Brexit
Facts4EU.Org
Decide on
THE FACTS

LATEST BREXIT NEWS
based on UK and EU official sources

NOV'S HOT
BREXIT NEWS
News, latest facts,
rebuttals to latest
Remain claims...
STAY AHEAD
Essential pro-Brexit
factual news weekly
Enter your email address:


Delivered by Google FeedBurner
Your details are of course kept confidential and you can unsubscribe at any time.
CAN YOU HELP?
We're read by Ministers, ex-Ministers, MPs, MEPs, campaigners and the Public.
We rely 100% on voluntary contributions.
Click for details
We need help

We could so much more if we had a benefactor, and/or lots of people giving small amounts!

  Home | LATEST BREXIT
HOT NEWS
| Research
Summary
| Brexit & the
Single Market
| O Brexit
My Brexit
| Your
Articles
| Help
Us
| Contact
Quick Brexit facts from reliable, official sources
Read by Ministers, MPs, MEPs, journalists, campaigners, and the public
BREXIT NEWS  
 
 GUY, WHY
SHOULD WE
SUBSIDISE BELGIUM?
THE UK PAID €14 BILLION NET TO THE EU IN 2015
BELGIUM TOOK €1.5 BILLION NET FROM THE EU IN 2015
More and more of the British public are getting to know Meneer Guy Verhofstadt, a Belgian MEP and a former Prime Minister of Belgium. He is starting to gain a certain notoriety, one might say.
Mr Verhofstadt specialises in the kinds of comments about the UK and about Brexit which make the blood boil of many British people. We have previously shown you some of his statements and his tweets. It's fairly safe to say that we don't have a very high opinion of this career politician.
Today, we invite you to look at just one fact pertinent to Meneer Verhofstadt - that of his country's finances in relation to the EU. In our detailed article below you will see that we have researched who pays what into the EU, using the EU's own figures. We looked at the latest information available, which is for the year 2015.
We have a question for Mr Verhofstadt:-
WHY SHOULD BRITISH TAXPAYERS
SUBSIDISE YOUR AFFLUENT, DEVELOPED COUNTRY?
OBSERVATIONS
As ever, you can comment here, using a pseudonym or your real name. Please state roughly where you're from. Your comment will appear in the grey box at the bottom of this article.
[ Sources: EU Commission |     Journalists and politicians can contact us for the full list of links, as usual. ]
       09.10am, 30 Sept 2017
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
READERS' COMMENTS
 THE E-HUNGER GAMES
 
THE EU GIVETH,
IT TAKETH AWAY
                                               © EU Parliament
A FACTS4EU.ORG GUIDE TO
GIVE AND TAKE IN THE EU
(AND THERE'S A LOT MORE 'TAKING' FROM THE UK THAN 'GIVING')
Welcome to our definitive and simple guide to the winners and the losers in the EU's version of the Hunger Games. The Facts4EU.Org Research Team brings you the information which the EU and Remainers don’t want you to see.
The EU does not publish clearly available information showing which member states are responsible for keeping the EU afloat. They seem to be uncomfortable with country-by-country comparisons of gross and net contributions to the EU’s budget. Strangely we have never been able to locate this information from the BBC either.
Below we will try to put that right, using data from the EU for the latest year for which information is available: 2015.
OVERALL SUMMARY FOR EU BUDGET 2015 (latest available official data)
  • The UK is the second-highest net contributor to the EU budget
  • The UK paid the EU - net - €14.0 billion euros (approx £12.3 billion pounds)
  • It’s German and British taxpayers who keep the EU afloat
  • The UK paid - net - more than double the amount that France paid
  • Poland is by far the biggest net recipient of EU funds
1.  WHO ARE THE GIVERS?
Just 10 countries were net contributors to the EU's budget in 2015: the UK, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Finland, and Cyprus. In practice there were really only 6 net contributing countries though, as the last 4 of the 10 contributed under €1bn, which is practically a rounding error in EU budget terms.
  • UK net contributions: €14.0 billion euros (approx £12.3 billion pounds)
  • Germany and the UK are easily the biggest net donors
  • The UK paid 21/4 times more than France paid, in net terms
© Facts4EU.Org 2017
2.  AND WHO ARE THE TAKERS?
18 out of the EU27 countries negotiating with the UK over Brexit were net takers from the EU in 2015. These are Poland, Czech Republic, Romania, Greece, Hungary, Spain, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Belgium, Luxembourg, Portugal, Latvia, Slovenia, Lithuania, Estonia, Croatia, Ireland, Malta.
  • Poland's net receipts: €14.0 billion euros (approx £12.3 billion pounds)
  • Poland receives 65% more than next biggest beneficiary, Czech Republic
© Facts4EU.Org 2017
3.  WITHOUT THE UK IN 2015...
  • The EU would have had a €14 billion black hole in its accounts – that's for a single year
  • At today’s exchange rate that’s £12.3 billion pounds
  • On Thursday we suggested HMG should use £12bn as the annual amount to tell us, not £10bn
HOW WE CALCULATED THE ABOVE INFORMATION
The information you can see above comes from our analysis of spreadsheets backing the EU Commission’s 2015 Financial Report. We have recreated this information in graphical form to make it more easily understandable.
The revenues received by the EU from the UK included VAT-based and GDP-based 'own resources', as well as the agricultural, sugar, and customs duties. The payments made by the EU include everything in their long list. Naturally we also included the UK's 'rebate' which amounted to €6.1bn (approx £5.3bn) in 2015.
IT'S EVEN WORSE THAN WE'VE SHOWN
It's important to note that the UK's overall net contributions are even higher than those shown. The information you see above relates only to the official EU budget. The UK also pays further amounts to the EU which are not formally included in the EU's budget, and which do not appear in any summaries you will read in the British media or in House of Commons Library reports. We have highlighted these additional funds many times, and hope that more bodies will start to show these extra figures as the debate over the 'Brexit bill' intensifies.
THE FACTS4EU.ORG GUIDE TO GIVE AND TAKE IN THE EU
 
  • UK: €14bn euro net payment (approx £12.3bn)
  • It’s mostly German & British taxpayers who keep the EU afloat
  • UK paid - net - more than double amount France paid
  • Two-thirds of EU27 are net takers
  • Top beneficiary: Poland
Latest EU data from 2015
Exclusive Brexit Facts4EU.Org research
Copyright 2017
 
OBSERVATIONS
The obvious first point to make is that the EU is in big trouble without the UK's massive net contributions. In 2015 these equated to over £12 billion at today's exchange rate.
We really are forced to ask the government whether it understands the power-play here? All we ever seem to hear is frankly defeatist nonsense. If nothing changes very quickly we will write an opinion piece on this, because we're frustrated with hearing how we must somehow always pacify the EU's absurd demands with UK concessions. Poppycock to that. If the Civil Service read some of our pieces, and perhaps one or two government ministers too, they might actually know some facts about the balance of power and it might stiffen some resolve.
Perhaps the second point to make is a more general one. The graphs show a significant disparity between the treatment of the member states of the EU. For example, why should France pay (net) less than half what the UK pays? After all, the economies of the UK and France are a very similar size. And why does Poland receive so much more than anyone else?
WHY ISN'T THE UK GOVERNMENT PRESSURING THE EU27 TO CUT BACK?
As we have stated previously, the EU is not yet discussing what it will do to cut back on its expenditure in the light of the UK's imminent departure. Be in no doubt: if it wanted to, the EU could immediately scale back on many of its more dubious projects. A great deal of money has been budgeted for but not actually committed.
If we were properly funded like the BBC, we could research it and tell you how much could be saved. This could save the country billions.
Instead the EU seems to want to focus on extracting the maximum possible ransom from the UK for having the temerity to leave. We suggest they address their spending plans as a matter of urgency, rather than expecting the UK to pick up the tab. All they are doing is kicking the can down the road - something for which the EU is notorious.
Sooner or later they will need to make some difficult decisions. Knowing how long this takes in the EU, now would be a good time to start.
Finally, if you would like us to be able to carry on researching and publishing vital information like that above, please consider supporting us financially.
None of the main Brexit campaign organisations are producing anything like our daily output. For some reason they won't fund us or accept our suggestion that Facts4EU.Org becomes their research and news arm, but maybe you could help us with some 'people power? See the box below!
As ever, you can comment here, using a pseudonym or your real name. Please state roughly where you're from. Your comment will appear in the grey box at the bottom of this article.
[ Sources: EU Commission |     Journalists and politicians can contact us for the full list of links, as usual. ]
       06.55am, 30 Sept 2017
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
READERS' COMMENTS
Name: Steve R, UK      Date/Time: 30 Sept 2017, 09.46am
Message: I just looked up average earnings to compare with contributions and receipts. France has an income 18% higher than the UK, Belgium is higher and Luxembourg far higher, re Wiki. But Belgium receives about the same as the UK pays in and Luxembourg almost as much. No wonder Verhofstadt and Junker are so keen to extort and pull strings to ensure their collaborators in the UK are in key positions. Perhaps someone could hand out copies of this piece when Mrs May is talking about something else in Manchester this week.
Name: Stevie The Fixer, UK      Date/Time: 30 Sept 2017, 09.35am
Message: So 2 countries get actual "free trade" as in zero net EU contributions, 17 get way better than that and 9 pay dearly for it including mug Britain.
 IMPORTANT DISCOVERY
RESULTS OF LONG-TERM PROJECT BY FACTS4EU.ORG TEAM REVEAL
FACTS DON'T RESEARCH AND WRITE THEMSELVES
This latest piece of research from Facts4EU.Org has been met with a variety of reactions from world leaders, ranging from celebration to incredulity to resignation to abuse.
Alas none of us are hedge fund managers... or married to one.
Can you please help fund our work? We barely make it from one week to the next and we rely 100% on voluntary contributions. We really could use your help in working for a clean and true Brexit.
Subscribe With a monthly donation
From £1.20 / week
        Donate Make a one-off donation
from £10 upwards
A BIG THANK YOU TO THESE SUBSCRIBERS AND DONORS
(Anonymity respected completely if you prefer to remain private)
VIP MEMBERS -   M J Donnan, Middx
GOLD MEMBERS -   Gordon & Sylvia Lerigo , Northampton  |  Pamela Barnes, Gloucestershire  |  Judith Slater, Essex  |  P Ingram, Monmouthshire  |  John Murphy, Scotland  |  D Price, Berkshire  |  C Latham, East Sussex  |  D Cooper, Berks  |  G Gardner, Cheshire  |  Anonymous, UK  |  J Holmes, Shropshire  |   C Mainds, London  |  P Abbott, E Sussex
MEMBERS - Michael Howard, Surrey  |  James Allen, Kent  |  Simon Jones, Wiltshire  |  Anonymous, UK  |  S Cooper, Surrey  |  N Brooker, London  |  M Wood, Ceredigion  |  R Parkin, England  |  Anonymous, UK
VALUED SUPPORTERS - David Allworthy, Kent  |  Sharon Stanton, Pembrokeshire  |  Stephen Brady, London  |  E Rimmer, UK  |  A Bruce, Derbyshire  |  Hugh Gallagher, UK  |  Elizabeth Ford, Kent  |  Ashley Hawes, Bucks  |  BBW Davies, Dorset  |  Stuart C, Lancashire  |  P Bushell, West Midlands  |  D Joyce, Powys  |  William Crook, Lancaster  |  R Halton, Ceredigion  |  G Reakes, London  |  J Hatfield, South Ayrshire  |  F Carstairs, W Sussex  |  N Martinek, W Yorks  |  A Hammond, Lincs  |  Anonymous, Aberdeen  |  P Derbyshire, GB
READERS' COMMENTS
 BREXIT TALKS ROUND 4
EU ABSURDITIES
BECOME MORE SERIOUS
EU Council President Donald Tusk                                               © EU Council
TIME TO WALK?
Many British observers are now openly saying that the UK should immediately start preparing to walk away from the talks with EU, following the lack of progress at the latest round of official Brexit negotiations, ‘Round 4’.
In this article we give you a summary of the positions of the various parties, the details of what they actually said, and our analysis of where things stand.
In the next article we will show you the EU Parliament’s extraordinary new anti-British motion, which defies belief.
INTRODUCTION
After the Lancaster House speech, the Article 50 Letter, 2 White Papers, 14 negotiation papers, and the Florence speech, it is possible to say that the British side has made every effort to set out its positions on numerous topics including all the key ones.
In particular, the latest ‘Florence speech’ by the Prime Minister amounted to what many Brexiteers consider to be abject appeasement of the aggression shown by the EU Commission, EU Council and EU Parliament.
Many have felt the PM surrendered the UK’s unassailable legal position in regard to the non-payment of any ‘divorce bill’. Furthermore she effectively agreed to the extension of the jurisdiction of the ECJ and of free movement for a further two years after the supposed exit date of 29 March 2019.
HERE ARE THE POSITIONS OF THE VARIOUS PARTIES:-
Despite all of the above, the situation as of yesterday is that:
  • President Tusk on behalf of the EU27 leaders : “there’s no sufficient progress yet”
  • Michel Barnier for the Commission : “stumbling block… further work is needed… months”
  • EU Parliament : “sufficient progress has not yet been made”
  • David Davis MP : “I am confident we can resolve these [differences of opinion]”
This means that none of the three main arms of the EU are anywhere close to agreeing that full and normal negotiations should start on the exit of the UK from the EU and on the future trading arrangements.
BELOW ARE THE KEY STATEMENTS FROM THE MAIN FOUR PARTIES
1. MICHEL BARNIER, CHIEF NEGOTIATOR, EU COMMISSION
CITIZENS’ RIGHTS: “We agreed to guarantee - for the citizens concerned - that the UK will apply EU law concepts in a manner that is consistent with EU law after Brexit.”
“But we failed to agree that the European Court of Justice must play an indispensable role in ensuring this consistency. This is a stumbling block for the EU.”
FINANCIAL SETTLEMENT: “For the EU, the only way to reach sufficient progress is that all commitments undertaken at 28 are honoured at 28.”
NORTHERN IRELAND: “Once again, we had a constructive discussion and we made progress in some areas.”
SUMMARY: “... we are not yet there in terms of achieving sufficient progress. Further work is needed in the coming weeks and months.”
2. PRESIDENT DONALD TUSK, EU COUNCIL, ON TUESDAY:
“As you know, we will discuss our future relations with the United Kingdom once there is so-called "sufficient progress". The two sides are working hard at it. But if you asked me and if today Member States asked me, I would say there is no "sufficient progress" yet. But we will work on it.”
3. EU PARLIAMENT – Parliamentary motion issued yesterday before talks ended:
“Is of the opinion that in the fourth round of negotiations sufficient progress has not yet been made on citizens´ rights, Ireland and the Northern Ireland, and the settlement of the United Kingdom´s financial obligations; calls on the European Council, unless there is major breakthrough in line with this resolution in all three areas during the fifth negotiation round, to decide at its October meeting to postpone its assessment on whether sufficient progress has been made;”
4. RT HON DAVID DAVIS MP, SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXITING THE EU
“We are working quickly through a number of complex issues, yet there remain some points where further discussion – and pragmatism - will be required to reach agreement.”
“It is true that there are differences of opinion. But with the continued diligence and creativity of our teams, I am confident we can resolve these.”
OBSERVATIONS
The EU still won’t negotiate a deal with the UK, six months after the UK giving notice.
Instead, the EU has created an illusory set of conditons that have to be met before full talks can begin. These conditions (on a divorce bill, citizens’ rights and Northern Ireland) are not set out in any EU law, directive, or Treaty. They were created and exist in the minds of the EU, only after the UK voted to leave.
The EU is refusing to hold what people around the World would call ‘normal’ separation talks. The UK has tried to cajole them for six months but enough is now enough.
The World needs to be told that the UK can no longer tolerate the current situation. The EU is refusing to sit down and discuss an amicable separation. The UK has tried to accommodate the strange behaviour of the EU, but it is now clear that the political thinking of the EU’s bureaucrats, unelected leaders, and the leaders of the EU27 is directed solely towards the preservation of their power.
They wish to punish the UK – and for it to be seen to be punished – so that no other peoples of the EU decide that they want to leave too. This dictatorial and unreasonable behaviour can no longer be accepted.
The UK government has no choice but to:
  1. Declare that the EU has demonstrated its desire to obstruct normal negotiations from taking place
  2. Re-direct its energies towards the establishment of WTO trading rules
  3. Immediately start full trade negotiations with all the countries who wish to, ready to commence trading on 30 March 2019
  4. Continue to make itself available for normal talks with the EU on all practical matters relating to its exit.
[Note: In relation to item 3 above, and despite what the EU say, the UK can indeed negotiate immediately with foreign governments. Nothing in the Treaties prevents this, as we have explained in previous articles.]
The UK has played a very reasonable hand despite enormous and repeated provocation from the EU Commission, the EU Council, and especially the EU Parliament.
The interests of 66 million British people now need to be put first. At all times the British government will of course act as a friendly neighbour to the EU27, and will continue to offer it the immense protective umbrella of its defence and security forces, free of charge.
It will also ensure that the rights of the millions of EU27 citizens who fled their own countries and settled in the UK will enjoy the same rights as UK citizens.
Finally the UK government will continue to try to persuade the leaders of the EU27 countries not to jeopardise the livelihoods of their 443 million citizens, and to accept the UK’s generous offer not to impose tariffs on each other’s goods.
As ever, you can comment here, using a pseudonym or your real name. Please state roughly where you're from. Your comment will appear in the grey box at the bottom of this article.
[ Sources: EU Commission | EU Council | EU Parliament | DEXEU ]
     Journalists and politicians can contact us for the full list of links, as usual.
       07.40am, 29 Sept 2017
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
READERS' COMMENTS
Name: Denis Cooper, Berks      Date/Time: 29 Sept 2017, 1.53pm
Message: Theresa May is in Tallinn and she was shown on TV being asked why she was "playing human poker" with the innocent EU citizens already settled in the UK, treating them as "bargaining chips". This is all because unlike all the other potential replacements for David Cameron as Prime Minister she accepted appalling advice from Sir Ivan Rogers, the UK's senior civil servant representative in the EU. She should have jumped in first with a unilateral and unconditional general guarantee that the well-behaved EU citizens living and working in the UK had nothing whatever to fear from Brexit, and she would personally make sure that nothing was done to unfairly disadvantage them. Instead she foolishly handed the moral highground to the EU and its supporters, and here we are well over a year later with the EU masquerading as their defenders against a callous and unjust UK government and more importantly still using this as a pretext to stall negotiations on trade.
Name: W. Alkaway, UK      Date/Time: 29 Sept 2017, 10.27am
Message: It truly is a Mad World. It's unbelievable, actually trying to persuade unelected EU officials to negotiate terms for us to leave the EU! There is no legal compunction for Britain to pay anything in order to leave. We already know the EU buys less from us, than we do from them. We know we are taxed to the hilt to the tune of £14 billion yearly, plus 'add ons' and 'special projects'. We also know that the EU is aiming to extract another £90 billion (a figure made up by them.) Daylight Robbers, and we are still speaking with them? 'Please sir, can I have some more whipping from you? I'm really enjoying it!' We also know they are trying to squeeze all they can out of Britain to spend on their Mad Cap Plans, and to deter any other EU Nation thinking of leaving also. Why would any sane Nation want links to such blood sucking, power-hungry, dictators? It's insane to prostrate successful Great Britain in this abject way. Think on it: total dictatorial control by the few over the many, changing the ethnic make up of populations (mass immigration from Africa and Middle East rather than death camps) and a huge military force with which to intimidate and put down unrest. The EU does not create wealth; they steal from the rich to give to the poor. Funny how the minds of people on the receiving end are numbed to this fact, little realising that one day the collecting hat will come their way. As for the Tory Party sitting back and allowing Theresa May to take us back under EU control, which is what her Florence Speech amounts to, I've one message for them: Do something NOW to stop her,Philip Hammond, Sir Jeremy Heywood (Cabinet Secretary,Head of Civil Service), Mike Carney (Governor of the Bank of England)and other influential Remainers from destroying our Nation. Cavalier Theresa May has only recently, and brazenly, displayed her Remain credentials, hidden from us all since the Referendum. She is not doing what's been demanded of her by a Majority who voted to Leave. Theresa May, with her impaired judgement, is clearly incapable of following instructions, and has surrounded herself with Remainers, The Prime Minister is unsuitable to act on our behalf to carry out our Referendum wishes and totally unsuitable to act as Leader of the Conservative Party. We need an honest and true Brexiteer to be Prime Minister, to carry out the biggest democratic vote of the People. Do the Conservative Party want to win the next General Election? Not a hope, unless you remove the current Prime Minister, with ambitions of her own for a second term. Who knows, maybe General Elections will by then be a thing of the past. It's not beyond the EU to now scheme to ban any political parties, enforcing its will by use of its EU Army. What is the Tory Party waiting for?
Name: Paul A, UK      Date/Time: 29 Sept 2017, 08.53am
Message: Morning, There is word going round that TM's speech was vetted and modified by the EU prior to being delivered. I have been trying to find out more but without success... so far.
 BREXIT TALKS ROUND 4
MEP'S SCUPPER
ANY CHANCE OF A DEAL
Guy Verhofstadt, Brexit Co-ordinator for EU Parliament                                               © EU Parliament
'THE EU'S HIGH PRIESTS'
- AN OPINION PIECE
Facts4EU.Org has previously tried to give readers a flavour of the faux religious fervour exhibited by Members of the European Parliament for 'the Cause' of what they wrongly consider to be Europeanism. At different times in world history, some religions have suffered from rulers who were not genuine followers of their faith, but rather maniacs who sought only the exercise of power. Whilst we would not characterise MEPs as maniacs, there are some who fit the mould of 'high priests' in the vanguard of a movement destined to fail.
Before the Round 4 talks had even finished, the EU Parliament had agreed and published a motion to be put to the MEPs next week. The results of the latest talks were apparently immaterial – they had already decided that the UK will not be allowed to negotiate a full agreement including the future relationship.
The EU Parliamentary motion is as extreme a document as would be expected from this body. That is to say that it is patently absurd and in the ‘on another planet’ category. Its conclusion is that “sufficient progress has not yet been made”, but it goes much further.
To give readers an idea of just how extreme and irrational are the views of the EU Parliament, we will publish below its response to Mrs May’s Florence speech, when she generously gave away huge concessions and promised to pay vast amounts. The EU Parliament responded with this:
“... the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom proposed in her speech of 22 September 2017 a time-limited transitional period; such a transition can only happen on the basis of the existing European Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory, judiciary, enforcement instruments and structures; underlines that such a transitional period, when the United Kingdom is no longer a Member State, can only be the continuation of the whole of the acquis communautaire which entails the full application of the four freedoms (free movement of citizens, capital, services and goods), and that this must take place without any limitation on the free movement of persons by imposing any new conditions; stresses that such a transitional period can only be envisaged under the full jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘ECJ’); insists that such a transition period can only be agreed provided that a fully-fledged withdrawal agreement covering all the issues pertaining to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal is concluded”
The above is very clear. It is a motion, devised by the leaders of the main political groupings of the EU Parliament, and it will pass next week. These things always do. We know. We watch enough of their garbage to have seen it happen countless times over the years.
© Kate Hoey MP, Twitter
If you read what they say, it's obvious that they will never give up on their insane notions of what is normal in the world. The rest of the world would laugh at them if it knew they were seriously proposing that the UK allow foreign laws to be imposed on its soil post-Brexit. Please note that they are insisting on this not only for the duration of any 'transition period', but also for the period which follows, in perpetuity.
How can anyone do business with people like these?
OBSERVATIONS
As ever, you can comment here, using a pseudonym or your real name. Please state roughly where you're from. Your comment will appear in the grey box at the bottom of this article.
[ Sources: EU Parliament ]
     Journalists and politicians can contact us for the full list of links, as usual.
       07.50am, 29 Sept 2017
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
READERS' COMMENTS
 
