My day on My way: BREXIT vs. Paranoia 0-3 (The cost of this "love")

It seems that every 3, 6 and 9 years’ time I do have time to look into long forgotten facts and check what has brought this nation further. I want people to learn, however there is no magic potion for those who don’t want to. With almost 10 years behind our back after the referendum, I think we now wholeheartedly can say that Brexit was a royal failure, and as always, Paranoia leads with another point (!) again – what a surprise… However, before anyone turns around and tells me I have lost it, I will let the numbers and facts speak to all of you, and I am inviting you to stay with me all the way to the end, because I guarantee it will be worth it.

First let’s start at the very beginning to have an even clearer picture on the actual background, just a smooth reminder for those who have forgotten and even smoother reminder for those who voted and had no clue for what (oh trust me, it did happen in many cases!).

WHERE IT ALL STARTED

PART 1: WHY THE REFERENDUM WAS CALLED?

Based on David Cameron's Official Reasons (January 2013 announcement) in January 2013, the referendum promise was for the following factors:

Party management - To settle the growing Eurosceptic faction within the Conservative Party
Democratic legitimacy - The UK had never voted on EU membership since major treaties changed the nature of the organization (no referendum since 1975)
Renegotiation opportunity - A chance to renegotiate Britain's relationship with the EU and then put the new deal to voters
Electoral strategy - To win back Conservative voters who were drifting to UKIP (a political party for those who have forgotten)

The Real Underlying Pressures instead were the ones below. Do note, these are well documented and do your own research before believing anything that gets listed in the followings, as I know it will sound unbelievable…:

Internal Conservative Party rebellion - In June 2012, over 100 Conservative MPs signed a letter demanding a referendum commitment. In 2011, 81 Tory MPs defied Cameron's three-line whip to vote for a public-backed referendum initiative.
UKIP's rising popularity - By 2013, UKIP was polling at 10% nationally, though importantly, Cameron made the referendum commitment before UKIP became a major electoral threat.
Growing Euroscepticism - Long-building sentiment within the Conservative Party dating back to Thatcher's era, fuelled by concerns about sovereignty, immigration, and EU regulations.
Cameron's miscalculation - He believed he could win the referendum easily and use it to silence critics permanently. He vastly underestimated both the Leave campaign's effectiveness and his own party's willingness to defy him.

PART 2: THE LEAVE CAMPAIGN ARGUMENTS (PRE-REFERENDUM 2016)

The Main Campaign Messages:

1. Immigration Control - "Take Back Control" (!)

This was the dominant theme throughout the campaign
Claims that EU free movement was overwhelming to public services
Warnings about Turkey/ Turkiye joining the EU (with implicit fears about Muslim immigration)
The infamous poster showing refugees with "Breaking Point" messaging
Leavers argued that immigration was causing "unsustainable pressures on our public services"

2. NHS Funding - The £350 Million / week Claim

The iconic red bus slogan: "We send the EU £350 million a week, let's fund our NHS instead"
This figure was demonstrably incorrect (the actual net contribution was much lower)
The claim was designed to "neutralize" economic arguments, according to campaign director Dominic Cummings
It suggested building a new fully-staffed hospital every week with the "savings"

3. Sovereignty - "Take Back Control"

Nearly half of Leave voters cited wanting "decisions about the UK to be taken in the UK" (!)
Claims that EU judges controlled British citizenship
Arguments about "unelected Brussels bureaucrats" making UK laws
The European Court of Justice undermining British sovereignty

4. Economic Arguments

EU membership prevented Britain from making its own trade deals with major economies (US, India, Japan)
EU bureaucracy and red tape harmed small businesses
EU regulations were inflexible and slow
Common Fisheries Policy harmed British fishing industry

5. Security Claims

Britain's borders would be more secure outside the EU
Full border controls would improve domestic security

There were effectively two Leave campaigns running in parallel. This division was actually a strategic one - it allowed different messages to reach different voter groups, what academics call a "flanking manoeuvre."

Vote Leave – was led by Johnson and Gove, presented a more "liberal" pro-Brexit message focused on sovereignty, NHS funding, and managed immigration

Leave.EU - Led by Farage, used more explicitly anti-immigrant rhetoric and the "Breaking Point" poster

Based on research immigration and sovereignty were deeply intertwined in voters' minds - they weren't separate issues, so building the momentum on these, the campaign successfully linked:

Immigration → as to putting a strain on NHS
Immigration → as to loss of control
EU membership → the inability to control borders
Turkish EU membership → Muslim immigration threat
Sovereignty → immigration control

And the fuel on fire was the refugee crisis of 2015-2016, which provided perfect timing for these messages to land with maximum impact.

