So would we be able to get the exact same deal we had? We are under the impression the answer is no, as whenever we try and negotiate away stuff that's in neither of our interests it gets rejected.

Take this Eitas Visa for example, this is literally just sowing resentment towards the EU in the UK. It benefits nobody and is totally insane, it's just making people hate the EU. Same with not being able to use the digital passport machines at airports.. why?? We're a pretty secure country, we have digital passports. Brexit happens and now every time I go to Europe, which is a lot I've got a 50/50 chance of waiting 3 hours at the border for someone to stamp my passport while the digital gates have no queue. That means I now have to arrive 3 hours early every time just in case. If I bring a tool for work I need to spend weeks of paperwork on something called a carnet so I end up buying there and throwing out.

At the moment we're trying to give security backing for Ukraine and you're asking us to give up our fishing rights for the honour of helping secure Europe.

I get it, actions have consequences, but the thing is that only a minority voted for Brexit, most of us didn't. Each year you're disenfranchising a new generation of would be Europeans with this path. To me it's all dreadfully regrettable, the whole things a mess.

It's impossible for us to 'come to our senses' while we get treated like this in my view.

You are perhaps unaware that since last week, Britain has required EU citizens to go through an e-visa process.

The offer from the EU for a youth exchange program was rejected by the UK.

The fish thing looks like anti-EU nonsense. The anonymous source "hinted", whereas the people speaking on the record denied it.

Starmer ruled out joining the customs union, so blame him for the tool import paperwork.

> but the thing is that only a minority voted for Brexit,

So with such a failure of democracy, it's no wonder that the EU would require changes to the voting system (for example) before Britain can rejoin.

The EU doesn't want a half-in half-out Britain. It had that for decades.

I am aware. Of course, if you require a visa from us then it becomes politically impossible NOT to require a visa from you in return. We were very clear that we didn't want it at all.

Re the fish;

>But in an interview with POLITICO, the minister said EU member governments were unlikely to sign off on a security deal with the U.K. unless negotiations are also resolved on other “sensitive” issues, including access to British waters for European fishing fleets. A deal on fish would also help in “building trust” between London and Brussels, she added.(1)

It's just a combination of low turn out and a 52/48 marginal split, it does not mean we have a failure of democracy, that's a bit of a stretch.

(1) https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-eu-defense-pact-really-do...

>At the moment we're trying to give security backing for Ukraine and you're asking us to give up our fishing rights for the honour of helping secure Europe.

You are not trying to secure Europe, you are trying to sell something to Europe. We would rather build capacity to make whatever you want to sell us ourselfs.

I agree we should work closely together, more so after US started dancing naked around burning brides. But everyone is looking into how to secure themselfs, without depending on 3rd party, and from EU's perspective UK is on the outside (even if not as crazy as US has become).

You'd rather build capacity because you think you're likely to be at war with us one day or we'd stop defending Europe? That would be the only reason to say that surely? If so I simply don't know what to say to that.

So then you won't be wanting our troops there for peace-keeping, something only ourselves and France have even offered. Nor any of our finance, we can stop giving billions a year to Ukraine as the EU want to take over?

Seriously it's ridiculously isolationist to be thinking like this. Not working with us just because we left your club is beyond mad.

1.those are not the only options, far from it. If EU buys from 3rd party, that party gets to dictate what we can do with those weapons. How long have EU countries been asking US to allow them to transfer F-16, longer ranged artillery, missiles, MBT,... to Ukraine? Also, lets remember that UK has prevented shipping vaccine manufactured there to 3rd countries, even when some other country paid for it already. EU did not do that.

2. Thank you for confirming our fears. We decide not to buy something for you and now you go full crybaby and deny Ukrain help. Yes, you guys sound like totally dependable.

3. It's not isolationist and we do want (or should want to) cooperate with you, but Eu has just learnt what happens if you outsource your own defense and US elects idiot for the 2nd time. And lets not forget that you have political party on the rise, (Reform UK), that seems to be a bit too friendly with Trump, Farage supposedly received money from RT (russ sponsored Tv) in 2022. One of your previous PMs (Boris Johnson) had appointed Russian oligarch as Lord and is said to have ditched his own security to party with Russian intelligence officers while he was in office. So, if eu and russia come to blows, whos side will UK be on? Depends on what party is in government.

Historical record does not bode well for UK defending anyone when not directly threatened.

It took serious damage to imports and an invasion for them to move during the last World War.

That's nonsense, but even if we take as true for a moment;

The argument here is they don't want to buy our weapons because we might decide to stop selling to them. Do you really see that as even vaguely likely in a war against Russia?

We want to make our own weapons because depending on someone else can be more costly. But some parties in UK do have worrying ties to Russia (reform uk and conservatives). I mean who would have thought that Republicans in US would be 3rd best allies of Putin, right after China and North Korea