 EU ADMITS UK PAYS
26% - 57% MORE
THAN REMAIN CLAIMED
EU's Budget Commissioner, Guenther Oettinger                             © EU Commission
UK’S NET PAYMENTS TO EU ARE UP TO £13.2 BILLION / YR, SAYS BUDGET CHIEF
In a shocking admission, the EU has finally revealed that the figure for the United Kingdom’s net contributions is significantly higher than the British public have been told.
THE HISTORY - LAST YEAR IN THE REFERENDUM CAMPAIGN
The figure used by the Remain campaign, and by BBC Reality Check, and by the ONS, and by the Treasury, and by the House of Commons Library, and by David Cameron and George Osborne, was £8.4 billion per year.
At Facts4EU.Org we calculated the figure many times using a combination of official UK government and EU Commission figures. Whilst it varied according to exchange rate fluctuations and many other factors, we stated repeatedly that the correct figure was well over £10 billion per year.
Now, the highest-ranking financial officer for the EU, Budget Commissioner Gunther Oettinger, has announced that the correct figure is:
“€12 – 15 billion Euros per annum”
In pounds sterling, that’s £10.5 – £13.2 billion. And that’s a lot more than £8.4 billion.
Chart © Facts4EU.Org 2017
The true net cost, according to the top money man at the EU, is in fact 26% - 57% higher than the figure which was claimed by all on the Remain side. That is way beyond any ‘margin of error’ and nor is it explained by exchange rate fluctuations.
Here is what EU Budget Commissioner Gunther Oettinger told a conference in Brussels on Monday:
EU's Budget Commissioner, Guenther Oettinger                             © EU Commission
“When we lose our British friends, we will lose €12 - €15 billion euros per annum in various areas because despite the rebate the British were net payers.”
Note that he is saying this is what the EU will lose, without the UK as a member. He is talking about the net cost - that's the amount by which the EU will be poorer after the UK’s departure. It accounts for all rebates and all payments from the EU.
THE HERE AND NOW
The figure that has been loosely used by the government and specifically by David Davis in the days since the PM promised in Florence to keep paying the EU after Brexit is £10 billion per year. Regrettably this is not the correct figure.
If Herr Oettinger is admitting to a figure in the range of £10.5 - £13.2 billion then a truer figure for the UK government to use would be £12 billion per year. This will better reflect the cost of the proposed transition period. There is of course a further amount on top of that cost, of many billions per year, which the EU takes from the UK and then decides how to spend in the UK. This is not even included in the figure Herr Oettinger is using.
OBSERVATIONS
We’ve lost count of how many times we had to write about the net cost of the UK’s contributions to the EU. We produced many articles and graphs about this over the past two years.
This is a further firm confirmation of what we knew all along. The UK's net contributions to the EU are much higher than the Remain government of David Cameron - and all the Establishment forces lined up behind him including the BBC - ever told you.
BBC 'Reality Check'
             BBC quoted £8.385 bn / yr as the UK's net contribution       © BBC
In fact the BBC and others misled the British public by understating the net cost dramatically.
Before any Remainers splutter in protest and try to say that the UK's contributions were smaller in terms of pounds because of a higher exchange rate before the Referendum, we looked at that too.
Even if you allow for the exchange rate difference, the figures admitted by the EU's Budget Commissioner would still have been 13% - 41% higher than the Remainers' figure of £8.385 billion.
This is just another in a long line of proofs we have provided, but this one has the advantage of coming from the lips of the most powerful money man in Brussels - Budget Commissioner Oettinger. It doesn't get more authoritative than that.
We await the profuse apologies which will no doubt shortly be flooding the airwaves and printed media, from all the Remain organisations and individuals who have misled the British people for so long.
WHAT ABOUT MRS MAY'S SELL-OUT?
After the Prime Minister's shock announcement in Florence that the UK will continue to pay annual contributions to the EU for two or more years after the supposed Brexit date of 29 March 2019, government ministers have been talking about "£10 billion per year".
This figure clearly needs to be revised upwards. If the EU's Budget Commissioner says that it's in the range of £10.5 - £13.2 billion per year, we would suggest an average figure of £12 billion per annum should now be used. If the 'transition period' which the government is now seeking were to last say three years, that would be an extra £36 billion in total. That pays for a very large number of doctors and nurses.
There is of course one further consideration. As we've pointed out many times before, the UK contributes to several 'off-the-books' EU funds, which never appear in any total of UK net annual contributions. The government and various pro-Establishment bodies have got away with this deception because the amounts aren't included in the annual EU accounts. This, of course, is precisely why the EU started generating additional funding for itself this way.
The simple fact is that the UK pays a lot more to the EU each year which is never admitted to but which we can prove. It would be a start, however, if the powers that be were honest to the British people about the basic costs, to say nothing of all the extras.
We bring you what you don't read elsewhere
[ Sources: EU Commission ]
     Journalists and politicians can contact us for the full list of links, as usual.
       06.35am, 28 Sept 2017
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
READERS' COMMENTS
Name: A Hawes, UK      Date/Time: 28 Sept 2017, 11.50am
Message: So its been proven that the £350 on the vote leave bus was actually under stated! And now that the remains figures were also vastly understated! Remain supporters are losing places to turn to!
Name: Steve R, UK      Date/Time: 28 Sept 2017, 10.19am
Message: Could you make clear whether the EU take on UK tariffs from ROW and VAT share is included in the figures. There seems to be doubt on this.
Reply: In answer to John Arnell below and you Steve, yes. The EU's money basically comes in 3 parts: Customs duties, VAT, and a percentage of GDP. Unfortunately there is also an increasing element they try to keep quiet - what we refer to as 'off-the-books' funding for specific projects, some of which amounts to billions.
Name: John Arnell, UK      Date/Time: 28 Sept 2017, 08.55am
Message: I am trying to find out if these costs include the bn of external tariffs that the UK collects for imports from around the world but hands over to Brussels.
Reply: Please see our answer to Steve above.
 IMPORTANT DISCOVERY
RESULTS OF LONG-TERM PROJECT BY FACTS4EU.ORG TEAM REVEAL
FACTS DON'T RESEARCH AND WRITE THEMSELVES
This latest piece of research from Facts4EU.Org has been met with a variety of reactions from world leaders, ranging from celebration to incredulity to resignation to abuse.
Alas none of us are hedge fund managers... or married to one.
Can you please help fund our work? We barely make it from one week to the next and we rely 100% on voluntary contributions. We really could use your help in working for a clean and true Brexit.
Subscribe With a monthly donation
From £1.20 / week
        Donate Make a one-off donation
from £10 upwards
A BIG THANK YOU TO THESE SUBSCRIBERS AND DONORS
VIP MEMBERS -   M J Donnan, Middx
GOLD MEMBERS -   Gordon & Sylvia Lerigo , Northampton  |  Pamela Barnes, Gloucestershire  |  Judith Slater, Essex  |  P Ingram, Monmouthshire  |  John Murphy, Scotland  |  D Price, Berkshire  |  C Latham, East Sussex  |  D Cooper, Berks  |  G Gardner, Cheshire  |  Anonymous, UK  |  J Holmes, Shropshire  |   C Mainds, London  |  P Abbott, E Sussex
MEMBERS - James Allen, Kent  |  Simon Jones, Wiltshire  |  Anonymous, UK  |  S Cooper, Surrey  |  N Brooker, London  |  M Wood, Ceredigion  |  R Parkin, England  |  Anonymous, UK
VALUED SUPPORTERS - Sharon Stanton, Pembrokeshire  |  Stephen Brady, London  |  E Rimmer, UK  |  A Bruce, Derbyshire  |  Hugh Gallagher, UK  |  Elizabeth Ford, Kent  |  Ashley Hawes, Bucks  |  BBW Davies, Dorset  |  Stuart C, Lancashire  |  P Bushell, West Midlands  |  D Joyce, Powys  |  William Crook, Lancaster  |  R Halton, Ceredigion  |  G Reakes, London  |  J Hatfield, South Ayrshire  |  F Carstairs, W Sussex  |  N Martinek, W Yorks  |  A Hammond, Lincs  |  Anonymous, Aberdeen  |  P Derbyshire, GB
READERS' COMMENTS
 MACRON CALLS FOR
‘SOVEREIGN EU’
The French President has a vision... and he’s gonna share it with you
© Elysée Palace
“The time when France proposes is back. At this moment, I am thinking of Robert Schuman, who dared to propose building Europe, in Paris on 9 May 1950. I remember his powerful words: ‘A united Europe was not achieved and we had war.’”
- Emmanuel Macron, 26 September 2017
OBSERVATIONS
COMMON EU DEFENCE FORCE, BUDGET, AND POLICY
If we get time we will analyse the totality of the very long speech. However for the moment we will concentrate in the next article below on the most shocking element – the French President’s drive for the EU to become a full military power as soon as possible.
Overnight we read and studied the 12,600 word speech. To put this into context for you, that’s 3 times the length of Boris Johnson’s article and 2.5 times the length of Theresa May’s Florence speech. This is why nothing gets done very fast in France.
For the benefit of our many readers from the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other countries, we should explain that when Monsieur Macron talks of ‘Europe’ he means the European Union.
It is a common source of annoyance for Brexiteers and for nationals of the many countries in Europe which are not members of the EU, that EU leaders and the Commission refer to the EU as ‘Europe’ when in fact they should say ‘the European Union’.
The full speech contains everything from the interesting to the downright bizarre. For now, the most important thing is to read our next article for ‘the shocker’ from the President's speech, on defence.
As ever, you can comment here, using a pseudonym or your real name. Your comment will appear in the grey box at the bottom of this article.
[ Sources: Elysée Palace | France 24 ]
     Journalists and politicians can contact us for the full list of links, as usual.
       09.30am, 27 Sept 2017
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
READERS' COMMENTS
Name: Denis Cooper, Berks      Date/Time: 27 Sept 2017, 12.17pm
Message: I note that he refers to the Schuman Declaration of May 9th 1950, which the EU takes as its starting point, and which aimed for a pan-European federation: https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/symbols/europe-day/schuman-declaration_en

“The pooling of coal and steel production should immediately provide for the setting up of common foundations for economic development as a first step in the federation of Europe ... ” “... this proposal will lead to the realization of the first concrete foundation of a European federation indispensable to the preservation of peace.” So that is what Macron wants, a sovereign federation in Europe to mirror the sovereign federation on the other side of the Atlantic, a United States of Europe.
 “THIS EUROPE OF DEFENCE”
EMMANUEL'S EU ARMY
IS OPEN FOR BUSINESS
France’s new President gave an extraordinary speech yesterday at the Sorbonne in Paris. Faced with mounting pressures against his reform policies at home, with a fuel strike already causing petrol pumps to run dry in parts of north-eastern and southern France, France’s new President launched into his ‘vision for Europe’.
In the French elite’s temple to intellectual and dirigiste power that is the Sorbonne Universités, President Emmanuel Macron gave those assembled in the spectacular hall his vision of a new ‘Europe’.
Here is a clip from the speech (approx 3 mins), where President Macron talks about defence. If you don't have time for that, some key quotes are below.
© France 24
“In terms of defence, our objective must be Europe's autonomous capacity for action, in addition to NATO.”
“Last June, we laid the foundations for this Europe of Defence; permanent structured cooperation, allowing for increased commitments, progress together and better co-ordination; but also a European Defence Fund to finance our capabilities and our research.”
“What Europe lacks most today, this Europe of Defence, is a common strategic culture.”
“To create this rapprochement, we need a profound change. I propose to welcome into our national armies - and I am opening this initiative with the French armed forces - military personnel from all European countries willing to participate, as early as possible, in our anticipatory work, intelligence, planning and operations support. At the beginning of the next decade, Europe will have to be endowed with a Joint Response Force, a common defence budget and a common doctrine for action.”
There is a much abridged set of summary notes in English here.
OBSERVATIONS
CURRENT PROGRESS ON EU ARMY 'IS NOT ENOUGH'
So President Macron is not satisfied with the fastest development ever in the military power and capabilities of the EU which has taken place in the last 12 months (according to the EU's de facto Defence Secretary Federica Mogherini). He wants EU nation states' armed forces to merge now.
To a degree this process has already been happening of course, but the public has been relatively unaware of it. Here at Facts4EU.Org we have published news items about it, but the mainstream media have seemed reluctant to follow suit.
Here is how President Macron is in fact already a little behind the curve on this subject, with some examples from last year:
  • German 1st Panzer Division took over Dutch 43rd Mechanised Brigade
  • German Rapid Forces Division took over Dutch 11th Airmobile Brigade
  • Dutch agreed to combine naval forces with Germany
On announcing German takeover of Dutch forces in April 2016, the German Defence Minister, Ursula von der Leyen said: "This collaboration shows the extraordinary depth of the partnership with the Netherlands... Dutch and German [forces] will live, work, train and exercise together in the future. They become a fused entity." "This is the path to a European Defence Union," she added.
In the next article you can read how the EU's 'man with the money' - Budget Commissioner Guenther Oettinger - is equally desperate to see the EU have a fully-fledged, integrated, defence force.
Please note that the UK government has already signed up to all the huge developments in the common EU defence structures, since the EU Referendum last year.
Can you help to keep us going so that we can campaign on issues like these and make you and our MPs aware of what is happening? We rely solely on voluntary contributions.
Subscribe With a monthly donation
From £1.20 / week
        Donate Make a one-off donation
from £10 upwards
We bring you what you don't read elsewhere
As ever, you can comment here, using a pseudonym or your real name. Your comment will appear in the grey box at the bottom of this article.
[ Sources: Elysée Palace | France 24 | EU Commission | German Ministry of Defence | NATO ]
     Journalists and politicians can contact us for the full list of links, as usual.
       09.30am, 27 Sept 2017
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
READERS' COMMENTS
 “THERE WILL BE
A EUROPEAN ARMY”
SAYS EU COMMISSIONER
On Monday in Brussels, one of the most senior Commissioners in the EU Commission and the man with his hand on the purse strings, Gunther Oettinger, explicitly stated that he believed there will be “a European Army”.
© EU Commission
“We are saying to the 28, are you prepared to coordinate the defence industry? It’s the first step, but it is my dream that there will be a European Army. It will be a dream for many years to come but I think we need to start now if we want it to become reality sometime, and we begin with coordinating defence policies.”
- Gunther Oettinger, EU Commissioner, Brussels, 25 Sept 2017
In reality of course, all the building blocks have been in place for some time and the EU Army is already well on the way, but Mr Oettinger was reluctant to be quite so explicit. Nevertheless, he has now used the term ‘European Army’. That makes him the second Commissioner to do so. The first was, unsurprisingly, EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker.
Readers may recall the way in which key Leave spokesmen who discussed the EU’s military ambitions were ridiculed for talking about ‘an EU Army’. Here is the famous clip of arch-Remoaner Nick Clegg, debating Nigel Farage in 2014:
OBSERVATIONS
Nick Clegg described our claims and those of Mr Farage and others as “a dangerous fantasy”. Unfortunately it’s Mr Clegg who is dangerous and who is definitely the one living in a fantasy world.
He has deliberately misled the British people on this issue (and on many other EU issues) for many years, despite knowing full well that what he was saying was untrue. Put simply, he has lied – consistently and with no shame.
We regret having to speak about a senior British politician in such terms but to do otherwise would be to be disingenuous, not to say dishonest.
We have consistently campaigned on this issue and we have used the term ‘EU Army’ as shorthand for an integrated EU defence force with all the command, control, and financing that goes with that.
We’ve even taken flack from some within the pro-Brexit ranks who felt that our use of the term was damaging to the cause, as it would be seen by the public as hyperbole. Our view was that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it’s a ruddy EU Army.
Naturally, the forces in question aren’t restricted to the Army, but include the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force too, as well as all ancillary services.
Can you help to keep us going so that we can campaign on issues like these and make you and our MPs aware of what is happening? We rely solely on voluntary contributions.
Subscribe With a monthly donation
From £1.20 / week
        Donate Make a one-off donation
from £10 upwards
We bring you what you don't read elsewhere
As ever, you can comment here, using a pseudonym or your real name. Your comment will appear in the grey box at the bottom of this article.
[ Sources: EU Commission ]
     Journalists and politicians can contact us for the full list of links, as usual.
       08.30am, 27 Sept 2017
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
READERS' COMMENTS
 3 MONTHS AGO
MRS MAY APPROVED
THE NEW 'EU DEFENCE FUND'
EU's de facto Defence Secretary, Federica Mogherini                             © EU Commission
WHY WEREN’T YOU TOLD?
“To implement the EU Global Strategy,
decisive steps have been taken on Security and Defence.”
- EU's European External Action Service, 13 Sept 2017
Three months ago the UK formally agreed to the EU’s proposals regarding billions of pounds of expenditure which affects the UK taxpayer.
NEW EU DEFENCE PLANS AND SPENDING APPROVED BY MRS MAY
DESPITE THE UK VOTING FOR BREXIT
On Thurs 22 June, the Prime Minister attended the European Council where she approved:
  • the ‘European Defence Fund’, and
  • the ‘European Defence Industrial Development Programme’, and
  • the ‘Permanent Structured Cooperation’ (PESCO) on defence
Crucially - and unreported by anyone else - the Council agreed that the deployment of EU Battlegroups should be borne as a common cost on a permanent basis. This had previously been resisted by several other EU countries. Nevertheless Mrs May who was representing a country which had voted to leave the EU, approved this.
Note: Part of the extra costs will be funded out of an EU funding mechanism which does not appear as part of the normal EU budget, and therefore will not show up as part of the UK's net annual contributions to the EU. The use of these 'off-the-books' funding mechanisms is spiralling in the EU, as we have reported many times before.
NEW EU DEFENCE PLANS AND SPENDING APPROVED BY MRS MAY
DESPITE THE EU HAVING UNDERSPENT BY OVER £500 BILLION ON NATO
The UK government is backing the EU's plans for its own combined defence forces, with the UK as part of these structures. It appears to think that the EU will one day be able to pay for the effective defence of Europe.
Western Europe has been under the protective umbrella of NATO since just after WWII.
Chart © Facts4EU.Org 2017
The above chart shows how the UK has been subsidising
the defence of the other countries in the EU for years.
We selected some of the big players in the EU, who are also members of NATO.
The chart shows how the UK has abided by its NATO commitment on defence spending whereas some of the largest EU states have failed to do so. The combined total of underspending by EU member states who are also members of NATO amounts to £530 billion in the last eight years. Without the huge spending of the US, there would have been no credible Western defence capability in Europe.
EUROPEAN DEFENCE FUND
As with all EU projects, the European Defence Fund is starting relatively small in order not to alarm anyone. However in the case of this initiative the EU plans to move rapidly. Below we show the build-up in expenditure that has already been announced. This will escalate.
Chart © Facts4EU.Org 2017
Remember: On Friday in Florence the PM said
the UK would meet the costs of everything it had signed up to.
This new EU fund was only formally proposed by the EU Commission in November last year, although it had been on the cards for years. It went from proposal to approval in record time and its launch was announced by the Commission in June – just 3 months ago.
COSTS - 'TIP OF THE ICEBERG'
The costs in the chart above are the tip of the iceberg. As the Fund gains pace, member states will be expected to contribute at a rate 5 times that of monies coming from the EU's central budget. This is now common practice in the EU, so that the EU's real costs appear to be much smaller than they are. The above graph only shows costs from the EU central budget.
OBSERVATIONS
If the UK government had been signing up to the integration of UK military capabilities and funding into the defence forces and structures of the US, the media and Remainer politicians would no doubt have been screaming from the rooftops.
They would have demanded to know why Parliament had not been able to scrutinise the proposals and why there had been no publicity or discussion.
In the world of defence,
you would never know the UK had voted to leave the EU.
It is a simple fact that the government has been signing us up to a succession of new EU defence structures and funding arrangements since the EU Referendum. We have chapter and verse on everything they've done.
It is also a fact that Mrs May announced in her Florence speech on Friday that she is proposing a major new treaty with the EU on defence.
None of this has been subject to normal review and discussion, nor has it had reasonable airtime for the British public to be aware of what's going on.
NATO is the structure which British people have relied on since WWII to preserve the peace, not the EU. The defence of the realm is too important to be messed up by the EU. Having bilateral arrangements with individual countries in addition to NATO is fine - and these should continue - but integrating our armed forces ever closer with the EU, as the PM has done and seems intent on continuing? No. Not acceptable.
Can you help to keep us going so that we can campaign on issues like these and make you and our MPs aware of what is happening? We rely solely on voluntary contributions.
Subscribe With a monthly donation
From £1.20 / week
        Donate Make a one-off donation
from £10 upwards
We bring you what you don't read elsewhere
[ Sources: EU Commission | EU Parliament | EU Court of Auditors | NATO ]
     Journalists and politicians can contact us for the full list of links, as usual.
       08.30am, 27 Sept 2017
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
READERS' COMMENTS
Name: Jon, Wales      Date/Time: 27 Sept 2017, 5.59pm
Message: Matters are fast getting out of hand. We voted to exit the EU political union on 23rd June 2016, and recover our independence, laws, borders, money, fishing grounds, etc. It is reasonable to suggest Mrs May PM has zero mandate to help fund construction of a foreign military. British taxpayers should only be funding UK military defences, defence being the operative word. No-one has been asked if we should subsidise a foreign construct we're leaving? Mrs May is a remainer to her core, and the more funding she gives away, and the more delays she makes, are a clear sign she has no intention of upholding the largest democratic vote in British history (in my opinion). Further, we in the UK never agreed to funding a European Military prior to our referendum, and therefore Mrs May has no mandate to give away UK taxpayers money which is needed at home. Everything after the vote should be directed to UK interests, not to European Union interests.
 BARNIER TO BANK MAY’S GIFTS
Barnier at EU General Council 25 Sept 2017 © EU Commission
EU Chief Brexit Negotiator Demands That UK Confirms All May’s Offers in Round 4 of Talks
Yesterday Michel Barnier made a statement regarding Mrs May’s Florence speech, ahead of meeting David Davis for the start of Round 4 of the UK-EU Brexit negotiations.
Summary of Official EU Reaction to ‘Transition Period’
  1. They will have to decide if they want one too
  2. If so, UK would remain under ECJ jurisdiction
  3. Won’t agree it until divorce bill, citizens’ rights, and NI border are agreed
Facts4EU.Org, 26 Sept 2017
Here is what Monsieur Barnier actually said:-
A word now on the new, key element raised in Theresa May's speech: The United Kingdom requested for the first time a transition period for a limited amount of time beyond its withdrawal from the European Union and its institutions.
This is currently not part of my mandate, but I would like to insist on a few conditions that the European Council has already set out. Allow me to refer you to the European Council guidelines, which must be read regularly – as I often do.
  1. The Union also must decide if such a period is in its interest.
  2. Any transition must respect the legal and financial framework of the Single Market. To quote the European Council: "Should a time-limited prolongation of Union acquis be considered, this would require existing Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory, judiciary and enforcement instruments and structures to apply." Those are the words of the European Council. I think that everybody should remember them.
  3. Finally, discussions on a transition – which will now take place since the UK has requested it –do not absolve us from the necessity of making "sufficient progress." Progress on our three key issues remains more than ever necessary in order to build the trust needed to begin discussing our future relationship.
A final point, which is also important, is that we do not mix up the discussion on liabilities and commitments from the past – which are the subjects that make up the orderly withdrawal – with a discussion on the future relationship.”
OBSERVATIONS
In the eyes of many people, Mrs May outlined a most extraordinary capitulation to the EU when she spoke in Florence last Friday.
Whilst some have tried to downplay it, in fact she made promises which were unconditional. She also accepted basic concepts for the first time and even proposed a major new treaty on defence, security, foreign affairs and aid.
Mrs May and her cabinet ministers including Brexit Secretary David Davis subsequently had the choice whether to ‘clarify’ Mrs May’s rash statement. In other words, they could have explained that she didn’t mean literally:
  • A huge payment, to keep the promise that no EU state will be out of pocket as a result of Brexit until 2020
  • The UK to stay under EU rules and regulations (ECJ jurisdiction) for the duration of the transition
  • Inability to start new trade deals (“access to one another’s markets should continue on current terms”)
  • Free movement to continue
  • Continued integration and payments for defence and security, and aid
  • Unconditional commitment to maintaining Europe’s security
Over the weekend, none of the key players chose to ‘clarify’ the PM’s remarks.
The simple fact is that the EU has now ‘banked’ the various offers which the Prime Minister made. As we said when we gave warnings in advance of the speech: “Once said, a PM's words can't be unsaid.”
For example, the UK’s minimum position on the Brexit Divorce Bill is no longer that 'we will pay nothing because there is no legal obligation to pay anything at all'. The minimum position is now that the UK has accepted that it’s liable. Furthermore, the UK has accepted that it will pay enough billions to ensure that no EU member state is out of pocket as a result of Brexit up to 2020.
In the context of money, the UK has also accepted that it “will honour commitments we have made during the period of our membership”. Most commentators haven’t yet realised just what this means and how much is involved. That statement covers a vast array of commitments, some of which date back over 10 years and haven’t been completed, many of which haven’t even started yet.
This beggars belief, it really does.
What is even more incredible is that the EU is able to taunt the UK by saying that the EU will need to decide if it wants a transition deal at all. Of course it wants it.
The EU would have to be even crazier than usual to reject a continuation of the rich gravy train.
Subscribe With a monthly donation
From £1.20 / week
        Donate Make a one-off donation
from £10 upwards
As ever, you can comment here, using a pseudonym or your real name. Your comment will appear in the grey box at the bottom of this article.
[ Sources: EU Commission | EU Council ]        06.05am, 26 Sept 2017
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
READERS' COMMENTS
Name: Denis Cooper, Berks      Date/Time: 26 Sept 2017, 1.24pm
Message: I'm not sure what Barnier can mean when he refers to "a new, key element raised in Theresa May's speech: The United Kingdom requested for the first time a transition period for a limited amount of time beyond its withdrawal from the European Union and its institutions." That was in her Lancaster House speech back in January: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-governments-negotiating-objectives-for-exiting-the-eu-pm-speech "... I want us to have reached an agreement about our future partnership by the time the two-year Article Fifty process has concluded. From that point onwards, we believe a phased process of implementation, in which both Britain and the EU institutions and member states prepare for the new arrangements that will exist between us will be in our mutual self-interest. This will give businesses enough time to plan and prepare for those new arrangements ..."
Name: Mermaid, UK      Date/Time: 26 Sept 2017, 1.06pm
Message: On the 20th of September 2017 a folder containing 5000 documents was handed to, and accepted by, THE ROYAL COURTS of JUSTICE in LONDON. These documents clearly state, and shows evidence, that we can VOID not repeal the European Communities Act of 1972, therefore we need not negotiate, nor pay any divorce bill, and Article 50 wasn't required. ....If the above is true then why is Mrs May pandering to the EU?
Name: Steve R, UK      Date/Time: 26 Sept 2017, 11.50am
Message: The only way to reverse this disgusting sell out by metropolitan politicians and civil servants may be to organise protests, such as paralysing London. Many Brexiteers have the means to copy the French method of getting their way. May and the writers of this disastrous speech should be told to get a job where their true loyalty lies and then the letter cancelled.
Name: Frustrated Brexiter, Essex      Date/Time: 26 Sept 2017, 09.20am
Message: Well what a surprise the EU wants more. The EU is not negotiating they are determined to give us a punishment beating. The time is fast approaching when we should just let the clock on these "negotiations" run down. The British Government should work hard at home to prepare for 29th March crash out of the EU. We must have contingency plans in place, for the massive disruption that will be caused. It would appear none of this planning has been done. The Cabinet Secretary should be sacked, he who did no planning for the consequences of a Brexit referendum vote, and has no plan for no deal negotiations. The problem is every aspect of our lives are controlled from Brussels. We have not been governing ourselves for about 30 years, we have forgotten how to do it. Hence no contingency planning, the UK Civil Service have just rubber stamped every EU document as law. The job of Government is to govern their own people, those who elect them. Try and find ways to minimise the impact on essential services, food suppliers, and flight travel and then rebuild our economy and infrastructure from within. Never again being dependent on other foreign institutions for these essential services.
 ‘MONEY CONDITIONAL ON DEAL’
Brexit Secretary rows back and makes
PM’s speech conditional
In his statement in Brussels yesterday, David Davis clearly stated that Mrs May’s promises about money on Friday afternoon in Florence are conditional on achieving an overall Brexit and trade deal.
Below you can watch the brief press statements made by Michel Barnier and David Davis, ahead of the start of Round 4 of the Brexit talks.
“On the financial settlement, as part of a smooth and orderly exit, we do not want our EU partners to worry that they will need to pay more or receive less over the remainder of the current budget plan as a result of our decision to leave. The UK will honour commitments we have made during the period of our membership.
“But it’s obvious that reaching a conclusion on this issue can only be done in the context of and in accordance with our new deep and special partnership with the EU.”
OBSERVATIONS
PM SAID NOTHING ABOUT CONDITIONALITY
This may shock you, but the PM said nothing on Friday about conditonality, when she made the very generous offer to give the EU billions of pounds of taxpayer money.
In other words, she did not say “If you start to be sensible on everything else, we could be minded to offer you a lot of dosh.” Or if she did, then we’ve become word-blind after reading the thousands of words so many times.
Strikingly, yesterday David Davis made conditionality explicit. He used the formula “it’s obvious that”. Well no, Mr Davis, nothing in this entire sorry saga is obvious unless it’s explicitly stated. In recent weeks and months you’ve staggered us with so many things we would never have dreamt you would say, that we simply dare not assume anything. And the EU side has gone beyond what even we could have imagined – and we know the EU well – in terms of the unreality of its demands.
What is very important to know is that the EU have legions of bureaucrats poring over words used in these negotiations. When it comes to a major speech by the British Prime Minister, every word and nuance will have been studied in great detail.
Regrettably, if the UK should end up having to walk away from Brexit negotiations because of the EU’s intransigence, the PM’s offer of money will not be forgotten by the EU and it will not allow its citizens to forget it either. The UK will then be portrayed as a pariah state that does not keep its word. The question of a financial liablity – long said by the UK government to have no legal basis – has now been accepted.
Is it really possible that such an important speech by Britain’s Prime Minister, studied in advance and argued over by the entire Cabinet, should have contained unconditional offers when they were supposed to have been conditional ones?
As ever, you can comment here, using a pseudonym or your real name. Your comment will appear in the grey box at the bottom of this article.
[ Sources: EU Commission | EU Council ]        06.05am, 26 Sept 2017
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
READERS' COMMENTS
MUTTI'S
MESS 
 
'POPULIST' AFD SOARS
MERKEL DROPS, SCHULZ DROPS,
EURO DROPS
This morning Germans are still reeling from a shock set of election results yesterday.
 

With thanks to our friends at the Bundeswahlleiter (official returning officer's office) for the graphics
VERY, VERY SIMPLISTIC EXPLANATION
Add the CDU and CSU to get Merkel's vote share of c. 33%. Frau Merkel has suffered the most dramatic drop in the fortunes of her party in the post-war period.
In second is therefore the CPD on 20.5%, who are the equivalent of the Labour Party. They are headed by arch-EU-federalist and former EU Parliament president Martin Schulz. Schulz was no friend to the UK in all the time he was at Brussels, and his large drop in the share of the vote will disappoint few who support Brexit.
 
THE AFD
In an astonishing third place is the AfD - 'Alternativ fur Deutschland'. On the BBC today you will hear them described as 'far-right' and guests on BBC programmes will doubtless describe them as fascists or neo-nazis. This is because they are anti-immigration and because they hold strong views about Islam.
Please bear in mind that if all you will be told about the AfD today were true, they would all be in jail, so strong is Germany's anti-free speech environment these days.
Photo left: Alice Weidel, Co-Leader of AFD
The AFD had no seats in the Bundestag before yesterday. Now they have 94, which is an extraordinary achievement. It will be interesting to see how the AFD will conduct itself in the German parliament, having only been a party of protest since it started and up to this point.
WHO WILL BE IN GOVERNMENT?
It is almost 100% certain that Angela Merkel will continue to be German Chancellor. However in the coming weeks there will be endless talks between Merkel and the other parties because she needs coalition partners to form a government.
Until yesterday, Merkel's main coalition partner was the SPD of Martin Schulz. In effect, Germany had a national coalition government, a little like the Conservatives and Labour being in coalition in the UK - if you can imagine such a thing.
The SPD have said that they will now be an opposition party, so that leaves Frau Merkel searching for compromises with other parties. Prime contenders are the Greens and the FDP - the Liberal party. The slight difficulty with this is that the Greens oppose Merkel's bizarre energy policy of coal-powered electricity generation, and the Liberals have formulated anti-immigration policies to win popularity.
One thing is certain - Frau Merkel will not talk to the AfD. As is the case in many EU countries, no majority party will talk to any eurosceptic party. This is one of the reasons that the Netherlands still doesn't have a government six months after its elections. The Dutch PM Mark Rutte won't talk to Geert Wilders, who came second.
OBSERVATIONS
The EU has spent the last six months proclaiming that the rise of populism is over. We have had to listen to the likes of Juncker, Verhofstadt, Webber, Tajani, Macron, Barnier and others, all telling us that there is unity across the EU and that people are rejecting 'populist' parties and their policies.
Only it seems that in the powerhouse of the EU - Germany - that theory has just been kicked right in the acquis communautaire.
[Please bear in mind when reading the above that is a very simplified version of the situation in Germany. However we thought you'd prefer this to a lengthy treatise on the subject, which you will no doubt find elsewhere.]
Subscribe With a monthly donation
From £1.20 / week
        Donate Make a one-off donation
from £10 upwards
As ever, you can comment here, using a pseudonym or your real name. Your comment will appear in the grey box at the bottom of this article.
[ Sources: Der Bundeswahlleiter ]        08.35am, 25 Sept 2017
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
READERS' COMMENTS
 DAVID DAVIS: 'NO ECJ AFTER MAR 2019'
Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, David Davis, on Andrew Marr Show © BBC
THE PM SAID THE OPPOSITE
WHO IS RIGHT?
Yesterday the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, Rt Hon David Davis MP, gave an interview to the BBC’s Andrew Marr where he was asked about the nature of Brexit. He was also asked specifically about the CJEU (Court of Justice of the EU, formerly known as the ECJ).
MARR: “So what do you say to a keen Brexit voter, who said ‘Five years after the vote we will still, in effect, be pretty much inside the EU, paying in money, with free movement?”
DAVIS: “No that’s not true. I mean, firstly in 2019 we will leave. We will come out from under the jurisdiction and the law-making of the European Union. We’ll have a couple of years which allows people for that. [sic] Most of the people who voted Brexit will say to you: ‘We want a practical, upbeat, real, effective Brexit.’ That’s what we’re going to get.”
So that’s clear. There will be no jurisdiction of the CJEU (ECJ) in the proposed transition period due to follow the supposed Brexit date of 29 Mar 2019.
WHAT THE PM SAID IN FLORENCE, 2 DAYS EARLIER
Unfortunately the Prime Minister said something different just two days earlier, in Florence, Italy.
“So during the implementation period access to one another’s markets should continue on current terms
AND
“The framework for this strictly time-limited period... would be the existing structure of EU rules and regulations.”
WHAT THE EU SAYS
The EU’s principles for negotiation are clear on the role of the CJEU. It shall continue to be the arbiter of everything – even in many cases after the UK has left.
For example it even talks about “judicial proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the United Kingdom (for example infringements proceedings, state aid) after the withdrawal date for facts that have occurred before the withdrawal date, including the possibility for the UK courts or tribunals to address questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union;”
In overall terms, the CJEU governs virtually everything in the EU. It is inextricably bound into the fabric of the EU as a whole, and this includes the single market, the customs union, freedom of movement and contributions.
SUMMARY
If the Prime Minister says that the framework for the transition period after 29 March 2019 will be “the existing structure of EU rules and regulations”, then that means the CJEU.
OBSERVATIONS
PM'S FLORENCE SPEECH / DAVIS' BBC INTERVIEW
  • The government wants a transition period of “around two years” after 29 March 2019
  • Theresa May said the transition will be under “the existing structure of EU rules and regulations”
  • David Davis said the transition means being "out from under the jurisdiction and the law-making of the European Union”
  • They can't both be right.
Facts4EU.Org, 25 Sept 2017
It is not possible to reconcile the words of David Davis yesterday with those of the Prime Minister on Friday, and yet ostensibly Mr Davis was elaborating on the government’s position.
Politicians use words as the tools of their trade. Words are supposed to mean something – broadly the same thing – to the people listening to them. It is possible that in the coming months Mr Davis and other government ministers will try to ‘re-interpret’ the words and statements we are currently hearing.
Sorry, but that’s not good enough.
Leaving the EU is a vastly important endeavour – more important than any other government activity for more than a generation. It simply isn’t acceptable for politicians to insult the intelligence of the British people by playing with words.
Either Mr Davis was misleading the public yesterday, or the Prime Minister was misleading the public on Friday.
You know it's funny. Here at Facts4EU.Org we live in the real world - not in the Westminster bubble and not in a peripheral journalistic clique. In the paragraph above we were being polite. In our world, though, we would simply say that one of them is lying.
We stand by our analysis of the Prime Minister’s speech: it is not Brexit and it is wholly unacceptable.
Subscribe With a monthly donation
From £1.20 / week
        Donate Make a one-off donation
from £10 upwards
As ever, you can comment here, using a pseudonym or your real name. Your comment will appear in the grey box at the bottom of this article.
[ Sources: BBC ]        06.50am, 25 Sept 2017
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
READERS' COMMENTS
Name: Carole, Merseyside      Date/Time: 25 Sept 2017, 8.15pm
Message: She said "The framework for this strictly time-limited period, which can be agreed under Article 50, would be the existing structure of EU rules and regulations.". This means it's negotiable and she gave the EU starting position but not the government's desired position.
Name: Anon, UK      Date/Time: 25 Sept 2017, 10.59am
Message: To R.Ellison, comment 25th September. Well done, well said! I am fed up to my back teeth watching May and her fellow collaborators selling us down the river.
Name: R Ellison, UK      Date/Time: 25 Sept 2017, 09.44am
Message: An Address to PM (for now) Theresa May. You have betrayed us all. You misled the voting public that 'Leave Means Leave'. The date was set with the signing of Article 50 for March 2019. You and your gang of Remainers in your Cabinet have with THEIR Florence Speech chucked out all our bargaining chips. What is more, we now KNOW this weakening of Britain's position was intentional. By whom? By our own Government. Feel the anger around the country, Theresa. You and your Cabinet are turn-coats, and the British public likewise can withdraw support from you and your Conservative Party. Politicians come, and politicians go. All are dispensable. We the British Public WILL have what we voted for. Ignore History at your peril. Pack your bags. The CV is out: we the Nation are seeking an honest Prime Minister who is reliable, truthful, with strength to face off opposition, keeps their promises and MOST IMPORTANTLY who WILL give us a clean Brexit in March 2019. No extensions. No lingering connections to the EU. And no 'Defence' ties. All people have to earn their spurs to win respect. Theresa,you never even started. Britain deserves so much better. Bring it on. Let Battle truly commence.
NEW
After you've read the news below, why not chat about it with others?
NO REGISTRATION NEEDED - Just choose a username and start chatting!
Best regards, The Brexit Facts4EU.Org Team       08.35am, 24 Sept 2017
NO PHOTOS?
Your Sunday news is late this morning but it's finally here!
It doesn't yet have many photos or graphics to break things up and illustrate points clearly. We're working on this. If we had more resources, we could do so much more!
We know you hear so many people asking for your money,
but we bet we're the poorest and work the hardest!
Subscribe With a monthly donation
From £1.20 / week
        Donate Make a one-off donation
from £10 upwards
Please consider it this Sunday - it only takes a credit card
and a minute of your time to keep us going.
BREXIT 
WHO DO YOU TURN TO?
The people hated the speech,
why didn’t the professional Brexiteers?
When the Prime Minister delivers a stinker, as she did in Florence on Friday, pro-Brexit MPs who are also loyal party members face a dilemma. Do they:
  1. Stay true to Brexit and tell it like it is, or
  2. Try to find something in the speech to praise, no matter how trivial, or
  3. Pretend they didn’t hear the same words you did and back her to the hilt?
To a certain degree the same dilemma has been faced by pro-Brexit organisations and ‘commentators’ who broadly support the Conservative Party. It was sad to see many of these put party before Brexit.
Since Friday afternoon we have heard all three reactions to Theresa May’s speech in Florence. The honest response should of course have been the first version above, to tell it like it is. In this category you find the likes of Nigel Farage and all UKIP MEPs. We also saw Jacob Rees-Mogg MP and Owen Paterson MP coming as close as they could to criticising the speech.
Regrettably there were many who fell into our final category of backing the speech and some of these were surprisingly-strong Brexiteers. To see the likes of Boris Johnson (“positive, optimistic and dynamic”), Michael Gove (“excellent speech from the PM in Florence - delivering on the wishes of the British people”), Andrea Leadsom (“PM sets out positive future relationship with EU”), Iain Duncan Smith (“Brexiteers can live with a two-year transition”) and others praising the speech was difficult. And yes, we do understand Cabinet collective responsibility in respect of Ministers, but that doesn’t exculpate backbenchers who have spoken for Brexit for years.
WHAT ABOUT THOSE WHO COMMENT ON BREXIT FOR A LIVING?
It is important not to forget commentators in this. For example, the editor of BrexitCentral, Jonathan Isaby, wrote an article for the Independent on Friday with the headline: “As a hard Brexiteer I was impressed by Theresa May’s Florence speech”.
Then you have Tim Montgomerie of Unherd (“Top quality speech from PM. Perfect blend of pro-Europeanism, commitment to Brexit and practical compromise to satisfy both UK & EU”), and Matthew Elliott of Vote Leave, BrexitCentral & Legatum Inst (“agree [with Tim Montgomerie] - liked positive tone & emphasis”).
Fortunately both Leave Means Leave and Leave.EU were on message. Isn't it interesting that the people in these two organisations weren't part of the official Leave campaign last year?
OBSERVATIONS
WHO SPEAKS FOR YOU NOW?
What do ordinary pro-Brexit people do when so many of the pro-Brexit politicians and the big pro-Brexit organisations desert them? Who is standing up for the people who voted for change, for taking back control, for Brexit?
Here at Facts4EU.Org we did not hold back. It was and is our view that the Prime Minister’s speech set out an abject surrender on many levels. The fact that the various branches of the EU monolith have reacted with moderately welcoming noises only supports our view.
If you want proof, you need look no further than the Government benches and Ken Clarke (“very reassured by it”) and Anna Soubry (“very sensible, responsible approach”). If these staunch Remoaners loved the speech, you really do have to question those Brexiteers who ostensibly share the same view of it.
We preferred to give our honest reaction, even if it annoyed senior pro-Brexit politicians with whom we have good relations. We will probably annoy them a little more with our new article below, but it can't be helped.
If you value our commitment, the effort we put in to bringing you unique, fact-based insights, and our campaigning zeal with politicians who can make a difference, please do support us financially. Unlike the big-name organisations, we don’t have big backers.
We rely on people like you.
Subscribe With a monthly donation
From £1.20 / week
        Donate Make a one-off donation
from £10 upwards
As ever, you can comment here, using a pseudonym or your real name. Your comment will appear in the grey box at the bottom of this article.
[ Sources: All media and Twitter ]        08.35am, 24 Sept 2017
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
READERS' COMMENTS
Name: I want to leave EU, Suffolk      Date/Time: 25 Sept 2017, 1.03pm
Message: I'm glad it's not just me who noticed this. I heard Peter Bone MP (board member of Leave Means Leave) talking to LBC just a few hours later praising the Florence speech. There is something going on behind the scenes with MPs suddenly falling into line left, right and centre behind the PM.
Name: Michael Z Freeman      Date/Time: 24 Sept 2017, 5.49pm
Message: May's speech is the biggest scandal for a generation. She is Brit equivalent of Hilary Clinton at this point. But look what happened to her.
A TREATY TOO FAR 
The part of the speech that hasn’t been heard
Do you speak EU? The Prime Minister does.
The Prime Minister’s Florence speech ran to over 5,300 words. The majority of those words comprised statements of the obvious, and warm-sounding sentiments which were no doubt designed to appeal to her EU counterparts who excel in that sort of thing. The important parts of the speech ran to less than 1,000 words, as we showed in our analysis yesterday.
THE ONE THAT GOT AWAY
There was, however, an important topic in Theresa May’s speech which seems to have bypassed most politicians, journalists, and commentators. The reason for this is because the word was used just twice. And the reason it was used only twice in the context we’re writing about here, is because another word was used in its place – 18 times.
The missing word was ‘defence’ and the word which was substituted for it was ‘security’.
This may not sound important but stay with us and we’ll show you how it is.
Chart © Facts4EU.Org 2017
Our chart above gives you some background to keep in mind, as you read what is unfortunately a longer article than usual.
FOR 'SECURITY' READ 'DEFENCE'
‘Security’ is how the EU refer to defence when they don’t want the public to know what they’re talking about. The public are all for increased security of course, and the terrorist threat is invoked often by the EU, when talking of increased ‘security’ collaboration or new funding for a ‘security’ structure. So often, the word which should have been used is ‘defence’.
WE DON’T HAVE A MINISTRY OF SECURITY
We have a Ministry of Defence. We have a Secretary of State for Defence. We talk of ‘defence of the realm’.
Security is something else. Security is the state of being free from danger or threat. Defence means defending from or resisting attack.
Put very simplistically, when it comes to defence, we think of our armed forces. When we think of security we think of the police.
PM ANNOUNCED A NEW ‘SECURITY’ TREATY, INCLUDING DEFENCE
On Friday, the Prime Minister broke her speech into two main parts: “a new economic relationship and a new relationship on security.”
Talking about the second part she said: “So we are proposing a bold new strategic agreement that provides a comprehensive framework for future security, law enforcement and criminal justice co-operation: a treaty between the UK and the EU.”
Treaties are big deals, they matter. So let’s just look at this one. The PM didn’t lay out any details, but she did identify the elements it would contain. Here is how she defined the contents:
“What we are offering will be unprecedented in its breadth, taking in cooperation on diplomacy, defence and security, and development. And it will be unprecedented in its depth, in terms of the degree of engagement that we would aim to deliver.”
So the new ‘Security’ Treaty includes:
  • Diplomacy (that’s Boris Johnson, the FCO, our embassies and our foreign policy)
  • Defence (that’s Sir Michael Fallon, MOD, our armed forces and nuclear deterrent)
  • Security (that’s Amber Rudd, Home Office, MI5, MI6, Met Police Counter Terrorism, etc)
  • Development (that’s Priti Patel, DFID, and the UK’s foreign aid)
In every one of the four areas listed above, the UK is the top-ranked country in the EU. We have the best resources, reputation, and budgets of all the 28 member states of the EU, in those four areas of activity. There really is no debate about this.
Unfortunately, the Prime Minister didn’t offer all of this conditional on a sensible overall deal with the EU, she made the offer unconditionally. So the areas where the UK indisputably leads the rest of the EU have all been given up – for free.
“UNPRECEDENTED IN ITS BREADTH, UNPRECEDENTED IN ITS DEPTH”
This is how the PM described the new Treaty. In other words it will take on what we already have, and add to it.
Let’s look at the four areas of diplomacy, security, defence, and development in more detail. We’ll leave defence 'til last.
1. DIPLOMACY
Federica poses with helicopter
 
