The EU
referendum was handled without much concern for the legal aspect according to
Dr. Peter Catterall of the University of Westminster.
He said
"The government didn't actually do what it should have done in terms of
the legislation."
The
government was to present two documents.
"One
that sets out the benefits of membership and the other which sets out the
alternatives to membership."
"The
alternatives to membership, however, didn't actually spell out what the
alternatives to membership in great detail," Dr. Catterall says.
"What it did was spell out why none of these alternatives to membership
are as good as what we've got at the moment. It's a perfectly reasonable thing
to do, the problem is that's not quite what the legislation spelled out should
happen."
Dr
Catterall was not the only person to raise this issue. Before the actual voting
for the referendum, Conservative MP Sir William Cash had raised the issue:
"On
June 23 the people may not have impartial and accurate information. I believe
the government is probably, if not certainly, in breach of their duty under
section six and seven of the European Referendum Act 2015."
Dr
Catterall said of the statement "Personally, I agree with him. I think the
government did not comply with its obligations under the act. Legislation sets
out the rules. In this instance, the government have not applied their own
rules. I'm quite skeptical that they would apply their own rules in future."
