deciding to open your new investigation on Vote Leave and other campaigners for Brexit, yet have set a very high bar when deciding to open an investigation into Britain Stronger in Europe.The matters I have placed before you regarding these Remain campaigns go far beyond ‘inference’. These are matters that I have put to you that are plain, do not require inference, and of which I have now made you fully aware. The concerns raised about Remain groups - including the hasty establishment of groups a month before the referendum, having multiple overlapping donors, daily coordination committees and the subcontracting of the ground campaign - appear to be far more serious than the accusations made against the Leave campaign.

There has, for example, been no accusation of the Vote Leave campaign subcontracting its ground campaign to other organisations. It is very hard to see how the Remain groups that were set up a few weeks before the referendum could not have been part of a common plan. There is, in my view, a clear and compelling case to investigate this, and to make sure that there has been no abuse. Prima facie, therefore, the Electoral Commission’s decision not to open an investigation into a single one of my concerns appears to be - at best - based on an inaccurate understanding of what ‘reasonable grounds’ means in law or - at worst - a deliberate attempt to put more onerous standards on the grounds for starting an investigation on one campaign than the other. Let me be clear - the Electoral Commission has a vital role to play in our public life. At the heart of its role is its well-established reputation for being above the political fray, and conducting itself in a non-partisan fashion. There will be very serious questions asked about the Electoral Commission’s conduct if, in the exercise of its duties, it applies a very low bar to the instigation of investigations for one group, but then demands a much higher bar for the instigation of investigations into another.

 Broader questions will also be raised if the Electoral Commission’s decision not to open an investigation is based on a misunderstanding of the law. I invite the Electoral Commission to reassess my complaints in light of the correct understanding of the law and on the need to use common standards for all. I believe that the points that I have raised above call for the immediate opening of investigations on all my points. I would also strongly suggest that it is in the Electoral Commission’s interests to show equity in the exercise of its functions and apply the same standards to both the Remain and Leave campaigns. I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,
Rt Hon Priti Pate lMember of Parliament for Witham

Varadkar didnt know what was going on in HIS department

In 2016 when Leo Varadkar one of those now trying to abuse brexit to separate Ulster from the UK was the minister in charge of the Republic of Irelands HSE (Health Service Executive)

His department became aware that their outscourcing of cervical cancer testing from Ireland to a cheaper US company had misdiagnosed many of the smears which it had tested. The tests which the department contracted with the company were the cheapest on offer and ones which US insurance companies rejected due to their unreliability.

Bizarrely whilst his department became fully aware of what was happening they issued memos aimed at damage limitation bordering on a cover up. Varadkar now denies all knowledge of anything to do with these explosive memos.

He obviously knows that if he were ever to admit to such knowledge it would mean his having to resign.

Lucky for varadkar then he hadn't a clue what was going on in the department HE was in charge of, but sadly not so lucky for the victims of the debacle 17 of whom are prematurely passed away.

There are estimated to be another 6 who were known to have been misdiagnosed but have still not yet even been traced..

It Just shows what a venal conniving unprincipled crew of liars and back coverers were up against.

FINALLY

"Leo Varadkar doesn't cry for me or the mothers dying or dead, the little children left behind to go through life without their mothers. He crys for himself and his political future. But it's too late and he needs to accept that. Leo Varadkar failed to answer this crisis. Neither Mr Varadkar or Mr Harris have even contacted me. They failed and I don't want to die to leave my children in a country with a government in a country that can't look after it's citizens. They both need to accept it and resign" (Statement by Mrs Mhic Mhathuna Co Kerry Ireland)

Do not let Republic suck Northern Ireland back into EU institutions: Dodds

Belfast Newsletter Thursday May 10, 2018 (Page 10)

Nigel Dodds has warned of "economic misery" if the Republic succeeds in "sucking Northern Ireland" back towards the EU. Speaking in the House of Commons yesterday, the DUP deputy leader pressed Tory MP Shailesh Vara, Northern Ireland under-secretary, for further assurances about the UK's integrity.

