based on UK and EU official sources

Brexit news
Facts4EU Brexit Index
Brexit Battle Pack
Fight for Brexit
Click to donate or buy commemorative items


Facts4EU testimonials
Facts4EU testimonials
| Your
| Help
| Contact
Quick Brexit facts from official sources
Read by Ministers, MPs, MEPs, peers, ambassadors, journalists, and the public
BREXIT NEWS   23-31 JULY 2018
If you’re a journalist please get in touch if you would like to re-use any of our material. All we ask is prior contact and full attribution with a link. Likewise if you’re from another pro-Brexit organisation.
Best regards, the Brexit Facts4EU.Org team, July 2018
OECD Headquarters, Paris                              © Velvet
The Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) was frequently quoted by David Cameron and the Remain campaign in the run-up to the EU Referendum. They were one of many ‘expert organisations’ used to instil fear into people who were considering voting Leave.
  • The EU considers its Single Market to be its finest achievement
  • Remainer MPs say it’s essential for UK jobs, so we mustn’t leave it
  • The OECD considers the Single Market “unfinished and stalled” after 25 years
On 12 June 2016, with 11 days to go before the EU Referendum, Brexit Facts4EU.Org broke a major story. Needless to say, this wasn’t picked up by the BBC.
Working through the day and night, members of our team produced a distillation of the OECD’s 86-page report on the economy of the EU, which had been published the previous day. Specifically we looked at the aspects relevant to the Referendum, and in particular the Single Market. In total we produced 6 short summary reports.
Here is part of the overview we published in 2016 of the OECD’s report on the Single Market :-
  • EU Single Market remains “unfinished and stalled” after 25 years
  • Goods market “far from fully integrated”, services market far worse
  • “Unjustified and disproportionate requirements” for services (80% of UK economy)
  • Services growth in last 3 years only 0.1% of EU GDP
  • Single Market suffers from high level of regulation
  • EU’s promises to reduce excessive regulations “remain to be implemented”
  • Single Market isn’t ‘single’ at all – big variations by country
  • Poverty increasing across EU, but falling in the UK
“The Single Market remains incomplete, holding back the EU’s economic performance.”
“services, energy, transport, finance and digital markets are far from integrated.”
“Labour mobility is also relatively low: only 3.9% of EU citizens in working age lived in 2016 in another member state.”
“When the Commission took office in 2014, it vowed to accelerate integration in energy, digital services and capital markets, but progress has been slow, despite significant potential benefits.”
“The reform momentum in EU countries has declined over time, especially in countries most affected by the crises. The implementation record of the European Semester country-specific recommendations is also weak, and keeps deteriorating.”
“Services experience significant administrative and regulatory barriers when going cross-border.”
“Service sectors are particularly fragmented. Cross-border services make up only 5% of EU GDP, despite accounting for 70% of EU GDP. This weighs on productivity. The EU productivity gap, increasing since the 1990s, is particularly wide in service sectors.”
“Businesses still experience many administrative and regulatory barriers when providing services in another member state, including high shareholder requirements, requirement for professionals to hold 100% of the voting rights in some countries or compulsory minimum tariffs for some professions.”
“Administrative complexity and costs are also high, including lack of information about applicable rules, differences in rules and requirements among countries, complexity of procedures and formalities, lack of electronic procedures, unclear deadlines and multiple fees. These policy obstacles fall disproportionally on smaller firms.”
“Retailers face persisting barriers to market entry including burdensome and complex authorisation processes, restrictive requirements linked to the size and location of shops, as well as operational restrictions, including shop opening hours or rules on promotions and discounts. As a result, evidence by the Commission shows that, as a result, consumer prices are high, and product innovation and labour productivity growth are low.”
“The European energy market is still too fragmented; high market concentration and weak competition remain an issue, infrastructure is outdated in some areas, investment is insufficient and final energy prices are high for citizens and businesses.”
“The EU is still lagging behind in the uptake and use of digital technologies and this is holding down Europe’s growth potential.”
“Migration between EU countries stood at 3.9% of the EU working age population… Migration flows directed towards the UK and Germany increased, as a result of significant outflows from many Eastern European countries.”
Two years on, and the news for the EU and for Remainer MPs about their flagship Single Market hasn’t got any better.
We have deliberately given readers a long selection of extracts from the latest OECD report, to demonstrate how damning the OECD’s view of the Single Market continues to be. In effect the 2018 report gives the Single Market the same verdict it gave in 2016: It’s “unfinished and stalled”.
In fact the only good news for us was that the 86 pages of the 2016 version of the report had been reduced to 58 pages for the 2018 version. Unfortunately this is mainly due to the fact they’ve reduced the size of the graphs and packed everything in very tightly.
There is one other noticeable change. The language of the report in 2018 tries to be less critical of the EU and its Single Market than it was in 2016, despite coming to broadly the same conclusions based on the latest data.
We suspect this is ‘the Brexit effect’ that we’ve observed in many publications from ‘expert’ organisations since the UK shocked the world by voting to leave the EU.
With the EU’s crises growing and discontent across the EU resulting in eurosceptic governments, it appears that organisations like the OECD, IMF, etc have tried to tone down their criticisms of the EU.
It’s important to recognise that the same type of people work for institutions like the EU, the OECD, the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, etc. In fact it’s common for them to switch jobs and work for several of these bodies in the course of their careers.
To all those Remainer MPs who repeat the mantra that ‘the Single Market is essential for jobs and the economy’, we ask you to look at facts.
You may not like the facts we produce, despite them coming from official sources and most coming from the EU itself. In the case above we’ve given you the verdict of an independent body – one that you were happy to rely on during the Referendum campaign.
In April 2016 the OECD published a report entitled “The Economic Costs of Brexit” which was seized upon with glee by all Remainers. Their Secretary-General also appeared on the BBC.
2 examples of Stronger In campaign using the OECD          © Stronger In
If you accepted their reports then - when they said what you wanted them to say - you must accept their verdict on the Single Market today:
- OECD 2018 Report
[ Sources: OECD ]
     Journalists and politicians can contact us for the full list of links, as usual.
       05.30am, 31 July 2018
Please send us your comments and we will publish them here. You can of course use a pseudonym if you prefer, and it's always nice to know roughly where you're writing from. Please always state the headline of the article you're commenting on.
Name: Patrick F, Kent, UK      Date/Time: 31 July 2018, 07.21am
Message: The EU's Competition Commissioner is Margaret Vestager.
I thought the EU didn't believe in competition.

One-off or monthly donations. Quick, easy, and very safe.
Donate Donate Subscribe
Any amount
From £2
Be a supporter.
One off donation
from £25 for 1 year
Be a supporter.
Monthly donation
from £3 per month
Choose amount FIRST:
THEN click button:
Lake Garda, Italy, where the PM is holidaying
We would like to wish Theresa and Philip May a relaxing time on their summer holiday in the very beautiful lakes region of northern Italy.
After all, it's not as if there are only 243 days (8 months) until the most important event in British history for the last 45 years. And no solution in sight.
Northern Italy is the stronghold of Matteo Salvini’s eurosceptic ruling Lega Party, so we suppose it's always possible that they might learn a thing or two from the locals.
Here at Brexit Facts4EU.Org we will continue without a break as we have done for the last three summers, bringing essential facts and analysis to shine a bright Brexit light on the UK’s exit from the European Union. We may just have to reduce our output, though.
Several of the team simply can’t afford to take a holiday anyway, owing to the large reduction in their earnings as a result of giving up their time to this website for so long.
We are currently working on a “Brexit Battle Pack” which we will bring you as soon as it’s ready. The intention is to give readers – and all pro-Brexit people in the UK – a variety of means to fight back against the relentless attempts by Remainers to thwart the democratic will of the British people, as expressed in the EU Referendum.
If you read us regularly but haven’t yet made a donation, this would be a great time. The more resources we have, the more we can produce, and the faster we can produce it!
If you’re about to go on holiday, we wish you a wonderful time. Relax and have fun, and come back full of energy to take on the fight when you return!!
Best wishes, the Brexit Facts4EU.Org team        08.45am, 30 July 2018
Please send us your comments and we will publish them here. You can of course use a pseudonym if you prefer, and it's always nice to know roughly where you're writing from. Please always state the headline of the article you're commenting on.
Name: Chris, Devizes, UK      Date/Time: 31 July 2018, 3.12pm
Message: Does anyone else think there is a concerted effort lately by the Remoaners to step up Project Fear to absurd levels? There are endless reports in the pro-Remain media (including Al Beeb, of course) about food shortages, massive road queues, etc. The latest one is from some nutcase about sandwich shortages! I'm sure these reports are all being coordinated by Hammond, with the approval of May, to try and resurrect the rotting corpse of the Chequers 'agreement'.
Name: Brexiteer, Braintree, Essex, UK      Date/Time: 30 July 2018, 11.15am
Message: It is getting to the stage now when the UK should go on the offensive. As an independent nation we can set our tax rates at what ever we want, inform the EU as from 30th March 2019 our corporation tax rate will be 10%. We are going on WTO rules, get trade talks going with Australia, New Zealand, forge a new relationship with other countries of the Commonwealth in pursuit of trade. The French are very vulnerable economically. They have lost £4 billion in trade with the UK since the referendum. At the moment they supply wines and cheeses, cars, and fresh produce into the UK market. All these products are available from other sources, the same with Ireland if the UK starts playing hard ball. Their economy will take a massive hit.
Most of their exports are through the UK road system to the continent. It takes 10 hours to export goods through the UK to Europe, as opposed to 26 hours by direct ferry from Ireland to France. As for farmers in NI exporting their milk through into the republic to be made into butter, cheese, yoghurt etc it would be a small investment to assist milk processing facilities in NI. All things are possible if you have the will and drive to achieve them. Being bullied and pushed around by unelected Eurocrats is not one of them. Countries around the globe are queueing up for deals with the UK, just go for it and stop trying to scare the UK electorate> We are not buying it.
Name: Jax, Lanc, UK      Date/Time: 30 July 2018, 10.42am
Message: Please keep up the good work. People like me really, really need the 'action pack'. We need to know what we can do.
Reply: Thank you very much for your donation, Jax.
Name: Steve, Yorkshire, UK      Date/Time: 30 July 2018, 10.39am
Message: I wonder if you might want to include the following question that can be asked to remainers - 'As a large part of Europe is moving right wing, how will you remove right wing leaders of the EU once they are appointed by their respective governments?' This is a question I do not see asked on tv etc, but it is an important one that illustrates the lack of democracy within the EU.
Name: W. Alkaway, Essex, UK      Date/Time: 30 July 2018, 10.19am
Message: I too am not having a holiday. But the money I've given instead to Facts4EU is, I consider, money really well spent. I have no hesitation in saying it is, most crucially, an investment for our future and children's children's future. Surely, we can all give up something and send much needed cash to such a well deserved cause - getting back our Democracy. Kicking out traitors from the midst of Parliament and even have an eventual 'purge' of the top Remainer Civil Servants. I for one will take pleasure this Summer in my garden, with friends, and sharpening my pitch fork!!
Reply: Thank you very much for your financial support!

One-off or monthly donations. Quick, easy, and very safe.
Donate Donate Subscribe
Any amount
From £2
Be a supporter.
One off donation
from £25 for 1 year
Be a supporter.
Monthly donation
from £3 per month
Choose amount FIRST:
THEN click button:
Matteo Salvini, Deputy PM, Italy     © Salvini Twitter
In yesterday’s Sunday Times, Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini, said that Theresa May should “impose herself” and take a tougher stance in the Brexit negotiations.
“My experience in the European parliament tells me you either impose yourself or they swindle you.”
- Matteo Salvini, Italian Deputy PM and Home Secretary, 29 Jul 2018
He went on to suggest that the British Prime Minister should be prepared to walk away if she doesn't get a good deal:
“Because on some principles there is no need to be flexible and you should not go backwards.”
On the question of punishment, he believes the EU is trying to punish Britain for leaving, and said there had been “no good faith or objectivity” shown from Brussels.
Michel Barnier, Chief Brexit Negotiator for the EU, is fond of repeating that the EU has no desire for revenge or punishment when it comes to the UK’s exit from membership of the European Union.
Here are just three of his statements about this:
“I’ll say it clearly: there’s no spirit of revenge, no punishment, no naivete either. And there is truth. Truth on what Brexit means, what leaving the EU signifies by its consequences.”
Interview with group of European newspapers, 12 Jun 2017
“There are two words which I cannot accept because they are not at all part of my state of mind or attitude. They are: revenge and punishment.”
Address to EU Parliament, 03 Oct 2017
“You won’t find a single word about revenge or undue hardship in my statements or in those of the French President and other heads of states.”
Interview with Prospect Magazine, 17 Dec 2017
In the same interview he went on to say:
“They have to realise there won’t be any cherry picking. We won’t mix up the various scenarios to create a specific one and accommodate their wishes, mixing, for instance, the advantages of the Norwegian model, member of the single market, with the simple requirements of the Canadian one. No way. They have to face the consequences of their own decision.”
Despite all their protestations to the contrary, the EU wishes to revenge itself on the UK and to punish it. This is clear in three ways:
  1. Unguarded statements by key players in the EU show their animosity
  2. The deliberate refusal not to discuss Brexit in full until three spurious demands were met
  3. The refusal to make any concessions
“We intend to teach people... what leaving the single market means”
Chief EU Negotiator Michel Barnier, 2 Sept 2017
“There needs to be a threat, there must be a risk, there must be a price.”
Former French President Francois Hollande, 15 Sept 2016
“This is not an amicable divorce.”
EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, 24 June 2016
(The day of the Referendum result.)
Summary by Brexit Facts4EU.Org, 2018
The above are just three examples of the aggressive and bullying attitude of the EU since the UK voted for Brexit.
You can read Monsieur Barnier's statement in full here, although it doesn't include the Q & A.
The EU has deliberately made the Brexit negotiations as difficult as possible for the UK. Below are some of the demands it has made, which any normal government would have rejected, but which Theresa May meekly accepted.
  • The EU refused to discuss Brexit at all until Article 50 had been invoked. This prevented any informal discussions from taking place in the 9 months following the EU Referendum and before Article 50 was triggered.
  • The EU insisted on a bizarre sequencing of talks, demanding that three ‘key demands’ be resolved before discussing Brexit as a whole. In reality they wanted the UK to promise to pay a very large sum (now said to be £39 billion) which has no basis in law whatsoever. Even the europhile Lords Brexit Committee concluded this.
  • The falsehood of hiding behind an insistence on agreeing these three key demands is clear from the fact that the EU is now discussing the future trade deal with the UK, despite the fact that the Northern Irish border issue remains unresolved, and so do many aspects of “citizens’ rights”.
  • It is clear that the only thing they wanted first was an agreement for the UK to make what is in effect an ex-gratia payment of £39bn which has no basis in either EU or UK law, but which has been agreed in principle by Theresa May.
The EU has said many times that “this is not a negotiation”. Here is Michel Barnier again:-
“The agreement we are working towards will not be built on “concessions”.
“This is not about making ‘concessions’ on the rights of citizens. This is not about making ‘concessions’ on the peace process in Northern Ireland. This is not about making ‘concessions’ on the thousands of investment projects and the men and women involved in them in Europe.
“In these complex and difficult negotiations, we have shared objectives, we have shared obligations, we have shared duties, and we will only succeed with shared solutions. That is our responsibility.”
- Michel Barnier, EU Commission, 12 Oct 2017
If one side in a negotiation refuses on principle to even discuss the possibility of concessions, that is not a negotiation.
It is a series of non-negotiable demands.
Dear Remainer MP,
Please stop and reflect on the facts we have provided above. They are but a small selection from numerous examples in our research over the past few years.
Note that we are talking about the EU as an institution and its (generally) unelected representatives, not the peoples of the EU27 countries with whom we have no quarrel and with whom we expect to have continued good relations post-Brexit.
It really doesn’t matter what you would like to believe about the EU, dear reasonable Remainer MP, the simple facts are that you’ve been misled. The EU is not the cuddly, caring body concerned with delivering good things for the citizens of the EU27 that you hoped it was.
It is a malign, undemocratic beast, set on damaging the interests of the UK and its people for no other reason than to demonstrate the superiority of its political ‘projekt’.
We have many, many examples of this. Don’t hesitate to ask if you would like more examples.
In all conscience we ask you to look afresh at the nature of the EU institution and the totalitarians who run it. It’s not too late to say you’ve changed your mind. Ordinary people who voted Remain have done so.
Why not get behind the majority, instead of continuing to try to defend the indefensible?
[ Sources: EU Council | EU Commission | EU Parliament ]
     Journalists and politicians can contact us for the full list of links, as usual.
       06.55am, 30 July 2018
Please send us your comments and we will publish them here. You can of course use a pseudonym if you prefer, and it's always nice to know roughly where you're writing from. Please always state the headline of the article you're commenting on.

