DOCSLIB.ORG

2Nd EU Referendum Pre Poll Summary

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Donations and loans received by campaigners in the European Union Referendum Second pre-poll report: 22 April 2016 to 12 May 2016 Under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendum Act 2000 as amended by the European Union Referendum Act 2015, donations received and loans entered into by registered campaigners, and those who later become registered, must be recorded and reported on a regular basis before and after the date of the poll. Registered campaigners, excluding political parties who report their donations on a quarterly basis, must complete and submit four pre-poll reports. These cover all donations received and loans entered into over £7,500 during each reporting period. Date Electoral Deadline for pre- Reporting period Commission will poll reports publish donations 1 February 2016 – 21 April 2016 Thursday 28 April Wednesday 11 May 22 April 2016 – 12 May 2016 Thursday 19 May Thursday 26 May 13 May 2016 – 9 June 2016 Thursday 16 June Tuesday 21 June 10 June 2016 – 22 June 2016 Wednesday 29 June Wednesday 6 July This document is a summary of donations and borrowing reported to us in the second reporting period, 22 April 2016 to 12 May 2016. Campaigners must submit pre-poll reports even if they have not received any reportable donations and/or loans. These are called ‘nil reports’. In addition to the pre-poll reports, after the referendum has taken place, registered campaigners will also have to report: All donations and loans over £7,500 that they accepted (unless the campaigner is a registered political party). Their campaign spending during the referendum period (15 April 2016 up to and including polling day, 23 June 2016 - the period where campaigners are limited in how much they can spend. Donations summary Total donations of over £7,500 received by registered permitted participants received in the reporting period 22 April 2016 to 12 May 2016 Outcome: Remain Total: £1,573,402 Campaigner Total Conservatives IN Ltd £108,926 European Movement of the UK Ltd £120,000 Scientists for EU Limited £200,000 The In Campaign Ltd £1,044,476 We Are Europe £100,000 Outcome: Leave Total: £3,781,343 Campaigner Total GO Movement Ltd £10,343 Grassroots Out Ltd £100,000 Imaginexit Limited £10,000 Labour Leave Limited £215,000 The Campaign For An Independent Britain Limited £30,000 Trade Unionists Against The European Union* £46,000 Vote Leave Limited** £3,355,000 WAGTV Limited £15,000 * £38,000 should have been rep[orted in previous pre-poll report ** In addtion Vote leave Limited recevied £200,000 of public fund grant Top 10 Donations Donor Received by Total International Motors Ltd Vote Leave Ltd £850,000 Gladys Bramall Vote Leave Ltd £500,000 Jeremy Hosking Vote Leave Ltd £500,000 John Stuart Wheeler Vote Leave Ltd £250,000 Bet365 Group Limited The In Campaign Ltd £250,000 Mark Coombs The In Campaign Ltd £250,000 Lord David John Sainsbury Scientists for EU Limited £200,000 Terence Adams Vote Leave Ltd £200,000 Michael Freeman Vote Leave Ltd £150,000 Tim Martin Vote Leave Ltd £150,000 Full details of donations reported in the first and second pre-poll reports can be viewed on PEF Online. Summary of loans and credit facilities Total of loans and credit facilities of over £7,500 entered into by registered permitted participants in the reporting period 22 April 2016 to 12 May 2016 Outcome: Remain Total: £0 Outcome: Leave Total: £10,000 Campaigner Total THE EU REFERENDUM £10,000 CAMPAIGN LIMITED Full details of creditors can be viewed on PEF Online: For more information, see our media handbook: http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/199357/M edia-Handbook-EU-Referendum.pdf Total reportable donations received : Remain Campaigner Pre-poll 1 Pre-poll 2 Pre-poll 3 Pre-poll 4 Total Conservatives IN Ltd £362,534 £108,926 £471,460 European Movement of the UK Ltd £57,494 £120,000 £177,494 Michelle Ovens Ltd £95,000 £95,000 Scientists for EU Limited £60,000 £200,000 £260,000 The In Campaign Ltd £6,883,684 £1,044,476 £7,928,160 We Are Europe £100,000 £100,000 Total £7,458,712 £1,573,402 £9,032,114 Total reportable donations received: Leave Campaigner Pre-poll 1 Pre-poll 2 Pre-poll 3 Pre-poll 4 Total GO Movement Ltd £12,000 £10,343 £22,343 Grassroots Out Ltd £2,039,925 £100,000 £2,139,925 Imaginexit Limited £10,000 £10,000 Labour Leave Limited £215,000 £215,000 Leave.EU Group Ltd £3,200,000 £3,200,000 The Bruges Group £10,000 £10,000 The Campaign For An Independent Britain Limited £30,000 £30,000 Trade Unionists Against The European Union £22,000 £46,000 £68,000 Vote Leave Limited £2,786,500 £3,355,000 £6,141,500 WAGTV Limited £110,000 £15,000 £125,000 Total £8,180,425 £3,781,343 £11,961,768 .
Recommended publications
  • Report of an Investigation in Respect Of

    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 ............................................................................
  • Brexit: Where Is the EU–UK Relationship Heading?