The EU’s Vice President and ‘High Representative’ is Federica Mogherini, the former Italian Communist. She is also de facto EU Foreign Minister and – crucially – de facto EU Defence Secretary.
We have written extensively before about the ways in which this woman’s Directorate, the ‘European External Action Service’ or EEAS, has been grabbing power for itself. (See ‘DEFENCE’ below.)
The EU already has embassies all over the world and only last week Mogherini was in New York making foreign policy announcements at the United Nations. This woman isn’t even elected and she is already acting like she’s EU Foreign Secretary.
2. SECURITY
There is already a remarkable degree of cooperation between the British police and security services and those on the continent. There is also the controversial European Arrest Warrant. It is hard to see how much further this collaboration could go whilst the country is going in the opposite direction – to Brexit.
3. ‘DEVELOPMENT’ (THE NEW WORD FOR FOREIGN AID)
The UK is easily the biggest donor of foreign aid in the EU. The EU constantly claims to be the biggest donor in the World. It’s not. It’s donations as an organisation are small. The EU therefore adds up all the individual donations made by its member states and pretends that these are ‘from the EU’.
In reality, it’s the UK which is the biggest donor in the world, after the US which dwarfs all the rest.
The EU has already persuaded the UK to donate to its causes – causes which benefit the EU and which are not necessarily top priorities for the UK. For example, the UK contributed 14.5% to Angela Merkel’s desperate €3+3bn fund for Turkey, to bribe Turkey to stop migrants crossing to Greece.
The UK was also pushed into another ‘off the books’ EU fund – the €30.5bn ‘EDF’, which is never included in the ‘net contributions’ figure told to the British people by the BBC’s Fact Check service, nor by the ONS, nor by the House of Commons Library. We are the only people who have continually raised this.
So, it seems the PM wishes to collaborate even more closely on development aid, despite the UK already being the second-largest donor in the world, and despite leaving the EU.
4. DEFENCE
Now we come to the biggest area of concern for us amongst the four new Treaty elements which the Prime Minister announced on Friday – that of defence.
It is the case that the government has signed up to several major new defence structures, capabilities, strategies and funds since the Referendum.
Since the Referendum, the UK government has signed up to an extraordinary EU rush towards:
  • EU forces
  • EU defence budgets
  • EU defence research
  • Development of land-based weapons, ships, and aircraft
 
