Brexit or not?

 After reading Nolan Jazimreg's book 'BREXIT The Great British Tax Avoidance Swindle' I did a little research using Google Gemini. I asked Gemini to construct tables of the net worth of pro and anti Brexiteers in Parliament before and after Brexit. You should remember that an AI can make mistakes, but I found the results to be informative.

Prominent Brexiteers and those against Brexit

Estimated Net Worth of Key Politicians who supported Brexit
(c. 2016/2026)

Pro-Brexit Politicians

Politician	Est. Net Worth (2016)	Primary Source of Wealth	Status (Feb 2026)	Est. Net Worth (2026)	Notes on Wealth Growth
Jacob Rees-Mogg	£55m – £150m	Co-founder of Somerset Capital Management; significant family inheritance.	Conservative (Former MP)	£100m – £150m	Despite the 2024 wind-down of Somerset Capital, his combined family wealth and property remain the highest on this list.
Jeremy Hunt	£14m+	Sale of his education company, Hotcourses; property portfolio.	Conservative MP	£15m – £17m	Retains wealth from his Hotcourses sale; currently a high-profile Shadow Cabinet member/backbencher.
John Redwood	£5m+	Investment career; Global Strategist for Charles Stanley; author royalties.	Conservative (Former MP)	£5m+	Wealth sustained through long-term investment roles and a significant property portfolio.
Nigel Farage	~£2.5m	Former commodities trader*; MEP salary and allowances; media appearances.	MP for Clacton; Leader of Reform UK; Broadcaster.	~£4.5m - £5m	Significant income from media (GB News, Sky News Australia), Cameo videos (£100k+), and a reported £1.5m for I'm a Celebrity. High-value speaking circuit in the US.
Boris Johnson	£1.5m – £2m	Daily Telegraph column (£275k/year); book deals and speaking fees.	Conservative (Former PM)	£10m – £15m	Significant increase since 2016. He has earned over £6m in advances for memoirs and speaking fees since leaving No. 10.
Iain Duncan Smith	£1m – £2m	Ministerial salary; speaking fees; property (notably a £2m family estate).	Conservative MP	£1m – £2m	Primarily tied to his ministerial pension and his family's property interests.
Michael Gove	£1m – £1.5m	Journalism career (The Times); ministerial salary; London property.	Conservative (Former MP)	£2m – £3m	Likely increasing through journalism (The Times) and expected book deals following his retirement from the Commons.
Dominic Raab	£1m – £1.5m	Legal career (Linklaters); ministerial salary; London property.	Conservative (Former MP)	£2m+	Returned to legal/advisory work after standing down in 2024.
Liam Fox	£1m+	Medical background; long-term MP/Ministerial salary and property.	Conservative (Former MP)	£1m – £2m	Wealth grounded in long-term parliamentary service and international advisory roles.
Priti Patel	£1m+	Background in PR (Weber Shandwick); MP/Ministerial salary and property.	Conservative MP	£2m+	Ministerial pension, MP salary, and property assets in London and Essex.
Nadine Dorries	£500k – £1m	Successful career as a novelist (earning six figures in royalties).	Conservative (Former MP)	£2m – £4m	Substantial earnings from her Daily Mail column, TV appearances, and best-selling novels.
Penny Mordaunt	£500k – £1m	PR background; Royal Navy Reservist; MP/Ministerial salary.	Conservative (Former MP)	£1m – £1.5m	Expected to see a rise in "brand value" and media appearances after losing her seat in 2024.
Steve Baker	Under £1m	Former RAF engineer and software consultant; MP salary.	Conservative (Former MP)	£1m+	Since losing his seat, he has moved into private sector consultancy and senior corporate roles.
Mark Francois	Under £1m	Background in public affairs and infantry; MP salary.	Conservative MP	Under £1m	One of the few on this list whose primary income remains the standard MP salary (£91,346).
Nadhim Zahawi	£20m – £30m	Co-founder of YouGov; Gulf Keystone Petroleum (Oil/Gas); Property.	Reform UK (Defected Jan 2026)	£100m+	Massive growth via a family property portfolio worth c. £100m and executive roles like Chair of The Very Group.
Robert Jenrick	£2m – £5m	Legal career (Skadden Arps); Art history; Family property assets.	Reform UK (Defected Jan 2026)	£10m+	Growth largely tied to his marriage to Michal Berkner (high-earning US corporate lawyer) and prime London property assets.
Suella Braverman	£500k – £1m	Legal career (Barrister); MP/Ministerial salary.	Reform UK (Defected Jan 2026)	£2m – £3m	Significant 2024-25 boost from the "international speaking circuit" (c. £60k+) and high-paid newspaper columns.
Andrew Rosindell	Under £500k	Career politician; Long-term MP for Romford.	Reform UK (Defected Jan 2026)	Under £1m	Wealth remains relatively modest compared to peers, primarily based on MP salary and pension.

