Sidney Riley

Sorry you had to endure that. It’s heartbreaking how a symbol meant to honour sacrifice has been fetishized by the RWM and turned into a loyalty test. Remembrance shouldn’t be a culture-war weapon. Your father’s generation deserved better than this, and so do we.

The asymmetry is structural, not emotional. The EU wields regulatory and market power; the UK wields limited geopolitical leverage. In any negotiation between a rule-maker and a rule-taker, the one setting the standards holds the cards. Brussels knows this well.

Sure, can’t imagine why anyone would mention that out of the blue.

Thx for posting - insightful observations.

True enough. Europe’s mastered that balance: population here/ entities there. Most visibly as you note between the Council and Parliament.

Judging by some of Anglo’s posts, their grasp of nationhood seems rather tenuous. Democracy counts voters; a union counts nations. When balance gives way to dominance, independence becomes the path by which smaller nations restore self-determination.

Rotterdam thrived under Aboutaleb's steady, principled leadership. He proved that background can be a bridge, not a barrier. I view him as a quiet pioneer whose work reshaped the city.

Another peculiar aspect is this certainty that they’ve spotted a truth 450 million somehow missed, and that decades of practice can be dismissed with a wave. It’s a curious dynamic: mistaking personal conviction for exclusive insight. Confidence is one thing; solipsism is quite another.

It’s a curious dynamic: demanding sovereignty while still expecting the EU to be personally answerable to you. Walk away from a system and you lose influence, that’s just political reality. The deeper irony is how easily nostalgia for past leverage gets mistaken for entitlement to present power.

thx @kathylove.bsky.social - this captures clearly Brexit didn’t “take back control” of immigration but stripped the debate of seriousness. In place of policy there is moral panic and performative cruelty, and in place of competence, a Reform-style politics that treats governance as theatre.

That gives the EU far too much Machiavellian credit and Britain far too little self-responsibility. The 90/180 rule wasn’t invented for the UK, it’s the long-standing third-country framework. We chose to become a third country; the EU simply applied the rules that already existed.

And the notion that the EU could be “bought” fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the Union — it is a rules-anchored political system, not a transactional marketplace for influence.

At this stage the equilibrium broadly serves both sides: public salience in the UK has declined sharply and the EU has more pressing strategic priorities. Institutional stability, not theatrics, governs the relationship.

Followed

Hi Kathy, apologies, it seems I can’t view the earlier thread as I’ve been blocked. I’m not sure what might have been taken amiss, and without the context I can’t respond properly.
In any case, I hope you have a lovely day.

Some MEPs floated political ideas, sure, but law isn’t built on optimism. Once the UK left, the legal basis vanished. The EU didn’t “ignore” anything, Westminster chose to sever the link.

The legal foundation didn’t evaporate after Brexit, it was removed by Brexit. EU citizenship has always been contingent on MS nationality; that’s not hindsight, that’s the Treaty text.

It didn’t “ignore”, it recognised the legal order as it existed. Precedent has always been nationality 1st EU citizenship is derivative, not freestanding. Yes, there were political voices proposing creative solutions, but legally the foundation disappeared the moment the UK chose to end membership.

That says it all: had the UK been offered a Swiss-style deal in the 70s, it wouldn't have bothered joining, because it wouldn’t have been able to dominate. The Swiss model works through patience, compromise, & consistency. Three things the UK political class has never managed to treat as virtues

The EU builds partnerships, not walls. But after years of UK chaos, threats and rule-dodging, caution is common sense. Gravity may pull us back together someday, but not until Britain proves it won’t throw another tantrum and walk out again. Wariness isn’t spite; it’s muscle memory.

There’s no basis for special treatment. We left, we became a third country, and we don’t get to skip the queue or rewrite the rules because nostalgia or entitlement says we should.

They were EU citizens, but EU citizenship is adjunct to being a citizen of a member state. Once the UK chose to leave, that legal foundation vanished. It’s understandable people hoped the EU could shield them, but the Union isn’t a portable insurance policy.

On the menu is either TCA or rejoin, no one is pretending otherwise. But let’s not kid ourselves about an SPS deal: the UK is still chasing trade fantasies that would invalidate any agreement. Bxls must be wary: trust is broken, and consistency hasn’t exactly been a hallmark of UK policy since ‘16.

Calling the TCA “not hard Brexit” is wishful thinking. The UK chose max distance from the single market and customs union, that’s the hard-Brexit blueprint. WTO-only would’ve been a face-plant off the cliff; the TCA is just the slightly slower tumble down it.

Because of course the EU’s true mission is to safeguard the feelings and travel perks of people who voted to leave it. Why on earth would 27 countries prioritise their own citizens when there’s a post-Brexit entitlement complex to manage?

Because nothing says “smooth and simple” like convincing 27 countries to trust the one that rage-quit, burned the bridge on the way out, and keeps threatening to do it again.

Indisputably correct Sir, Parliament did make the sovereign choice to trigger Article 50 and then pursue the hardest form of Brexit.

That path made the UK a third country like any other.

Actions have consequences, and sovereignty cuts both ways.

We were right here watching the whole Brexit theatre in HD. Ireland didn’t imagine the chaos, the border gaslighting, or the magical-thinking about “frictionless unicorn borders.” We heard every word. You don’t get to pretend we weren’t paying attention.

Why would the EU readmit a country that spent years doing £Shop Trumpism and shredding agreements? And the “better as a competitor” take is hilarious: nothing says geopolitical genius like preferring a flaky, self-sabotaging neighbour having tantrums next door to a cooperative partner at the table.

If a member state lacks the resolve to commit to that shared project, and is perpetually fixated on the ability to exit, the issue isn’t Article 50. It’s whether that state ever truly understood the responsibilities and benefits of EU membership in the first place.