EXCLUSIVE : Over £20bn now paid by the UK to the EU since fully exiting the bloc

Including the 11 month Transition Period this rises to over £33bn

Montage © Facts4EU.Org 2023

Special Brexit Facts4EU.Org report reveals shocking truth of UK’s continuing payments to EU

Today Brexit Facts4EU.Org can reveal that the UK’s continuing payments to the EU since the end of the Transition Period have just exceeded £20bn. That’s £20bn in just 35 months.

If we include the 11 months of the ‘Transition Period’ after the UK supposedly exited the EU, then the total increases to a staggering £33.1bn. (£33.124) That’s a total of £33bn in just 46 months.

We believe it likely that our analysis of the Public Sector Finance Tables held by the Office for National Statistics will come as a shock to a great many voters. Firstly we reveal the latest official figures and then ask the fundamental question : “Why?”

In the last 12 months alone, the United Kingdom has given the EU Commission an astonishing £8.6bn.

This is all because of the ‘Divorce Bill’ which Theresa May negotiated with the EU. There was never any legal justification for such a bill, as we will show below.

Brexit Facts4EU.Org Summary

Payments to the EU arising from the Withdrawal Agreement and Theresa May’s ‘Divorce Bill’

1. UK payments since ‘full exit’ on 31 Dec 2020

© Brexit Facts4EU.Org 2022 - click to enlarge
[Source : Office for National Statistics Public Sector Finance Tables, 22 Aug 2023.]

2. UK payments to the EU in the preceding 11-mth Transition Period (Feb-Dec 2020)

© Brexit Facts4EU.Org 2022 - click to enlarge
[Source : Office for National Statistics Public Sector Finance Tables, 22 Aug 2023.]

3. Grand total of payments since the government “Got Brexit Done”

£33,124 paid by the UK to the EU since 'Brexit Got Done'

These are the official central government expenditure figures

The figures above are official. They come from the latest release of public expenditure information and the associated statistical tables, which Brexit Facts4EU.Org has extracted.

This sum is not like the figures before 2021 when the UK was still paying into the EU budget. These are the UK’s payments under the Withdrawal Agreement.

The UK formally left the EU on 31 January 2020. During the remaining 11 months of 2020 the UK participated in the EU Budget largely as if a Member State, as was agreed by Theresa May in a ‘financial settlement’ between the UK and EU. We then left completely (except for Northern Ireland) on 31 December 2020.

We're now so close to the full funding for completing 'The Independence Documentary'

We just need to raise the last £6,000 for the 'post-production editing'. Can you help us to get over the line?'

Together with our partners at CIBUK.Org, we've organised a TV-style film with a stellar line-up of well-known politicians and all kinds of interesting people, men and women, white and ethnic origin, presented by Alexandra Phillips.

Jacob, Nigel, David Jones, John Redwood, Kate Hoey, Lord Cruddas, Ann Widdecombe, Richard Tice, Ben Habib, and many more. The big launch to the public and the media is set for 02 October.

Our presenter Alex will be known to many readers as an ex-GB News presenter and a frequent sight on everything from Question Time to Talk TV. We've finished filming - now we have the difficult task of editing by our professional production team, if we can get some extra funding. This is going to be big!

Please help today if you can: click here to read more

Why pay?

Never at any time has the EU Commission been able to raise any legal justification whatsoever for these sums being payable.

In 2017, the pro-EU European Union Committee of the House of Lords also examined this issue and concluded – perhaps reluctantly – that there was no basis for any payments to the EU after the UK left.

Brexit Facts4EU.Org Summary

No legal justification, said pro-EU House of Lords

The House of Lords Committee reached two main legal conclusions in its 04 March 2017 report on ‘Brexit and the EU budget’.

