A Brexit minister has admitted there are no plans for a legally enforceable link between Britain’s £39bn divorce bill for leaving the European Union and future trade.



Suella Braverman, who was previously chair of the pro-Brexit European Research Group of MPs, suggested that paying the withdrawal bill and any trade deal could be enforced only by a “duty of good faith”.

Some MPs on the Brexit committee expressed concerns that parliament would have to vote on the financial deal in the withdrawal agreement this autumn, without first having a legal assurance over what the UK would get in return.

Ministers have said they will publish the final departure deal with the EU, which is about 75% agreed, as well as a separate political declaration on the future relationship, in October.

The government has always insisted that paying the Brexit bill would be linked to agreeing a future trade deal, but Braverman’s comments cast doubt on whether this would in fact be the case. She insisted the duty of good faith was “more than just words”.



The minister, pressed on about a dozen occasions by MPs from all sides on the issue, confirmed that Britain had raised the possibility that the final deal might be conditional in negotiations, but did not reveal what those conditions might be.

The Labour committee member Pat McFadden asked her: “Isn’t it the case that we will be agreeing to pay the financial settlement before we have a legal text on the future agreement between the UK and the EU?”



Braverman responded: “The withdrawal agreement text has been nearly finalised and agreed, that contains issues relating the financial settlement. At present, it doesn’t contain aspects you talk about on conditionality.

“There is agreed a duty of good faith and that is an important aspect of the withdrawal agreement which obliges both parties to cooperate in a way, which means we are working constructively towards a future framework which is mutually beneficial and meets our objectives.”

She added: “The prime minister has made very clear that the offer on the financial settlement is made as part of a broader package relating, and in the spirit of our future partnership the two will be connected when we vote in October.”

Braverman suggested that if a trade deal with Brussels was not agreed then there was a “very clear possibility” that a renegotiation would take place and “those payments would not be owed”.

MPs pointed out that parliament would have already voted on paying the Brexit bill by that point. Britain’s financial obligations are also understood to be heavily front-loaded so the money could already have been paid.

Boris Johnson was asked about the issue in Santiago, Chile, where the foreign secretary is on the last leg of his trade tour. He said: “Article 50 makes it absolutely clear that the terms of the withdrawal have to be seen in the context of the future relationship.

“And [I’ll] just remind you of the basic fact of all negotiations that is nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”

The prime minister’s official spokesman reiterated that sentiment, adding: “We’re clear that we intend to agree the future framework at the same time as the withdrawal agreement ... This means that parliament will vote on the withdrawal agreement at the same time as the terms of our future relationship with the EU.”

He suggested that the EU would honour any commitment it had made, legal or otherwise, on the future relationship.