    Brexit: Where Is the EU–UK Relationship Heading?

    Simon Hix Brexit: where is the EU–UK relationship heading? Article (Accepted version) (Refereed) Original citation: Hix, Simon (2018) Brexit: where is the EU–UK relationship heading? Journal of Common Market Studies. ISSN 0021-9886 (In Press) DOI: 10.1111/jcms.12766 © 2018 University Association for Contemporary European Studies and John Wiley & Sons Ltd This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/89976/ Available in LSE Research Online: August 2018 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. This document is the author’s final accepted version of the journal article. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it. The JCMS Annual Review Lecture 2018 Brexit: Where is the EU-UK Relationship Heading?1 Simon Hix London School of Economics and Political Science 1 I would like to thank Angus Armstrong, Catherine Barnard, Theofanis Exadaktylos, Anand Menon, Jonathan Portes, Brendan O’Leary and Simon Usherwood for their helpful comments on an earlier version.
  • Brexit Jargon Buster

    Brexit Jargon Buster

    Brexit Jargon Buster Brexit Jargon Buster • 1 2 • Brexit Jargon Buster AAgencies European Union agencies regulate a number of regimes for goods and services; the European Chemicals Agency in Helsinki regulates chemicals and biocides; the European Medicines Agency, formerly in London is now relocated in Amsterdam responsible for the scientific evaluation, supervision and safety monitoring of medicines in the EU; the European Aviation Safety Agency. AIFMD The Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive. This EU Directive regulates the managers (AIFMs) of alternative investment funds (AIFs). AIFMD includes passporting rights (see separate definition) for EU AIFMs to market funds across the EU. The Directive also contains provisions allowing non-EU AIFMs to become part of the passporting regime by way of a ‘third country passport’ (see separate definition) which may, in the future, provide a means for UK AIFMs to retain passporting rights post-Brexit. Competition law Competition laws of the EU are set out in the TFEU. They are a very important aspect of the single market. The European Commission is tasked with developing policy and enforcing the law ensuring that the European Union remains free from business practices that could ultimately be harmful to competition and consumers. In doing so, the Commission works with national competition authorities which are obliged also to apply EU competition law as well as domestic law. Particular emphasis is placed on ensuring businesses do not enter into anti-competitive agreements or abuse dominant positions in markets; the consequences of doing so can be severe. Brexit Jargon Buster • 3 The European Commission also assesses very large mergers and state aid.
  • Understanding the Leave Vote

    Understanding the Leave Vote

    Understanding the Leave vote Author: Kirby Swales Acknowledgements: Thank you to the following people who assisted in the production of this report: Allison Dunatchik, Anne Summers, Curtis Jessop, Ian Simpson, John Curtice, Leigh Marshall, Martin Wood, Matt Jonas and Sean Willmott. With thanks also to UK and a Changing Europe and ESRC for funding this project. NatCen Social Research 35 Northampton Square London EC1V 0AX Tel. 020 7250 1866 Fax. 020 7250 1524 E-mail: [email protected] www.natcen.ac.uk Cover photo: BTN/LMUG photowalk. 2012. © Flickr/Betsy Weber Contents 1 Summary 2 2 Introduction 3 Data sources 3 3 Background 4 The rise of Euroscepticism 4 What tipped the balance? 5 4 The demographics of the vote 7 Objective characteristics 7 Subjective characteristics 7 5 The policy issues at stake 13 Which issues were most important in the Referendum? 13 Did views on the EU vote match wider policy concerns? 14 The EU vote in the context of general political attitudes 15 6 The politics of the vote 19 The role of ‘new’ voters 19 Understanding turnout 19 How did political allegiance influence the vote? 20 Did the public know where MPs stood? 21 7 Segmenting the population 25 8 Conclusions 27 Notes and references 28 NatCen Social Research: Understanding the Leave vote 1 1 Summary Identity politics played a role The Leave victory was not about objective demographics alone. Matters of identity were equally, if not more strongly, associated with the Leave vote – particularly feelings of national identity and sense of change over time. Voters not persuaded by arguments about economic risks The Leave campaign resonated more strongly with the public.
  • The Brexit Vote: a Divided Nation, a Divided Continent

    The Brexit Vote: a Divided Nation, a Divided Continent

    Sara Hobolt The Brexit vote: a divided nation, a divided continent Article (Accepted version) (Refereed) Original citation: Hobolt, Sara (2016) The Brexit vote: a divided nation, a divided continent. Journal of European Public Policy, 23 (9). pp. 1259-1277. ISSN 1466-4429 DOI: 10.1080/13501763.2016.1225785 © 2016 Routledge This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/67546/ Available in LSE Research Online: November 2016 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. This document is the author’s final accepted version of the journal article. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it. The Brexit Vote: A Divided Nation, a Divided Continent Sara B. Hobolt London School of Economics and Political Science, UK ABSTRACT The outcome of the British referendum on EU membership sent shockwaves through Europe. While Britain is an outlier when it comes to the strength of Euroscepticism, the anti- immigration and anti-establishment sentiments that produced the referendum outcome are gaining strength across Europe.
  • Vote-Leave-For-Hand-Down-002.Pdf

