Due to the huge financial divorce bill being demanded by the
Brussels and denying the UK of taking any part of the EU’s asset it helped to
build, the British government has been advised to “call the bluff” of Brussels
and seek an independent tribunal to scrutinize the legal basis in which such
demands are being made.
This piece of advice was issued by one of Tory barrister
Martin Howe QC advising said: “One thing we could say is let’s agree to refer
this to an international tribunal as to whether or not there is a legal claim
and then it will be decided,” he said.
“It will put paid to any argument that the UK is trying to
run away from or dodge its legal obligations.”
“That’s one way that the EU’s bluff could be called.”
Mr Howe, who is a founding member of Lawyers for Britain, a
group of lawyers who campaigned for Britain to leave the EU in last year’s
referendum, added: “My strong suspicion is that the EU side would never agree
to that because they know their legal argument is completely empty.
“So saying that in practice may be just a way of calling
their bluff.
“The other reason they wouldn’t agree to it is that they are
desperate for the cash immediately.
“A decision five years down the line would not be appealing
to them - although you can run these international arbitrations very fast if
you want to and certainly within the two year period.”
The legal expert totally condemns such a huge demand which according
to him has no legal basis claiming that it is “hard to see any credible basis
upon which the UK could be said to be obliged” to pay for the deficit.
He further stressed his position on the issue, after
Brussels raised the controversial divorce bill to about £84 billion.
“At the moment I haven’t seen anything of their legal papers
explaining their claim so am relying on their public statements but from what I
have heard and seen there is no obligation at all.
They add they are concerned that the EU still believe Mrs
May won’t walk away in the event of a bad deal – allowing the EU to feel
confident enough to ramp up the pressure.
Meanwhile, Zsolt Darvas, of thinktank Bruegel, has also said
that the final demand may be far less than the amounts suggested, but then
would still be in the tens of billions. The money is said to be owed because of
projects Britain committed to which run until 2025. As he said not paying a penny would make a trade deal practically impossible.
“I can’t see the EU singing a free trade agreement with the
UK under those circumstances,” said Mr Darvas.
However, if Britain did end up contributing until 2025, it
would entitle it to remain in the single market until that date.
“When you leave a club, you should have full rights during
the cancellation period,” he said.
“If the UK is asked to pay the full fee, it should also
benefit to single market access, maybe up to 2025.”
No comments:
Write comments