One-off or monthly donations. Quick, easy, and very safe.
Donate Donate Subscribe
Any amount
From £2
Be a supporter.
One off donation
from £25 for 1 year
Be a supporter.
Monthly donation
from £3 per month
Choose amount FIRST:
THEN click button:
On Wednesday we wrote a factual piece and an editorial. We keep editorials for the weekend, so it must have been about something serious.
It was.
The previous day the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland gave the responsibility for the biggest national issue in living memory to an unelected civil servant and his colleagues.
Here is what she actually wrote:
“the Europe Unit will have overall responsibility for the preparation and conduct of the negotiations”
We still find this simply breathtaking.
When the news broke we immediately checked the BBC and Sky News to see how they were reporting it.
Extraordinarily on TV news it didn’t make the top story and was reported as if it were just another minor event in the process of Brexit.
Make no mistake, this is a deeply serious development both in terms of the Brexit process, and in the history of our democracy.
The Prime Minister – who has no serious experience of international negotiations, foreign policy, the EU, trade, or much else as far as we can see – has taken charge. However she has immediately given overall responsibility to a small group of Europhile Remainer bureaucrats working out of No.10, led by a former Communist.
This was truly, truly shocking for us. How the BBC could not report it with any comprehension of the magnitude of what Theresa May had done was simply beyond us.
A social media follower called ‘Joe’ has commented to us today: “this morning I’ve finally accepted that we are not leaving and the idiot remainers have won”.
Is that how you feel, dear reader? Should we just pack up and go back to our normal lives full-time? Do you have any fight left in you?
This Sunday, some members of our team are considering whether to join that reader, give up, and go back to earning some full-time money again. Not unreasonably their view is “why bother, if no-one’s going to fight?”
Well, as the person writing this editorial I’m going to write personally for a moment to social media follower ‘Joe’.
You can give up, Joe. That’s your choice and you are free to make it. But please do so knowing what you’re giving up.
The British people took a democratic decision in June 2016. It was the biggest mandate in British political history. And the government promised to obey the instruction, whatever it was.
If you allow Theresa May to win, that’s your right. But please be aware what you are giving up. You are giving up on democracy. This may be our last chance to prove to the arrogant, dictatorial pro-EU elites that the long history of democracy in our country means something.
Some of us have parents and grandparents who fought in WWII and the Cold War. Some of us may even have played a part in the latter. Our forebears would be ashamed of us if we gave up now, having already secured one of the greatest victories for freedom and independence in the last 70 years.
We haven’t had to suffer in this battle in the way our forebears did in theirs. We’ve had it easy. True, many of us have had to make personal sacrifices – and goodness knows I can identify with that – but when did we have to put our lives on the line?
It’s time to man up, stand tall, and say ‘no’. No, we’re not going to accept your nonsense, Theresa May. You are a disgrace to the democratic traditions of parliament. Be gone, woman.
And to all the Remainer MPs in the Commons, let’s say an equally emphatic ‘no’. You will respect democracy or you will suffer the consequences.
Dear reader, will you commit to fight on, to fight for what is right and decent and honourable?
Will you go the extra mile, write letters and emails and deluge MPs and snowflake Europhile journalists, join peaceful marches, visit your MP’s surgery every fortnight until he or she is sick of seeing you? Will you join your local MP’s party to make their lives a misery?
Will you stand up now and say, “NO! No, I will not see my democracy traduced in this shameful fashion. I will fight to defend it, even if it costs me personally”?
Will you respect our great traditions? Will you fight to defend the democratically-expressed will of the British people?
Will you fight to restore a free, independent, and glorious United Kingdom once again?
Note: We are working on a "Brexit Battle Pack" for all readers - a way of fighting back in numerous ways. Will you support us with a donation to develop and publish this?
[ Sources: UK Government ]
     Journalists and politicians can contact us for the full list of links, as usual.
       09.20am, 29 July 2018
Please send us your comments and we will publish them here. You can of course use a pseudonym if you prefer, and it's always nice to know roughly where you're writing from. Please always state the headline of the article you're commenting on.
SUNDAY 29 JULY - PLEASE NOTE: Please keep your comments as concise as possible - this makes it easier for us to read, code, and publish them. We've made an exception today and published some long ones, from some individuals who are donors to us. We do understand feelings are running high in many people right now, but if you can try to precis your comments before sending it would be much appreciated - especially if you've never donated to our site!
Name: Vonjarra, Newscastle, UK      Date/Time: 30 July 2018, 12.50pm
Message: Don't give up. One of the techniques used against you is to pump out bad news propaganda to make you feel demoralized in the hope that you will do just that. To get you to throw the towel before the fight is over because they know when it comes to the crunch you stand a good chance of winning.
Name: R Ellison, Essex, UK      Date/Time: 30 July 2018, 07.13am
Message: Bring on the Brexit Battle Pack! Brexiteers have endured too many years of treachery. The anti-democrats shall not win. Now we will go all the whole way. 'Hurrah for God, Queen and Country!' Let Battle Commence!
Name: Liz F, Kent, UK      Date/Time: 29 July 2018, 5.23pm
Message: I would be lying if I said I hadn't thought about giving up on Brexit before now. However, thanks to the constant flow of excellent factual articles from Facts4EU I have a daily reminder of why I voted to leave the EU and how I can't possibly give up now that we are getting so close. It is easy to feel despondent when all that the mass media produce is anti-Brexit propaganda and interviews devoted to Remainers pouring scorn on the "ideology" of democracy and telling me I voted Leave because I'm ignorant, misinformed and racist. I have written at least five times to my local MP Greg Clark asking for his comments on Brexit-related articles and am still awaiting replies. I've challenged Anna Sourpuss who sent a patronising reply saying I'd misheard her, I've written at least three times to No 10 - no reply, and before the Chequers meeting I wrote to six or seven MPs who also didn't reply. So yes, I did think 'Why bother?' especially when Olly Robbins' Shite Paper (excuse language) was published. We cannot give up now. We need Facts4EU and all its readers to keep up the good fight. It's encouraging to read that Conservative Associations are standing up to Theresa May and I just hope that a week of breathing clean Alpine air will make her realise it's time to give up the day job. It brings to mind that song from the Sound of Music 'How do you solve a problem like Theresa?'
Name: Chris, Devizes, UK      Date/Time: 29 July 2018, 5.04pm
Message: Replying to John Finn:
It's true that changing the leader won't change the Parliamentary arithmetic, but it doesn't need to. A strong pro-Brexit leader would immediately ditch the Chequers plan and put in its place either the DD or DCB plan (or maybe a hybrid of the two). That would have huge support on the Tory benches, and although Labour would vote against, they wouldn't have the numbers to defeat the Government. A few diehard Tory Remainers like Soubry and Grieve might still rebel, but they would be cancelled out by Labour Brexiteers such as Kate Hoey and Frank Field, and the Government would win comfortably. The EU would be happy with such a deal, especially if the new leader made it clear that the £39bn would only be paid if the deal was agreed. May could have done all of this months ago, but she won't because she is a committed treacherous Remainer, and that is why she has to go.
Name: Sylvia L, Northants, UK      Date/Time: 29 July 2018, 2.07pm
Message: I have only written once to facts4eu, but I read it avidly and read to my husband. I look forward to reading the intelligent comments and notably Patrick’s. But opening the site today I was not surprised to see people feeling defeated, but I’d like to say one thing, UNITED WE STAND DIVIDED WE FALL has never been as important as it is now. I hope those ethical men and women in parliament who are not suckers for the Brussels stroking are doing something while May is away playing as many children will be doing in their six-weeks break are planning something. I hope so because if they are my faith in human nature will be restored.
By my calculations, I was conceived on the day the war WW2 ended. Not talked about much then, but being a bright kid, I soon worked that one out. However, for those who want to give up remember this. Do you want to die as a subservient of a dictatorship? I don’t, and I’m sure you don’t want to either. I never want to lie on my deathbed regretting I gave up? Not all of us can have the time or the tenacity the team have at facts4eu, they are indeed brave soldiers, they remind me of Joan of Arc, I just hope they don’t get burnt at stake, although I might be for my beliefs. Be grateful for those willing warriors like those at facts4eu who are prepared to dig deep for your benefit.
Treat these people as gifts from God, Guardian Angels because the devil incarnate (likes of Major, who couldn’t keep his pants zipped up and dares to challenge us on morality) Blair (warmonger who thinks were are all idiots), May (daft as a broken yard brush and twice as useless as my grandmother would say). Robbins (oily, no other name suits this man better. I have never trusted anyone man, woman or beast who never opens their eyes, but then why would he, we’d see him for what he is, the eye's being the windows to the soul and all that!)
Pop stars and ex-footballers who want even more fame than they have now will go on believing they're right when those with any common sense know they've been suckered and used. And all by the likes of Junker (where Spirit has become his GOD, I should know my father staggered around like him many a time, but that was okay he wasn’t running an empire). And dear old Barnier who looks like everyone’s gentle grandfather but is as ruthless as a tiger on the hunt.
As a psychotherapist (now retired, but busier than ever in other pursuits and why I have little time to write into facts4eu) I know how brilliant the team are at facts4eu, but I also know how fear can eat away at you. Fear destroys your soul and any 'WILL' to live. FEAR shackles you like a ball and chain. And this is precisely what all governments want. Servants and slaves are their maps of reality, don't let it be yours. I've sat in at too many NHS and other mandatory services to know that most are brainwashed, and are insulted when you question their indoctrinated concepts. Which I did vigorously.
The under 50's have been brainwashed to accept the present situation as the norm, schools stopped history, religion, arts and culture in favour of Left-wing thinking. This was done consciously and subconsciously. I saw this happening in the 70s and 80s. Speaking to my grandchildren who did degrees this Left-wing brainwashing is even worse in universities, and there are reasons for this. The educational elite is hell-bent on brainwashing a generation of young people for one reason only, to programme them to be followers without question, much like a sect does.
The dominance of the Left is deep-rooted and for all to see, and starts when very young. I know as a pre-school supervisor from 1977 to 1985 I had many left-wingers as I called them, enter into our preschool and dictate. One example: You can’t say Ba, Ba BLACK sheep anymore. Needless to say, being better educated than this university graduate and with far more common sense I sent her packing. She never came back, and neither did her superiors.
The teaching of history or God was dropped in schools and replaced by left-wing lessons. I know many of my friends left because of this, instead of fighting for what was right they fled. Those teachers who stayed and continued brainwashing our future generation did a great job, and governments do a great job of cutting back on culture, and the arts, as well as the primary health, needs because they wish to control YOU.
No government has ever wanted intelligent people. And they certainly DO NOT wish for smart people with common sense, courage and tenacity; (anyone who reads facts4eu is in this bracket OF INTELLIGENCE and WISDOM) because we cause far too many problems.
What Brussels wants is programmed people who are obedient and can be manipulated. They’ve done a grand job on May, treat her bad, (its human nature to wants to be liked), and she’ll come begging to be stroked. Children do this with dysfunctional parents.
No one has even tried to get her to wake from her trance state (not even her husband, but then I’ve met some very manipulative men in my life) and I thank God I had the wisdom choose an honourable man. The sad thing is, if these people are allowed to continue they will have fulfilled their PLAN through fear and indoctrination.
My message is simple, read, do some research, switch off the TV, don't buy any newspapers because the truth isn't there. We stopped ages ago and decided to give that money to facts4eu. In knowledge comes wisdom and strength and you'll find that all in facts4eu.
Name: NOT4EU, London, UK      Date/Time: 29 July 2018, 2.07pm
Message: The problem with 'Brexiteers' is, that in the main, they are independently minded, passive, and abide by the social contract that exists between the elected and electors, expecting to be treated fairly as they would treat others. It's partly why there are disparate interest groups who seem unwilling to coalesce or co-ordinate for the single biggest democratic decision in our country's history. It made no sense to me before the referendum, and even less now that those elected to implement the decision have repeatedly shown that they have no intention of doing so and even signing away even more than the EU controlled in the first place, like our military. The anti-democrats, seeking to overturn the decision without ever explaining to their brainless EU cult followers exactly what that really means, have no such qualms nor morals. They control the remainstream media and its relentless narrative, so they are now trying to stop all other avenues for alternative viewpoints to the narrative (which would not be required if the 'news' were not so overtly biased or 'lying' by omission).
I am not interested in 'Brexit', whatever that is meant to mean. The vote was to LEAVE the EU. I am not interested in the Government/Parliament 'respecting' the vote. It must be IMPLEMENTED, and IN FULL.
I am clear in my mind. Failure to deliver a clean exit from the EU IS the end of democracy in this country, such as it purports to be. The Government and the trappings of State will no longer hold any legitimacy in this country as the contract has been broken. I am more angry than I have ever been in my life and will fight, yes to my dying breath, for independence and the restoration of democracy. I hope that it will be peaceful, but I fear it will not be. I am prepared mentally either way. I will not be alone. For what is to come, they have only themselves to blame.
Name: John Finn, Coventry, UK      Date/Time: 29 July 2018, 1.45pm
Message: I still maintain that Brexit was lost when the Tories failed to gain a decent majority in the last election. I wrote this at the time. There simply isn't sufficient support in parliament for a hardline approach. Labour were never going to support a Tory-led negotiation. Note that Labour haven't lost any support despite their obvious anti-Brexit tactics. A strong Tory majority would have ensured a stronger pro-Brexit party. May could have been easily ditched and replaced if she had showed any sign of weakness. The EU would have known that they couldn't have played the divide and rule tactics which have worked superbly for them. Replace May and it will make little or no difference as we'll be left with a leader who will need to face parliament with whatever deal is offered. The EU know all this. I'm now beginning to think that a second referendum and a resounding vote for leave is the only way a proper Brexit can be achieved.
Name: Big Mach, Cheshire, UK      Date/Time: 29 July 2018, 1.44pm
Message: Tell Joe that we have not given up. In fact our team is regrouping to fight the next stage of the battle. We won the last battle and mistakenly thought we had won the war. Clearly not, so we are once again girding our loins for battle. We are a group of around 100 activists in our area of Cheshire.
You only need to see the reaction from the constituencies to see that we are not alone. Theresa May is now at the head of a dwindling army. What her Cabinet must think of her latest shenanigans one can only wonder. But telling the nation that we are preparing for 'no deal' by stockpiling food and medicines, which the army are on standby to deliver suggests that the people at the top have taken leave of their senses. Sensible members of the Cabinet must have their heads in their collective hands when they see this childish attempt at propaganda.
The Davis/Baker white paper is the one we should be presenting to the EU and when the wise heads have led Theresa May to sit quietly in a darkened room under 24 hour surveillance, it is the paper that will be presented. It will pass the Commons and it will garner the overwhelming support of the people.
I hope the grey suits close in sooner rather than later. The most loyal of MPs must now realise that the game is up and Comical Ali impressions are simply bringing the Party into disrepute.
Name: Paul A, East Sussex, UK      Date/Time: 29 July 2018, 1.05pm
Message: Don't even consider giving up!! You are doing a fab job....stick with it and we will be free, thanks in no small part to your efforts!
Name: Chris, Devizes, UK      Date/Time: 29 July 2018, 12.54pm
Message: I think we are now heavily dependent on Boris to force the necessary leadership challenge to oust the evil May. I did see a report that in the event of the 'Chuckers' deal failing, they would revert to the incomplete FTA prepared by David Davis' team, based on the Canada deal. I'm sure that all Brexiteers would be happy with that. It may get vetoed by President Robbins however.
The 'All-Stars'                             © EU Council
The 20th EU-China Summit took place in Beijing two weeks ago, where unelected EU Council President Donald Tusk and unelected EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker went to China to discuss a wide range of matters of enormous importance to the UK.
Readers will not have heard about this because at the same time as the EU-China Summit, President Trump was meeting President Putin in Helsinki and the British media were far more interested in that.
Neither the British Foreign Secretary nor the Secretary of State for International Trade attended the EU-China Summit.
  • In 2017, UK exports to China were worth £22.2 bn
  • Imports from China were £45.2 bn
  • The resulting trade deficit was -£23.0 bn
In 2017 China accounted for 3.6% of UK exports and 7.0% of all UK imports.
© Facts4EU.Org 2018
Here is how the EU Council summarised the outcome of the Summit:-
“On the occasion of this 20th EU-China Summit, the two sides celebrated the 15th anniversary of the EU-China Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. This has greatly enhanced the level of EU-China relations, with fruitful outcomes achieved in politics, economy, trade, culture, people-to-people exchanges and other fields. The Leaders reaffirmed their commitment to deepening their partnership for peace, growth, reform and civilisation, based on the principles of mutual respect, trust, equality and mutual benefit, by comprehensively implementing the EU-China 2020 Strategic Agenda for Cooperation.”
So that’s 20 years of talks and 15 years since the “EU-China Comprehensive Strategic Partnership” was signed. Nothing of substance was agreed.
The Summit covered the following subjects:-
  • Africa, the Middle East, Asia, Central Asia and Latin America, as well as disarmament and non-proliferation
  • North and South Korea
  • The South China Sea conflict
  • Economic and trade relations
  • The China-EU Co-investment Fund
  • The Agreement on Cooperation on, and Protection of, Geographical Indications (see article below)
  • Dumping of steel
  • Intellectual Property Rights
  • Drugs
  • Progress of the EU-China Science and Technology Cooperation Agreement
  • Climate Change and Clean Energy
  • Environmental protection and natural resource conservation
  • The EU-China Water Policy Dialogue
  • The Joint Declaration on the EU-China Partnership on Urbanisation
  • The Joint Statement on the Implementation of EU-China Cooperation on Energy
  • The Blue Partnership for the Oceans, and fishing
  • The EU-China Dialogues on Competition, State Aid Control and Fair Competition
  • The EU-China Legal Affairs Dialogue
  • The High-level People-to-People Dialogue
  • The 2018 EU-China Tourism Year
  • The EU-China Mobility and Migration Dialogue roadmap
  • Migration
  • The 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda
  • The EU-China 2020 Strategic Agenda for Cooperation
It appears that no progress was made on a trade deal with China. Australia managed to sign a free trade deal with China in 2015.
The communiques from this Summit contain many hopeful expressions, such as “The Leaders reaffirmed their commitment to…”, “Both sides are committed to advance cooperation on…”, and “The EU and China agreed to reinforce their dialogue and cooperation on…”
Regrettably there appears to have been no concrete progress on any of the matters discussed, as you can see from the statement issued by unelected EU Council President Donald Tusk called “Main Results”.
This article isn’t about China, of course.
This is just one small example for Remainer MPs of the way in which a vast range of 'British' foreign and trade policy is handled by unelected ‘Presidents’ based in Brussels.
Remainer MPs might feel they would like to hold the British Foreign Secretary and the Secretary for International Trade to account, in the House of Commons. Too bad. Not possible. They weren’t part of this.
Failing that, they may wish to hold to account those poltician-bureaucrats based in Brussels for the outcome of this summit. For example, Labour MPs in particular might want to ask about China’s human rights record, and what was discussed in this regard.
Sorry, not possible. It’s called being a member of the European Union.
20 years of talks with China is of course but the blink of an eye in EU timescales.
Nevertheless, In that time Australia managed to agree, sign, and implement a Free Trade Agreement with China, which commenced in 2015.
The fundamental point here is that the UK was represented at this Summit by two unelected EU Presidents, both of whom are former politicians and now bureaucrats.
Worse still, the UK is just one of 28 member states whom these two individuals from Brussels were supposed to be representing.
Can Remainer MPs please explain to us how an arrangement like this is in the best interests of the British people - for jobs, for the economy, and for the UK’s foreign policy objectives?
China is a massive potential market for UK businesses. Unfortunately the UK lags far behind Germany in its exploitation of this market.
There are many reasons for this and one which is almost never mentioned is how Germany always dominates the thinking of the bureaucrats in Brussels, as it is the de facto leader of the EU and its biggest benefactor. This is then reflected in the priorities of the EU in many ways.
Germany also benefits from being part of the Euro, which artificially and massively deflates the price of its goods abroad. The Euro is depressed by all the underperforming economies of the Eurozone. If Germany still had the Deutschmark, its goods would be far more expensive to overseas buyers and its exports would suffer accordingly.
If we didn’t continually monitor the EU and research stories like this, who would inform you? Certainly not the BBC or Sky News. The BBC managed a very short article in its website’s Business section about the EU-China Summit, and nothing on the main TV news.
An EU-China 2-day Summit is important, particularly when it was the 20th anniversary of such summits.
Perhaps the reason it wasn’t shown on TV screens is because it shows the EU in a bad light. It shows how the UK is marginalised in trade and foreign relations by being subservient to the EU, and because once again nothing of any real value was achieved by the EU anyway.
It is essential that the UK becomes free to conduct its own trade and foreign policy with titans such as China, at the earliest possible opportunity.
And that means Conservative MPs getting rid of the disastrous Theresa May immediately, not in September or October.
In the article below we give just one small additional example of how British interests are of marginal concern to the bureaucratic elites of Brussels.
[ Sources: EU Council | ONS Pink Book | House of Commons Library | Australian Dept of Foreign Affairs & Trade ]
     Journalists and politicians can contact us for the full list of links, as usual.
       06.55am, Sunday 29 July 2018
Please send us your comments and we will publish them here. You can of course use a pseudonym if you prefer, and it's always nice to know roughly where you're writing from. Please always state the headline of the article you're commenting on.
Name: Steve R, London, UK      Date/Time: 29 July 2018, 1.03pm
Message: That's three unelected commissars in the picture then.

