Would the UK have to pay anything to the EU in case of a no-deal Brexit?
The EU was very insistent on the UK paying back its obligations to the EU after leaving the Union, as a condition for negotiating a favorable trade deal. But would the UK have to pay back anything if it leaves the EU without a deal of any kind on March 29th?
united-kingdom european-union brexit
add a comment |
The EU was very insistent on the UK paying back its obligations to the EU after leaving the Union, as a condition for negotiating a favorable trade deal. But would the UK have to pay back anything if it leaves the EU without a deal of any kind on March 29th?
united-kingdom european-union brexit
When you say 'paying back', do you mean continue to make payments on projects it had previously committed to?
– JJJ
1 hour ago
@JJJ - OP almost certainly means the £39Bn "Divorce bill" rather than any ongoing payments.
– Valorum
1 hour ago
add a comment |
The EU was very insistent on the UK paying back its obligations to the EU after leaving the Union, as a condition for negotiating a favorable trade deal. But would the UK have to pay back anything if it leaves the EU without a deal of any kind on March 29th?
united-kingdom european-union brexit
The EU was very insistent on the UK paying back its obligations to the EU after leaving the Union, as a condition for negotiating a favorable trade deal. But would the UK have to pay back anything if it leaves the EU without a deal of any kind on March 29th?
united-kingdom european-union brexit
united-kingdom european-union brexit
edited 1 hour ago
JJJ
3,90421738
3,90421738
asked 5 hours ago
JonathanReezJonathanReez
13.2k1375149
13.2k1375149
When you say 'paying back', do you mean continue to make payments on projects it had previously committed to?
– JJJ
1 hour ago
@JJJ - OP almost certainly means the £39Bn "Divorce bill" rather than any ongoing payments.
– Valorum
1 hour ago
add a comment |
When you say 'paying back', do you mean continue to make payments on projects it had previously committed to?
– JJJ
1 hour ago
@JJJ - OP almost certainly means the £39Bn "Divorce bill" rather than any ongoing payments.
– Valorum
1 hour ago
When you say 'paying back', do you mean continue to make payments on projects it had previously committed to?
– JJJ
1 hour ago
When you say 'paying back', do you mean continue to make payments on projects it had previously committed to?
– JJJ
1 hour ago
@JJJ - OP almost certainly means the £39Bn "Divorce bill" rather than any ongoing payments.
– Valorum
1 hour ago
@JJJ - OP almost certainly means the £39Bn "Divorce bill" rather than any ongoing payments.
– Valorum
1 hour ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
Yes, but it's wrong to see it as "pay back". It's not about money given to the UK by the EU which the EU now wants back.
It's about commitments for future payments which were made by all EU countries, including the UK. A noteworthy example is pensions for EU staff. EU staff has rights to those pensions (just like anyone else); not now, but sometime in the future.
Now, I don't know what recourse the EU has if the UK doesn't fulfill its obligations, but the obligations are still there.
1
EU Staff have a right to receive those pensions... from the EU. The question is whether the EU has an enforceable right to demand/request payment from the UK to cover those commitments. Assuming they don't, the EU will just have to get the money from elsewhere in their budget
– Valorum
1 hour ago
add a comment |
The short answer is that people don't all agree whether the UK has any legal commitments to the EU until a withdrawal agreement is ratified, but the House of Lords (and possibly the UK government) have been advised not.
In a House of Lords report dated 4th March 2017 the position was developed which was summarised in the following paragraphs:
The budget is going to be a contentious early issue during the UK’s negotiations over leaving the EU. It is crucial for both parties. The UK provides approximately 12% of the resources available to the EU budget, and is also a significant net contributor. The removal of the UK’s payments into the budget will require the other EU Member States to agree either to pay more into the budget, or draw less from it. Neither option is without difficulty, and those difficulties may colour the wider Brexit negotiations. The Government will have to consider its stance on continued budgetary contributions in the light of its impact on the wider negotiations, and the economic and political implications will need to be set against one another. The Government has stated that it is open to making payments towards specific programmes in order to cement a cooperative future relationship with the EU but there are already demands from the EU, for much wider contributions.
