Italian newspaper La Repubblica attains supposed draft of the Brexit withdrawal agreement

The Guardian has seen some of the draft deal, the accuracy of which cannot be guaranteed, which details potential liabilities owed by the UK as part of any financial settlement.



Brexit negotiations are ongoing, with Twistednuke leading the British negotiating team, and Michel Barnier negotiation on behalf of the European Union.

[M: This was provided to the Guardian by the quad as an official part of the ongoing Brexit event, and was not leaked. Any references to possible inaccuracy in this article are as a result of the quad not confirming the validity of the information.]

Italian newspaper La Repubblica has attained what they say is the draft withdrawal agreement, as it currently stands, with negotiations ongoing, between Britain and the European Union. As of this moment, the Guardian cannot independently verify the accuracy of the information, though La Repubblica claims that the information they have obtained is correct and real, but has decided to publish what we have seen. The United Kingdom’s team had previously asked for the draft text to receive limited circulation.

The articles of the deal provided to the Guardian by La Repubblica all relate to the potential financial settlement to be paid by the United Kingdom to the European Union as part of it’s withdrawal. Whilst details of any amount are still unclear, the leaks do reveal some of the commitments made by the UK’s negotiating team, led by Brexit Secretary Twistednuke. The Guardian has seen articles 11, 12, 13, and 14 of the supposed agreement.

Articles 11 and 12 of the alleged withdrawal agreement.

Article 11 of the alleged draft text sets out what is to happen for the remainder of the current 2013-2020 EU Budget Cycle, with both the UK and the EU agreeing to fulfil it’s current commitments, with Britain saying it will “contribute to the Union’s budget at the level agreed for the 2013 to 2020 Budget Cycle” after Brexit, and until the end of the cycle. It is not yet clear what the value of this commitment will be. Meanwhile, the EU promises to continue “funding projects within the United Kingdom at the level agreed for the 2013 to 2020 Budget Cycle until the conclusion of the said budget cycle.” However, the article appears to be couched by a note which states in block capitals “TRANSITION UNCLEAR”, presumably referring to any transition period before the UK’s departure, implying there is yet to be a final decision made on funding during that period after the official withdrawal date.

Article 12 simply confirms the termination of financial commitments by each party to the other after withdrawal. The EU, according to these leaks, will agree that the UK “shall have no responsibility to fund long term projects within the Union” which begin after the 21st of January 2021. The EU also confirms that they will stop funding projects wholly based in the UK, with potential funding decreases over time for projects based partially in Britain, and relocation for others.

Article 13 of the alleged withdrawal agreement.

The longest term financial commitment seen by the Guardian is in particular reference to the pay and pensions of EU staff, with the UK committing to paying “3.57% of the salaries and pensions of all staff employed by the Union prior to, or on, the 31st of December 2021.” However, this clause comes with another side note which, ambiguously, reads “UNCLEAR ON DATE OF PENSIONS CONTRIBS.” This could be in reference to a potential cut off point for pensions contributions, though the next clause states that the UK’s “responsibility extends to the decease of the employee.” On salaries, the agreement would have the UK agree that their responsibility to contribute to pay would last until “the end of the Union’s 2021/2028 budgetary cycle or until the departure of the employee from their current position,” with exceptions pay-wise for employees who depart, and are then later re-employed, though such an exception would not apply for pensions. Though section C also includes a note stating “UNDETERMINED”, suggesting this is not yet final.

Article 14 of the alleged withdrawal agreement.

The reputed Article 14 sets out potential liabilities from the European Union to the United Kingdom, namely “for its share of the Union’s investment in the paid in capital of the European Investment Fund,” with these liabilities to be “reimbursed to the United Kingdom in 15 equal annual instalments on the 30th of June each year,” until they are fulfilled. But the deal all specified that the EU is not liable for the UK’s share of the “liquidated assets of the European Coal and Steel Community.”