I asked Gemini to research a similar table for the most vociferous Anti-Brexiter MPs. I expected their fortunes to increase dramatically until 2020, they would be fools not to take advantage of each Brexit 'deadline', but grow more slowly afterwards.

Politician	Est. Net Worth (2016)	Primary Source of Wealth	Status (Feb 2026)	Est. Net Worth (2026)	Notes on Wealth Growth
David Cameron	~£10m – ~£15m	Inherited wealth (Blairmore Holdings**), property (Notting Hill & Oxfordshire), and PM salary.	Conservative peer in the House of Lords (Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton); Member of the House of Lords; Advisor to various international investment and technology firms. (Hiro Capital)	~£50m – £50m	Massive growth via the "Blair model": lucrative speaking tours ($120k+ per speech), a £1.5m book deal for For the Record, and advisory roles (notably the Greensill Capital stake and Afiniti).
Nick Clegg	£1m – £2m	MP salary; property in London & Spain.	Private Sector (Hiro Capital)	£25m – £35m	The most dramatic growth. Earned c. £15m from Meta (Facebook) share sales alone after joining in 2018.
George Osborne	£4m – £5m	Family wallpaper firm (Osborne & Little).	Private Sector (9Yards Capital)	£15m – £20m	Rapid growth 2017–2021 via BlackRock advisory role (£650k/year) and multiple lucrative directorships.
Tony Blair	£40m – £60m	Global advisory (Tony Blair Associates); Property.	Labour (Shadow Elder / NGO)	£70m – £90m	Wealth continues to grow through a £27m+ family property empire and his Institute’s global reach.
Sir Keir Starmer	£3m – £5m	Legal career (DPP); Surrey land holdings.	Labour (Prime Minister)	£10m – £15m	Growth is largely "passive," tied to the appreciation of his 7-acre Surrey estate and London home.
Dominic Grieve	£3m – £5m	Extensive share portfolio (LVMH, Shell, etc.); Property.	Independent (Former MP)	£6m – £8m	Wealth driven by a high-value diversified share portfolio and his return to senior legal practice.
Gina Miller	£5m – £10m	SCM Direct (Investment firm).	True & Fair Party (Leader)	£10m – £15m	Wealth remained stable/growing through her investment business, despite funding multiple legal challenges.
Alastair Campbell	£1m – £2m	Journalism; Book deals.	Labour (Media/Podcast)	£3m – £5m	Growth spike post-2021 due to the massive success of The Rest Is Politics podcast and speaking fees.
Anna Soubry	Under £1m	Legal (Barrister); MP salary.	Corporate Advisory	£1m – £2m	Shifted to corporate legal and advisory work after losing her seat in 2019.

Gemini reported: "As you suspected, many high-profile 'Remainers' saw a significant surge in their net worth between 2016 and 2020. This was often driven by a pivot into the private sector (specifically global finance or tech) immediately after the referendum, where their "inside knowledge" of the UK's exit process was highly valued. However, for those who stayed in frontline politics (like Sir Keir Starmer), the growth has been steadier and more tied to traditional property appreciation."

