Ex-Vote Leave chairwoman dodges calls to apologise for Brexit referendum overspend

  • Oops!
    Something went wrong.
    Please try again later.
  • Oops!
    Something went wrong.
    Please try again later.
·Freelance Writer
In this article:
  • Oops!
    Something went wrong.
    Please try again later.
  • Oops!
    Something went wrong.
    Please try again later.
<em>Gisela Stuart sidestepped calls to apologise for Vote Leave overspending during the EU referendum (Getty)</em>
Gisela Stuart sidestepped calls to apologise for Vote Leave overspending during the EU referendum (Getty)

A key Vote Leave figure in the 2016 EU referendum has sidestepped calls to apologise for the campaign’s overspend.

Gisela Stuart, the former Labour MP who co-chaired Vote Leave, argued the official Brexiteer campaign’s legal advice at “every stage” ruled their activities compliant but regulators had found otherwise at a later date.

Ms Stuart also said the referendum rules should be clearer, adding the legislation and interpretation of the law needed rewriting.

The Electoral Commission confirmed last week that Vote Leave, which was supported by senior politicians including Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, had withdrawn an appeal against fines for breaches of electoral law committed during the 2016 EU referendum campaign.

The watchdog’s investigation centred on a donation of almost £680,000 made by Vote Leave to BeLeave, a youth Brexit group.

This spending took Vote Leave over its £7 million legal spending limit.

<em>The former Labour MP co-chaired the Vote Leave group (Getty)</em>
The former Labour MP co-chaired the Vote Leave group (Getty)

Asked why Vote Leave dropped its appeal, Ms Stuart told the BBC One Andrew Marr Show: “I think what it shows is we have been outspent at every stage of this process – whether it was before the referendum started and the Government spent £9.4 million on a leaflet, during the campaign … collectively the Remain side spent more, and going to appeals costs money too.”

On whether she would apologise for the organisation breaking the law, Ms Stuart replied: “It was in relation of one particular donation where the Electoral Commission interpreted the rules as that being acting in concert, which we had got legal advice which said it wasn’t.

“So the key question is if anybody wants a second referendum then the referendum legislation as it stands, and the way the Electoral Commission and Information Commissioner interprets them, needs rewriting.”

Read more from Yahoo News UK:
‘Many’ Labour MPs want to back plan to cancel Brexit
Thief jailed after threatening people as he tried to steal chocolate
Grindr attacks: Teenagers charged with robbery

Ms Stuart, asked whether Vote Leave stood by its previous statement to rubbish the claims against it, later said: “Our biggest problem in the end was that we destroyed all our data, and therefore some of the evidential basis which people are asking for.

“All I can tell you is that at every stage, in terms of the processes, we did our level best to be in compliance with the rules.

“If they were interpreted afterwards in a way which was different from the advice we got at that time, then so be it. The regulator always has the final word.”

<em>Vote Leave, which was supported by Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, have withdrawn an appeal against fines for breaches of electoral law (Getty)</em>
Vote Leave, which was supported by Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, have withdrawn an appeal against fines for breaches of electoral law (Getty)

Pressed if she would apologise on behalf of the campaign, Ms Stuart replied: “At every stage we were ruled compliant according to legal advice we were given at that time.

“If money was the question, Remain spent by far more money than Leave did, the Government spent more money on the campaign than we did.

“Do not say this was a question of money. This is why I say the rules should have been much clearer.

“We had a compliance committee, our legal advice was always that that was the right thing to do.

“If with hindsight the compliance, the regulators found otherwise, the regulator has the last word.”

Our goal is to create a safe and engaging place for users to connect over interests and passions. In order to improve our community experience, we are temporarily suspending article commenting