Harland Sanders
@colonelhsanders.bsky.social
New account. Old one retired after excess troll attention. Writing under a pseudonym by design: privacy enables candour. Expect robust, well-seasoned discourse (all 12 herbs & spices). Good-faith debate welcome; abuse will be blocked.
If that needs explaining too, it says everything about the level of understanding in this discussion.
January 11, 2026 at 11:22 AM
If that needs explaining too, it says everything about the level of understanding in this discussion.
If this needs spelling out, that alone tells you everything about the intellect on display in this thread.
January 11, 2026 at 11:21 AM
If this needs spelling out, that alone tells you everything about the intellect on display in this thread.
Six months visa-free is the UK’s standard visitor offering for visa-free nationals and the EU’s standard is 90/180.
January 10, 2026 at 9:15 PM
Six months visa-free is the UK’s standard visitor offering for visa-free nationals and the EU’s standard is 90/180.
That “right” only existed if he was actually a resident.
If he was, he should have registered- simple as that.
If he wasn’t registered, then he was just another long-stay visitor, and the 90/180 rule applies.
There’s nothing special or “taken away” about it.
If he was, he should have registered- simple as that.
If he wasn’t registered, then he was just another long-stay visitor, and the 90/180 rule applies.
There’s nothing special or “taken away” about it.
January 10, 2026 at 7:40 PM
That “right” only existed if he was actually a resident.
If he was, he should have registered- simple as that.
If he wasn’t registered, then he was just another long-stay visitor, and the 90/180 rule applies.
There’s nothing special or “taken away” about it.
If he was, he should have registered- simple as that.
If he wasn’t registered, then he was just another long-stay visitor, and the 90/180 rule applies.
There’s nothing special or “taken away” about it.
I’d venture to suggest that is because the UK side is still recycling the same fantasies that failed in 2016–17, as if repetition might somehow turn them into reality.
January 10, 2026 at 4:43 PM
I’d venture to suggest that is because the UK side is still recycling the same fantasies that failed in 2016–17, as if repetition might somehow turn them into reality.
What is your point? This isn’t an accident or a punishment. It’s the predictable result of a vote to leave the system that provided those freedoms. Everyone else kept them; Brits opted out.
January 10, 2026 at 4:37 PM
What is your point? This isn’t an accident or a punishment. It’s the predictable result of a vote to leave the system that provided those freedoms. Everyone else kept them; Brits opted out.
“I didn’t vote for the consequences” isn’t a serious argument.
Politics isn’t a menu where you tick “Leave EU” and untick “Effects of leaving the EU.”
Politics isn’t a menu where you tick “Leave EU” and untick “Effects of leaving the EU.”
January 10, 2026 at 4:35 PM
“I didn’t vote for the consequences” isn’t a serious argument.
Politics isn’t a menu where you tick “Leave EU” and untick “Effects of leaving the EU.”
Politics isn’t a menu where you tick “Leave EU” and untick “Effects of leaving the EU.”
Agree, it’s one of Brexit’s great absurdities that those who voted for it refuse to own it and the consequences .
Britain voted, Britain chose, Britain left yet the consequences are treated like a foreign imposition.
Responsibility can’t be outsourced.
Britain voted, Britain chose, Britain left yet the consequences are treated like a foreign imposition.
Responsibility can’t be outsourced.
January 10, 2026 at 4:30 PM
Agree, it’s one of Brexit’s great absurdities that those who voted for it refuse to own it and the consequences .
Britain voted, Britain chose, Britain left yet the consequences are treated like a foreign imposition.
Responsibility can’t be outsourced.
Britain voted, Britain chose, Britain left yet the consequences are treated like a foreign imposition.
Responsibility can’t be outsourced.
Because those “people” aren’t residents.
If they were lawfully resident, their rights would have been protected, just as they were for Brits and EU citizens who actually lived there.
If they were lawfully resident, their rights would have been protected, just as they were for Brits and EU citizens who actually lived there.
