Recalcitrant MPs:- where do you stand?

This letter was sent out by our secretary, Jim Reynolds, to a number of MPs who recently voted against the Government. It makes the point about democracy very forcefully and offers a useful template to anyone else wishing to contact our elected representatives in the event of future Brexit votes

It is often mentioned that some Eurosceptic MP’s had a majority for ‘Remain in the EU’ within their own constituencies. However, it is never mentioned that some pro-EU MP’s had a majority of ‘Pro-Brexit’ within their constituencies.

Why is this? One can guess.

These facts are actually irrelevant because the Referendum was not fought or decided on a constituency basis. It was fought on the entire 650 constituencies as one single voting area.

If you wish to treat it on a ‘constituency’ basis there were only two Parties involved, one for Stay and one for Leave.

The result was an 80 seat majority for the Leave Party. A huge majority. A true fact.

Let us not forget, it was Parliament itself that voted to devolve the decision on EU membership to us, in our Referendum.

What great principle of constitutional propriety do you stand for when it seems you have been quite happy to see Parliament circumvented and supplanted by the EU for 40 years?

The people who want to reverse a democratic vote result should be aware that this action is otherwise known as Fascism, an imposition against the majority will of the people.

Where do you stand on this?

Yours faithfully,

James Reynolds

An Assisted EU Council presidency

It’s not just Greece which has suffered thanks to its membership of the EU. Without even having joined the single currency, Bulgaria already is experiencing considerable hardship as this piece by Horst Teubert shows. (The original first appeared on the German Foreign Policy website and is reused with permission)

SOFIA/BRUSSELS/BERLIN – Bulgaria exercises its EU Council presidency – which began January 1 – with Berlin’s direct “counseling” and “assistance,” according to reports of the CDU-affiliated Konrad Adenauer Foundation. The foundation has been engaged in activities in Sofia along these lines, and has delegated its former Chairman and ex-European Parliament President Hans-Gert Pöttering to serve as consultant in the Bulgarian capital. Since Bulgaria joined the EU on January 1, 2007, oligarchs have become the country’s crucial power factor, controlling its fate, according to observers. Berlin easily tolerates this, because Prime Minister Boyko Borissov readily yields to German leadership, a former Bulgarian justice minister explained. The country, with its unrivalled starvation wages, serves as a production site for German businesses and as a reservoir to recruit skilled workers for Germany.

No Heating, Malnourished

Eleven years after joining the EU on January 1, 2007, Bulgaria’s political and social conditions remain desolate. According to the statistical office of the European Union Eurostat, in 2016, 40.4% of the 7.1 million inhabitants – almost three million people – were at risk of poverty or social exclusion. Nearly one third of the population – 31.9% – was severely materially deprived. They can barely cover basic needs such as affording adequate heating for their homes, everyday items, such as a telephone or a washing machine or meals with sufficient protein.[1] Even though the Bulgarian minimum wage has been raised to around 235 euros, it is not enough for decent living. Child poverty is particularly shocking: 45.6% of all Bulgarian children are on the verge of poverty or social exclusion. According to Eurostat, the situation is particularly catastrophic for children under the age of 16. 36.2% do not have any new clothes, 48.6% have at most one pair of shoes that properly fit, 40% cannot afford to eat fresh fruit or vegetables once a day and 42.4% do not eat enough proteins, because meat and fish are too expensive.

Toiling for Germany

To counteract the impression of hopelessness, spreading throughout the country, Bulgarian politicians like to point to the relatively low unemployment. The unemployment rate is currently 6.1% – significantly lower than the EU’s average of 7.4%. This, however, is due to the fact that large segments of the Bulgarian workforce have emigrated since 1990. The country’s population shrank from 8.9 million in 1990 to 7.1 million in 2017. Particularly the younger, well educated have left the country – in many cases to Germany. At the end of 2016, over 260,000 Bulgarians lived in Germany. More than 1,600 Bulgarian doctors are helping to alleviate Germany’s shortage of doctors.[2] From a German perspective, this is particularly profitable because Berlin did not have to pay a cent for their education. Sofia had paid for their expensive medical training. The same holds true for the training of numerous other Bulgarian specialists now working in Germany. Numerous other Bulgarians are being exploited as unskilled laborers, often under miserable working conditions, and at times, as illegal workers at the lowest wages.[3] Last year, the German government tried to prevent return flows to Bulgaria by massively cutting child benefits for EU foreigners, including more than 5,500 Bulgarians. The attempt failed, at least for now.

