21

"Leaving the EU has made the UK a more important strategic ally to the US and others in terms of geopolitics, not less. Not my words, those of the celebrated economist and former Special Advisor to the US President, Pippa Malmgren: “...Brexit probably makes Britain a more important country with a greater voice on strategic security matters, because it’s not about the fact that the EU is larger, it’s about the fact that the EU is way behind” Recent events in the Red Sea and in Ukraine, as well as concerns in the Indo-Pacific, only go to reinforce this point. As does the existence of the AUKUS agreement and the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) with Japan and Italy"

DEBUNKED

Pippa Malmgren is a former advisor to Republican US Presiden George Bush, which is important context to bear in mind when listening to any of her personal opinions, which is all this is. If people's personal opinions are "a benefit of Brexit", then we are obviously clutching at straws.

The U.S. under normal circumstances, prefers allies that can influence both NATO and EU policy, so this reduces UK influence in some eyes. The examples of events in the Red Sea and in Ukraine are both events which Brexit had NO BEARING on whether the UK could influence or not. With Ukraine, arguably, the UK could have made the EU move quicker than it did if it were a member.

Leaving the EU reduced the UK’s ability to influence EU-wide foreign policy, which was a major amplifier of its diplomatic voice.

As with any public figure, it's advisable to consider multiple perspectives and sources when evaluating Pippa Malmgren's analyses and opinions. Especially given her previous political roles and involvement in businesses such as those manufacturing drones for war.

22

"In September 2021, the UK signed a trilateral security and defence partnership with the USA and Australia, known as the AUKUS agreement. This agreement centres around closer collaboration between the military-industrial complexes of the three nations, with the first and more attention-grabbing part of that being the provision of nuclear-powered submarines to Australia using British and American technology. As an EU member, the UK was bound to work within the commitments of the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) - something which would have prevented significant aspects of the AUKUS agreement from being signed up to by the UK, and so potentially sinking the entire agreement. AUKUS has already resulted in billions of additional investment by Australia into the UK, and thousands of new jobs being created. This would not be happening without having first left the EU."

DEBUNKED

This is basically point 21 again, so 74 Brexit benefits? Anyway...

It is not true to say that
AUKUS would have been impossible within the EU, or
that Brexit is directly responsible for current economic gains from AUKUS.

These claims are debatable and not conclusively supported by evidence. They reflect a pro-Brexit interpretation rather than an objective assessment of geopolitical realities. They are not even universally seen as positive.

23

"Still with defence, and post-Brexit changes to UK defence procurement rules have allowed the Royal Navy to accelerate the development and deployment of the new DragonFire laser weaponry. The latest estimates have the weaponry being deployed and in use by 2027, a full FIVE YEARS earlier than had been expected to be possible prior to the changes to procurement rules. The full package of procurement rule changes, were not possible from inside the EU."

DEBUNKED

"A full FIVE YEARS earlier":
This claim seems exaggerated or unverified. Publicly available information does not confirm that the DragonFire system was expected no earlier than 2032.
Most estimates before 2023 suggested operational use might begin in the late 2020s or early 2030s, so five years faster seems like a stretch unless supported by specific MoD statements, which it isn't.

EU rules allowed flexibility for defence contracts to bypass open competition on national security grounds.
The UK could already do some forms of accelerated or protected procurement while in the EU.

24

"On 22nd April 2024, following a well received public consultation where 95% of respondents agreed, the UK government announced its intention to ban wet wipes that contain plastic microfibers. It is a core principle of the EU Single Market, that a product able to be sold legally in one member state, must be able to be sold in all member states, with very few exceptions to this rule. If the UK were still an EU member, it would not be able to ban the sale of these products, if they were manufactured and legally sold in another EU member state."

DEBUNKED

Article 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) allows member states to impose restrictions for reasons such as public health or environmental protection, provided these measures are proportionate and justified.

Brexit Benefit Number 25 has been deleted by Gully. (LOL)
So, down to 73 Brexit "benefits", given no 20 and 21 are basically the same point.

