The Soviet Union didn't have Article 50 - there wasn't an option of leaving. The Baltic states didn't 'opt in' - they were annexed via ultimatum. I don't even need to bring up the death camps and so on becaused there is no point of comparison between the USSR and the EU in any way beyond the word 'union' in their titles.
The UK is free to leave - they can crash out on 'no deal' at any point they want. What it's not free to do is have its' cake and eat it. The EU has a right to protect its' interests.
What you are doing here is demonstrating that you are an ideological extremist. You are foolish. I don't say that lightly, but if you actually think what Hunt said is a 'valid point', then you're a fool who either knows nothing about the subject matter or knows it but doesn't give a toss.
The EU has a responsibility to negotiate an agreement for a leaving country. I am no ideological extremist, nor am I foolish. Hunt made a valid point. The USSR did everything against a country to stop it leaving, and the EU bureaucracy is doing exactly the same. It’s not guns and bullets and tanks, it’s in politics, insisting upon weaponising the NI situation, it’s in negotiating more like a spoilt child than an adult.
As has been pointed out, if Japan offered the EU a deal whereby it would trade and abide by its rules and take standards for products etc etc from the EU and submit in parts to the EU court, the EU would grab it, sign it and laugh. Yet apparently for a country that has paid money in for 45 years and continues to offer payment in a mistaken attempt to continue to be friends, it is not acceptable.
So when a new minister compares the EU to the USSR, he is right. It is not diplomatic, it will not be received well and it will wind people up, but he is right to do so and it will aid negotiations. Your own ‘outraged’ comments merely show why he was right to do so.......