The Government Brexit Leaflet

This is part of the EU Fact File

The leaflet was circulated to all homes in the UK and therefore became the basis for the referendum.

Some facts1:

  • Author: HM Government2
  • Size: 14 pages
  • Cost: £9.3m
  • Circulation: 27m houses
  • Leaflet Title: Why the Government believes
    that voting to remain in the
    European Union is the best
    decision for the UK

The leaflet stated clearly what the referendum was all about.


Quote on the purpose of the leaflet (page 2):

This leaflet sets out the
facts, and explains why the

Government believes a vote
to remain in the EU is in the

best interests of the people of
the UK. It shows some of the

choices the UK would face if
there were a vote to leave.

Quotes on the terms of the referendum:

  • The Government believes the UK should remain in the EU (page 2)
  • The referendum on Thursday, 23rd June is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union (page 14)
  • This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide (page 14)
  • The EU referendum is a once in a generation decision (page 16)

Quotes on the consequences of the referendum (my comments in italic):

  • Remaining inside the EU guarantees our full access to its Single Market. By contrast, leaving creates uncertainty and risk (page 4).

    In other words the referendum is about leaving the EU and the single market

  • A more limited trade deal with the EU would give the UK less access to the Single Market than we have now – including for services, which make up almost 80% of the UK economy. For example, Canada’s deal with the EU will give limited access for services, it has so far been seven years in the making and is still not in force (page 8)

    Here the government make the public aware of the Canada deal as NOT an option as it is taking too long

  • Some argue that leaving the EU would give us more freedom to limit immigration. But in return for the economic benefits of access to the EU’s Single Market, non-EU countries – such as Norway – have had to accept the right of all EU citizens to live and work in their country.

    Here the government make the public aware of the Norway deal as NOT an option as it allows free movement


  • The vote is about leaving the single market
  • We will not consider a Canada nor a Norway style deal if we do leave

Some dodgy quotes with comment (in italic):

  • The Single Market makes it  easier and cheaper for UK companies to sell their products outside the UK, creating jobs as a result (page 4).
    Yes, to the EU, but not to the rest of the world. Largest growth is outside the EU

  • Being inside the EU also makes it more attractive  for companies to invest in the UK, meaning more jobs (page 4).
    Maybe, but why not invest somewhere else in the EU where labour cost is lower then?
    In fact businesses will get a EU grant to setup business in Eastern Europe.

  • If the UK voted to leave the EU, the resulting economic shock would put pressure on the value of the pound, which would risk higher prices of some household goods and damage living standards (page 6).
    Yes and no, as a lower pound promotes buying local and enable increase in export; which is good for business.
    Main pressure on the pound is created by the low interest rate imposed by BoE governor Mark Carney.

  • From next year, mobile  phone roaming charges will  be abolished across the EU, saving UK customers up to 38p per minute on calls (page 6).
    Well 3 (Three) already had this facility plus additional countries including roaming in the USA, well before it was introduced by the EU

  • EU membership also gives UK citizens travelling in other European countries the right  to access free or cheaper public healthcare (page 6).
    Well in theory yes, but most travel insurances offer little or no discount if you have a E111/EHIC card, as you need a travel insurance anyway.
    Few insurances offer a minor reduction in excess if you bring a E111/EHIC abroad.
    Additionally the E111 does not provide transport home if needed so get an insurance in any case!

  • The Government judges it could result in 10 years or more of uncertainty as the UK unpicks our relationship with the EU and renegotiates new arrangements with the EU and over 50 other countries around the world (page 8).
    That could be right if the break with the EU is not a clean break. A clean break would make everything certain as the UK would be like any other non-EU country.
    A no deal Brexit would instantly stop the uncertainty as the UK would be on the well known WTO term.

  • The UK is part of the EU,  a group of 28 countries which exists to promote economic security, peace and stability (page 12).
    A questionable statement as many southern European countries are suffering economically and the EU is seeking to have an EU army on it’s own in addition to NATO, why if all is fine?
  • EU membership means you and your family have the right to live, work or study abroad in any of the 27 other member countries. It also guarantees many employment rights (page 12).
    We can live, work or study abroad  anyway in most cases in most developed countries just as well as they can do same in the UK.
    If you have worked in London you would have been working with Americans, South Africans, Chinese and others.
    EU employment rights are just normal in a developed country and many countries have stronger employment rights than enforced by the EU directives.

