Will the UK still have to pay the EU under No-Deal Brexit?












11














It is expected that the U.K. will have to pay around £35 billion for its ongoing obligations if it leaves the EU with the currently proposed deal. I have heard both politicians and members of the public claim that in case of a No-Deal Brexit, no such payment would be required.



Is that correct? If it is not correct but the U.K. refused to pay, what would or could the EU do about it?










share|improve this question





























    11














    It is expected that the U.K. will have to pay around £35 billion for its ongoing obligations if it leaves the EU with the currently proposed deal. I have heard both politicians and members of the public claim that in case of a No-Deal Brexit, no such payment would be required.



    Is that correct? If it is not correct but the U.K. refused to pay, what would or could the EU do about it?










    share|improve this question



























      11












      11








      11







      It is expected that the U.K. will have to pay around £35 billion for its ongoing obligations if it leaves the EU with the currently proposed deal. I have heard both politicians and members of the public claim that in case of a No-Deal Brexit, no such payment would be required.



      Is that correct? If it is not correct but the U.K. refused to pay, what would or could the EU do about it?










      share|improve this question















      It is expected that the U.K. will have to pay around £35 billion for its ongoing obligations if it leaves the EU with the currently proposed deal. I have heard both politicians and members of the public claim that in case of a No-Deal Brexit, no such payment would be required.



      Is that correct? If it is not correct but the U.K. refused to pay, what would or could the EU do about it?







      united-kingdom european-union brexit






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 4 hours ago









      Machavity

      15.3k44475




      15.3k44475










      asked 6 hours ago









      gnasher729

      1,631314




      1,631314






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          8















          • According to Article 50, when a member state declares the intention to leave the EU they are out after two years unless a different agreement is negotiated. This article does not give any formula to calculate a lump sum for ongoing obligations, so there would be none unless everybody agrees.

          • The remaining EU27 will have to pay for obligations which the EU28 entered. So in the case of a hard Brexit, the EU27 will be left holding the bag. They have no legal way to collect the money.


          However, this would leave the UK outside the EU with no treaty. That will hurt the EU27, but it will hurt the UK more. The EU27 would enact only the rules they need to protect their citizens.



          The EU27 could start to bargain. Landing rights for UK aircraft against landing rights for EU aircraft and a share of MEP pensions. Visa-free travel for UK citizens against visa-free travel for EU citizens and a share of the EDF bills. And so on.






          share|improve this answer





















          • It is not at all clear that the situation is so one sided. Just for example there are the rights of EU citizens to work in the UK and to send money home. There are other issues where the EU27 would want things from the UK. So yes there would have to be some give and take but it is not so desperate.
            – Jonathan Rosenne
            4 hours ago






          • 5




            @JonathanRosenne, consider what I wrote in the third paragraph. That will hurt the EU27, but it will hurt the UK more. I see it as not one-sided, but not perfectly balanced, either.
            – o.m.
            4 hours ago






          • 2




            In case the UK refuses to pay its past commitments as a member state, why would the EU27 (or anyone else for that matter) 'start to bargain'? To put it in other words, if the UK is seen not to keep its word on past agreements, why would one expect them to honour new agreements? In that case (which is very unlikely, because the UK knows it too), the EU27 will just postpone all future agreements until the financial matter from past commitments is honoured and the UK will give in.
            – JJJ
            2 hours ago



















          3














          Yes



          While the current arrangement as part of the withdrawal deal is contingent on the UK/EU agreeing the whole of that deal, it is unlikely that the UK can complete Brexit with no payments made to the EU even under a no deal scenario.



          This FT article suggests that the careful phrasing used by the PM Theresa May and the then Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab means that the UK will pay the EU the agreed liabilities, but will not do so on the schedule agreed during the Brexit negotiations.