One-off or monthly donations. Quick, easy, and very safe.
Donate Donate Subscribe
Any amount
From £2
Be a supporter.
One off donation
from £25 for 1 year
Be a supporter.
Monthly donation
from £3 per month
Choose amount FIRST:
THEN click button:
UK farmers left off the list in EU agreement with China
Over the past two days, the EU has been holding talks with China regarding protectionist measures on agricultural products. This was agreed in the EU-China Summit 2018 described here.
Photo © EU Commission
As part of the EU-China summits which have taken place over the past 20 years, an agreement was reached on the process for protecting certain listed agricultural products against imitations.
Last year the EU and China agreed an initial list of 100 products from each side. In the last two days the EU has been discussing this again.
The EU’s system for what it calls ‘Geographical Indication Protections’ is of course complex, as would be expected from the EU, and it involves three different types of classification. Whilst it may sound boring, it is not small potatoes. The EU Commission says that in value terms:
“the market for EU geographical indications is around €54.3 billion”
When it comes to China, this is an important subject. The EU Commission stated that “The Chinese market for agri-food products is one of the world's largest, and is getting larger every year, fuelled by a growing middle class population that has a taste for European food and drink products.”
We looked in detail at the initial list of 100 protected EU products announced last year.
In fact, only 79 of them are the result of proposed new EU protections with China. The remaining 21 are the result of existing bilateral country agreements - nothing to do with the EU.
The UK is listed as having 4 protections in the new agreement with China, but we found that all 4 are the result of existing bilateral agreements between the UK and China. They have nothing to do with the EU. The UK’s tally from the EU's work is therefore zero.
The chart below is based on the true picture, not the inflated EU figures which included pre-existing bilateral country deals.
Chart © Brexit Facts4EU.Org 2018
We researched the EU’s full list of ‘Geographical Indication Protections’ for agricultural food products (excluding drink products), to see how much British farmers are benefiting from our EU membership in this respect.
The EU claims over 3,300 products are protected in total, of which a large proportion are drinks. We found around 1500 food product designations.
The results for the UK’s farmers make for sorry reading, with just 81 products being specified – a tiny fraction of the protections afforded to the other 27 countries.
Chart © Brexit Facts4EU.Org 2018
The above is yet another example of the way in which the supposed benefits which the EU is supposed to bring to its members never seem to apply to the UK. Or if they do, they apply in a disproportionately small way.
The problem with Remainer MPs is that they simply aren't aware of real facts like these. They rely on what they believe must be happening, rather than the reality.
One part of the new "Brexit Battle Pack" we are working on is a set of very basic, incontrovertible facts about the UK's membership of the EU, which will shock Remainer MPs when they see them.
We're not naive and we know our work will not instantly convert all Remainer MPs to the cause, but it will certainly give them pause for thought, and might influence them as their jobs start coming under threat.
We really hope you can help us in this essential work by donating something to us today. Trust us, we wouldn't ask if we weren't the poorest Brexit organisation out there.
Unlike some organisations, we receive nothing from major party donors and are completely independent. We think there's real value in that. But without you, we can't continue.
[ Sources: EU Commission ]
     Journalists and politicians can contact us for the full list of links, as usual.
       06.55am, Sunday 29 July 2018
Please send us your comments and we will publish them here. You can of course use a pseudonym if you prefer, and it's always nice to know roughly where you're writing from. Please always state the headline of the article you're commenting on.
We are a committed and determined team.
You haven't given up fighting for a clean Brexit.
Together we're up against a vast army of UK & EU propagandists.
Brexit Facts4EU.Org is an influential pro-Brexit news organisation read by MPs, MEPs, mainstream journalists, eurocrats, MPs and Senators from the EU, USA, Australia and other countries.
Do you still have the determination to get the Brexit you voted for? Or in fact more than ever before?
To the right: Articles in the national press,
all of which came from Brexit Facts4EU.Org.
We’re committed and tireless, but we wouldn’t be here to report and fight without our supporters.
If you’re like-minded, please join our readership. If you're already 'in-the-club' we'd like to take the opportunity to send you a big thank you for all your support.
All we have here are our honest tools - research, compelling daily content, simple charts - and our most important resource - YOU.
We badly need your help to keep going, fighting for a full, clean Brexit.

One-off or monthly donations. Quick, easy, and very safe.
Donate Donate Subscribe
Any amount
From £2
Be a supporter.
One off donation
from £25 for 1 year
Be a supporter.
Monthly donation
from £3 per month
Choose amount FIRST:
THEN click button:
(Anonymity respected completely if you prefer to remain private)
       Best regards, the Facts4EU.Org Team, 2018
Guy Verhofstadt MEP
Yesterday in Brussels, the ‘Brexit Steering Group’ (BSG) of the EU Parliament reiterated its uncompromising demands in respect of any potential Withdrawal Agreement with the UK.
  • “no backsliding from past commitments” from Theresa May
  • Specifically, “without a credible, genuine and operational backstop [on the Irish border], it will be impossible for the European Parliament to give its consent to the Withdrawal Agreement”
  • Non-divisibility of the four freedoms including freedom of movement
  • Integrity of the single market – no pick ‘n’ mix
  • Autonomy of the EU legal order and decision making, i.e. ECJ jurisdiction
  • Safeguarding of financial stability, i.e. no ability to become competitive
The EU Parliament's Brexit Steering Group are adamant that Theresa May stick to what she agreed on 07 December 2017 at the EU Summit. In particular they demand an unconditional ‘backstop’ arrangement for the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, which would effectively see the break-up of the United Kingdom.
The Brexit Steering Group is headed up by Guy Verhofstadt and includes Elmar Brok, Roberto Gualtieri, Gabriele Zimmer, Philippe Lamberts, and Danuta Hübner. (See ‘Observations’ below.)
This group speaks for the majority of the 751 MEPs sitting mostly in Brussels and once a month in Strasbourg.
Here is how the EU Parliament yesterday summed up its power over the Brexit deal:
“[The EU] Parliament as a whole will have the final say on the outcome of negotiations when it votes to approve or reject the withdrawal deal, to be finalised in the autumn.”
In short, whatever the UK might or might not agree with the EU Commission or the EU27 leaders, the EU Parliament insists it will have a full veto.
Whilst it is true that typical political ‘fudges’ are often carved out between the EU Council and the EU Parliament, in this case positions have become very entrenched. Brexit has been a platform on which many MEPs have grandstanded for the last two years.
We thought it might be helpful to give readers some idea about the composition of the EU Parliament’s Brexit Steering Group.
Imagine a group comprising ‘Sir’ Nick Clegg, Chuka Umunna MP, David Lammy MP, Lily Allen, ‘Lord’ Andrew Adonis, A. C. Grayling, Gary Lineker, Gina Miller and 'EUSupergirl'.
Now further imagine that they and their colleagues have a veto over any compromise deal reached between the UK and the EU27 leaders.
In 45 years of the UK’s membership of the EU, the British mainstream broadcast media has declined to show the proceedings of the EU Parliament in its news broadcasts. The public is therefore blissfully unaware of the sheer insanity that goes on there.
The only occasions that we can remember of any clips being shown were when Mr Nigel Farage was being upbraided or booed, when delivering one of his infamous put-downs to the assembly. On the occasions these were shown, these were always shown to portray Mr Farage in a negative light.
To cheer you up for the weekend, click here for Mr Farage’s classic tirade in February 2010, against the appointment of the hapless Herman van Rompuy as EU Commission President.
Nigel Farage MEP
(Please note that being party-neutral and in the interests of balance, we would have liked to have added links to similar history-making speeches against the absurdities of the EU, from Conservative or Labour MEPs. Unfortunately we can’t recall a single one, as the vast majority of MEPs from those two parties have been europhiles who went native.)
It is important to bear in mind that Theresa May has effectively held up the white flag and surrendered to the EU on a wide range of the key aspects of what Brexit is supposed to mean.
And yet still the fanatics of the EU Parliament are not remotely satisfied.
[ Sources: EU Parliament ]
     Journalists and politicians can contact us for the full list of links, as usual.
       06.15am, 28 July 2018
Please send us your comments and we will publish them here. You can of course use a pseudonym if you prefer, and it's always nice to know roughly where you're writing from. Please always state the headline of the article you're commenting on.
Name: Tom Rogers, Bridlington, East Riding, UK      Date/Time: 28 July 2018, 1.57pm
Message: re.: Gary Lineker. Don't make fun of my Gary. He was telling me the other day about how we need to stay in the EU in order to defeat its metapolitical post-Hegelian dialectic in order to raise the consciousness of the working class as part of a Gramscian-Zizekian pan-European revolutionary praxis.
Name: Chris, Devizes, UK      Date/Time: 28 July 2018, 10.46am
Message: One interesting point made by JRM the other day, is that under WTO rules, any Country making major changes to its trading arrangements (such as due to Brexit) has a period of 10 years within which it can keep its existing tariff regime. That means if we leave with 'No Deal', then under WTO rules we can continue to trade with the EU at zero tariffs for 10 years. So nothing would change at all in terms of trade, and the Irish border 'problem' wouldn't actually be a problem.
Reply: We're aware of this but you also need to be aware it is disputed. We simply haven't had time to investigate fully because of lack of funding, but there are special circumstances in relation to leaving something like the EU. All we're saying at this stage is that we can't be certain about it.
Name: Brexiteer, Braintree, Essex, UK      Date/Time: 28 July 2018, 09.48am
Message: Guy Verhofstadt trying to blackmail the UK again, what's new? May should just negotiate a Withdrawal Agreement not a treaty then walk. Then on March 30th 2019 start talking a trade deal with the EU, if they want one and leave it at that. Reverting to WTO rules would not be the end of the world, the Government might get a surprise by the number of other countries rushing to do a trade deal. Also it would strengthen the Governments hand in any future dealings with the EU, we could take them or leave them.
Name: Brexitbrino, South East, UK      Date/Time: 28 July 2018, 08.56am
Message: Hello. I really can't find the footage of a member of the EU saying that Article 50 once triggered cannot be retracted. Do you have any links?
Reply: We don't have footage but we do have a written statement. We wrote about this in an article we published last July. The EU said:

Q: “Once triggered, can Article 50 be revoked?”
A: “It was the decision of the United Kingdom to trigger Article 50. But once triggered, it cannot be unilaterally reversed. Article 50 does not provide for the unilateral withdrawal of the notification.”
Name: Patrick F, Kent, UK      Date/Time: 28 July 2018, 08.37am
Message: I work for 'Lies are Truths, Truths are Lies' (LATTAL). I was going to vote Remain until I was caught in a honey trap by a Russian agent named Ivana Leaveski. My current assignment is to monitor phone calls between the EU and the UK.
This is a transcript of a phone call I intercepted yesterday.

"I want to speak to the Prime Minister."
"She's out. I run the UK. Can I help?"
"It's Guy"
"Guy Fawkes? Guy Ropes?"
Chuckling is heard.
"Ah, the legendary sense of British humour! That is ONE thing we can never take from you! It's Guy Verhorsebreath."
"Yo, Guy! Wassup bro? It's your main man Olly here."
"Where's TM?"
"She's gone out to buy some fags."
"She's gone out to buy homosexuals? What about their human rights?"
"No, you silly goose! We sometimes say fags, instead of cigarettes. She's started smoking since Chequers. And so have the rest of the Cabinet. It was a collective decision, proposed by moi, so that she doesn't feel alone."
"Enough of le banter Polly. To business."
"We are introducing the fifth freedom."
"Fifth? What in the name of foie gras is the fifth freedom?"
"Northern Ireland. We want it."
"But, but, but, that's her only red line!"
"Do you want a chuffing deal, or not?"
"Deal,deal, deal, oh yes, a lovely dealy wheely, pleasie, pretty please."
"The fifth freedom also demands the rest of the UK in perpetuity."
But to show the rest of the world that the UK can negotiate successfully we will exclude Maidenhead."
"Brilliant! All sides will be happy now!"
"There is one more condition."
"Shoot your best shot Guysie."
"The Conservatives must have a new leader. We've chosen Gary Lineker."
The sound of a body collapsing on the floor is heard.

