The monetary settlement isn't hugely significant (but certainly isn't peanuts), but the difference between the EU starting positions of €120b vs the UK starting position (nothing owed and the EU having to pay us our share of assets) is obviously of huge significance. Hence the protracted negotiations and the agreement somewhere in the middle after years.
The FTA will have to solve the GFA issue. The entire purpose of the backstop being temporary as stated by both sides is that once an agreement is finalised the backstop will cease to exist. Every comment by both sides is working towards this. The method of achieving this is obviously complicated, hence the fact that the EU can't agree a time limit and the UK can't agree to it being indefinite as it splits the union. The truth is that all parties have essentially agreed that even a no deal scenario could not compromise the GFA, such is its importance. This isn't to say that everything has to be identical to how it is now of course, things could change but still be in line with the principles of the GFA.
That would be a question of cost. I agree that it wouldn't be practical in the sense that the cost wouldn't ever be worth the benefit. It would have to be a figure that would be large enough to ensure no other country would ever want to seek the same deal. E.G. £150b per year rising with GDP - we'd be able to cherry pick whatever freedoms we desired at that cost (not that we'd want to). Somewhat pointless of course as it's completely theoretical
This is absolutely true, simply because it's not an agreement in the first place. It's an agreement on the cost of a product, before we have negotiated the product we're purchasing.