Unrivalled Starvation Wages

For the German economy, Bulgaria serves not only as the country of origin for cheap “human capital,” but also to a certain extent, as a sales market and as a low-wage production site. German companies sold nearly €3.5 billion worth of goods in that country in 2016. Although this placed Bulgaria 45th on Germany’s export list – behind Thailand, Israel and Ukraine – it, nevertheless, contributed to the stabilization of Germany’s Southeast European trade. Germany is Bulgaria’s largest trading partner and probably one of its most important foreign investors, when considering its indirect investments made through the Netherlands or Austria. In Bulgaria, labor costs are “the lowest in the EU,” noted the state-owned Germany Trade & Invest (GTAI). Wages and the non-wage labor costs are unrivaled at €4.4 per hour. This is another reason why this country remains “an interesting production site.”[4] The German clothing manufacturer, Hugo Boss, benefits from Bulgaria’s starvation salaries. Around 16 percent of Germany’s imports from Bulgaria are textiles. GTAI has, however, begun to complain of a noticeable “shortage of skilled workers” in Bulgaria – due to the emigration of well-trained personnel – also to Germany.[5]

The Age of the Oligarchs

Whereas the social situation in Bulgaria – caught in the economic hammerlock imposed by Berlin and the EU – remains desolate, the Bulgarian oligarchs’ political control over the country has considerably grown since it joined the EU. Experts are beginning to refer to an “age of oligarchs.”[6] One of the most powerful Bulgarian oligarchs is the businessman Delyan Peevski, who also controls about 80 percent of Bulgaria’s print media market. The fact that Bulgaria plunged from 51st place (in 2007) to 109th (2017) on the “Reporters Without Borders” World Press Freedom Index has been attributed to the predominating influence of the oligarchs.[7] The journalist Assen Jordanov, a specialist in white-collar crime, even accuses Bulgaria’s Prime Minister Boyko Borissov of being deeply involved in illegal transactions. “In fact, a neo-feudal, oligarchic, Mafia-clan is operating a shadow economy in Bulgaria.”[8] Unlike the leaders of Hungary and Poland, Borissov – whose party members sit alongside those of the CDU and CSU as members of the European People’s Party (EPP) – is easily tolerated by Berlin and Brussels, because of his political subservience. Hristo Ivanov, Bulgaria’s former Minister of Justice, (2014 – 2016), notes, “If there is a dossier in Brussels, and the Germans have a clear position on it, we agree with the Germans. … Otherwise, do as the Commission does, there is no independent Bulgarian position.”[9]

“Unity Brings Strength”

This principle obviously applies also to Bulgaria’s EU Council Presidency. Back in early October, the FDP-affiliated Friedrich Naumann Foundation’s project manager for Southeast Europe noted that, Sofia remained very “vague” in the preparations; “various priorities without a clear thread” are mentioned. They cannot even formulate their “own … projects.”[10] Meanwhile the CDU-affiliated Konrad Adenauer Foundation has sought to plan the Bulgarian council presidency, and has begun “advising” Prime Minister Borissov’s government accordingly. They will be “advising the council presidency” also “in the same way,” it has been officially announced. “An important role will be played by the foundation’s president [whose term of office ended December 31, 2017, editors note] and former President of the European Parliament, Dr. Hans Gert Pöttering, who the Bulgarian government had appointed to join its supreme political advisory council.”[11] The issues Sofia is now presenting correspond to Berlin’s objectives for the EU. On the one hand, ways must be found to hold the union together, despite the centrifugal forces growing stronger, which is why Bulgaria has placed its presidency under the “Unity Brings Strength” motto. On the other, stronger ties should be established to non-EU member western Balkan countries, to counter China’s rapidly growing influence in the region. ((german-foreign-policy.com reported.[12])

Moving Toward the Right

At the same time, a government is assuming the presidency of the EU Council, in cooperation with the Konrad Adenauer Foundation that is in a government coalition which includes an extreme rightwing party. An extreme rightwing party is also a coalition partner of the Austrian government, which will assume the presidency of the EU Council during the second half of 2018. German-foreign-policy.com will soon report.

[1] Eurostat press release 155/2017 16 October 2017. According to Eurostat, “severely materially deprived persons have living conditions constrained by a lack of resources and experience at least 4 out of the 9 following deprivation items: cannot afford 1) to pay rent/mortgage or utility bills on time, 2) to keep home adequately warm, 3) to face unexpected expenses, 4) to eat meat, fish or a protein equivalent every second day, 5) a one week holiday away from home, 6) a car, 7) a washing machine, 8) a colour TV, or 9) a telephone (including mobile phone).”
[2] Rainer Woratschka: Durch Zuwanderung deutlich mehr Ärzte in Deutschland. tagesspiegel.de 26.05.2017.
[3] Deutsche Arbeitgeber beuten EU-Ausländer aus. mdr.de 11.10.2017.
[4], [5] Michael Marks: Lohn- und Lohnnebenkosten – Bulgarien. gtai.de 22.05.2017.
[6] Stefan Antonov: The Age of the Oligarchs: How a group of political and economic magnates have taken control of Bulgaria. University of Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Oxford 2013.
[7] Barbara Oertel: “Ich würde Sie feuern“. taz.de 21.11.2017.
[8] Nina Flori: Ein Land in Oligarchen-Hand. wienerzeitung.at 22.03.2017.
[9] Markus Bernath: Bulgarien vor Beginn der EU-Ratspräsidentschaft im Zwielicht. derstandard.de 27.12.2017.
[10] Daniel Kaddik: Mangelnde Vorbereitung, fehlende Visionen. www.freiheit.org 02.10.2017. See also Bulgaria’s European Course.
[11] Thorsten Geißler: “Einigkeit macht stark“. Bulgarien übernimmt am 1. Januar 2018 die Ratspräsidentschaft der Europäischen Union. Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, Länderbericht Bulgarien. Dezember 2017.
[12] See also Berlin Calls for a “One-Europe Policy”.

Photo by Swedish National Heritage Board

The European Arrest Warrant – an expert’s opinion

We have frequently emphasized the importance of ending our participation in the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) if Brexit is truly to mean Brexit.

Jonathan Fisher QC produced this comprehensive summary of  the EAW in 2014, when Parliament was debating whether to opt back in to 35 criminal justice measures contained with in the Lisbon Treaty after obtaining an opt-out four years earlier.

As readers will know, Theresa May, then Home Secretary, led the ultimately successful campaign for us to opt in. However, Brexit provides us with welcome opportunity to reconsider this ill-advised decision.

The issue may be taken out of our hands as the EU has already suggested that we may not be able to be part of Europol on Brexit and our exclusion may stretch to include the EAW  as well.

We cannot, however, take this for granted so it is in our interest to continue to campaign against the EAW and this means informing ourselves as best we can about this iniquitous scheme. Mr Fisher’s document is a very useful resource in this regard. In particular, it has pointed out how it conflicts with our historic liberties under Common Law. For instance, “the EAW does not sit happily with the fundamental principles which underpin Habeas Corpus.

As Archbishop Desmond Tutu pointed out on the BBC “Today” programme” on 16th February 2006, Habeas Corpus is such an incredible part of freedom”  Unshackling ourselves from the EU will therefore be compromised if the freedom-threatening European Arrest Warrant is allowed further to menace UK citizens on independence. 

2018: Must do better

After a week’s break – well, sort of – it’s back to Brexit with a vengeance. The big hope for 2018 is that the government will finally get to grips with what is involved in achieving a seamless divorce from the EU.  At the moment, we seem to be heading for a most unsatisfactory “transitional arrangement” which will see us still stuck in the EU in all but name for a further 21 months.  We would not be able to restrict freedom of movement, we would not regain control of fisheries and we would be stuck with every piece of legislation the EU cares to throw at us without any say in how these laws are framed.

It’s hardly surprising that Theresa May’s popularity is plummeting and public anger is rising as confidence in the ability of her team to deliver a decent Brexit is falling.  A poll conducted by YouGov found that six out of ten think that ministers are negotiating with the EU “badly”.

Two Brexit stories did surface during Christmas week – the welcome return of our traditional blue passports in 2019 and the proposal to award a knighthood to Nick Clegg. Enthusiasm for the former has been dismissed as old fashioned jingoism, but this is to miss the point. The production of our own passports without any reference to the European Union will be a powerful symbol that we are once again a sovereign nation, deciding our own laws and no longer being shoehorned into a madcap project which can only end in a catastrophic failure. The colour of the passport is irrelevant.

As for Nick Clegg’s knighthood, while he did serve as Deputy Prime Minister, viewed from a broader perspective, it is a reward for failure.  After leading his party into coalition with the Conservatives, the Lib Dems were decimated at the following general election. He failed to achieve his great ambition of bringing in a new voting system and then found himself on the wrong side of the Brexit campaign, losing his seat as a result. For anyone who feels that a reward to such an individual is totally misguided, you may like to sign this petition objecting to it. At time of writing, it has already gained over 45,000 signatures.

In 2018, it’s also important for us ordinary Brexit-supporters to up our game. Our enemies are still scheming. We were recently sent this link which comes for a pro-EU website urging people to spend their money supporting pro-EU groups rather than Brexit supporters. Companies and individual on both side of the debate are named. So although we believe it’s time to move on from the divisions of 2016, in the face of such malice, perhaps it behoves us to give our support to the likes of Wetherspoons, Tate & Lyle and Dyson rather than EasyJet or anything connected with the Virgin group.

We also need to up our game in explaining the real reasons for the Brexit vote, especially for the young. The appearance of this piece on the Huffington Post website a full 18 months after the referendum is very sad and deeply concerning.  The author, who identifies himself as a “millenial” still sees the Brexit vote as driven by nostalgia – particularly among older voters. The message still hasn’t got across that it was about re-joining the world instead of being stuck in the myopic, misguided and failing European project. Beyond the EU, the project is viewed negatively in a number of other neighbouring countries – including in some accession states. It’s not just old-fashioned English fogeys who don’t like the idea at all; plenty of ordinary people around the world share their disdain for the project.

The writer enthuses about proportional representation. People like him need to be told that if we really want to update our democracy, the answer is not to change the means by which we choose our elected representatives but the degree to which we can call them to account. Significantly, the best country in Europe, if not the world, to offer us a model for an advanced democracy fit for the 21st century is Switzerland, where “only a few lunatics” want their country to join the EU.

The young will be the main beneficiaries from Brexit. They won’t have to deal with the problem which has plagued us for over 40 years. They will be the main beneficiaries from the cut in migration – which is already happening – as fewer foreigners entering the UK will reduce the pressure on the housing market. Above all, they will reap the financial benefits, which are for the long term rather than for the immediate post-Brexit period. Rather than voting Brexit for selfish reasons, the older generation sought our departure from the EU for the good of their children and grandchildren as much as for themselves. The challenge for all of us in this new year is to get this message across. We too need to do better.

On that note, we in CIB wish you all a Happy New Year.

Where do we go now?

Ever since Michel Barnier was appointed to lead the Brexit negotiations for the EU , he has been clear and precise, Unfortunately, neither  the UK Government nor the mainstream media have taken the slightest notice in what he is saying.

In his press statement of 20th December 2017, Barnier laid out the procedure the EU wants the negotiations to follow as everyone moves on to so-called “Phase 2”:-

  • By October 2018 a withdrawal agreement and a new treaty (to cover the transitional period) should be in place, in order for time to get these through the various bodies by 29th March 2019.
  • The old article 50 of TEU allows the negotiation of the withdrawal agreement, which must be completed on time or else there will be no transition period.
  • The new treaty will come into force on 30th March 2019, and I suspect it will be the reverse of an Accession treaty, with transitional derogations.
  • This is where it gets a little complicated. At 23.01 of 29th March 2019 we will have left the EU and will have become a “third country”. Apart from Banier’s talk of a treaty, no one has provided any other detail, so we have to make a guess as to what will happen next.
  • You can’t leave the EU, take up third country status and then carry on as if nothing had happened until 1st. January 2021, when it is possible we will be in the same position as now.
  • So the new Treaty which will cover the withdrawal agreement will come in to force in tandem with the EU (Withdrawal) Bill. Together, these two pieces of legislation would, I suspect, enable us to carry on trading, as we do at present, although it will be only for a fixed period covered by a time-limited transitional derogation.
  • On 1st January 2021, the derogation will cease, and either a new EU/UK trade agreement treaty will be created, or added to the new treaty.

It is hard to believe that our own Parliament is going to place us in such a vulnerable dangerous position. The period from 30th March 2019 to 1st January  2021 gives EU-based companies a more than adequate time frame to allow themselves to extricate themselves from the UK. Meanwhile, the UK government will bang on about this “deep and special relationship” and the wonderful trade deal we will get, yet at the same time, the European Commission and Parliament have both made it very clear that we will be treated like any other third country. Unless UK-based  companies realise the reality of this, they will hit the buffers unprepared.