Key Politicians Heavily Involved:

VOTE LEAVE (Official Campaign Politicians – nowadays either of them barely visible, are they even alive?):

Boris Johnson - Then-Mayor of London, became the face of the campaign after announcing support on February 21, 2016
Michael Gove - Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor
Gisela Stuart - Labour MP, served as chairman of Vote Leave
Dominic Cummings - Campaign Director (strategist behind the scenes)
Iain Duncan Smith - Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Chris Grayling - Leader of the House of Commons
Priti Patel - Minister of State for Employment
Andrea Leadsom - Minister at Department of Energy and Climate Change
Nigel Lawson - Former Chancellor (interim chairman)
Matthew Elliott - Co-founder with Cummings

LEAVE.EU / UKIP (Unofficial parallel campaign):

Nigel Farage - UKIP Leader (now known for Reform campaigns), the face of the more nativist messaging
Aaron Banks - Zee wealthy insurance magnate who poured millions into Leave.EU's controversial advertising

Now that we have the summary of who and why, let’s check next for how much? Money always talks, and this time too. However, do stick around to see that money can scream too (almost literally).

THE TOTAL COST OF THE BREXIT REFERENDUM CAMPAIGN

PART 1: OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT COSTS TO RUN THE REFERENDUM was: £129.09 million, which breaks down as follows:

Administration of the poll, £94.5 million: This involved the running of over 40,000 polling stations, issuing and opening postal votes, counting the votes and the costs of staff for Counting Officers across the UK

Designated campaign grants, £1.2 million: £600,000 each to the two designated lead campaigns (Vote Leave and Britain Stronger in Europe). The intention of these sums were to reflect the equivalent value given to campaigns in the 1975 referendum.

Campaign mailings, £25.4 million: “Free” Royal Mail delivery for each designated campaign to send materials to every household in the UK, which covered only delivery not the production costs.

Electoral Commission public awareness campaign, £6 million: Including multimedia campaign starting May 15, 2016, the advertising, voting guides, public relations informing people how to vote (of course not on who to, just how…).

Government pro-Remain leaflet: £9.3 million (separate from above):

The cost of production was £458,500
then £5.94 million to print and deliver to 27 million homes
and finally £2.89 million for the accompanying website and digital promotion

This was actually highly controversial - Leave campaigners argued it gave Remain an unfair advantage as the government wasn't treated as a campaign group and could spend outside the limits. Funny thing is that leave campaigners, who spent the most also argued the most. Wonder why?

PART 2: REPORTED CAMPAIGN SPENDING (ALL GROUPS) was: £32.64 million

From this the REMAIN CAMPAIGNS costs were £19.31 million (Britain Stronger in Europe spent £6.77 million and Other Remain groups: ~£12.54 million) and the LEAVE CAMPAIGNS: £13.33 million (Vote Leave official figures: £6.74 million; Leave.EU: ~£700,000 which was their spending limit as well; and other Leave groups: ~£5.89 million)

Political Parties spent £9.03 million total.
Each had a spending limit based on their 2015 general election vote share:

Conservatives: £7 million limit
Labour: £5.5 million limit
UKIP: £4 million limit
Liberal Democrats: £3 million limit

PART 3: ILLEGAL OVERSPENDING & FINES – let's call it the top layer

Here's where it gets particularly interesting - and scandalous too:

VOTE LEAVE VIOLATIONS:

Actual spending: £7,449,079 (from this the legal limit was £7 million and overspending was nearly half a million pounds over the limit)

One really might wonder how they did it? Simple, they funnelled £675,000 through a fashion student named Darren Grimes and his "BeLeave" campaign.

BeLeave was supposed to be independent but was operating from Vote Leave's office
Vote Leave built BeLeave's website, provided infrastructure, filming facilities, legal support
All the money went directly to AggregateIQ (a Canadian tech firm) for targeted Facebook ads
The Electoral Commission found "significant evidence of joint working" under a "common plan"
This should have counted toward Vote Leave's spending limit

Vote Leave also submitted an incomplete and inaccurate spending report:

Had nearly £234,501 reported incorrectly
Missing invoices for £12,849.99 of spending

The case was referred to Metropolitan Police for criminal investigation and eventually they paid the fine in March 2019 after initially appealing.
The fines imposed to this were in total value of £81,250:

£61,000 (£20,000 of this for refusing to cooperate with investigation)
Darren Grimes/BeLeave: £20,000 (maximum individual fine allowed)
Veterans for Britain: £250

LEAVE.EU VIOLATIONS:

They failed to report at least £77,380 in spending (what a surprise, or not…). It might have been more, however presume no one really could bother after the VOTE LEAVE mess, and the reason of not reporting the spending was that this would have pushed them over their £700,000 limit. They were fined for this conduct with £70,000 which later was reduced to £66,000 on appeal.

