Reality Check

Image source, AFP

Michael Gove is not the only one claiming that UK trade with the EU has fallen.

The wealthy investor and Leave campaigner Jim Mellon told Radio 4's Today programme last Tuesday: "Our trade with Europe is now about 43% of our exports. At the time we joined in the seventies it was about 75% with a lesser number of countries."

I really can't find any way of reaching that 75% figure. In 1972, even our trade with the 28 countries that now make up the EU only amounted to 42% of UK exports, according to figures taken from the UN Comtrade database, external.

Interestingly, the peak in the importance of EU trade to the UK appears to have been in 1992, the year when the Maastricht Treaty was signed, leading to the creation of the European Union.

Reality Check

Last week, Michael Gove said: "Our share of trade with the European Union has actually diminished during the time that we've been in the EU." (It's in this interview - about 4mins 30secs in when he's talking about Britain's mojo.)

UK trade figures for 1972 are jolly hard to get hold of - I've had to visit libraries and everything - but with the help of economic historians at the LSE, I can say that the proportion of our trade with the EU has actually increased since 1972, the year before the UK joined.

That is the case looking on the UN Comtrade, external database at either trade with the 15 countries that were in the EU from 1995, or indeed the 28 countries that are currently members. 

Reality Check

Image source, PA

Scotland’s First Minister has argued that co-ordinated action within the EU had been responsible for cutting emissions of dangerous pollutants.    

In her speech earlier, Nicola Sturgeon said: “European decisions helped us to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions by almost nine tenths in the last four decades. Nitrogen oxide levels have decreased by two thirds in Scotland since 1990… Joint action in this area has almost certainly, without a word of exaggeration, saved tens of thousands of lives.”

It’s true that emissions have fallen dramatically. Sulphur dioxide emissions across the UK are down by 95% since 1970 (Source: Defra). And in Scotland, emissions of nitrogen oxides had fallen to 33% of their 1990 level by 2013 (Source: National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory).

It’s also true that the European Union has been at the forefront of setting international targets to lower emissions through a series of measures including the National Emissions Ceiling Directive which was agreed in 2001.

It could be argued that emissions would have fallen anyway without the intervention of the EU. Many of the cuts have been made possible by technology change and there is a UN Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP) which covers EU and non-EU states.

But it’s the EU that has set the legal framework for the UK’s emission targets, and the EU also sets environmental standards for goods which have been used to drive emissions down.

Reality Check

There is no precedent for a country leaving the EU.

Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty sets out the process: negotiations would last two years and after that the UK would cease to be a member of the EU, unless the other 27 states unanimously decided to extend the negotiations.

When Greenland voted to withdraw from the European Community – the organisation that preceded the EU – in 1982 (after gaining a high level of internal autonomy from Denmark in 1979) a deal was reached three years later, after difficult and protracted negotiations, mainly over fisheries.

A deal for the UK is likely to be more complicated and the negotiations lengthier, especially if the UK wanted to retain full access to the Single Market.

The other 27 EU countries would be in charge of the timetable and a new deal for the UK would have to be approved by the European Parliament and the remaining 27 EU countries by Qualified Majority Voting.

The UK would remain a member of the EU, under the current terms, for as long as the negotiations are ongoing.

Reality Check

Image source, Getty Images

In politics anything is possible. And it's certain a UK vote to leave would prompt despair in many EU capitals. But for several reasons it seems a second deal and vote would be very unlikely.

First, Number 10 has said the idea is "for the birds". The government has said a vote to leave would be acted upon right away. David Cameron would go to Brussels and invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty that begins a member state's exit from the EU. Leave campaigners say the Prime Minister would not have to do that immediately but that is the government's stated position.

Second, the referendum question would not give David Cameron a mandate to go back to the negotiating table. The choice on the ballot paper is to remain in the EU or leave.

Third, since the UK's renegotiation was agreed in Brussels, key EU figures have ruled out further concessions to the UK. The deal agreed by EU leaders last week explicitly says it is not the basis for further talks if the UK votes to leave:

Having another go

EU member states have repeated referendums in the past; Denmark on the Maastricht Treaty and Ireland on the Lisbon Treaty.

After Denmark first rejected the Treaty, concessions were made, including an opt-out from the euro. Proof, leave campaigners say, that a better deal can be won for the UK.

