LOL have you checked with the people who will actually be paying for this imagined "stimulation & reforms"? They are tetchy enough when petrol goes up a couple of pence.
Your post is absurd, there has never been anything stopping the UK from investing or developing resilient supply and there is nothing that voting your country poorer and less significant will do to help that. Had you put some kind of honest bill of account for changes you now expect the less well off to fund, because they will be the ones who pay proportionately most, you would never have got this lunacy beyond ERG bots like yourself. Well insulated enough to indulge such fantasy.
I didn't say there had.
I was speculating around the undeniable, even if undesirable, scenario of us being where we are, not where we were before 2016 or 2020.
All the "intellectual focus" on the planet does not magic away self imposed restrictions on trade and huge shortages of employable people. You speak in grandiose, high brow terms while completely ignoring the basic limitations that led to us needing to become part of something more substantial in the first place. I'd be careful of lecturing a US contributor who, like the vast majority of commentators is wondering where the beef is in something so obviously lacking anything beyond political opportunism and based on pure fantasy. Something he will be very familiar with recently.
And again.
These efforts to misrepresent what I have said are tiresome, and tiresomely predictable.
And I wasn't lecturing Bob, any more than he was dispensing lectures (though he was wearing his bias subtly on his sleeve).
I was merely pointing out a perfectly pertinent fact regarding America. They control their own immigration, and would not accept the primacy of any foreign court, not least one with an inbuilt political agenda. They might reasonably respect, or at least understand, that principle in other sovereign entities.
Oh and give it a rest about laws we supposedly have no say in. You cannot name anything that a person might find visible to the naked eye even when looking it up, that's how significant ECJ intervention is in reality and when they have been involved , it's often been to the UK supplier/consumer's advantage. Immigration control was certainly not something that we had no control over. We didn't apply the rules that were already within our gift, another total red herring - emotional tripe with no substance, pretty much Brexit in a nutshell.
With 63 years of the
Aquis, inherited by the UK when it signed up in 1973, (though subsequently mitigated to some extent by opt-outs) running to some 80,000 pieces of legislation of which at least 30,000 are current, it would be very difficult to name laws that the EU does not have a hand in, either directly or indirectly. The EU reaches into virtually every aspect of our lives. Whether this is a good or a bad thing is subject to debate, but a thing it most certainly is.
Your final point, another straw man, much mooted by continuity remain - whilst the UK may have had the means of temporary, limited restrictions on EU immigration under certain quite specific circumstances, it remained throughout its membership subject to the 4 abiding principles of the SM, of which free movement was absolute. This is also true of the EEA members, and of Switzerland.