It just occurred to me whether or not "Russia did it" it serves the interest f the hard Brexiteers and of Boris Johnson in particular to pressure the EU for sanctions without sufficient evidence. When the EU refuses to do the UK's bidding the Brexit negotiations can be allowed to fail and it would be the EU's fault for being unreasonable about Russia instead of it being the UK's fault for beng unreasonable about the Irish border.

The EU has nothing to gain from antagonising the UK, but look at this:Tusk and Juncker Say Wait-and-See on Russia: EU Summit Update

[Finland] Prime Minister Juha Sipila said that the "information we've got so far is not enough to make decisions, this kind of decisions need to be assessed through careful processes."

Luxembourg Prime Minister Xavier Bettel had this to say: "I want to listen, don't ask me to say if there is evidence or not."

Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis ... responded: "Is there any evidence of this? I don't know, of course we trust our allies."

He went on to say: "If U.K. is sure then I am sure also. We will discuss it. This attack is a big problem but we hope that U.K. is really convinced that this is the case that Russia is behind it."

Tsipras was non-committal about where he stood on the poisoning incident: "we need to investigate Salisbury event with great responsibility."

...

Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite ... [a]sked by a reporter about the possibility the bloc will agree to booting out Russian officials from their own countries, ... said "all of us, we are considering."

Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borissov, when asked whether he believes the U.K.'s version of events seemed not to be so sure: "I'm a cautious person... When we know who did it then I'll comment. Who would say for sure now?"

Now get this:

Some of the strongest language on Russia came from Ireland, who ... stands by its neighbor when it comes to Russian aggression. ... the wording is strong ... At least Leo Varadkar didn't dwell on needing to see more evidence.

This is as close as anyone got to the UK position. Let's hear it:

"I think what occurred in Salisbury was loathsome and reprehensible and we're going to stand right beside the U.K. on that issue. An attempted assassination or a chemical attack -- no matter who does it, no matter where it happens -- is something we are going to condemn and condemn outright."

Not a ringing endorsement, is it? And yet

The British prime minister needs to make a compelling enough case that Russia carried out a chemical attack on British soil.

She's after more than just words of support from them.

After the first meeting:

Peter Pellegrini ... prime minister of Slovakia ...: "We fully agree with the draft of text which will be presented during the meeting later on. So we fully support this, but when we speak about some actions against Russia I will repeat once more, if there will be agreement of all member states then Slovakia will be part of it, but we don't like to support any individual actions."

O dear.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman