Yes, I can give the number precisely to the gentleman. It is nil. After the two-year notice period expires, our obligations under the treaty expire. Just as when we joined the European Union, they didn't compensate us for a notional amount for the pension contributions for people who had been working for them but not for us before we joined. When someone leaves a company, you have a contractual arrangement. In international law, you have an international treaty, based on the treaty of Rome and its successor treaties. They have provided, since the Lisbon treaty, a specified treaty pre-agreed mechanism for leaving, which is that you give two years' notice under article 50. The treaties then cease to apply. You have no further financial obligation, as was correctly observed by the House of Lords.

Of course, if you want to stay in some programmes and participate in them, you will negotiate a price for doing so. But the idea that we owe this sum and that we are breaching a sovereign debt obligation is absolutely ludicrous. It comes from remainers who just seem to like the idea of giving their constituents' money to overseas organisations. We don't owe this money. Whether we want to pay something in return for something else is an entirely different matter.

I also note that, in terms of trade, should we leave the European Union without a deal—in a 'no deal' or a WTO rules scenario—we are not obligated to impose these large tariffs on particular sectors. The idea that food prices will suddenly rise massively presumes that we would choose to apply the same tariff that the EU does to non-EU goods. Now, it is correct that if we are on WTO rules, we need to be non-discriminatory. So, whatever the tariff is, it would be applied on an equal basis to the EU, as outside the EU, if there isn't a trade agreement or if there isn't an article 24 GATT arrangement. But that tariff does not have to be the maximum amount that the EU is allowed to apply, according to its WTO schedules.