Our side cannot even get their terminology  correct. “Transitional” is the word the EEC/EU has used since our 1972 Accession Treaty, so why are we talking about an “implementation” period?  In the House of Lords Select Committee session of 13th December 2017 asked what the difference was between transition and implementation  but was not given an answer.

What are the electorate going to say and do when they find the economy is in decline and EU continuity rights have been established? This is no real Brexit.

Both the Prime Minister and David Davis claim that the plan for a transitional (or implementation) period was first mentioned in the Lancaster House speech of 17th January 2017. Michel Barnier , however, claims it was first raised in the Florence speech and this appears correct.

Mrs May said in Florence, “As I said in my speech at Lancaster House a period of implementation would be in our mutual interest. That is why I am proposing that there should be such a period after the UK leaves the EU”

But what she said in the Lancaster speech was ,  “I do not mean that we will seek some form of unlimited transitional status, in which we find ourselves stuck forever in some kind of permanent political purgatory”

Here, Mrs  May uses ”transitional” the commonly used word of the EU since 1972 for such a situation, so why switch to “implementation” if there is not a difference of meaning?  No one seems to have offered us any real answer.

In the Florence speech, she continued, “we believe a phased process of implementation, in which both Britain and the EU institutions and member states prepare for the new arrangements that will exist between us will be in our mutual self-interest.”

This all sounds very confusing, but I believe the key to Mrs May’s thinking remains the words in her Lancaster House speech: “I want us to have reached an agreement about our future partnership by the time the two-year Article 50 process has concluded” I take this to mean that she wanted the agreement  done and dusted by Brexit day, which we now know will be 29th March 2019. She did not mean that only a withdrawal agreement would be in place by that date, with a trade deal to follow. She continued: “From that point onwards, we believe a phased process of implementation, in which both Britain and the EU institutions and member states prepare for the new arrangements that will exist between us will be in our mutual self-interest”.

“For each issue, the time we need to phase-in the new arrangements may differ. Some might be introduced very quickly, some might take longer.”

Her original objectives seem to be the very opposite of the direction in which we are now heading.  Because so much time has been wasted, instead of applying for an extension to Article 50 of TEU, where we could have carried on for a further 21 months (although we would not have been out of the EU, which would have been politically unacceptable with a general election looming), the  Government has chosen formally to leave the EU at 23.00 hours on 29th March 2017 but then hand over our governance back to the EU, with no representation, and accepting all the institutions of the EU. This is a situation far worse than anything we suffered during our 44 years of membership and all for the hope of a trade deal which still may not be ready to be signed in time.

The worst feature of this proposal is that during those 21 months we would have to accept any new EU legislation  that comes into force during those 21 months, even though David Davis was very evasive when questioned about this during the select committee session of 25th October 2017:

Q89            Mr Djanogly: During that period, will the UK have to accept new EU laws made during that period?

Mr Davis: One of the practical points of this, which anybody who has dealt with the European Union knows—as you will have done, I guess—is that it takes two to five years from inception to outcome for laws to make it through the process. Anything that would have any impact during those two years we are talking about will already have been agreed with us in advance.  Anything that happens during it will be something for subsequent discussion as to whether we propose to follow it or not.  That is where the international arbitration procedure might become important.

So Mr Davis thinks we will have some choice, However, M. Barnier, made it very clear in his speech of 20th December 2017 there will be no cherry picking; we will have to accept EVERYTHING during transition period, including legislation currently in the pipeline.

This is a rather complex and technical subject, but I hope I have been able to convey just how dangerous this “transitional period” is.  My own industry, fishing, would still be stuck with the Common Fisheries  Policy but worse, it would not really be Brexit in anything other than name only.

The financial settlement – it will be a long-term gain

THE FINANCIAL SETTLEMENT

The Prime Minister has stated that the financial settlement and any payment thereof would depend on a satisfactory overall agreement which meets the objectives of the Florence Speech, including a trade arrangement.

THE PRESENT POSITION

When going into negotiations with the EU for a ‘single financial settlement’ it is necessary to consider the current established financial relationships between the UK and the EU.

These come in two parts:

The UK’s EU budget contribution (after rebate) amounts to around £13.5 billion per annum.  That is about 20% of the total net savings of the UK economy.  It is also a legal obligation of EU membership and exists in perpetuity.  Any sum spent by the EU in the UK is not an obligation but is a matter of EU policy.  Since 1973 the total net UK contribution to the EU budget at 2017 prices is about £500 billion and, at present, the perpetual obligation adds to this every year.  (The last time it was fully worked out was for the period 1973-2010 when it amounted to £379 billion at 2010 values.)

