REVEALED : Brexit Britain dodged a speeding, 3-year, €600bn EU budget bullet-train
Rachel Reeves’ “£22bn black hole” would have been dwarfed by £66bn paid by UK to EU
Montage © Facts4EU.Org 2024
We publish the figures and expose the spiralling errors found in the EU’s accounts by its auditors
With Rachel Reeves putting the finishing touches to her much-feared first budget in just two weeks time, today Facts4EU and CIBUK can reveal just how much worse her “black hole” would have been if the UK had remained in the European Union.
If the UK were still a member of the EU, (which Ms Reeves and the entire cabinet all campaigned vigorously for), it would have been the second-largest funder of the €569 billion budget for 2021-2023. The UK would have had to pay around £66bn (GBP), plus additional monies for ‘off-budget’ EU funds.
This dwarves Rachel Reeves’ “£22bn black hole” by a factor of three and would have meant she was having to face four times the funding gap.
A summary of rocketing errors, and debts, and outstanding payments, and liability exposures
Hot on the heels of Facts4EU.Org’s damning report last Wednesday about the EU’s multi-billion Africa fund, part-paid for by British taxpayers, comes the EU auditors’ critical annual report published the next day (10 Oct 2024) on the overall spend of the EU last year.
Yesterday we published the EU Commission's response to the auditors' critical report. Today we give the public the true picture, using the EU’s own ‘European Court of Auditors’ reports.
We have gone through the EU’s accounts for the last three years (2021-2023) since the UK left and read the verdicts of the EU’s auditors for each these years. The European Court of Auditors is the official body for signing off these accounts and its reports make for troubling reading.
© ECA 2024
Brexit Facts4EU.Org Summary 1 - Totals
Total numbers from EU’s accounts for 3 years since UK left, 2021-2023
[Sources: European Court of Auditors reports, 2021, 2022, and 2023.]
1. How much would the UK have had to pay in regular budget contributions to the EU?
- Total EU official budget : €568.7bn (approx £490bn GBP)
- Estimated UK contribution : £66.2bn (last 3 years)
This would have made Rachel Reeves’ UK budget funding gap
4 times what she says she is looking at.
© Brexit Facts4EU.Org 2024 - click to enlarge
2. What would have been the UK’s overall liabilities from membership in the last 3 years?
- Payments into official EU budget : £66.2bn
- Liability for EU’s post-Covid fund (RRF) budget : £16.5bn
- Liability for EU’s debt : £53.4bn
- Liability for EU’s budget exposure to future obligations : £34.7bn
- Total of UK's overall exposure to the EU, 2021-2023 : £170.7bn
Rachel Reeves’ budget dilemma if the UK had had to commit £66bn to the EU
From the overall summary above, it can be seen that the new Chancellor Rachel Reeves would have been facing accounts that were £66bn short of what she has in reality, thanks to the United Kingdom having left the European Union. If she, Sir Keir Starmer, and virtually all the MPs from Labour, the LibDems, the SNP, and the Greens had had their way, the UK would have remained a member and the UK would have had to pay approximately £66bn to the EU in the last three years – for regular budget contributions alone.
Not only that, but the country would be facing an extra overall liability to the EU of around £170bn. This comes on top of paying all the amounts agreed to be paid to the EU under Theresa May's 'Divorce Bill', and on top of continued payments into the EU’s ‘off-budget’ funds.
Reviewing our report, the most-respected former MP on such matters and former Secretary of State, the Rt Hon Sir John Redwood commented:
“Brilliant analysis by Fact4EU reveals the huge bills the UK would be paying the EU if we had stayed in. The Rachel Reeves black hole would be four times her estimate. UK taxes would have to rise in a frightening way. We would be lashed to a sinking ship.
“There would be more low and no income migrants to support, more EU debts to take on and more rules and regulations driving business to the US and Asia. The UK has dodged a hail of EU financial bullets. No wonder EU GDP per head has sunk to just half the level of the US whilst the EU is mired in industrial recession.”
- The Rt Hon Sir John Redwood, 14 Oct 2024
We get the messages out there but if you want us to keep doing work like this,
please support us with a small (or large!) gesture, or we will have to cut back dramatically.
Every few pounds helps to keep us fighting for Brexit,
and for independence, sovereignty, democracy and freedom.
Please help us today if you can – it takes just two minutes and your details are kept confidential.
Brexit Facts4EU.Org Summary 2 - Breakdown
Part of the breakdown of the last 3 years and some of the huge increases
[Sources: European Court of Auditors reports, 2021, 2022, and 2023.]
1. EU’s spending error rate has increased dramatically
- 2021 : 3.0%
- 2022 : 4.2%
- 2023 : 5.6%
In some parts of the EU’s budget the ECA says the error rate is around 10%. Over the past 3 years, the average rates quoted equate to a total of €24.4bn and UK’s contribution would have been £2.4bn GBP. We explain more about the implications of this in our 'Observations' below.
© Brexit Facts4EU.Org 2024 - click to enlarge
2. EU’s outstanding commitments
- 2021 : € 341.6bn
- 2022 : € 452.8bn
- 2023 : € 543.0bn
Percentage rise over 3 years : 59.0%
© Brexit Facts4EU.Org 2024 - click to enlarge
3. The EU's burgeoning debt burden
- 2021 : € 236.7bn
- 2022 : € 348.0bn
- 2023 : € 458.5bn
The EU’s debt has ballooned by an astonishing 93.7% in just the last three years since the UK left.