January 10, 2026 at 3:01 PM
Because those “people” aren’t residents.
If they were lawfully resident, their rights would have been protected, just as they were for Brits and EU citizens who actually lived there.
If they were lawfully resident, their rights would have been protected, just as they were for Brits and EU citizens who actually lived there.
“They even threw us out…” really? We were never in SAFe….
January 10, 2026 at 2:53 PM
“They even threw us out…” really? We were never in SAFe….
Six months visa-free is the UK default.
In return, Brits get the EU default: 90 days in any 180. That’s reciprocity, not a concession.
What part of ‘standard on both sides’ is confusing you?
In return, Brits get the EU default: 90 days in any 180. That’s reciprocity, not a concession.
What part of ‘standard on both sides’ is confusing you?
January 10, 2026 at 12:22 PM
Six months visa-free is the UK default.
In return, Brits get the EU default: 90 days in any 180. That’s reciprocity, not a concession.
What part of ‘standard on both sides’ is confusing you?
In return, Brits get the EU default: 90 days in any 180. That’s reciprocity, not a concession.
What part of ‘standard on both sides’ is confusing you?
Isn’t this framing doing exactly what it accuses others of: flattening very different experiences into a single moral claim?
If Brexit’s impacts were uneven within the UK and across the EU, why assume Irish perspectives are about “selective empathy”?
If Brexit’s impacts were uneven within the UK and across the EU, why assume Irish perspectives are about “selective empathy”?
January 8, 2026 at 4:33 PM
Isn’t this framing doing exactly what it accuses others of: flattening very different experiences into a single moral claim?
If Brexit’s impacts were uneven within the UK and across the EU, why assume Irish perspectives are about “selective empathy”?
If Brexit’s impacts were uneven within the UK and across the EU, why assume Irish perspectives are about “selective empathy”?
Hi, you’ll recall, we’ve covered this ground before. You’re right: durability means being honest about obligations, not just access. From the EU’s perspective, scepticism is rational, not hostile. Until the UK accepts constraints as well as benefits, any reset risks looking like déjà vu, not realism
January 8, 2026 at 1:50 PM
Hi, you’ll recall, we’ve covered this ground before. You’re right: durability means being honest about obligations, not just access. From the EU’s perspective, scepticism is rational, not hostile. Until the UK accepts constraints as well as benefits, any reset risks looking like déjà vu, not realism
The gripe here ultimately sounds less like a principled objection and more like an allergy to paperwork.
Equal treatment means filling in the same forms, meeting the same standards, and accepting the same obligations as everyone else.
Equal treatment means filling in the same forms, meeting the same standards, and accepting the same obligations as everyone else.
January 7, 2026 at 4:26 PM
The gripe here ultimately sounds less like a principled objection and more like an allergy to paperwork.
Equal treatment means filling in the same forms, meeting the same standards, and accepting the same obligations as everyone else.
Equal treatment means filling in the same forms, meeting the same standards, and accepting the same obligations as everyone else.
Agree, and I for one don’t disagree with his view.
January 6, 2026 at 3:01 PM
Agree, and I for one don’t disagree with his view.
History has been kinder to that assessment than many admit. Foresight in politics isn’t about being liked; it’s about seeing structural tensions before they surface. On that score, de Gaulle deserves far more credit than he usually gets. END.
January 6, 2026 at 2:13 PM
History has been kinder to that assessment than many admit. Foresight in politics isn’t about being liked; it’s about seeing structural tensions before they surface. On that score, de Gaulle deserves far more credit than he usually gets. END.
De Gaulle saw, earlier than most, that Britain’s strategic culture was unresolved: Atlantic and European, global and continental. His veto wasn’t petulance but a judgment that misaligned incentives would eventually corrode the project from within.>3
January 6, 2026 at 2:13 PM
De Gaulle saw, earlier than most, that Britain’s strategic culture was unresolved: Atlantic and European, global and continental. His veto wasn’t petulance but a judgment that misaligned incentives would eventually corrode the project from within.>3
Insightful thread - thank you:
One can disagree with Charles de Gaulle and still admire his foresight. He understood that institutions are only as strong as the intentions of those who join them—and that ambiguity at the point of entry shapes everything that follows. >2
One can disagree with Charles de Gaulle and still admire his foresight. He understood that institutions are only as strong as the intentions of those who join them—and that ambiguity at the point of entry shapes everything that follows. >2
January 6, 2026 at 2:13 PM
Insightful thread - thank you:
One can disagree with Charles de Gaulle and still admire his foresight. He understood that institutions are only as strong as the intentions of those who join them—and that ambiguity at the point of entry shapes everything that follows. >2
One can disagree with Charles de Gaulle and still admire his foresight. He understood that institutions are only as strong as the intentions of those who join them—and that ambiguity at the point of entry shapes everything that follows. >2
Correct. That is how “Schengen works” for EU citizens *not outsiders*.
You appear to demand that outsiders to have the same privileges and rights within Schengen as citizens which is patently absurd.
You appear to demand that outsiders to have the same privileges and rights within Schengen as citizens which is patently absurd.
January 6, 2026 at 10:44 AM
Correct. That is how “Schengen works” for EU citizens *not outsiders*.
You appear to demand that outsiders to have the same privileges and rights within Schengen as citizens which is patently absurd.
You appear to demand that outsiders to have the same privileges and rights within Schengen as citizens which is patently absurd.
Right, the roaming in-laws, eternally shuttling between four Schengen countries, cruelly stopped by a rule that somehow only inconveniences Twitter replies. A tragic bureaucratic opera, performed exclusively by troll accounts.
January 5, 2026 at 8:11 PM
Right, the roaming in-laws, eternally shuttling between four Schengen countries, cruelly stopped by a rule that somehow only inconveniences Twitter replies. A tragic bureaucratic opera, performed exclusively by troll accounts.
Like I said, you two have form & history & that’s no interest to me.
However, “unlimited stay in one country + waivers elsewhere” delivers Schengen-style mobility without Schengen-level obligations. EU/ MS etc aren’t missing the point: they’re declining it deliberately.
However, “unlimited stay in one country + waivers elsewhere” delivers Schengen-style mobility without Schengen-level obligations. EU/ MS etc aren’t missing the point: they’re declining it deliberately.
January 5, 2026 at 4:11 PM
Like I said, you two have form & history & that’s no interest to me.
However, “unlimited stay in one country + waivers elsewhere” delivers Schengen-style mobility without Schengen-level obligations. EU/ MS etc aren’t missing the point: they’re declining it deliberately.
However, “unlimited stay in one country + waivers elsewhere” delivers Schengen-style mobility without Schengen-level obligations. EU/ MS etc aren’t missing the point: they’re declining it deliberately.
Which is to say: a very specific edge case being laundered into a mass grievance. Spending 4–8 months a year in Schengen without residency is, by definition, living around the rules and then acting surprised when the rules notice. A 6–8 week “trip” is a holiday, not a lifestyle brutalized.
January 5, 2026 at 3:51 PM
Which is to say: a very specific edge case being laundered into a mass grievance. Spending 4–8 months a year in Schengen without residency is, by definition, living around the rules and then acting surprised when the rules notice. A 6–8 week “trip” is a holiday, not a lifestyle brutalized.
These two appear to have a peculiar codependency which is no interest to me. A plague on both their houses. I've no interest or plan to get involved
January 5, 2026 at 3:42 PM
These two appear to have a peculiar codependency which is no interest to me. A plague on both their houses. I've no interest or plan to get involved
I’ve yet to meet a single Brit, or any third-country national for that matter, who actually traverses the Schengen Area so relentlessly that “ 3 days per country” is a real-world problem rather than a theoretical tantrum.
January 5, 2026 at 2:39 PM