Now, Article 50 doesn't say anything about money or rights or obligations. So, in this interpretation, the UK would not be required to pay anything if there were to be no withdrawal agreement, because the treaty itself says nothing about any such payments......
An in-depth
report on this debate, issued by the House of Lords, acknowledges that there are "competing interpretations" on what the UK should pay, but it reaches the conclusion that, because the European treaties do not say anything on the matter, there would be no enforceable obligation to make the UK pay any financial contribution at all.....
it warns that there would be a price to pay.....
The EU itself could not bring a case against the UK at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, because it is not a sovereign state.
But the remaining 27 member states - acting either individually or collectively - could in theory appeal to the ICJ, or to another relevant international tribunal. They would want their money back.....
No deal on money would mean "no deal" on any of the other issues being negotiated under Article 50, such as the rights of citizens and the future of the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic....
Walking away with no agreement would also do significant reputational damage to the UK - if we can't trust you on past obligations, EU officials would argue, why should we trust you on future ones?...
That is why the British government says it wants a deal and it accepts that it does have financial obligations to meet....
In conclusion, it is easy to say - in isolation - that the UK has no legal obligation to pay anything at all. But the reality is that such a provocative move would cause far more problems than it would solve.
Most leading Brexiteers acknowledge that, and accept (with varying degrees of reluctance) that the UK should pay something as a gesture of goodwill. On the EU side it is seen as rather more than that - it is a prerequisite for any deal to succeed.