Microsoft Outlook

From: FOI Sent: 13 July 2017 16:17 To: Subject: FOI 59/17 Vote Leave and BeLeave EC Correspondence Response Attachments: 20160428 Vote Leave and Labour Leave ATTACHMENT REDACTED.pdf; 20160428 Vote Leave and Labour Leave REDACTED.pdf; 20160429 RE Vote Leave and Labour Leave (1) REDACTED.pdf; 20160429 RE Vote Leave and Labour Leave (2) REDACTED.pdf; 20160602 RE Material from other campaigners REDACTED.pdf Dear Our Ref: FOI 59/17 Thank you for your email to the Electoral Commission dated 12 May 2017. The Commission aims to respond to requests for information promptly within the statutory twenty working days and regrets that on this occasion we have not done so. Your request is in bold below followed by our response. You have requested: Please provide me with any document exchanged between either Vote Leave or BeLeave and the Electoral Commission, during the regulated period right before the Brexit referendum, and concerning 3rd party or joint funding of campaigns. Our response is as follows: We hold some of the information you have requested. We hold documents exchanged between Vote Leave and the Commission but we do not hold any information on the campaigner BeLeave. The Regulated Period for the UK General Election 2017 was from 15 April to 23 June 2017 and this has been reflected in the documents returned. Please find attached 5 emails attached, redaction has been applied to remove signatures and contact information where the individuals would not have reasonably expected their released to the public. Section 40(2) and (3)(a)(i) of the FOI Act In the information we are releasing, we have redacted some of the information in the documents. Section 40(2) provides for an exemption where the information requested constitutes personal data as defined by the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA), and where release of the information requested would breach one of the data protection principles. Some of the information contained in the requested information falls within the description of personal data as defined by section 1 of the DPA because the information relates directly to an identifiable living individual. Release of this information would breach the first data protection principle, which states the information must be processed fairly and lawfully. The individuals in this case are junior staff members and members of the public they would not reasonably expect their information to be released. 1 I trust that this information satisfies your request. The Commission strives to be an open, transparent authority, but in some circumstances we cannot responsibly release requested information, and we ask for your understanding in this regard. If you are not satisfied with this response, please note that the Commission operates a review procedure, details of which can be found on the Commission website at: http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/about-us/freedom-of-information-requests/how-do-I-make- an-foi-request Please also note that if you have exhausted all internal Commission review procedures and you are still not satisfied you have the right to appeal to the Information Commissioner. Details of this procedure can be found on the ICO website: http://www.ico.gov.uk Yours sincerely, Senior Information and Knowledge Adviser The Electoral Commission 3 Bunhill Row London EC1Y 8YZ [email protected] electoralcommission.org.uk yourvotematters.co.uk Twitter | Facebook | Blog 2 .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Expert Says Brexit Campaign Used Data Mined from Facebook 27 March 2018, by Danica Kirka
Expert says Brexit campaign used data mined from Facebook 27 March 2018, by Danica Kirka persuade voters. "It was everywhere." Among the companies that had access to the data was AggregateIQ, a Canadian political consultant that did work for Vote Leave, the official campaign backing Britain's withdrawal from the EU, Wylie said. Wylie described Cambridge Analytica as just one arm of a global company, SCL Group, that gets most of its income from military contracts but is also a political gun-for-hire, often in countries where democratic institutions are weak. He suggested the company combines computer algorithms and dirty tricks to help candidates win regardless of the cost. Whistleblower Christopher Wylie who alleges that the The 28-year-old Canadian with a swath of pink hair campaign for Britain to leave the EU cheated in the referendum in 2016, speaking at a lawyers office to the says he helped set up Cambridge Analytica in media in London, Monday, March 26, 2018. Chris 2013. He left the next year. Wylie's claims center around the official Vote Leave campaign and its links to a group called BeLeave, which Wylie has previously alleged that Cambridge it helped fund. The links allegedly allowed the campaign Analytica used personal data improperly collected to bypass spending rules. (AP Photo/Alastair Grant) from Facebook users to help Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. Cambridge Analytica says none of the Facebook The computer expert who alleges a trove of data was used in its work on the Trump campaign. Facebook data was improperly used to help It denies any wrongdoing.
