Well for starters I recommend you stop looking at the EU as a zero sum game where "our" money gets shared out amongst others. The whole point, and it's success is well proven by now, is that this is mutually beneficial, where we all get better off by free-er, barrierless trade and movement. Where the EU funds infrastructure developments in poorer countries which get our goods to market more quickly, where the EU aligns baseline standards so that our goods can sell in other countries without having to re-engineer or re-work them. This is economically beneficial for all of us.

In terms of concessions, it's been well covered but the starting point has to be the EU's red lines, which were to protect the status of EU citizens living in the UK and to protect the interests of the Republic of Ireland, alongside the main practical red line that the single market by definition can't have an open border with a country outside it, hence the backstop. The backstop is the effect of a red line, not the red line itself - and the EU have asked time and time again for Britain to come up with a workable alternative which also tallies with the red lines unilaterally set out by the Conservative government: that we would not be a member of the customs union or the single market - these red lines were not mandated by the referendum result and are the root cause of our current issues because by going for such a hard Conservative Brexit the May government gave away the support they may have otherwise received from Labour in Parliament.

But here's a summary of what the EU conceded -
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brit ... SKCN1NL1WA

But the simple fact is, if you decide not to be part of the EU, not to be part of the customs union, not to be part of the Single Market and not to pay into the EU budget, then you are starting from a weak position. Conservative politicians have been demanding the benefits from all those things but don't want the mechanics that make them work.

Well for starters I recommend you stop looking at the EU as a zero sum game where "our" money gets shared out amongst others. The whole point, and it's success is well proven by now, is that this is mutually beneficial, where we all get better off by free-er, barrierless trade and movement. Where the EU funds infrastructure developments in poorer countries which get our goods to market more quickly, where the EU aligns baseline standards so that our goods can sell in other countries without having to re-engineer or re-work them. This is economically beneficial for all of us.

In terms of concessions, it's been well covered but the starting point has to be the EU's red lines, which were to protect the status of EU citizens living in the UK and to protect the interests of the Republic of Ireland, alongside the main practical red line that the single market by definition can't have an open border with a country outside it, hence the backstop. The backstop is the effect of a red line, not the red line itself - and the EU have asked time and time again for Britain to come up with a workable alternative which also tallies with the red lines unilaterally set out by the Conservative government: that we would not be a member of the customs union or the single market - these red lines were not mandated by the referendum result and are the root cause of our current issues because by going for such a hard Conservative Brexit the May government gave away the support they may have otherwise received from Labour in Parliament.

But here's a summary of what the EU conceded -
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brit ... SKCN1NL1WA

But the simple fact is, if you decide not to be part of the EU, not to be part of the customs union, not to be part of the Single Market and not to pay into the EU budget, then you are starting from a weak position. Conservative politicians have been demanding the benefits from all those things but don't want the mechanics that make them work.