The EU can claim the moral high ground here; they have remained politically professional and not petty, unlike the UK who did the referendum in the first place as a petty political play, and who is now massively voting against a deal, each for their own reasons; the deal is bad, we don't want to leave the EU so let's postpone or force the UK to stay, or we want to force re-elections.

I feel like they've been quite consistent in their rules-are-rules stance. And the UK has taken the "rules are meant to be broken" stance, which was a risky gamble and showed poor judgment.

This news was a surprise to me, but I wouldn't be further surprised if this procedure is explained in rules that the UK had a hand in drafting.

UK was offered a deal. They've rejected a deal which was pretty extensive and handled loads of things. UK chose to leave, UK got a way better deal than they should, UK rejected it, cake is going away, still is on the EU? Really?

They are not threatening - it's certainly within their rights and within the rule of the law.

I don't see why the EU should show goodwill when every day the British politician tell them to go f%^& themselves. At some point they expect goodwill before extending it.