However, the strictly legal position of the UK on this issue appears to be strong. Article 50 provides for a ‘guillotine’ after two years if a withdrawal agreement is not reached unless all Member States, including the UK, agree to extend negotiations. Although there are competing interpretations, we conclude that if agreement is not reached, all EU law—including provisions concerning ongoing financial contributions and machinery for adjudication—will cease to apply, and the UK would be subject to no enforceable obligation to make any financial contribution at all. This would be undesirable for the remaining Member States, who would have to decide how to plug the hole in the budget created by the UK’s exit without any kind of transition. It would also damage the prospects of reaching friendly agreement on other issues. Nonetheless, the ultimate possibility of the UK walking away from negotiations without incurring financial commitments provides an important context.
The primary alternative interpretation holds that exercise of Article 50 doesn't rule out Article 70 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which reads:
Unless the treaty otherwise provides or the parties otherwise agree, the termination of a treaty under its provisions or in accordance with the present Convention:
releases the parties from any obligation further to perform the treaty;
does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination.
This all gets a little bit more complicated, since the dispute may or may not need to be settled by the European Court of Justice, which may or may not have the jurisdiction to make a decision after a no deal Brexit.
add a comment |
'Have to' is ill-defined. Just like a regular person, it could decide not to pay. The question is what the consequences of not paying are.
Rather than look at what the EU could do in retaliation, it's interesting to look at the UK itself. The UK has said that it wants to negotiate trade deals with other countries. Since those deals are not yet negotiated, those other countries will look at how the UK deals with it current trading partner. In particular, not making payments you have previously committed to will make one look untrustworthy (just like a regular person not paying their bills).
Given that the UK wants to make these trade deals, they do have a strong incentive to make these payments or at least settle the issue with the EU on good terms.
So do they have to pay? Possibly not. Is it in their interest to pay? Yes. Would it hurt their negotiating position with third countries if they left without paying and the EU publicly challenged them? Definitely.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38171%2fwould-the-uk-have-to-pay-anything-to-the-eu-in-case-of-a-no-deal-brexit%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Yes, but it's wrong to see it as "pay back". It's not about money given to the UK by the EU which the EU now wants back.
It's about commitments for future payments which were made by all EU countries, including the UK. A noteworthy example is pensions for EU staff. EU staff has rights to those pensions (just like anyone else); not now, but sometime in the future.
Now, I don't know what recourse the EU has if the UK doesn't fulfill its obligations, but the obligations are still there.
1
EU Staff have a right to receive those pensions... from the EU. The question is whether the EU has an enforceable right to demand/request payment from the UK to cover those commitments. Assuming they don't, the EU will just have to get the money from elsewhere in their budget
– Valorum
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Yes, but it's wrong to see it as "pay back". It's not about money given to the UK by the EU which the EU now wants back.
It's about commitments for future payments which were made by all EU countries, including the UK. A noteworthy example is pensions for EU staff. EU staff has rights to those pensions (just like anyone else); not now, but sometime in the future.
Now, I don't know what recourse the EU has if the UK doesn't fulfill its obligations, but the obligations are still there.
1
EU Staff have a right to receive those pensions... from the EU. The question is whether the EU has an enforceable right to demand/request payment from the UK to cover those commitments. Assuming they don't, the EU will just have to get the money from elsewhere in their budget
– Valorum
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Yes, but it's wrong to see it as "pay back". It's not about money given to the UK by the EU which the EU now wants back.
It's about commitments for future payments which were made by all EU countries, including the UK. A noteworthy example is pensions for EU staff. EU staff has rights to those pensions (just like anyone else); not now, but sometime in the future.
Now, I don't know what recourse the EU has if the UK doesn't fulfill its obligations, but the obligations are still there.
Yes, but it's wrong to see it as "pay back". It's not about money given to the UK by the EU which the EU now wants back.
It's about commitments for future payments which were made by all EU countries, including the UK. A noteworthy example is pensions for EU staff. EU staff has rights to those pensions (just like anyone else); not now, but sometime in the future.