1. “Article 50 TEU allows the UK to leave the UK without being liable for outstanding financial obligations under the EU budget and related financial instruments, unless a withdrawal agreement is concluded which resolves the issue.” (para. 135)
2. “The jurisdiction of the CJEU over the UK would also come to an end when the EU Treaties ceased to have effect. Outstanding payments could not, therefore, be enforced against the UK in the CJEU.” (para. 133).
House of Lords European Union Committee, Mar 2017

Despite all of this, the United Kingdom has continued to subsidise the European Union’s activities, month after month.

Observations

Theresa May and the Remainers have a lot to answer for

With the 'Divorce Bill', the EU tried it on and Theresa May agreed. With no legal basis for the EU's claim, we imagine the Commission cannot have believed their luck.

It is common practice amongst the extreme Rejoiner community to take every outcome such as the one above and say “This is what you voted for.” They try to blame Brexit, instead of apportioning the blame where it originates – the EU.

It was the EU that insisted on these ongoing payments and it was the disastrously weak negotiating abilities of Mrs May’s government that allowed the whole concept of payments after leaving to become entrenched.

This was then compounded when Boris Johnson’s government was forced to accept the hand they had been dealt, as the Remainer House of Commons at the time deliberately scuppered negotiations with techniques such as the ‘Benn Act’. This effectively tied Lord Frost’s hands behind his back in the final negotiations.

The nature of the EU beast

For the UK still to be paying the EU many billions per year demonstrates the nature of the EU beast. It also shows the damage inflicted on the country by the anti-democratic actions of the pro-Remain majorities in the Houses of Commons and Lords.

At the time there were of course pro-Brexit forces such as Facts4EU.Org, arguing fervently for leaving without a trade deal and simply trading with the EU on WTO terms. We led a consortium of Brexit organisations under the ‘Go-WTO’ banner. Had our argument prevailed we would not still be paying the EU today.

The Withdrawal Agreement and its accompanying Political Declaration were pre-requisites for the ‘Trade and Cooperation Agreement’. We would have signed none of these. There would then have been no ongoing payments, no Northern Ireland Protocol, no jurisdiction of the European Court, and we would have had control of our fisheries.

Crucially there would then have been no commitment to staying under the ECHR, allowing us to leave it without drama and giving us far more power to control immigration.

We must get reports like this out there

Reports like the one above take far longer to research, write and produce than many people realise. If they were easy, readers would see other organisations also producing these daily. However, there’s little point in the Facts4EU.Org team working long hours, seven days-a-week, if we lack the resources to promote them effectively – to the public, to MPs, and to the media. This is where you come in, dear reader.

Facts4EU.Org needs you today

We are a 'not for profit' team (we make a loss) and any payment goes towards the actual work, not plush London offices, lunch or taxi expenses, or other luxuries of some organisations.

We badly need more of our thousands of readers to become members, to support this work. Could this be you, today? It's quick and easy, we give you a choice of two highly secure payment providers, and we do NOT ask you for further support if you pay once. We just hope you keep supporting us. Your membership stays anonymous unless you tell us otherwise.

Please don't assume that other people will keep us going - we don't receive enough to survive and we need your help today. Could you help us? We rely 100% on public contributions from readers like you.

If you believe in a fully-free, independent, and sovereign United Kingdom, please join now by clicking on one of the links below or you can use our Support page here. You will receive a personal, friendly ‘thank you’ from a member of our team within 24 hours. Thank you.

[ Sources: Office for National Statistics Public Sector Accounts ] Politicians and journalists can contact us for details, as ever.

Brexit Facts4EU.Org, Fri 01 Sept 2023

Click here to go to our news headlines

Please scroll down to COMMENT on the above article.
And don't forget to actually post your message after you have previewed it!

Something to say about this? Scroll down for reader comments

Since before the EU Referendum, Brexit Facts4EU.Org
has been the most prolific researcher and publisher of Brexit facts in the world.

Supported by MPs, MEPs, & other groups, our work has impact.

We think facts matter. Please donate today, so that we can continue to ensure a clean Brexit is finally delivered.