[Show full text]
Report of an Investigation in Respect Of
Report of an investigation in respect of - Vote Leave Limited - Mr Darren Grimes - BeLeave - Veterans for Britain Concerning campaign funding and spending for the 2016 referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU 17 July 2018 1 Other formats For information on obtaining this publication in a large-print or Braille version, please contact the Electoral Commission. Tel: 020 7271 0500 Email: [email protected] The Electoral Commission is the independent body which oversees elections and regulates political finance in the UK. We work to promote public confidence in the democratic process and ensure its integrity. 2 Contents 1 Introduction..................................................................................................... 4 2 The decision to investigate ............................................................................. 9 3 The investigation .......................................................................................... 12 4 The investigation findings ............................................................................. 16 Joint spending by Vote Leave and BeLeave ................................................... 16 Vote Leave’s spending limit ............................................................................. 21 Other issues with Vote Leave’s spending return ............................................. 24 BeLeave’s spending ........................................................................................ 25 Mr Grimes’ spending return ............................................................................
[Show full text]
17 July 2018 - - Page 1 of 38 - (I) Causing Or Permitting a Derogatory Article to Be Written in Brexit Central; And
IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL CASE NUMBER: [TBC] B E T W E E N: SHAHMIR SANNI (Claimant) -and- THE TAX PAYERS ALLIANCE LIMITED (Respondent) PARTICULARS OF CLAIM Parties (1) The Claimant was employed by the Respondent from 13 March 2017 to 13 April 2018. He was employed as a Digital Campaign Manager. His responsibilities included running the Respondent’s social media accounts, YouTube channel, and producing website content and video content. (2) The Respondent is a self-declared “grassroots campaigning group dedicated to reforming taxes, cutting spending and protecting taxpayers”. It is a lobbying group pursuing a right-wing political ideology. It operates from 55 Tufton Street, Westminster, an office block where seven other similar right-wing political organisations are based. (3) The Claimant was summarily dismissed by the Respondent on 13 April 2018. Legal Claims (4) The Claimant advances claims of: (a) Automatically Unfair Dismissal by reason of having made a protected disclosure (s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”)); (b) Directly discriminatory dismissal (s.13 and s.39(2)(c) Equality Act 2010 (“EqA 2010”) because of his belief that protecting the integrity and sanctity of British democracy from taint and corruption was paramount, which is a philosophical belief protected by s.10 EqA 2010 and in accordance with the characteristics set out in Grainger v Nicholson [2010] ICR 360; (c) Protected Disclosure detriment (s.47B ERA), namely:- _________________________ - Particulars of Claim - - 17 July 2018 - - Page 1 of 38 - (i) Causing or permitting a derogatory article to be written in Brexit Central; and (ii) Instructing Wilsons LLP to write the letter wrongly threatening defamation proceedings; and (iii) Permitting or causing the making of derogatory statements in public and the media on 4 July 2018.
[Show full text]
IN the COUNTY COURT at CENTRAL LONDON Claim No. E40CL216 in the MATTER of the POLITICAL PARTIES, ELECTIONS and REFERENDUMS ACT 2
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT CENTRAL LONDON Claim No. E40CL216 IN THE MATTER OF THE POLITICAL PARTIES, ELECTIONS AND REFERENDUMS ACT 2000; AND THE POLITICAL PARTIES, ELECTIONS AND REFERENDUMS (CIVIL SANCTIONS) ORDER 2010 BEFORE HHJ DIGHT CBE B E T W E E N: DARREN GRIMES Appellant -and- THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION Respondent _____________________________ NOTICE OF RESPONSE _____________________________ INTRODUCTION 1. The Commission is the independent body which oversees elections and regulates political finance in the UK. It is a body corporate established by statute which consists of nine or ten members, known as Electoral Commissioners and appointed by the Queen, who also appoints one of the Commissioners to be the chairman of the Commission: see ss.1(1)-(5) PPERA. Mr Grimes is an individual who registered as a permitted participant in the 2016 EU referendum. 2. This appeal concerns the decision contained in the Commission’s Statutory Notice dated 16 July 2018 and issued on 17 July 2018 (“the Notice”). In the Notice, the Commission concluded that Mr Grimes had committed offences in connection with four payments made in June 2016 to a Canadian data analytics firm called Aggregate IQ (“AIQ”) for services provided to campaigners in the EU referendum; and had thereby acted in breach of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (“PPERA”). The Commission concluded that the offences were serious and imposed civil sanctions accordingly. On the same date, the Commission published a report of its investigation into the Appellant (amongst others) concerning campaign funding and spending for the EU referendum (the “Report”). The Appellant now appeals against the Notice pursuant to §6(6) of Schedule 19C PPERA.
[Show full text]
Brexit Reading List: No Deal Subject Specialist: Stefano Fella
BRIEFING PAPER Number 8642, 5 November 2019 Compilers: Julie Gill, Antonia Garraway Brexit reading list: no deal Subject specialist: Stefano Fella Contents: List of 2019 publications www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary 2 Brexit reading list: no deal Contents Summary 3 List of 2019 publications 4 November 4 October 4 September 5 August 8 July 9 June 11 May 11 April 12 March 12 February 14 January 14 Cover page image copyright: Flagging support by Dave Kellam. Licensed under CC BY 2.0 / image cropped. 3 Commons Library Briefing, 5 November 2019 Summary As the possibility of the UK leaving the EU without a withdrawal agreement – or ‘deal’ – has become more likely, the commentary on and analysis of a no-deal scenario have increased. This paper provides links to a selection of 2019 publications on a no-deal exit from the EU by private and voluntary sector organisations, think tanks, research institutes and other academic institutions. The publications selected consider the general political, constitutional and economic implications of a no-deal Brexit rather than its effects in particular sectors. So, for information on Brexit and future trade options or specific parts of the economy or agriculture, for example, see the relevant papers on the Library’s Brexit website. 4 Brexit reading list: no deal List of 2019 publications November No-deal Guidance Dashboard – November 2019, British Chambers of Commerce October Claire Milne, Could we still have a “no deal” Brexit in 2020 at the end of the transition?, Full Fact, 29 October 2019 MEPs want to keep 2020 EU funding for UK in no-deal Brexit, European Law Monitor, 25 October 2019 Chris Curtis, No-Dealers think MPs should back Boris’ Brexit deal, YouGov, 24 October 2019 Simon Blackford, Negotiating Brexit, Briefings for Brexit, 22 October 2019 Patrick Benham-Crosswell, BoJo’s deal is not Brexit.
[Show full text]
Populism Or Embedded Plutocracy? the Emerging World Order
City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works Publications and Research Hunter College 2019 Populism or Embedded Plutocracy? The Emerging World Order Michael Lee CUNY Hunter College How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/hc_pubs/603 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] Draft: Populism or Embedded Plutocracy? Envisioning the Emerging World Order Introduction The liberal world order is in dire straits. The world of moderately open migration, free trade, and free flows of capital that has existed since the 1970s is under attack. Liberal democracies around the world have seen the rise of far-right political parties trading in xenophobia, while attacking traditional liberal institutions. Many political scientists, increasingly committed to country-specific studies, or mid-level theories of small phenomenon are picking up many of these developments, while missing common threads between them. We are bearing witness to systemic changes. After the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1971, the United States and its allies in the G-7 constructed a new neo-liberal world order characterized by relatively open migration, free trade, and free flows of capital.1 Today, that order is collapsing in the face of its internal contradictions. Free flows of capital, combined with the privileged position of the American dollar, saddled the global economy with recurrent financial crises. Internally, the implementation of many neoliberal policies (and creation of transnational workarounds) undermined many of the civil society groups vital for broad-based democracy.
