The £39 billion “divorce bill” is payment for commitments previously made up until the end of the current Multiannual Framework.

If the Transition Period keeps the UK as full-paying members (albeit without representation) for an additional two years: why isn’t the size of the bill contingent on a deal?

After all, during the transition the UK will be contributing money it wouldn’t have otherwise.

What am I missing?

  • Quite the reverse, during the transition period (or "implementation period" in the preferred jargon of HM Government), the UK would be making the payments it already would have done.
    – origimbo
    Nov 21 '18 at 13:23
  • That is exactly my point. During the implementation period the UK would be making payments it already would have done, up until the end of the MAF. And yet that is at least in part what the divorce bill was meant to cover.
    – 52d6c6af
    Nov 21 '18 at 21:57

The "divorce bill" is just the future commitments that the UK has agreed to, like pension payments. During the transition period it would continue to pay the normal contributions but not make any future commitments, so the amount would not increase.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .