felixbyrne.bsky.social
retired sherpa | legal practitioner, lecturer, civil servant | specialism - public international & constitutional law | staff alumni - UN, WHO, EC , WTO, WEF | fly fisher, angler | mo: blockers blocked
857 posts
258 followers
259 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Absolutely agree. Rejoin rhetoric without a credible pathway is just noise. The EU isn’t a pick-your-own-adventure—commitment to its rules, values, and institutions is the entry fee. Respecting that isn’t weakness, it’s the foundation of trust.
comment in response to
post
What a nasty little person
comment in response to
post
I've been blocked....
comment in response to
post
Ah, the confidence of someone shouting “illegal!” while ignoring Article 25 of the Schengen Borders Code, which *explicitly* permits temporary border checks. But sure, tell us more about “facts.”
comment in response to
post
Ah yes, because temporary, legally permitted Schengen suspensions by Germany and Belgium - usually for specific security reasons - are *exactly* the same as demanding permanent bespoke access to membership benefits from outside the EU.
But sure, what’s the actual relevance of those examples here?
comment in response to
post
“Our standards are as good as anyone’s” is exactly the sort of complacent self-congratulation that got you to this point. This isn’t about how good *you* think UK standards are - it’s about whether *others* trust them.
comment in response to
post
Ah, the irony of someone who clutches briefing papers like gospel now claiming referenda aren’t democratic because they weren’t *binding*. Parliament acted on it. Article 50 was triggered. Laws were passed. But sure - let’s pretend it was just a casual opinion poll they took very, very seriously.
comment in response to
post
Ah yes, the classic move: when you can't counter the point, sneer at the bio. But do go on lecturing about democratic process while defending a theory that treats non-votes as political declarations. If you're going to rewrite the rules of democracy, at least make it sound clever.
comment in response to
post
Andrew’s bold new theory: not voting counts as voting. Quite the twist in democratic arithmetic—silence becomes consent, apathy morphs into political intent. By that logic, next low turnout we'll just invent preferences for non-voters and call it “fact.” Revisionism, sure—but it’s Andrew doing it.
comment in response to
post
.... And after insisting it’s “not about the EU,” you then say the EU should entertain bespoke UK-wide arrangements. Which is it? You can’t have both an isolated national policy *and* a bloc-level exception - unless, of course, the aim is to sound clever while dodging coherence.
comment in response to
post
Ah yes, the classic shuffle: assert that French visas are solely national (true at issuance), then ignore the moment they intersect with Schengen rules the second someone crosses into another state.....
comment in response to
post
What *is* cherrypicking? Demanding frictionless trade without rules, access without obligations, perks without membership. Barnier didn’t invent the term - he just had the gall to describe the UK’s approach accurately.
If that stings, maybe the cap fits.
comment in response to
post
Ah yes, the tired rant dressed as insight. Schengen border checks for *security* or *migration control* - allowed under Schengen rules - aren’t “cherrypicking.” They’re mechanisms built into the system itself.
comment in response to
post
It’s not within the EU’s gift to retire phrases, and “cherry-picking” remains an accurate shorthand for the UK’s approach - before and after Brexit. Selective demands for benefits without obligations didn’t begin with youth mobility and won’t end there. The phrase endures because the pattern does.
comment in response to
post
That’s fine - positions evolve when new facts or patterns emerge. Yours may not have changed, but clinging to it doesn’t make it more correct. Constancy isn’t a virtue if it means ignoring nuance, legal reality, or the implications of Schengen-wide frameworks.
comment in response to
post
Praise isn’t a lifetime subscription to immunity from critique. If your position veers into legal half-truths dressed as certainty, expect pushback. French visas may be national—but once you step into Schengen, you don’t get to cherry-pick which rules you fancy obeying.
comment in response to
post
When the facts run dry, cue the flailing insults. If calling out legislative cosplay as empty grandstanding is “nonsense” to you, it says more about your grasp of law than Aloke’s. Shouting doesn’t make fiction fact—it just makes the denial louder.
comment in response to
post
Ah, the usual routine: question someone's name and background in a sneering way, then clutch your pearls when it’s called what it is. If you don’t want to be accused of racial undertones, maybe don’t open with a dog whistle and act shocked when people hear it.
comment in response to
post
Because “working for Brits” doesn’t mean indulging post-Brexit fantasies or renegotiating reality to suit Daily Mail tantrums. The deal has Gibraltar’s backing. Maybe sit this one out unless you're actually affected—and informed.
comment in response to
post
& his acolytes are at it too....
comment in response to
post
Emotional pull matters - but it can't be built on slogans and vibes alone. Andrew’s posts often veer into wishful thinking dressed as strategy. If you're serious about rebuilding a case for EU alignment / membership, you need credibility. That starts with grasping the detail—not glossing over it.
comment in response to
post
Stereotyping based on a name isn’t analysis - it’s lazy bigotry. This man has also been on the receiving end of Andrew’s white projection, and a quick scroll through his history would quickly disabuse you of your clumsy assumptions. Try facts next time.
comment in response to
post
Instead of tilting at windmills, try to present ideas that a) work within our law and b) actually benefit us
Ends
comment in response to
post
Ah, self-awareness at last - though oddly styled as a punchline. Still, congrats on dodging “post-empire privilege” while clinging to its spoils and sneering at those left to deal with the fallout. A truly imperial move.