          What’s pretty much inconceivable is that the UK would use “no deal” to pay nothing to Brussels at all. Doubtless, the UK government could find lawyers to defend such a position in the event of no deal. But that would add one more nail to the coffin of the EU-UK relationship (on top, of course, of the economic catastrophe of no deal itself). It would set back even further the moment when the UK and EU could patch up the relationship. And paying nothing would do incalculable damage to the UK’s reputation as a reliable international partner.




          During the negotiations the UK has accepted that it has significant liabilities in terms of monies owed to EU budgets. Using the lack of treaty enforcement to escape those payments would leave the UK with a reputation as a country that does not meet its obligations.






          share|improve this answer























          • I wouldn't be too sure. The negotiations failed; trying to cite the accepted liabilities within them is quite the stretch. And if UK claims they are meaningless because the EU negotiated in bad faith (which may or may not be true) ...
            – Joshua
            1 hour ago










          • The liabilities were accepted. To then go back and say "actually all that accounting is nonsense and we're not paying" will undermine the UK government as a credible negotiator on the world stage. It will make an even bigger shambles of the whole Brexiteer Free Trade stance as no one will willingly sign up to any give/take deal with the UK again, because the UK will have shown it will not honour its agreements. It doesn't really matter if the EU negotiated in bad faith after that figure was agreed, because it was agreed, written down and signed.
            – Jontia
            43 mins ago










          • Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
            – Joshua
            42 mins ago











          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "475"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f37669%2fwill-the-uk-still-have-to-pay-the-eu-under-no-deal-brexit%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          8















          • According to Article 50, when a member state declares the intention to leave the EU they are out after two years unless a different agreement is negotiated. This article does not give any formula to calculate a lump sum for ongoing obligations, so there would be none unless everybody agrees.

          • The remaining EU27 will have to pay for obligations which the EU28 entered. So in the case of a hard Brexit, the EU27 will be left holding the bag. They have no legal way to collect the money.


          However, this would leave the UK outside the EU with no treaty. That will hurt the EU27, but it will hurt the UK more. The EU27 would enact only the rules they need to protect their citizens.



          The EU27 could start to bargain. Landing rights for UK aircraft against landing rights for EU aircraft and a share of MEP pensions. Visa-free travel for UK citizens against visa-free travel for EU citizens and a share of the EDF bills. And so on.






          share|improve this answer





















          • It is not at all clear that the situation is so one sided. Just for example there are the rights of EU citizens to work in the UK and to send money home. There are other issues where the EU27 would want things from the UK. So yes there would have to be some give and take but it is not so desperate.
            – Jonathan Rosenne
            4 hours ago






          • 5




            @JonathanRosenne, consider what I wrote in the third paragraph. That will hurt the EU27, but it will hurt the UK more. I see it as not one-sided, but not perfectly balanced, either.
            – o.m.
            4 hours ago






          • 2




            In case the UK refuses to pay its past commitments as a member state, why would the EU27 (or anyone else for that matter) 'start to bargain'? To put it in other words, if the UK is seen not to keep its word on past agreements, why would one expect them to honour new agreements? In that case (which is very unlikely, because the UK knows it too), the EU27 will just postpone all future agreements until the financial matter from past commitments is honoured and the UK will give in.
            – JJJ
            2 hours ago
















          8















          • According to Article 50, when a member state declares the intention to leave the EU they are out after two years unless a different agreement is negotiated. This article does not give any formula to calculate a lump sum for ongoing obligations, so there would be none unless everybody agrees.

          • The remaining EU27 will have to pay for obligations which the EU28 entered. So in the case of a hard Brexit, the EU27 will be left holding the bag. They have no legal way to collect the money.


          However, this would leave the UK outside the EU with no treaty. That will hurt the EU27, but it will hurt the UK more. The EU27 would enact only the rules they need to protect their citizens.



