Another Excellent piece Sue!
Wondered if you’d seen this? > > https://theconversation.com/british-election-spending-laws-explained-and-why-they-need-updating-93980?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20March%2028%202018%20-%2097978487&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20March%2028%202018%20-%2097978487+CID_4f0cf95cd0d5718badd7573af1fadea8&utm_source=campaign_monitor_uk&utm_term=British%20election%20spending%20laws%20explained%20%20and%20why%20they%20need%20updating
Christopher Wylie told a select committee earlier that the pro-Brexit campaign had a “common plan” to use a network of companies to get around election spending laws and said he thought there “could have been a different outcome had there not been, in my view, cheating”.
He added: “It makes me so angry, because a lot of people supported leave because they believe in the application of British law and British sovereignty. And to irrevocably alter the constitutional settlement of this country on fraud is a mutilation of the constitutional settlement of this country.”
Of course, Vote Leave has repeatedly denied allegations of collusion or deliberate overspending. When they first surfaced over the weekend, Boris Johnson, who fronted the campaign, ranted: “Vote Leave won fair and square – and legally. We are leaving the EU in a year and going global.”
View original post 2,507 more words