When Big Ben bongs Johnson’s fake Brexit begins

By January 17, 2020February 18th, 2021No Comments

Why has everyone forgotten the EU’s £39 billion Divorce Bill demand?

And why are we still going to sign a blank cheque permitting the EU to fill in the amount?

Brexit Facts4EU.Org reports on latest official estimates for more decades of subsidizing the EU

Most readers would say that sums in the order of £40 billion pounds are significant. At Brexit Facts4EU.Org we agree.

Brexit Facts4EU.Org

9 January 2020

As we have reported many times, the revised Withdrawal Agreement negotiated by the Johnson Government made absolutely no changes to Treason May’s Withdrawal Agreement, apart from the Northern Ireland Protocol (removing the ‘Backstop’). This includes the so-called “Financial Settlement” to which Treason May agreed.

The proof is in the wording of the latest WA itself and has been confirmed in the latest House of Lords report (“Brexit: The Financial Settlement”) as well as by the House of Commons Library report published on Monday of this week.


“The updated Withdrawal Agreement published on 17 October 2019 made no changes to the terms of the financial settlement”

– The House of Lords European Union Committee, 2nd Report of Session 2019–20

“The terms of the financial settlement are the same in both the Withdrawal Agreement negotiated by Theresa May’s Government and the latest version.”

– House of Commons Library, 06 Jan 2020

Would you sign a blank cheque?

As we have stated in previous articles, a feature of this divorce bill from the EU is not only its lack of a legal basis (for a country which has effectively subsidized the rest of the EU for every decade of its membership) but also the fact that the eventual bill will be decided by the EU.

Here is what the National Audit Office had to say:

“The precise value of most components of the settlement is subject to future events and therefore uncertain”

The NAO also stated that “relatively small changes” to the assumptions used by the Government could mean the estimates of the size of the eventual bill could vary outside the headline figure used by the Government. In particular they highlighted that the long-term EU pension liability is “subject to significant uncertainty”.

– National Audit Office, Exiting the EU: The financial settlement, 20 April 2018

The true cost will not be what the Government says it is.

MPs are now being told that:

“It is estimated that the settlement may cost the UK around £30 billion by the time the final payment is made, possibly in the 2060s. A definitive figure can’t be produced for the final cost as it depends on future events.”

– House of Commons Library updated report, 06 Jan 2020

The difficulty with this new estimate is that it does not include the cost of Parliament having delayed Brexit. The most obvious omission is the monies sent to the EU for the months and years after the UK was already supposed to have left the EU. These alone would take the figure over £50bn. Nor does it allow for the huge uncertainties mentioned above.

The UK will continue to pay into EU’s “off-the-books” funds

As usual, the headlines will not mention the monies sent to the EU – and which will continue to be sent to the EU under the new Withdrawal Agreement – for the EU’s various “off-the-books” funds. The EU refers to these as “off-budget”, and conveniently they have never been included in any headline figures for the UK’s net contributions to the EU.

Brexit Facts4EU.Org has repeatedly reported on these EU “off-the-books” funds, which include the “European Development Fund”, EU Trust Funds, and “The Facility for Refugees in Turkey”. These are all multi-billion pound EU funds of which the public remains blissfully unaware.


It is worth noting that the EU has never been able to produce any legal justification whatsoever for any ‘divorce bill’.

On the other hand, legal opinions from the House of Lords European Union Committee and from Lawyers for Britain all found there to be no legal case for the EU to demand anything.

As we have said before, if the EU had any legal case, they would have been the first to shout about it.

Instead, Treason May and her Remainer civil servants cravenly agreed to the principle of a divorce bill, and the latest Withdrawal Agreement approved by the Johnson government continues to allow the EU to claim vast sums over the coming decades, with the EU deciding the amounts payable.

If any agreement for the UK to help the EU with an ex gratia payment were to be conditional upon the agreement of a sensible trade deal, we could understand. Sadly that is not the case. The signing of the Withdrawal Treaty on 31 January will make the divorce bill into a legal obligation under international law.

[Sources: The Withdrawal Agreement | House of Commons Library | House of Lords European Union Committee | National Audit Office | Office for Budget Responsibility].

Reader Comments

1. Concerned , Thursday, January 09, 2020, 08:56:

There can only be one reason and that is that the political and media Establishment is frit and the silent majority mostly only are heard at election time, so in the meantime the establishment can do what the heck they like and get away with it, paying themselves handsomely. I think of forty-seven years of lies re the EEC and the EU.

2. James Bertram , Thursday, January 09, 2020, 09:18:

Thank you so much for this article. I hope all readers will email it to their MPs and ask questions as to why we don’t amend the ‘Divorce Bill’ before it is too late. (A simple ‘nothing is agreed before everything is agreed’ clause would, at the very least, ensure that payment becomes subject to productive trade talks). Giving this money away to the EU, for absolutely no conceivable benefit in return, is utterly shameful. It is £650 for every man, woman and child; it is £60 million for every constituency – hard-earned taxpayer’s money just to be thrown away at the whim of the Tory Party – no questions asked. What does it say about our newly elected MPs if they do nothing to stop this?

3. Sydney Ashurst , Thursday, January 09, 2020, 09:30:

It would be cheaper and quicker to leave with no overarching ‘deal’. We would really be fully out, not in transition to endless talks on maintaining ‘a level playing field’, another name for abiding by EU rules. There is no sign that the EU Commission have accepted that we are leaving and that they are no longer the administrators of the United Kingdom. With Germany in recession a trade agreement with the UK is essential for them, meaning also for the EU. It is going to be a game of chicken. The withdrawal Act will set a time limit, meaning we are not walking away at the end of this month, but December 2020. Barnier sticking with the WA rules will not lead to an agreement.