Evidence mounts of rule-breaking by Arron Banks and other Leavers

WITH LESS than five months before Brexit is due, debate over possible deals is hotting up. Revelations of lawbreaking by Leave campaigns in 2016 are now adding fuel to the fire. The focus is on Arron Banks, an ebullient insurer who dubs himself the “bad boy of Brexit”. Mr Banks, whose gift of £8m ($12m) to Leave.EU, an unofficial Brexit campaign, was Britain’s biggest-ever political donation, has been having a busy time with official watchdogs. He has been referred by the Electoral Commission to the police. His insurance firm, Eldon, and Leave.EU have been fined £135,000 by the Information Commissioner’s Office for misuse of personal data. And the Financial Conduct Authority is looking into Eldon’s practices.

Mr Banks denies any wrongdoing. He claims to be a victim of hardcore Remainers bent on overturning the Brexit vote. Yet the evidence is against him. The Electoral Commission declares baldly that it has reason to believe that the source of the £8m was impermissible because it was foreign. Mr Banks says the money came from a British-based firm, Rock Services. But this small service group is owned by Rock Holdings, registered in the foreign jurisdiction of the Isle of Man. And the £8m was recorded in the accounts of Rock Holdings, not Rock Services.

The Electoral Commission has called in the cops partly because it has few resources and no foreign jurisdiction. But it is also because its maximum fine is just £20,000, a trivial amount for potentially criminal offences. The Information Commissioner’s Office also has few resources and insufficient powers to deal with what it calls a disturbing disregard for voters’ personal privacy. Insurance clients and Brexit supporters were bombarded with messages pushing each other’s interests. There are also claims that Eldon employees worked for Leave.EU. Yet Mr Banks’s response to the fines imposed for misuse of data was to tweet “so what?”

This sorry tale raises concerns over electoral laws besides the perennial worry of regulators with too few powers. Social media and targeted campaigns have become newly significant in politics. The illicit harvesting of personal data during the Brexit campaign by the likes of Cambridge Analytica, a defunct data firm that the Information Commissioner’s Office says it may yet prosecute, was huge and sophisticated. Many countries now fear foreign intrusion, especially from Russia. Interviewed on television, Mr Banks oddly denied that Russian money was involved even before being asked. He has a Russian wife and business interests and has admitted to extensive contacts with Russian officials during the referendum.

Remainers are up in arms over what many claim was a stolen vote. But it is hard to assess the effects of careful selection of social-media targets for pro-Brexit propaganda. Vote Leave, not Leave.EU, was the officially designated campaign organisation. Although it too was fined for overspending, the two groups hated each other. The 52%-48% Leave victory in 2016 was narrow but clear-cut. And the government itself spent £9m on a leaflet promoting Remain.

The Banks affair has strengthened those calling for a fresh vote on a Brexit deal. Ironically, Mr Banks himself now says it might have been better to back Remain. This week a Survation poll for Channel 4 found a 54%-46% majority agreeing. Brexit may not be done yet.