I am debating honestly.

You said,
"The EU wants the money they think we should be paying. If you have good reason to dispute the amount they're asking for, let's be having it, preferably without the little Englander hubris.

And it's perfectly right that they want a financial settlement resolved before discussing trade arrangements."

It reads like we should pay what "The EU wants" and that you support them breaking their own rule by demanding the bill is agreed separately and first.

It reads like no such thing. Once again you indulge in your slimy, disreputable trick of deliberately misinterpreting your opponents' posts in order to make a vacuous case against them. My words are clear. Take them or leave them but don't come on this forum with your silly, disreputable mischief.