Now, I don't know what recourse the EU has if the UK doesn't fulfill its obligations, but the obligations are still there.
answered 4 hours ago
AbigailAbigail
38217
38217
1
EU Staff have a right to receive those pensions... from the EU. The question is whether the EU has an enforceable right to demand/request payment from the UK to cover those commitments. Assuming they don't, the EU will just have to get the money from elsewhere in their budget
– Valorum
1 hour ago
add a comment |
1
EU Staff have a right to receive those pensions... from the EU. The question is whether the EU has an enforceable right to demand/request payment from the UK to cover those commitments. Assuming they don't, the EU will just have to get the money from elsewhere in their budget
– Valorum
1 hour ago
1
1
EU Staff have a right to receive those pensions... from the EU. The question is whether the EU has an enforceable right to demand/request payment from the UK to cover those commitments. Assuming they don't, the EU will just have to get the money from elsewhere in their budget
– Valorum
1 hour ago
EU Staff have a right to receive those pensions... from the EU. The question is whether the EU has an enforceable right to demand/request payment from the UK to cover those commitments. Assuming they don't, the EU will just have to get the money from elsewhere in their budget
– Valorum
1 hour ago
add a comment |
The short answer is that people don't all agree whether the UK has any legal commitments to the EU until a withdrawal agreement is ratified, but the House of Lords (and possibly the UK government) have been advised not.
In a House of Lords report dated 4th March 2017 the position was developed which was summarised in the following paragraphs:
The budget is going to be a contentious early issue during the UK’s negotiations over leaving the EU. It is crucial for both parties. The UK provides approximately 12% of the resources available to the EU budget, and is also a significant net contributor. The removal of the UK’s payments into the budget will require the other EU Member States to agree either to pay more into the budget, or draw less from it. Neither option is without difficulty, and those difficulties may colour the wider Brexit negotiations. The Government will have to consider its stance on continued budgetary contributions in the light of its impact on the wider negotiations, and the economic and political implications will need to be set against one another. The Government has stated that it is open to making payments towards specific programmes in order to cement a cooperative future relationship with the EU but there are already demands from the EU, for much wider contributions.
However, the strictly legal position of the UK on this issue appears to be strong. Article 50 provides for a ‘guillotine’ after two years if a withdrawal agreement is not reached unless all Member States, including the UK, agree to extend negotiations. Although there are competing interpretations, we conclude that if agreement is not reached, all EU law—including provisions concerning ongoing financial contributions and machinery for adjudication—will cease to apply, and the UK would be subject to no enforceable obligation to make any financial contribution at all. This would be undesirable for the remaining Member States, who would have to decide how to plug the hole in the budget created by the UK’s exit without any kind of transition. It would also damage the prospects of reaching friendly agreement on other issues. Nonetheless, the ultimate possibility of the UK walking away from negotiations without incurring financial commitments provides an important context.
The primary alternative interpretation holds that exercise of Article 50 doesn't rule out Article 70 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which reads:
Unless the treaty otherwise provides or the parties otherwise agree, the termination of a treaty under its provisions or in accordance with the present Convention:
releases the parties from any obligation further to perform the treaty;
does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination.
This all gets a little bit more complicated, since the dispute may or may not need to be settled by the European Court of Justice, which may or may not have the jurisdiction to make a decision after a no deal Brexit.
add a comment |
The short answer is that people don't all agree whether the UK has any legal commitments to the EU until a withdrawal agreement is ratified, but the House of Lords (and possibly the UK government) have been advised not.
In a House of Lords report dated 4th March 2017 the position was developed which was summarised in the following paragraphs:
The budget is going to be a contentious early issue during the UK’s negotiations over leaving the EU. It is crucial for both parties. The UK provides approximately 12% of the resources available to the EU budget, and is also a significant net contributor. The removal of the UK’s payments into the budget will require the other EU Member States to agree either to pay more into the budget, or draw less from it. Neither option is without difficulty, and those difficulties may colour the wider Brexit negotiations. The Government will have to consider its stance on continued budgetary contributions in the light of its impact on the wider negotiations, and the economic and political implications will need to be set against one another. The Government has stated that it is open to making payments towards specific programmes in order to cement a cooperative future relationship with the EU but there are already demands from the EU, for much wider contributions.
However, the strictly legal position of the UK on this issue appears to be strong. Article 50 provides for a ‘guillotine’ after two years if a withdrawal agreement is not reached unless all Member States, including the UK, agree to extend negotiations. Although there are competing interpretations, we conclude that if agreement is not reached, all EU law—including provisions concerning ongoing financial contributions and machinery for adjudication—will cease to apply, and the UK would be subject to no enforceable obligation to make any financial contribution at all. This would be undesirable for the remaining Member States, who would have to decide how to plug the hole in the budget created by the UK’s exit without any kind of transition. It would also damage the prospects of reaching friendly agreement on other issues. Nonetheless, the ultimate possibility of the UK walking away from negotiations without incurring financial commitments provides an important context.