Notes on ATAD and Tax Strategy

ATAD stands for the EU’s Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive. It is legislation first introduced by the EU after the Greek financial crisis. It was found that wealthy people and businesses had avoided paying tax by dubious but semi-legal practices. ATAD proposals sent shock waves through the UK financial sector and was agreed upon in June 2016 and were due to come into force fully in 2020. It has been suggested that the REAL reason behind BREXIT was the EU ATAD rather than the reasons stated by the Leave Campaign.

*Farage’s relationship with tax transparency is often highlighted by critics.

• Offshore Interests: In 2013, it was revealed Farage had set up the "Farage Family Educational Trust" on the Isle of Man. While he claimed it was a "mistake" and he didn't personally benefit, it aligns with Jazimreg’s thesis that many architects of Brexit had personal reasons to favor jurisdictions outside the reach of the EU’s Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive.

• The "Hedge Fund" Allegation: As noted in various investigations into the night of the referendum, Farage twice "conceded" defeat while reportedly possessing private exit poll data suggesting Leave had won. Critics suggest this volatility benefited currency speculators and hedge fund managers who were shorting the pound—many of whom were prominent Brexit donors.

• Corporate Structure: Farage funnels much of his modern income through his company, Thorn in the Side Ltd, which allows for corporate tax rates (currently around 25%) rather than the higher personal income tax rates (45% for his bracket) he would otherwise pay as a high-earning individual.

  • Offshore Interests: In 2013, it was revealed Farage had set up the "Farage Family Educational Trust" on the Isle of Man. While he claimed it was a "mistake" and he didn't personally benefit, it aligns with Jazimreg’s thesis that many architects of Brexit had personal reasons to favour jurisdictions outside the reach of the EU’s Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive.

  • The "Hedge Fund" Allegation: As noted in various investigations into the night of the referendum, Farage twice "conceded" defeat while reportedly possessing private exit poll data suggesting Leave had won. Critics suggest this volatility benefited currency speculators and hedge fund managers who were shorting the pound—many of whom were prominent Brexit donors.

  • Corporate Structure: Farage funnels much of his modern income through his company, Thorn in the Side Ltd, which allows for corporate tax rates (currently around 25%) rather than the higher personal income tax rates (45% for his bracket) he would otherwise pay as a high-earning individual.

** David Cameron is a remarkable person of note. He was strongly opposed to the EU Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive. The Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD) was a major EU initiative designed to close loopholes used by multi-national corporations and high-net-worth individuals to shift profits to low-tax jurisdictions. Jazimreg, in his book argues that:

• Cameron had a Conflict of Interest: Cameron’s family wealth was famously linked to offshore funds (revealed in the Panama Papers just months before the vote). Jazimreg suggests Cameron’s personal and class interests in protecting offshore structures made him a "half-hearted" advocate for EU integration, as further integration meant stricter tax transparency.

• The "Veto" Reputation: Before the referendum, Cameron spent years in Brussels fighting against EU-wide financial regulations and the "Robin Hood" tax (Financial Transactions Tax).

• Campaign Strategy: This background may explain why the Remain campaign focused almost exclusively on "Project Fear" (economic stability) rather than the social or regulatory benefits of the EU; he could not champion the EU’s tax-dodging crackdowns without highlighting his own opposition to them.

This perspective suggests that for Cameron, "Remain" was about maintaining the status quo of the UK's financial services "Wild West" within the EU, rather than a genuine belief in the European project—a tension that arguably cost the campaign its soul and the eventual vote.

or…

Could it be that the lacklustre performance of the 'Remain' campaign was due to it being led by a secret Brexiteer?

So what would have happened if we had remained in the EU and politicians faced the EU Anti-tax avoidance directive (ATAD)? 

How to fix government (2)

On Quora the following question was asked:

Two party political systems do not seem to be particularly effective since they spend all their time fighting each other. Can you think of a better democratic political system where representatives represent their electors rather than a party?

Updated 2021 and 2025.

Now I've  already had one go at re-organizing government (See How to fix the mess the government is in) but recognize that it will never happen because politicians would have to put it into practice and would be unlikely to vote themselves out of office. So here's my second attempt at designing a sensible form of government.