But there is a difference. Ireland and Denmark's referendums were repeated to enable the EU project to advance. The UK is voting to leave the club. This would undoubtedly cause some anguish in the EU but it would not stop the project moving forward.

Read more of Ben's analysis.

Reality Check

Image source, PA

An email arrives from UKIP. Nigel Farage is wondering why, as Jonathan Portes has been pointing out today, external, gross migration  to the UK from the EU was 260,000 in the year to September, but during the same period, 650,000 EU nationals registered for National Insurance numbers.

"They are pulling the wool over our eyes," Mr Farage says.  

"NiNos (National Insurance numbers) are a simple and clear reflection of the real numbers of people in this country, as without them you can neither legally work, nor claim benefits."

There is no question that the immigration figures, which are based on a survey taken at ports and airports, are imprecise, with the ONS 95% confident that the net migration figure is within plus or minus 37,000 of the true figure.

But using National Insurance numbers also presents problems. In particular, everyone who wants to work in the UK must have a National Insurance number, even if they're only working in the country for a few weeks, whereas the long-term migration figures only count people planning to stay for a year or more.

Also, the migration stats include many people who are not planning to work or claim benefits, such as children or non-working partners. People applying for a National Insurance number could have arrived at any time, not necessarily in the year or quarter in question.

So the difference between the two figures is striking, but National Insurance numbers are not a better figure to use than the migration figures.

Reality Check

The 2010 Conservative manifesto said the party would take steps to cut net migration to "tens of thousands a year, not hundreds of thousands".

The 2015 manifesto said the party would keep that ambition.

The government can place controls on immigration from outside the EU but not inside it.

This morning's figures from the ONS, external estimate that annual net migration from other EU countries and from outside the EU are both considerably above 100,000.

Reality Check

Image source, Getty Images

Is Michael Gove correct that the prime minister's renegotiation deal is not legally binding? Lawyers will argue it both ways.

The deal is not a formally ratified treaty, but would still be regarded by many as legally binding in international law.

The Vienna Convention on the law of treaties makes it clear that states can express their consent to an international agreement in a variety of ways - signature, acceptance or approval.

What is important is the substance of the agreement and not the label "treaty". As Mr Gove acknowledges, this is a "deal between 28 nations all of whom believe it". In other words all of whom intend to be bound by it.

Theoretically possible

The more significant question is, perhaps, what is the value and status of the deal as a matter of EU law?

It is intended to be fully compatible with the existing EU treaties - all of the member states agree on that. However it is not an amendment to the existing treaties and remains subject to the interpretation of the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

That may make it sound weak and vulnerable to legal challenge. However, all measures of EU law under the existing treaties are subject to interpretation by the ECJ.

Should any state subsequently raise the issue of the relationship between the deal and the existing EU treaties, that would be a matter for the ECJ to rule upon.

So, while some legal experts acknowledge that a legal challenge is theoretically possible, the ECJ would give substantial weight to the fact that all 28 member states have agreed both the deal and that it is compatible with the existing treaties. That makes the chances of a successful legal challenge slim.

Reality Check

Image source, Getty Images

How far apart are the positions of Justice Secretary Michael Gove and Number 10, represented by Attorney General Jeremy Wright, on the legal status of David Cameron's EU agreement?

They both agree it to be an international law declaration. It seems to me that the difference is what we mean by "legally binding".

Mr Gove is right that it’s not strictly speaking legally binding, but the attorney general is right that the European Court of Justice would struggle to avoid taking into account what the European Council had agreed. 

So the details of the deal can be challenged by the Court, in common with anything else done under EU law. 

But as my colleague, legal affairs correspondent Clive Coleman says, the chances of a successful legal challenge are slim.

Reality Check

Image source, Getty Images

A bit of background from the Reality Check team on the argument about whether the European Court of Justice is legally bound by the EU agreement with the UK.

First of all, the court can't rule of its own accord - it can only do so if there is a challenge by a third party.

Secondly, the process for getting different bits of the agreement through will vary. Some changes will be quicker, some will take longer. 

For example, to exempt the UK from “ever closer union”, a treaty change will be required. EU Treaty changes take a very long time. Last time it took almost 10 years.

On the other hand, to change the legislation on child benefit will take a lot less time because an ordinary legislative procedure will be needed. In other words, a new regulation or a new directive will be agreed which will be part of the EU law.

