I do not understand why some in the EU Commission seem to think the UK owes the bloc any money on leaving. The UK is not seeking a divorce from Europe. It is a silly misrepresentation. We are surrendering our membership of the European Union, but expect to have strong and positive ties with the rest of Europe after we have left. There will be much trade, many joint ventures, common research, shared campaigns in international politics, cultural, academic and business links.

I have great news for our EU partners. Because it is no divorce, there is nothing in the EU treaties which gives the UK a claim on the assets Brussels has built up during our period of membership. It is true we have made a big financial contribution, which has in part been invested in buildings and other stores of value. We lose that. Because it is no divorce and we have no children, the EU does not have to pay us maintenance in the future either.

It also means there is also nothing in the treaties which give the EU the right to send us a leaving bill. They cannot expect us to carry on meeting financial obligations after we have left, or pay the interest on loans taken out to buy assets we no longer share.

The EU has had a strange attitude towards UK membership. They first blocked our joining in the 1960s. They were then critical of our reluctance about the social union, defence union, monetary union and borders union.

They offered us some opt-outs, but pressed us to do many things the UK would rather not do.

Some of them understandably were unhappy about their cross-Channel partner who never wanted to join the full project but just wanted a trade arrangement or common market.

You would have thought when we decided to leave they would be pleased. It enables them to get on with completing their extensive union without UK reluctance, always seeking to slow or water it down. As democratic countries you would expect them to respect the verdict of British electors. Instead, some of them seem to want to keep us in, or claim to want to punish us for leaving.

They both claim the EU is a precious prize for any country to be a member, and that you need to lock countries into it under threat of worse if they dare to leave.

I suspect these attitudes are more the Commission’s than the member states’. The individual countries should prove to be more realistic. They have businesses that want to trade tariff-free with the UK after exit as they did before.

They have citizens living in Britain that they need to support, by accepting the continued right of our citizens to live in their countries. They will understand that the balance of votes and power within the EU has shifted, and each remaining member state will be a bit more powerful when the UK votes and voices go.

The Commission thought they could control the negotiations over Brexit. They wrongly expected the UK to seek to remain within the so-called single market. In return the EU would demand continued freedom of movement and continued budget contributions. As ending our payments and controlling our own borders were two central features of the reasons to go, that was never likely.

Instead the UK has a friendly and simple offer. We will willingly accept tariff-free imports from the EU with no new barriers to their trade with us, if they reciprocate. Why would they want to impose tariffs, when under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules the main losers would be the big agricultural export industries of the continent who sell us so much more than we sell them, and the continental car industry facing a more modest 10 per cent tariff?

If the EU wants to charge us for buying their imports and selling them rather fewer exports, the cheapest and easiest way to do so is through tariffs, under WTO rules. We know what that is like, as that is how we have to trade with the rest of the world all the time we are in the EU. One of the prices of membership is dearer food from the rest of the world. Once out we could decide to remove the tariffs we no longer wish our consumers to pay.

Now, about that bill. I assume the EU won’t be sending one, as ministers in the UK can only spend money against a clear legal requirement. There is no such legal base.

David Fuller's view

This is easily one of the best articles that I have seen on Brexit and I think John Redwood is absolutely correct.

Any logical person in the UK or EU would like to see a friendly, mutually beneficial agreement in terms of the UK’s exit from the EU.  However, this may not be timely or even possible in dealing with 27 separate EU nations.  For this reason I have always felt that the serious negotiations were likely to take place after we have already left the EU.