May urges MPs to have a 'second look' at her Brexit deal.

@Taenzer66 That is a point but its a worse deal that Remain and it doesn't make brexiteers happy either.

@Burnley123 Of course it's worse than remaining. Did you honestly expect the EU to offer you all the benefits without further contribution? You wanted to be outside, so be it! The deal offers a better transition than crashing out ...

@Taenzer66 how is her deal good for us , her deal will virtually keep us in the eu ....

@Taenzer66 we have offered them 39 billion for a reasonable deal but they want the money without giving anything back...

@Taenzer66 I don't disagree on any point you've made. I'm a remain voter.

@Platinum The deal does not try to keep you in the EU, it tries to tie you to the legally binding commitments of the Good Friday Agreement on behalf of its member ROI. If all these border issues can so easily be solved, why should the backstop be a problem? It’s a problem because Brexiteers are fully aware they’ll ruin the foundations of the GFA with their intended trade policy

@Platinum The 39 Billion are not something you offered for a reasonable deal. It’s the agreed sum of the commitments the UK has already made while in the EU. If you intend to withhold that money imagine what being taken to arbritation in The Hague for not honoring your contracts would give a good start for all these favorable trade deals you’ll negotiate

@Taenzer66 there is no contract for us to pay anymore than our yearly payments, this was discussed after brexit and it was a figure to start talking about a deal...we joined the eu illegally and we have no legal right to pay this..you are completely wrong....any divorce bill is not legally binding...

@Platinum You’re completely wrong on this, wait and see...

@Taenzer66 if you were right, why did it have to be negotiated , they would have had a legal figure already worked out...it was done by the eu wanting 60 billion and they agreed eventually to 39 billion based on the fact we got a deal....I don't need to wait and see, I know...but we will get a deal and we will pay the money, the eu cannot afford not to....

@Platinum you are spot on , it was said by legal experts, we had no obligation to pay anything, and as you say why did it have to be negotiated if it was binding we had to pay, let's see what 66 has to say to this, yes the EU are only interested in our money, and they have through there arrogance and to teach us a lesson and make an example of, the EU have just let the other 27 countries down who trade with us ,

It won't be legal until MPs vote on the final withdrawal agreement...that is a fact...but we are entitled to pay each year until the end of the transition period...@Nyloncapes

@Platinum I don’t know who told you so, but refer him/her to https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/759020/14_November_Explainer_for_the_agreement_on_the_withdrawal_of_the_United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Northern_Ireland_from_the_European_Union.pdf Part IV, pg 30

I read and it's a fact...your link is to think tanks, who have people there guessing.....as I've said we will get a deal and we will pay them...@Taenzer66

@Platinum It’s not to a think tank, it’s your government’s statement on why they ‘ll pay

@Taenzer66 I'll send you a government link, give me 5 mins

This is from Parliment [image deleted]@Platinum

@Platinum So firstly you deny that the financial settlement is not about payment for a deal but existing commitments and then to prove that you sent a statement from parliament, that explicitly recognizes obligations and the intention to settle these in order to be seen as a reliable negotiator?
Well done!

@Taenzer66 can't you read...if the withdrawal bill is not ratified then it won't be legally binding....I've already told you, we are obliged to pay for each year 2016-2020 which is the end of the transition period...but paying them is not legal until our ministers vote and agree the withdrawal bill....you are getting worse with every comment...I thought you seemed a reasonable guy at first, but that's slipping away...

@Platinum I read the second paragraph, the one underneath the bold printed one, did you stop after the headline?

We were talking about it being legal, I read everything and it's clear I was right and you were wrong it's not legally binding yet as you said it was....we can talk again on another subject....@Taenzer66