    Vote-Leave-For-Hand-Down-002.Pdf

    Neutral Citation Number: [2019] EWCA Civ 1938 Case No: C1/2019/0150 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM the High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) Administrative Court Mr Justice Swift Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 12/11/2019 Before : LORD JUSTICE UNDERHILL (Vice-President of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division)) LORD JUSTICE SINGH and LADY JUSTICE NICOLA DAVIES - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : VOTE LEAVE LTD Appellant - and - THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION Respondent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr Timothy Straker QC and Mr James Tumbridge (respectively instructed by, and of, Venner Shipley) for the Appellant Mr Philip Coppel QC and Mr Ravi Mehta (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Respondent Hearing date: 3rd October 2019 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Approved Judgment Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Vote Leave v Electoral Commission & Ors Lord Justice Underhill: INTRODUCTORY 1. The Appellant, Vote Leave Ltd (“VL”), was the designated lead campaigner for the “leave” outcome in the 2016 EU referendum. The Electoral Commission, which is the Respondent, has responsibility under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (“PPERA”) for, among other things, monitoring and ensuring compliance with the statutory rules which apply to the financing of referendum campaigns. Non- compliance may constitute an offence. I give details of the relevant statutory provisions below. 2. In November 2017 the Commission opened an investigation under Part X of PPERA into related allegations of contraventions of those rules by various persons, including VL. The details of the matters investigated are not material for the purpose of this appeal: broadly speaking, they concern payments made to a Canadian data analytics firm called Aggregate IQ (“AIQ”) for campaign services during the referendum campaign and how those payments were reported to the Commission.
  • Our Guide to Britain's EU Referendum

    Our Guide to Britain's EU Referendum

    JUNE 2016 The Brexit briefs Our guide to Britain’s EU referendum THE BREXIT BRIEFS ON JUNE 23rd Britain will hold a referendum on whether to remain in or leave the European Union. This will be the country’s most important vote in at least half a century. Alas, the debate has often been neither informative nor enlightening. The Economist is not neutral: we are convinced that a decision to leave (a so-called Brexit) would be bad for Britain, Europe and the world. But we also believe in the importance of objective analysis and reasoned argument. Over the past few months we have published a series of factual briefs that examine the main issues around Brexit. To help interested readers, we have now assembled all our Brexit briefs together. Zanny Minton Beddoes, Editor-in-chief CONTENTS 1. March 5th 2016 7. April 16th 2016 13. May 28th 2016 TRUTH AND LIES BUSINESS BUREAUCRACY Voters want clear facts about the Most businesses want to stay in the EU Brexiteers say they will scrap much EU European Union. They are given myths but some are cautious of saying so regulation, but they may not end up instead doing so 8. April 23rd 2016 2. March 12th 2016 THE TERMS OF THE DEAL 14. June 4th 2016 EUROSCEPTICISM Being out of the euro and Schengen HOW TO LEAVE Hostility to the EU in Britain is different gives Britain the best of both worlds Britain’s withdrawal process from the EU from anything found on the continent could be long and painful 9.
  • The United Kingdom Is Leaving the European Union: Analyzing the Contractual and Legal Implications for a Member Leaving

    The United Kingdom Is Leaving the European Union: Analyzing the Contractual and Legal Implications for a Member Leaving

    THE UNITED KINGDOM IS LEAVING THE EUROPEAN UNION: ANALYZING THE CONTRACTUAL AND LEGAL IMPLICATIONS FOR A MEMBER LEAVING Duncan A. Taylor* I. INTRODUCTION On June 23, 2016, the United Kingdom, consisting of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, participated in a referendum to determine whether the bloc of countries would maintain membership and remain in the European Union or withdraw.1 Seventy-two percent of 46,501,241 eligible voters voted in this referendum, with “Leave” receiving 51.9% of the votes and “Remain” receiving 48.1% of the votes.2 Despite the overall national results, very different results were seen throughout the countries of the United Kingdom.3 England and Wales narrowly voted to leave the European Union, while an overwhelming majority of voters in Scotland and Northern Ireland chose to remain.4 This significant historic event in the United Kingdom, now termed “Brexit,” was influenced by two distinct ideologies and groups; “Britain Stronger in Europe” and “Vote Leave,”5 each of which attracted the involvement of other groups, entities, and individuals.6 Part I of this Comment provides a history of the United Kingdom as it relates to membership in the European Union, the abilities for the countries * Duncan A. Taylor is a third-year law student at Southern Illinois University School of Law, expecting his Juris Doctor in May of 2018. He would like to thank his faculty advisor, Professor Cindy Buys, for his continued guidance and feedback throughout the writing process. He would also like to thank his friends and family for their substantial support and encouragement.
  • Brexit Reading List: No Deal Subject Specialist: Stefano Fella

    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.
  • Microsoft Outlook

    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.
  • What Does Leave Look Like V5.Pdf

    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? ...........................................................................................................................
  • BRIEFING 25 1 January 2020 1.ELECTION ANALYSIS

    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.