I think that Nigel Parson's post:

Nigel Parsons - 08 Sep 17 - 05:34 AM

Is possibly the best post I have ever read on Mudcat. Beautifully succinct, it struck down a lamentably poor argument with the efficiency of a QC.

I particularly loved this bit of it:

"Maybe we should agree the payment in order to get things moving, and then re-negotiate it later. But better yet, let's get on with things.

The EU may not want the two items enmeshed, but they need to take account of their own instructions.

According to European Council (Art. 50) guidelines for Brexit negotiations "2. Negotiations under Article 50 TEU will be conducted in transparency and as a single package. In accordance with the principle that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, individual items cannot be settled separately.

So, by their own rules, set out at the start of the process, we are not able to agree (and be bound by)their claim for an 'exit payment' at this point in the negotiations.

I do like your line Why would any rational negotiator want those two issues enmeshed? as I have made clear above that it is the EU that has enmeshed the two, and so, are being described by you as irrational!

Cheers
Nigel