VIDEO: It seems that, as part of the EU Brexit cherry picking exercise, they've got their envious eyes on both Gibraltar and our fishing waters.
The EU already wants our money, our foreign and defence policy and to annex Northern Ireland. But that is not enough, Eurocrats also want Gibraltar and our fish.
And as far as I can see, our politicians seem quietly happy give them up.
Despite assurances that the UK will be leaving the Common Fisheries Policy post Brexit, UK ministers refuse to rule out reciprocal fishing rights.
Responding to a demand by Tory MP Martin Vickers that the UK fishing industry not be sold out again like it was in the 1970s, Defra minister George Eustice said:
"We have consistently been clear that when we leave the European Union we leave the Common Fisheries Policy." But he refused to rule out a reciprocal fishing deal such as the one the EU Commission is demanding as part of any deal.
The chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, Bertie Armstrong, strongly rejected the EU demand, saying:
"There cannot be 'fairer shares' for our fishing communities if we maintain existing reciprocal access. This latest gambit must be rejected."
And in another indication of how deeply our political classes have embroiled us in this so-called 'trading bloc' of the EU, the UK has been forced into the position of offering Gibraltar some sort of special deal to allow it to continue to access finance markets after Brexit.
Gibraltar joined the EU as part of the UK in 1973, but did not take any political part in EU elections etc until 2004.
But for one reason or another the EU says that Gibraltar can't simply leave the European Union on the same basis as the UK does, unless the UK comes to a separate special arrangement with Spain, which of course means letting them have at least co- if not full, control.
"The UK is negotiating for Gibraltar to be treated the same as Britain when it leaves the EU in March 2019. – Reports the BBC.
"But the EU insists Madrid can stop a transitional deal or future trade relationship applying to Gibraltar unless there is a Spain-UK agreement."
So it seems that the EU and Spain have their eyes firmly fixed on wresting possession of the rock away from the UK as a price for Brexit, whatever the people that live there may actually want.
There has already been talk of the Republic or Ireland having a veto over the Brexit agreement because of the Irish border question, now we have Spain also being given a veto. But I will point to the Article 50 process that states that any agreement "…shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament."
No mention of vetos there, so the EU is not acting either legally or in good faith at all. Sickening, isn't it?
And the Remainers have of course jumped on the publication of the now much discredited and previously leaked Whitehall Brexit document that suggests the UK will economically disappear within a few years of Brexit Day.
"Under the worst scenario – a WTO-type arrangement – GDP could decline by a cumulative 7.7% over 15 years, the analysis finds; while under an EEA deal it would be 1.6%." Reports the Guardian, but with absolutely no mention of two, yes two, University of Cambridge working papers, put together mainly by Remainers, that throw serious doubt on how those results were derived.
The Tory MP and chairman of the Eurosceptic European Research group, Jacob Rees-Mogg, put this into its proper context when he said that this paper had been "…so widely leaked and ridiculed for its approach that it is of little consequence."
I've mentioned all this in videos before and I've left links to them in the description box below. Please do watch them to find out what some top economists really think about those leaked papers.
And finally, for those of you that still think the EU is the font of all goodness and support, I will refer you to the words of our former ambassador to Russia, Sir Tony Brenton when speaking on Newsnight.
He claimed that the UK will have to fight its own corner when it comes to dealing with the recent poisoning in Salisbury of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia.
Harking back to the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006 he said:
"We tried at the time of Litvinenko, we were keen to get as much western supporters as we could get.
"The Americans were in a much better state then than they are now, were ready to be supportive. Our European partners, I regret to say, couldn't be seen for dust.
"They weren't going to have a row with Russia about what they saw as a purely British concern."
And he went on to say that the Germans were entirely negative to the idea at the time of excluding Russia from the G8 in response to the killing.
So, I'll ask again, why is the UK so keen to give the EU its 'unconditional' support in terms of defence – you know, our troops risking their lives etc for the good of the EU – if they won't back us up when it comes to the crunch?