(Pundit) Abu Qaid-e-Azam

Not worried. Garage is just a rabble-rouser who lives to stir the pot. Put him in a real position of responsibility and his impotence would show instantly.

The idea that the UK is some flight risk on Ukraine is fantasy. Brussels’ irritation is with the bluster, not the substance, and Kyiv policy has never hung on Westminster mood swings. The UK isn’t “changing sides”; it’s just not as important to the narrative as some would like to think.

The key asymmetry here is leverage. The EU controls access to the scheme and its funding; the UK merely wants in. Brussels can (and will) dictate terms because it holds the gate and the purse. This isn’t a negotiation of equals: it’s an application process with polite dressing.

That the UK is an ordinary third country, and by it's own choice is indisputable. Yet, some still clutch the gospel according to St Michel, mistaking Barnier’s polite diplomacy for divine promise and in so doing mistaking tact for theology.

If the opening line were any more infantile it would need a high-chair. Calling it an “anti-UK rant” isn’t analysis. Anyone following Brussels knows France overplayed its hand and got pushback. That’s normal EU politics.

isn't it about time someone stood up to the Mango Mussolini?

The issue was never the EU’s “no negotiation without notification” rule. It was the UK’s refusal to accept that it had no leverage. Westminster sold the public a fantasy of exceptionalism and then blamed Brussels when reality intruded. Brexit didn’t expose EU rigidity: it exposed UK parochialism.

Thoughts & Prayers….

Until Britain accepts it’s a just another mid-sized power, not an exception to the rules, the Brexit drama can’t end. The EU doesn’t need to “kick” the UK, its own choices do that. Brexit wasn’t a win; it’s prolonged self-harm only adversaries applaud.

Integrity is not a quality I readily associate with him either.

I get the value of acknowledging someone’s effort, but success depends on honesty & a willingness to face reality. Andrew’s record shows he has a tendency to be economical with the truth, & tact isn’t his strong suit either. Energy alone isn’t enough if it isn’t paired w clarity and credibility.

The UK doesn’t need U.S. permission, but it needs U.S. hardware. The Trident system, targeting and maintenance are American. Sovereign codes, yes; sovereign capability, not quite.

That defence role is underwritten by Washington, not London. The UK’s security contribution is meaningful, yet derivative: it amplifies U.S. power rather than substituting for it. Brussels knows this, which limits how much leverage it confers in negotiation.

The EU’s leverage stems from scale, not sentiment. For Brussels, maintaining the integrity of the single market outweighs bilateral goodwill. Until London can offer something of comparable strategic value, the terms will continue to flow one way.

This isn’t “punching down”, it’s power politics. The EU’s single market gives it strategic leverage over neighbours who depend on access. The UK may posture as sovereign, but in practical terms it’s still negotiating from a position of need, not strength.

The illusion fools no one but those most invested in it. Everyone else dropped the ‘four nations’ act years ago.

Quite. English generosity has never been the issue.

Another striking feature is the conviction they alone have seen through the illusion, and that decades of shared experience and compromise can be dismissed with a shrug. It’s extraordinary arrogance masquerading as insight: the belief that obstinacy is wisdom, and that isolation confers clarity.

A good thread @nialloconghaile.bsky.social - thoughtful observations. Thx for sharing

Your post is a masterclass in speaking confidently while knowing absolutely nothing.

You can’t break up England. No one’s trying to. Merely pointing out that England ≠ the UK — a distinction clearly beyond your grasp.

Fascinating take: England counts as “the Union,” and the Celts count as “lucky guests.”

Truly inspirational stuff, nothing says partnership like being told democracy = whatever the biggest partner wants.

Anyway, the “fringe” will remember this when we’re running our own houses.

Nothing says “deep political insight” like forgetting the UK has four nations and then calling people Anglophobic for reminding you. If listing Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland feels threatening, then the EU must be truly terrifying.

What needles the English-entitled is the notion that anyone else might have better engagement terms with the EU whilst conveniently ignoring the fact those terms come from long-standing international treaties.

“How dare anyone have better EU arrangements than us. We’re British!” they scream.

Astutely observed, Sir.
It’s less “Englishness” than a very specific Westminster-bred entitlement complex - the belief that you can storm out of the room and still expect everyone inside to hold the door open.

The EU didn’t change the rules.
Britain changed its status and reality finally followed.

Brexit didn’t create airport queues: it exposed who thought they’d never have to stand in one.

Brexit meant “take back control.”
Border queues are what control looks like from the other side.

Suppose that’s one way to make “shoes off, belt off” even more unsettling.

Indeed they’re happy, they built the house, set the rules, and the UK stormed out insisting they’d get a better one down the road. Turns out the new mansion is a shed in the ‘sunlit uplands’ and the EU’s just watching them argue over the instructions for the flat-pack door."

When you're used to strolling into the ‘sunlit uplands lounge’, equality feels like being herded toward the Ryanair queue with everyone else. Suddenly fair treatment looks suspiciously like persecution, and the only thing being upgraded is the volume of the grumbling.

When the UK left the EU, it assumed it was boarding a regular airline where it would turn left into first class. Turns out the exodus carrier was Ryanair: where paying extra allows you to bring the hand luggage of sovereignty.