Most of the issues in politics are caused by a two party system and can be attributed to a ‘first past the post’ election system. It inevitably produces results where the majority are dissatisfied. Take as an example the 2016 UK referendum on the UK leaving the European Community - BREXIT. According to the poll result 52% voted to leave and 48% voted to stay. That seems to imply that there was a narrow majority in favour of leaving. In practice a significant number of voters didn’t vote at all. The reality is that 37% of the electorate voted for BREXIT and 67% either voted to stay or didn’t care about the result. 37% is hardly a majority.

The same is true of General elections. In the 2017 election 42.4% of voters elected a Conservative Member of Parliament (nearest US equivalent would be ‘Republican’) but 68.7% of the electorate bothered to vote. That means that the Conservatives who eventually formed a government did so with just 29.1% support from the electorate. Both sides feel 'the other lot' don't deserve to be there and spend all their time arguing and trying to score points off each other.

The results didn't change dramatically in the 2019 election. 43.6% voted for the Conservatives led by Boris Johnson and 32.2% voted for the Labour party. Only 66.8% of the electorate voted though so the Conservatives won with the support of 29.1% of the electorate. Out of 650 PMs only nine had the support of 50% or more of their electorate.

In the July 2024 UK election the Labour Party took power despite an even lower 20.13% of the electorate voting for them. In November 2024 presidential election in the US Trump was elected by 36.93% of the US electorate.

In the US the political system is complicated by an apparently inexplicable ‘Electoral College’ system which might once have had meaning but now means a voter in one area has more impact than a voter in a different area. In the 2016 Presidential election:
Clinton received 65,844,610 votes, or 48.2% of the total vote.
Trump received 62,979,636 votes, or 46.1% of the total vote.
Despite Clinton getting more votes the electoral College gave the election to Trump by 304 to 227
60.1% voted so in practice Trump represented 28% of US voters.
Added to the controversy are claims of voters not being able to be able to vote due to lack of proof of eligibility.

Again in 2020 there was little change except a far greater percentage of the electorate voted this time. There was a 66.7% turnout and the vote share was 51.3% for Biden and 48.7% for Trump. Taking non-voters into account Biden represented 34.2% of the US electorate.

What about 2024?:
Trump got 77,269,255 votes (49.9% of votes and 36.93% of electorate) 312 electoral college declarations 58% of college.
Harris got 74,983,555 votes (48.4% of votes and 35.84% of electorate) 226 electoral college declarations 42% of college
Trump won by 2,285,700 votes which is 1.09% of the electorate. At least this time the Electoral College didn't interfere with the popular vote.

Who actually chooses the candidates? Certainly not the people. Corporate sponsors choose candidates for Congress and Senate in the US. In the UK anyone may stand for an election if they meet the citizenship or residence requirements but a fee of £500 is demanded to discourage those who stand little chance of election. Without the means to fund a campaign any candidate stands little chance. In the US religion plays a big part too with the odds stacked heavily against declared atheists. It has been said that to be elected in the US you must be either stupid or a liar. (i.e. not stupid enough to say you are an atheist).

So how can we improve things? Here’s my suggestions:

• Use a proportionate representation election system. That’s where you rate the candidates in the order of your choice.
• Offer a ‘Non of the Above’ choice on the ballots. That way the eventual winner would get a clear indication of how much he/she truly represents the electorate.
• Follow the UK system for standing for office. That means:
• You must be a citizen or citizen of a dependency who does not require leave to enter or remain in the country, and has indefinite leave to remain in the country. 
• Must not be members of the police forces
• Must not be members of the armed forces
• Must not be Civil servants, judges or others who sit and can vote in an unelected house of representatives
• Must not be subject to a bankruptcy restrictions order or a debt relief restrictions order
• In addition candidates must pay a registration fee equivalent to 1% of their last available tax year net income with a limitation that that income must be published within the last five years.
• Any citizen or person who has had indefinite leave to remain in the country for the last two years may vote if their permanent residence is in the UK. Those who live permanently in the country should have the right to vote on policy.
• If you don't vote then a half vote should be awarded to the current incumbent or if that person isn't standing the person chosen by a nominated successor. If you don't like that - then vote. The half vote indicates you are not unhappy enough with the existing status to vote for change.
• Voting should be done electronically, securely and via Internet or at a public library with Internet access. A voter card should be mailed to electors prior to elections OR a valid photo ID may be used to enter the voting system.
• Elected representatives must first have a duty to represent their electorate before any duty to a political party. Any elector has the right to gather support to make the views of the electorate known to their representative. Parliamentary votes should  not use whips in more than 30% of votes. 
• No lobby may offer any incentive to any candidate or representative. Doing so should be punishable by law as bribery and penalties should be severe. Lobbies may offer a contribution to a central fund for the benefit of the poor in a representatives area but that fund must not be controlled by the representative or his/her family or friends.
• If a representative is found to have lied to or misled the population or governing body then at the next election they or their nominated successor should have 2% of their votes in the next election shared amongst other candidates. This measure should encourage honesty and fact checking in representatives. (Had this been in force in the 2019 Parliament, Boris Johnson, the UK Prime Minister, would have lost his constituency majority after making 14 misleading statements in Parliament.)
• No religion may be involved in government in any way either as candidates or as influences in elections. However religion may gather support and encourage members to make their views known to representatives.
• In representative bodies the rule should be that no law with less than 75% support in that body should be passed. If a law cannot gather that level of support it is a bad law.
• Representatives should not argue against any proposal unless they can offer an improved proposal.
• Indirect taxation should be weighted to 'wants' rather than 'needs'. The poor shouldn't be forced to pay extra for the things they have to buy - housing, food, utilities, basic clothing.
• Any laws which affect the available income of the electorate should be applied on a percentage basis of elector’s income but should not be applied to those deemed in poverty. This means a 5% tax would not apply to those in poverty. A $5 reduction of income to someone with $100 is disastrous and has a much greater effect to the poor than a $5,000 cut in income to someone with $100,000

• Government may act immediately in defence of the nation from any attack BUT any decision to take aggressive action outside the nation's borders must require a referendum of the people. In referendums  the half vote status quo rule should be applied to non-voters on the basis that those who don't vote are not unhappy with the status quo.

How Jeremy Corbyn should make his position on Brexit clear.

Jeremy Corbyn refused nine times to be drawn on his position on Brexit and was much taunted by it in the election debate. This is how I think he should resolve this:

"Although the 2016 referendum result indicated a 52/48 percent split, the number voting 'Leave' represented only 37% of the electorate. This is NOT a majority. Neither was there a majority in  the 1975 referendum  when 63% of voters chose to stay in the then Common Market. That represented only 43% of the electorate. I stand for a government which does not accept that the wishes of a minority should be used to make decisions for the majority. 
The referendum has caused a great deal of division in the UK population and in Parliament. It has proved impossible to negotiate acceptable terms of leaving which Parliament will accept.We recognise that leaving without an agreed settlement will cause hardship in both the UK and in Europe. 
The labour party will therefore use the result of the 2016 referendum as an indication that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction with the EU. Over the next year we will set up a commission to establish why so many in the UK,  and indeed in the other members of the EU, are against membership of the EU. We will work with the EU to fix those things that are perceived as wrong and at the end of that time will hold a further referendum. If 50+ percent of the electorate (not just those that vote) vote one way or another we will consider the matter resolved and take appropriate action.
My own personal opinion on Brexit does not matter - it is the will of the people which counts."

There was no such thing as democracy when it came to Brexit

In 2016 the UK held a referendum on whether to leave the European Community. The Prime Minister at the time, David Cameron, committed the UK government to carrying out the results of the referendum. Democracy in action? Not in the slightest.

