British parliamentarians have stated clearly that the EU
cannot force UK tax payers to make any financial contribution into the union’s
budget, in the event of no deal between the EU and the UK.
This was made after the House of Lords investigation revealed
that the UK is not obliged by international law to keep making any monetary
payment to the EU’s budget once the UK exits the union.
This revelation from analysts have bolstered the Prime
Minister’s position on the issue, as the triggering of Article 50 draws closer
this month.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine, a Lib Dem peer and chairman
of the sub-committee, stated that: “The UK appears to have a strong legal
position in respect of the EU budget post-Brexit and this provides important
context to the Article 50 negotiations.
“Even though we consider that the UK will not be legally
obliged to pay in to the EU budget after Brexit, the issue will be a prominent
factor in withdrawal negotiations. The Government will have to set the
financial and political costs of making such payments against potential gains
from other elements of the negotiations.
“The forthcoming negotiations will be more than just a trial
of strength.
"They will be about establishing a stable, cooperative
and amicable relationship between the UK and the EU. This will not be possible
without good will on both sides.”
On the hand, the Theresa May conceded to the fact that some
kind of financial commitment could still be on going after Brexit, however, the
era of huge financial payments will come to end.
In contrast, Chief EU Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier is assumed
to have arranged a £50billion exit fee to demand once the talks begin.
According to some diplomats Britain's annual payments to
Brussels, which reached a net figure of £10.8billion last year, could continue
for many years after departure in return for favourable trade terms.
Peers on the committee also issued warned that failure to
reach agreement on the budget would weaken the Government’s aim to negotiate
single market access on favourable terms.
But then they pointed out that "in the absence of an
agreement under Article 50, the Committee finds that the UK would be subject to
no enforceable obligation to make any financial contribution to the EU
budget".
"Though this would severely damage the prospects of
reaching friendly agreement on wider issues, it provides an important context
to the negotiations," as stated by the report.
Peers on the sub-committee also condemned the possible size
of the exit bill being discussed as "speculative".
"Almost every element is subject to
interpretation," the report said.
Although individual EU member countries could try to launch
legal actions against the UK for payments of alleged outstanding liabilities,
the report said.
However international law was "slow to litigate and
hard to enforce", the peers pointed out.
There is also a doubt whether any international court or
tribunal would have jurisdiction to rule in any such case.
The issue of continuing payments was likely to be factor in
the withdrawal negotiations despite the lack of legal liability, the report
added.
MPs and MEPs welcomed the report.
Tory MP Jacob-Rees Mogg said: "The House of Lords EU
committee has highly experienced legal advice so is worth listening to.
"This is obviously important for the negotiations and
strengthens our position."
Ukip MEP Gerard Batten, Brexit spokesman for the
anti-Brussels party, said: "The report confirms that Britain is under no
legal obligation to continue to the EU budget when we leave.
"I believe we will also be under no moral obligation to
continue paying once we leave either.
"We should only continue to pay for very specific
schemes, such as redundancy payments for British officials currently working
for the EU."
Also a Government spokesman said: “We welcome the
significant contribution from the House of Lords to this important debate.
“As this report makes clear, there are a whole range of
issues for the UK and the EU that will need to be addressed as we leave the
European Union.
"These issues are subject to negotiation and we won’t
get into a running commentary on the details.
No comments:
Write comments