"[Richard North] assumes we will be committed to our share of all long term liabilities and commitments – referred to as the “outstanding commitments at the end of the Multi-Annual Financial Framework period known as the RAL from the French reste a liquider. This was put at E217 billion and does not include other liabilities (mostly for purchases and staff pensions) amounting to E103 billion. He suggests that our 13% share of both could be £30 billion or annual payments of £4billion over the next framework period.
"North also argues that if we don't segue into the EEA we will have to go on paying our annual EU budget contribution because we have voted for the future spending programme up to 2020. That is a bit like saying – if you, along with all other members, approved your golf club's spending plan for the next five years you will have to go on paying the subs for five years after you leave.
"I have never heard anything similar argued in any organisation! No convincing case is made that we would retain either this liability to pay our subs for five years and/or the liability to pay RAL if we leave outright but not if we join the EEA".
Mr Lilley uses the wrong analogy. It is surely less like a golf club and more like a divorce. If during marriage a couple sign a joint mortgage and subsequently decide to separate, the mortgagee does not forgive the mortgager who walked out. We did not just approve the EU spending plans, we committed ourselves, at the very least morally, to paying our share of them. In strict legal terms Mr Lilley may be right but if we want a trade deal we will have to pay.
I seem to remember Mr Lilley, when he was Social Security Secretary in the early 1990s, was responsible for creating the Child Support Agency, which was all about getting irresponsible people to pay for moral commitments they had made. The present issue is not all that different is it?
Anyway, this "divorce bill" did not come out of the blue but was known since at least August 2016, but like a lot of other things it was just scaremongering wasn't it? The swaggering arrogance of the leavers is about to collide with reality and it won't be pretty.
I seem to remember Mr Lilley, when he was Social Security Secretary in the early 1990s, was responsible for creating the Child Support Agency, which was all about getting irresponsible people to pay for moral commitments they had made. The present issue is not all that different is it?
Anyway, this "divorce bill" did not come out of the blue but was known since at least August 2016, but like a lot of other things it was just scaremongering wasn't it? The swaggering arrogance of the leavers is about to collide with reality and it won't be pretty.