The second part of the current relationship is that there is UK exposure to the liabilities of the EU and its entities such as the ECB (European Central Bank), EIB (European Investment Bank), etc.  There is no corresponding EU exposure to UK liabilities such as those of the Bank of England.  The UK also has ‘joint and several’ liability for all EU debts.

In comparison with the UK situation, non-EU EEA countries, such as Norway, have no exposure to EU liabilities nor do they contribute to the EU general budget (contrary to what is often asserted).

It should be noted that this study addresses only financial and fiscal matters.  There are other costly economic effects of the UK-EU relationship, such as food costs, migration costs, etc. which are not referred to here.  There are also some benefits in the internal market relationship.

The present financial situation is described more precisely in a pre-referendum study:

UK Membership of the EU – The Threat to the Balance Sheet.

THE UK’S NECESSARY FINANCIAL ASPIRATION

It is, therefore, prudent and a financial necessity that the UK ceases to hand over 20% of its net savings to the EU in perpetuity with virtually no influence of how these savings are spent (only a tiny fraction is spent on investment in the UK).

It is also urgent for the UK to extract itself from the partly one-sided exposure to the liabilities and contingent liabilities of the EU as soon as possible.  Adopting the position of the EFTA/EEA states which have no responsibility for EU liabilities would be prudent finance.

THE ‘FINANCIAL SETTLEMENT’ AS AT DECEMBER 2017

The fundamental two aims of stopping EU budget contributions with the consequent erosion of UK savings/investment and extracting the UK from EU liabilities are on the table and in the Joint Report of 8th December 2017.

These are the two core financial benefits of departure.

It is important to understand that the EU referendum was about the long-term future and not about the details of departure, not all of which are favourable.  Further, if the referendum had been won by Remain, both the half-a-trillion pound hit to UK savings would have increased every year by some 2 or 3%, and the UK would still have been responsible for its share of EU liabilities.

These will cease over the next five years, although in a somewhat unsatisfactory and messy settlement.

THE FINANCIAL SETTLEMENT – THE QUANTUM

Michel Barnier is quoted in The Guardian (19/12/2017): “He [Barnier] would not confirm British estimates that the final Brexit bill – the UK’s outstanding obligations to the EU – would be no more than Euro 45 billion (£39 billion).”

This was hardly unreasonable of Barnier because at least two of the principal subjects of financial discussion, the UK’s stake in the EIB and EU pensions seem to have been left as ongoing yearly matters and, therefore, it is difficult to form capitalized totals thereof in any meaningful way.  Pensions will be paid when this amount falls due.  This means the UK could still be paying pensions up to 2100 although the amounts will be insignificant by then.

It has also been agreed that the UK will continue its normal financial relationship with the EU until the end of 2020, that is, making budget contributions and collecting the rebate.

Some questions arise over the following (the references are to the Joint UK EU Report of 8/12/17):

  • It is not stated that the UK will receive its rebate for the year 2020 (it is normally repaid one year in arrear).
  • Item 61, “The UK will contribute its share of the financing of the budgetary commitments outstanding at 31st December 2020 (RAL).” The ‘rebate’ is not mentioned but even if the UK agrees to pay its share of RAL then this should be subject to the rebate (paying a share of the RAL is a political concession by the UK).  The whole point of the RAL is that money has been spent or authorized above the EU budget although Item 67(b) appears to negate the rebate in RAL matters.
  • Then there is ambiguous phraseology over the balance sheet. “The UK will contribute (para 62) its share of the financing of the Union’s liabilities incurred before December 2020 except for liabilities with corresponding assets and assets and liabilities which are related to the operation of the budget and the Own Resources division.”  The English is poor and obscurantist.  The clear fair method is for the UK to establish its share of the EU balance sheet (assets and liabilities) and pay its share of the net amount if there is an excess of liabilities over assets.  This is the method recommended by the Institute of Chartered Accountants. (some of the net may be subject to the rebate).
  • The European Investment Bank (EIB): The UK has agreed (item 74 onwards) that it will not receive any profit from the activities of the EIB but will participate in a share of any losses entailing Extra Capital calls.  This is a poor negotiating decision.