Add Category
Updated
Will it be a harmonious conscious uncoupling a la Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin, or is it going to turn nasty?
When British Prime Minister Theresa May signed Article 50, she pitched the UK into the official separation phase from the European Union.
The letter was formally filed and delivered to EU Council President Donald Tusk on Wednesday evening.
Things remain civil, but there is a two-year negotiating process ahead that could change all that, and as with many divorces, money is likely to be at the heart of any bitterness.
Doing the sums
The EU has suggested the exit bill could run as high as $85 billion — a figure likely to sicken the 52 per cent of people who voted for Brexit.
That includes money for three main areas:
- Future projects the EU has committed to under the assumption Britain would be around to help.
- Contingent liabilities: In a corporate setting, a company will often set money aside for things like court cases they may lose. In other words, it's something they may have to pay, but it's not certain. In the case of the EU, contingent liabilities could be for things like future bailout loans for other EU members.
- Money for future liabilities including pensions and superannuation for UK staff who worked in the EU's institutions.
Conservative MP and former trade secretary Peter Lilley told Lateline that the $85 billion figure was absurd because Britain only had a legal obligation to pay for items in the official budget.
"When you leave a club, you don't pay for the right to leave, you cease to pay your subscription," he said.
In fact, he said the split could leave Britain better off.
"It could be a matter of splitting up the net assets, but any solvent organisation would have assets which exceed its liabilities, and in that case if we got a share we would actually be taking money out, not contributing money to it," he said.
He said Britain would save the $10 billion a year it currently commits to the EU budget.
But ask any divorced couple...
And most will tell you it costs a fortune.
"And that's the position the UK's going to find itself in," British Labor MP David Lammy said.
"Of course there are going to be rows about money and rows about the nature of our relationship."
But it's hard to know how the negotiations will play out as there are few legal precedents when it comes to departing members of international organisations.
So who holds the power?
First off, Britain has to negotiate a new trade deal with the EU and both Mr Lilley and Mr Lammy agree the EU is unlikely to want to make it too favourable.
"More likely than not that they will refuse to do a free trade deal with us because they have to frighten their electorates not to vote for Euro-sceptic parties," Mr Lilley conceded.
He said it's likely Britain will end up having to pay a 4 per cent tariff on its exports.
Mr Lammy said Britain was delusional if they thought they were the power player in the relationship.
"I'm afraid we're going to find out very, very quickly that little England does not matter nearly as much," he said.
"Eighty-eight per cent of our economy is a service economy and it's a service economy that can leave.
"As Goldman Sachs and many of those financial interests leave London to go to Paris, to go to Frankfurt, we will rue the day that we ever thought that this was going to be a good idea."
Australia: The child caught in the middle
The UK not only has to negotiate a new trade relationship with the EU, but it has to do it with the rest of the world too, including Australia.
Ben Wellings, a lecturer in politics and international relations at Monash University, said for Australia, it would be like moving into a house with a divorcing couple.
"The Government has to be very mindful of not upsetting one party by looking too keen to do an agreement with another party, if and when negotiations between the UK and the EU get difficult," he said.
Topics: world-politics, government-and-politics, trade, united-kingdom, european-union
First posted