EU Referendum May Have Broken a Few Laws

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."