[Show full text]
5. Advertising and Persuasion: a Literature Review
Masaryk University Faculty of Arts Department of English and American Studies English Language and Literature Bc. Natália Belicová Advertising Brexit: Elements of Persuasion in the Facebook Campaign Master’s Diploma Thesis Supervisor: Mgr. Jana Pelclová, Ph. D. 2020 I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography. …………………………………………….. Natália Belicová I would like to thank my supervisor Mgr. Jana Pelclová, Ph. D., for her invaluable advice, guidance, and willingness to meet regularly online whenever I felt the need to discuss a problem. I genuinely appreciate it. I also thank everybody who helped me and supported me when writing this thesis, especially Jakub G.. Table of Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 5 2. Aim and data ............................................................................................................. 7 3. Methodology of research ........................................................................................... 9 4. Historical background of Brexit ................................................................................ 10 5. Advertising and persuasion: A literature review ....................................................... 13 6. Analysis of the persuasive elements ......................................................................... 19 6.1. Linguistic modes of persuasion ............................................................................
[Show full text]
What Does Leave Look Like V5.Pdf
2 Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3 No clear or credible plan for an alternative ..................................................................... 5 The Norway model? ........................................................................................................... 7 The Swiss model? .............................................................................................................. 9 Iceland and Liechtenstein? ............................................................................................. 11 Macedonia and Andorra? ................................................................................................ 13 The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands? ..................................................................... 13 Turkey? ............................................................................................................................. 13 Australia? .......................................................................................................................... 14 South Korea? .................................................................................................................... 15 Ukraine, Moldova, or Morocco? ...................................................................................... 15 Vanuatu, Brunei and Nicaragua? .................................................................................... 16 Canada? ...........................................................................................................................
[Show full text]
Good-Law-Project-Witness-Statement
Statement for the Claimant Witness: Statement: Exhibits: P/bundle Date: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT BETWEEN: THE QUEEN on the application of The Good Law Project Claimant and The Electoral Commission Defendant WITNESS STATEMENT OF JOLYON MAUGHAM I, Jolyon Maugham QC, director of the Good Law Project, will say as follows: Overview 1. The facts within this witness statement are from matters within my own knowledge except where otherwise stated. The numbers in bold and in square brackets refer to the page numbers of the hearing bundles. Reasons behind the challenge: 2. The Good Law Project is an organisation I set up with the aim of using the law to deliver a progressive society. The three areas the project presently concentrates on are Brexit, tax, and workers’ rights. I campaigned, independently, for Remain in the Referendum. And I continue to believe that the country’s interests would be better served by us remaining in the EU. It is right that I say this. However, it is also true to say that I have a long running and active interest – predating the Referendum – in the proper functioning of ‘institutions’ of Government. My focus was initially on HMRC that being the institution most closely connected to the work I do in my professional life. However, I also wrote, prior to the Referendum, about my attempts to put pressure on the Electoral Commission to discharge what I see as its statutory 2-1 responsibilities in spheres unconnected with the Referendum. And I have written about the functioning of other public institutions, for example, the Office for Budget Responsibility.
[Show full text]
BRIEFING 25 1 January 2020 1.ELECTION ANALYSIS
ROSE BRIEFING 25 1 January 2020 1.ELECTION ANALYSIS ASHCROFT POLLS – 30,000 INTERVIEWS IMMEDIATELY AFTER POLLING ON 12 DECEMBER Most important issue Conservative voters: Get Brexit Done 72 per cent; NHS 41 per cent Labour: 74 per cent NHS; 28 per cent Stop Brexit SNP: 57 per cent NHS; 41 per cent Stop Brexit 2017 Leave and Remain voters Labour secured 84 per cent of 2017 Labour Remain voters but only 64 per cent of 2017 Labour Leave voters Age Labour secured a majority of 18-34 voters and the biggest share (45 per cent) of 35-44 voters. YOUGOV – 28,000 VOTERS AFTER ELECTION 2. LEGISLATION European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act This was passed in slightly amended form on 20 December 2019. It was substantially the same as the Bill debated in October 2019 (outlined in Briefing Note 24) but with three changes. It removed additional procedural protections for workers rights; government liability for children seeking asylum with relatives in Britain; and some procedural safeguards for Commons scrutiny. It maintains all those elements committing to a ‘level playing field’ in economic relations with the EU and other countries. Jeremy Corbyn criticised: ‘it will not protect our manufacturing industry or vital trading interests’ as well as the ending of liability for refugee children and removing protections for workers rights. Legislative programme outlined in the Queen’s Speech 19 December In addition to the European Union Withdrawal Bill (now Act) this included Agriculture Bill promising a new system of subsidy based on land use and environment needs Fisheries Bill promising fair access to territorial waters Trade Bill maximising continuity for business and continuing access to £1.3T public procurement in 43 countries through ratification of WTO procurement regulations Financial Services Bill ● Ensure that the UK maintains its world-leading regulatory standards and remains open to international markets after we leave the EU.