Commenting on the revelations, Shadow Brexit Secretary InfernoPlato said “Some of the most concerning aspects of the financial obligation section of the Treaty are those which are highlighted and that are yet to be determined. If we’re committed to funding projects until 2020, then in exchange the EU must treat the UK with fairness when it comes to funding projects.

“Furthermore, continuing to have salary obligations until the end of the 2028 budget – nearly 10 years after we have left the EU, is totally unreasonable. We voted to leave, we did not vote for a never ending commitment to pad out the salaries of rich commissioners from countries that can afford it themselves. The Government must stand firm and not try and be bounced into an agreement as a result of this leak.”

Labour’s Brexit Spokesperson and Leader, WillShakespeare99, said “These revelations raise more questions than answers. Specifically, how much is the UK going to commit to pay, and how much are we going to receive in kind from the EU in terms of on-going projects? What will the imbalance be in the end between the amount we contribute, and the amount the EU contributes, plus the amount we lose in long term EU contributions and investments? What will the total bill be for salaries, and who is proposing the 2028 dates? Why does nobody know what implications the transition period will have on funding commitments, and why was that not decided when the transition period was designed?

“We also need to know from the Brexit Secretary what happens to EU funded projects in the UK that are going to be terminated, specifically if the British government will stump up the money to see this completed or continued, and how much this will cost, on top of the other potential bills we are facing. The British people must not miss out on potential jobs and gains from these projects as a result of Brexit.”

Analysis:

If these leaks obtained by La Repubblica and supplied to the Guardian are correct – and that’s a big if – then it’s embarrassing to both sides of the negotiation, with the UK wanting to keep it under wraps, the EU agreeing to do so. Undoubtedly, these revelations, if true, will be a spark for renewed feelings of suspicion between London and Brussels.

But beyond that, and on the substance of the purported agreement itself, it is clear that it’s still a work in progress, with several notes indicating a lack of finality and on-going negotiation. It’s not clear which side’s copy this is, which matters in relation to notes such as “UNDETERMINED”, as this would indicate that this is a demand yet to be agreed to. As such, we don’t know who is seeking to insert Article 13 (c), on commitment to pay salaries until 2028. This would, it seems, put a cap on the UK’s long term commitments, but it’s not clear what stage talks on this are at, or what the potential issues are.

And it’s certainly clear that there remains some nuance as to exactly how the transition period will work, with the funding of EU projects in the UK during the transition being “UNCLEAR” according to the documents seen by the Guardian. But, some things are clearer cut, like long term commitments by the UK about pensions for EU employees and a promise to pay 3.57% of the EU’s salary and pension bill for the foreseeable future for employees hired during the UK’s EU membership. We also know that the UK will fulfil its current commitments, but without any knowledge of how much this will actually mean in real money.

What cannot be doubted is that these revelations, whether they turn out to be accurate or not, are going to spark questions at home, in the short term at least. Certainly, there will be a number of Brexiteers who will be outraged at the idea of the UK paying salaries of EU staff, either indefinitely, as the original clause would suggest, or until 2028. The same people, especially the hard-liners who oppose any financial contribution, will likely want to know exactly how much the UK is going to pay in the remainder of this budget cycle, and there will be some ready with criticism when the figure is revealed. The final amount could be in the tens of billions. Of particular annoyance will be the idea of EU funding for projects coming to a close in 2021, whilst the UK continues to pay for EU staff. This isn’t saying it’s not a sensible, or necessary, concession, just that it will likely be the source of criticism in coming days.

What will happen next is not clear. There are a number of potential scenarios. Both sides may come out and dismiss the veracity of La Repubblica’s claims, or they may attempt to issue some form of clarification on some of the issues raised – certainly Mr Nuke will be under particular pressure to do this on the UK’s budgetary commitments, and on salaries and pensions. There will likely be those wanting know how the commitments of the UK and EU compare in terms of amounts, in order to judge whether there is any sense of balance. If there is not, expect Brexiteer anger, not least in the Classical Liberals. But it is also possible that neither side will say anything, hoping this storm will pass and they can present the finished deal in their own terms, and control the narrative around it.