Then in February 2019 they were fined again in value of £120,000 for data protection breaches (using Eldon Insurance customer data for political purposes – this just shows that we can indeed “count on our insurance company” when it comes to politics). This was referred to National Crime Agency and Metropolitan Police where no criminal charges were brought due to insufficient evidence (Just think about it, they are fined, yet there is no evidence for prosecution…).

OTHER FINES AND VIOLATIONS:

Liberal Democrats: they had inadequate receipts and invoices in estimated value of £18,000
Britain Stronger in Europe (Official Remain Campaign, also renamed to Open Britain): Fined £1,250 in December 2017 for failing to provide invoices and for declaring some spending in aggregate rather than as individual payments.
European Movement UK (Pro-Remain Group): Fined £8,750 in October 2017 for submitting an "incomplete and inaccurate" spending return, which included missing payments and incorrectly included other payments.
Best for Our Future (Pro-Remain Group): Fined £2,000 in 2018 for inaccurate reporting.
Campaign for an Independent England (Pro-Remain/Pro-EU Group): Fined £1,000 for a "significantly late" return.
DUP (Democratic Unionist Party): Fined £4,000 for inaccurate spending returns, which included duplicated payments.
Trade Unions (e.g. UNISON £ 1,500, GMB £ 500): The Electoral Commission reported that two trade union donors were fined for inaccurate reporting, sources citing different figures, so go figure.

Now, based on the above findings one really should raise their eyebrow and figure out whether the incompetency of correct filings was a spreading disease, or in every case genuine mistake happened? Except for Campaign of an Independent England, I would bet my penny that it was clear and early signs of a “wild disease” spreading. Just look at the reports related to income and exspenditures submitted by local authorities and political parties in the past 5 years, I think already with surface scratching the obvious will be clearly visible.

PART 4: LEGAL COSTS FROM INVESTIGATIONS – digging under the surface layer

What majority of the population doesn’t seem to realise that there is more to the actual costs than what is shown at first. So in the following we can’t miss out on the Electoral Commission’s legal costs (and would propose having a look at this report and eye a bit with those pension benefits, just rest a bit your brain whilst soaking the reality in)
·        Approximately £228,000 in legal fees investigating Darren Grimes
·        Plus £300,000 paid to Grimes when he successfully appealed his fine in July 2019
·        Vote Leave paid the Commission £180,000 in legal costs
·        Ongoing investigations and court cases through 2018-2019.

THE GRAND TOTAL (Direct Measurable Costs)
Conservative estimate: £170-180 million

£129.09 million (official referendum administration)
£32.64 million (campaign spending)
£9.3 million (government leaflet)
~£1-2 million (fines and legal costs)

WHAT IS NOT INCLUDED?

Opportunity costs (!) - Government officials' time spent on referendum instead of other work
Economic impact during campaign - Pound sterling volatility, FTSE fluctuations
Private sector costs (!) - Businesses preparing for either outcome
Media coverage costs (!) – Even though broadcasters had legal obligations to cover it
The actual IMPLEMENTATION costs of Brexit - Which would run into billions

THE SPENDING LIMITS CONTROVERSY
Here's what really is a particularly problematic scenario: the maximum fine the Electoral Commission could impose was £20,000 per offence.
Think about that: Vote Leave overspent by £449,079 and was fined £61,000. That's only 13.6% of their illegal overspending. From a cost-benefit perspective, it was financially rational to break the law.
As legal expert Jolyon Maugham QC argued: "Financial penalties must be 'swingeing to create a real deterrent.'"
The spending rules were designed to:

Prevent an arms race between campaigns
Stop wealthy donors from buying elections
Ensure a level playing field

But the system royally failed. The fines were too small to act as deterrents, and the Electoral Commission was severely underfunded and understaffed.