One-off or monthly donations. Quick, easy, and very safe.
Donate Donate Subscribe
Any amount
From £2
Be a supporter.
One off donation
from £25 for 1 year
Be a supporter.
Monthly donation
from £3 per month
Choose amount FIRST:
THEN click button:
President (unelected) Tusk                     © EU Council
In recent days the subject of the EU’s offer to the UK back in March has been brought up several times. Below we remind you of the facts on this.
  • UK wants to leave Single Market, Customs Union, and jurisdiction of the ECJ
  • “Only possible model is a free trade agreement”
  • Zero tariffs on goods, deal to include services
  • Single Market – no compromises or ‘pick-and-mix’
  • Full access to UK waters for EU boats to be guaranteed
  • UK to continue to provide full security and defence cover for the EU
  • No disruption of flights – side deal to be agreed
The offer was made at a press conference in Luxembourg on 07 March, when EU Council President Donald Tusk made an official statement about Brexit. This directly followed Mrs May’s Mansion House speech from the previous Friday, and was delivered in advance of the key EU Council Summit two weeks’ later.
The headline that everyone was supposed to take away from Tusk’s statement was that “Free trade agreement is the only possible model”. In his statement, Tusk offered:
“a trade agreement covering all sectors and with zero tariffs on goods. Like other free trade agreements, it should address services.”
- President Tusk, Luxembourg, 07 March 2018
There were of course several aspects to this offer which would be unacceptable to the UK, such as the full access to British waters of EU27 fishing vessels, and the question of UK defence forces being tied into EU structures, but any side in a negotiation always asks for more than it expects to get. These could be negotiated away.
In short, nothing. In the weeks following the offer, Mrs May’s focus was on the Withdrawal Agreement rather than a future trade deal. A great deal of time has been wasted on the EU’s ever more extreme demands on citizen’s rights and especially its demands over the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic.
It has since become clear that the original Brexit Dept under the Rt Hon David Davis MP, ably supported by Steve Baker MP and Davis’ Chief of Staff Stewart Jackson, were working on trade aspects but were being thwarted at every turn by Theresa May’s No.10 ‘Europe Unit’ led by unelected civil servant Olly Robbins.
Yesterday Steve Baker commented on the Chequers agreement again, saying:
It has become clear that Theresa May and her No.10 Europe Unit have no interest in discussing President’s Tusk’s offer in March of this year – 4 ½ months ago.
Tusk’s offer was based on the UK government’s professed policy of leaving the Single Market, leaving the Customs Union, and leaving the jurisdiction of the ECJ. In other words, Brexit.
Let’s not forget that she repeats these things like a robot, despite the facts showing she will deliver on none of these elements.
If she has no intention of doing any of these things, then Tusk’s offer of a Free Trade Deal with zero tariffs is irrelevant to her.
Here’s former Brexit Minister Steve Baker MP again, commenting yesterday:
“Chequers was bound to be the beginning of the EU pushing the UK to the unacceptable combination of EEA and Customs Union membership.”
In other words, if Theresa May is planning to do a deal comprising a barely-fudged continuation of all the key EU components which Brexit was supposed to stop, then she has no need of a free trade deal because the UK will continue to be tied into what will amount to EU membership – but without any say on anything.
May’s strategy also explains why she has shown zero interest in a trade model developed by Conservative MEP and EU International Trade Committee Member David Campbell Bannerman.
This ‘SuperCanada’ proposal is based on the latest deals the EU has done, specifically the one with Canada. You can read the interview with Mr Campbell Bannerman here and our summary of his proposal here.
Recently Mrs May has taken to the line that ‘there are no other proposals on the table’.
Given that Olly Robbins and his unelected team who are now running Brexit have been laying the table for her each day, it’s easy to see how she can lie so blatantly.
To be clear for newer readers, Brexit Facts4EU.Org has never believed that the EU would ever do a sensible deal with the UK. Our view has always been that a well-prepared exit on normal WTO terms, together with some side agreements on citizens' rights to remain, continuation of flights, etc, should have been the best approach.
Every day the BBC and Sky News have been relentless in their increasing bias against Brexit. The situation is now so bad that the majority of their output is unwatchable for a large number of people.
The British people are being brainwashed again – this time into thinking that no deal will result in food shortages and all manner of other catastrophic consequences, as if the 150 countries around the world who thrive quite happily without being EU members are an aberration.
Despite it being the holiday season, Brexit Facts4EU.Org would like to keep working, developing a practical campaign on several levels in order to fight back. We are in the process of putting together a "Brexit Battle Pack" for our readers and social media followers, and with a view to getting it adopted and promoted by the other Brexit organisations.
We have become well-known and respected by many politicians, and our work is read by the major newspapers. Clearly our greatest strength is the years of rigorous research we have conducted from official sources, but we are also practically-minded. We can leverage all of this if we have some more funding. In the last few weeks we have received some donations from new readers, for which we are immensely grateful. But we need more.
Could you help us now, in these days of our country's great need?
[ Sources: EU Council | Steve Baker MP ]
     Journalists and politicians can contact us for the full list of links, as usual.
       06.15am, 28 July 2018
Please send us your comments and we will publish them here. You can of course use a pseudonym if you prefer, and it's always nice to know roughly where you're writing from. Please always state the headline of the article you're commenting on.
Unfortunately this was wildly optimistic.
We've had to give another two years to this fight, and it isn't over.
It has never been more important for us to keep fighting, bringing readers well-researched facts from official sources, punchy bullet points, and simple charts.
Politicians, journalists and members of the public have come to trust us on Brexit as the definitive source of accurate analysis of data from official sources, presented in a user-friendly way. We inform the Brexit debate.
We're planning a major campaign directed at MPs, who are currently the main stumbling block to a clean Brexit. Unfortunately we're broke and we need your help.
We really do make a difference.
Can you make a difference too, by supporting our work? We really need you.
One-off or monthly donations. Quick, easy, and very safe.
Donate Donate Subscribe
Any amount
From £2
Be a supporter.
One off donation
from £25 for 1 year
Be a supporter.
Monthly donation
from £3 per month
Choose amount FIRST:
THEN click button:
(Anonymity respected completely if you prefer to remain private)
       Best regards, the Facts4EU.Org Team
© Eu Commission
Yesterday in Brussels, the EU’s Chief Negotiator Michel Barnier blew Theresa May’s Chequers agreement into small pieces, in just over 1200 words.
Below is a transcript of his statement. We have only edited out the niceties, because this is an important statement which finishes off any idea that the EU will negotiate any kind of sensible agreement with the UK.
It also makes clear just how much Theresa May has surrendered.
“I agree with what Dominic said last week – we must bring new energy into these negotiations. And we will need to sustain this energy over the coming weeks in order to reach an agreement. We both want to conclude in October, with a deal.
“We have two main challenges:
  • First, we need to finalise the outstanding issues of the Withdrawal Agreement, including a legally operative backstop for Ireland and Northern Ireland.
  • Second, we need to agree on a political declaration on our future relationship.
“Let me focus first on the future relationship. Last Friday, I made some initial comments on the UK's White Paper. This week confirmed that the UK proposals on security mark a real step forward:
“The UK has provided new guarantees on the protection of fundamental rights and the uniform application of law:
  • The White Paper commits the UK to membership of the European Convention on Human Rights
  • It recognises the European Court of Justice as the only arbiter of EU law
“These are important safeguards. They enlarge the possibilities of what we can do together on internal security, in particular on data exchange.
“Based on the protection of personal data, and based on reciprocity, the EU and the UK can explore the modalities for close cooperation on the following points:
  • the exchange of DNA, fingerprints, and vehicle registration information (so called "Prüm"),
  • the exchange of Passenger Name Records to better track and identify individuals involved in terrorism and crime,
  • swift and effective extradition, based on the procedural rights for suspects.
“Furthermore, I am particularly pleased with the progress in our talks on foreign policy and external security.
  • We have a shared understanding on how to organise our future close cooperation, including on sanctions, defence capabilities and crisis management. The UK is a member of the UN Security Council, and an important player in security and defence. Our cooperation is even more important in today's geo-political context.
  • I recall that this EU-UK cooperation in defence will be in addition to what we already do in NATO, and to bilateral agreements between the UK and certain Member States.
“In contrast, on our future economic relationship, it comes as no surprise that finding common ground between the EU27 and the UK is more difficult. But we have agreed already on a common denominator: we both want an ambitious Free Trade Agreement. In March, EU leaders proposed an unprecedented Free Trade Agreement.
“Another area of convergence between the EU and the UK is the need for ambitious customs arrangements. We are also both committed to a level playing field between our economies.
“But, to be frank, we are not at the end of the road yet. There are major issues to be discussed and questions to be answered.
“We share a clear understanding on a core principle that will define our future economic relationship: the UK and the EU will both preserve the autonomy of their decision-making. Both will preserve their regulatory autonomy.
“The UK wants to take back control of its money, law, and borders, as Dominic said in an article this morning. We will respect that.
“But the EU also wants to keep control of its money, law, and borders. The UK should respect that.
“So, we share an objective in that regard.
“A clear example of what this means concerns our future relationship in financial services.
  • We discussed financial services this week and agreed that future market access will be governed by autonomous decisions on both sides.
  • We recognised the need for this autonomy, not only at the time of granting equivalence decisions, but also at the time of withdrawing such decisions.
  • And we agreed to have close regulatory cooperation, which will also have to respect the autonomy of both parties.
“Maintaining control of our money, law, and borders also applies to the EU's customs policy.
  • The EU cannot – and will not – delegate the application of its customs policy and rules, VAT and excise duty collection to a non-member, who would not be subject to the EU's governance structures.
  • Any customs arrangements or customs union – and I have always said that the EU is open to a customs union – must respect this principle.
  • In any case, a customs union, which would help to reduce friction at the border, would come with our Common Commercial Policy for goods.
  • President Juncker's visit to Washington yesterday shows the importance of our Common Commercial Policy. It shows that we are stronger together.
  • Any customs arrangement will also have to be workable and must protect EU and national revenue, without imposing additional costs on businesses and customs authorities.
“This is the framework within which we will work with the UK over the coming weeks. This week, these customs discussions have also been the backdrop to the backstop.
“We have a clear agreement between the EU and the UK that the Withdrawal Agreement must contain an all-weather insurance policy. We share the goal of avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland.
“Let me recall why. Because, as we agreed in December, the absence of a hard border has to be guaranteed no matter what the future relationship will be.
“Of course, we have always said that a better solution in the future EU-UK relationship could replace the backstop. This explains the "unless and until" provision of the backstop to which the UK has agreed. Continued uncertainty on this issue after the UK's withdrawal would be unacceptable for Ireland, for Northern Ireland, for the UK as a whole, and obviously for the EU27.
“We also had agreed in March on the scope of the issues to be solved in the backstop. This week, we focused on the customs element of the backstop.
“The UK wants this to be UK-wide. As I said last week, we have no objection in principle to this. But we have doubts that this can be done without putting at risk the integrity of our Customs Union, our Common Commercial Policy, our regulatory policy, and our fiscal revenue.
“We have had an open and frank – and therefore useful – discussion with Dominic and his team on these issues. I think that the UK has understood our concerns and respects our principles. And the UK has promised to come back to us with concrete proposals on how to address our concerns.
“Both teams will reflect on this in the coming weeks. The next time we meet will be mid-August. We must advance and agree on a legally operative backstop solution to conclude the Withdrawal Agreement.
“Let me just add one more point. I have been focusing on all the open issues and the work that we have ahead of us over the next few weeks to conclude the Withdrawal Agreement. Let's keep in mind that we have already agreed on a large part of this Withdrawal Agreement – more or less 80%.
“This includes the very important issue of citizens' rights, which has been our priority since the beginning of this negotiation, as well as the priority of the European Parliament. It continues to be our priority.
“But the job does not stop here. We will also have to work on making sure that citizens can easily avail themselves of the rights that will be guaranteed in the Withdrawal Agreement.
“We are working with the Home Office as well as with the Member States on this point.
Does anyone in the UK government have the first clue about negotiating? If they did, surely this statement by Barnier would demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt that the EU has no desire to be reasonable.
Even the abject surrender represented by the Chequers agreement has been rejected.
Yes, we know that Barnier is one of the high priests of EU-fanaticism and is remote from the realities of today’s world. We also know that it’s the EU27 leaders who will eventually come up with a final offer, regardless of what Barnier says.
However, whatever the EU27 leaders will ultimately agree will be based on some small compromises on what Barnier is already saying. They will not move far enough for the eventual offer to be anything other than a very, very bad deal indeed.
To all intents and purposes, all the UK government will achieve is a far worse state of play than that which currently prevails. It will not represent Brexit in any meaningful shape or form.
Once again we must call on all Conservative MPs to replace this dire Prime Minister with one who has at least a vague idea of reality and who backs Brexit.
The government should now be putting all its efforts into agreeing a limited number of issues with the EU, starting with the fate of citizens living in each other’s countries. There are many other matters which could be agreed outside of any withdrawal deal, such as the continuation of flights and travel between the UK and the EU27.
As for trade, the UK should now declare that it will proceed to trade on the same basis as the vast majority of the world, using WTO terms. It should also negotiate and as soon as possible sign trade deals with a select number of countries.
We have many other solutions but now is not the time for these. Now is the time for Tory MPs to get rid of this disastrous Prime Minister before she costs the country more billions than she already has.
[ Sources: The White House | EU Commission ]
     Journalists and politicians can contact us for the full list of links, as usual.
       06.50am, 27 July 2018
Please send us your comments and we will publish them here. You can of course use a pseudonym if you prefer, and it's always nice to know roughly where you're writing from. Please always state the headline of the article you're commenting on.
Name: Chris, Devizes, UK      Date/Time: 27 July 2018, 11.54am
Message: It's astonishing that the useless May is still doggedly sticking to the absurd Chequers plan, when there is the excellent CETA+++ plan, produced by [David Cambell Bannerman MP - ED] ready to go. And that plan has been given the nod by Tusk too. It does however, look as though Boris is at the end of his tether, and will surely trigger a No Confidence vote soon: Writing in the Spectator magazine, Mr Johnson likened the leaving a job for pastures new but still having to take orders from the old employer. "That is what the Chequers white paper means," he wrote, in his first public comment about Brexit since last week's resignation speeches in the House of Commons. "It is vassalage ... colony status for the UK. "For the first time in a thousand years our laws will be made overseas, enforced by a foreign court. "It can't and won't work. Chuck Chequers."
Name: Brexiteer, Braintree, Essex, UK      Date/Time: 27 July 2018, 09.49am
Message: Make your mind up time May. The EU were never going to accept your Chequers White Paper so its pointless trying to sell it to the public. All these personal appearances the soft sell for Conservative Party members,and hope they change their minds about this sellout over the Summer. No chance, now we the electorate are subjected to "operation fear on steroids", no sandwiches if we leave the EU, emotive words like "crash out" and "cliff edge". There will be food shortages, 50mile queues at Calais/Dover, rubbish the supermarkets have been working on all contingencies for months, remember market share for them is at stake here.
The entrepreneurs in Australia,New Zealand and Canada are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of a no deal, the UK is a massive market they have been excluded from by EU tariffs. There is plenty of food around the world, since the US imposed tariffs on China they have been stockpiling millions and millions of tons of beef and soybeans,they have just done a trade deal with the EU to shift some of those soybeans. The French wine imports to the UK alone are worth £200 million to their economy are they going to give that up to the New World wines? No chance once the market has gone, it will be very difficult to regain. May should call the EU's bluff and see what happens. It worked for Trump over car tariffs, the EU rushed over to do a deal in a day. The UK population won't starve to death, but EU economies will take one hell of a hit, which will take many years to recover from,that is without the Euro crisis which has not gone away.
Name: Big Mach, Cheshire, UK      Date/Time: 27 July 2018, 09.41am
Message: May/Hammond/Robbins will have expected this result. They knew it wouldn't get past the EU, but it is a step on the road to the next stage of retaining the status quo. The common rule book keeps them effectively in the Single market without free movement, so all they need now is a customs union. Barnier has already proposed this and there is a majority in the Commons taking May's 5th column and the Labour Party.
Hammond stated months ago that he wanted as close a relationship with the EU as possible and he is well on the way to achieving this.
May is destroying the Conservative party and either is too thick skinned to know or simply doesn't care.
Name: NOT4EU, London, UK      Date/Time: 27 July 2018, 08.32am
Message: Message to our pro-EU federalist Govt. who are laughingly 'negotiating' our exit. What you should be saying in response...
"The UK equally cannot – and will not – delegate the application of its laws, money, borders, defence, taxes, economy and governance to a foreign power, who would be neither subject to the UK's governance structures nor accountable to its people. It is not the definition of an independent country. May we remind you that under A50, it is the EU's responsibility to negotiate a withdrawal agreement not ours. You have left us with no serious alternative but to advise you that we WILL be leaving, completely, on 29th March 2019. For the sake of the remaining 27 we kindly suggest that you urgently review your budgetary plans in this light, in which you appear to have forgotten that your second largest net contributor will not be available. Pending any future agreement regarding trade, we will operate per our schedules now lodged at the WTO. You have our number should you wish to open proper trade talks."
Name: Patrick F, Kent, UK      Date/Time: 27 July 2018, 07.36am
Message: This is off topic, but I thought you and your readers might be interested. A Facebook Poll, initiated by self-styled "public figure" Jack Dart, a 24 year old Remainer has just closed. The stated purpose was to make the poll the largest in Facebook's history. Those who voted were encouraged to 'share'.
280,000 votes were received.
This is what we voted on:
The result:

One-off or monthly donations. Quick, easy, and very safe.
Donate Donate Subscribe
Any amount
From £2
Be a supporter.
One off donation
from £25 for 1 year
Be a supporter.
Monthly donation
from £3 per month
Choose amount FIRST:
THEN click button:
© The White House
On Wednesday evening (UK time) In Washington, unelected EU Commission President Juncker met elected US President Trump to discuss US-EU trade and other matters.
This has been heralded by the EU as a triumph. The facts appear to show otherwise.
  • Joint statement issued, written by the Americans
  • Aim is to work to reduce tariffs and barriers for “trade in services, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, medical products, as well as soybeans” – where US is strong
  • US will sell more energy supply (LNG) to EU, in response to EU request
  • US & EU to have dialogue to reduce “bureaucratic obstacles” to trade
  • Agreement to work with WTO to reduce unfair trade practices
  • US & EU to set up an “Executive Working Group of our closest advisors to carry this joint agenda forward”
  • No agreement on the steel and aluminum tariff issues
The first thing to note about the joint statement issued yesterday is that its language is overtly American. Brexit Facts4EU.Org has read more EU statements than is healthy, and this statement does not resemble any of the output the EU has ever produced.
It contains phrases such as “If we team up”, “It will also make trade fairer”, and “slash costs”. This is not the kind of language normally found in anything emanating from Brussels bureaucrats. It was also in a speech delivered by President Trump following the meeting.
Secondly the US puts itself first when the two parties are mentioned, i.e. “The United States and the European Union”.
And thirdly most of the products mentioned are ones which the US would like to sell more of, to the EU countries.
Taking the formal statement together with what President Trump said in the Rose Garden of the White House, all that has been agreed is an intention for him not to raise further tariffs against EU products while both parties talk.
In the meantime there are pluses President Trump. In The Rose Garden EU Commission President Juncker said:
“The EU will build more terminals to import liquefied natural gas from the U.S.” He then added: “As far as agriculture is concerned, the European Union can import more soybeans from the U.S., and it will be done.”
The LNG deal is potentially highly lucrative for the US. Soybeans may sound like small potatoes, as our American friends might say, but they’re also big business for the US.
As usual, this has been written up in the EU and in EU27 newspapers as a victory for the EU and it has been mentioned that it’s effectively a slap in the face for the UK, showing how the EU will stick to its core principles.
We are struggling to see how this is a victory for Juncker and the EU. We also can’t see how this demonstrates strength by the EU in regard to its ‘core principles’.
All that has been agreed is the status quo on current tariffs, an agreement not to add more US tariffs to more EU products for the moment, and promises for the EU to buy US liquefied natural gas and soybeans. As for the tariffs Mr Trump has imposed on the EU, here is what the President had to say:
“We will reassess existing tariffs on steel and aluminum.”
Reassessing is not dropping. In American parlance, the jury’s still out.
Let’s not forget who had to arrange a meeting hurriedly and fly across the Atlantic Ocean to have it.
And it was only a week last Sunday that President Trump had the following to say about the EU on national television:
“I think the European Union is a foe, what they do to us in trade. Now, you wouldn’t think of the European Union, but they’re a foe.”
We would suggest that the Donald hasn’t changed his mind one jot.
Our verdict on Juncker’s desperate dash to DC? Trump 1, Juncker 0.
Please note: You won't find an analysis like this from the BBC. To keep us pumping out the truth please consider making a donation today, no matter how small.
[ Sources: The White House | EU Commission ]
     Journalists and politicians can contact us for the full list of links, as usual.
       06.50am, 27 July 2018
Please send us your comments and we will publish them here. You can of course use a pseudonym if you prefer, and it's always nice to know roughly where you're writing from. Please always state the headline of the article you're commenting on.