comment in response to
post
With Andrew one never quite knows!
comment in response to
post
Any answer yet?
comment in response to
post
Congratulations on perfectly embodying post-Brexit privilege: blissfully vague, unaffected, and entirely unaware of what was lost—because it never really applied to you. Must be nice not to have to care.
comment in response to
post
“I think.” The perfect summary of post-Brexit perks: uncertain, unofficial, and entirely at the mercy of corporate goodwill. We had guaranteed rights. Now we’ve got vibes and a prayer your provider hasn’t quietly changed the terms.
comment in response to
post
Or if you’re not white generally…….
comment in response to
post
Lebara - the last refuge of the Brexit rationaliser. Yes, patchy workarounds exist. But cobbling together budget fixes isn’t a substitute for the seamless rights torched. It’s not a solution, it’s an apology in SIM card form.
comment in response to
post
Ah yes, the classic Brexit coping mechanism: “It mattered once, but not anymore.” Funny how every lost benefit gets memory-holed the moment it becomes inconvenient to defend. Must be comforting to declare the fire out once the house has already burned down.
comment in response to
post
So, now that the damage is done, it's suddenly ‘no big deal.’ Funny how everything lost to Brexit becomes trivial in hindsight - until you need it. Free roaming was one of many practical benefits tossed aside for vibes and slogans. Dismissing it now isn’t perspective - it’s denial with a data cap.
comment in response to
post
Ah, the sudden concern for cost—after torching economic access to an entire continent for the price of a slogan. Free roaming wasn’t magic, it was a negotiated benefit—like dozens of others Brexiteers were too busy sneering at to understand. Now you're shocked it came with a price tag? Spare us.
comment in response to
post
Ah yes, because nothing says “seamless weekend in Rome” like free roaming in Delhi. The point wasn’t exotic workarounds - it was effortless access across 27 neighbours. Comparing that to India is like losing your car and bragging you’ve still got a skateboard.
comment in response to
post
“Who cares?” Well, clearly not those who cheered Brexit and now pretend the extra costs, hassle, and lost perks like free roaming are trivial. Funny how it’s always “just” one more thing until there’s nothing left but worse service and higher bills wrapped in a Union Jack.
comment in response to
post
True—being angry is their default setting. If reality ever aligned with their worldview, they’d still find a way to be furious about it not happening sooner.
comment in response to
post
Enjoy: it is a frighteningly accurate observation....
comment in response to
post
Yes, *in advance*. He lied, prorogued Parliament, purged moderates, and still got handed an 80-seat majority. If that’s not prepaying failure with power, what is? Pretending the slate was clean in Dec 2019 is either amnesia—or a working audition for Brexit’s historical fiction unit.
comment in response to
post
2/2: Calling shared governance “subordination” is Brexit cosplay for complex realities. The EU isn’t flawless, but waving one ethics gripe like gospel while ignoring UK dysfunction is wilful self-delusion.
comment in response to
post
1/ 2: It doesn’t disprove it—it confirms it. Johnson’s failures were rewarded *in advance* with a huge majority, and only punished once they became politically toxic. That’s not accountability—it’s damage control.
comment in response to
post
You're not defending him - you’re deflecting. Pretending Johnson’s collapse years *after* being rewarded with a landslide proves UK accountability, while clutching one EU ethics misstep as systemic failure, is peak bad faith. It's not about standards—just which ones you’re willing to ignore.
comment in response to
post
Ah, so the lies, lawbreaking, and wrecking-ball politics *before* the pandemic don’t count? Fascinating standard. You’re happy to ignore the bonfire at home while clutching your pearls over an EU coffee meeting. That’s not scrutiny—it’s Brexit-era fanfiction dressed as outrage.
comment in response to
post
December 2019 ring any bells? After years of lies, lawbreaking, and nationalist cosplay, Johnson waltzed into No.10 with an 80-seat majority. If that’s your idea of accountability in action, no wonder you’re so fixated on Brussels coffee meetings - it’s all you've got.
comment in response to
post
So we’re back to the coffee - less scandal, more sacred relic in the Church of Brexit Justification. Yes, the meeting was mishandled. No, it wasn’t a democratic apocalypse. If this is your lodestar for systemic collapse, it says more about your desperation than the EU’s design flaws.
comment in response to
post
What epic failure? Oh, just the one where the UK torched its global standing, botched a pandemic response, partied through lockdowns, tanked trade, lied to the Queen, and crashed ministerial standards—then handed Johnson a landslide. But sure, tell us again about EU accountability.
comment in response to
post
The idea that UK failings trigger accountability while EU ones expose a “State-government problem” is laughable. The UK rewarded epic failure with an 80-seat majority. If the EU defending its institutions offends you, perhaps what you really want isn’t reform - just something to rage against.
comment in response to
post
So the EU must operate at divine levels of governance or be condemned as structurally corrupt—while the UK’s bonfire of accountability is hand-waved as irrelevant? That’s not a principled stance, it’s selective outrage. You’re not critiquing failure—you’re fetishising it when it suits your narrative
comment in response to
post
Yes, a lapse - ill-judged, tone-deaf, and rightly criticised. But let’s not kid ourselves: it wasn’t corruption, it wasn’t illegal, and it didn’t bring down the eurozone. You’ve blown up a footnote into a founding myth, while ignoring the ethical bonfire that is British politics post-Brexit.