In that remark you encapsulate the English delusion: the belief their size was equal to that of the EU.

Brexit was an act of self-amputation. You don’t walk out, lose your leverage, then knock asking for “special deals” on steel and EVs as if nothing ever happened. Brussels owes the UK nothing.

Go for it! Knock yourself out.

Anand correctly points out there are no benefits without the obligations.

Yet England still pitches “alignment where useful” and carve-outs where not. That’s not a serious offer, it’s the same old entitlement: market access on your own terms.

Not “crackers vs fine dining”, the UK asks for the tasting menu from the sidewalk.

The UK already has the deal it chose. Now it wants selective alignment and carve-outs to remove friction. That’s not pragmatism it’s again old fashioned English entitlement: rules for others, exceptions for us.

It reads less like strategy and more like reflex: an English habit of assuming rules are negotiable when they bite at home.

As you say, the EU isn’t singling out the UK; it’s applying a framework the UK chose to leave. Asking for carve-outs after the fact isn’t pragmatism, it’s entitlement.

Yes I have: and being a very small cog on the EU negotiation side it confirmed a lot of what we experienced

Yes, we get that, but the image of UvdL sitting down of a Thursday evening, glass of vino in hand to endure an hour of Fiona Bruce’s backhanded attempt of chairing a panel discussion cannot be unseen.

Being “in tune” with UK affairs is not a job requirement for our political class, if anything it’s almost a disqualifier.

The real tell is your assumption it should be.

What is on display here isn't insight but a lack of self-awareness and naivety masquerading as analysis

The problem (for the UK given the track record of untrustworthyness) is that the EU MS default setting will be to take and British assurance with a mouth of salt.

It is slightly more nuanced than that, not only must there be a commitment given to joining the €, but the EU MS must believe that commitment is sincere and genuine.

The only Leave voters I spoke to during the referendum campaign were voting to destroy the EU. It's not just about us being separate, it's about fear of continental European unity. Clearly such people don't understand the origins of the world wars. They just see it as us against them.

bsky.app/profile/qaid...

The UK is a serious country and brings plenty to the table. But we have to believe it’s on our side - not in it for itself, not America‘s poodle, not looking to one up us for the latest hot thing in the East

So, in your opinion who would have been the "right people” in the room?

There won’t be many left who can read this

The 6th formers involved in B4B block the grown ups who have dared to disagree with the delusional nonsense they have peddled over the last few years

Best for Britain is a presumptuous name for a purely political organisation

I was there: these were some of the sharpest minds of their generation working under political direction from London with hands tied behind their backs - hamstrung by political constraints, and told to type with their noses only for you now to blame them for the output.

I assume you are referring to Olly Robbins and the British Civil Servants as the “wrong people in the room” which is patronising nonsense.

From personal experience, I concur. The UK approach was described politely as “delinquent”: a Dutch colleague called it “goalposts on wheels”, a Finn “strategy by tantrum”. Yet the delusion persists “third country status” is still treated as optional, not the hard legal reality it is.

The EU may although your past form suggests otherwise tolerate a modicum of delay, but not dilution. “Acceptable risk” isn’t a blank cheque for permanent opt-outs. Flexibility will manage timing, not the destination.

You are so full of yourselves. Last time the UK had to beg three times before the EEC would even talk. If the UK is already rejecting our finest achievements that doesn't bode well for the Uk's future behaviour. I would rather have fewer but more committed members.

“Flexibility” in the EU sense isn’t a return to British-style opt-outs: it’s managed integration, not à la carte membership.

The euro remains the direction of travel. If the UK comes back, it certainly won’t be on bespoke terms it’ll be on shared ones.

We should be learning from other countries...

@andrewhesselden.bsky.social
@stephenclarkehist.bsky.social

There’s no “queue” in politics, only priorities and leverage.

The UK isn’t waiting in line; it’s not a priority.

The full quote for the record:

‘UK is not an ordinary third country. It is a former EU member and needs to be treated as such.’

It was a very naive and over simplistic thing to say.

Encouraging, though less a Damascene conversion than belated realism. The UK is finally grasping that it's Brussels that sets the terms of engagement. Understanding EU positions now isn’t enlightenment; it’s the price of having misread them for the past decade.

Thoughts & Prayers

So NATO can “define what we need” but has “very little to offer” on actually delivering it… and we’re meant to trust that model?

If your strategy is permanent dependence on US kit, of course it's now time for the EU to step up.

That diplomat saying “stay out of the way” just proves the point.

I'm certain the internet was around in 2016.

“Britophobe” 😂

Man’s so short of arguments he’s inventing his own dictionary. Next up: awarding himself #1 in a category no one else recognises.

If you have to coin the insult, you’ve already lost the debate.