Good Articles (subscripted)


References (superscripted)


Change log:

  1. 26/9-18: Created

EU – Quangos

This chapter will look into the various EU quangos either fully or semi controlled by the EU.

There are quite a few, so watch this space.


Official Name: GSA

Budget: 30mill 20177 however financial resources are 2290 mill

Personnel: 1167

This is a EU funded GPS system initially designed for civil purposes but it was later agreed5 to include military purposes.

GPS is crucial for monitoring and assisting troop movements; and for autonomous and automated guided weapons systems.

There are several issues with the functioning of Galileo and the US and NATO supported system2+3 both technical and political.

The civil part of the system is utilised in cooperation with Canada6 and China4.

Until recently it is estimated the UK has paid £1bn into this project8.

Questions to be asked:
  1. Does the inclusion of the military use indicate EU want it’s own army independent of NATO?
  2. If China and Canada are partners and Canada and Switzerland are on the council; why are the UK then being excluded due to Brexit?
  3. Why does the UK need access to Galileo when the UK can use the US based GPS as part of NATO?
  4. Should the EU not return the 1bn to the UK when the UK has no part in the asset being created?


Benefiting from its central position in the European security architecture, Europol offers a unique range of services9:

  • support for law enforcement operations on the ground
  • a hub for information on criminal activities
  • a centre of law enforcement expertise

So this is mainly a coordinating organisation for the police in the EU except Denmark, which is excluded from Europol.

Europol cannot directly engage in policing or arrest anybody.

Europol is governed by the European parliament as opposed to Interpol that has a lack of governance10+11.

Drawback is however Europol can only operate inside the EU using the EU arrest warrant.

Interpol has been used for political purposes due to the lack of oversight11.

Yet to come

Silly Quangos (staff employed 2018)

These ones are not important but shows the excess in the EU.

Community Plant Variety Office (45)

Protecting new plant varieties throughout the EU helps uphold breeders’ interests and ensures that their investments in research and innovation are profitable.

European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (137)

The agency manages the 3 main IT systems dealing with visas, asylum requests and sharing information to guarantee the security of the Schengen Area.

European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (98)

At the crossroads between education systems and the world of work, Cedefop operates as a forum, allowing the organisations with a stake in its work to share ideas and debate how best to improve vocational education and training in Europe. It shares its expertise with political organisations and the 2 sides of industry in the EU countries to help them generate learning and working opportunities.

European Institute for Gender Equality (50)

EU agency working to make gender equality a reality in the EU and beyond. For this, it provides research, data and good practices.

Eurojust (240)

It helps EU countries combat terrorism and serious organised crime involving more than one EU country.

Good Articles (subscripted)

  • None yet

References (superscripted)

  1. Galileo – GSA
  9. Europol

Change log:

  1. 5/8-2018: Created document
  2. 7/8-2018: Minor changes to references document
  3. 26/8-2018: Added to-do and silly quangos

EU – Article 50

Just to remind myself what this says…


Highlights in my own words

  1. Any country may leave due to own requirements (another way to say you cannot be kicked out)
  2. If any country decides to withdraw; that country needs to tell the European Council (the timer will start then)
  3. The country leaves the EU based on an agreed date or if no date is agreed then 2 years after the timer started above
  4. The country leaving will be left out of meetings concerning the country leaving the EU
  5. The country can re-join again later based like any other non-EU country (no hard feelings!)

Original text below from

Article 50

  1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
  2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
  3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
  4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
    A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
  5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

Article 218(3)

Just to ensure nothing sinister is in here…

  • The Commission, or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy where the agreement envisaged relates exclusively or principally to the common foreign and security policy, shall submit recommendations to the Council, which shall adopt a decision authorising the opening of negotiations and, depending on the subject of the agreement envisaged, nominating the Union negotiator or the head of the Union’s negotiating team.

Brexit – Remember the Results

I’m making this post as the referendum details keeps being questioned in various discussions. Also to preserve the facts in case they disappear off the BBC website.

Most of the facts are thanks to the BBC website:

Based on that I did a few additional calculations…but all facts!




Electorate: 46,501,241 (100%)
Turnout:  33,551,983 (72.2%)

Detailed Result

Based on Votes

Votes: 33,551,983 (100%)
Leave: 17,410,742 (51,9%)
Remain: 16,141,241 (48,1%)
Gap: 1,269,501 (3.78%)
Rejected: 26,033 (0.078%)

Based on Electorate (includes undecided)

Electorate: 46,501,241 (100%)
Leave: 17,410,742 (37.4%)
Remain: 16,141,241 (34.7%)
Gap: 1,269,501 (2.73%)
Did not vote: 12,949,258 (27.9%)
Rejected: 26,033 (0.056%)




England: 28,455,402 (100%)
Leave: 15,188,406 (53.4%)
Remain: 13,266,996 (46.6%)
Gap: 1,921,410 (6.75%)


Scotland: 2,679,513 (100%)
Leave: 1,018,322 (38.0%)
Remain: 1,661,191 (62.0%%)
Gap: –642,869 (-24.0%)


Wales: 1,626,919 (100%)
Leave: 854,572 (52.5%)
Remain: 772,347 (47.5%)
Gap: 82,225 (5.05%)

Northern Ireland

Northern Ireland: 790,149 (100%)
Leave: 349,442 (44.2%)
Remain: 440,707 (55.8%)
Gap: -91,265 (11.6%)


2016: 72.2%

1975: 64.6%

Historical Election Turnouts with EU referendum turnouts:


EU – Economy of Brexit

This is part of the EU Fact File

Verdict: NEUTRAL – YES it CAN be proved that either leaving or joining the EU does NOT impact the ECONOMY

So both Brexit remain and leave campaigns struggle to prove what would happen if we either leave or stay in the EU?

Strangely enough – nobody has thought of looking at what happens when you join the EU.

Leaving the EU would then be the reverse effect of joining!

So if a country get a huge boost by joining if would make sense a similar bust would occur when leaving.

Lets look at some of the late comers in the EU – lets pick the bigger ones of the new EU countries:

  • Poland: joined 2004 with a population of about 38 million
  • Hungary: joined 2004 with a population of about 10 million
  • Romania: joined 2007 with a population of 20 million

You can add the smaller ones yourself but they would almost be zero as it goes to show the new EU countries had a very low development level per capita compared to the old EU countries.

To see if the population got richer you need to look at GDP PER CAPITA.

GDP TOTAL or % GROWTH is not used – as these numbers does not show if people are getting richer or poorer inside the country.

A country may show an overall GDP growth – but if this is caused by immigration then this may not result in anybody getting richer (except for the immigrants whilst in the country).

What we need to understand is – if we (human beings) are better of inside or outside of the EU – hence the use of GDP PER CAPITA.

I have added a couple of non-EU countries for comparison.

Feel free to add your own but remember they have to start off with a similar population and GDP starting point so you don’t compare apples and oranges.

You can play around with the graph on the Wold Bank website by clicking on the graph below.

The interesting period is before and after 2004/2007 where the new EU countries joined the EU:


Points to make of the above graph:

  • Poland and Hungary around year 2004 – did have growth – but not more than Romania, that had not joined yet
  • Romania around year 2007 – even after joining the trend followed other EU10 countries – no impact it seems
  • Malaysia having a population of 28 million – did similarly to the new EU countries and did better than Hungary with a similar economy
  • Switzerland and Norway did as well or better while not being in the EU even though these countries are already highly developed
  • United Kingdom and Germany did NOT do well at all – similar to other large EU countries (you can add these yourself!)

Some conclusions to be made:

  1. The new and undeveloped EU countries would have had a similar growth outside the EU (compared to Malaysia)
  2. The old and developed EU countries would have had a better growth outside the EU (compared to Switzerland and Norway)

Questions to be asked (maybe covered in a later article):

  1. Why do the IN campaign and other organisations believe we will be economically worse off my leaving the EU mind boggling?
  2. How much could the United Kingdom have grown if been outside the EU if we had followed countries like Switzerland and Norway?
  3. Would the United Kingdom get a better or worse deal than Switzerland and Norway if the UK left EU?

Good Articles (subscripted)

  1. None

References (superscripted)

  1. World Bank open data:

Change log:

  1. Created 4/6-2016