Reality Check

Image source, PA

Both the coalition government and the previous Labour government used the figure that more than three million UK jobs are linked to EU membership.

When Danny Alexander, pictured above, was at the Treasury in 2014 he said the figure was 3.3 million.

Two things to say about this figure: first of all, clearly not all of these jobs are dependent on the UK remaining part of the EU - nobody is suggesting that all exports to other EU countries would immediately stop if the UK left.

Secondly, the methodology is a bit suspect. The Treasury worked out what proportion of the country's total economic output is made up of exports to the EU. Then it calculated that proportion of the UK labour force. And that's the answer!  

Reality Check

Following the business leaders' letter in the Times, the Reality Check team has been looking at some of the business claims about EU membership.

One we've heard a lot, including from Dr Pete Chadha, who was on Daily Politics speaking on the Leave side today, is that we import more from other EU countries than we export to them, so they would be very keen to sign trade deals post-Brexit. 

And he's right in cash terms. In 2014 we exported £227bn worth of goods and services to other EU countries, and imported £288bn from them.

Of course, as a share of total exports, it looks much less important to other member states - it's about 45% of our exports, but less than 10% of theirs.

Reality Check

Image source, Thinkstock

In the last of Boris Johnson's objections to EU rules in the Telegraph, he says: "I discovered, in 2013, that there was nothing we could do to bring in better-designed cab windows for trucks, to stop cyclists being crushed. It had to be done at a European level, and the French were opposed."

The Mayor of London is right that the overall length of lorries is governed by EU regulations, the result of which was to make manufacturers design cabs as small and flat-fronted as possible in order to maximise the amount of storage space.

Thanks to campaigning by many people including Mr Johnson, a review of the directive was adopted in April 2014 by the European Parliament that just limits the storage space so that cabs can be made more aerodynamic and cyclist-friendly.

At the time, Mr Johnson said he was worried the UK government would oppose the plans, although it has now approved them.

But the changes are not going to happen quickly. The new rules will be phased in from 2018. After that, it will take ages for all the lorries on the roads to be replaced by new ones. 

Reality Check

Image source, Thinkstock

Boris Johnson's third "ludicrous" rule in his Daily Telegraph article is "the limits on the power of vacuum cleaners".

Since 1 September 2014, there has been a ban on vacuum cleaners rated above 1,600 watts as part of plans to promote energy efficiency.

That limit is expected to be cut to 900 watts in 2017.

There has been much discussion among consumer groups and manufacturers about whether lower wattage will necessarily lead to reduced performance.

Which? warned at the time that five of its seven "best buys" would fail to meet the new standards.

But the German official testing agency Stiftung Warentest said it had found 38 models of cleaner that would work effectively within the new limits.  

James Dyson wanted the limit to be even lower, at 700 watts, and objected strongly to the way the EU's tests were carried out.

Reality Check

Image source, Thinkstock

Next up on the list of Boris Johnson's EU bugbears from his Daily telegraph column today: "Children under eight cannot blow up balloons."

There were a number of headlines about this in October 2011, leading the European Commission to put out a press release, external saying in shouty capitals: "EU DOES NOT ban children from blowing up balloons".

The rules require companies making latex (but not foil) balloons to carry a message saying: "Warning! Children under eight years can choke or suffocate on uninflated or broken balloons. Adult supervision required. Keep uninflated balloons from children. Discard broken balloons at once."

So it's a compulsory warning rather than a ban.

Reality Check

Image source, AFP

The Reality Check team has been looking at some of the things that Boris Johnson said upset him about EU rules in this morning's Telegraph.

First up: "You can't recycle a teabag".

Now, we're assuming he means you can't compost a teabag, because recycling them sounds like a really bad idea.

Under EU law, local authorities may indeed ban the composting of tea bags, and any other sort of food waste, if they're worried about the spreading of certain diseases. 

Cardiff Council did so in 2005 to prevent the spread of foot and mouth disease - the council was worried that food waste might have been in contact with infected meat.

But the point is, councils are not forced to ban the composting of tea bags - they are allowed to. 

Reality Check has returned for the EU Referendum.

On this page you will find all the checks the team does ahead of the big day.

Do get in touch if there's something you think needs checking.