Last reviewed: October 2026
UndoBrexit aims to provide clear, accurate and evidence-led information about Brexit, the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union and the choices that may shape that relationship in the future.
Our editorial approach is based on a simple principle: readers should be able to distinguish established facts from interpretation, opinion and prediction — and should be able to see where important claims come from.
Our Editorial Principles
UndoBrexit is guided by a small number of editorial principles.
Accuracy comes first. Claims should be supported by reliable evidence, and important factual statements should be traceable to credible sources wherever possible.
Primary sources are preferred. We prioritise material from institutions such as the UK Government, UK Parliament, the House of Commons Library, official statistics bodies and European Union institutions.
Fact and opinion should be distinguishable. Analysis and interpretation have a legitimate place, but readers should be able to tell when something is established fact and when it represents judgement or argument.
Evidence should not be selected simply because it supports a preferred conclusion. Information that challenges an argument deserves the same consideration as information that supports it.
Context matters. Statistics, quotations and historical events should not be presented in ways that materially distort their meaning.
Corrections matter. If a significant factual error is identified, it should be corrected rather than quietly ignored.
Sources and Evidence
UndoBrexit aims to base factual claims on the strongest available evidence.
Where possible, we link directly to original sources so readers can examine the material for themselves. These may include legislation, government publications, parliamentary research, official statistics, European Union documents, treaties and reports from recognised public institutions.
Secondary sources may also be used where they provide useful analysis, context or specialist expertise. When sources disagree, that disagreement should be acknowledged rather than concealed.
No source should be treated as beyond scrutiny simply because it supports a particular argument.
Corrections and Updates
Accuracy is an ongoing responsibility, particularly when writing about subjects that continue to develop.
Pages and articles may be reviewed and updated when new evidence becomes available, official figures are revised, policies change or additional context becomes important.
If a material factual error is identified, UndoBrexit will correct it. Significant corrections should be made openly rather than allowing inaccurate information to remain simply because it has already been published.
Readers who believe they have found an error are encouraged to report it through our Corrections page.
Editorial Independence
UndoBrexit is an independent project. It is not controlled by a political party, campaign organisation, lobbying group or government body.
The site has a clearly pro-European perspective, but that perspective does not override the obligation to represent evidence fairly, acknowledge uncertainty and distinguish documented fact from argument.
Where evidence is incomplete, disputed or open to interpretation, that should be made clear to the reader.
Questions and Feedback
Constructive scrutiny is welcome.
If you believe an article contains an error, lacks important context or relies on evidence that should be reconsidered, please let us know.
Questions, suggestions and feedback can be sent through our Contact page.