© Brexit Facts4EU.Org 2024 - click to enlarge
4. EU budget exposure to future obligations
- 2021 : € 204.9bn
- 2022 : € 248.3bn
- 2023 : € 298.0bn
This represents a troubling 45.4% increase in the EU’s budget exposure to future obligations.
© Brexit Facts4EU.Org 2024 - click to enlarge
Finally, what does the EU’s own Court of Auditors (ECA) have to say about all of this?
In short, the ECA are not happy. They audited the EU’s official budget as well as auditing the EU’s relatively new RRF (the post-Covid recovery fund) and here is their verdict.
- EU budget : “Adverse opinion”
- RRF budget : “Qualified opinion”
- "COVID recovery mechanism is affected by system weaknesses and irregular payments"
- "Growing debt places an increasing burden on EU finances"
- "The estimated level of error was material and pervasive"
What does all this mean? Are the EU’s finances as sound as the EU Commission claims?
The Commission’s overall view is that it has been given “a clean bill of health”, as it puts it. As we pointed out in our report yesterday, eagle-eyed readers will note this referred to the EU’s revenues – ‘money in’. This is broadly true, but the fact the EU is diligent in extracting money from member countries should come as no surprise to anyone.
What most people are interested in is what the EU Commission does with the hundreds of billions when it has them.
Observations
On the relevance to Rachel Reeves and her budget
The Chancellor was one of those who not only campaigned for Remain, she was also amongst that shamefully-large group of MPs who refused to accept the result of the EU referendum, following the greatest democratic vote in British history. On her own crowdfunding web page - still live - she writes "I have voted and campaigned for a People’s Vote on Brexit, and for the UK to remain in the EU."
Given this, it only seems fair to present to Ms Reeves just how much worse the country's finances would have looked if she had been successful in her desire to remain in the EU. No doubt she would contest our figures but we have all the evidence from the EU's Court of Auditors which we would happily provide to her. Contrast this with her claim that she inherited "a £22bn black hole" in the UK's accounts. Despite repeated demands from MPs and others, neither she nor HM Treasury have been able to provide any evidence of this whatsoever.
What Rejoiners need to answer
There are of course wider implications of our report above, for all those who continue to campaign to rejoin the EU. They should face up to the fact that 'their' EU's costs have been going through the roof. At the same time, the ECA's reports clearly show that the EU Commission has proved unable to manage the expenditure of all this money in any kind of controlled manner.
Rejoiners should also take into account that the UK's contributions would be significantly higher than they were in previous years due partly to the fact that the UK's economy has been outperforming those of the major countries of the EU. Net contributions are a function of the economic size of a member country and the UK's percentage of the overall EU budgets would now be higher than the previous average of 12.5%. Rejoiners also need to explain why the British people should take on the liability for the EU's spiralling debts and liabilities.
The poor opinions from the auditors
Most company directors would be deeply unhappy with reports like this, if received from their own auditors. “Adverse” is particularly bad when it's for the fourth year running.
When it comes to the RRF, it is living on enormous amounts of borrowed money in order to keep it away from having to be declared in the EU’s standard annual budget. Previously the EU was never allowed to borrow money but as with so many aspects of the EU it seems that rules are there to be broken. And to receive a “qualified opinion” on a fund that has only been in existence for three years and which relies on investor confidence around the world to buy bonds in it is hardly a ringing endorsement.
For the avoidance of doubt, the auditors did NOT give the EU's accounts "a clean bill of health"
as the Commission claims. Quite the contrary.
The Facts4EU.Org site and its activities such as conferences, TV & video interviews, forums, etc, are :-
- Advert-free : no annoying distractions or ‘pop-ups’
- Paywall-free : Reading our news and reports does not require you to sign up and pay
- Merchandising-free : We don’t try to sell you t-shirts or coffee mugs advertising us
- Sponsorship-free : No corporate sponsorship funds our reports – we’re independent
- We’re funded by donations from you – the public
The content :-
- Unique, original, well-researched reports
- No ‘re-hashing’ of articles you’ll read elsewhere
- Based on official data, statements and reports, analysed by us
- Transparent sources : Whether it’s the EU Commission, the ONS, or the IMF, we state where we obtained our data
- We rely solely on donations from you – the public - to keep us going
NOTICE : Facts4EU has now scaled back to publishing 5 days-a-week
For over eight years we have worked seven days-a-week. As far as we are aware we are the only organisation of our type to have done this. We are grateful to those of our readers who have made donations but sadly the level of our funding is now such that we must make it stretch for as long as we can. This means team members taking other paid work and reducing our output to five days-a-week.
Please, please help us to carry on our vital work in defence of independence, sovereignty, democracy and freedom by donating today. Thank you.
[ Sources: European Court of Auditors | The Rt Hon Rachel Reeves MP ] Politicians and journalists can contact us for details, as ever.
Brexit Facts4EU.Org, Tues 15 Oct 2024
Click here to go to our news headlines
Please scroll down to COMMENT on the above article.
And don't forget actually to post your message after you have previewed it!
Since before the EU Referendum, Brexit Facts4EU.Org
has been the most prolific researcher and publisher of Brexit facts in the world.
Supported by MPs, MEPs, & other groups, our work has impact.
We think facts matter. Please donate today, so that we can continue to ensure a clean Brexit is finally delivered.
Paypal Users Only - Choose amount first
Quick One-off
Monthly
Something to say about this? Scroll down for reader comments