The primary alternative interpretation holds that exercise of Article 50 doesn't rule out Article 70 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which reads:
Unless the treaty otherwise provides or the parties otherwise agree, the termination of a treaty under its provisions or in accordance with the present Convention:
releases the parties from any obligation further to perform the treaty;
does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination.
This all gets a little bit more complicated, since the dispute may or may not need to be settled by the European Court of Justice, which may or may not have the jurisdiction to make a decision after a no deal Brexit.
add a comment |
The short answer is that people don't all agree whether the UK has any legal commitments to the EU until a withdrawal agreement is ratified, but the House of Lords (and possibly the UK government) have been advised not.
In a House of Lords report dated 4th March 2017 the position was developed which was summarised in the following paragraphs:
The budget is going to be a contentious early issue during the UK’s negotiations over leaving the EU. It is crucial for both parties. The UK provides approximately 12% of the resources available to the EU budget, and is also a significant net contributor. The removal of the UK’s payments into the budget will require the other EU Member States to agree either to pay more into the budget, or draw less from it. Neither option is without difficulty, and those difficulties may colour the wider Brexit negotiations. The Government will have to consider its stance on continued budgetary contributions in the light of its impact on the wider negotiations, and the economic and political implications will need to be set against one another. The Government has stated that it is open to making payments towards specific programmes in order to cement a cooperative future relationship with the EU but there are already demands from the EU, for much wider contributions.
However, the strictly legal position of the UK on this issue appears to be strong. Article 50 provides for a ‘guillotine’ after two years if a withdrawal agreement is not reached unless all Member States, including the UK, agree to extend negotiations. Although there are competing interpretations, we conclude that if agreement is not reached, all EU law—including provisions concerning ongoing financial contributions and machinery for adjudication—will cease to apply, and the UK would be subject to no enforceable obligation to make any financial contribution at all. This would be undesirable for the remaining Member States, who would have to decide how to plug the hole in the budget created by the UK’s exit without any kind of transition. It would also damage the prospects of reaching friendly agreement on other issues. Nonetheless, the ultimate possibility of the UK walking away from negotiations without incurring financial commitments provides an important context.
The primary alternative interpretation holds that exercise of Article 50 doesn't rule out Article 70 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which reads:
Unless the treaty otherwise provides or the parties otherwise agree, the termination of a treaty under its provisions or in accordance with the present Convention:
releases the parties from any obligation further to perform the treaty;
does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination.
This all gets a little bit more complicated, since the dispute may or may not need to be settled by the European Court of Justice, which may or may not have the jurisdiction to make a decision after a no deal Brexit.
The short answer is that people don't all agree whether the UK has any legal commitments to the EU until a withdrawal agreement is ratified, but the House of Lords (and possibly the UK government) have been advised not.
In a House of Lords report dated 4th March 2017 the position was developed which was summarised in the following paragraphs:
The budget is going to be a contentious early issue during the UK’s negotiations over leaving the EU. It is crucial for both parties. The UK provides approximately 12% of the resources available to the EU budget, and is also a significant net contributor. The removal of the UK’s payments into the budget will require the other EU Member States to agree either to pay more into the budget, or draw less from it. Neither option is without difficulty, and those difficulties may colour the wider Brexit negotiations. The Government will have to consider its stance on continued budgetary contributions in the light of its impact on the wider negotiations, and the economic and political implications will need to be set against one another. The Government has stated that it is open to making payments towards specific programmes in order to cement a cooperative future relationship with the EU but there are already demands from the EU, for much wider contributions.
However, the strictly legal position of the UK on this issue appears to be strong. Article 50 provides for a ‘guillotine’ after two years if a withdrawal agreement is not reached unless all Member States, including the UK, agree to extend negotiations. Although there are competing interpretations, we conclude that if agreement is not reached, all EU law—including provisions concerning ongoing financial contributions and machinery for adjudication—will cease to apply, and the UK would be subject to no enforceable obligation to make any financial contribution at all. This would be undesirable for the remaining Member States, who would have to decide how to plug the hole in the budget created by the UK’s exit without any kind of transition. It would also damage the prospects of reaching friendly agreement on other issues. Nonetheless, the ultimate possibility of the UK walking away from negotiations without incurring financial commitments provides an important context.