One-off or monthly donations. Quick, easy, and very safe.
Donate Donate Subscribe
Any amount
From £2
Be a supporter.
One off donation
from £25 for 1 year
Be a supporter.
Monthly donation
from £3 per month
Choose amount FIRST:
THEN click button:
Brexit Facts4EU.Org is pleased to announce that our site is now more easily-viewable on your mobile phone.
If you access our news page today on your mobile you will be able to read our latest stories without having to scroll left or right or expand your view. And if you turn it to landscape view you will get an even better experience!
Yes, we know we should have done this a long time ago, but we never thought we would have to continue the fight for a clean Brexit for this long.
We’ve been busy researching and writing the most definitive factual articles on the UK’s membership of the EU. And, put simply, we had neither the time nor the funds to make this happen.
Thank you SO much for those of you who have sent donations in the last few weeks. Without you we couldn’t have continued and without you we couldn’t have become “mobile friendly”.
This is important because many MPs access our site on their mobile devices, so our articles will now be much easier for them to read.
Finally, to all of you on social media who have been asking us to do this for so long, maybe you might now want to help us with a donation? [Cheeky grin!] We desperately need some serious funds to reverse the current Theresa trend towards a non-Brexit Brexit.
       09.20am, 26 July 2018
Please send us your comments and we will publish them here. You can of course use a pseudonym if you prefer, and it's always nice to know roughly where you're writing from. Please always state the headline of the article you're commenting on.

One-off or monthly donations. Quick, easy, and very safe.
Donate Donate Subscribe
Any amount
From £2
Be a supporter.
One off donation
from £25 for 1 year
Be a supporter.
Monthly donation
from £3 per month
Choose amount FIRST:
THEN click button:
On Tuesday the EU Commission announced its plans for new migrant camps called “controlled centres” to be set up in the EU and in non-EU countries.
The full costs of these camps including buildings, staffing, flights, costs of UN agencies, interpreters and ‘cultural mediators’, will be borne out of the EU budget which the UK pays into. The host country will pay nothing.
The ratio of staff required has been shown by a proposed pilot project, where up to 2 EU staff will be required for every 3 migrants. Below are the numbers of EU staff required for dealing with just 500 migrants:

Border & Coastguard Agency Officers 50 50
Border & Coastguard Agency Interpreters 50 50
Border & Coastguard Agency Escort Officers 20 40
Border & Coastguard Agency Flight arrangement officers 5 10
European Asylum Support Screening Officers 25 35
European Asylum Support Processing Officers 25 35
European Asylum Support Voluntary Return Officers 10 25
European Asylum Support Interpreter/Cultural Mediation Officers 50 50
Europol Officers 10 20
Table compiled by Brexit Facts4EU.Org, 2018
Up to 315 EU staff, plus others from UN agencies, for just 500 migrants.
The EU itself has not published this table. We compiled it from the descriptions within the EU papers published on Tuesday. Please note that these numbers are only for 500 migrants.
Please also note that the numbers of UNHCR and IOM (International Organisation for Migration) staff has not been given, but the EU has promised to pay for these too.
Plus the EU will also pay €6,000 for every migrant that an EU member state takes.
“The Member State that will voluntarily apply the flexible approach on "controlled centres" would be able to call upon EU financial assistance under the AMIF and ISF programmes which could cover its costs. In addition, financial support can be provided to Member States which accept transfers of persons disembarked (€6,000 per person).”
- EU Commission, 24 July 2018
To date, no EU country has offered to host one of these camps and no EU country has indicated that it wishes to take more migrants under this plan.
Part one above only relates to camps to be set up within the EU.
It was the agreement to set up these camps which Angela Merkel needed in order to pacify her coalition colleagues the CSU, when she was in danger of losing her job a month ago. It was required in order to stop Italy from setting migrants on a northward journey towards Germany.
However in addition to the above, the EU also plans to pay non-EU governments to host migrant camps on their soil.
In addition to the above, the EU Commission has outlined the second part of its master plan. This involves the setting up of “controlled centres” (as outlined above) in non-EU countries, most probably in North Africa.
In addition to the “controlled centres”, the EU further proposes to set up “regional disembarkation platforms”.
The difference between these two types of camp seems to be that the “controlled centres” will deal with migrants who have landed in the EU and the “regional disembarkation platforms” will deal with migrants who have been picked up at sea by one of the big NGO boats operating in the area, but who have not already been landed in the EU.
The EU – and in some cases member states like Italy directly – are already paying African governments in the form of ‘support’ in a number of areas:
“notably enhancing border management and SAR capabilities through capacity building, equipment and training as well as strengthening their asylum system, where applicable. It is also supporting the activities of IOM and UNHCR in third countries to expand protection space for refugees and asylum seekers and in providing protection and assistance to vulnerable migrants, including return and reintegration activities.”
- EU Commission, 24 July 2018
In addition to the billions being spent in this way, the EU now proposes additional payments. Here is the list of what it is proposing to pay for:
  • Enhanced border management through equipment, training and other forms of support to enhance the capacities of the relevant stakeholders responsible for securing borders and carrying out SAR;
  • Development of communication networks to enhance situational awareness at sea;
  • Reception facilities in line with adequate, safe and dignified conditions;
  • Development of biometric registration, including training and equipment;
  • Assistance to cover essential needs;
  • Support in the identification of vulnerabilities, referrals, case processing, Refugee Status Determination;
  • Support for returns, including Assisted Voluntary Returns/Voluntary Humanitarian Returns and Reintegration assistance;
  • Support third countries in building up or strengthening their asylum system;
  • Local solutions including local integration, temporary stay on compassionate grounds as well as applying for asylum in a third country, where applicable;
  • Resettlement;
  • Other protection pathways, such as humanitarian admission or private/community sponsorship programmes in close cooperation with EU Member States.
- EU Commission paper, 24 July 2018
To put all of this into context for readers, below is the chart we produced from the official figures from the EU Commission in respect of migrant costs. This does not include many other funds which are now being used to pay for the cost of the EU migrant crisis which was exacerbated to a major degree by Angela Merkel's 'all welcome' policy of 2015.
© Facts4EU.Org 2018
A meeting will be held on Monday 30 July 2018 in Geneva between the EU, certain key member states, the UNHCR, and the IOM (International Organisation For Migration), to progress these plans.
Perhaps readers can get a flavour of the mentality of the people involved in these expensive plans from just one sentence in one of the EU’s papers which were published on Tuesday:
“The European values of solidarity, mutual trust and shared responsibility
are at the core of this holistic approach.”
In other words, we’re all luvvie-dovies, we’re all united, and none of us wants to talk about the spat that almost got dear Angela fired and that has made the majority of Italians fed up with the EU.
The key thing in all of this from a British point of view is the enormous cost. Be in no doubt, it’s the British taxpayer who will foot a large part of this bill.
Don’t forget, the bulk of the EU27 pay nothing in net terms for their EU membership – they are net recipients of the largesse of countries like Germany and the UK.
Regrettably, the EU will insist that the UK pays ‘its fair share’ for these new programmes, doubtless for years to come. Theresa May has already agreed all of this in principle, so we have her to thank for this.
Technically, the UK should of course have left the EU by now, in which case it would have been liable for nothing. In the EU Referendum campaign David Cameron promised to invoke Article 50 “the next day”, which would have meant the UK leaving on 24 June 2018 – a month ago.
As it is, goodness only knows when we will leave – if indeed we ever truly leave at all. If Theresa May stays in power, that prospect seems a distant dream. (But then, so do the chances of the Conservative party ever being elected into power again before 2050.)
We would like to make one final point which is directed at all Remainer MPs who stand up in the Commons to proclaim that they must have a say on absolutely everything concerned with Brexit, and demanding a “meaningful vote” on the Brexit deal.
Huge amounts of British taxpayer money will go into the plans now being advanced by the unelected EU Commission. You have no say in this. Is it really fine by you that you have no say in this, as well as all the other EU decisions like it?
We continue to work on plans for a serious campaign to hit Remainer MPs of all parties with a matter very close to their hearts – their desire to keep their jobs. Watch this space. If you can help us with a donation, we could so much more, so much faster.
[ Sources: EU Commission ]
     Journalists and politicians can contact us for the full list of links, as usual.
       05.30am, 26 July 2018
Please send us your comments and we will publish them here. You can of course use a pseudonym if you prefer, and it's always nice to know roughly where you're writing from. Please always state the headline of the article you're commenting on.
Name: Brexiteer, Braintree, Essex, UK      Date/Time: 26 July 2018, 09.55am
Message: Utter utter madness, where do they find these people? "The European values of solidarity, mutual trust and shared responsibility are at the core of this holistic approach." We don't need these migrants, they are low IQ, uneducated, drains on the taxpayers. We have plenty of our own home bred who match these qualifications. We need educated people with skills willing to work in an 21st century economy. I read it takes 12 German taxpayers to support 1 migrant,and Germany has taken in 1,000,000 plus migrants, that's why it's costing 20billion Euro in benefits to support Merkle's new Europeans. Of which only 34,000 have the skills available so far to find jobs! All the EU leaders seem to be cultural Marxists, no wonder they all hate President Trump. They all want to destroy centuries of European culture and heritage.
Name: Patrick F, Kent, UK      Date/Time: 26 July 2018, 07.28am
Message: "Holistic approach"? I choked on my porridge!
Should negotiations now start and finish with a big group hug and misty eyed whisperings: "Love ya bro. Love ya sis. Love ya non-binary."?

On a serious note, another outstanding piece of work. Bravo!

One-off or monthly donations. Quick, easy, and very safe.
Donate Donate Subscribe
Any amount
From £2
Be a supporter.
One off donation
from £25 for 1 year
Be a supporter.
Monthly donation
from £3 per month
Choose amount FIRST:
THEN click button:
“the Europe Unit will have overall responsibility for the preparation and conduct of the negotiations”
  • Theresa May takes over Brexit negotiations
  • Unelected civil servants led by Remainer Olly Robbins will conduct the actual negotiations
  • Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab is formally sidelined
-Statement by Theresa May, 24 July 2018
Yesterday the Prime Minister Theresa May announced a formal “Machinery of Government Change” in a statement. The full statement is below.
“I am making this statement to bring to the attention of the House a machinery of government change.
“It is essential that in navigating the UK’s exit from the European Union, the Government are organised in the most effective way. To that end I am making some changes to the division of functions between the Department for Exiting the European Union (DExEU) and the Cabinet Office.
“DExEU will continue to lead on all of the Government’s preparations for Brexit: domestic preparations in both a deal and a no deal scenario, all of the necessary legislation, and preparations for the negotiations to implement the detail of the future framework. To support this, DExEU will recruit some new staff, and a number of Cabinet Office officials co-ordinating work on preparedness will move to DExEU while maintaining close ties with both Departments.
“I will lead the negotiations with the European Union, with the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union deputising on my behalf. Both of us will be supported by the Cabinet Office Europe Unit and with this in mind the Europe Unit will have overall responsibility for the preparation and conduct of the negotiations, drawing upon support from DExEU and other Departments as required. A number of staff will transfer from DExEU to the Cabinet Office to deliver that.
“There will be no net reduction in staff numbers at DExEU given the recruitment exercise described above.”
This statement was issued in the final hours before Parliament adjourned for the summer recess, giving MPs no time to question it.
Our ‘observations’ follow in our editorial below.
[ Sources: Cabinet Office | Hansard ]
     Journalists and politicians can contact us for the full list of links, as usual.
       06.40am, 25 July 2018
Please send us your comments and we will publish them here. You can of course use a pseudonym if you prefer, and it's always nice to know roughly where you're writing from. Please always state the headline of the article you're commenting on.
Name: NOT4EU, London, UK      Date/Time: 25 July 2018, 09.21am
Message: The Withdrawal Bill transfers the EU acquis into UK law, so the law is the same the day after we leave but is under our control. This is obviously not good enough for the anti-democratic EU gimp, Maykel, and her cohorts of traitorous Government EU cult acolytes. She intends to repeal (parts of) the repeal Act repealing the ECA 1972. The only purpose of this is to keep us under the control of the CJEU and to bypass our legislative process by automatically embedding new EU law without the express consent of Parliament. There is simply no other explanation.
If it wasn't so serious, this farce would be laughable. It is becoming pretty obvious now that Parliament is no longer a democracy, but a tyranny/dictatorship and the unelected are running the show in true EU style. The EU law joke is just one element of a litany of betrayals.
Like policing, Government exists by consent of the people. I, like many, are reaching a stage of withdrawing consent. We see those purporting to be on our side religiously playing by the 'rulebook' whilst the anti-democrats, fully supported by a media propaganda machine that Goebbels would be proud of, don't. It is time to stand up and be counted for both leaving the corrupt EU and for democracy.
Name: Brexiteer, Braintree, Essex, UK      Date/Time: 25 July 2018, 07.30am
Message: May taking over full negotiating of Brexit,does she think she has become president of the UK? Well the good thing is she has nobody but herself to blame for any deal that is negotiated.The buck stops with her and Ollie Robbins,and she has to sell the deal to the whole House of Commons.Good Luck with that! sellouts are difficult to sell.

One-off or monthly donations. Quick, easy, and very safe.
Donate Donate Subscribe
Any amount
From £2
Be a supporter.
One off donation
from £25 for 1 year
Be a supporter.
Monthly donation
from £3 per month
Choose amount FIRST:
THEN click button:
The last person anyone would choose to head up Brexit negotiations has now put herself in charge of them.
  • May gives Brexit negotiations to unelected Remainer team of bureaucrats
  • DExEU becomes ExDExEU - a department in charge of paperwork
  • Tory MPs must act now, or lose power for a decade or more
In terms of competence, May putting herself in charge of the Brexit negotiations is akin to Diane Abbott being put in charge of the Treasury. Only chaos and misery can possibly ensue.
Now Theresa May can no longer make any pretence that she is anything other than a fully-blown Remainer.
In ‘taking charge’ of the Brexit negotiations and devolving responsibility for the actual negotations to a group of unelected Europhile bureaucrats working out of No.10, she has turned British democracy into something equivalent to an EU institution, where democratic principles rarely trouble the minds of those who work there.
Mrs May has put herself nominally in charge, but will not conduct the actual negotiations. This responsibility has been given to unelected Remainer civil servant Oliver Robbins and his europhile team at the ‘Europe Unit’ at No.10.
Given that Brexit supercedes all other policy issues facing the government, Mr Robbins has now become arguably the most powerful man in the country. And yet he has never had to face the electorate.
Mrs May has a history of surrounding herself with strong unelected personalities. Leaving the Home Office to become PM she took her two closest advisers, Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy, with her to No.10. Eventually Tory MPs forced her to fire them because it was felt that they were effectively running the show.
During her tenure of that office, of course, she singularly failed to make the slightest impact on the headline policy of David Cameron’s government to reduce immigration to the ‘tens of thousands’. The hundreds of thousands entering the country each year actually rose, rather than falling.
Now it appears she has fallen under the spell of the undoubtedly intelligent Mr Robbins. It is as if May is so insecure and lacking in confidence that she is unable to take any decisions herself, and needs stronger, more decisive people around her.
In Dominic Raab we now have a titular head of what has in effect become ExDExEU. His department no longer has responsibility for delivering the deal with the EU.
Instead it will follow along behind, picking up the papers and putting them in the files. It will deal with ‘domestic preparations’ and ‘necessary legislation’ and is clearly being kept as far away from Brussels as possible.
If Raab had any principles whatsoever he would never have taken the job. He has now admitted that he knew of May’s plans when he was appointed. A bright mind is of no use if it comes with deeply-flawed judgement.
Theresa May wasn’t our choice of PM. When she was chosen by her colleagues, however, we wanted to give her the benefit of the doubt. At first we thought her merely incompetent. Then it became clear she was deliberately delaying and watering down Brexit.
Now it seems she is determined on a course that brings her into direct conflict with a large majority of her party members and a majority of the electorate.
In two short years – two of the most significant in the country’s history – she has become possibly the worst Conservative Prime Minister in living memory.
At this time what is required is someone with a belief in Brexit Britain, superb leadership skills, an understanding of the EU mindset, a fundamental understanding of how to negotiate successfully, and experience of foreign relations.
Regrettably our current Prime Minister is sorely lacking in every single one of these attributes.
If the Conservative party don’t get rid of May now, they’ll find the people will get rid of them at the next general election. And the fallout may well continue for a generation.
We can even see a scenario where a massive protest vote might go to UKIP at the next election. This might even be unseen by pollsters until the last minute. Imagine if a third of Tory and Labour voters thought when entering the polling booth: “Blow this for a game of soldiers” and deserted the main two parties en masse?
The simple fact is that our current crop of MPs – of all political parties – still don't get it. There has been a seismic shift in people’s views about politics and politicians, which has been building for a long time.
At Brexit Facts4EU.Org we are not reliant solely on the views of our readership. We take in all media and social media - of all persuasions - and it is our judgement that dangerous times lie ahead.
We call on all Conservative MPs to act immediately to replace Mrs May as Prime Minister. There are some serious constitutional questions over the way she is now acting – in spirit if not in the letter.
Forget the nonsense we heard from a couple of Tory MPs yesterday that a leadership election will take 3 months. This is now urgent.
We say to possible candidates: If you stand, you may not win, but your reputation with the people will be sound and will have been enhanced.
Call an EGM of the party, or whatever you have to do to get the rules changed, and make it happen in 3 weeks, not 3 months. The people voted over 2 years ago for the biggest change in the United Kingdom’s status in 45 years.
This Prime Minister clearly won’t deliver it. Enough is enough. This cannot wait until the autumn. Act now or be judged accordingly.
[ Sources: UK Government ]
     Journalists and politicians can contact us for the full list of links, as usual.
       06.40am, 25 July 2018
Please send us your comments and we will publish them here. You can of course use a pseudonym if you prefer, and it's always nice to know roughly where you're writing from. Please always state the headline of the article you're commenting on.
Name: Big Mach, Cheshire, UK      Date/Time: 25 July 2018, 7.03pm
Message: There are things about the Chequers paper that don't stack up.
Because of the issues around the Irish border we have to have regulatory alignment, which means we must have a common rule book. If both sides could solve the problem by recognising that infrastructure was not required on either side of the border then we would not need a common rule book and a complex customs arrangement.
Funnily enough both sides have already said that.On 9th March 2018 you published evidence from Jon Thompson, the head of HMRC, saying that there would be no need of infrastructure on the NI border even if there were no deal. On 30th April you published transcripts from evidence given to the Irish Finance Committee by Messrs Cody and Callinan confirming that the Irish tax authorities saw no requirement for infrastructure on the Irish side of the border. A recent article in the Irish Times quoted Irish government sources who said that even if there were no deal the EU had said that no infrastructure would be required on the Irish border. This last point was made by Sammy Wilson in questions to Ollie Robbins in the DexEU committee, who flannelled in the best traditions of Sir Humphrey. From this we see that all sides agree that no infrastructure is required. So what is going on?
I smell a Hammond sized rat. He said months ago that he wanted as close a relationship as possible with the EU. To achieve that objective we have to keep the Irish border in play, forcing us to have a common rule book, giving us close alignment. I have conveyed these thoughts to Sir Bernard Jenkin via Twitter.
I hope I am not being too conspiratorial.
Name: R Ellison, Essex, UK      Date/Time: 26 July 2018, 3.48pm
Message: We are watching Theresa May ever so closely now. We KNOW she is not trying to get a good trade deal. We KNOW that what she IS up to is trying to overthrow the majority vote and handcuff Great Britain to the EU for ever. Why would she ever imagine that her talks to the Conservative Party Members around the country this Summer will ever convince them to trust her? Every time she opens her mouth she digs herself into a deeper hole. And it's all down to her self-appointed and anointed self. No good trying the 'Doom and Gloom' Version Three story, Darling, it just won't work. We are justified now in asking: is May suitable as a Prime Minister? Are the Conservative Party willing to let Theresa May trash and crash them for decades to come? Nor, it should be pointed out, can we, the British Electorate, trust a Party that just permits a Leader to carry on being so diabolically and diametrically opposed to the Referendum 'Leave' result.
Name: Chris, Devizes, UK      Date/Time: 25 July 2018, 10.45am
Message: An excellent article. I sincerely hope that Tory MPs take note, and the 60-100 Tory Brexiteers submit their 'no confidence' letters immediately. There is now absolutely no doubt that May is complicit in the conspiracy to overturn Brexit, but I don't think she is the architect. She is just too stupid for that. You only have to look at her tenure as Home Secretary and the Abu Qatada fiasco. I think the Chequers 'agreement' has George Osborne's finger prints all over it, and it was always going to be the Plan B in the event of Vote Leave winning. They never expected to lose of course, but they had to have a backup plan to satisfy their large corporate party donors. The choice of May as PM was probably pre-arranged as a stalking horse. And Robbins worked for Cameron, of course.
We are a committed and determined team.
You haven't given up fighting for a clean Brexit.
Together we're up against a vast army of UK & EU propagandists.
Brexit Facts4EU.Org is an influential pro-Brexit news organisation read by MPs, MEPs, mainstream journalists, eurocrats, MPs and Senators from the EU, USA, Australia and other countries.
Do you still have the determination to get the Brexit you voted for? Or in fact more than ever before?
To the right: Articles in the national press,
all of which came from Brexit Facts4EU.Org.
We’re committed and tireless, but we wouldn’t be here to report and fight without our supporters.
If you’re like-minded, please join our readership. If you're already 'in-the-club' we'd like to take the opportunity to send you a big thank you for all your support.
All we have here are our honest tools - research, compelling daily content, simple charts - and our most important resource - YOU.
We badly need your help to keep going, fighting for a full, clean Brexit.

One-off or monthly donations. Quick, easy, and very safe.
Donate Donate Subscribe
Any amount
From £2
Be a supporter.
One off donation
from £25 for 1 year
Be a supporter.
Monthly donation
from £3 per month
Choose amount FIRST:
THEN click button:
(Anonymity respected completely if you prefer to remain private)
       Best regards, the Facts4EU.Org Team, 2018
Last month (June 2018) on Twitter, our tweets about Brexit were seen over 873,100 times.
And that’s with Twitter ‘shadow banning’ us because (it is alleged) they don’t like Brexiteers. This means that Twitter prevents our tweets from being seen by many people.
Obviously, this is not right. However Twitter are a bit like the BBC – a law unto themselves.
One year ago in June 2017 our tweets were seen only 10,700 times. So with 873,100 views this June that’s an increase of 82 times in one year. A great result.
The rest of the Brexit Facts4EU.Org team would like to thank Sara, who has been editing our Twitter account, for this wonderful performance. Well done Sara, for spreading the word so widely.
If Twitter weren’t artificially limiting our account, just imagine what she could have achieved!
If you would like to follow us on Twitter, the button is below.
You can really help us by retweeting. The more people who read our work, the better!
       4.20pm, 24 July 2018
Please send us your comments and we will publish them here. You can of course use a pseudonym if you prefer, and it's always nice to know roughly where you're writing from. Please always state the headline of the article you're commenting on.
Name: huev, Midlands, UK      Date/Time: 24 July 2018, 5.23pm
Message: I see reports that Mrs May is taking over the negotiations of Brexit from Mr Raab. One has to assume that he has shown some spirit and determination in his first few meetings,and not given any likelihood of further concessions to Barnier. Mr Raab is obviously dangerously out of line with current thinking in the civil service.
Reply: Don't worry, we've already started writing a piece about this for tomorrow's edition.

One-off or monthly donations. Quick, easy, and very safe.
Donate Donate Subscribe
Any amount
From £2
Be a supporter.
One off donation
from £25 for 1 year
Be a supporter.
Monthly donation
from £3 per month
Choose amount FIRST:
THEN click button:
Day after day since before the EU Referendum, you have seen MP after MP telling you things about the UK’s membership of the European Union.
For example, how many times have you heard that if we leave the Single Market it will destroy jobs and ruin the economy? “No-one voted Leave to become poorer”, you are told.
(In fact many of us voted Leave in the knowledge there would probably be a bumpy economic ride in the short-term but we accepted that, because of the major long-term economic benefits and because of our desire for a return to a sovereign and independent United Kingdom.)
You are being lectured every day, so it is only fair to ask what your MP really knows. When you are told that leaving the Single Market will ‘trash’ the economy, what lies behind that claim?
Some MPs rely on the bogus figures from a group of Remainer civil servants in the Treasury, who keep trotting out Project Fear Mk II. These are same people who were so woefully wrong on their forecasts of the economic Armageddon that would immediately follow a Leave result.
Instead of being fired for incompetence they fight on for their Remain cause, unrepentant, unashamed, and apparently unsackable.
Yesterday Stewart Jackson, Chief of Staff to David Davis when he was Brexit Secretary, told the BBC that the Treasury’s forecasts “might as well have been written on the back of a fag packet.” He said that when the Treasury’s figures were used in cabinet, some ministers asked how they were built up but didn’t get a reply. He described them as “fantastical”.
Aside from the occasional forecast from Treasury Remainer mandarins, what other ‘evidence’ do Remainer MPs have for their claim that leaving the Single Market will trash the economy? What do they know that you don’t?
Let’s be clear. One of the biggest impediments to a full, clean Brexit is the large body of MPs in the Commons who want to thwart your Referendum vote.
It is our contention that the majority of these MPs don’t know more about EU membership than you do, or we do. In fact, many of our readers will know far more than their MP, because of the information we have provided daily in the last three years.
In the article below we give just one example of a fact about the Single Market, that holy of holies for Remainer MPs.
We think it’s a ‘killer fact’ - one that will be easily understood by everyone. It is also uncontestable, because we used official ONS government figures in our analysis, in order to produce it.
Every day there are articles about Brexit. These appear in some of our newspapers, and also on the websites of the ‘big name’ Brexit organisations. But what good have they done?
At Brexit Facts4EU.Org we took a different approach. Instead of long academic prose, sometimes in excess of 3,000 words per article, we have produced daily facts in readable form, with simple charts to accompany them.
It’s true that in the last two weeks or so we’ve had to write about the UK political scene, particularly after the Chequers surrender document, but look back at some recent months’ output. Fact after fact, day after day. If you are a new reader and want a typical example, here’s our output from the first 10 days of June.
We have tried before to interest the ‘big name’ Brexit organisations in a public campaign to email MPs. Unfortunately we had no response from any of them.
Despite the lack of support from the ‘big beasts’, we went ahead most recently on a campaign for people to email cabinet ministers ahead of the Chequers summit. Many readers and social media followers did just that. This may not have changed the outcome, but it will have made some of those cabinet ministers think.
Imagine if we could get a massive public campaign going, to let Remainer MPs know the strength of feeling in the country?
Shortly we will be publishing more about this: a practical outline of what we, as members of the public, could do to stop Remainer MPs from thinking they can overturn Brexit. We’ll need your help and we’ll also need to raise some serious funding somehow.
In the meantime, below is an example of the kind of thing that Remainer MPs need to be aware of.
Things like this will never persuade the EU-loving fanatics like Soubry, Grieve, Starmer, Umunna, et al. But a whole series of these basic facts will be eye-openers for many MPs who have simply been repeating what some of their fanatical colleagues say.
A campaign of basic facts - plus a concerted effort to make Remainer MPs realise that their jobs will go if they don't get behind a democratic decision of the British people - might focus minds.
And to those cynics who tell us: 'you're wasting your time', what do you want to do? Give up? We don't think that's very British, frankly.
[ Sources: David Campbell Bannerman MEP ]
     Journalists and politicians can contact us for the full list of links, as usual.
       05.30am, 24 July 2018
Please send us your comments and we will publish them here. You can of course use a pseudonym if you prefer, and it's always nice to know roughly where you're writing from. Please always state the headline of the article you're commenting on.

One-off or monthly donations. Quick, easy, and very safe.
Donate Donate Subscribe
Any amount
From £2
Be a supporter.
One off donation
from £25 for 1 year
Be a supporter.
Monthly donation
from £3 per month
Choose amount FIRST:
THEN click button:
© EU Commission
Dear Remainer MP,
We know that not all MPs who voted Remain and who now vote against a full, clean Brexit are fanatics.
We know that some of you have relied on your official party position, or have listened to the authoritative-sounding daily statements from some of your louder colleagues - those who are ardently pro-EU, come what may.
This is addressed to Remainer MPs who are still open to listening and to looking at new facts.
How much has the UK’s average annual GDP growth rate risen since the Single Market started?
That’s a good question, don’t you think? After all, you’ve quite possibly been repeating the mantra that leaving the Single Market will be a disaster for the economy.
If you claim that leaving the Single Market will result in lower growth or a recession, it follows that it should be possible to prove the opposite. In other words, how much has the Single Market helped our economy? A simple way of doing this is to look at how much our membership of the Single Market has increased our growth rate since it started.
Well, we’ve done the sums for you, using the official GDP figures from the ONS. There is no sleight of hand. The chart below comes from the raw data and is indisputable.
  • 25 years BEFORE Single Market started:  2.4% average annual growth
  • 25 years AFTER Single Market started:     2.2% average annual growth
Chart © Facts4EU.Org 2018
The UK’s average annual growth rate has fallen since the start of the Single Market, not risen.
The above information comes from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) and is therefore official and reliable, as with all the data sources we use.
Over the years the EU has made claims that the full implementation of the Single Market will produce an uplift in GDP of 4.5 - 6%. In 25 years, this has never materialised. In fact the UK’s average GDP growth has fallen from 2.4% to 2.2% as we have shown.
Yes of course we know that many factors make economic growth go up or down, which is precisely why we have used such a long time period to make the comparisons.
Last year the EU celebrated 25 years since the launch of its Single Market. We used the lifetime of this project – 25 years – and therefore used the period of 25 years before it to make the comparison. This evens out any short-term effects from other factors.
We suggest to you, dear Remainer MP, that any claim made by your colleagues that membership of the Single Market has been a success for the UK is pure bunkum based on what they hope is the case, rather than what has happened in reality.
Unable to argue against this basic fact above, your fanatically pro-EU colleagues will then tell you that economic growth as measured by GDP is irrelevant and that the Single Market brings so many other benefits.
It doesn’t, but that’s for another article.
Please don't be on the wrong side of history for all the wrong reasons.
[ Sources: ONS GDP growth rates ]
     Journalists and politicians can contact us for the full list of links, as usual.
       05.30am, 24 July 2018
Please send us your comments and we will publish them here. You can of course use a pseudonym if you prefer, and it's always nice to know roughly where you're writing from. Please always state the headline of the article you're commenting on.
Name: Zerren Yeoville, South-West England, UK      Date/Time: 24 July 2018, 10.38pm
Message: Just a thought - it would have even more impact if it was emphasized that the pre-Single Market years of 1968-1992 included the notorious 'Sick Man Of Europe' years of the 1970s ... and that even accounting for this, the average growth for the period was higher.
Name: "Facts speak for themselves", Home Counties, UK      Date/Time: 24 July 2018, 9.04pm
Message: According to the table on P1 of this EC/German study, after 20 years the UK had about 1% total cumulative higher GDP due to the single market (the EU average was about 2.13% total cumulative higher GDP).
This 1% gain is less than the regulatory burden of remaining in the Single Market, which Economists for Free Trade calculate to be 2% of GDP.
Economists for Free Trade calculate a further 4% of GDP benefit would arise from FTAs with the non-EU countries that now comprise c60% of UK exports.
Reply: Yes we know about these studies. It's important to stress to readers that the Bertelsmann study was only able to claim 1% extra growth over 20 years, which is about 0.05% per year. That's so tiny as to be meaningless. We believe the key thing is to focus on fundamental facts which everyone can understand, which is what we are trying to do with articles like that above. The basic facts above are true: a lower average annual growth rate after the Single Market than before.
Name: Paul A, East Sussex, UK      Date/Time: 24 July 2018, 09.26am
Message: Morning, Just wondering what the result would be of taking the 0.2 % shortfall in growth compounded over 25 years equates to in cash terms.... Thanks :-)
Reply: Sorry Paul, we've been working since 2am. Afraid you'll have to do the maths on that! :-)

One-off or monthly donations. Quick, easy, and very safe.
Donate Donate Subscribe
Any amount
From £2
Be a supporter.
One off donation
from £25 for 1 year
Be a supporter.
Monthly donation
from £3 per month
Choose amount FIRST:
THEN click button:
David Campbell Bannerman MEP
talking exclusively to Brexit Facts4EU.Org
Brexit Facts4EU is known for thorough research and analysis of Brexit information from official sources: from the EU, from the UK, and from other EU countries.
Readers tell us they like us for our punchy articles with simple facts which are bullet-pointed, and for our simple charts which tell a story at a glance.
Politicians tell us they like us because they know they can trust the facts we report. They also like that they don’t have to read a 3,000 word article and they don’t have to work to find the facts contained therein.
Below is the transcript of a long interview conducted by our editor over the weekend with one of the very few Conservative MEPs in the EU Parliament who has been consistently pro-Leave.
David Campbell Bannerman is a Conservative MEP who sits on the EU Parliament’s International Trade Committee. He is the originator of the ‘SuperCanada’ trade option, for the future trade arrangement between the EU and the UK. He is an ardent Brexiteer.
He and our editor discussed SuperCanada, as well as ranging over many other Brexit issues including sovereignty, the Single Market, the Customs Union, freedom of movement - and crucially Theresa May's Chequers White Paper.
For once we have decided to give you a rare glimpse into the full conversation, rather then just the highlights.
If you only want highlights, we published these yesterday here.
We warn you: what follows is a very long read. However it is perhaps a unique insight. We hope you enjoy it.
Tomorrow we’ll go back to our usual punchy and factual articles about the EU and Brexit.
Q: What is ‘SuperCanada’? Can you give our readers your ‘elevator pitch’?
A: Yes. Most trade in the world is done through global trade deals - free trade agreements. I’m advocating for the EU-UK trade deal a ‘SuperCanada Deal’ which is bigger, better, wider than the Canada trade deal with the EU (called CETA) that recently completed last year.
But it would have more. It would have 100% tariff-free access and it would have services in it. So basically, it’s the best ever trade deal the EU has ever offered and it’s entirely deliverable.
Q: Why do you think the SuperCanada option might fly with the EU?
A: With possible forms of trade deals it’s not just what’s acceptable to the UK, it’s what acceptable to the EU27, the remaining nations of the EU.
I’ve done nearly 10 years on the International Trade Committee of the European Parliament and I worked on deals, Canada most recently. I worked also on the South Korea deal, I’m covering New-Zealand at the moment, and I’m monitoring Australia.
There’s a lot of commonality about all these deals, I think that’s an important point. These are not all entirely different deals.
I think the first point to make is that the EU doesn’t make the trade rules, the World Trade Organization(WTO) does. And I regard WTO as like the spring that leads to all the rivers of world trade deals.
What happens is that the WTO sets the rules - the global rules network. If you look at the free trade agreements done by the EU particularly - or others done around the world - there’s a lot of commonality and what you see reflected are WTO agreements, such as the General Agreement on Trade and Services (GATS)
So, what I’m saying is that the EU is following a lot of WTO practice and agreements and rules and procedures and protocols. So, you’re looking at any trade new trade deal being driven by global WTO rules. We would follow those and we’re comfortable with following those.
Q: If that’s the case, and if this deal you’re proposing follows WTO rules and follows the way the EU has more recently done deals, why on earth are we in the state we’re in and why wasn’t this pursued by the government?
A: Well, it has been pursued, it was being pursued by the original Brexit Department: by David Davis, by Steve Baker, by Stewart Jackson, all of whom has resigned or lost their jobs recently. The ConservativeHome website actually has the original White Paper which contains this ‘Super Canada’ deal, otherwise known as ‘CETA+++’. CETA being the name for the deal the EU did with Canada last year.
This actually was in the official White Paper of the Brexit Department but unfortunately Number 10 has been playing some very strange games, where their Europe Unit had developed a separate White Paper for what is now the Chequers Agreement.
Chequers is a kind of Euromush. It’s closer to the Norwegian EEA Agreement. Plan A was to use a SuperCanada trade agreement and that was reflected in the ‘unofficial’ White Paper from David Davis’ Brexit Department.
This is what’s happening at the moment: we are running into problems with the EU. Barnier’s been very damning because one thing they don’t want to see is interference with their Four Freedoms and the Single Market. They regard this as being very much their red lines - very special to them. And of course, the Chequers Deal messes with goods and services and it creates a lot of questions.
So they look at a free trade agreement like Canada as being a much cleaner, simpler model. They’ve just signed a free trade agreement with Japan. There was no talk of Japan being in the Customs Union or a ‘Customs Partnership’ or a ‘Customs Facilitation Arrangement’ – or whatever you’re going to call it.
It’s a clean free trade agreement based on WTO rules and that is how the world does free trade agreements all around the world. It doesn’t tend to follow EEA or EFTA – those are special deals which relate to countries supposedly joining the EU. Norway was supposed to be joining the EU after having this EEA agreement. It was a sort of stepping stone towards EU membership. As are association agreements such as Ukraine and some of the North African ones.
At the end of the day the European Parliament has a sole power but important Brexit power which is to agree or disagree the final Withdrawal Agreement and also the trade agreement which will follow from that. So essentially the European Parliament will make the decision whether it accepts the future partnership - the trade deal - or not.
And the Withdrawal Agreement is more pressing, it has to be done by March. That gets Britain out of the EU with the £39 billion payment and the EU citizens’ rights and a solution on Northern Ireland, one hopes. But within that there’s a trade deal, or the outlines of a trade deal, and that will then be negotiated once we’re a ‘third country’ - as it’s known in their parlance - from the 30th of March next year. We can’t negotiate a free trade agreement until we’re a third country.
Q: Some people like us, and Martin Howe QC from Lawyers for Britain, have argued that there’s nothing stopping the UK government negotiating trade deals right now, so that they are ready to be signed and implemented on Day One after exiting the EU. What are your thoughts?
A: I agree with that. However we lost the argument over sequencing, and David Davis in his resignation letter mentions that. My understanding is that allegedly the business side of the cabinet: the Treasury and Business Ministers wanted to agree to this sequencing to keep the EU happy. David Davis was overruled right from the start.
I think it was all about pandering to the EU. But actually I challenged it myself in the EU. I said: ‘Look, in Article 50 there aren’t many clauses but it does make clear that you agree a withdrawal agreement bearing in mind the future relationship you’re going to have. How can you conclude the withdrawal agreement without knowing what the future relationship will be – trade, security and all that? It doesn’t make sense. And the only sense is that in negotiating terms we’ve given the EU the power basically to get us to pay the cash and all the other things they want, before even starting what we want, which is the trade deal. They realize that that’s we want more than anything. So I think they’ve negotiated well, we’ve negotiated very badly.
Q: We try to make complex issues readable. How do you find the process of explaining SuperCanada?
Yes, you produce very important briefings. I do follow them.
The danger with all of this is people are easily turned off because of the apparent complexities. Particularly with MPs. I find a lot don’t understand the basics, what a Customs Union is, and whatever.
It’s a battle within government, which I’m familiar with having been a special adviser in the past and involved with policy. It’s always a battle where you never quite know.
It’s a black-box of policy and even the Brexit department was kept out of that black-box until the last moment – ridiculous. But that’s the way it works. I’m just seeing after 10 years of direct experience that the SuperCanada deal is the most practical way forward. Good for everyone.
And even Barnier’s chief of staff said to me: ‘As long as you accept the limitations of Brexit and withdrawal, the loss of passporting rights etc and other things that Single Market members get, we can do a deal’. That’s what he said. The Chequers proposal is trying to get too many extra benefits out of it and it’s messing with the Single Market, and this is why Barnier’s basically rejected the core of it.
Q: Can you confirm that SuperCanada doesn’t impact taking back control, in the sense of being under the ECJ, in the sense of the Single Market, Customs Union, freedom of movement?
A: Yes. I think this is the beauty of a free trade agreement. And this is where Barnier showed that famous slide when he took our red lines and ruled out everything but a Canada-style agreement. If you follow the logic of the red lines - not in the Customs Union, not in the Single Market, no ECJ rulings – then you’re where an independent, sovereign nation state is when it wants to deal with the EU.
New Zealand and Australia are now negotiating their deals with the EU. The New Zealand ambassador told me it’s 80 % based on Canada, on the CETA Deal. These are independent, sovereign nations, they’re very good models for us because obviously they’re English-speaking, Queen-loving, cricket-playing, English law-abiding nations. There’s a lot of similarity. It’s almost like there’s a Commonwealth model for dealing with the EU which is developing.
Q: So you’re very clear that this kind of deal doesn’t compromise any of the issues that any normal Brexiteer might be concerned about? It doesn’t require freedom of movement, Single Market membership, Customs Union, common legislation within the UK that requires us to follow EU law? You’re saying that this is a deal based on deals which are being done with truly independent sovereign nations?
A: Yes, that’s the beauty of it and that’s why I strongly advocate this approach because that’s what all independent sovereign nations are doing with the EU. That’s what Japan is doing with the EU, when only last week they signed the deal with the EU.
It’s not compromising its security, it’s not signing up to ECJ, or becoming part of the the Customs Union or the Single Market. With the Single Market it’s very important: what independent nations want is access to the EU Single Market but not membership of the Single Market. When I say that Canada - only the 12th largest trading partner of the EU - has 99% access to the Single Market through the CETA deal, that’s pretty impressive.
There’s no tariffs on industrial goods, they’ve all been removed. There are still some tariffs left on agricultural goods. And this is an important point, Canada will have 92% of the tariffs on agricultural removed under CETA, so 8% remain.
On the regulatory issue question, CETA ticks a lot of boxes, but I would say when it comes to regulations, in CETA Canada basically does agree - not to follow EU regulations - but sort of match them. So, there’s also commonality there, in areas like consumers and product safety. This is where you get to the whole regulatory compliance.
Q: Does that apply within Canada or only to the products Canada exports?
A: No, purely to what it exports as I understand. You keep your regulatory sovereignty. It’s not a common rulebook. This is important, this is the nub of the Chequers problem. As I said it’s removed 100% of industrial tariffs without having a common rulebook on industrial goods.
And that is I think it is fundamentally the point. It retains it’s regulatory sovereignty, however it has agreed voluntarily to follow some areas - and this is something we may not agree to.
We don’t have to follow it religiously, but it’s a very good template and if you want to sort of echo the Chequers deal but in an effective way while retaining your sovereignty, you could follow what Canada’s done and maintain a lot of EU standards very closely, or follow them voluntarily very closely, so you’re in effectively in step with them but not legally signing up to a common rulebook.
Q: If there’s only about 12% of GDP dependent on EU trade - imports and exports - why shouldn’t James Dyson be able to manufacture hoovers at whatever power he wants for non-EU markets, instead of having to follow EU rules for his entire output? Does the Canada deal allow that differentiation?
A: It’s a very good question. I think it’s important that we do, because clearly the direction of travel – as David Davis said in his latest speech - is that the share of exports going to the EU is dropping. We already have the majority of our exports, 57% go to the rest of the world, not the EU, so we should be following world standards or other countries standards, not just the EU standards which tend to be rather costly and over-bureaucratic.
Through the CETA deal, yes we could allow for that. We would have to negotiate this. It’s a very delicate area of negotiation, because obviously the EU is paranoid about ‘unfair competition’ as they would put it. But of course we would have to maintain their standards for the small percentage of our economy that represents exports to the EU as you rightly say. But I don’t see why that should tie our hands, if we negotiated properly.
I always believed if the economy’s justified you can have two production lines, one of which is for the EU standards for the EU market, the other one is for world markets on different standards. I think that’s entirely feasible. Obviously when we’re exporting to the US anyway, we have to follow their standards, or Japan’s when we’re exporting there.
Q: So what you’re saying is you can’t be certain at the moment. That would have to be part of the negotiations. But with the UK being a third party, independent country, the EU should accept exactly the same rules that let’s say America has, where America manufactures to its own standards for its domestic market, and to EU standards when it sells to the EU?
A: Yes, it should allow that flexibility. It’s a very sensitive area. This is one of the nubs of the Chequers deal in my view. I think the Government is trying to sell the Chequers deal along these lines and it’s a subtle difference but absolutely fundamental and only kind of lawyers fully understand this. But the difference is, with one you give up your sovereignty. With the ‘common rulebook’, you just have to follow Single Market rules in certain areas and you have no say over it. You’ve given up your sovereignty in those areas, in agriculture and goods specifically.
It does mention following the rules on the environment and consumer issues and that is quite similar to CETA in its language, but it is fundamentally different because you could remove that clause. You’d have to pay a penalty and in extremis it could mean you’d have to negotiate the whole free trade agreement if you diverge too much.
But this gets you into this whole regularity divergence area which is very sensitive and language is vital because there’s a fundamental difference between a ‘common rulebook’, which is no sovereignty in my view, just a sort of vassel state following EU rules, and Norway having to sign up to all the Single Market rules.
But our economy is very different to Norway. It’s so much wider and our manufacturing is so much greater than Norway’s. It’s not right for us. But with the CETA model you keep your sovereignty. Look at Australia. The Australian Trade minister said to me at the WTO Conference in December: ‘we will jealously guard our regulatory sovereignty in this trade deal’.
Basically, they want control of the ability to change their regulations. And by the way, a fundamental point is: so does the EU. In every trade deal it does, the EU jealously guards its sovereignty over regulations. It’s always bringing in new laws so it wants the power to change its regulations. In every single trade deal it guards its own regulatory sovereignty jealousy too. It’s not Britain being difficult, it’s actually done on both sides of the equation.
Q: When you say Britain has been offered 100% tariff free, can you justify that? Where does that come from?
A: Britain has been offered 100% tariff and quota free access, so that’s our first +. That’s the CETA+ and then the second + is services.
The key thing to refer to is the offer made on the 7th of March this year by President Tusk. He made a statement having had meetings in No.10 with the Prime Minister, having discussed the red lines. He basically offered us what I would call CETA++ (we’re missing one +) but he offered us CETA++ which is 100% tariff free and quota free access, plus services. And that is considered to be in addition to all the benefits that the Canada deal offers which takes us into a bigger and better place.
The third + of the deeper area of services IS more complex - issues around financial services etc - that area could be done separately through the World Trade Organisation. My argument is let’s not forget we are taking back our seat on WTO. We are members, that hasn’t been changed, but the EU has been dealing with negotiations for us. But we’ll take our seat back say on services, the services committee of the WTO and the non-tariff-barrier (NTB) area. Through the NTB Committee of the WTO we can push our agenda there.
And there’s another agreement called the TISA agreement which is very significant. The trade and services agreement of the WTO - not the EU, the WTO – will actually cover 70% of the world’s services in 25 nations. At the moment it’s getting there but paused, but we can push that and we’ll probably push that in a more effective way. It’s not just the EU we’re talking about in terms of services, but 70% of the world’s services. Britain is the ideal champion of TISA and that’s good news. I know that No.10 is very keen on TISA.
Q: How do WTO rules relate to Britain leaving the EU and what are your views on the 10 year grace period that has been talked about, where trade carries on normally until new arrangements are put in place?
A: I actually asked legal advice on that from our advisers in the European Parliament and I think it’s a greyer area to be honest. We’re in a different position because we have a sort of free trade area within the Customs Union and the Single Market and we are moving to a free trade agreement.
We’re not in a position where WTO rules are moving to a free trade agreement - which is what Japan just has been done, coming from WTO rules to FTA . My understanding is it may be that the 10 years grace doesn’t apply to us because of our unique position. I mean as President Tusk says ‘never in history has there ever been an example of moving backwards’ as he would put it. I talk about liberation and independence.
Q: How did SuperCanada fit in what I call now the Conservative Home White Paper - in other words the Steve Baker and David Davis’ original White Paper they were working on?
A: I worked very closely with Steve Baker. He and I co-chaired the Conservatives for Britain group which theN morphed into the ERG. It was then more about supporting David Cameron’s negotiations and then preparing for the Leave campaign.
So we worked very closely on this and I worked with David Davies very closely, and I’ve been advocating SuperCanada for many years. I’m informed that some of my thinking has been reflected by government in the original Brexit Dept White Paper, which I’m delighted about, because it’s just a logical place to go. All I can say is that I’ve worked on these deals, I met people like Justin Trudeau and his Foreign Minister, who said: ‘We feel we’re part of the Common Market, not the Single Market’.
And I thought, well that’s where we want to be. The Common Market is really why we joined the EEC and effectively, if you have a 100% tariff free and quota free deal, you have a common market.
There are no barriers between you, which is what we want. And then you’ve got other issues like services, non-tariff barriers, licences, permissions or whatever. And that’s very important, but the Single Market in services is only 5% according to some studies. Only 5% of it really exists and you may well find that having a legal agreement outside of the EU, being able to enforce more on services via the WTO, I think you might be in a better position. You may have more ability to drive service access agreements outside rather than inside, because we’re not doing very well inside, are we? I wouldn’t describe only 5% access for services in the Single Market as a success.
Q: We were the only news organisation that covered the OECD Report on the Single Market which absolutely panned it for services.
A: It’s very important because it’s being regarded as a wonderful thing and of course the costs are outweighing the benefits.
What is really worth examining is why are we called ‘Treasure Island’? A lot of our imports are from the EU, including particularly the Germans. Why do they regard Britain as ‘Treasure Island’?
