Profile picture
Dr Rob Palmer 🔶 @RobertCPalmer13
, 10 tweets, 3 min read Read on Twitter
Before 'Brexit: the uncivil war' being aired tonight (7/1/19) on @Channel4, this thread explains how the overspend & collusion between Vote Leave & BeLeave illegally changed the ref result over the last few days of the campaign.


#PeoplesVote @acgrayling @abcpoppins
This is based on expert advice to the court by Prof Phil Howard & relies on sources with first-hand knowledge of the events, Dominic Cummings' website & evidence given to the DCMS Select Committee (inc. evidence given by Facebook).

This information is beyond dispute.

Leave won by 1,269,501 votes. A swing of 634,751 ppl would've reversed the result. Standard industry modelling predicts that 800K voters were converted/persuaded by Leave overspending during the crucial period, when Remain had stopped spending (after reaching their cap).

Over 80m FB users saw the Vote Leave campaign’s ads on social media during the period of excess spending. It is estimated that over 8m ppl (10%) were directed to Leave campaign content that sensitive moment. The overspend was 10% (and doesn't include Beleave's figures).

Vote Leave & BeLeave, would've reached together have 10s of millions of ppl over the last few days of the campaign via their digital advertising that was purchased with money above the allowed cap.

The evidence shows the overspend materially effected the ref result, but it gets worse:

These findings are based solely on FB data. Other strategies would've reached additional voters.

The cost of FB advertising decreased on the day of the ref, when Remain had stopped.

FB's polling day reduction, saw Vote Leave’s excessive spending produce substantially more 'reach' amongst the targeted 'persuadables' from Cummings 'core audience' identified via FB data.

Remain stopped its digital ads that day cuz it had reached its statutory spending cap.

As bad as this all looks, in reality it's much worse cuz this expert evidence only had to rely on 1 of the corrupt campaigns to demonstrate that their illegal activities stole our democracy away from us; the aftermath has turned the UK into little more than a Banana Republic.

Ironically, this evidence is not necessary as the case law is clear concerning not having to prove the effects of 'corrupt & illegal practices' (RPA 1983). Evidence of effect is both irrelevant & not required (see Rahman [33]).

The ref should simply be voided.

I should probably add (as it would've in any other election in British history) that the ref can't voided, because of a legal absurdity. In law, the ref has no legal status (advisory). Instead we're stuck with being a Banana Republic, where our democracy has been bought.
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to Dr Rob Palmer 🔶
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member and get exclusive features!

Premium member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year)

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!