11

"In October 2021, the UK removed the ability for many EU/EEA/EFTA ID cards to be used at the border to gain entry to the UK - and in doing so massively reduced the chances of fraudulent documentation being used to get into the country. In 2020, nearly half of all fraudulent ID intercepted at the UK border was imitating ID cards from EU member states. This increase in border security against the entry of unknown persons, would simply not have been possible without leaving the EU."

DEBUNKED

A fact-sheet produced by the Home Office at the time, which this statistic is based upon, was written by internal management, and subsequently was not deemed to be accurate and was not widely published because of this.

The UK could potentially have made such changes even while in the EU under national security exemptions or by negotiating exemptions. It's true that implementing such a policy was easier after leaving the EU, but claiming it would have been "impossible" is an overstatement at best.

12

"EU member states have been unable to trade in Swiss equities since 2019, due to a ban having been put in place. Outside of the EU, the UK was able to return this trading, which is worth about £1.6bn a day, and so about £8m a day to HMRC. That's just over £2bn a year in additional tax revenue, to spend on public services. Revenue that only exists due to Brexit."

DEBUNKED

The claim of £8million/day in tax revenue to HMRC from Swiss equity trading is highly questionable. HMRC's actual tax take from financial transaction (like stamp duty, corporation tax etc) would depend on where the trades are booked, profits generate, and how firms are structured.
Not all trading results in taxable revenue for the UK. Much of the profit goes to international firms or offset by costs.

There is no public data supporting that this specific trading results in £2billion/year in additional UK tax revenue due to Brexit.

13

"As of summer 2023, the UK’s departure from the EU had allowed the UK to remove tariffs completely on 47% of all product lines entering the UK, making products cheaper for UK consumers and businesses. In the EU, the level is 27% - so that’s nearly twice as many product lines that are cheaper for UK importers, and so ultimately UK consumers. This action would simply not be possible from within the EU, as the Customs Union prohibits different tariffs in different member states."

DEBUNKED

The way this comparison is framed (especially the 47% vs 27% figure) overstates the benefit of complex trade realities.
Tariff elimination on low-volume or rarely imported products doesn't mean big savings for consumers.
Non-tariff barriers (like customs checks, rules of origin, regulatory divergence) also increased post-Brexit, often adding costs to trade that offsets tariff savings.

"Product lines" refer to customs classifications (tariff lines), not necessarily the volume or value of imports - so this doesn't mean 47% of all imported goods by value are tariff-free. So the comparison does not reflect actual cost impact for consumers.

"Product lines" refer to customs classifications (tariff lines), not necessarily the volume or value of imports - so this doesn't mean 47% of all imported goods by value are tariff-free. So the comparison does not reflect actual cost impact for

The EU tariff schedule is different because it's based on joint negotiations and trade-offs in a larger bloc.

The 27% figure is likely drawn from the share of tariff-free product lines under the EU’s Common External Tariff, but it's not a direct 1:1 comparison because: Many imports to the EU come under preferential trade agreements or tariff rate quotas, which this number may not fully capture and the actual economic impact depends more on what products are imported most — not just the number of lines.

Also, this was all written before Trump's ongoing (as of May 2025) world-wide trade war began, which still changes from day to day in many ways for everyone. The EU is stronger for fighting in this trade war than the UK is on its own.

14

"In the year to March 2022, the Department for International Trade (now renamed the Department for Business and Trade or DBT) resolved 192 trade barriers in 79 countries. Just 45 of these alone were estimated to be worth around £5 billion to businesses across the UK over a five-year period. That's an additional £1bn per year of extra revenue for UK businesses, just from these 45 trade barrier removals, thanks to leaving the EU. That would be around 0.03% of GDP in 2022."

DEBUNKED

These barriers are also constantly being worked on being removed by the EU too and the UK had a large part in this process.

15

"In March of 2022, the then Chancellor Rishi Sunak announced that VAT would be reduced to zero on green energy purchases such as solar panels and heat pumps. Women's sanitary products also had VAT removed from them, in January 2021. A member state cannot independently implement such VAT policies from within the EU, as the EU has laws on minimum VAT levels and VAT exemption, that have to be followed by all member states."

DEBUNKED

The EU has made significant strides in encouraging its member states to reduce VAT on sanitary products, and many countries have followed suit by lowering the tax rate or eliminating it entirely. However, not all EU countries have fully implemented this, and some are still operating under the standard VAT rates. This is therefore down to member states, not the EU. States are able to do this while remaining members of the EU.

Member states have already, despite remaining in the EU, began removing VAT from sanitary products, including Ireland, Malta and Scotland (before Brexit). More are in the proces of reducing/removing it, which can easily be found with a simple Google search, including: Germany, Belgium, Spain, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Austria, Finland, Portugal and Czech Republic. The countries that have introduced 0% VAT on sanitary products, do so under specific national measures, either as part of a broader gender equality agenda or other social policy objectives.

16

"A ruling in 2022 by the EU Courts (The CJEU) resulted in member states having to shut down open registers of corporate ownership - registers that had been put in place specifically to reduce corruption and increase transparency. As the UK is now outside of the jurisdiction of the CJEU, the more transparent approach continues to be in place, helping to prevent corruption. To put it another way - the EU chose to remove protections against corruption, the UK didn't.".

DEBUNKED

The statement that "the EU chose to remove protections against corruption, the UK didn't" is somewhat misleading. The EU did indeed limit public access to the ownership registers but still mandates transparency for regulatory and enforcement purposes. The UK, outside the jurisdiction of the CJEU, has kept its own open register, but this isn't necessarily a sign that the UK's approach is fundamentally more transparent—it’s simply different. Both regions have made efforts to increase transparency while balancing privacy concerns.

17

"Changes brought into effect immediately after formally exiting the EU transition period, allow for public services procurement to be reserved below a given threshold, so that only local businesses and suppliers are able to tender for the contract - ensuring that smaller tenders for local improvements are provided by local businesses where possible, keeping investment in the local area. Goods and services contracts below £138,760 (central government), £213,477 (sub-central authorities) and £5.3 million (construction throughout the public sector) are now reserved solely for UK suppliers"

DEBUNKED

This is written as though it is a positive thing for the UK. It isn't:

If local businesses are favored, especially in areas where they are less competitive or lack the capacity of international suppliers, it can lead to higher costs for government contracts. Larger, international companies often benefit from economies of scale, which can offer lower prices for goods and services. This could result in taxpayer money being spent inefficiently.

By limiting the pool of suppliers to UK-based companies, there’s a risk that the UK misses out on international expertise, advanced technologies, or better practices that foreign suppliers might bring. For instance, global players might offer more cutting-edge solutions in sectors like construction, IT, or logistics, which could help the UK remain competitive globally.

Some sectors, particularly in industries that rely on global supply chains (e.g., advanced manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, or high-tech industries), may face shortages or delays if they are restricted to UK suppliers. This can be problematic in industries where the UK lacks sufficient domestic suppliers to meet the demand.

When markets are open to international suppliers, governments can more easily adjust to shifts in demand or supply disruptions (e.g., after events like the pandemic or Brexit). Restricting procurement to UK-based suppliers could reduce the UK's flexibility to address market shifts or emergencies.

Large infrastructure projects, such as major construction, transportation, or energy projects, often require international expertise and access to global materials and technology. Limiting procurement to only UK suppliers could raise costs, slow down project timelines, and compromise quality if UK firms cannot meet the scale or expertise required.

Some critics argue that policies favoring local suppliers can drift toward protectionism, potentially leading to trade disputes or retaliatory tariffs. If the UK imposes such restrictions, other countries may follow suit, limiting UK firms' access to international markets.

18

"As found by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations (NFFO) "Brexit Balance Sheet" report in September 2021, the UK fishing industry as a whole was better off at that point by over £50 million a year (£250 million by 2026), than it was when inside the EU. Though this benefit is unevenly distributed across different types of fishing, the UK industry as a whole is better off. This figure is increasing with each year that passes, as more quotas are returned to the UK fishing fleet, and negotiations on annual quotas are held with the UK personally instead of at the EU level".

DEBUNKED

These "benefits" are uneven across different sectors. Some, like deep-sea fishing, have gained more, while others, such as inshore fisheries, have faced disruptions like lost export markets due to new post-Brexit trade rules. While the UK now negotiates quotas independently with the EU, this has brought both opportunities and tensions, as the EU fleet still retains access to UK waters.

In short, while the overall financial benefit is slightly positive, the industry faces ongoing challenges, and some parts of the sector have seen limited improvements. This is of course, before the new deal struck by Labour in May 2025.

This is taken from Gully's very own source:

"The assessment shows that there are very few winners and a great many losers. Gary Taylor’s analysis suggests that the bulk of the UK fishing fleet is on a trajectory to incur losses amounting to £64 million or more per year, with a total loss in excess of £300 million by 2026, unless changes are secured through international fisheries negotiation."

19

"Outside of the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which mainly benefitted billionaire landowners with subsidies, the UK system is being changed to encourage better stewardship of farmland as animal habitats - and will spread the subsidies better amongst smaller farms. Recent months have seen tens of thousands of farmers, across the whole of the EU, protesting at EU agricultural policies. Policies that the UK is no longer bound to implement, and so are not a threat to UK farmers and their livelihoods."

DEBUNKED

UK farmers and food security are worse off since Brexit due to: Increased trade barriers with the EU, Labor shortages and difficulty attracting seasonal workers, Uncertainty over new subsidy systems and concerns about reduced financial support and Higher costs for agricultural inputs and some regulatory challenges.

That said, there are still opportunities for certain farmers to benefit from new regulatory freedoms and government programs like Environmental Land Management (ELM), but these have not yet fully compensated for the negative impacts of Brexit.

20

"As EU members, EU citizens in the UK had a more preferential access to the UK welfare system than those from non-EU countries. Having left the EU, the access to the UK welfare system has now been equalised for all non-UK citizens present in the UK, irrespective of whether they happen to be from the EU or not. This equal treatment of visitors to the UK was not possible as an EU member, as EU membership required preferential treatment of EU citizens, over and above that provided to those from other countries".

DEBUNKED

This is just nonsensical. The way it is written, is indeed correct. However, there is nothing in EU or International law that would have stopped the UK taking all the rules applied to EU citizens, and applying them to non-EU citizens. EU law provides a baseline which states cannot go under, but are free to improve or go above.

Roadmap

Work began work on debunking the list on 14th May 2025.
10 on the list will be debunked each week until complete.
After completion, a foreward and index will be written for the book.
We will then self publish the book, digitally and in-print, for Summer 2025.

1-10 > 16th May 2025 > COMPLETE
11-20 > 23rd May 2025 > COMPLETE
21-30 > 30th May 2025 > COMPLETE
31-40 > 6th June 2025
41-50 > 13th June 2025
51-60 > 20th June 2025
61-75 > 27th June 2025