Any credit card user

Quick One-off

From £5 - £1,000

Monthly

From £3 per month

Paypal Users Only - Choose amount first

Quick One-off

Monthly

PLEASE NOTE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT : You can write your comment under any existing comments below. After you have clicked to preview your comment, you MUST then click on the CAPTCHA system and send you comment, for it to be published. Thank you!

Reader Comments 18

1. Sparky , Friday, September 01, 2023, 07:07:

So about £128 million per week. Similar to being a member of the EU. So we've basically left but got a BRINO with part of the UK still in the EU.
.
Around no legal justification, this would have been in the event of no deal. But the EU could have taken this to the International Court of Justice, part of the UN, and the outcome would have been uncertain whilst the UK's reputation and trust in the UK would have been damaged when negotiating new trade deals. Leaving the EU on a No Deal basis was not part of the Leave Campaign, in the run up to the ref. Nigel Farge pushed for a Norway Model which would have kept the UK in the single market and continue free movement.

2. Captain Thunderbolt , Friday, September 01, 2023, 07:39:

1 Sparky
No BRINO, i don't really have too much of a problem with the UK paying into as it was the 7-year budget plus the UK pension contributions.
Technically no legal justification but that would not have served the UK in the long run as it would say that the UK dose not honor its commitments. would I have rather like a one-off payment and be done with it yep, I would but that is what PM May negotiated. Deal or no deal it was in the UK best interest to do so.
.
A lot of people would not be happy if Scotland left and just walked away from its debts to the UK which legally, they could do if it ever came to pass that they left the UK so it's exactly the same situation.
.
irrespective on what was or not part of the campaign Cameron said it correctly there would have to be a negotiation, PM May summed it up at the beginning unfortunately she didn't know how to follow her own advice.
.
NO DEAL IS BETTER THAN A BAD DEAL and that is exactly what the UK got from the WA a bloody bad deal

3. Sparky , Friday, September 01, 2023, 08:02:

2 CT. Leave won the ref. (narrowly). But No Deal was not what people voted for.
.
Leave.EU literature in Jan 2016 read, "Leaving the EU will have significant geopolitical and economic consequences. But we believe it is unrealistic to expect a clean break, immediately unravelling forty years of integration in a single step." "continued participation in the EU's single market will be necessary, for the short to medium term". The first stage of the plan would be "limited to a smooth, economically neutral transition into the post-exit world". This would be "subject to a referendum to approve the initial exit agreement". Leave.EU had the closest to what I would call a strategy for leaving the EU but Leave.EU forgot that the EU would be on the other side of the table and would have to agree to the strategy.
.
No Deal and economic consequences of No Deal were played down and dismissed during the campaign, it wouldn't happen. No deal is better than a bad deal is just a slogan.
.
No Deal would not have won the referendum, it was the over optimistic promises and broad slogans that won. A very clever campaign but no strategy.

4. Ashley Great Britain , Friday, September 01, 2023, 08:12:

A WTO withdrawal didn't happen as that would have been a true Brexit and not what the establishment wanted.
The whole of the Blob seem to support the EU first and foremost.
If we had left on basic terms UK-EU trade would have continued with improved EU trading outcomes for the UK.
A true British exit from the union would have harmed the EU very much as they did and do rely on the UK for a great deal.
The fact that we are still paying the EU for nothing is a very worrying and damaging thing for the UK. It certainly shouldn't be happening.
Wealth extraction from the UK has been designed by the EU and supported by a great many UK officials for the whole of our membership. The EU have yet to suffer from our exit but as time goes on they will.

5. Captain Thunderbolt , Friday, September 01, 2023, 08:25:

3. Sparky ,
Leave won the ref. (narrowly). But No Deal was not what people voted for.
.
Sparky irrespective of what or was not said in the campaign, negotiation could only happen under the prevail law at the time which was A50. and that is what the UKGov were working under until traitorous parliamentarians introduced the surrender act (Benn Act) European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019.
.
Article 50 – Treaty on European Union (TEU)
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
.