In February, the prime minister had declared emphatically that "no UK prime minster could ever agree to" something which would "threaten the constitutional  integrity of the UK".

NO U.K. PRIME MINISTER COULD EVER AGREE TO IT M.P.3 Download

Mr Dodds, MP for North Belfast, asked if Mr Vara would "reaffirm" the UK - "economically, politically and constitutionally" - will stay intact. Mr Vara responded by saying: "I can absolutely give the right honourable gentleman that assurance -the economic and constitutional integrity of the UK will remain intact."

Mr Dodds went on to add that keeping Northern IreIand, but not Great Britain, in the customs union would Nigel Dodds inflict "economic misery On all of our constituents". He added that when "Leo Varadkar talks about 'not leaving Northern Ireland behind', what he means is sucking Northern Ireland into the institutions of the EU - which would be economically disastrous for all our citizens".

Once again, Mr Vara assured Mr Dodds that the prime minister will never compromise the integrity of the UK. "There is no question whatsoever of having a border in the Irish Sea," he told the House. "None whatsoever."

Customs expert made case for computer-based clearing on Irish Border

The "Gettng Over the Line", Policy Exchange research paper leans heavily on the work of a Swedish customs expert who recently presented a research paper on the future of border arrangements.

Dr Lars Karlsson, a former director of the World Customs Organisation, and director general of Swedish Customs, produced a paper entitled 'Border 2.0' which set out a range of modern technological methods to streamline customs checks.

The paper states; "Modern technology means that physical customs posts, or even cameras, are no longer essential at borders. This has been pointed out by Lars Karlsson a customs expert commissioned by the EU itself to look into this subject, who envisages the use of mobile phone and GPS technology to track HGVs, together with the computer based customs clearing."

The paper explains: "Computerised customs clearing consists of declarations of tariff duties payable, including on import content, and also the necessary certification of regulatory approval.

"Inspection of animal health and food standards can occur at producers' premises, as is common in current practice. Customs clearance occurs at the exporter's premises and the sealed consignments can then cross the Irish border while being tracked electronically by customs authorities."

The paper continues: "Since very few consignments are actually checked at existing EU borders, and those checks are usually based on intelligence, such checks can easily be made away from borders

Below is a PDF copy of the policy document "Getting Over the Line", laying out in detail how Dr Karlssons scheme would work in practice

GETTING OVER THE LINE an electronic solution to a seamless Irish Border (PDF DOWNLOAD)

One Unelected appointee dictator to a "democratically" elected one

The BACKSTAB option

Otherwise known as the innfamous Backstop option this was one of three ideas to solve the question of a frictionless border between Northern Ireland and thebIrish Republic.

The border has been an issue in Ireland the old bjoke goes since 1690 and a lot of people here suscribe to that..

The Backstop is supposed to be a last resport but is being promoted by Irish republicans as if its the only solutionbnin full collusion with Barnier and co. They see it as a back door to separating Ulster from the rest of the UK. That is something they couldnt even achieve with a terror campaign now here it is being gifted to them by the corrupt EU.

Im Her Mansion house speech Mrs May made the following pledges


1 Leaving the single market,
2. Leaving the customs union,
3. No Back Stop option acceptable in Northern Ireland
4. Taking back control of borders, laws and money,
5. Ending ECJ jurisdiction in UK,
6. Freedom to diverge…

Unionists will never accept the 3rd item above we already refer to it as bthe BACKSTAB option because that is exactly what it is. Mrs May rightly reiteraed what she promised in the Mansion house pledges and rightly rejected it out of hand. Here are her exact words on the subject:

“The draft legal text the Commission has published would,if implemented undermine the UK common market and threaten the constitutional integrIty of the UK by creating a customs and regulatory border down the Irish Sea, AND NO UK PRIME MINISTER COULD "EVER" AGREE TO IT." (THERESA MAY)

Mrs May NO BACKSTAB OPTION PLEDGE CLICK BELOW FOR A DOWNLOADABLE MP3 OF HER SAYING THE WORDS ABOVE

Downloadable Backstab Option mp3