  • EU defence procurement
  • EU command structures and EU battlegroups
  • EU military officer training
  • Common EU foreign policy
If you haven't already done so, please read our summary of the above here. It tells you what the UK signed up to and when.
We have long maintained that the British public must be informed of these worrying developments as step one. Secondly, the government must make it clear that the UK will be extracting itself as part of Brexit. Thirdly, under no circumstances must the government commit to any further defence integration with the EU.
Unfortunately none of this has happened or looks likely to happen.
OBSERVATIONS
We have already published extensively on the subject of defence and we make no apologies for continuing to do so.
It’s regrettable that so far neither the relevant select committees within the House of Commons, nor the mainstream media, have picked up on our findings and started investigating. We are not the only ones who have raised concerns of course, with Veterans for Britain (VfB) also making representations to parliament and to the media.
DEFENCE FOR THE 2+ YEARS ‘TRANSITION PERIOD’
Judging from her Florence speech it is quite clear that the PM has no intention of withdrawing the UK from its entanglements and commitments in the formation of the new 'EU army':
“So during the implementation period ... Britain also should continue to take part in existing security measures.”
© Facts4EU.Org 2017
FUNDING THE 'EU ARMY' WILL CONTINUE
And on funding the new common EU defence forces and structures?
“The UK will honour commitments we have made during the period of our membership.”
AND AFTER THE TRANSITION AND AFTER THE UK HAS REALLY, REALLY LEFT?
The PM seems set on ever-closer collaboration, even as the rest of the country ostensibly exits the EU fully. Our armed forces, it seems, will be left behind.
“This includes continuing to take part in those specific policies and programmes which are greatly to the UK and the EU’s joint advantage, such as ... those that promote our mutual security.”
“And as I set out in my speech at Lancaster House, in doing so, we would want to make an ongoing contribution to cover our fair share of the costs involved.”
CONCLUSION
In summary, the UK government has already signed up to common EU defence structures and EU defence funds since the Referendum, and it seems these will continue as will the spending.
In the Prime Minister's speech there was no clarification at all to the EU that the UK will have its own armed forces independent of EU structures and funding. In fact the opposite impression has been given.
In her Florence speech she actually proposed a new Treaty with the EU to include Defence, which will cement existing arrangements and funding for the UK's military to be more and more entwined in the EU. She then wants the Treaty to go even further.
We thought you should know.
We really hate asking but if you care about the independence of our armed forces and believe Breixt is the right path for the United Kingdom, please consider helping us with a donation now. We work on next to nothing and barely keep going. It only takes a credit card and a moment of your time. Thank you.
Subscribe With a monthly donation
From £1.20 / week
        Donate Make a one-off donation
from £10 upwards
As ever, you can comment here, using a pseudonym or your real name. Your comment will appear in the grey box at the bottom of this article.
[ Sources: No.10 | See sources for previous defence articles ]        08.35am, 24 Sept 2017
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
READERS' COMMENTS
JACOB SAYS (MOSTLY)
WHAT HE THINKS 
This is a 'must watch' for all who seek an honest and clean Brexit.
Whilst Mr Rees-Mogg is loyal to the government, he goes as far as he can in replying honestly to questions put to him by the BBC's Newsnight.
© BBC
As ever, you can comment here, using a pseudonym or your real name. Your comment will appear in the grey box below.
[ Sources: Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg / YouTube ]        11.15am, 23 Sept 2017
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
READERS' COMMENTS
HOW THE EU HEARD IT 
Here are the reactions from some of the key players in the EU,
after watching Mrs May's speech in Florence yesterday.
Michel Barnier: "Constructive Florence speech by PM May; must be translated into negotiating positions to make meaningful progress." Read full statement here.
EU Commission: "PM Theresa May expressed constructive spirit which is also the spirit of the EU during this unique negotiation." No statement, but 12 consecutive tweets, starting here.
Guy Verhofstadt: "Look at me, aren't I wonderful?" [Kidding] Long, boring Facebook statement.
We will bring you more reaction from the EU27 as we get time
As ever, you can comment here, using a pseudonym or your real name. Your comment will appear in the grey box below.
[ Sources: Barnier | EU Commission | Verhofstadt ]        08.15am, 23 Sept 2017
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
READERS' COMMENTS
IT’S REMAIN 
PM PROPOSES THAT
UK BREXITS IN NAME ONLY
The Prime Minister’s speech in Florence yesterday has provoked a variety of reactions and some contrasting analyses. Here we aim to give you a dispassionate assessment by showing you the key excerpts of what Mrs May actually said on each important area of Brexit.
Mrs May’s speech amounted to 5,333 words. Our key excerpts take this down to around a sixth of that. First though, we give you one of our famous bullet-pointed summaries, of just 187 words.
MRS MAY’S REMAIN SPEECH IN UNDER 200 WORDS
  • Lancaster House speech objectives still stand
  • N. Ireland - No hard border
  • Citizens’ rights - UK courts to ‘take account’ of EU law
  • Single Market & Customs Union – ‘we will no longer be members’
  • EEA or other existing models of relationship – no
  • Arbiter of agreement – new body, can’t be ECJ
  • New ‘Security Treaty’ – including ‘diplomacy, defence and security, and development (aid)’
  • UK is unconditionally committed to maintaining Europe’s security
  • UK will cease to be member of EU on 29th March 2019
  • There will be transition period, under existing structure of EU rules and regulations
  • UK can negotiate trade deals during that period (but not implement)
  • Access to one another’s markets should continue on current terms
  • Security (and defence) to continue on same basis
  • Transition period to be ‘time-limited’, but time limit not defined
  • Free movement to continue during transition period
  • ‘considerations point to an implementation period of around two years’
  • Money – UK will continue to pay until end 2020
  • No EU27 country will receive less or pay more as a result of Brexit
  • UK will continue to pay for science, education, culture, security & defence collaboration indefinitely
OBSERVATIONS
We have not altered our instant reaction to this speech, which we tweeted out yesterday:
“In what way, PM, will we know on 30 March 2017
that we have left the EU?”
Britain’s Prime Minister, while pretending to honour the settled and democratic decision of the British people, offered a dismal vision of a Remain future, with no end date set.
QUESTIONS FOR THE PRIME MINISTER
  • Sovereignty of UK Parliament in law-making? No.
  • Freedom of Movement? Continues.
  • Payment of huge annual sums? Continues.
  • Supremacy of European Court? Continues.
  • Control of territorial waters? No.
  • Removal of armed forces from EU common defence structures? No.
The Prime Minister even said that after the supposed exit date of 29 March 2019 the UK will still be under “the existing structure of EU rules and regulations”.
We cannot see any other way of describing this speech than as a sell-out: a surrender to all the nonsense from which we voted to escape. Even the wording of the speech was tilted to appeal to the EU apparatchiks, who use a lot of flowery language without ever troubling the listener with actual content.
We will comment much further on this speech because it is so vital to the interests of the country, however for now we will leave you with what we consider to be the key excerpts which you may wish to use when discussing it today.
BEFORE WE LEAVE YOU WITH THE PM'S WORDS, HOWEVER
We're very sorry to have to ask, but the speech yesterday makes it all the more imperative that we continue the fight. We rely 100% on small voluntary contributions, which means we barely make it from one week to the next. We really could use your help in working for a clean and true Brexit.
Subscribe With a monthly donation
From £1.20 / week
        Donate Make a one-off donation
from £10 upwards
A BIG THANK YOU TO THESE SUBSCRIBERS AND DONORS
VIP MEMBERS -   M J Donnan, Middx
GOLD MEMBERS -   Gordon & Sylvia Lerigo , Northampton  |  Pamela Barnes, Gloucestershire  |  Judith Slater, Essex  |  P Ingram, Monmouthshire  |  John Murphy, Scotland  |  D Price, Berkshire  |  C Latham, East Sussex  |  D Cooper, Berks  |  G Gardner, Cheshire  |  Anonymous, UK  |  J Holmes, Shropshire  |   C Mainds, London  |  P Abbott, E Sussex
MEMBERS - James Allen, Kent  |  Simon Jones, Wiltshire  |  Anonymous, UK  |  S Cooper, Surrey  |  N Brooker, London  |  M Wood, Ceredigion  |  R Parkin, England  |  Anonymous, UK
VALUED SUPPORTERS - Sharon Stanton, Pembrokeshire  |  Stephen Brady, London  |  E Rimmer, UK  |  A Bruce, Derbyshire  |  Hugh Gallagher, UK  |  Elizabeth Ford, Kent  |  Ashley Hawes, Bucks  |  BBW Davies, Dorset  |  Stuart C, Lancashire  |  P Bushell, West Midlands  |  D Joyce, Powys  |  William Crook, Lancaster  |  R Halton, Ceredigion  |  G Reakes, London  |  J Hatfield, South Ayrshire  |  F Carstairs, W Sussex  |  N Martinek, W Yorks  |  A Hammond, Lincs  |  Anonymous, Aberdeen  |  P Derbyshire, GB
As ever, you can comment here, using a pseudonym or your real name. Your comment will appear in the grey box at the bottom of this article.
FACTS4EU.ORG’S KEY EXCERPTS FROM MRS MAY’S REMAIN SPEECH
INTRO
“... in my speech at Lancaster House I said that the United Kingdom would seek to secure a new, deep and special partnership with the European Union.
And this should span both a new economic relationship and a new relationship on security.”
TAKING BACK CONTROL
“They want more direct control of decisions that affect their daily lives; and that means those decisions being made in Britain by people directly accountable to them.”
NEGOTIATING OBJECTIVES
“In my speech at Lancaster House earlier this year, I set out the UK’s negotiating objectives. Those still stand today.”
NORTHERN IRELAND
“... we and the EU have committed to protecting the Belfast Agreement and the Common Travel Area and, looking ahead, we have both stated explicitly that we will not accept any physical infrastructure at the border.”
CITIZENS’ RIGHTS
I want to incorporate our agreement fully into UK law and make sure the UK courts can refer directly to it.
Where there is uncertainty around underlying EU law, I want the UK courts to be able to take into account the judgments of the European Court of Justice with a view to ensuring consistent interpretation.
SINGLE MARKET
“We will no longer be members of its single market or its customs union. For we understand that the single market’s four freedoms are indivisible for our European friends.”
NO TO EXISTING MODELS SUCH AS EEA OR ‘CANADA+’
“European Economic Area membership would mean the UK having to adopt at home - automatically and in their entirety - new EU rules. Rules over which, in future, we will have little influence and no vote. Such a loss of democratic control could not work for the British people.”
“As for a Canadian style free trade agreement ... it would nevertheless represent such a restriction on our mutual market access that it would benefit neither of our economies. Not only that, it would start from the false premise that there is no pre-existing regulatory relationship between us. And precedent suggests that it could take years to negotiate.”
ARBITER OF EVENTUAL EU-UK AGREEMENT
“This could not mean the European Court of Justice – or indeed UK courts - being the arbiter of disputes about the implementation of the agreement between the UK and the EU however.”
“It wouldn’t be right for one party’s court to have jurisdiction over the other. But I am confident we can find an appropriate mechanism for resolving disputes.”
‘SECURITY RELATIONSHIP’
“So we are proposing a bold new strategic agreement that provides a comprehensive framework for future security, law enforcement and criminal justice co-operation: a treaty between the UK and the EU. This would complement the extensive and mature bi-lateral relationships that we already have with European friends to promote our common security.”
SUDDENLY THE DEFINITION BROADENED MASSIVELY
“The United Kingdom has outstanding capabilities. We have the biggest defence budget in Europe, and one of the largest development budgets in the world. We have a far-reaching diplomatic network, and world class security, intelligence and law enforcement services.”
“So what we are offering will be unprecedented in its breadth, taking in cooperation on diplomacy, defence and security, and development.”
“The United Kingdom is unconditionally committed to maintaining Europe’s security. And the UK will continue to offer aid and assistance to EU member states that are the victims of armed aggression, terrorism and natural or manmade disasters.”
‘IMPLEMENTATION’
“The United Kingdom will cease to be a member of the European Union on 29th March 2019. We will no longer sit at the European Council table or in the Council of Ministers, and we will no longer have Members of the European Parliament.”
“Our relations with countries outside the EU can be developed in new ways, including through our own trade negotiations, because we will no longer be an EU country, and we will no longer directly benefit from the EU’s future trade negotiations.”
“...neither the UK - nor the EU and its Members States - will be in a position to implement smoothly many of the detailed arrangements that will underpin this new relationship we seek.
Neither is the European Union legally able to conclude an agreement with the UK as an external partner while it is itself still part of the European Union. And such an agreement on the future partnership will require the appropriate legal ratification, which would take time.”
“...a period of implementation would be in our mutual interest.”
“So during the implementation period access to one another’s markets should continue on current terms and Britain also should continue to take part in existing security measures.”
“The framework for this strictly time-limited period, which can be agreed under Article 50, would be the existing structure of EU rules and regulations. How long the period is should be determined simply by how long it will take to prepare and implement the new processes and new systems that will underpin that future partnership.”
“So during the implementation period, people will continue to be able to come and live and work in the UK; but there will be a registration system – an essential preparation for the new regime.”
“As of today, these considerations point to an implementation period of around two years.”
“...there should be ... a guarantee that this implementation period will be time-limited, giving everyone the certainty that this will not go on for ever.”
MONEY
“Still I do not want our partners to fear that they will need to pay more or receive less over the remainder of the current budget plan as a result of our decision to leave. The UK will honour commitments we have made during the period of our membership.
And as we move forwards, we will also want to continue working together in ways that promote the long-term economic development of our continent.
This includes continuing to take part in those specific policies and programmes which are greatly to the UK and the EU’s joint advantage, such as those that promote science, education and culture – and those that promote our mutual security.
And as I set out in my speech at Lancaster House, in doing so, we would want to make an ongoing contribution to cover our fair share of the costs involved.”
[ Sources: BBC | RAI ]        07.30am, 23 Sept 2017
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
READERS' COMMENTS
IT'S A SELL-OUT
We have one question,
after listening to the Prime Minister's speech.
“In what way, PM, will we know on 30 March 2019 that we have left the EU?”
Read the PM's speech in full here.
We will comment again in more detail in due course
As ever, you can comment here, using a pseudonym or your real name. Your comment will appear in the grey box below.
READERS' COMMENTS
Name: Simon Jones, UK      Date/Time: 23 Sept 2017, 00.44am
Message: The Florence speech was a mirage. The idea of a partnership is illusionary. There is – deliberately – no structure to the current negotiations that would allow the development of a mutually beneficial arrangement and the EU are yet to even define what kind of relationship they want with the UK once the artificial priorities of money, NI border & citizen rights have been dealt with. So, the warm words and unconditional offers of bewildering variety and breadth – from, plugging the EU funding gap of 20 Bn. Euro and promising more; to allowing lawyers to have a field day with ECJ judgements in the future about individual rights; to, putting UK defence and security personnel at the disposal of an EU commiserate; and further and perhaps most worryingly, to seek to match the protectionist, undemocratic, centralising ethos of the EU in UK regulations and tax policy – are simply concessions that will be taken and forgotten. The transition deal (that doesn’t exist) to a trade & co-operation agreement (that doesn’t exist either) is now going to be argued over endlessly.
The EU and Remainer view will be that it is a de-facto acceptance of all EU rules and regulations until some unspecified point in the future – so, effectively ending the Brexit process. The Brexiteer view, which I’ve already heard from IDS, is that is simply wishes to match legal certainty between the UK and EU law between 2019-21; in this way it can be amended to allow the UK to start operating FTA with other countries and begin to put in place other controls regarding money, borders and laws; perhaps, even bring the transition period to an earlier end. The legal position might be that we have left the EU in March 2019 by option of Article 50 so the S/M and C/U rules can no longer apply. But this Brexit view seems naïve in extremis. There is no legal basis for a single financial payment but all the same one is going to be paid. There is no likelihood that the Remain forces in play will allow this view to take hold. It will be acceptance of exacting EU rules or naught until some illusionary scary cliff edge has been dealt with. Additionally, the Governments further suggestion of a deeper, more expansive trade deal than the Canada arrangement being the preferred option will allow the EU to seek a demand of a repackaged four freedoms, including FOM, regulatory convergence, ECJ oversight, oh and money, money, money to reflect just how special the deal is going to be.
Parliament will have to vote by the spring of 2019 to accept some future relationship and transition deal. This vote, if it locks the UK into all the obligations and costs of the EU with no voice until 2021 will be a calamitous failure of will and imagination and in direct contradiction with the referendum vote of 2016 – it will break the UKG. Equally, the EU will not accept that the UK may have a transition period where we continue to have tariff free access while we strike other trade deals and slowly implement immigration and financial controls and withdrawals. That would break the EU. So, it appears that this is a perfect blind; no Sovereign State can accept these conditions for trade and co-operation to continue – there can be no agreement, Canada plus or whatever; the UK must become a third country in name and spirit and make every effort for it to be a success. The EU must find its own way forward.
Name: John Finn, UK      Date/Time: 23 Sept 2017, 00.05am
Message: Dear Facts4eu I think you and your supporters are being naive. I've thought this since the GE. May went to the country seeking a mandate on Brexit - she didn't get it. The numbers simply don't add up for her or the Tories. After the GE. there was a lot of straw grabbing. Pro-Brexiters were claiming that 80% of voters had voted for pro-Brexit parties. This was garbage. Labour were anti-Tory first, second and third. Their position on Brexit was always going to be to oppose the Tories. May knew that support for a hard Brexit was weak. The choice is between the Tories' softly softly approach and the Corbyn/Cable/Sturgeon approach. Take your pick.
Name: Paul A, UK      Date/Time: 22 Sept 2017, 6.23pm
Message: You can't negotiate with someone who doesn't want to negotiate. The word 'transition' is now coming to mean 'continuation', continuation of EU dictats and all that goes with the useless parasitic commission et all. This is not what we voted for. For crying out loud what is it about Brexit that our politicians don't understand? A clear majority want to leave the EU and all it stands for with its anti-democratic bureaucracy. We want full control over our borders, our seas and our laws. The question put to the country was very simple; do we want to remain or leave - the answer was very clear. Leave. Now would be a good time, yesterday would have been better.
Name: Frustrated Brexiter, Essex      Date/Time: 22 Sept 2017, 5.16pm
Message: Money for nothing,that's how the song goes,and that's what the UK position will be in March 2019.We carry on paying into the corrupt EU whilst they keep us dangling on "transition deal".What's the incentive on the EU to get a trade deal with the UK,their biggest market carries on paying and accepting EU citizens,and ECJ court judgements with no voting rights.Sounds like utopia for Brussels bureacrats a free ride and plenty of money for free lunches.All because our weak spineless politicians and civil servants are afraid of life without the Brussels comfort blanket making their decisions for them.We as a nation are ill served by our political classes.
Name: Denis Cooper, Berks      Date/Time: 22 Sept 2017, 4.14pm
Message: We will know that we have left the EU when the EU treaties no longer apply to us. So the UK will no longer be listed as a party to the EU treaties and will no longer be included in the list in Article 52 TEU: "This Treaty shall apply to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria ... the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." However the question then would be the extent to which we were still being treated as though we had not left the EU.
SELL-OUT? 
PM TO OFFER TO PAY SO THAT
NO EU27 COUNTRY LOSES
“My constituents want an urgent care centre.
We are told there is not enough money for that.”
“If we’re then told we’re giving £20billion to subsidise Romania and Poland, I think my constituents would be furious about that.”
- Peter Bone, MP for Wellingborough, 21 Sep 2017
Today the Prime Minister will deliver a speech in Italy setting out an enhanced offer to the EU. According to the BBC this will include “continued access to the Single Market and some form of customs union which allowed the UK to strike its own trade deals during the transition period”.
Laura Kuenssberg, the BBC's political editor, has been told that “she will propose a two-year transitional deal, after March 2019, ahead of a permanent trade deal. It could include payments worth 20bn euros over the two years.”
Facts4EU.Org will bring you full analysis of the speech. In advance of this, you may want to watch out for the specific wording the Prime Minister uses. There is no doubt that the anti-Brexit BBC, Sky, ITN and many newspaper journalists will play down what Mrs May will be committing to today. It is our significant concern that she will indicate submission on many levels.
WHAT TO LISTEN OUT FOR
  • 'Transition / implementation period' - why PM believes it's needed, duration
  • Basics of future trade arrangement must be agreed before any transition period can start - will they be?
  • Customs Union: must be out. Apart from 'striking' trade deals with other countries, UK must be able to start them
  • There must be no continued jurisdiction in any way of EU laws or bodies during transition period
  • Conditions of Single Market such as free movement must not be allowed
  • PM won't specify payment figure today, but listen carefully to what she does say about money
OBSERVATIONS
Yesterday we listened, read, and watched, as (ostensibly) pro-Brexit MP after pro-Brexit MP fell into line. The Foreign Secretary, after his supposed clean Brexit stand in his weekend article, seems to have capitulated along with many others.
Yesterday one reader admonished us to 'wait and see' before criticising. He has a fair point. However we've run several pieces about this speech in advance precisely because we are deeply worried at what the PM will say. Once said, a PM's words can't be unsaid. We therefore lent our weight to the efforts to defeat the impact and influence of the pro-Remain parts of the Cabinet who have been continually pushing Mrs May towards a Brexit that is Remain in all but name.
We don't have to wait long to see if we were right.
As ever, you can comment here, using a pseudonym or your real name. Your comment will appear in the grey box below.
[ Sources: BBC and all serious media ]        03.15am, 22 Sept 2017
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
READERS' COMMENTS
Name: John Finn, UK      Date/Time: 22 Sept 2017, 11.31am
Message: Hard to know what to make of things. If the PM does make what appears to be a very fair offer and the EU reject it, public opinion might swing heavily behind the government position. To be honest - they need this to happen because I'm not convinced leavers are in the majority at the moment.
Name: Odyssey, Derbyshire      Date/Time: 22 Sept 2017, 09.57am
Message: In amongst all the mischief making of Hammond & Rudd, Boris' letter and all the speculation and spin following the Cabinet meeting, I notice that someone has been conspicuously absent/silent - one D Davis. I can't decide if this is a good or bad thing . . .
 HOW MRS MAY'S
ITALIAN HOSTS ARE DOING
ITALY’S ECONOMIC EXPERIENCE OF THE EU’S EUROZONE
Disastrous lack of growth, disastrous unemployment
Below we show you the relative economic performance of Italy – the third-largest economy in the Eurozone and the host country for Theresa May's speech – in comparison with the UK. A few months ago we looked at Italy because it was hosting the EU's 60th anniversary celebrations. The research produced some depressing statistics for such a wonderful country.
Economic Growth in last 10 years (2007-2016)
© Facts4EU.Org 2017
Non-Eurozone UK has outperformed Italy, growing 8 times faster than Italy in the last 10 years.
In practical terms, after several significant falls in the size of its economy, Italy has only just returned to where it was 10 years ago. Caught in the Euro, Italy has not had the opportunity for its currency to devalue and thereby rebuild its economy.
Italy's high levels of unemployment in last 10 years
     
           © Facts4EU.Org 2017
According to the EU’s official Eurostat data in March:
  • Italy’s unemployment rate is more than double that of the UK
  • Italy’s youth unemployment rate is more than 3 times that of the UK
  • At the end of 2016, 39% of its young people were unemployed
And according to the IPSOS Mori poll in March:
  • 66% of Italians think the EU is “off on the wrong track”
  • Only 25% think the EU has improved their standard of living in the last 60 years
  • Only 28% think the EU has made their country much or somewhat stronger in the last 60 years
  • Only 24% think the EU has had more successes than failures in the last 60 years
OBSERVATIONS
Italy is a wonderful country to visit and enjoy. Unfortunately its own citizens have not had a great time in the last 10 years, as the simple graphs above demonstrate.
It's little wonder that Italians have become increasingly anti-EU.
Facts4EU.Org research – Facts on which to base considered opinions
We rely 100% on small voluntary contributions, which means we barely make it from one week to the next. We really could use your help in working for a clean and true Brexit.
Subscribe With a monthly donation
From £1.20 / week
        Donate Make a one-off donation
from £10 upwards
A BIG THANK YOU TO THESE SUBSCRIBERS AND DONORS
VIP MEMBERS -   M J Donnan, Middx
GOLD MEMBERS -   Gordon & Sylvia Lerigo , Northampton  |  Pamela Barnes, Gloucestershire  |  Judith Slater, Essex  |  P Ingram, Monmouthshire  |  John Murphy, Scotland  |  D Price, Berkshire  |  C Latham, East Sussex  |  D Cooper, Berks  |  G Gardner, Cheshire  |  Anonymous, UK  |  J Holmes, Shropshire  |   C Mainds, London  |  P Abbott, E Sussex
MEMBERS - James Allen, Kent  |  Simon Jones, Wiltshire  |  Anonymous, UK  |  S Cooper, Surrey  |  N Brooker, London  |  M Wood, Ceredigion  |  R Parkin, England  |  Anonymous, UK
VALUED SUPPORTERS - Sharon Stanton, Pembrokeshire  |  Stephen Brady, London  |  E Rimmer, UK  |  A Bruce, Derbyshire  |  Hugh Gallagher, UK  |  Elizabeth Ford, Kent  |  Ashley Hawes, Bucks  |  BBW Davies, Dorset  |  Stuart C, Lancashire  |  P Bushell, West Midlands  |  D Joyce, Powys  |  William Crook, Lancaster  |  R Halton, Ceredigion  |  G Reakes, London  |  J Hatfield, South Ayrshire  |  F Carstairs, W Sussex  |  N Martinek, W Yorks  |  A Hammond, Lincs  |  Anonymous, Aberdeen  |  P Derbyshire, GB
As ever, you can comment here, using a pseudonym or your real name. Your comment will appear in the grey box below.
[ Sources: EU Eurostat data | IMF WEO database ]   As usual, journalists and politicians can contact us for the list of links to the research.        06.30am, 22 Sept 2017
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
READERS' COMMENTS
MONSIEUR BARNIER 
MAKES BREXIT DEAL IMPOSSIBLE - AGAIN
The EU Commission's Chief Negotiator & the EU Parliament's Chief 'Co-ordinator' each criticise UK, from Italy and from Ireland
Yesterday the two men responsible for Brexit from the EU's Commission and parliament attacked the UK over Brexit, in planned speeches.
1. MICHEL BARNIER, IN ROME:
  • 6 months have gone by since Theresa May's letter on 29 March 2017
  • 6 months will be necessary to allow for ratification before 29 March 2019
  • There is therefore only one year left
You can read Michel Barnier's speech in full, or read our highlights below.
 
ON CITIZENS' RIGHTS
In his speech yesterday, Mr Barnier was a significant distance away from what would be acceptable to the British negotiators that this requires an immediate decision at EU27 leader level. It is obvious from what he said yesterday and before, as well as the numerous statements from Mr Verhofstadt and other members of the EU parliament, that agreement can never be reached on this issue.
Apart from many other points of difference on this, the UK can never agree that a different law (EU law) would apply to millions of its residents but not to many millions more. That is what the EU are insisting on.
ON THE MONEY
Mr Barnier repeated the claims for a large financial settlement from the UK, despite the fact that there has still been no legal justification whatsoever for this.
ON IRELAND
“We are advancing, but there is still more political work to be done.”
This is a big tick from Mr Barnier.
ON A TRANSITION PERIOD
“If we are to extend for a limited period the acquis of the EU, with all its benefits, then logically 'this would require existing Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory, judiciary and enforcement instruments and structures to apply' – as recalled in the mandate I received from the European Council, under the authority of President Donald Tusk.”
In other words, EU laws will continue to apply, as will freedom of movement and everything else. Effectively the UK would remain in the EU during the transition period.
ON A FUTURE TRADE DEAL
“The future trade deal with the United Kingdom will be particular, as it will be less about building convergence, and more about controlling future divergence. This is key to establishing fair competition.”
In other words, 'in our trade deal with the UK we will stop them running an efficient and successful economy which is better than ours'.
“Any agreement must respect the regulatory autonomy of the EU, as well as the integrity of its legal order.”
In other words, the EU will try to impose their laws on the UK again.
ON SECURITY AND DEFENCE
“There should be an unconditional commitment to the security and stability of our continent, as the UK government's paper correctly stated recently. There can be no trade off here.”
In other words, 'We need your superior security services, and you have the biggest armed forces in the EU, so you have to throw all of these in as part of any deal. In this area we definitely need you more than you need us but we'll never admit that.'
2. GUY VERHOFSTADT, IN DUBLIN:
  • “The Irish position is the European position. The European position is the Irish position.”
  • “Borders, it seems to me, are best when they are just lines on maps.”
  • “I am Belgian so surrealism comes naturally to me.”
  © EU parliament
OBSERVATIONS
Unfortunately none of the Facts4EU.Org team were prepared to waste any more minutes of their lives analysing and commenting on Mr Verhofstadt's speech to the Irish parliament. You will therefore have to read it for yourself.
It was felt, however, that Mr Barnier's speech was worth reporting on. In broad terms what it showed once again is that there is no possibility of doing any sort of sensible deal with the EU hierarchy, as we have said many times before. Their perception of reality is just too far from anything you might recognise and too far from anything which could form the basis of any deal.
Extraordinarily, when speaking about the financial settlement that the EU are demanding, Mr Barnier called into question the integrity of the United Kingdom:
“But beyond money, this is a question of trust between the 27 and the United Kingdom,
based on the respect of one's signature.”
If nothing else, this shows just how desperate the man has become in recent months. To imply that the UK is a country not to be trusted is quite incredible from such an experienced politician. It is hardly likely to endear him to the British, nor to make anyone feel remotely Remainerish.
Interestingly, this also shows just how inappropriate it would be, should the Prime Minister offer money to the EU in her speech today. It would mean that just as the EU are panicking, she takes the pressure off. This sounds like a strategy that only the combined brilliance of the senior mandarins at the Treasury and FCO could cobble together.
As ever, you can comment here, using a pseudonym or your real name. Your comment will appear in the grey box below.
[ Sources: EU Commission | EU Parliament ]        05.15am, 22 Sept 2017
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
READERS' COMMENTS
QUESTION FOR YOU 
Should the UK's taxpayers borrow another £18bn
to give to the EU?
As ever readers can comment, using a pseudonym or real name. Comments will appear in the grey box below.
Facts4EU.Org team        07.50am, 21 Sept 2017
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
READERS' COMMENTS
Name: James Allen, UK      Date/Time: 21 Sept 2017, 08.46am
Message: The short answer: No, because we don't owe them anymore than what we legally owe them. The long answer: Like the short answer, but... As annoying, frustrating and robotic that Theresa May may be, and I do very much dislike her, I have concerns about the story of the £18-20 Billion figure, likewise that it is very similar to the Brexit Bill nonsense of £40-50-60-100bn. This £18-£20bn figure first came up in the Financial Times, a newspaper which has been remoaning since the referendum result, I'd rather be cautious about the legitimateness of the story. My caution is that the press are far more likely these days to produce fake 'sources' to produce fake news so that they can garner more clicks, which they can earn money on the side from the clicks. I would wait to hear from the Prime Minister herself on Friday when she reads her speech out in Florence, and then we can analyse her points afterwards.
Name: Frustrated Brexiter, Essex      Date/Time: 21 Sept 2017, 08.26am
Message: No more money, politicians throw billions of Pounds/Euros around like confetti, this is not out of a piggy bank, we are BORROWING it. At some point somebody, ie us taxpayers have to pay it back plus interest. The EU think they have the whip hand and want to punish the UK. We should be making contingency plans for no deal, and dropping out of the EU in March 2019. Let them play games, we are off. Sovereign Nation once more, there will be major problems but not the end of the world. Stop the hand wringing, and get planning for future freedom. We will survive, but will the EU?
THE LADY’S 
FOR TRANSITIONING
IS THERE SOMETHING TO TRANSITION INTO?
A Facts4EU.Org Guide to Change
At midnight on 29th March 2019, the UK’s membership of the EU will finally come to an end.
That’s it. That’s what the British public voted for. “Free at last, free at last. Thank God almighty we are free at last.”
The problem is that all serious mainstream journalists have been saying since yesterday that the Prime Minister will announce a transition period of at least two years and that the UK will pay for this with billions of pounds of UK taxpayer money. They say she will do this tomorrow in a speech in Florence Italy.
WHY TRANSITION AT ALL?
So why is anyone talking about a ‘transition period’? Specifically, why are the ardently pro-Remain members of the Cabinet advocating this? And why on earth pay for something which in any case would be for both sides?
Let's be clear: you only need a ‘transition’ or ‘implementation’ period if you are unable to get all your ducks in a row and make the changes needed by a deadline.
FIRST STEPS
The UK should first agree the basics of its future relationship with the EU. This should already have been done. It has already set out its proposals in the Lancaster House speech and the Article 50 letter. It has also had the benefit of three rounds of formal negotiations with the EU side.
The EU has been told that the UK will exit the EU fully, exactly as the people voted for, and will seek as deep and mutually-profitable future relationship as possible.
Now the EU27 need to agree that they wish trade between the EU and the UK to continue as before. That’s simple because it’s in their interests, as they sell far more to the UK than the UK sells to them. It's also simple because on exit all the UK's trade laws and regulations will mimic those of the EU.
There are then a series of other important matters which affect the interaction between the UK and the EU27 and which need to be agreed. Examples of these would be things like the basic principles of how each side will treat its others citizens post-Brexit, the fact that the UK will pull out of the integration of its armed forces within the EU’s Common Security and Defence, etc, etc.
DOES THERESA HAVE THE 'HOTS' FOR THE EU?
The important thing is that the basics of the deal are agreed at this point.
In negotiating parlance, this is called the HOTs, or ‘Heads of Terms’.
 