          The EU27 could start to bargain. Landing rights for UK aircraft against landing rights for EU aircraft and a share of MEP pensions. Visa-free travel for UK citizens against visa-free travel for EU citizens and a share of the EDF bills. And so on.






          share|improve this answer





















          • It is not at all clear that the situation is so one sided. Just for example there are the rights of EU citizens to work in the UK and to send money home. There are other issues where the EU27 would want things from the UK. So yes there would have to be some give and take but it is not so desperate.
            – Jonathan Rosenne
            4 hours ago






          • 5




            @JonathanRosenne, consider what I wrote in the third paragraph. That will hurt the EU27, but it will hurt the UK more. I see it as not one-sided, but not perfectly balanced, either.
            – o.m.
            4 hours ago






          • 2




            In case the UK refuses to pay its past commitments as a member state, why would the EU27 (or anyone else for that matter) 'start to bargain'? To put it in other words, if the UK is seen not to keep its word on past agreements, why would one expect them to honour new agreements? In that case (which is very unlikely, because the UK knows it too), the EU27 will just postpone all future agreements until the financial matter from past commitments is honoured and the UK will give in.
            – JJJ
            2 hours ago














          8












          8








          8







          • According to Article 50, when a member state declares the intention to leave the EU they are out after two years unless a different agreement is negotiated. This article does not give any formula to calculate a lump sum for ongoing obligations, so there would be none unless everybody agrees.

          • The remaining EU27 will have to pay for obligations which the EU28 entered. So in the case of a hard Brexit, the EU27 will be left holding the bag. They have no legal way to collect the money.


          However, this would leave the UK outside the EU with no treaty. That will hurt the EU27, but it will hurt the UK more. The EU27 would enact only the rules they need to protect their citizens.



          The EU27 could start to bargain. Landing rights for UK aircraft against landing rights for EU aircraft and a share of MEP pensions. Visa-free travel for UK citizens against visa-free travel for EU citizens and a share of the EDF bills. And so on.






          share|improve this answer













          • According to Article 50, when a member state declares the intention to leave the EU they are out after two years unless a different agreement is negotiated. This article does not give any formula to calculate a lump sum for ongoing obligations, so there would be none unless everybody agrees.

          • The remaining EU27 will have to pay for obligations which the EU28 entered. So in the case of a hard Brexit, the EU27 will be left holding the bag. They have no legal way to collect the money.


          However, this would leave the UK outside the EU with no treaty. That will hurt the EU27, but it will hurt the UK more. The EU27 would enact only the rules they need to protect their citizens.



          The EU27 could start to bargain. Landing rights for UK aircraft against landing rights for EU aircraft and a share of MEP pensions. Visa-free travel for UK citizens against visa-free travel for EU citizens and a share of the EDF bills. And so on.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 4 hours ago









          o.m.

          6,18511021




          6,18511021












          • It is not at all clear that the situation is so one sided. Just for example there are the rights of EU citizens to work in the UK and to send money home. There are other issues where the EU27 would want things from the UK. So yes there would have to be some give and take but it is not so desperate.
            – Jonathan Rosenne
            4 hours ago






          • 5




            @JonathanRosenne, consider what I wrote in the third paragraph. That will hurt the EU27, but it will hurt the UK more. I see it as not one-sided, but not perfectly balanced, either.
            – o.m.
            4 hours ago






          • 2




            In case the UK refuses to pay its past commitments as a member state, why would the EU27 (or anyone else for that matter) 'start to bargain'? To put it in other words, if the UK is seen not to keep its word on past agreements, why would one expect them to honour new agreements? In that case (which is very unlikely, because the UK knows it too), the EU27 will just postpone all future agreements until the financial matter from past commitments is honoured and the UK will give in.
            – JJJ
            2 hours ago


















          • It is not at all clear that the situation is so one sided. Just for example there are the rights of EU citizens to work in the UK and to send money home. There are other issues where the EU27 would want things from the UK. So yes there would have to be some give and take but it is not so desperate.
            – Jonathan Rosenne
            4 hours ago






          • 5




            @JonathanRosenne, consider what I wrote in the third paragraph. That will hurt the EU27, but it will hurt the UK more. I see it as not one-sided, but not perfectly balanced, either.
            – o.m.
            4 hours ago






          • 2




            In case the UK refuses to pay its past commitments as a member state, why would the EU27 (or anyone else for that matter) 'start to bargain'? To put it in other words, if the UK is seen not to keep its word on past agreements, why would one expect them to honour new agreements? In that case (which is very unlikely, because the UK knows it too), the EU27 will just postpone all future agreements until the financial matter from past commitments is honoured and the UK will give in.
            – JJJ
            2 hours ago
















          It is not at all clear that the situation is so one sided. Just for example there are the rights of EU citizens to work in the UK and to send money home. There are other issues where the EU27 would want things from the UK. So yes there would have to be some give and take but it is not so desperate.
          – Jonathan Rosenne
          4 hours ago




          It is not at all clear that the situation is so one sided. Just for example there are the rights of EU citizens to work in the UK and to send money home. There are other issues where the EU27 would want things from the UK. So yes there would have to be some give and take but it is not so desperate.
          – Jonathan Rosenne
          4 hours ago




          5




          5




          @JonathanRosenne, consider what I wrote in the third paragraph. That will hurt the EU27, but it will hurt the UK more. I see it as not one-sided, but not perfectly balanced, either.
          – o.m.
          4 hours ago




          @JonathanRosenne, consider what I wrote in the third paragraph. That will hurt the EU27, but it will hurt the UK more. I see it as not one-sided, but not perfectly balanced, either.
          – o.m.
          4 hours ago




          2




          2




          In case the UK refuses to pay its past commitments as a member state, why would the EU27 (or anyone else for that matter) 'start to bargain'? To put it in other words, if the UK is seen not to keep its word on past agreements, why would one expect them to honour new agreements? In that case (which is very unlikely, because the UK knows it too), the EU27 will just postpone all future agreements until the financial matter from past commitments is honoured and the UK will give in.
          – JJJ
          2 hours ago




          In case the UK refuses to pay its past commitments as a member state, why would the EU27 (or anyone else for that matter) 'start to bargain'? To put it in other words, if the UK is seen not to keep its word on past agreements, why would one expect them to honour new agreements? In that case (which is very unlikely, because the UK knows it too), the EU27 will just postpone all future agreements until the financial matter from past commitments is honoured and the UK will give in.
          – JJJ
          2 hours ago











          3














          Yes



          While the current arrangement as part of the withdrawal deal is contingent on the UK/EU agreeing the whole of that deal, it is unlikely that the UK can complete Brexit with no payments made to the EU even under a no deal scenario.



          This FT article suggests that the careful phrasing used by the PM Theresa May and the then Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab means that the UK will pay the EU the agreed liabilities, but will not do so on the schedule agreed during the Brexit negotiations.




          What’s pretty much inconceivable is that the UK would use “no deal” to pay nothing to Brussels at all. Doubtless, the UK government could find lawyers to defend such a position in the event of no deal. But that would add one more nail to the coffin of the EU-UK relationship (on top, of course, of the economic catastrophe of no deal itself). It would set back even further the moment when the UK and EU could patch up the relationship. And paying nothing would do incalculable damage to the UK’s reputation as a reliable international partner.




          During the negotiations the UK has accepted that it has significant liabilities in terms of monies owed to EU budgets. Using the lack of treaty enforcement to escape those payments would leave the UK with a reputation as a country that does not meet its obligations.






          share|improve this answer























          • I wouldn't be too sure. The negotiations failed; trying to cite the accepted liabilities within them is quite the stretch. And if UK claims they are meaningless because the EU negotiated in bad faith (which may or may not be true) ...
            – Joshua
            1 hour ago










          • The liabilities were accepted. To then go back and say "actually all that accounting is nonsense and we're not paying" will undermine the UK government as a credible negotiator on the world stage. It will make an even bigger shambles of the whole Brexiteer Free Trade stance as no one will willingly sign up to any give/take deal with the UK again, because the UK will have shown it will not honour its agreements. It doesn't really matter if the EU negotiated in bad faith after that figure was agreed, because it was agreed, written down and signed.
            – Jontia
            43 mins ago










          • Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
            – Joshua
            42 mins ago
















          3














          Yes



          While the current arrangement as part of the withdrawal deal is contingent on the UK/EU agreeing the whole of that deal, it is unlikely that the UK can complete Brexit with no payments made to the EU even under a no deal scenario.



          This FT article suggests that the careful phrasing used by the PM Theresa May and the then Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab means that the UK will pay the EU the agreed liabilities, but will not do so on the schedule agreed during the Brexit negotiations.




          What’s pretty much inconceivable is that the UK would use “no deal” to pay nothing to Brussels at all. Doubtless, the UK government could find lawyers to defend such a position in the event of no deal. But that would add one more nail to the coffin of the EU-UK relationship (on top, of course, of the economic catastrophe of no deal itself). It would set back even further the moment when the UK and EU could patch up the relationship. And paying nothing would do incalculable damage to the UK’s reputation as a reliable international partner.




          During the negotiations the UK has accepted that it has significant liabilities in terms of monies owed to EU budgets. Using the lack of treaty enforcement to escape those payments would leave the UK with a reputation as a country that does not meet its obligations.






          share|improve this answer























          • I wouldn't be too sure. The negotiations failed; trying to cite the accepted liabilities within them is quite the stretch. And if UK claims they are meaningless because the EU negotiated in bad faith (which may or may not be true) ...
            – Joshua
            1 hour ago










          • The liabilities were accepted. To then go back and say "actually all that accounting is nonsense and we're not paying" will undermine the UK government as a credible negotiator on the world stage. It will make an even bigger shambles of the whole Brexiteer Free Trade stance as no one will willingly sign up to any give/take deal with the UK again, because the UK will have shown it will not honour its agreements. It doesn't really matter if the EU negotiated in bad faith after that figure was agreed, because it was agreed, written down and signed.
            – Jontia
            43 mins ago










          • Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
            – Joshua
            42 mins ago














          3












          3








          3






          Yes



          While the current arrangement as part of the withdrawal deal is contingent on the UK/EU agreeing the whole of that deal, it is unlikely that the UK can complete Brexit with no payments made to the EU even under a no deal scenario.



          This FT article suggests that the careful phrasing used by the PM Theresa May and the then Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab means that the UK will pay the EU the agreed liabilities, but will not do so on the schedule agreed during the Brexit negotiations.




          What’s pretty much inconceivable is that the UK would use “no deal” to pay nothing to Brussels at all. Doubtless, the UK government could find lawyers to defend such a position in the event of no deal. But that would add one more nail to the coffin of the EU-UK relationship (on top, of course, of the economic catastrophe of no deal itself). It would set back even further the moment when the UK and EU could patch up the relationship. And paying nothing would do incalculable damage to the UK’s reputation as a reliable international partner.




          During the negotiations the UK has accepted that it has significant liabilities in terms of monies owed to EU budgets. Using the lack of treaty enforcement to escape those payments would leave the UK with a reputation as a country that does not meet its obligations.






          share|improve this answer














          Yes



          While the current arrangement as part of the withdrawal deal is contingent on the UK/EU agreeing the whole of that deal, it is unlikely that the UK can complete Brexit with no payments made to the EU even under a no deal scenario.



          This FT article suggests that the careful phrasing used by the PM Theresa May and the then Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab means that the UK will pay the EU the agreed liabilities, but will not do so on the schedule agreed during the Brexit negotiations.




          What’s pretty much inconceivable is that the UK would use “no deal” to pay nothing to Brussels at all. Doubtless, the UK government could find lawyers to defend such a position in the event of no deal. But that would add one more nail to the coffin of the EU-UK relationship (on top, of course, of the economic catastrophe of no deal itself). It would set back even further the moment when the UK and EU could patch up the relationship. And paying nothing would do incalculable damage to the UK’s reputation as a reliable international partner.




          During the negotiations the UK has accepted that it has significant liabilities in terms of monies owed to EU budgets. Using the lack of treaty enforcement to escape those payments would leave the UK with a reputation as a country that does not meet its obligations.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 3 hours ago









          chirlu

          3,91341428




          3,91341428










          answered 3 hours ago









          Jontia

          3,4201826




          3,4201826












          • I wouldn't be too sure. The negotiations failed; trying to cite the accepted liabilities within them is quite the stretch. And if UK claims they are meaningless because the EU negotiated in bad faith (which may or may not be true) ...
            – Joshua
            1 hour ago










          • The liabilities were accepted. To then go back and say "actually all that accounting is nonsense and we're not paying" will undermine the UK government as a credible negotiator on the world stage. It will make an even bigger shambles of the whole Brexiteer Free Trade stance as no one will willingly sign up to any give/take deal with the UK again, because the UK will have shown it will not honour its agreements. It doesn't really matter if the EU negotiated in bad faith after that figure was agreed, because it was agreed, written down and signed.
            – Jontia
            43 mins ago










          • Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
            – Joshua
            42 mins ago


















          • I wouldn't be too sure. The negotiations failed; trying to cite the accepted liabilities within them is quite the stretch. And if UK claims they are meaningless because the EU negotiated in bad faith (which may or may not be true) ...
            – Joshua
            1 hour ago










          • The liabilities were accepted. To then go back and say "actually all that accounting is nonsense and we're not paying" will undermine the UK government as a credible negotiator on the world stage. It will make an even bigger shambles of the whole Brexiteer Free Trade stance as no one will willingly sign up to any give/take deal with the UK again, because the UK will have shown it will not honour its agreements. It doesn't really matter if the EU negotiated in bad faith after that figure was agreed, because it was agreed, written down and signed.
            – Jontia
            43 mins ago










          • Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
            – Joshua
            42 mins ago
















          I wouldn't be too sure. The negotiations failed; trying to cite the accepted liabilities within them is quite the stretch. And if UK claims they are meaningless because the EU negotiated in bad faith (which may or may not be true) ...
          – Joshua
          1 hour ago




          I wouldn't be too sure. The negotiations failed; trying to cite the accepted liabilities within them is quite the stretch. And if UK claims they are meaningless because the EU negotiated in bad faith (which may or may not be true) ...
          – Joshua
          1 hour ago












          The liabilities were accepted. To then go back and say "actually all that accounting is nonsense and we're not paying" will undermine the UK government as a credible negotiator on the world stage. It will make an even bigger shambles of the whole Brexiteer Free Trade stance as no one will willingly sign up to any give/take deal with the UK again, because the UK will have shown it will not honour its agreements. It doesn't really matter if the EU negotiated in bad faith after that figure was agreed, because it was agreed, written down and signed.
          – Jontia
          43 mins ago




          The liabilities were accepted. To then go back and say "actually all that accounting is nonsense and we're not paying" will undermine the UK government as a credible negotiator on the world stage. It will make an even bigger shambles of the whole Brexiteer Free Trade stance as no one will willingly sign up to any give/take deal with the UK again, because the UK will have shown it will not honour its agreements. It doesn't really matter if the EU negotiated in bad faith after that figure was agreed, because it was agreed, written down and signed.
          – Jontia
          43 mins ago












          Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
          – Joshua
          42 mins ago




          Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
          – Joshua
          42 mins ago


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





          Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


          Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f37669%2fwill-the-uk-still-have-to-pay-the-eu-under-no-deal-brexit%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          What visual should I use to simply compare current year value vs last year in Power BI desktop

          How to ignore python UserWarning in pytest?

          Alexandru Averescu