>>>The base idea of the british, to establish an open market and not try to establish european bureocratic hegemony is correct
>
>Agreed. Complainants forget that the oldsters who voted to Brexit this time, were the youngsters who voted to enter a European common market in 1975 when it still was a common market of sovereign nations. The advent of an inflexible unelected EU bureaucracy setting rules that can't be overturned democratically, occurred without any mandate on which any UK electorate had voted. When finally given a chance, they showed that there is no mandate for Brussels apparatchiks to set rules for the UK.
>
>How often has the world seen this- inflexible paper tigers setting rules to empower themselves and refusing to budge, after which the Joe Averages free the Bastille, throw tea in the harbor or vote to Brexit?

Finally ? My guess is most questions set before populations received anti-EU (not neccessarily anit-european!) results. The people of Netherlands and France were asked about the constitution, they turned it down, whereas in other places parliaments ratied it. similar to some countries staying out of the € because they asked the people.

After the constitution debacle the EU tries to milk the existing treaties to find rationlisations for their current actions and goes directly against them by that practice.For me the status quo of the eighties was good enough, the things after that will need BuSab or other corrections.Schengen is/was nice, Maastricht would have been ok if followed strictly. Too bad Germany did weasel out and weakened it early on after it was in place