NEXT STEPS
It is certainly true that there are many aspects of national daily life which need to be looked at. As the details are negotiated between the UK and the EU27, it will gradually become clear if there’s sufficient time to put the mechanics of all aspects of the relationship in place before 30 March 2019, or if some parts of the implementation may take a little longer, in which case some temporary ‘cover note’ or ‘bridging arrangement’ might be required.
There are a great number of complicated areas of national life where the UK needs to extricate itself fully. Despite the claims of the Remain campaign and Cameron government last year, the EU managed to embed itself (some would say infect) large parts of our daily lives. So some temporary ‘tide us over’ fixes may be needed.
THE IMPLEMENTATION PHASE
Most informed commentators consider that implementation of what is agreed with the EU27 – on the EU’s side and on the UK’s side – may take longer than the time available before the deadline of 29th March 2019.
The key issue is that all the basics should have been agreed between the UK and the EU27 well before this. All that should remain is the putting in place of the mechanics to deliver on what was agreed.
OBSERVATIONS
So, a temporary ‘fix’ to tide things over might be required in many areas. However this is a long way from saying that we should tell the EU now that we envisage a transition period where we are still – to all intents and purposes - ‘in’ for several years. That would be a travesty and a complete betrayal of the result of the Referendum.
HOW LONG?
Make no mistake, the EU doesn’t do efficient. If you suggest in advance that a deadline might be missed, it will miss it. It will go on to miss every future deadline. If you suggest a transition period of two years, it will take three times that. We know of projects where deadlines have been extended five times or more, for over 10 years.
So, when it comes to any ‘implemention arrangements’, these must be strictly time-limited and we suggest a period of no more than 3-6 months. That should focus minds.
The talk by some Cabinet members of a transition period of two or more years equates quite simply to ‘Remain’.
Those who are advocating lengthy transition periods of 2+ years like the Chancellor Philip Hammond and the Home Secretary Amber Rudd are unreconstructed Remainers. For them, a transition period is the means of delaying Brexit for long enough that another referendum or change of government can eventually overturn the result of the EU Referendum.
IT SEEMS THE LADY’S FOR TRANSITIONING
Talk of a transition deal now is a nonsense. First we need to know if the EU actually wants to do a deal with the UK. By every notion of common sense and economic advantage for its citizens, the EU should grab the UK’s offer of a tariff-free trade deal with both hands.
If it’s not going to do that – and we have consistently said that it will not – then let’s know about it right now. That way both sides can plan for a different future.
Unfortunately it seems that No.10 is briefing that the PM will be talking tomorrow of a transition period of at least 2 years.
DEAR PRIME MINISTER
The idea, Prime Minister, that we should be planning now for a transition period of two or more years, and paying a large sum to the EU, and possibly compromising during this period on other issues such as freedom of movement and the jurisdiction of the EU...? That is a complete non-starter.
If you as much as hint at any of this to the EU during your Florence speech tomorrow, we fear you will not only lose the support of significant elements of your parliamentary party, you will also permanently lose voters for your party, and most worryingly of all you will risk a major level of civic discontent.
Now is the time to take a step back, recall the instructions of the voters, and not be swayed by the democratically unfit in your Cabinet who wish to thwart the democratic will of the people.
Brexit means Brexit, you told us. We look forward to the reinforcement of this message tomorrow in Italy and to a clean and proper Brexit being delivered on or before 29 March 2019.
As ever, readers can comment on the above piece here, using a pseudonym or your real name. The comments will appear in the grey box below.
[ Sources: All serious media | sources ]        06.55am, 21 Sept 2017
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
READERS' COMMENTS
Name: J Slater, UK      Date/Time: 21 Sept 2017, 10.51am
Message: Hear, Hear! Well said. Sneaky tactics by politicians to hoodwink the public won't work any more. We have wised up to their backhanded ways. The fact that Theresa May has a majority in her Cabinet, and a Head of the Civil Service, Mr Haywood, interfering beyond his remit in matters that shouldn't concern him, all advising her as Remoaners, is not only immoral but against the principles of a Democratic Nation. Furthermore, Mr Jeremy Haywood has failed in his duties of setting up contingency plans for Brexit. He should get on with what he is paid to do, or be removed. The fact that Mrs May has this majority of Remoaners to advise her speaks volumes. We, the public, are not fools. We will have what we voted for, with or without the (current) Prime Minister.
CRUNCH CABINET 
MINISTERS GATHER TOMORROW IN BID FOR BREXIT UNITY
The pressure on the Prime Minister is building. Yesterday it was announced that Mrs May has called a Cabinet meeting for tomorrow. This unscheduled meeting will cover the contents of the Prime Minister's speech on Brexit, which she is due to deliver on Friday.
Below you will find another article which is highly relevant to the PM's speech clarifying the way forward on Brexit.
It shows how positive and confident the UK government can be in its discussions with the EU. It also demonstrates very clearly that there should be absolutely no talk of a Brexit Divorce Bill, or of compromising on transition periods, or of free movement, or of jurisdiction of EU laws or any other nonsense.
[ Sources: HM Government ]        07.15am, 20 Sept 2017
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
THE EU'S SINGLE MARKET? 
TRY THE UK'S SINGLE MARKET!
MRS MAY, LET'S ALL BE POSITIVE BEFORE WE THINK ABOUT GIVING ANYTHING AWAY
Have you noticed how everyone keeps harping on about the EU's so-called Single Market? But no-one ever talks about the UK version which started centuries earlier?
Today we present to you the 'UK Single Market' (UKSM) of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Based on significant research and using official sources as always, we show you a different perspective on the Brexit negotiations prior to the Prime Minister's Brexit-defining speech in Florence in just two days' time.
WHAT IS 'THE UK SINGLE MARKET' (UKSM) ?
  • The UKSM comprises England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
  • It represents a population bigger than 15 EU member states combined
  • It has a common currency called the Pound
  • It has a combined economy of £1.9 trillion per year
  • On Brexit the UKSM will be almost 1/5th of the size of the EU27’s combined economy – a huge market
© Brexit Facts4EU.Org 2017
WHAT IS IT WORTH TO THE OTHER 27 EU COUNTRIES?
  • EU countries have sold £3.3 TRILLION of goods into the UK Single Market since 1998
  • In every year, the EU has sold more to the UKSM than the UKSM has sold to the EU
  • By the time of Brexit, the EU's net sales to the UKSM since 1998 will be over £1 trillion
  • Last year the EU countries sold the UKSM £240 billion of goods - in just one year
  • The UKSM is nearly twice the size of the next biggest country with whom the EU has a trade deal
  • It has grown at an average 5% per year over the last 19 years
CLIFF EDGE? WHOSE CLIFF EDGE?
There really isn't a cliff edge. If no deal is done, the UK and the EU will trade with each other under WTO rules, as the majority of the countries around the world do. If anyone were facing a cliff-edge we'd suggest that it's the EU27, as they face the prospect of losing tariff-free access to the UK's Single Market - worth £240 billion of goods sales to them last year.
© Brexit Facts4EU.Org 2017
MARKET ACCESS?
It is currently the case that the UK has offered the EU27 full access to the UK's Single Market after Brexit, without charge. This is despite the fact that the EU27 sell far more to the UK each year than the UK sells to the EU27.
Large countries around the world are now queueing up to do trade deals with the UK. If any of them were made the generous offer which the UK has made to the EU, of full access without tariffs, these other countries would bite the UK's arm off.
OBSERVATIONS
Prime Minister, with the greatest respect to your own civil servants, we'll hazard a guess that not one of them provides you with information like that above.
There you are, about to make one of the biggest speeches of your premiership, and we'll bet the Treasury and the No.10 civil servants and advisers have been feeding you non-stop doom and gloom.
You should employ us instead! (Or realistically, as well as.) When you're negotiating with the EU, or even just going over to see them, you need your head held high. You're head of Her Majesty's Government, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. You need some great facts and figures which you can toss casually into the conversation.
 
For example when you're at your next EU Summit here's an after-dinner tid-bit for someone like the EU Commission President, when he's boring you with some Brexit Divorce Bill twaddle:
“Really Jean-Claude? You know, the EU27 sold us over £3.5 trillion of goods in the last 20 years. Are you sure that they wish to put all that at risk?”
Prime Minister, after reading our research, you may wonder why we British constantly apologise for being British. Well, here at Facts4EU.Org we don't. We're not arrogant either, but we are realistic - we deal in facts. And the facts are on the UK's side.
In Florence on Friday you should go armed with stacks of our positive, uplifting facts. Let's forget all that defeatist nonsense about paying a Brexit Bill, or compromising on transition periods, or on free movement, or on jurisdiction of EU laws. Go boldly into that arena, and speak up for the greatest country on earth!
Dear readers, a lot of work went into sourcing, checking, and presenting the information above. It’s unique to this site as usual, and we hope you find it interesting. Please post it far and wide, with links to our work. To politicians, journalists, & think-tankers: we'll happily provide all source material for any piece - just contact us.
We rely 100% on small voluntary contributions, which means we barely make it from one week to the next. We really could use your help in working for a clean and true Brexit.
Subscribe With a monthly donation
From £1.20 / week
        Donate Make a one-off donation
from £10 upwards
As ever, you can comment on the above piece here, using a pseudonym or your real name. They will appear in the grey box below.
[ Sources: ONS | Eurostat | HM Government ]        05.35am, 20 Sept 2017
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
READERS' COMMENTS
Name: A Hawes, UK      Date/Time: 20 Sept 2017, 4.44pm
Message: The EU have only ever wanted our money! We owe them noting! If money is offered now we become a laughing stock. All the cards are on our table!
Name: Henry, East Anglia      Date/Time: 20 Sept 2017, 2.01pm
Message: The press are sayin g the government's offering £20bn or thereabouts. Is this true? If it is then May's off my christmas card list forever and the local party can go whistle next time they want money. What's WRONG with these people??
Name: Tankman Tom, E Sussex      Date/Time: 20 Sept 2017, 1.25pm
Message: Amber Rudd's my MP and I'm a lifelong Tory like Sophie. No chance Mrs Rudd will get my vote after all this unless she stops her anti-Brexiteering. The prime minister must not cave in on Friday or I won't forgive.
Name: Sophie M, Surrey      Date/Time: 20 Sept 2017, 1.03pm
Message: I've voted Conservative all my life. My parents and my entire extended family as well as the Pro-Brexit side of my husband's family are the same. We all have the same view about this speech and the rumours about it. Please tell the PM that if she goes soft (money and any other compromises) we won't support her and won't vote Conservative at the next General Election. My husband is even wondering what other actions to take without breaking the law of course. She needs to know that people know what they voted for. If the PM does the right thing we'll back her.
Name: W. Alkaway, UK      Date/Time: 20 Sept 2017, 11.44am
Message: If Theresa May's speech this week sabotages the Referendum Vote to leave the EU completely then she, single-handed, will have destroyed the Conservative Party for decades to come, perhaps for ever. She will always be remembered as a traitor to her Country. BUT, if Theresa May's speech holds firm the core principles of leaving, with no concessions made to the EU, she will be heralded as one of The Greatest Prime Ministers. Her glory will be everlasting and the Country will have full confidence in the Conservatives. It's as simple as that.
Name: P Barnes, UK      Date/Time: 20 Sept 2017, 08.51am
Message: Please ensure that you send all your material directly to Mrs May. I sent her an e-mail to her PM's inbox. You would be doing a service to everyone if you were to do the same.
 WHO IS WRITING THE PM’S
BREXIT-DEFINING
FLORENCE SPEECH?
The country, the Cabinet, or the Cabinet's Remain Cabal?
On Friday the Prime Minister’s speech in Florence will, we are given to understand, continue to define Brexit. It will build on the Lancaster House speech which Mrs May made in January, and the Article 50 Letter she sent to Donald Tusk in March.
All sources say that this speech will cover ‘Brexit Divorce Bill’ payments, albeit renamed and dressed up as something else. £30 billion has been mentioned many times. It’s said Theresa May will talk about a ‘transition period’ of 2, 3, 4, or even an unlimited number of years.
So, we have the right to know who is writing this, don’t you think?
All the smart money is on the content being heavily influenced by the Remain hardliners in the Cabinet: ‘Remainer Phil’ Hammond, Amber ‘Stop-Boris’ Rudd, and Damian ‘Run Silent Run Deep’ Green, with a dash of Sir Michael ‘EU Defence Force’ Fallon to shore up the flanks.
The person giving the speech is, of course, our Prime Minister, who also campaigned for Remain in the Referendum last year.
The Facts4EU.Org team can’t recall anyone in the mainstream media, or in the mainstream (i.e. funded) Brexit organisations, telling us about the Remain/Leave composition of Theresa May’s cabinet since June.
As usual, we did our own checking and the results are below:
© Brexit Facts4EU.Org 2017
Shockingly there are only six members of the full cabinet who campaigned for Leave last year. The rest all campaigned for Remain.
© Brexit Facts4EU.Org 2017
Even if we include those who attend Cabinet but who are not members of it, there are just 7 Leavers out of a total of 23. That's only 26%, which is half the Leave vote in the Referendum last year.
OBSERVATIONS
If the Cabinet represented the people’s will in the Referendum, it would look similar to the ‘cake’ on the right, with over half of those who roll up to No.10 each week representing the winning Leave side of the argument.
Mrs May actually chose to make her cake as shown on the left.
Not even close to being fair and representative.
Now, no-one is saying that the Cabinet should exactly reflect the results of the Referendum. But when it comes to serious times like these, when the Cabinet or an unofficial Remain Sub-committee thereof is deciding on the country’s future, do you really want to see the Cabinet so heavily biased away from the democratic will of the people?
We still have three days to go before the die is cast and Theresa May will start practising her speech and her responses to questions after it. We continue to do what we can to campaign for the Prime Minister to speak about the Brexit we voted for.
You could do three things to help:
  1. Contact your MP and ask him/her to tell the Prime Minister how strongly you feel about the delivery of a clean Brexit, not some 'Remain-in-Brexit's-clothing' sell-out, and
  2. Sign this new petition, and
  3. Give us a little financial support to keep fighting on your behalf
We rely 100% on small voluntary contributions, which means we barely make it from one week to the next. We really could use your help in working for a clean and true Brexit.
Subscribe With a monthly donation
From £1.20 / week
        Donate Make a one-off donation
from £10 upwards
A BIG THANK YOU TO THESE SUBSCRIBERS AND DONORS
VIP MEMBERS -   M J Donnan, Middx
GOLD MEMBERS -   Gordon & Sylvia Lerigo , Northampton  |  Pamela Barnes, Gloucestershire  |  Judith Slater, Essex  |  P Ingram, Monmouthshire  |  John Murphy, Scotland  |  D Price, Berkshire  |  C Latham, East Sussex  |  D Cooper, Berks  |  G Gardner, Cheshire  |  Anonymous, UK  |  J Holmes, Shropshire  |   C Mainds, London  |  P Abbott, E Sussex
MEMBERS - James Allen, Kent  |  Simon Jones, Wiltshire  |  Anonymous, UK  |  S Cooper, Surrey  |  N Brooker, London  |  M Wood, Ceredigion  |  R Parkin, England  |  Anonymous, UK
VALUED SUPPORTERS - Sharon Stanton, Pembrokeshire  |  Stephen Brady, London  |  E Rimmer, UK  |  A Bruce, Derbyshire  |  Hugh Gallagher, UK  |  Elizabeth Ford, Kent  |  Ashley Hawes, Bucks  |  BBW Davies, Dorset  |  Stuart C, Lancashire  |  P Bushell, West Midlands  |  D Joyce, Powys  |  William Crook, Lancaster  |  R Halton, Ceredigion  |  G Reakes, London  |  J Hatfield, South Ayrshire  |  F Carstairs, W Sussex  |  N Martinek, W Yorks  |  A Hammond, Lincs  |  Anonymous, Aberdeen  |  P Derbyshire, GB
As ever, you can comment on the above piece here, using a pseudonym or your real name. They will appear in the grey box below.
[ Sources: HM Government ]        06.55am, 19 Sept 2017
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
READERS' COMMENTS
Name: Frank D, UK      Date/Time: 19 Sept 2017, 8.19pm
Message: This is my first ever time writing to you. Every day I watch the news and get more horrified at what I hear. I agree with everything you wrote above and also the articles before about this. Please do whatever you can to raise awareness. Theresa May must not in any way give in to the remainers. If she does there will be big trouble.
Name: B Woods, UK      Date/Time: 19 Sept 2017, 4.54pm
Message: I hope the prime Minister's listening. There'll be big trouble if she listens to that Hammond and Rudd. No surrender.
 ‘REMAIN DIDN’T MISUSE STATISTICS’
- UK STATS AUTHORITY HEAD
© Parliament
Facts4EU.Org uncovers testimony of Sir David Norgrove
to Parliamentary Committee
Over the past two days we have reported on the overtly political action by the Chair of the UK Statistics Authority, Sir David Norgrove, in attempting to discredit Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson.
Sir David wrote a letter to Boris, which was instantly published and tweeted by Sir David’s publicly-funded organisation despite it being a Sunday. You can read it in one of our articles below or by clicking this link. Boris’ answer is available here.
REVEALED – THE PRO-REMAIN HEAD OF STATS
Sir David’s CV reads like a application letter to join the Remain party. Civil servant (at the Treasury), Chair of the Pensions Regulator, PensionsFirst, the Family Justice Board, and the Low Pay Commission.
He started his new job at the UK Statistics Authority on 1st April this year. In his previous job as head of the Low Pay Commission, his last act before the Referendum was to write to TUC boss Frances O’Grady to answer her question about whether EU immigration has affected pay in the UK.
In his letter to her of 23 June – the day of the vote – he replied in effect that it had not.
Earlier this year, Sir David faced questions from Parliament’s Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. Below we bring you footage of the moment he was asked about the EU Referendum and debate.
© Parliament
THE KEY EXTRACT:
Ex-MP Andrew Turner (Remainer): “If you were asked which was the worst misuse of statistics by those in favour of our remaining in the common market and those who wanted us to leave, what would you say?”
Sir David Norgrove: “The £350 million for the NHS was clearly an egregious misuse of statistics, and Andrew Dilnot made that clear in his letter. In terms of the Remain campaign, [long pause], it was not a misuse of statistics but the Treasury’s assessment of the immediate impact of a decision to leave I thought was an overstatement.”
THE KEY POINT
The fundamental point in this storm is that there was clearly a knee-jerk reaction from the Chair of the UKSA, who failed to do the most basic thing, which is to look carefully at the facts.
Boris was factually correct in what he wrote in his article. We agree with Boris when he described Sir David’s letter as a “wilful distortion” of the text of his article. If you read Boris’ letter to Sir David, he makes the point better than we could.
OBSERVATIONS
In the letter, Sir David misused Boris’ words and misused his taxpayer-paid position to make a political point against Brexit. The letter was a direct criticism of the Foreign Secretary and it gained more attention on the TV news than the actual points Boris was trying to make about Brexit.
He took one marginal reference to the figure of £350 million in an article of almost 4,200 words, misinterpreted it, and used it for an attack. We can see no other way of looking at this. We have no evidence of who or what prompted the attack, so we will not comment on that.
We feel sure that any fair-minded Remainers would agree that Sir David’s intervention was part of a ‘Get Boris’ attack by the Remain Establishment, and which diverted attention away from the important points Boris was making.
Mrs May is only three days away from delivering a defining Brexit speech in Florence.
What the Prime Minister says on Friday is vital to our country’s interests. The last thing we need is some public servant being used as a diversion, when we should all be focusing on the positive future for our country to be gained by making a clean Brexit from the EU at midnight on 29th March 2019.
As ever, you can comment on the above piece here, using a pseudonym or your real name. They will appear in the grey box below.
[ Sources: Hansard | Parliament TV ]        05.57am, 19 Sept 2017
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
READERS' COMMENTS
Name: Steve R, UK      Date/Time: 20 Sept 2017, 08.20am
Message: The Stats Authority had given some remarkably fair appraisals on migration so far, with coverage of the huge difference between port surveys and NI cards issued. Norgrove's appointment on April Fools Day this year must mean that May and the Remayners (74%) think the public are foolish enough not to notice. Expect biased statistics from now on. Let's hope some Conservatives attend the conference and ask questions.
 “SHHH! DON'T TELL THE VOTERS”
© BBC
LIB DEMS DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW
HOW BAD THE EU WILL BECOME
The Lib Dem's Brexit spokesman was asked: “Last week people heard Jean-Claude Juncker's federalist dream laid out in full. Why shouldn't people have anxieties about that sort of remote power?”
This is what he answered:
“Frankly Vince Cable and I have both said that the most helpful contribution that Mr Juncker could make to this issue of a European Union is to keep his mouth shut.”
- Tom Brake MP, BBC Daily Politics, 18 Sept 2017
Tom Brake is the Lib Dem's Brexit spokesman. He was being interviewed today, during his party's annual conference which is taking place in Bournemouth.
OBSERVATIONS
In other words, the Lib Anti-Dems know that the EU is going full steam ahead into a fully integrated superstate, but they wish Juncker hadn’t let the cat out of the bag.
As ever, you can comment on the above piece here, using a pseudonym or your real name. They will appear in the grey box below.
[ Sources: BBC ]        3.30pm, 18 Sept 2017
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
READERS' COMMENTS
 THE UNACCEPTABLE FACE
OF THE REMAIN ESTABLISHMENT
How they conspire to overturn
the democratic will of the people
The British Establishment has never accepted the outcome of the Referendum on 23rd June last year. At the weekend we saw yet another example of this, in all its negative and nauseating depths of darkness.
A British Cabinet Minister - the Foreign Secretary no less - had the splendid idea to publish a positive and uplifting visionary article about Brexit. He did so partly in response to being cut out of talks agreeing what the Prime Minister will announce on Friday in Florence, as he feared for what might be about to be announced.
Boris Johnson wasn’t the only one to be worried. Many of us have become increasingly anxious about talk of ‘transition deals’ lasting for years, during which the UK will be unable to implement new trade arrangements with other countries, unable to set our own tariffs, and unable to benefit from lower prices.
We have heard very serious talk of surrendering to the absurd demands for money with menaces from the EU. The sums being mentioned are in the order of £30bn – which means they will be closer to £50bn, as that’s how the EU always works.
There is also talk of all manner of compromises on other matters, including freedom of movement and partial jurisdiction of EU law. And there seems to be no rowing back at all from all the agreements the UK government signed up to before and after the Referendum regarding the submerging of our independent armed forces into the wider EU common defence forces.
LET’S BE CLEAR, PRIME MINISTER, 'LEAVE MEANS LEAVE'
  • We exit at midnight on 29 March 2019
  • We will cease to be members of the EU
  • We will cease to be members of the Single Market and the Customs Union
  • Free movement will end
  • Contributions to the EU’s annual budget will end
  • Contributions to all other EU funds, or quasi-EU funds, will end
  • The CJEU (ECJ) will no longer have any power over the UK
  • We will withdraw from all EU bodies and only participate in bespoke arrangements which suit the UK
  • We will withdraw from EU bodies aiming to control our military capabilities and decisions
  • We will take back control of our borders and of our seas
HOW THEY DEPLOYED THE ATTACK DOGS
Mrs May was noticeable by her absence from the furore at the weekend. It has to be said that this is par for the course, as she doesn’t ever seem to be comfortable or confident in visibly taking charge.
Instead the Prime Minister and the Establishment machine deployed the attack dog Rudd, the aggressive and widely-disliked Home Secretary. She did her best to ridicule Boris, in a BBC interview with the typically-weak Andrew Marr.
In fact, as Foreign Secretary, Boris has a legitimate interest in a vast number of matters strictly relating to what is being negotiated with the EU. And as one of the few legitmate voices of the majority of the British people inside Cabinet, he has more right than Ms Rudd to talk about Brexit.
Other faces and voices were also deployed to attack Boris. Mrs May’s deputy, Damian Green was also used, as were voices ‘off stage’. All the nefarious ‘sources close to the Prime Minister’, ‘senior sources in Whitehall’, etc, were deployed to rubbish the Foreign Secretary. The anti-Brexit BBC, Sky News, ITV News, and Remainer newspaper journalists lapped it up and dutifully regurgitated it for the public.
There was barely a pro-Boris voice to be heard. On the BBC’s Marr programme yesterday – supposed flagship of Sunday comment, there wasn’t one single voice defending the Foreign Secretary. Even the one pro-Brexit guest was anti-Boris.
THE MANIPULATING MANDARINS
Perhaps the worst example of how the Establishment (which is Remain virtually to the last man and woman) rose to destroy Boris at the weekend came from a Knight of the Realm who masquerades as some sort of independent arbiter of facts.
Now, we have a certain interest in facts, as you may have guessed from our name. Boris’ adversary at the weekend was the government’s High Priest of Statistics - Sir David Norgrove. This mandarin wasted no time laying into Boris by publishing an open letter on Sunday, after the Daily Telegraph hit the shelves on Saturday.
© UK Statistics Authority
Let’s be clear. Sir David is a civil servant. His intervention – its speed (at a weekend on a Sunday) and its content – was purely political. There simply is no other way to characterise it.
Sir David is wrong in his facts. This is, to say the least, somewhat unfortunate for a man in his position. Here is what Boris actually wrote about the £350m:-
“We would not expect to pay for access to their markets any more than they would expect to pay for access to ours.
“And yes – once we have settled our accounts, we will take back control of roughly £350 million per week. It would be a fine thing, as many of us have pointed out, if a lot of that money went on the NHS, provided we use that cash injection to modernise and make the most of new technology.”
Boris immediately wrote to Sir David, asking for a retraction. He didn’t get it. Look at what Sir David accuses Boris of, and what Boris actually wrote, and even the the most ardent Remainer can see how Sir David’s intervention can only have been politically motivated.
In talking about spending on “agriculture and scientific research” he even takes it on himself to assume what the spending priorities of the government might be. This is surely quite a stretch even for a Remainer civil servant, to think that his remit extends that far.
UPDATE
We have just obtained a copy of Boris' reply to the head of the UK Statistics Authority. Click here to read it.
OBSERVATIONS
We have published many articles about the £350m per week claim made by Vote Leave in the Referendum campaign. Here at Facts4EU.Org we did not use this claim, preferring to talk consistently about £10 billion per year. We will write separately again about the £350m per week figure, because whilst we don’t use it ourselves, the idiots at BBC Fact Check and other such organisations are certainly not correct with their figures.
REMAINERS, REMEMBER ALL THIS?
     