26

"Sticking with the topic of motoring - EU Regulation 2019/2144, known as the "New Vehicle General Safety Regulation" or GSR2 for short, brought in mandatory automated vehicle driver assistance tools for all new cars, rolling out in three phases - Phase 1 in July 2022, Phase 2 in July 2024, and Phase 3 in July 2026. These regulations stipulate that not only must all new motor vehicles sold in the EU be fitted with these features by default, but they must also be enabled by default - with them all re-enabling themselves on each engine restart, even if the driver manually disables them. Emergency Lane Keeping Systems, or ELKS, use front-mounted cameras to detect road markings - and then decide in real time whether or not the driver is using the correct lane. Should the system believe that the driver is unintentionally drifting out of their intended lane of traffic, the vehicle will first try to draw attention to this through haptic feedback (steering wheel vibration and/or alerts), but will then intervene directly and alter the direction of the vehicle to where it believes the car should be. The ELKS system has been found in numerous models to have concerning unintended consequences, with the technology itself being relatively new and still prone to mistaken decision-making. For example, testing in July 2024 on the new MG 4 conducted by Which? magazine, found multiple occasions where the ELKS system pulled the car onto the wrong side of the road - and in one case into oncoming traffic. The ELKS system is mandated as part of Phase two, and so is already a mandatory feature of all new vehicles sold in the EU. These features are also being included in many new vehicles sold in the UK as standard, but the difference is that there is no law requiring them to be used, nor are they required to be enabled by default. UK drivers have the choice to remain in full control of their vehicles, and to not be forced to trust vehicle steering into the hands of knowingly flawed automated systems."

DEBUNKED

The reason this "benefit" is so wordy, is because it is word salad.
It is merely an opinion on a relatively new safety feature in vehicles. It's a safety feature, which even in the word salad admits is still being installed in UK vehicles, despite leaving the EU. It amounts to "we have made our own laws, but decided not to because the EU law we already had was good".

While it's reasonable to raise concerns about system reliability, your current phrasing (“knowingly flawed,” “forced to trust”) comes off as editorialized and may reduce perceived objectivity. I am a lorry driver, and drive lorries with these features all the time and never once found a flaw in them. They simply make a noise if you're drifing out of lane, or if anything is in your BLIND SPOT at the side of the vehicle, which has been excellent in detecting cyclists in busy city centres.

So this is merely an opinion, which has not stopped in the UK anyway.

27

"On the topic now of financial markets - something that the UK is a world leader in, and so has a vested interest in getting right. In March 2018 the EU forced a rollout of “Double Volume Caps”, as part of their MiFID II financial services regulations. These caps looked to limit the volume of equity trading in off-market venues. These limits hurt the UK markets more than any other EU markets, due to both the size and trading volumes of the UK market compared with other EU markets, and because large investment funds are predominantly based in the UK and need to trade in large volumes. Outside of the EU, the FCA was able to stop applying these volume caps onto UK equities in December 2020, and then removed them fully in March 2021 - an action applauded by The City, and seen to be one which reverses the unintended negative effects of the EU regulations."

DEBUNKED

Activity and jobs related to the EU have moved to Europe. Access to EU markets is more complicated.
This has to be considered when talking about ANYTHING when talking about trading volumes and Brexit.
For example, Amsterdam briefly overtook London as the world leader, widely seen, as a warning to London that if it were to try and compete directly with the EU, the EU would protect itself, which it can do due to its size compared to the UK.

28

"Sticking with financial markets - Under the EUs MiFID II financial regulations, commodity position limits applied to market participants trading in commodity derivatives (futures, options, and swaps) on regulated markets. The position limits were set by both the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) and the national regulators, and were based on a rigid formula that considered the size of the market, trading volumes, the number of participants, and the nature of the commodity (whether it's critical for the economy or has volatile prices). MiFID II’s position limits applied to all contracts traded on EU trading venues, as well as over-the-counter (OTC) contracts that were deemed economically equivalent to exchange-traded contracts. Post-Brexit, the UK abolished most commodity position limits for contracts traded on UK venues. Instead of mandatory limits on all commodity contracts, the new rules allow trading venues to impose limits or position management controls where appropriate. The focus shifted away from strict position limits to a more flexible position management regime, where trading venues themselves are responsible for setting and enforcing position limits based on their own assessments of the market (self-regulation). Trading venues can also grant hedging exemptions, making the system less burdensome for market participants. Additionally, the UK's post-Brexit framework eliminated the equivalent position limits that covered economically equivalent OTC contracts, reducing regulatory overhead and simplifying compliance. The move away from rigid, one-size-fits-all position limits is beneficial to market operations. Trading venues can adapt position management rules according to market conditions and participant needs, which is expected to enhance efficiency. Additionally, by reducing the regulatory burden, UK markets are more attractive to commodity traders and commercial hedgers. This attracts volume from industries like energy, agriculture, and metals, which use derivatives to manage risk. Finally, by allowing market participants to hold larger positions where appropriate, without the constraints of stringent limits, liquidity in UK markets improves. This results in deeper, more resilient markets with better price discovery."

DEBUNKED

More word salad, based purely on a (at the time) pro-Brexit government press release.
I refer you to the debunk from 27

Activity and jobs related to the EU have moved to Europe. Access to EU markets is more complicated.
This has to be considered when talking about ANYTHING when talking about trading volumes and Brexit.
For example, Amsterdam briefly overtook London as the world leader, widely seen, as a warning to London that if it were to try and compete directly with the EU, the EU would protect itself, which it can do due to its size compared to the UK.

29

"In 2014 the EU introduced a cap on the amount able to be awarded as a bonus to employees in the banking sector, despite the opposition of the UK who were the member state most affected by the legislation. This action left London (along with the other much smaller financial centres in the EU) uncompetitive on the global stage for the best talent within the banking sector. As the Bank of England stated in October 2014, “The bonus cap is the wrong policy, the debate around it is misguided”. From outside the EU, the UK has been able to remove this cap - which allows London to once again compete with the other global financial capitals like New York and Hong Kong, but will also result in a higher amount of banking revenue being invested into public services through the taxation collected from those increased bonuses."

DEBUNKED

Firstly, claiming 'removing bankers bonuses' as a Brexit benefit is a weird flex, but ok LOL.

Here is an assessment of the UK financial sector since Brexit, which concludes "Not as bad as expected". Proper benefit, that...
The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. Taxes have been increased to invest into public services, so it seems removing caps on bankers bonuses did not amount to banking revenue being invested into public services afterall.

30

"As covered in articles from both Reuters and the Telegraph, those at the lower end of salaried workers in the UK have seen improvements in both salaries and working conditions due to leaving the EU, and the resultant tightening of available resources with the removal of Freedom of Movement (FoM). Quote: "a gradual improvement in employment terms since the global pandemic and Brexit forced companies to work harder to find staff" This link between FoM and reduced salaries for UK workers was always denied as EU members, but the data since our departure has been proof positive that this link always existed."

DEBUNKED

This is merely an opinion, written by people who are not themselves workers at the lower end of salaried workers.

So here' my own opinion, who IS a worker at the lower end of salaried workers.

As a lorry driver, I have indeed seen my wages increase. But not as much as inflation, let me explain the link.

The world is currently experiencing a shortage of lorry drivers, but all countries are at "just about coping" levels.
When we left the EU, 10s of thousands of EU drivers went back to their own countries, making the UKs shortage beyond coping levels. Immediately this affected oil tankers, which saw shortages at petrol pumps and factories temporary halting - sending home workers who are low salaried and putting up fuel prices for everyone. Medium term, it has meant companies putting up wage levels to poach drivers from other companies. The winners in this situation were bigger companies, who do not treat drivers as well as smaller or family run businesses, meaning a reduction in working conditions. The opposite to the description in the opinions posted.

More longer term, with the wages increased, the idea that haulage companies were just going to absord this are obviously silly. They didn't. They passed on the increase to suppliers, who passed the increase onto stores. This increased inflation, MORE than our wages have ever increased. At no point have our wages level increased more than or even equal to inflation.

So not only have us lorry drivers been made worse off due to Brexit, but everyone else, on even lower wages, are paying this increased inflation to pay for our wage increase. Given everything in the UK is delievered with lorries, it has affected the price (inflation) of everything, from food in the shops, to bricks used to build houses.

Perhaps these newspapers should speak to real people.

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