KEY TAKEAWAY
The referendum itself cost approximately £170-180 million in direct, measurable costs. However when the law allows to break the rules with little or no accountability for the political parties using sophisticated schemes to circumvent spending limits for example, and then imposing fines on them which are a fraction of the illegal overspending, essentially making lawbreaking a profitable strategy, then based on what are these laws legal, sustainable and fair?
This raises fundamental questions not only about the integrity of the referendum process, however also why spending limits are not only unenforceable but simply show items in the midst of a circus?
However, let’s avoid dwelling on this, as obviously it seems that no one really is bothered much about these and let’s move on to our next stage.

HOW MUCH DID THIS TABLOID DIVORCE COST?

OPPORTUNITY COSTS & MEDIA COVERAGE COSTS: BREXIT CAMPAIGN & IMPLEMENTATION (2016-2020)
This is the point where the costs become truly staggering so I ask everyone who one day gets here to read these to learn from these figures and implement in your everyday day life this comparing measures too. In politics even the “free” has its own price, for which all tax payers paid for already. So it is not free, is it? One must just really check how much that “free” really is.

PART 1: CIVIL SERVICE OPPORTUNITY COSTS

1.A. STAFF EXPANSION COSTS
Civil Service Growth (Source: Institute for Government, UK in a Changing Europe):
In June 2016 there were an estimate 384,000 full-time equivalent FTE civil servants, whilst in December 2021 this number raised by 24% (91,000) to 475,000 FTE civil servants. Of which 25,000-27,500 civil servants were working directly on Brexit by 2019-2020.
Annual Cost Calculation:

Estimated cost per civil servant: £45,000 (including salary, accommodation, pensions, NI contributions)
With 91,000 additional staff × £45,000 = £4.095 billion yearly, and over 5 years (2016-2021): ~£20.5 billion in additional civil service costs. However as I want to be generous, let’s spread out the 91,000 across the 5 years with equal yearly incremental rate, even then, the total figure is around £12.3 billion over the period of 5 years. Which is more likely in line with the civil service website estimates, which says Brexit might have cost £3 billion per year in staff costs alone - potentially even more than the 60,000 employed by "Brussels" for all centralized EU functions. However what they seem to forget to mention that this additional estimated yearly £3 billion is the actual costs of the newly appointed civil servants only during the 5 year, and they seem to forget to mention all the existing staff’s costs involved in Brexit, as if they would have nothing to do with it. So let’s face the reality, no one has a clue how much yearly these costs actually were, and if they still have realistic figures I am certain it would be way above the estimated £3 billion (just by that simple known fact that majority of the civil servant jobs are outsourced to agencies, which is well practiced procedure across the market. They charge way more than what the actual cost would be, however they save the headache of keeping and if need be, firing the staff from their civil servant jobs for all government bodies). This rabbit hole is so deep, once you go down, you will find it extremely hard to unsee or unhear whatever you meet moving forward.

So we could just stick to the £15 billion total narrative for the 5 year period in total costs, simply to keep the maths straight.

1. B. CONSULTANCY SPENDING BONANZA
This is particularly shocking, the government dramatically increased reliance on external consultants.
Overall Consultancy Spending Growth (Source: Tussell data):

2016: £700 million in consultancy contracts
2021: £2.5 billion in consultancy contracts
Growth: 257% increase over 5 years

Brexit-Specific Consultancy Costs (2017-2020):

Total Brexit consultancy fees: £450-600 million (conservative estimate)

Major Contracts (Sources: Multiple consultancy news reports):

McKinsey & Company:

£1.9 million (April-October 2017) - DExEU implementation of 800 Brexit plans
£680,000 (2018) - HMRC customs proposals (rejected by EU)
Part of £43 million to MBB firms (McKinsey, BCG, Bain) collectively

Deloitte:

£147 million (2019-2020) - up from £40 million (2017-2018) [268% increase]
Up to £100 million contract from HMRC for post-Brexit customs
£486,473 for EU exit coordination

Boston Consulting Group (BCG):

£2 million (Summer 2018) - cross-government delivery coordination
£750,000 (2018) - additional EU exit coordination (3 payments)
£10 million (April-August 2019) - 40 consultants for 4 months

Bain & Company:

£750,000 (2018) - similar to BCG agreement

PwC:

£106 million (2019-2020) in government fees

EY, KPMG, Accenture, PA Consulting:

£10 million each in various Brexit contracts
Total Big Four (Deloitte, PwC, EY, KPMG): £300+ million (2017-2020)

Cabinet Office Contracts (2020-2022):

£180 million over 2 years (with option to extend to £360 million)
Awarded to McKinsey, Bain, KPMG, Accenture, Deloitte, PwC
Note: Previous 2 years had cost £88 million - this quadrupled the spending

Single Contract Examples:

£75 million in Brexit contracts to 9 firms (before April 2019)
Individual consultant rates: £7,000-£14,000 per day

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2021/sep/opinion-britains-public-sector-paying-price-governments-consultancy-habit

1. C. MANAGEMENT TIME & PRODUCTIVITY COSTS

Executive Time Diverted to Brexit (Source: CEPR, NBER Working Papers, Bank of England DMP Survey):
Between November 2018 and January 2019:

10% of CFOs spending 6+ hours per week on Brexit preparations
6% of CEOs spending 6+ hours per week on Brexit preparations
Over 70% of both CFOs and CEOs spending some time on Brexit prep
Average: Nearly 10% spending 6+ hours/week, 25% spending 1-5 hours/week

Productivity Impact:

Over 500 Brexit-related work streams in government
Similar number of legislative changes required
Deloitte 2016 leaked memo: Warned of need for 30,000 additional civil servants
Civil servants working overnight shifts preparing Brexit briefings
Papers arriving at 18:00, departments had 3 hours to compile briefings
Briefings to senior civil servants by 21:30, who worked overnight

PART 2: BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY COSTS

2. A. SMALL BUSINESS PREPARATION COSTS
Direct Costs (Source: FSB, Enterprise Nation):

Only 21% of SMEs expecting negative impact made preparations
63% said they couldn't plan at all (lack of information, shifting deadlines)
Those who prepared: Average cost £3,000 per firm

Extra stock
Legal advice
New paperwork systems
Compliance preparations

One-third saw profitability decline due to Brexit preparations alone

2. B. BUSINESS INVESTMENT DEPRESSION
Investment Impact (Source: CEPR, Economics Observatory, Bloomberg Economics):

Brexit reduced investment by approximately 11% over 3 years post-referendum

Business investment was essentially flat 2016-2019 (normally grows 6% annually)

By 2020/21: Business investment was 23% lower than it would have been without Brexit

By 2022: Business investment 10% below counterfactual

Annual Lost Investment:

If business investment should have grown at historical 0.5% per quarter

Lost growth represents tens of billions in foregone investment

2. C. ONGOING ECONOMIC DRAG
Bloomberg Economics Analysis (January 2023):

Brexit costs UK economy: £100 billion per year in lost output
Effects span hiring, business investment, trade

Bank of England Survey Data:

Since 2016: At least 30% of firms consistently identified Brexit as top 3 concerns
Peaked at 55% in 2020
This ongoing uncertainty continues to suppress investment and growth

Foreign Direct Investment:

FDI inflows dropped 37% between 2016-2022
Foreign investors relocated to EU to preserve single market access
UK lost £1 trillion in potential FDI (half of UK's FDI stock comes from EU)

2. D. PRODUCTIVITY LOSSES
Measured Productivity Decline (Source: CEPR, NBER):

Productivity decreased 2-5% over 3 years following referendum
Caused by:

Management time diverted to Brexit planning
Reduced R&D spending due to uncertainty
Reduced software and training investment
Innovation suppression

Export Collapse:

Services exports: 9.2% annual drop (2016-2019) = $146.8 billion USD loss
2021: Number of UK businesses exporting goods to EU fell 33%
From 27,000+ in 2020 to ~18,000 in 2021
UK-EU exports dropped 22.9% in first 15 months post-Brexit
42% of product varieties disappeared from exports
Seafood sector: 83% collapse in first month due to new checks

PART 3: MEDIA COVERAGE COSTS

This is harder to quantify precisely, but here's what we know:
BBC Funding Context:

BBC annual revenue: ~£5 billion (75% from TV license fees)
License fee: £159/year (2016-2020 period)
The BBC commands 32% of UK TV audience share

Brexit Coverage Resources: Unfortunately, broadcasters don't separately itemize "Brexit coverage costs" because:

It's part of their statutory news obligations
Editorial staff are on salaries regardless of what they cover
It displaced other coverage rather than adding new costs

However, we can estimate the followings based on Dedicated Coverage:

From 2016 onwards, Brexit dominated news cycles
BBC created dedicated programs: "Brexitcast," "Reality Check" unit
Continuous coverage 2016-2020 across TV, radio, online
European elections 2019 entirely Brexit-focused
Multiple live referendum results shows, leadership contests, parliamentary votes

Conservative Estimate, if we assume Brexit represented:

10-20% of BBC News output over 4 years (2016-2020)
BBC News budget is roughly 15-20% of total BBC budget
20% of £5 billion = £1 billion × 4 years = £4 billion total
Brexit portion (10-20%): £400-800 million over 4 years

