Small thread on the lack of empathy on the British side about EU's lack of flexibility on four freedoms and vassalage. /1
There are three key drivers of the current impasse of negotiations: control of borders (aka less migration), end of ECJ oversight and control of own laws as well as constitutional (or territorial) integrity of UK. /2
All those aspects seem not compatible w/ EU red lines which leads to shouts of betrayal and resistance towards vassalage and submission is needed. /3
This is - at best - difficult to understand from EU side and at best inconsistent with UK's own approach. Why does Britain feel entitled to those red lines but reject EU's red lines which are equivalent? /4
Didn't David Davies highlight, that EU needs UK more than vice versa? Didn't JRM highlight that "EU bill" is desperately needed by EU & if UK doesn't pay, EU'd get bankrupt? Both draw pictures about powerful UK being able to force a deal since by threatening EU's survival. /5
Both are, whether you like it or not, important political leaders in UK and not some random backbenchers. You can find similar lines by Priti Patel & Boris Johnson btw. Question here is: If UK is entitled to threaten EU, why is EU not entitled to reciprocate? /6
But leaving this strange exceptionalist drive behind us: How would UK would have reacted when Scotland would have seceded? Before somebody shouts that this is wrong equivalence: a key pillar on the Leave side's argument is equating EU w/ a state or super state. /7
From the hard Leavers perspective, this comparison w/ Scottish case would make sense, doesn't it? Back to #indyref: let's imagine Scottish quality newspapers would have ranted on "Johnny Englishman" taking away school places and employment or stressing NHS resources? /8
How would you have felt? Just imagine Scottish politicians would have said that the border needs to stay open but Scotland bedds to be fully autonomous to set own standards to compete against companies in England? /9
Imagine they would have claimed that you need them more then they need you, because you need their oil (they actually did that what caused major outcries). /10
Now imagine they actually won the referendum and demand to not put a border while saying at the same time that they will put lower regulatory standards to be more competitive (David Davies was suggesting that btw). /11
Imagine they still demand seats in HoC because your laws effect them - although they are out of the Union. Imagine they say at the same time they want to have less Englishmen because they are a strain on Scottish society and its institutions. /12
And now ask yourself what you would expect from your politicians how to ready on it. Would you think that those demands are reasonable? Would you think that goodwill is justified (remember how people from England were treated during and after the campaign)? /13
Would u feel like giving up ur border control for them & trust that they don't start a regulatory race to the bottom? Would u trust that they keep their word on English people living up north? Wouldn't u demand that rUK's politicians use their power to protect your interests? /14
If you feel exactly like that, why do you expect from the EU the exact opposite. They have interests which are grounded on national audiences, Britain created mistrust ("Jacub the Polish Plumber" powered by Telegraph) and demands flexibility impeding your sovereignty. /15
And this although EU is much bigger, in nearly every possible way. EU acts in self interest & is pursuing their goals in the same way UK would if they'd have the power to do so. It's not mean or malicious, but interest driven politics backed by power - not more, not less. 16/16
PS: Before somebody starts w/ "democratic vote": Imagine just people with SCO heritage're allowed to vote regardless how long u lived in SCO or contributed to SCO society. If u lived more than 10 yrs in ENG you can't vote either, b/c you r too English to vote in SCO interests).