The primary alternative interpretation holds that exercise of Article 50 doesn't rule out Article 70 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which reads:
Unless the treaty otherwise provides or the parties otherwise agree, the termination of a treaty under its provisions or in accordance with the present Convention:
releases the parties from any obligation further to perform the treaty;
does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination.
This all gets a little bit more complicated, since the dispute may or may not need to be settled by the European Court of Justice, which may or may not have the jurisdiction to make a decision after a no deal Brexit.
edited 2 hours ago
answered 2 hours ago
origimboorigimbo
10.7k22440
10.7k22440
add a comment |
add a comment |
'Have to' is ill-defined. Just like a regular person, it could decide not to pay. The question is what the consequences of not paying are.
Rather than look at what the EU could do in retaliation, it's interesting to look at the UK itself. The UK has said that it wants to negotiate trade deals with other countries. Since those deals are not yet negotiated, those other countries will look at how the UK deals with it current trading partner. In particular, not making payments you have previously committed to will make one look untrustworthy (just like a regular person not paying their bills).
Given that the UK wants to make these trade deals, they do have a strong incentive to make these payments or at least settle the issue with the EU on good terms.
So do they have to pay? Possibly not. Is it in their interest to pay? Yes. Would it hurt their negotiating position with third countries if they left without paying and the EU publicly challenged them? Definitely.
add a comment |
'Have to' is ill-defined. Just like a regular person, it could decide not to pay. The question is what the consequences of not paying are.
Rather than look at what the EU could do in retaliation, it's interesting to look at the UK itself. The UK has said that it wants to negotiate trade deals with other countries. Since those deals are not yet negotiated, those other countries will look at how the UK deals with it current trading partner. In particular, not making payments you have previously committed to will make one look untrustworthy (just like a regular person not paying their bills).
Given that the UK wants to make these trade deals, they do have a strong incentive to make these payments or at least settle the issue with the EU on good terms.
So do they have to pay? Possibly not. Is it in their interest to pay? Yes. Would it hurt their negotiating position with third countries if they left without paying and the EU publicly challenged them? Definitely.
add a comment |
'Have to' is ill-defined. Just like a regular person, it could decide not to pay. The question is what the consequences of not paying are.
Rather than look at what the EU could do in retaliation, it's interesting to look at the UK itself. The UK has said that it wants to negotiate trade deals with other countries. Since those deals are not yet negotiated, those other countries will look at how the UK deals with it current trading partner. In particular, not making payments you have previously committed to will make one look untrustworthy (just like a regular person not paying their bills).
Given that the UK wants to make these trade deals, they do have a strong incentive to make these payments or at least settle the issue with the EU on good terms.
So do they have to pay? Possibly not. Is it in their interest to pay? Yes. Would it hurt their negotiating position with third countries if they left without paying and the EU publicly challenged them? Definitely.
'Have to' is ill-defined. Just like a regular person, it could decide not to pay. The question is what the consequences of not paying are.
Rather than look at what the EU could do in retaliation, it's interesting to look at the UK itself. The UK has said that it wants to negotiate trade deals with other countries. Since those deals are not yet negotiated, those other countries will look at how the UK deals with it current trading partner. In particular, not making payments you have previously committed to will make one look untrustworthy (just like a regular person not paying their bills).
Given that the UK wants to make these trade deals, they do have a strong incentive to make these payments or at least settle the issue with the EU on good terms.
So do they have to pay? Possibly not. Is it in their interest to pay? Yes. Would it hurt their negotiating position with third countries if they left without paying and the EU publicly challenged them? Definitely.
answered 1 hour ago
JJJJJJ
3,90421738
3,90421738
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38171%2fwould-the-uk-have-to-pay-anything-to-the-eu-in-case-of-a-no-deal-brexit%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
When you say 'paying back', do you mean continue to make payments on projects it had previously committed to?
– JJJ
1 hour ago
@JJJ - OP almost certainly means the £39Bn "Divorce bill" rather than any ongoing payments.
– Valorum
1 hour ago