6. Sparky , Friday, September 01, 2023, 08:28:

4 AGB. That goes back to "we hold all the cards" belief and that German car makers would force the EU into a deal. It was the EU that held all the cards. David Davies was completely unprepared for the opening of the negotiations, mainly because there was no strategy, what was he going to get?, what was his objective, he didn't know because the campaign to leave was slogans that allowed people to come up with a multitude of variations of what they thought Brexit was and is why it is still not done. And No deal was never on the table, just a slogan. Maintaining peace in NI made No Deal completely unrealistic.

7. Captain Thunderbolt , Friday, September 01, 2023, 08:39:

4. Ashley Great Britain
The UK was always going to have to pay something towards the EU. it is and still my belief the only thing that should have been negotiated in the WA was the financial aspect. Hence why many called it the divorce settlement.
.
Everything else needed to be in either the TCA or other treat documents like fishing rights. But unfortunately, PM May put a stop to that as did Parliament.
BJ was wrong to sign the WA to get an early election, played his cards right he still would have got the early election in the end. As we saw with the thumping majority most of the electorate still most likely would have voted the same and or pilled pressure onto the EU to not extend the negotiation period.

8. Northern Muppet , Friday, September 01, 2023, 09:08:

I'd prefer to have left on WTO terms, but the blob was never going to allow that.
.
That we're out is the most important thing, though the EU ought to have paid us (!) for all the infrastructure that we paid for and left 'em with. Ho Hum!
.
How much longer, and how much £ will we have to continue to give?? Was it expected to be £80bn over a period of time??
.
I'd happily pay double to be out of the wretched organisation - quite content to be able to vote my useless MP out at the next GE; you can't do THAT with UvdL, can you???

9. Captain Thunderbolt , Friday, September 01, 2023, 09:19:

6. Sparky
David Davies was completely unprepared for the opening of the negotiations, mainly because there was no strategy, what was he going to get?,.
.
Well, that plainly wrong, being a true remain PM she wanted to limit the scope of divergence hence the unworkable backstop that would have left the UK in the single market in perpetuity!

10. NH , Friday, September 01, 2023, 09:49:

1. Sparky , "So about £128 million per week. Similar to being a member of the EU. So we've basically left but got a BRINO"
With respect you are not looking at the facts at all. In 2020 there a was a huge increase in EU spending plans made possible by EU loans, member states are responsible for these. In 2022 alone the EU spending commitments were 357.1 Billion Euros. The UK's share of this would have been approximately 53 Billion Euros. In addition the support programs have cost Germany approximately 25 Billion Euros for one year, based on historical events it is very unlikely that the UK would have escaped a similar cost. These costs massively dwarf the divorce bill. This is not a "BRINO" because the vast majority of divorce bill is a fixed cost that will soon be paid off.
.
Your whole basis for remaining in the EU is that everything would have stayed exactly the same we now know that that is ridiculous. To fund future EU spending they have already introduced a tax on non recycled plastics and they wish to impose a range of other taxes on member states. These include a digital levy, a carbon import tax and an emissions trading tax. It is clear to me that the EU plans to introduce direct taxation on member states as a method of financing future spending plans.
.
If you wish to make an economic case for rejoining the EU please do so based on the present costs and showing how they justify the value of exports to the EU, which have increased since we left, and the trade deficit we have with the EU. Continuously ranting on about the past is pointless.
.
Leaving the EU has been very expensive and I would never have agreed to these payments but the fact that the EU exploited the UK in such a way demonstrates that they are not our friends and this is more of a reason to leave. On an economic basis or democratic basis it is extremely clear that we left at the right time.

18 comments, page 1 of 2

Add comment:

Please note: Your email address is never published unless you choose to enter it.