Brexit, Fraud, and Law - update

A little over a year ago, I posted something about someone who had set up a crowdfunder campaign to bring a prosecution over Brexit.  I was not impressed.  I concluded by saying that the person behind it, one Marcus Ball, "should think very carefully about whether to keep his campaign going".  Of course, I'm not pompous enough to think that my opinion on this stuff counts for much, or that it'd make any contribution, or that Ball would even have read the post.  But if everyone with a blog allowed that to stop them, there'd be nothing on the internet.

I thought I'd have a look at what he's up to now.  There's still a website, but the clearest updates seem to be on the crowdfunder page.   Ball reached his initial target, so one might wonder what progress he'd made in his case.  The answer would seem to be... er... not a heck of a lot.  It appears that he contacted some lawyers, who told him in January that he didn't have a case, and he then went back to them in February with a 25 000-word document and had persuaded them that he did after all by March.  He is, though, unclear about what the legal objections were, and about how he overcame them.  One wonders why, if he is that much more competent than the lawyers he's hired at the expense of 6 000 donors, he needed them in the first place; but that's for another day.  Since then, he's written for his lawyers another pair of documents; one is 22 000 words long, and the other 10 000 words.  They must love him.  He's now asking for more money (some of which will fund a salary for him).  Hilariously, after the latest update on the BrexitJustice crowdunder, he adds a note:

PS. Please keep this update between us, we don’t want press or social media attention right now, especially not for this.

Yes.  He's posted an update on a public website, and asked people to keep it quiet.

Bluntly - and with the provisos that election law is definitely Not My Thing and that all I've done is taken an elementary glance at a couple of statutes and the CPS website - I still don't believe that this case has a cat in hell's chance; and I believe that the people funding it are going to have a rude awakening soon.  The updates read more as PR reassurances than as proper updates - the lack of candour about the legal problems he faces (or claims to have faced down) is telling.  Maybe some of the communication is confidential?  But that'd leave us wondering why he sees fit to publish at least one letter marked "private and confidential".

Anyway.

Why has this crossed my mind?  Well, because Ball is not the only person considering legal action about the referendum result.  Lord Sugar is in on the act, too - though he seems to be talking about things that should be criminal offences as much as he's talking about things that are, which does rather render the point moot.  The same applies to ex-DExEU chief of staff James Chapman, who tweeted this:

Let's be honest, if we had an effective electoral law leading Brexiteers would now be in jail #wheresmy350maweekboris

— James Chapman (@jameschappers) August 9, 2017

Chapman's grendade-throwing is immensely enjoyable as a twitter spectacle, and there is great rejoicing in heaven over a sinner that repenteth and all that, but...  The fact that the electoral law is as it is doesn't mean that it's ineffective, or that the "remedy" would be worse than the problem addressed.  An electoral law that made statements issued in the course of a political campaign subject to courts' oversight would, arguably, freeze all political debate whatsoever.  It might be that legal impotence in the face of blatant bullshit and falsehood is marginally preferable to the alternative.

The idea that there might be a case to answer (let alone a winnable case) has been examined here.  Wouldn't you know it?  It's hopeless:

As an ardent Remainer, I cannot but reach the conclusion that based on the publicly available facts there is no basis for bringing criminal charges against members of Vote Leave for claims made regarding our contribution to the EU and what any savings from the membership fees could be spent on.
I’m also forced to the conclusion that those seeking criminal prosecution are vindictive wishful thinkers set upon revenge against adversaries who bettered them in the polls. For what little it’s worth, my suggestion would be that now we are on this ridiculous path to Brexit we should forget the sniping at past enemies and concentrate on getting the best exit-deal for the UK, one which preserves our access to the European markets with the minimum restrictions and so does as little harm to the UK as is possible.

The difference between that blog post and anything I'd blurt out is that the former is written by someone who actually knows what's what.

Look: I still think that the referendum result was the wrong one, and that Brexit will be a disaster.  But since the referendum was not legally binding, and was vague anyway, the decision about whether to go through with it cannot be a legal question.  It is a political one.  We could, within the law, put it to one side, and go grovelling back to the EU.  I think we should.  Others don't.  I disagree with the final sentence of the quotation above, for example.  Of course, if we're going to leave, we ought to seek the best possible deal.  I just don't think we have to commit ourselves to leaving - or that, if we do, that's a political matter, not a legal one.