Fact check: It was considerably more than £350m a week, much of it under Mrs May.

1. Summary of the results

The claim that UK's contribution was "considerably more than £350m a week" is demonstrably false. Multiple sources confirm that the actual contribution was significantly lower:

• The net contribution was approximately £234-250 million per week ^{[1] [2]}
• In 2018, the UK paid £13 billion to the EU budget, with EU spending in the UK at £4 billion ^[3]
• The 2014 figures show around £14.4 billion total contribution (£280 million per week), but this was further reduced by rebates and programs ^[4]

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several crucial pieces of context are missing from the original statement:

• The UK Statistics Authority has officially declared the £350 million figure as "a clear misuse of official statistics" ^[3]
• The Treasury and European Commission confirm that the actual payment should be calculated as the gross contribution minus the rebate ^[4]
• Under Theresa May's Brexit deal, the UK would actually face costs of approximately £615m per week, nearly double the claimed £350m savings ^[5]
• The Office for Budget Responsibility predicts Brexit will leave UK public finances £15 billion worse off annually by the early 2020s ^[1]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The statement contains several misleading elements:

• It deliberately ignores the UK's rebate and money received back through various programs ^[4]
• Campaign groups continued using the higher figure despite knowing it was inaccurate ^[6]
• The statement fails to acknowledge that potential savings from EU membership have already been allocated to Brexit-related costs ^[1]
• A think tank analysis indicates taxpayers would lose £40bn annually due to higher trade barriers ^[5]

Those who benefit from promoting this narrative include:

• Pro-Brexit politicians and campaign groups seeking to justify the Brexit decision
• Those attempting to attribute NHS funding increases to Brexit savings, despite evidence showing this is not financially viable ^[1]