[Show full text]
Characterizing Long-Running Political Phenomena on Social Media
Characterizing Long-Running Political Phenomena on Social Media Emre Calisir Marco Brambilla Dipartimento di Elettronica, Informazione e Bioingegneria Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy Email:{firstname.lastname}@polimi.it Abstract Social media provides many opportunities to monitor and evaluate political phenomena such as referendums and elections. In this study, we propose a set of approaches to analyze long-running political events on social media with a real-world experiment: the debate about Brexit, i.e., the process through which the United Kingdom activated the option of leaving the European Union. We address the following research questions: Could Twitter-based stance classification be used to demonstrate public stance with respect to political events? What is the most efficient and comprehensive approach to measuring the impact of politicians on social media? Which of the polarized sides of the debate is more responsive to politician messages and the main issues of the Brexit process? What is the share of bot accounts in the Brexit discussion and which side are they for? By combining the user stance classification, topic discovery, sentiment analysis, and bot detection, we show that it is possible to obtain useful insights about political phenomena from social media data. We are able to detect relevant topics in the discussions, such as the demand for a new referendum, and to understand the position of social media users with respect to the different topics in the debate. Our comparative and temporal analysis of political accounts can detect the critical periods of the Brexit process and the impact they have on the debate. Keywords: Brexit, referendum, elections, topic discovery, stance classification, political social media bots 1 Introduction long-standing discussion well beyond the end of referendum, as seen in the continuity of the Google search trend (Fig.1).
[Show full text]
Good Law Project V Electoral Commission
Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Good Law Project v. Electoral Commission Neutral Citation Number: [2018] EWHC 2414 (Admin) Case No: CO/4908/2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION DIVISIONAL COURT Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 14/09/2018 Before: LORD JUSTICE LEGGATT and MR JUSTICE GREEN - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: R (THE GOOD LAW PROJECT) Claimant - and - ELECTORAL COMMISSION Defendant - and - VOTE LEAVE LIMITED Interested MR DARREN GRIMES Parties - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Jessica Simor QC, Tom Cleaver and Eleanor Mitchell (instructed by Deighton Pierce Glynn) for the Claimant Richard Gordon QC and Gerard Rothschild (instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the Defendant Timothy Straker QC and James Tumbridge (instructed by Venner Shipley) for the First Interested Party Hearing date: 19 June 2018 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Approved Judgment Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Good Law Project v. Electoral Commission LORD JUSTICE LEGGATT (giving the judgment of the court): 1. The issue in this case is whether the Electoral Commission (the statutory body responsible for overseeing elections and referendums in the UK) has correctly interpreted the law which limited spending by participants in connection with the referendum held in June 2016 on whether or not the UK should remain a member of the European Union. More particularly, the issue is whether the Electoral Commission was correct to conclude that, on the proper interpretation of the legislation, certain payments made by Vote Leave Limited were not “referendum expenses” incurred by Vote Leave but only donations made by Vote Leave to meet expenses incurred by another campaigner for a ‘leave’ outcome of the referendum called Mr Darren Grimes.
[Show full text]