Written evidence from Ms Poll Sykes (EUR 17)

Select Committee Inquiry into the EU Referendum

My name is Polly Sykes, and I am writing on behalf of myself only.

I am writing because I have deep concerns about how both sides of the campaign – but particularly the 'Leave' campaign - was conducted (and was allowed to be conducted). Democracy depends upon people being able to make an informed decision – it was not possible for people to do that on this occasion. The chaos following the decision to leave, with voters contacting voting centres asking to change their vote, people in uproar as the promises of ‘vote leave’ campaigners are withdrawn one by one, and the people of Britain in such confusion following the EU vote that one of the trending google searches was ‘What is the EU?’ demonstrates that this was not a campaign based on facts and clear information.

Examples of my concerns around the misinformation include:

• The Leave Campaign pledged to put £350m into the NHS.
• I have just watched a video of Farage backtracking on this claim almost as soon as the referendum was over. He even said that he hadn't been involved in making this claim (despite the fact that a campaign bus continued to boast this claim up until the time of the referendum, and there is a recording of him asserting that the money will go to the NHS). Similarly, post-referendum Duncan Smith qualified that the Leave campaigns promises were actually a series of possibilities; this is not what was indicated to voters prior to the referendum. MPs are now saying that there may be no increase in funding to the NHS whatsoever – revealing this pledge as a cynical lie.
• Immigration.  The Leave Campaign stated that they would prevent freedom of movement.
• This aspect of the leave campaign had clear racist overtones. As expected, racist incidents have risen exponentially since the referendum.  I would be horrified to think that Parliament thinks an agenda of hate is acceptable.
• I have just watched a video of Hannan backtracking on that claim too.  Hannan suggested that he only ever meant that freedom of movement would be curtailed for certain people, but this was never clarified prior to the vote being undertaken. Evans then said that the idea that immigration would fall following our exit from the EU was a ‘misunderstanding’. Boris Johnson has also backtracked on that claim, and said that it is likely that immigration won’t fall. Similarly, prior to the referendum Gove stated that net migration from the EU could be 5 million between now and 2030 if we stay in the union, despite the fact that there was no sound basis for this claim. He also alleged that, as EU members, we have to accept that ‘anyone, even someone with a criminal record, can breeze into britain’ – this is not true, as the UK can refuse entry on the grounds of public security.
• The Leave Campaign knowingly misled the public on many financial aspects of the EU:
• The Leave Campaign made false claims about how much the EU cost. When questioned by the Commons Treasury Committee – prior to the referendum - Dominic Cummings said that Vote Leave would continue to use the misleading figure.
• The Leave campaign claimed that we would be able to stay in the single market despite the fact that there are no existing arrangements along the lines of that which they described – and, since the vote came in, it has been confirmed that we cannot.
• The Leave campaign also alleged that the EU rebate was at risk, even though the British Prime has a veto on changes to the rebate.
• The Leave campaign argued that leaving the EU would save Britain £8bn, despite the fact that this was debunked by the Institute for Fiscal Studies prior to the referendum.
• Michael Gove claimed that we are ‘on the hook to pay more in 2020’, but in fact House of Commons research shows that we are due to pay less to the EU budget in 2020 than in this year.
• Implied support from external organisations.
• The Leave campaign used logos from various organisations, including the NHS, to give the false impression that they have the support of those companies.
• The Economy.
• The Leave announced that ‘there won’t be a sudden change that disrupts the economy. The day after the referendum, nothing changes legally. We will talk to our friends in Europe and discuss the best way to agree a new UK-EU relationship’. In reality, the pound immediately tumbled. You might say that Vote Leave couldn’t have predicted exactly what would happen – but experts warned of this outcome.
• Boris Johnson claimed that we would save £2bn on energy bills – again, a lie.

As a result of the above, these MPs have essentially defrauded the Leave voters specifically, and the country as a whole. Vote Leave have now admitted that they don’t have a plan going forward. Their promises of ‘taking our country back’ was both meaningless and racist, a clear example of propaganda.

I am also deeply concerned that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards either did not have the inclination or the power to investigate the above concerns.  I wrote to them asking them to investigate all MPs and MEPs associated with misinformation. Paragraph 16 of the Code of Conduct for Members prohibits action which 'would cause significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole, or of its Members generally'. Sadly, I got a reply saying that my concerns would not be investigated, on the grounds that ‘this rule is likely to be breached only in extreme and extremely limited circumstances’. I would say that this definitely meets the criteria.

I believe that there are several things to be learned from the above:

1. There should be a cooling off period and then a further referendum, in order that any misinformation can come to light and be considered by voters
2. There was a lot of research to be undertaken and I still felt that the issue was far too broad and specialised for me to get a full grasp on the implications. This sort of decision should be taken by MPs, and they should then accept responsibility for the outcome. I feel that this was an example of MPs shirking their duty by passing the decision onto the electorate.
3. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards should be much more rigorous in their role. Yes MPs have the same freedom of expression as anyone else in the country, but they are in a position of responsibility, and should never knowingly mislead the electorate.

August 2016