Much to Cameron's surprise, after a lacklustre 'Remain' campaign, the UK voted 52:48 in favour of leaving the EU.
Let's take a look at that referendum result. Here are the detailed actual results:
37.44% of the electorate voted to leave the EU  17,410,742 in total and 51.9% of the vote.
34.71% of the electorate voted to remain in the EU   16,141,241 in total and 48.1% of the vote.
27.79% of the electorate didn't vote    12,922,659 in total.
0.06% of the electorate spoilt their voting  papers   25,359 in total
England and Wales voted by a narrow majority to leave. Scotland and Northern Ireland voted by a significant majority to remain.(55:44 remain in NI; 62:38 remain in Scotland)
Now taking the overall results of the entire electorate I make that 37.44% of the electorate voted to leave the EU and 62.56% did not vote to leave the EU..
The sensible thing to have done would to have contacted the EU and said something like this:
"Although the referendum result indicated a 52/48 percent split, the number voting 'Leave' represented only 37% of the electorate. This is NOT a majority. Neither was there a majority in  the 1975 referendum  when 63% of voters chose to stay in the then Common Market. That represented only 43% of the electorate. The UK government does not accept that the wishes of a minority should be used to make decisions for the majority. 
The referendum has caused a great deal of division in the UK population and in Parliament. It will very likely prove impossible to negotiate acceptable terms of leaving which Parliament will accept.We recognise that leaving without an agreed settlement will cause hardship in both the UK and in Europe. 
We will now therefore use the result of the 2016 referendum as an indication that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction with the EU.. Over the next five years we will set up a commission to establish why so many in the UK are against our membership of the EU. We will work with the EU to fix those things that are perceived as wrong and at the end of that time will hold a further referendum. If 50+ percent of the electorate (not just those that vote) vote one way or another we will consider the matter resolved and take appropriate action."
Expecting sense from government unfortunately often leads to disappointment. David Cameron resigned as PM and it was left to Theresa May to try and sort out the mess. She decided to follow the wishes of that 37% minority. Naturally the country and Parliament was deeply divided on the issue.On 29 March 2017, the UK government formally began the process of withdrawal by submitting Article 50 and began the process of negotiating Brexit. She got nowhere, the only result being a sharp fall in the value of the pound. In an attempt to make progress in Parliament a snap general election was called in June 2017 but instead of gaining the majority she needed the  country indicated its deep division and she lost the small majority she had! Propped up by the Northern Ireland DUP party she pressed on and negotiated a settlement with the EU which was promptly rejected by parliament. The pound fell further.
The problem was that the country had been given a binary choice in the referendum. Leave or Remain. In actual practice there were many more options. Here's six of them:

1. Leave, and adopt a European Free Trade Agreement 
2. Leave, and adopt a World Trade Agreement 
3. Leave, while the UK remains intact
4. Leave, while the UK splits up (Ireland and Scotland did not want to leave) 
5. Remain under current terms
6. Remain for the present while attempting to 'fix' the EU.

Added to the lack of options given was the clear misrepresentation of facts in the referendum campaign by both sides and actions by the leave campaign later deemed to have been illegal. It was not  surprising that nearly 28% of the electorate chose not to vote.
It's significant too that the most vociferous campaigners on both sides of the debate are also wealthy. Having a few million pounds allows such people to make money as each Brexit crisis sweeps past the markets by selling stocks before each event and buying them back when the market price drops.

Theresa May, having taken up the Brexit poison chalice, got nowhere. Her very own cabinet failed to back her and she too resigned. I doubt we should feel sorry for her since she made the mistake of assuming 37% was democracy (and her family is heavily involved in banking and investment). Her place was taken by one of the most rabid of the Brexiteers, Boris Johnson.On the face of it Boris seems a 'nice fellow' but there are people convinced that he's untrustworthy, a liar and philanderer. He also is wealthy, involved in investment, has the most dreadful hair style and Trump likes him. He too protests that he's following the wishes of that 37% 'majority' and that faith in democracy will be damaged if he fails to deliver the Brexit he's promised.
So what of the future? We have yet another postponement of Brexit and our PM has triggered yet another election. Again he says he hopes to obtain a majority to continue with his negotiated Brexit settlement but sorry - I for one don't believe him. Here's the latest message I received from the Conservative party who may well get another nasty shock.

Forcing Brexit on the 63% who didn't vote for it WILL shake my confidence in democracy. I have no confidence that anything will be achieved by 31st of January 2020 but do believe that that day will prove very profitable for Boris Johnson and his rich cronies.

Brexit isn't democracy!