The above are only a few examples. We had to face a tide of this nonsense every week from the government-backed Remain campaign and just about every member of the Establishment.
REMAINER RUDD
One of the most ardent Remainers opf all last year was of course the now Home Secretary, Amber Rudd. She snarled her way though questions from the BBC’s useless Andrew Marr yesterday, at first denying she’d read Boris’ article but then answering question after question about it.
Her main message was that Boris is an idiot who can’t be trusted near the women or children and that “I don't want him managing the Brexit process”. Well guess what, Ms Rudd? You’re a ruddy Remainer, so in any contest Brexiteer Boris gets to lord it over you any day.
IT'S NOT JUST BORIS
This article is about far more than Boris. It’s more about a rising tide of feeling from the unspoken majority of the country that enough is enough.
We ask all the Remainers reading this – and yes, we know you do, even if you hide your Remainerism because you work for pro-Brexit news organisations – to take a step back. Imagine how you’d feel if you’d won last June, but then had to face the daily onslaught from the majority weight of the politicians, civil servants, media, institutes, celebs, you name it, all actively trying to overturn the democratic decision which you had supported.
The simple fact is that Brexiteers have been under constant – and in some cases vitriolic and even violent – attack by Remainers. We're ridiculed by the Establishment as they try to wear us down. We’re bombarded with it daily on our TV news programmes, and on social media.
Boris was right to raise what he did. It needed saying. In fact, far more than that needs saying.
Mrs May, if you thwart the will of the British people in your speech in Florence on Friday, you won’t just risk your own career, and the future of your political party, you will also put into jeopardy the democratic health of our nation. Feelings are running high.
You must remember what the country voted for, and implement it.
PETITION TO PARLIAMENT
A petition to Parliament has just been started, called “Leave the EU immediately”.
The petition says: “The Government should walk away from the Article 50 negotiations and leave the EU immediately with no deal. The EU looks set to offer us a punishment deal out of spite. Why wait another 18 months when we could leave right away and fully take back control of our country, lawmaking powers and borders?”
We rely 100% on small voluntary contributions, which means we barely make it from one week to the next. We really could use your help in working for a clean and true Brexit.
Subscribe With a monthly donation
From £1.20 / week
        Donate Make a one-off donation
from £10 upwards
As ever, you can comment on the above piece here, using a pseudonym or your real name. They will appear in the grey box below.
[ Sources: BBC | Daily Telegraph | most other UK media | senior politicians ]        07.15am, 18 Sept 2017
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
READERS' COMMENTS
Name: Denis Cooper, Berks      Date/Time: 18 Sept 2017, 12.07pm
Message: I'm getting close to thinking we've now been messed about enough by the EU and so I've signed the petition. I’ve also dropped a line to the UK Statistics Authority, suggesting that its Chairman should consider his position.
“A blatantly political intervention by Sir David Norgrove”
“Dear Sirs I have read Sir David’s recent letter to the Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson: https://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Letter-from-Sir-David-Norgrove-to-Foreign-Secretary.pdf in which he accuses the latter of confusing gross and net contributions to the EU. I would suggest that Sir David’s carelessly worded condemnation offers more scope for confusion than Mr Johnson’s carefully worded claim, and I also note that in his letter Sir David does not even acknowledge that £350 million a week is in fact roughly the correct figure for the UK’s gross contribution in 2014. That admission is relegated to an earlier letter from Sir Andrew Dilmot to Norman Lamb MP which is referenced in a footnote, but which as could easily be expected is being totally ignored by sensation-seeking journalists when they are reporting on the recent letter: https://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Letter-from-Sir-Andrew-Dilnot-to-Norman-Lamb-MP-210416.pdf “The £350 million figure that has been used by the Vote Leave campaign appears to relate to the UK’s gross contributions to the EU, before the application of the UK’s rebate. The UK’s gross contributions to the EU in 2014 were £19.1 billion, according to the latest official statistics available.” And that “£19.1 billion, according the latest official statistics available” at the time of that letter, April 21st 2016, works out as £367 million a week, slightly more than the claimed £350 million a week. This is an factually unfounded, deeply biased and blatantly political intervention by the Chairman of the UK Statistics Authority, who should be able to command respect as an impartial non-political authority, and in my view he should seriously consider his position. Yours etc"
Name: R Ellison, UK      Date/Time: 18 Sept 2017, 5.14pm
Message: If Theresa May offers any financial settlements to the EU bureaucrats, then she is a traitor to the United Kingdom. Worse than that, Prime Minister May will have proven that she accepted leadership of the Tory Party under a falsehood, by vowing to follow the Nation's Referendum wishes to Leave the EU. The British people are not going to allow any leader to let them down. If Theresa May hasn't the strength to do the job, then get out, move out of the way, and let those that can do the job of leaving, properly.
Remember Theresa's much-flaunted words 'Leave means Leave'. Oh yea? Then do it. Do not abuse your position of Prime Minister. This country is eager and watching your every move. Trade talks are stalling, because of the EU belligerence, so it is now time to walk away. David Davis has done all he can, and so we have fulfilled our obligations for discussions. No legal basis for any payments. We are not going to pay the EU a cent. And, Theresa May, if you want to avoid an embarrassing overthrow, then show you mean to leave the EU, without any payments.
Take it from the people, you'd be advised to sack that Remoaner Philip Hammond. In fact, sack all your Remoaner Cabinet Members and bring in as your advisers Boris Johnson, Reese Mogg and other Tory Brexiteers. Show us you mean business.
Name: Sibellius Fan, UK      Date/Time: 18 Sept 2017, 4.21pm
Message: Regarding the petition: I signed it in the hope that it might get enough signatures to apply a bit of pressure. But... does anyone on here know... are we legally able to "walk away immediately"?
Name: Steve R, UK      Date/Time: 18 Sept 2017, 09.26am
Message: Reading the history of the Home Secretary and her brother's (Roland the PR slick), it is very worrying that this person masquerades as a Conservative and has been chosen by the vacillating Prime Minister as Home Secretary, along with the other Remayner majority.
 “BRILLIANT BORIS BACKS BRITAIN”
- Jacob Rees-Mogg MP
© Twitter / Daily Telegraph
BORIS GETS THE REES-MOGG SEAL OF APPROVAL
WHILE REMAINER CABINET MEMBERS FUME
On Friday night British Foreign Secretary and cricket-lover Boris Johnson bowled a bit of a googly at his boss Theresa May.
Just under a week before the Prime Minister will deliver her ‘Renaissance Brexit’ speech in Florence Italy, Britain’s Foreign Secretary gave a 4,000 word article to the Daily Telegraph.
The article was very well-received by some, with flavour of the moment Jacob Rees-Mogg even resorting to Twitter (not his most natural habitat) to announce:
"Brilliant Boris Backs Britain"
In other quarters the Foreign Secretary's article was less well-received, but more of that in a moment.
His full article is available for you to read (not behind paywall), but here are the highlights:
  • No to a Brexit Bill – no payments to access their markets, none from them to access ours
  • No to staying in the Single Market and Customs Union
  • This would make a ‘complete mockery’ of the referendum
  • Therefore no to a 2-year transition period
We have published some selected quotations further down this piece.
Chancellor Philip Hammond is now reported to be very disappointed. Less diplomatically this means he is hopping mad. It’s reported that he had been telling people that the Cabinet mood was for compromise with the EU. In broad terms that meant remaining in the EU indefinitely. And Home Secretary Amber Rudd was distinctly cold on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show this morning. She claimed not to have read Boris' article but then gave a series of catty responses to questions, indicating that she had.
BORIS UNDER ATTACK
This morning the Remainer media are desperate to portray Boris as a self-interested politician who callously published his article moments after a terrorist bomb went off in London. Well let’s put the record a little straighter.
  1. Boris wanted to deliver this as a speech – as you can see when you read it - earlier in the week, but was reportedly banned from doing so by Downing St.
  2. Boris didn’t publish until the evening, after 9pm, long after the incident and when it was clear that the Parsons Green injuries were not life-threatening.
  3. The same journalists who now criticise Boris were delighted to talk about their outrage at Donald Trump’s reaction to the bomb, as it deflected attention away from the real questions about that incident.
  4. It also allowed them not to mention the ‘I’ word at all, despite it being obvious to a 9-year old that this was yet another act of Islamist terrorism.
The vitriol poured on Boris has been extraordinary. Here’s Ian Birrell, former Cameron speechwriter and columnist for what we refer to as the ‘Remainer-on-Sunday’: “This act of sabotage against fellow Ministers was jaw-dropping on so many levels – even for a politician for whom ambition is like a flesh-eating disease coursing through his body.”
HMM... LET’S STICK TO POLICY
Whatever people may think of the Foreign Secretary’s motives, we will focus principally on the policy aspects.
What is being said by government ministers that will advance the case of the UK exiting the EU as soon and as successfully as possible? What is being said about the nonsense of paying money under menaces, about transition periods designed to keep everything the same, and about compromises so weak-willed that they equate to abject surrender?
On these things, Boris spoke out. Googlies are delivered by right-arm leg spin bowlers, and Mr Johnson was certainly the man to put some excitement back into Brexit. This wasn’t an article, it was a rousing speech. It was stirring oratory.
Some selected quotations:-
“My friends, I must report that there are at least some people who are woefully underestimating this country. They think Brexit isn’t going to happen. There are some media observers – in this country and around the world – who think we are going to bottle it.
“There were lifelong Eurosceptics who decided at the last moment to remain; and a great many, in my view, whose heart said leave, but whose resolve was finally shaken by the warnings of the Government, the BBC, Barack Obama, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the CBI, every major political party and much of the media.
“The result was decisive. There is simply no way – or no good way – of being 52 per cent out and 48 per cent in.
“It is important to have a sense of perspective about these challenges, because the sky has not fallen in since June 23. We have not seen the prophesied 500,000 increase in unemployment and the Treasury has not so far sought to punish the British people with an emergency budget.
“On the contrary: unemployment is at record lows, and manufacturing is booming “in spite of Brexit”, as the BBC would put it. (Have you noticed that any good news is always “in spite of Brexit”?)
“We would not expect to pay for access to their markets any more than they would expect to pay for access to ours.
“But we do know one thing: that we will be able to get on and do free-trade deals, to campaign for free trade that has lifted billions out of poverty, which so badly needs a new champion.
“We will be able to intensify old friendships around the world, not least with fast-growing Commonwealth economies, and to build a truly Global Britain.
“We will be the largest military power in Europe, and with our growing defence budget we are now making an ever-more vivid commitment to the defence of Europe – like the new deployments in Estonia – and to our common European ideals and values... a strong EU, buttressed and supported by a strong UK, and linked by a deep and special partnership founded on the mutual benefits of free trade.
“...to remain in the single market and the customs union... would make a complete mockery of Brexit, and turn an opportunity into a national humiliation. It would be the worst of both worlds, with the UK turned into a vassal state – taking direction from the EU, but with no power to influence the EU’s decisions.
“It is a totally invertebrate position, and betrays a dismal lack of confidence in this country.
“You don’t have to be some tub-thumping nationalist to worry that a transnational sense of allegiance can weaken the ties between us; and you don’t have to be an out-and-out nationalist to feel an immense pride in this country and what it can do.
“Look at our universities – the best in the world, with just one Cambridge college responsible not just for more Nobel prizes than France but indeed for more than Russia and China combined.
“It is an astonishing fact that of all the kings, queens, presidents and prime ministers in the world, one in seven was educated in this country.
“All I say is that they are in grievous error – all those who write off this country, who think we don’t have it in us, who think that we lack the nerve and the confidence to tackle the task ahead.
“They have been proved wrong before and, believe me, they will be proved wrong again."
WHAT NO.10 TOLD LAURA
The BBC’s Political Editor, Laura Kuenssberg, wrote on Thursday:
In the coming days, I'm told Boris Johnson is likely to see the PM. She'll try to square him on her plans, with private suggestions that she has to persuade him to accept cash going to Brussels.
'I can't see him turning and agreeing that's palatable,' one source said.
The prevailing wind however in the cabinet, as the chancellor even said publicly this week, is for a transition period that looks rather similar to the status quo, and to retain some of those privileges -and burdens - would have to involve some payments.
In fact, there are whispers that UK officials are ready to put just such an offer on the table.
Photo right: BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg
 
If any of the above is true - and our own sources suggest it is - then any person who wants to see a clean Brexit delivered should not have been too surprised to see Boris bowl his googly yesterday.
We ourselves wrote during Friday night/early Saturday morning, before seeing Boris’ article, about the threat of the PM’s speech next Friday. (That article is below.)
Once spoken, things can’t be unspoken. If Theresa May goes to Florence and proposes the kind of super-soft Brexit – effectively Remain by another name – that has been talked about, then it will be impossible to put back in the bottle unless she is removed as Prime Minister.
OBSERVATIONS
We don’t say the following lightly, but if Mrs May were to offer...
  • A transitional period of 2 years or more after March 2019
  • Continued annual payments to the EU after March 2019
  • Staying ‘temporarily’ in the Single Market and Customs Union (possibly under a different name)
  • Inability to start new trade arrangements with other countries
  • Accepting continued jurisdiction of any kind from the ECJ or similar body
...then we would have no option but to call for her to go.
Would we be the only voice?
In all of this, we must not forget the role of ‘Remainer Phil’. We find his behaviour to be appalling and it thoroughly justifies our request to Mrs May back in 2016 not to put him in the Cabinet. Our own opinion is that ‘Remainer Phil’s idea of compromise is of sliding through a Brexit so soft you can’t even feel it touch the sides. We would be very happy for the Chancellor to go right now.
However there is still plenty of time for the Prime Minister to reconsider her own position. Now is the time for her to stiffen her sinews and be firm.
She could be remembered as the PM who delivered spectacularly on Brexit. Alternatively she might go down as the PM who surrendered and had to be replaced. It’s up to her. We will continue to lobby before Friday. Please support us if you can.
We want to make a serious effort campaigning with politicians right now, as we believe the next six weeks are a crucial period in the Brexit talks to determine our future. The problem is that we can't do it without your help. We rely 100% on small voluntary contributions, which means we barely make it from one week to the next. We really could use your help in working for a clean and true Brexit.
Subscribe With a monthly donation
From £1.20 / week
        Donate Make a one-off donation
from £10 upwards
As ever, you can comment on the above piece here, using a pseudonym or your real name. They will appear in the grey box below.
[ Sources: Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP Facebook | Daily Telegraph | Mail on Sunday | BBC | senior politicians ]        07.15am, 17 Sept 2017
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
READERS' COMMENTS
Name: Pamela B, UK      Date/Time: 17 Sept 2017, 4.35pm
Message: Hi. I've contributed but please start a campaign inviting people to get behind the Boris stance in order to send a clear message that there must be no softening of the British position. We voted leave and there should be no vacillating. A huge list of signatories should help show Mrs May where people stand.
Reply: Thanks Pamela. A petition to Parliament has just been started, called “Leave the EU immediately.
The petition says: “The Government should walk away from the Article 50 negotiations and leave the EU immediately with no deal. The EU looks set to offer us a punishment deal out of spite. Why wait another 18 months when we could leave right away and fully take back control of our country, lawmaking powers and borders?”
 LIBERAL ANTI-DEMOCRAT CONFERENCE
© Lib Dems
SIR VINCE TRIES TO SOUND REALISTIC ON THE EU
In an interview with the Mail on Sunday’s political editor Simon Walters published this morning, the Lib Anti-Dem party’s latest leader Sir Vince Cable excoriates EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker.
In the interview, Sir Vince calls Juncker “pompous, self-important and overpaid” and says he should be sacked for the vision of the EU which he spelt out last week. (Read about this vision in our sketch on Juncker’s ‘State of the Union’ speech below.)
Sir Vince went on: “Juncker embodies many of the EU’s failings. He is pompous, self-important and overpaid. It is people like him who give the European project a bad name. Juncker puts off a lot of people in Britain who would otherwise be well disposed to the EU.”
DON’T BE FOOLED
Whilst we welcome Sir Vince’s late conversion to the ‘Juncker’s a dangerous idiot’ lobby, we urge that no-one be fooled by Sir Vince’s remarks.
Knowing how badly the EU Commission President’s remarks went down in the UK last week, and how damaging they were to the Remoaner cause, the Lib Anti-Dem leader is merely trying to distance himself and the lovely EU from the horrible Juncker.
It’s said that last week when Sir Vince was meeting with senior EU diplomats, he told them: “If you want to help us keep Britain in the EU, the first thing you can do is ensure we hear a lot less from Mr Juncker.”
Make no mistake, Sir Vince and his lunatic fringe of a party are just as anti-democratic, unpatriotic, and EU-loving as ever. They think we’re all idiots for voting Leave, they won’t respect the result of the Referendum, and they don’t even have the guts to be honest about it.
As ever, you can comment on the above piece here, using a pseudonym or your real name. They will appear in the grey box below.
[ Sources: Mail on Sunday | Liberal Democrat Party ]        07.30am, 17 Sept 2017
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
READERS' COMMENTS
 £27 BILLION? NON GRAZIE
MRS MAY JOURNEYS TO FLORENCE NEXT WEEK
'Journey of the Magi', Gozzoli, Palazzo Medici-Riccardi, Florence
NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU GIVE THEM MRS MAY,
THE EU ELITES WILL ALWAYS HATE US
Rumours abound that the PM is about to offer the EU billions.
The Brexit talks have been delayed by a week. Monday's talks between David Davis and Michel Barnier will not resume until Mon 25th Sept.
Only a couple of weeks ago, Brexit Secretary David Davis was urging the EU to speed up the talks, not slow them down. Although no-one has officially said that they were put back because of Mrs May’s impending speech, this appears to be the only explanation.
 
At the end of next week Theresa May is off to Florence, in the beautiful region of Tuscany in Italy. We don't yet know who will be in the audience, and as for the contents of her speech, well...
HOW MUCH OF OUR MONEY WILL
BE OFFERED?
Photo right: Cosimo di Giovanni de' Medici, Florence, c.1465AD
 
WHAT’S THE PRIME MINISTER’S SPEECH ABOUT?
As usual there have been the usual, ridiculous briefings from ‘sources close to No.10’, with nothing actually attributable. Hints and rumours abound, and in the absence of facts it's fiction that is often used to fill newspaper columns and the endless hours of 24 hour TV news broadcasting.
This speculation has also spread to Brussels. A week ago Monsieur Barnier described Mrs May's upcoming speech as “very important” and Guy Verhofstadt, Brexit Coordinator for the EU Parliament, said it would be “an important intervention”. When these two men are looking forward to something, that usually means it’s not something Brexiteers would agree with.
SHE’S GOING TO OFFER THEM HOW MUCH?
The main theme being floated is that Theresa May is about to suggest some form of ongoing annual payment for continued access to the Single Market during a ‘transition phase’ of 2-3 years. The lowest sum being mooted is £9-10 billion per annum.
We’ll say that again. It's being widely touted that the PM will offer:
£9-10 billion per annum, for 3 years
A £27 billion pay-off, minimum
And that's just for starters. With 'extras' it will go much, much higher.
Already significantly higher figures have been put forward, perhaps in an attempt to ‘perception manage’ and make a lower figure like £27 billion sound more acceptable.
Mrs May will make her speech just two days before Germany goes to the polls which take place starting on Sunday 24th September.
The next critical date in the EU’s diary, as far as Brexit is concerned, is 20th October, when the EU Council next meets. At this time, the EU Commission will recommend - or not – to the EU27 national leaders that “sufficient progress” has been made on the three key priorities of the ‘single financial settlement’ (Brexit Bill), citizens’ rights, and the Northern Ireland border.
It is widely accepted that the last round of Brexit talks (Round 3) did not end well. We wrote four pieces during and following this, which you can read here:
In essence, in Round 3 the UK side delivered a ‘coup de grace’ on the Brexit Bill, showing the EU side that it had no basis whatsoever in fact or in law. Monsieur Barnier and his colleagues were left in a state of shock. The press conference on the final day was, to say the least, somewhat icy.
OBSERVATIONS
PRIME MINISTER, WILL YOU PLEASE RECONSIDER?
We have had conversations with very senior figures in Westminster who have told us off the record that despite the EU not having a leg to stand on regarding a Brexit Bill, parts of the Cabinet are minded to 'smooth the way' with the EU - and that the Prime Minister looks like going down this route.
This would involve a continued transfer of funds in return for a transition period of 2-3 years, and which would look very much like membership of the EU as far as trade is concerned. Unfortunately of course it would also look a lot like membership of the EU in many other areas too, because the EU would insist on that.
Whatever form of words are used, it doesn't matter. What is being talked about is effectively a 'pay to trade' arrangement, supposedly to involve a 'cliff-edge' scenario. Only yesterday we reported on Sir James Dyson, the UK's most successful inventor and entrepreneur, who thinks such cliff-edge stories are nonsense - a continuation of Project Fear. Several studies recently have backed him up. For what it's worth, we have always held that view.
Where is the bold and adventurous spirit which made this country great?
Not in No.10 Downing Street, if Mrs May capitulates to the doom-sayers, nay-sayers, and scaredy-cats of the Civil Service and the chattering classes.
Whatever Mrs May describes it as, if at this time she proposes a payment of any kind to the EU after 29 March 2019, she has sold out. And if she is about to sell us down the river on this, then prepare for a serious fight over things like our armed forces continuing to integrate into the 'EU army', jurisdiction of EU law, inability to do trade deals for years, allowing EU trawlers to continue to decimate our fish stocks, etc, etc.
Mrs May, it's not too late. You must pull back now from any idea of capitulating to the EU's demand for money with menaces. Even if you were to think of throwing them a small bone, this is far too early in the negotiating process to be doing that.
Dear Reader, we would like to know your thoughts - either for publication in the grey box below or to be kept confidential. Yesterday we were told by the EU correspondent of a national newspaper that he didn't think we had the mood of the people on this. Is he right? Are you happy to pay up huge sums to the EU?
Now is the time to make your views known, if we are to stand any chance of changing the Prime Minister's mind. As a very senior Westminster politician put it to us a few days ago:
“We need to overwhelm them on this issue of paying any kind of leaving present.”
We want to make a serious effort campaigning with politicians right now, as we believe the next six weeks are a crucial period in the Brexit talks to determine our future. The problem is that we can't do it without your help. We rely 100% on small voluntary contributions, which means we barely make it from one week to the next. We really could use your help in working for a clean and true Brexit.
Subscribe With a monthly donation
From £1.20 / week
        Donate Make a one-off donation
from £10 upwards
A BIG THANK YOU TO THESE SUBSCRIBERS AND DONORS
VIP MEMBERS -   M J Donnan, Middx
GOLD MEMBERS -   Gordon & Sylvia Lerigo , Northampton  |  Pamela Barnes, Gloucestershire  |  Judith Slater, Essex  |  P Ingram, Monmouthshire  |  John Murphy, Scotland  |  D Price, Berkshire  |  C Latham, East Sussex  |  D Cooper, Berks  |  G Gardner, Cheshire  |  Anonymous, UK  |  J Holmes, Shropshire  |   C Mainds, London  |  P Abbott, E Sussex
MEMBERS - James Allen, Kent  |  Simon Jones, Wiltshire  |  Anonymous, UK  |  S Cooper, Surrey  |  N Brooker, London  |  M Wood, Ceredigion  |  R Parkin, England  |  Anonymous, UK
VALUED SUPPORTERS - Sharon Stanton, Pembrokeshire  |  Stephen Brady, London  |  E Rimmer, UK  |  A Bruce, Derbyshire  |  Hugh Gallagher, UK  |  Elizabeth Ford, Kent  |  Ashley Hawes, Bucks  |  BBW Davies, Dorset  |  Stuart C, Lancashire  |  P Bushell, West Midlands  |  D Joyce, Powys  |  William Crook, Lancaster  |  R Halton, Ceredigion  |  G Reakes, London  |  J Hatfield, South Ayrshire  |  F Carstairs, W Sussex  |  N Martinek, W Yorks  |  A Hammond, Lincs  |  Anonymous, Aberdeen  |  P Derbyshire, GB
As ever, you can comment on the above piece here, using a pseudonym or your real name. They will appear below.
[ Sources: All media | Plus senior sources we can't name ]
    Journalists and politicians can contact us for the full list of links, as usual.
       06.55am, 16 Sept 2017
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
READERS' COMMENTS
Name: Odyssey, Derbyshire      Date/Time: 17 Sept 2017, 00.54am
Message: When even the pro EU upper house agrees there is no legal basis for any 'divorce' payment, there can be no question we should even consider one. I rather hope that TM is going to tell them they've just been wasting time and unless they start being reasonable we'll walk. Not holding my breath though...
Name: SibeliusFan, UK      Date/Time: 16 Sept 2017, 9.08pm
Message: The UK may be a "nett contributor" but as a nation we are heavily in debt and anything we give the EU would have to be borrowed. How would that be sensible?
Name: Paul A, UK      Date/Time: 16 Sept 2017, 8.48pm
Message: The question of the so called 'Divorce Bill' is non existent in legal terms. If it is not a legal requirement under the EU Treaties, (and it is not!) then any payment by our government would be ILLEGAL without a preliminary full debate and then approval by our parliament. In other words I suggest, any payment would in effect be a BRIBE, and that is naked corruption. That being the case then there is every basis for cutting off further "negotiations" with the EU, and then invoking the relevant clauses in the Vienna Convention on treaties which will not permit any party in such negotiations to do so in bad faith. We simply invoke VC and then walk away - which of course was logically inevitable given that the purpose of Article 50 and its terms is to act as a pretext for obfuscation, delay, and if possible to reverse any move by a member state to leave.
Name: Patrick F, Tunbridge Wells      Date/Time: 16 Sept 2017, 2.05pm
Message: Any payment to the EU for access to the Single Market would be a gross betrayal of the referendum vote.
Name: Paul A, UK      Date/Time: 16 Sept 2017, 11.54am
Message: This country has a policy of never paying blackmail money to criminals. Now is not the time to change that policy. They will never be satisfied and will come back for more - as is the way with extortionists.
Name: Sonita, UK (Via Twitter. Our Twitter name is @Facts4euOrg)      Date/Time: 16 Sept 2017, 08.19am
Message: If it had been the other way, EU would not pay us. We have a very weak leader incapable of putting our interests first. Not once have I heard our guys demand back money they owe us persistently/robustly. EU negotiators are more confident with fake claims.
Name: W Halton, UK      Date/Time: 16 Sept 2017, 08.09am
Message: Out means out. Listen to Sir James Dyson. Mrs May would be catastrophically wrong to attempt to buy our way out of this undemocratic club.
 BATTLE OF BRITAIN DAY
15 SEPTEMBER
We will remember
Below is a little reminder of what those brave lads were fighting for, and which we still appreciate today thanks to their sacrifice. Please show to any WWII veterans in your family, if you think they would enjoy a nostalgic moment.
Photo right: In memory of the father of one of the Facts4EU.Org Team, a WWII Spitfire pilot.
 
© YouTube
And here is a link to the RAF Benevolent Fund.
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
READERS' COMMENTS
Name: Steve R, UK      Date/Time: 16 Sept 2017, 10.55am
Message: With May and the Remainers performing, the song should be 'There'll be Shitehawks Over the White Cliffs of Dover'. What a pity Teresa doesn't have the same strength of purpose as Vera.
 WHILE THE CBI REMOANS,
DYSON DOES
© Dyson
The business of Brexit
Yesterday one of the UK’s most successful entrepreneurs and businessmen, Sir James Dyson OM CBE FRS FREng, gave some interviews. Here is what he said:
DYSON ON BREXIT
  • “Just have a clean break, it's not a big deal”
  • No transition period necessary, and in fact it’s not desirable
  • WTO terms will be fine
  • The EU is declining - “The rest of the world is growing at a far greater rate than Europe, so the opportunity is to export to the rest of the world”
  • The term ‘Single Market’ is nonsense – “It's a series of different markets with different languages, with different marketing required and different laws.... it's actually a very highly complex and broken up market”
Sir James Dyson, 14th September 2017
Dyson does, others just talk about it
Sir James has in the past spoken of his concern at the lack of enough young people studying engineering and technology at university. He feels there is too much focus on ‘soft’ subjects.
Sir James being Sir James, what happens? He builds a new engineering-focused university at his centre in Wiltshire. Students will work and be paid, but they will also complete an undergraduate degree in engineering.
“There is a huge shortage of engineers in Britain - it's estimated we'll be two million engineers short by 2022 - but more interestingly we're short of very good engineers. We want to develop the best tech in the world and make products that conquer the world.”
“It's blindingly obvious that we need to take on more engineers, and if people study here then they'll be learning from some of the best in the world.”
The Bottom Line - Dyson's last results
  • Annual sales of £2.5 billion, up 45% on the previous year
  • Profit (EBITDA) of £631m, a 41% rise on the previous year
OBSERVATIONS
We know that Sir James is working on AI and robotics. We can’t wait to see what he comes up with. In fact if you’re reading this Sir James, one or two of us here would love to get involved!
Finally, it's an unavoidable fact that every post-Brexit British home needs a Dyson. Why not take a look at their product range? And when you look at the prices please remember: they may not be cheap but they're superb quality and excellent value!
[No, we weren't paid for that - we're just happy to support British companies like Dyson.]
As ever, you can comment on the above piece here, using a pseudonym or your real name. They will appear below.
[ Sources: BBC | Sky News | Dyson ]
    Journalists and politicians can contact us for the full list of links, as usual.
       06.55am, 15 Sept 2017
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
READERS' COMMENTS
 THE REMOANING CBI
WRITES ANOTHER LETTER
This weekend you will see stories about a letter to the government which the CBI has organised, signed by so-called business ‘leaders’, urging the government to back-peddle furiously on Brexit.
It seems that the letter’s signatories may even include businesses in the EU27. According to the early reports we’ve seen, the letter says:
“Our businesses need to make decisions now about investment and employment that will affect economic growth and jobs in the future.
“Continuing uncertainty will adversely affect communities, employees, firms and our nations in the future. Businesses across the EU and UK are clear: being able to plan for a transition of up to three years that avoids a cliff edge is critical for all of our prosperity.
“Until transitional arrangements can be agreed and trade discussed the risk of ‘no deal’ remains real and has to be planned for, with inevitable consequences for jobs and growth on both sides.”
IDS VERSUS THE CBI
Former Cabinet Minister Iain Duncan Smith responded very firmly. He accused the CBI of trying to “bully the British government”.
“I begin to despair of the CBI. All they do is talk down British business. All you hear from them is a storm of negativity.
“Most businesses don’t look to the CBI, and aren’t scared of change and new markets and the opportunities of Brexit.”
He appealed to the CBI to “stop moaning and bellyaching and help their members get ready” for post-Brexit Britain.
 
THE CBI AND ITS LEADER
Prior to the Referendum, the CBI and its Director-General Carolyn Fairbairn were amongst the fiercest pro-EU, Remain organisations in the country.
Since the Referendum it hasn't given up, so we thought you'd like to know who runs it. Below is a snapshot of a piece we ran prior to the vote last year.
© Facts4EU.Org 2016
OBSERVATIONS
So the CBI wants a transition period so long (3 years) that we'll almost have forgotten that the country voted to leave. No great surprise there.
Ms Fairbairn has every right to be involved in the luxury French hotel business which she founded with her husband - and her place looks beautiful. We just thought that voters had the right to know who was lecturing them how to vote, and what these people's own particular circumstances might be.
Aside from her French business, you only have to look at where Ms Fairbairn has worked. Previously Partner at McKinsey, Director of the BBC, Lloyds Bank, Capita, UK Statistics Authority, Financial Services Authority.
Frankly we would far rather listen to Sir James Dyson, founder of a multi-billion pound company manufacturing and exporting around the world, than to a bureaucrat who part-owns a French chateau business.
No disrespect of course.
As ever, you can comment on the above piece here, using a pseudonym or your real name. They will appear below.
[ Sources: Too many to list ]
    Journalists and politicians can contact us for the full list of links, as usual.
       06.55am, 15 Sept 2017
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ONLINE
READERS' COMMENTS
© GoFundMe
WE ONLY NEED A TINY FRACTION OF WHAT THIS WOMAN RAISED
IN JUST 11 DAYS
APPEAL: Could you spare just £1.20 per week to keep us going?
Facts4EU’s articles and research are used and quoted by the national press.
Amongst our readership we number MPs, MEPs, and former Cabinet Ministers.
With your help we can make a difference – we can’t do it without you.
Subscribe With a monthly donation
From £1.20 / week
        Donate Make a one-off donation
from £10 upwards
A BIG THANK YOU TO THESE SUBSCRIBERS AND DONORS
VIP MEMBERS -   M J Donnan, Middx
GOLD MEMBERS -   Gordon & Sylvia Lerigo , Northampton  |  Pamela Barnes, Gloucestershire  |  Judith Slater, Essex  |  P Ingram, Monmouthshire  |  John Murphy, Scotland  |  D Price, Berkshire  |  C Latham, East Sussex  |  D Cooper, Berks  |  G Gardner, Cheshire  |  Anonymous, UK  |  J Holmes, Shropshire  |   C Mainds, London  |  P Abbott, E Sussex
MEMBERS - James Allen, Kent  |  Simon Jones, Wiltshire  |  Anonymous, UK  |  S Cooper, Surrey  |  N Brooker, London  |  M Wood, Ceredigion  |  R Parkin, England  |  Anonymous, UK
VALUED SUPPORTERS - Sharon Stanton, Pembrokeshire  |  Stephen Brady, London  |  E Rimmer, UK  |  A Bruce, Derbyshire  |  Hugh Gallagher, UK  |  Elizabeth Ford, Kent  |  Ashley Hawes, Bucks  |  BBW Davies, Dorset  |  Stuart C, Lancashire  |  P Bushell, West Midlands  |  D Joyce, Powys  |  William Crook, Lancaster  |  R Halton, Ceredigion  |  G Reakes, London  |  J Hatfield, South Ayrshire  |  F Carstairs, W Sussex  |  N Martinek, W Yorks  |  A Hammond, Lincs  |  Anonymous, Aberdeen  |  P Derbyshire, GB
To read our output from 01-15 Sept, simply click here.
We have also researched and published some excellent reports in previous months.
Please use the news archive menu at the top of the right-hand-column of this page to access those.
 


We rely on donations from the Public and from sympathetic benefactors.
Please read our 'Help Needed' page for details.



Facts4eu.org is non party-political and not supported by any Leave campaign.
We present facts we've researched from official government and EU sources.

Now that the Referendum has been won, we have 2 main aims:
1.  To provide bullet-pointed and factual summaries of key points, to help people to ensure Brexit is delivered in full.
2.  Crucially, to allow MPs and campaigners to give reliable and consistent facts to the public.
Please don't hesitate to contact the Editors if you can volunteer in some way, and particularly if you can support us financially.
NEUTRALITY:    Facts4eu.org focuses on information which shows that the UK is better off regaining its independence and growing globally. The entire weight of the Establishment is promoting the opposite case, so this site is just one small voice trying to redress the balance.

All material © Facts4eu.org 2017 except where owned by others.
Press and Leave campaigns please contact us for re-use of information.
TAKE CONTROL!
and support the fight for a CLEAN BREXIT
Become a Supporter from just £3 and be part of things
FOLLOW
@Facts4euOrg
ON TWITTER
You can really help us by retweeting. The more people who read our work, the better!
NOV'S HOT NEWS
News, latest facts,
rebuttals to latest
Remain claims...
URGENT
FUNDING REQUEST
Can you help to
keep us going?
We really need your support
WHERE IS SHE?
Real-time & online,
track the EU's largest new warship: HMS Queen Elizabeth
Articles by MPs
and Experts
  
MP or
Official Spokesperson?

Fast Facts
Firm Rebuttals
Journalist or Thinktanker?
Reliable Information
From Official Sources
>