I think with a £95 billion goods deficit with the EU, there’s a major issue here. Are we a patsy for the EU? Is it now time we actually discovered that not keep thinking this is a wonderful thing and start to correct it? I think actually one of the advantages of a no deal scenario is that our manufacturing industry will get a shot charge and be put back in business big time.
I always knew when I was elected as an MEP that if we’re going to get Brexit, the trade deal would be the core of it. So I thought I’d better understand what trade deals were and how they worked.
I’ve spent over 10 years working on models of association and I looked at EEA Lite and wrote a book on it. I’ve been looking at these models for well over 10 years because at the end of the day I’ve always felt this was the crux of it. What kind of relationship - particularly in trade – would we have with the EU?
But I’m settled in my views now. With the experience I got before Japan, Canada was the biggest ever deal the EU’s done, so it’s a model agreement. It ticks a lot of our boxes. There is no free movement, it’s got 99% access to the Single Market – we’re going to be at 100% - and 100% in agriculture importantly.
It’s a very good agreement, it does deliver a lot and I’m very comfortable with it for our purposes, subject to the ‘+’s. And importantly for the EU as well, because when I go to my colleagues in the European Parliament and say to them that ‘Look, the UK-EU SuperCanada deal is like Canada which you’ve done last year. It’s bigger, deeper, wider because of our relationship, because we’re that much closer’ – they get that.
I speak to the EU Trade Commissioner and to the Chairman of the International Trade Committee, who’s a German socialist but a nice man, and they think it’s where we should be. It’s not a one-way demand – I think Chequers is a bit of a one-way demand, to be honest – whereas SuperCanada works for everyone. And we can work around it, it’s a working model, a workable model.
I should say firstly that I was special adviser on the peace process 1996 - 1997 in Northern Ireland so I know all the sensitivities and I know that having hard customs border posts and CCTV on the border is not good politically so we must avoid it.
Basically it’s a technological solution. We’re in a world where borders are in computers these days, not with the guys in peaked caps. I have Felixstowe in my constituency area - it’s the largest container port in Britain - and there is no sign of any paperwork.
The paperwork is done in Liverpool by HMRC in its computers. And the EU itself under its new customs code, is requiring everyone to sign up to electronic measures and in fact they’re requiring standards where you only have to give an hour’s notice in terms of customs. All is done electronically to move goods around. That’s the backdrop. And you have things called ‘Authorised Economic Operators’ and ‘Trusted Traders’ already, which are EU systems.
Essentially, just to simplify, the way borders are policed now is that they assume everyone is fine, is following the law, not smuggling, except where the company requires some more investigation or where they have specific intelligence.
Going back to Ireland, Ireland only checks 1% of goods now. It’s the lowest rate in the world apart from the Gambia. The UK is only about 3-4%. Felixstowe told me it was about 4% for them. And why do you check goods? It’s because of the company. You’re not familiar with them or maybe it’s a little bit odd, or something. That’s when you check.
The trusted traders scheme is used in Canada and the US as well on their border – when basically you check out the company in advance. If it looks legitimate and you’ve got the information in advance, then you allow a much freer access across the border.
Basically, you put all this together, the fact that it’s all done electronically, not with peaked caps and barriers, and you can get to a technological solution for the Northern Ireland border.
I think the point about Northern Ireland is that the entire island of Ireland only has about 6.5 million people. The scale has been hugely exaggerated, to biblical proportions, the Northern Ireland issue.
The key point is that you don’t have a hard border. No-one wants a hard border, the UK has ruled it out under any circumstances, and now the Irish have as well. In fact just this week Varadkar magically says that the EU will not require a hard border with Ireland either.
This is new. Northern Ireland has been used as a lever to trap us in EU laws and ultimately the Customs Union. The Institute of Directors have been dealing with this as well, it’s business trying to use it as an issue, because for them there is no other solution apart from the Chequers deal or keeping us as close to the Customs Union as possible. That’s just not true.
When you look at the scale of it, it’s a tiny scale. For Northern Ireland 4 times as many exports go to Great Britain than to the South of Ireland. When you start looking at the realities of it, as long as you have no hard border and keep the checks electronic and away from that border - which happens that way right now – then you don’t have an issue.
It’s all solvable. And you certainly don’t want to sign up the entire British economy – the 5th largest in the world – on that basis, which is very damaging to the British economy. It holds us back and essentially costs us billions. It’s a very bad policy.
Q: We just want to be very clear that your SuperCanada doesn’t impact on the Northern Ireland Agreement.
A: The Good Friday Agreement has nothing about the border. I can remember it from the time. I was involved in it from the start, I was behind John Major when the peace talks started in Belfast. I don’t think there’s any mention – it wasn’t an issue then. It doesn’t affect that agreement in that sense and I think it has been weaponised, as people say. The issue of Northern Ireland has been weaponised and that’s a disgrace. It’s creating tensions that shouldn’t exist.
The previous Irish government under Bertie Ahern were far more reasonable. I think Varadkar allegedly has his own agenda. He’s young guy, he probably wants to be in the EU Commission, I don’t know, or in one of the other EU institutions. Maybe that’s driving some of this, I don’t know.
It’s not a trivial thing by any means but what I’m saying is it’s distorting the entire debate on it and it’s been appalling how they’ve misused it to the detriment of Irish people North and South.
Q: You somehow managed to survive as a pro-Brexit MEP sitting within the Conservative grouping in the EU Parliament. You’ve been one of the very, very few pro-Brexit voices in the Conservative Party there. Your colleagues haven’t exactly been supporting you, have they?
A: Yes, well thank you. I’ve been a Conservative for 28 years and I was with UKIP for 7 years because of the seriousness of the European Union issue and I don’t regret that. I think it was necessary and of course UKIP wouldn’t have done so well in the EU elections without many Conservative supporters.
I’ve guarded against going native, I think that’s an important factor. I was put there to get us out of the European Union. I wanted to do that in a peaceful, constructive, friendly way. I get on with – or I try to get on with - people of all different opinions, even with federalists, and I’m trying to be constructive.
To me after Canada, the game has changed from pointing out the faults of the EU beforehand to justify Brexit, to actually now finding a constructive way out from the EU, which doesn’t damage our friends – and they are friends.
We have to remember the nations of Europe are our friends. I think it’s the hard core federalists and the EU institutions that are not our friends. We have to take those friends with us, and some of those are actively considering doing what we’re going to do. But that’s not our business, that’s their business.
Q: There now seem to be Conservative MEPs in the EU Parliament who seem to want to sweep under the carpet the fact they backed the EU project. What are your views?
A: I think one of the best guides is how many supported Conservatives for Britain, because I was leading that at the European Parliament and we ended up with about 6 out of 20 Conservative MEPs that backed it, backed Brexit. In a way we had to be lot braver than MPs because obviously we’re losing our jobs and I was campaigning for my own redundancy – successfully as it turned out.
You had to actually have quite a lot of principles to back Brexit as an MEP. It has been a lonely journey. We had some who were eurosceptic and many who were quite the opposite.
[Long section off the record, then:] Obviously I respect those who have now got behind Brexit.
We’ve got to leave in a good way with friendly relations. I think this is our last chance. I say it’s checkmate for Chequers. It’s not going to get through the UK Parliament, it’s not going to get through the European Parliament, and it’s not going to get past Barnier in my view.
It’s just dead in the water and we’re wasting time on it. What we need to do is go back to plan A for heaven’s sake, drop Chequers, accept the Tusk deal in principle, and you’ll find that the dark clouds will start to evaporate.
And the EU will suddenly start seeing: ‘Ah, you’re not threatening our Single Market, we can live with this’ and you’ll find that things move forward with a pace. And we’re nearly there. We had it in the original Brexit Dept White Paper and subsequently the No.10 Europe Unit has pushed us off that and taken us away from it, for their own agenda, and got us lost.
We’ve got to get back to it and actually accepting that agreement – I think it’s us who’s effectively not accepted it - but we can accept it. I think you’ll find that things will move forward very smoothly. The EU gets free trade agreements, they’ve just done one with Japan. They’re doing ones with New Zealand and Australia based on Canada, so they can do one for the UK which is bigger, better, wider.
I genuinely believe that it’s in my country’s sake - which I always put first - that this is the best way forward and everyone can live with it including even Labour, SNP etc. Because they don’t want to see at the end of the day economic damage to the country and they understand the Canada deal as well.
Q: What are your plans when you have hopefully made yourself redundant? Are you available to constituency associations as a candidate for MP?
I am available and I’d love to. I’m very happy to talk to associations around the country. I would like to be an MP.
I hope that I’m fairly treated this time by Conservative Party Central Office, as I wasn’t last time. I’m not bitter, I’m not a bitter person, but it was a very devious process last time. I just hope I’m fairly treated in this occasion and that I get a fair crack at an opportunity to stand.
We have never before published anything this long. No doubt many readers will not have time to read it.
For once we thought that it might be interesting for some of our readers to gain a unique insight into the thinking of an experienced politician. DCB has been at the coalface. He has spent nearly 10 years as an MEP in the lion's den of Brussels, with almost all of that time as a member of the EU Parliament's International Trade Committee.
Do we agree with all of his views on everything? Of course not. DCB is a very nice chap and he is looking for solutions. We tend to take a harder line with the nonsense of the federalists who run the machine.
That said, DCB is a Brexiteer. He is also a patriot. If any constituency associations in the Conservative Party are looking to replace their Remainer MP, in our view DCB would be an excellent choice. He has the rare distinction of seeming to be an honest man in politics. Our editor frequently offered to go off the record, but Mr Campbell Bannerman only accepted on a couple of occasions. For almost all of the time, he answered questions openly and said what he thought, and in a charming way.
He was also perfectly clear about his thoughts on Theresa May's Chequers White Paper: "It’s checkmate for Chequers." "It’s just dead in the water and we’re wasting time on it."
Brave words from a man hoping to secure a parliamentary candidacy at the next general election. We sincerely hope he is rewarded for this honesty.
[ Sources: David Campbell Bannerman MEP ]
     Journalists and politicians can contact us for the full list of links, as usual.
       08.15am, 23 July 2018
Please send us your comments and we will publish them here. You can of course use a pseudonym if you prefer, and it's always nice to know roughly where you're writing from. Please always state the headline of the article you're commenting on.
Name: D Price, Berkshire, UK      Date/Time: 24 July 2018, 08.11am
Message: Many thanks to Mr Bannerman and yourselves for giving and documenting the interview. What is described makes a lot of sense so it begs the question why the May government has gone in the direction it has, not just their devious and dishonest behaviour revealed recently but also their utter stupidity in unnecessary giveaways to the EU.
Name: Tony, East Anglia, UK      Date/Time: 23 July 2018, 10.27pm
Message: Thank you Mr Bannerman. I haven't commented on this site before but I read it when I can. As the owner of a manufacturing business our exports go about 75% outside the EU. What's important to me is that we can trade post Brexit without having to apply costly EU rules and regulations to our operation, when the bulk of our exports go to countries around the world. I understand your superCanada proposal will need to stress this point, but it looks like a positive proposal to me. God alone knows why we have such a weak and EU-subservient PM. And by the way, I'd vote for you if you became my local candidate, based on what I've read.
Name: Big Mach, Cheshire, UK      Date/Time: 23 July 2018, 7.22pm
Message: I am quite certain that these proposals would meet with the approval of the majority of the British people and would even pass the House of Commons. DCB is right about the Irish border, as your own article on the subject in March made clear. Tusk made this proposal in March 2017 and included participation in the various agencies, such as chemicals, medicines and aviation. Any disruption at the border in the absence of a customs union would be very quickly resolved as it would be in everyone's interest to do so.
Name: ContraryMary, North-East England, UK      Date/Time: 23 July 2018, 3.40pm
Message: Please thank David Campbell Bannerman for giving up his time becaue I can see it was a long interview. And thank you too facts4eu for this and the article on the super canada deal. I hope that the powers that be will be openminded and consider if this is a possibility. I'm not an expert in trade so i don't know but it sounds like there's something here. By the way I think the conservatives must get rid of May asap.
Name: Tom Rogers, Bridlington, East Riding, UK      Date/Time: 23 July 2018, 2.38pm
Message: Thank you for your work and thank you to Mr Bannerman. This is a useful and informative piece, I do mean that.
However, no disrespect intended to him, but I don't think he 'gets it'. I understand why. I think it is difficult for all of us to take this to its logical conclusion, but once you grasp it, you quickly see that not only is there no reason for us to negotiate agreements with the EU (beyond routine facilitation), it would also be deeply undesirable to do so - for a host of reasons that have been discussed at length and I need not regurgitate here. We've been over this, yet men like Mr Bannerman and even John Redwood are still stuck in this out-dated approach of wanting to negotiate these sweeping monolithic agreements. Why?
Please, forget about FTAs. Trade is moving in a multi-lateral direction now and we as a country have a unique opportunity to get ahead of the curve and become more competitive than our peers. Just leave, and declare unilateral free trade, with subsidies to protect manufacturing jobs. Everything we want can be achieved under the WTO umbrella. If competing countries decide to take counter-veiling measures, we can deal with this and adjust. Yes, a Clean Brexit has its pitfalls - there will be problems - but a national government can tackle these.
Name: Shieldsman, Surrey, UK      Date/Time: 23 July 2018, 12.30pm
Message: "It's just dead in the water and we're wasting time on it. What we need to do is go back to plan A for heaven's sake, drop Chequers, accept the TUSK DEAL in principle, and you'll find that the dark clouds will start to evaporate." I cannot recall what the Tusk Deal said? Can you refer me to your reference. Does it make more sense than EFTA, EEA.
Name: Pops, In the Real World, UK      Date/Time: 23 July 2018, 11.03am
Message: "A: With possible forms of trade deals it's not just what's acceptable to the UK, it's what is acceptable to the EU27, the remaining nations of the EU."
This is where David Campbell Bannerman (and every other so-called Brexiter) is wrong. It does not matter one jot what anyone in the EU finds "acceptable"; it matters only what the people in the UK, who voted overwhelmingly for Brexit, find acceptable. The UK should tell the EU to basically get lost - today. UK manufacturers must be completely free to make and sell what they want where they want. If the EU overlords don't want to import our products, we will find other markets. The UK should immediately approach every viable market in the world and start talking trade - preferably, tariff-free trade. Oh, and Treasonous May and her Europhile advisors should be thrown out on their ears - today.
Name: Dunstan, Cambs, UK      Date/Time: 23 July 2018, 09.52am
Message: Long article but once I got into it I read it to the end. I didn't know about Bannerman before this but I like the sound of him. Seems to be some confusion over just how easy it will be to get this Super Canada deal without arguments over whose laws prevail, but all in all it sounds like a possibility. Thanks for doing this - worthwhile.
Name: Mike Donnan, UK      Date/Time: 23 July 2018, 08.57am
Message: I am not sure the following comment is relevant to the article on the “SuperCanada” proposals but I thought I would get it off my chest.
I read yesterday (Sunday 22/7/18) that our new Brexit minister, Mr Dominic Raab, has said that the UK would refuse payment of the so-called “divorce bill” to the EU if the latter fails to agree a trade deal. On the assumption that our Goody Two-Shoes of a Prime Minister would never countenance doing anything remotely illegal, we may take Mr Raab’s statement as confirming that the EU’s demand for payment has no legal basis whatsoever.
Mr Raab’s statement also shows that Mr Philip Hammond’s statement – to the effect that the UK’s “walking away from an obligation …. would not make us a credible partner in future international agreements” – is nonsense. One cannot walk away from a legal obligation that does not exist. And nobody could credibly argue that the UK has a “moral obligation” to pay a divorce bill, given (a) that it has been one of the highest net contributors to the EU budget, and (b) that decisions about the EU budget are made by EU institutions, not by the member states acting as a partnership.
If the above analysis is correct, one may reasonably ask why the offer to pay the “divorce bill” was made in the first place. The only possible answer surely is that it was an inducement to the EU to conclude a trade agreement with the UK. Accordingly, the next question for Mr Raab to answer would be: how much of a monetary inducement did Canada and Japan pay the EU in order to secure their respective trade agreements?
If you’re thinking about helping us in the fight to achieve a full, clean Brexit, you won’t be added to a mailing list, you will simply receive a heartfelt thank you. You can use your credit card or Paypal and it’s very quick.
You could make a one-off donation from £2 to £20,000, (please don't be shy!), or a regular monthly amount which really helps us to plan our resources. You can cancel a monthly payment at any time.
We’re read by MPs, MEPs, peers, ambassadors, journalists, DExEU, Brussels bureaucrats, and the public. We research, we write important factual articles, and we lobby politicians. Our work matters and it makes a difference.
Best regards, the Brexit Facts4EU.Org team, July 2018
We are a committed and determined team.
You haven't given up fighting for a clean Brexit.
Together we're up against a vast army of UK & EU propagandists.
Brexit Facts4EU.Org is an influential pro-Brexit news organisation read by MPs, MEPs, mainstream journalists, eurocrats, MPs and Senators from the EU, USA, Australia and other countries.
Do you still have the determination to get the Brexit you voted for? Or in fact more than ever before?
To the right: Articles in the national press,
all of which came from Brexit Facts4EU.Org.
We’re committed and tireless, but we wouldn’t be here to report and fight without our supporters.
If you’re like-minded, please join our readership. If you're already 'in-the-club' we'd like to take the opportunity to send you a big thank you for all your support.
All we have here are our honest tools - research, compelling daily content, simple charts - and our most important resource - YOU.
We badly need your help to keep going, fighting for a full, clean Brexit.

One-off or monthly donations. Quick, easy, and very safe.
Donate Donate Subscribe
Any amount
From £2
Be a supporter.
One off donation
from £25 for 1 year
Be a supporter.
Monthly donation
from £3 per month
Choose amount FIRST:
THEN click button:
(Anonymity respected completely if you prefer to remain private)
       Best regards, the Facts4EU.Org Team, 2018
To read items from our output earlier month, simply click here.
We have also researched and published some excellent reports before this.
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. is non party-political and not supported by any Brexit 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: 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 © 2018 except where owned by others.
Press and Leave campaigns please contact us for re-use of information.