Thread by @RobertCPalmer13

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.

1.

#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.

2.

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).

3.

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).

4.

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.

5.

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.

6.

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.

7.

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.

8.

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.

9.

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.