RayC

That is just nonsense. As I inferred previously, the date of the Brexit vote was, and is, completely immaterial. Indeed it wasn't even known at the time (2004). The fact is that the UK government could have restricted freedom of movement for the 10 'new' members of the EU from 2004-11. There was nothing preventing them from doing so. It was their decision - and their's alone - not to do so. It really is as simple as that!

I answered this question earlier in this thread. If you say so. Any link confirming the actual numbers? You might be right but it doesn't actually address my point. There are now 27 members and a change in voting procedure is probably necessary. Excellent. We agree.

I still don't understand your point or, more specifically, the point(s) of mine which you object to. You, not me, are the one conflating the date of the Brexit referendum with the fact that the UK government could have restricted freedom of movement for nationals of the 'new' member states.

What is your point?

Unless there was a Treaty change, the member states. That sounds like some David Icke type conspiracy theory Vetoes have been reduced in number but those that exist retain their potency by definition: A veto is a veto. On the subject of the number of vetoes. Is it any surprise given the enlargement of the EU? Obtaining unanimity among 16 members was difficult, let alone among 27/28 member states. There is a need for compromise on occasion. Whether the EU should have enlarged so quickly is another matter. Brexit has been an irritant that the EU did not want and has had to deal with, but it has had little, if any, effect on the governance of the EU.

You obviously didn't read @Candice's post. EU treaties don't suddenly just appear on the desks of the member states' heads of government. There are often years of negotiation involved. The final draft will have been given the seal of approval by the governments of the member states before it is presented for approval according to their individual constitutions. If the Danish or French governments had been so inclined then they could have informed the European Commission that, "Sorry, this isn't going to work", and that would have been the end of it (apart from 25 other disgruntled members). I'm dreaming but then I wake up and I'm still right.

Whether the EU should have expanded as quickly as it did is a moot point. However, once again the UK public should blame its' own government rather than Brussels for any problems. The UK could have restricted freedom of movement for nationals of the 'new' member states for up to 7 years if it had wanted to. Germany did this. The UK chose not to.

Seems like a good idea to me for the EU to speak, through a single person on the international stage, on matters such as the economy and international relations where the bloc is in agreement. There is no suggestion that either of these positions would replace similar posts at the national level. In any event, it is no way that it is a prelude to a "total European merge" (as you put it). That would require a new Treaty/ Treaty change, something that requires unanimous approval from the member states!

Two tangential and largely irrelevant statements. The fact that the UK has left the EU is completely irrelevant when it comes to the false statements being made about the EU by Brexiters. It's true that no UK political party has committed outright to rejoining the EU, but the LibDems have stated that they will rejoin the Single Market; the Labour party and the Greens would seek closer ties and the SNP see their future inside the EU (albeit outside of the UK).

Two more completely erroneous, factually incorrect and misleading statements. EU Treaties - or amendments to treaties - require unanimous approval from all member states: Any individual EU member state can veto Treaty change. Therefore, this idea that the UK - or any other member state - could have been (can be) dragged, kicking and screaming against their will into a United States of the EU is complete and utter nonsense. My original statement that the UK almost never had to enact any legislation from Brussels that it didn't agree with still holds true.

Thank you. Maybe some of your fellow Brexiters will follow your lead (although I doubt it)? (Time for a sing along) ".. and then you go and spoil it all by saying something stupid ..." There is no evidence to support anything in your second paragraph.

You're telling me!!? They just keep coming no matter how many times they are factually rebuked. Some unkind souls might suggest that Brexiters were illogical.

What you say is correct - apart from the first sentence - but you should have read what was written more closely. I'll repeat it here for ease of reference: "The UK almost never had to enact any legislation from Brussels that it didn't agree with." This is a true statement. It is a fact that between 1997 - 2014, the UK was forced to enact 3% of EU legislation which it had voted against. This, btw is a similar figure to Germany. In any organisation, there will almost inevitably be times when certain players find themselves in a minority. However, the notion that the UK was somehow a persecuted minority when it was an EU member is another fallacy. No matter how hard you try to wish away these statements, they will still remain correct when you reopen your eyes. I have posted a link supporting my statement about "the 3%" in direct reply to you on 3 previous occasions. I will not do so again. Some may argue that the chaos and negative economic effects which Brexit has caused to the UK over the past 6 years - and which looks likely to continue for the foreseeable future - is a price worth paying to regain this "3% of sovereignty". I strongly disagree.

Different wording but still a false argument.

The Treaty of Rome states that the aim should be "even closer union among the people of Europe ..." Does that inevitably mean a single European state? Imo no, but it's an interesting and valid point which you raise.

I would add 'power'.

That is such a lazy argument. It's akin to saying that God must exist because you can't prove categorically that s/he/it doesn't. The other favourite Brexiter counter-argument, that they know someone whose business is now thriving therefore Brexit is beneficial, is like saying that I knew someone who smoked 40 Capstan full strength per day and he lived to 90. Therefore, smoking must be good for you. It simply isn't true. It is another false argument. The facts are simple: (Almost) Every piece of research conducted into Brexit has found that it has had and - based on certain assumptions - will continue to have negative economic effects. If Brexiters do not accept these hypotheses, arguments and conclusions then the onus on them to find flaws in the assumptions and methodologies. The fact that there are few, if any, studies which have done so suggest that the original research is credible and valid. Why do Brexit supporters find it so difficult to acknowledge this?

You state that your objection to freedom of movement is not based on economic factors. You also deny that you are motivated by xenophobia. What exactly is your objection to Europeans living and working in the UK? (Please do not mention the effect on the UK job market unless you are willing to concede that is an economic factor).

I doubt that many people will be getting too <deleted> at £10/pint????

3% of EU nationals in the UK were unemployed prior to the pandemic. This rose to 6% during the pandemic (Source: Daily Telegraph). I can't find data on the UK unemployed in the EU, but I imagine that there are a similar number of British "ponces" living in the EU.

Under freedom of movement regulations very few EU nationals would have been denied entry to the UK, so I don't see how the imposition of visa requirements benefit these individuals.

Dismantle (at least one of) them.

If her (likely) appeal fails, the full term. According to a podcast ('The Dropout'), there is no parole in the US federal - as opposed to states' - judicial system. I stand to be corrected if I've misunderstood and that statement is incorrect.

What is then? You've said that it's not for economic reasons. UK Immigration should know when someone has arrived in the country. What added benefit is there in making individuals obtain a visa?

Another of the favourite old chestnuts rears its' head again