Commercial Broadcasters:

ITV, Sky News, Channel 4 also provided extensive coverage
Similar resource allocation
Combined commercial broadcaster spending: Estimated £200-400 million (2016-2020)

Print Media:

Newspapers devoted front pages, special supplements
Investigative journalism, Brussels correspondents
Estimated additional costs: £100-200 million across sector

TOTAL ESTIMATED MEDIA COSTS: £700 million - £1.4 billion (2016-2020)

PART 4: OTHER OPPORTUNITY COSTS

Parliament & Legislative Costs:

Over 500 statutory instruments needed to be drafted
Thousands of hours of parliamentary debate
Multiple failed votes, leadership contests
Three prime ministers' resignations partly due to Brexit

Departmental Disruption:

DExEU (Department for Exiting EU): Entire new department created, then disbanded
Department for International Trade: 3,200 new staff
Home Office: Added 8,400 officials (immigration system)
DEFRA: Added ~5,000 staff
BEIS: Added ~5,000 staff

GRAND TOTAL: OPPORTUNITY & MEDIA COSTS

Conservative Estimate (2016-2020):

Category	Amount
Additional Civil Service Staff	£15 billion
Consultancy Fees	£450-600 million
Business Investment Lost	£50-100+ billion
Media Coverage	£700 million - £1.4 billion
Management Time (businesses)	Tens of billions (unquantified)
SUBTOTAL	£70-120+ billion

Annual Ongoing Cost (post-2020) is £100 billion/year in lost output (Bloomberg Economics).

Other KEY SOURCES information can be found at:

UK in a Changing Europe - Civil service Brexit analysis
CEPR/NBER - Business investment and productivity studies
Bank of England Decision Maker Panel - Firm uncertainty surveys
Enterprise Nation/FSB - SME preparation costs
Consultancy.uk - Multiple reports on specific contracts 1, 2 and 3
Byline Times, UCL - Consultancy investigations

The Brutal Reality:

The direct referendum costs were ~£170-180 million, however the opportunity costs of Brexit preparation and implementation (2016-2020) were conservatively over £70 billion - that's over 400 times more expensive than the referendum itself. And that's before we even consider (or count) the ongoing annual costs of £100 billion per year in lost economic output based on Bloomberg. Oh what’s this money many may ask? For those who don't have to grind and support the survival of free riders (like many politicians are) is nothing of course, for those whoever seeing and experiencing the buying power between now and pre–Brexit I think they do know a thing or two, and let's not even mention the deficits in the government budget surging up every single year.

The Cherry on the Cake: DID THE UK ACTUALLY "CUT TIES" WITH THE EU?

An Evidence-Based Analysis

The UK has NOT definitively cut ties with the EU as promised in the referendum campaign. And now let’s see the evidence systematically. And before anyone coming and turning around and telling me or anyone else that this is non-sense, first read the following, then dig yourself into the data as well and when you have found evidence that it is reality, be kind and make others to get it too.

SECTION 1: ONGOING LEGAL OBLIGATIONS

A. THE TRADE AND COOPERATION AGREEMENT (TCA)
Status: Legally binding international treaty

Signed: 30 December 2020
In force since: 1 May 2021
Scope: 1,240+ pages governing UK-EU relations

What the TCA Binds the UK To:

Area	Obligation	Source
Partnership Council	Regular meetings to oversee implementation	TCA, House of Commons Library
19 Specialized Committees	Most met at least once 2023-2024	UK Govt Implementation Report 2024
Dispute Settlement	Binding arbitration panels with cross-retaliation powers	House of Commons Library CBP-9139
Level Playing Field	Subsidy controls, labor standards, environmental regulations	TCA Part 2
Fisheries Management	Joint management of fish stocks, ongoing negotiations	EU Council
Data Adequacy	UK must maintain GDPR-equivalent protections or lose data flows	European Parliament 2025
Law Enforcement Cooperation	Shared databases, judicial cooperation (with suspension clauses)	TCA Part 3
Energy Cooperation	Interconnection, security of supply working groups	UK Govt Report 2024

CRITICAL POINT: The TCA is a 5-year review cycle with first review due 2026 (Source: House of Commons Library CBP-10040)

B. NORTHERN IRELAND: STILL SUBJECT TO EU LAW

This is the smoking gun that proves Brexit was incomplete.
Windsor Framework (Updated Northern Ireland Protocol)

EU Law Application	Details	Source
308 EU acts still apply to Northern Ireland	Down from 338 in 2019 but still substantial	Queen's University Belfast, Dynamic Alignment Review 2024
EU Single Market for Goods	NI remains aligned with EU rules	House of Commons Library CBP-9548
EU Customs Code	Applied to all goods entering/exiting NI	European Commission
Dynamic Alignment	EU laws apply "as amended or replaced" - NI automatically follows new EU regulations	Windsor Framework Article 13(3)
European Court of Justice	Still has jurisdiction over disputes relating to NI Protocol	Withdrawal Agreement
Irish Sea Border	De facto customs border between GB and NI	Wikipedia - Windsor Framework

What This Means:

Northern Ireland is effectively still in the EU Single Market for goods
Part of the UK is still subject to EU law that the UK Parliament cannot change
ECJ still has authority over part of UK territory

Sources:

House of Commons Library Research Briefing CBP-9548 (updated recently)
Windsor Framework official EU documentation
Northern Ireland Assembly briefings

C. THE "DIVORCE BILL" - ONGOING PAYMENTS TO EU

Total Financial Settlement: £30.2 billion (as of March 2024)

Metric	Amount	Source
Already paid (by Dec 2023)	£23.8 billion	Wikipedia - Brexit Divorce Bill
Further paid (2024)	£2.4 billion	UK in a Changing Europe, Sept 2024
Total paid (by end 2024)	~£26.2 billion	GOV.UK EU Finances Statement 2024
Outstanding as of Jan 2025	£5.7 billion (€6.8bn)	GOV.UK EU Finances Statement 2024
Payment deadline	Until 2065	House of Commons Library CBP-8822
Average annual payment post-2024	~£95 million/year	Facts4EU / ONS data

Breakdown of What UK Is Still Paying:

RAL payments (Reste à Liquider - outstanding EU budget commitments): £15.3 billion already paid, £5.2 billion more expected
EU pension liabilities for UK nationals who worked for EU
Share of EU agency commitments made during membership

CRITICAL: The UK will be making payments to the EU for the next 41 years (until2065)
Sources:

Wikipedia: Brexit Divorce Bill (updated March 2025)
House of Commons Library CBP-8822 (updated recently)
GOV.UK European Union Finances Statement 2024
UK in a Changing Europe analysis

SECTION 2: WHAT THE REFERENDUM PROMISED VS. REALITY

Leave Campaign Promises (2016):

Promise	Reality (2025)	Status
"Take back control"	19 TCA committees + ongoing EU obligations	❌ BROKEN
"Take back control of our laws"	308 EU laws still apply in NI; ECJ still has jurisdiction	❌ BROKEN
"Take back control of our borders"	NI has different rules; Irish Sea border created	❌ BROKEN
"Take back control of our money"	Paying EU £95m/year until 2065	❌ BROKEN
"No payments to EU"	Already paid £26.2bn, £5.7bn outstanding	❌ BROKEN
"Complete independence"	Bound by 1,240-page TCA with dispute mechanisms	❌ BROKEN
"Get Brexit done"	Ongoing negotiations, 5-year reviews, constant committee meetings	❌ BROKEN

SECTION 3: THE 2024 "RESET" - GETTING CLOSER TO EU

Major Development: Under PM Keir Starmer (elected July 2024), UK is actively seeking "closer EU ties"

UK-EU Summit (19 May 2025):

Agreement	Implication	Source
"Strategic Partnership" Common Understanding	Commitment to "reset" relationship	UK Govt TCA Implementation Report 2024
Regular UK-EU Summits	Institutionalized ongoing relationship	European Parliament Report 2025
RED LINES MAINTAINED	No single market, no customs union, no freedom of movement	UK Govt/European Parliament
Three cooperation pillars	1) Foreign policy, defence, security 2) Safety of citizens 3) Growth and trade	Consilium Europa

Quote from UK Government Report 2024:
"On 4 July 2024, the British people elected a new government on a manifesto which included a commitment to reset the UK's relationship with the EU", which contradicts the entire premise of "getting Brexit done".
Source: GOV.UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement Implementation Report 2023-2024

SECTION 4: AREAS WHERE UK IS STILL TIED TO EU

Regulatory Alignment (Forced Convergence):

Sector	Status	Source
Medicines (NI)	Dual regulation - MHRA approves but must align with EU for NI access	Windsor Framework
Data Protection	Must maintain GDPR-equivalent or lose EU data adequacy	European Parliament
Financial Services	No equivalence granted; UK must shadow EU rules for access	Winston & Strawn analysis
Chemical Regulation	NI subject to EU REACH regulations	Queen's University Belfast
Agricultural Products	NI follows EU SPS (sanitary/phytosanitary) standards	European Commission
State Aid	UK bound by TCA subsidy control provisions	TCA Part 2

The Reality: UK claims regulatory divergence as a "Brexit benefit" but in practice faces passive regulatory convergence - must stay aligned or lose market access

Source: Bruegel Policy Brief 30/2024 on UK-EU Trade Policy Framework

SECTION 5: INSTITUTIONAL TIES

Permanent UK-EU Governance Structures:

Partnership Council - Regular meetings (met 16 May 2024)
19 Specialized Committees including:

Trade Specialised Committee
Energy Specialised Committee
Fisheries Specialised Committee
Law Enforcement Specialised Committee
Social Security Coordination Specialised Committee

Joint Consultative Working Group (NI-specific) with 5 sub-groups
Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee
Dispute Settlement Panels (independent arbitration)

These are PERMANENT institutional relationships that bind the UK to ongoing EU engagement
Source: UK Government TCA Implementation Report 2023-2024; European Commission

SECTION 6: TRADE DEPENDENCY

The UK economy remains structurally dependent on EU trade despite Brexit

Metric	Figure	Source
UK exports to EU	42% of total	Bruegel 2024
UK imports from EU	52% of total	Bruegel 2024
UK trade performance vs other G7	Only G7 country not recovered from pandemic	NIESR, Bruegel
Goods exports since 2019	Down 13.2%	Bruegel citing Fry 2024
Services trade since 2019	Up 14%	Bruegel

CONCLUSION: THE VERDICTS

Is the UK still tied to the EU?
ANSWER: YES

Evidence Summary:
✅ Legal ties:

1,240-page Trade and Cooperation Agreement binding until at least 2026
308 EU laws still apply to Northern Ireland
ECJ still has jurisdiction over part of UK
Dispute settlement mechanisms with cross-retaliation powers

✅ Financial ties:

Ongoing payments until 2065 (£5.7bn outstanding)
Already paid £26.2bn+

✅ Institutional ties:

19+ permanent committees
Regular summit commitments
Binding arbitration panels

✅ Territorial ties:

Irish Sea border (part of UK subject to different rules than rest of UK)
NI effectively still in EU Single Market

✅ Regulatory ties:

Forced convergence on data, medicines, chemicals, agriculture
Level playing field obligations on subsidies, labor, environment

Was Brexit "delivered" as promised?
ANSWER: NO
The referendum promised:

Complete independence ❌
No EU payments ❌
Full control of laws ❌
Full control of borders ❌
Sovereignty restored ❌

What actually happened:

Created complex treaty relationship requiring constant management
Ongoing payments for decades
Part of UK still under EU law
Created internal UK border
Limited sovereignty (bound by international treaty)

My Assessment: "Brexit was a show and actually it is still an ongoing process that no one sees the end of it"
VERDICT: CORRECT
Supporting Evidence:

2024 "Reset" - Government actively seeking closer EU ties
2026 TCA Review - Major renegotiation coming
Ongoing committee work - Constant engagement on implementation
Regulatory reviews - Continuous alignment pressures
NI consent vote (December 2024) - Can trigger 2-year renegotiation

Brexit is not "done" - it's an ongoing, evolving process of managed separation with strong continued ties. AKA, welcome to the circus

Some relevant direct resources:

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9548/

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8822/

UK in a Changing Europe:

Bruegel Policy Brief 30/2024:

UK Government TCA Reports:

All sources are from 2023-2025, representing current status regarding the "divorce" of EU and UK. The big question one really should be asking based on all the above evidence what the circus was made for and why the citizens have paid such heavy price from their taxes paid into the government budget, from which all these activities were funded from? And the story doesn't end here, will ever anyone look into the pension contributions spend for private or government pension providers and how the EU is tied to them and the IMF, including the loans that are taken out to "fund" the budget deficit? I guess not, as no one really knows where to start I guess. Let me give you a hint. Check the contributions vs. citizens who don't work in private sectors, then check who pays, how much and why that much? You'll be amazed by the findings. Then move on to see who runs the cartel, you will love your findings (it will be likely everyone and still no one :)).

Thanks for making it this far and let's see when, if ever the Brexit voters will win with one point at least against paranoia. I am genuinely curious.

My day on My way

Monday, 26 January 2026

BREXIT vs. Paranoia 0-3 (The cost of this "love")

No comments:

Post a Comment

About Me