Somewhere there is a village missing it's idiot.

'The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification ..' If you leave the EU, the treaties cease to apply. That's it.

Imagine being so stupid you think the UK government can decide to leave the EU and decide which EU treaties to keep at the same time.

Yes, “solutions” are possible if you are prepared to realign with the very legal and political frameworks you've spent years denouncing. What remains amusing is the assumption the EU is just sitting around redesigning Schengen for your benefit.

…And if UK/EU relations are ever genuinely repaired, honesty will have be the fulcrum of that process. Not grievance theatre. Not mythology. Not endless attempts to pretend Brexit was sabotaged before it could unveil its utopian final form….

…Brexit was delivered. Britain got what it demanded: sovereignty, borders, external status and reduced integration. The issue is not that Brexit failed to happen. The issue is that too many people are only now discovering what Brexit actually meant in practice.

Britain "at the heart of Europe", 2026 edition:

And yet again here we have another example of a peculiarly British post-Brexit phenomenon: the persistent belief that the consequences of Brexit are really just temporary inconveniences awaiting sufficiently imaginative legal engineering. bsky.app/profile/andr...

James Cleverly doing the lord's work here

"You want to make sure you got your numbers right"

This is simply exquisite:

Thanks for sharing, Andrew. I’ve done you the courtesy of reading the entire thread so others don’t have to. And what emerges is less a serious policy framework than another round of British bargaining-with-reality over consequences that were explained repeatedly before Brexit happened. Here goes…

Les relations entre le Canada et l’Europe reposent sur une histoire commune et des valeurs partagées dont nous nous inspirons pour avancer. Grâce aux partenariats dans les domaines du commerce, de la défense et de la sécurité, nous bâtirons ensemble un avenir prospère et sûr.

Interesting chart to which the only response is "WOW!".

I just fact checked this and that's eleven significant attempts

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.

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

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.

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

If only a "Swiss-style" deal was an option: it isn't.....

@andrewhesselden.bsky.social Metsola’s instinct to flatter you sensibilities is understandable, and this is exactly the ambiguity you seek to exploit. When she calls it “unique” you hear “preferential.” The reality is simpler: you are a former member and now just another third country.

A perfect summation....

Sure. Equally it's unfair to expect a Europe striving for strategic autonomy to integrate a state that has a different priority. There's real frustration.

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

@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.

We should be learning from other countries...

🎯💯 EUropeans should not fall for Trump & US tech-broligarchs Pax Silica, which aims to entrench US tech superiority over Europe, so we stay US-tech-slaves. We need to go our own way, & change to EU & FOSS, while we make our own EU Pax Silica, with our allies, which aims to secure EUs insterests. 🇪🇺

If you look again at Hesselden's gripes & read them backwards, they begin to make sense, from his pov It would seem he & his ilk want the EU to apply to the UK for membership of the United Kingdom which would solve all of their problems Engagement is pointless & life is far too short already

Suggestion for the next stop on The JD Vance world tour: India

After killing the Pope, this was easy.

inews.co.uk/news/world/i... Moron -

Look at all that DEI sending astronauts around the moon.

So “sadistic barbarity” disqualifies Iran, but is apparently tolerable when exercised by Benjamin Netanyahu’s government? Civilians crushed, homes erased, collective punishment normalised and suddenly the outrage becomes selective. Moral clarity shouldn’t be this… situational.

The words of Spain (!):

In every town there’s a mad old prick that sits at the end of the bar 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇪🇺😎

It really is incumbent on pro-Europeans in the UK to come out and explain and support the laws that make the whole thing work, including product regulations, EES and Etias, 90/180, CAP, common defence, the structure of the institutions, privacy laws... If you believe in it, fight for it Ends

The utter stupidity of this nonsense is best illustrated by Robertson’s Golden Shred (marmalade), probably the best known best selling brand that doesn’t even mention the word on the label When are we going to stop acting like immature fools and start being a serious country again?

Yes, explicitly ruling certain things out even before you start a campaign to join the European Union is bizarre Nobody knows for certain how the A49 process will work out, but if you’ve already made it known in advance that you only want partial membership it’s unlikely to go well

Like so many, they fail to appreciate that applicants must meet the Copenhagen Criteria and it is entirely up to the 27 to decide how to interpret the latter.

We really really want to rejoin the European Union BUT “with both the euro and Schengen it may be sufficient for the UK to agree in principle to join, but without any future date being specified” With friends like these, who needs enemies? Why can’t “rejoiners” be fully committed to Europe

In a world where fact and truth, and even reality, no longer matters, this represents nothing less than pure class.

Interesting piece to read alongside @nialloconghaile.bsky.social post a few days ago about how even Switzerland doesn’t have “the Swiss deal”

In plain Dutch: "If you want something from your friends, you shouldn't completely shit all over them first."

From an EU standpoint the only salient point was the decision by UKG to trigger A50 - and there is no question regarding the legality of that action.

Perhaps you could explain why?

So now “EU lawyers need it explained.” A50 was lawfully triggered as confirmed in Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, and accepted by the EU. If it was illegal then cite the breach.

🤣 “Widely documented” is doing a lot of work there. The trigger of A50 was ruled lawful once Parliament authorised it after Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. If you’re alleging illegality, point to the judgment or statute breached.

🤣🤣 “wait for the lawyers” They already looked: Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the EU → Parliament authorised A50 → EU accepted. If there were illegality, it would be in a judgment.

Q: what have news articles got to do with it? A: Quite a lot actually. The UK press reflects growing domestic pressure to rejoin; the EU shows none. No signals from the EC or MS. That asymmetry tells you everything—the urgency is British, not European.