Here is a thread on why Iain Duncan Smith is wrong about British post-Brexit liabilities to the European Investment Bank 1/
UK has agreed to be liable for investments agreed while it was a member states as part of the Withdrawal Agreement.
Many investments long-term so liabilities will exist for years to come, despite Brexit.
EIB member countries pay in 10% capital to the bank with remaining 90 percent there to be “called in” if necessary. Total “subscribed capital” is just under €249bn. UK share after Brexit about 12% of that.
Cd that be “called in”? It “could” but it won’t.

To hit the 160bn figure every single one of the AAA-rated EIB’s thousands of investments would need to go belly-up at the same time and so badly that there was no hope for restructuring or even asset-stripping.
Many EIB projects are long-term and in resilient sectors like infrastructure, energy, transport. Short term market disruption can be ridden out by extending the loan.
Besides the EIB has its own assets, a rainy day fund of €600bn,more than twice the subscribed capital of the member states.

They would use this rather than call in capital for the 1st time in 60 year + history. It can also raise capital on the international markets.
Finally it is not in the EU’s interest to call in the capital. So they won’t do it.

And yes, obviously IDS, should have read the WA before voting for it, as everyone has pointed out.
Here is the European Commission ruling out renegotiating the WA in its press briefing today and describing the liabilities as completely normal commitments.
You can follow @JamesCrisp6.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: