Brexit Facts4EU.Org Summary

Facts4EU’s 'First 11' extra Brexit benefits

1. Had we ‘remained’ we would have had to raise more in taxes

Thankfully, we have no need to consider how to impose €10 billion per annum of new taxes between 2026 and 2030, to help the EU pay back the bonds it is issuing to enable grants of €390 billion out of its Coronavirus Recovery Fund, the grants being non-refundable.

2. Had we ‘remained’ we would have faced a huge contingent liability on the EU Covid Fund

We have no need to factor into our own national accounts a contingent liability as guarantor for the balance of €360 billion of the Coronavirus Recovery Fund, where the money raised by the EU through bonds is on-lent to a member state but where all member states are liable for the bond repayments of those who fail to meet their obligations.

3. Had we ‘remained’ we would have been paying even more to the EU

Thankfully, we have no need to consider the high risk of escalation of the UK cash contribution to the EU Budget as the UK's GDP rises more quickly than the EU average and the UK's historical share of the EU Budget of 12% therefore rises – at the same time as the EU's money demands would be increasing.

4. Had we ‘remained’ we would be faced with increased costs of new members

We have no need to consider the costs and other implications for the UK of EU enlargement by the addition of at least the current three candidate countries – Serbia, Albania and Montenegro - and possibly more in future. That will never be our problem.

5. Had we ‘remained’ we would have faced more liabilities for the EIB

We also have no need to consider the new risks being taken on by the European Investment Bank that might compel the UK to pay in more capital, for example the highly-leveraged European Guarantee Fund under which the EIB takes a first-loss position of €25 billion to enable other creditors to commit €174 billion, a ratio of 7-to-1 with, in consequence, a much higher risk of loss.

6. Had we ‘remained’ we would still be on the hook for Eurozone insolvencies

We have no need to be concerned about a direct cost to the UK, levied through the EU Budget, of the over-indebtedness of the Eurozone, in case one or more of the EU's financial mechanisms became insolvent: the EU itself, the European Central Bank, the European Investment Bank, the European Investment Fund or the European Stability Mechanism Being in the EU is not risk free and in the past (eg Greece, Ireland) funding has been called up.

7. Had we ‘remained’ we could still be liable for EU public sector insolvencies

There is now no chance of the UK being made to bail out one of the many shadow domains of EU public sector indebtedness, which are not captured by the statistics of Eurostat, such as securitisations of banks' Non-Performing Loans, bank capital deficits, publicly-owned private companies, companies owned by multiple public entities but each with a minority share, and schemes where debt service depends on a public sector entity but under a commercial contract rather than a loan agreement. You never hear rejoiniacs talk about these financial liabilities.

8. By choosing to ‘leave’ we have completely closed the door on ever joining the Euro

The risk of joining the Euro remains in the background (with people like Lord Adonis still campaigning for us to join). In a few years’ time the number of EU members outside the Euro will have reduced to 4 – and were the UK to seek to rejoin the EU, membership of the Euro would be a key demand of the Commission. Being outside we continue to benefit from having our own sovereign currency – which ensures we have autonomy over interest rate policy, debt policy, and money supply.

9. Had we ‘remained’ we would still be funding the EU AID budget

It is little known outside the development aid world but the UK spent an additional £3.5bn on supporting the EU’s separate Foreign Aid programme between 2014-2020. This amount was on top of the annual membership fee and accounted for 12% of the UK’s development aid spending. This commitment ended when we left the EU but would be an even larger annual liability were, somehow, the UK to seek to rejoin.

10. By choosing to ‘leave’ we have avoided the EU’s legal activism used to keep member states in check

We have distanced ourselves from an entity that seizes on obscure Treaty clauses as the need arises and has them interpreted by the EU Legal Service as enabling actions of the EU in new areas, where powers have not been specifically granted to the EU by member states for the eventuality in question, such as EU's attempts to find legal justification for blocking vaccine movements to the UK and for establishing the Coronavirus Recovery Fund. What you see is not what you get from the EU, there is always another risk, commitment or bill around the corner.

11. By choosing to ‘leave’ we are now able to change our procurement rules for naval shipbuilding

The UK government now has the ability to use the World Trade Organisation rules for naval procurement by dispensing with all the rules and case law of the EU which makes it harder for the UK to designate contracts as UK-only. This would give the government the choice to build all the RN fleet in the UK if it wished, including large support ships of Royal Fleet Auxiliary, the Coastguard fleet and the proposed UK national flagship. This freedom would boost the UK’s shipbuilding, save and create thousands of jobs and keep billions in our economy. It would ultimately help UK shipbuilding to be more cost effective and make more for markets around the world too. Canada took a similar decision to keep the shipbuilding of government vessels at home, and has revitalised its shipbuilding industry in the process.