Se this is the thing with the EU that remainers can't get.
We were never going to get a good deal! The EU has to be seen to be "punishing" us to dissuade other countries from even thinking about leaving. Least it falls apart. So no one was ever going to get a good deal. Germany has trillions invested in the EU, they literally prop up the economies of every other member state apart from France and The UK. If the EU was to fail it would be catastrophic for Germany and pretty hellish for France too. Before Britain joined EU we managed quite fine, we were also part of another mini EU which was based on tariff free trading of commodities such as coal, steel etc. In fact when we applied to join the EU, France tried to veto our application and were staunchly against us joining. France itself had to have two referendums itself to join the EU as it's own people were against it.
Now just so you are sure, in it's current form the EU is pretty fine and beneficial. We have a great deal of cooperation on a lot of topics such as science, trade, technology that are beneficial to the all of the world. Not just the European countries. I am not anti-EU in its current form. Even as a Scot who lives in a country with an aging population I see the benefit of immigration to our labour force and I have 0% issues with people who want to come from other countries, work, pay taxes and contribute to society. My issue is solely with the aim of the EU to become a "super europe"
Why does it need ratification from Germany? Why doesn't any country have a veto? Look just last week with the EU Commissioner saying we need an EU army to stop the threat from America, one of our closest allies.
The OP who's posts were very eloquent and well thought out was just labour rhetoric who for some reason blame this on the Tories, but even Jeremy Corbyn was a leave voter. And has remained tight lipped on this and only recently has been bashing the Tories on the deal because he wants the votes, he wants to see the Conservatives dissolve Parliament and force a general election. The Labour deputy John McDonald was even in contact last week with the Queen to ask for permission to form a government should the Tory/DUP deal fall apart
The problem was have is that along with the fact that the EU was never going to give us a good deal, we also sent a reaminer (May) to do the negotiating for us so it was in her interest not to get a good deal. A leave politician (Not Boris the halfwit Johnson) should have been in charge of the negotiating. The whole argument of "we didn't get a good deal so we should have another vote" is a terrible abuse of democracy. I along with 2.4m Scots didn't get the vote I wanted on IndyRef1 so I demand a new vote on that! TBH though I would sacrifice Scottish Independence on the basis that the SNP plan on taking us right back into the EU.
People should really do their research and stop basing the decisions on what the EU is just now and rather what they have planned for the future. It's the future that counts.
I disagree with a number of points in your version of history.
Before Britain joined the -then - Common Market in 1973 Britain was a declining former super power. The "Sick Man Of Europe". Prime Minister Harold Wilson took the decision to devalue the pound in 1967, a decision that still reverberates today. We faced almost constant trade union militancy that could bring factories grinding to a halt at the blow of a whistle. The goods our factories made were shoddy, overpriced and seldom - if ever - delivered on time.
It was almost impossible to get a mortgage, the amount of money that could be taken out of the country on holiday was restricted and inflation ran at over 20%
Even after joining the Common Market, it still took nearly ten years to overcome the shortcomings that had become endemic in our industry. The miners strike of 1973/74 led to power cuts and fuel shortages, a three day working week and eventually, to the "Winter of Discontent" in 1978/79.
All these things came about because industrially Britain did not respond well to the loss of Empire. We'd had 100+ years of closed markets for our goods but these evaporated as colony after colony went its own way and no longer took our rubbish products.
The only way forward for Britain was to look towards Europe for our marketplace and to do that meant joining the Common Market. We joined in 1973 and by the early 1980's had recovered to a level that enabled Margaret Thatcher to de-regulate financial and business sectors which led to the modernisation of the country.
The recovery and the wealth that went with it - boosted by North Sea oil coming on stream - came about as a direct result of joining the Common Market in 1973. Margaret Thatcher made sure she took the credit though.
France didn't "attempt" to veto our application in 1973. President de Gaulle of France actually did that in 1963 and 1967. He didn,t want Britain to join because he believed the USA would use the (alleged) "Special Relationship" to flood Europe with American goods, using Britain as a back door to avoid tariffs.
De Gaulle died in 1969 and when Ted Heath became Prime Minister in 1970 he immediately re-opened negotiations for Britain to join, which the French government made only a token protest about to appease hard line Gaullists still in the French political system.
In the 1960's the chairman of the West German Free Democratic Party, Dr Erich Mende, spoke very strongly in favour of Britain’s entry into the Common Market but was unable to influence de Gaulle. So much for a German domination. If the Germans had been so powerful, why could they not influence the French..?
Every EU member DOES have a veto. They all do. We did, which was how we negotiated our way to keep sterling and not adopt the Euro. We threatened to veto the whole Euro concept if the EU attempted to impose it here. Brussels agreed for Britain to retain sterling to stave off the British veto.
Spain is threatening to veto future British trade deals with Europe if it doesn't get negotiations over the future of Gibraltar. Is that veto enough for you..?
The so-called EU army is not what it is being purported to be. It is not intended to have an EU force in the strictest sense of the word. It will not have an EU chain of command. It will not have its own flags and regiments and logistics, etc. It is intended as an agreement between EU member states. An alliance that will be there to help resolve issues that may affect EU member states from outside threats.
Such a coalition would have been priceless in stemming the flow of refugees through the Mediterranean. Instead, nobody wanted to take responsibility ... certainly not NATO... and so they came. in their hundreds of thousands. And where has that led us to...?
NATO is becoming weak. USA is questioning why it should bear such a burden for the safety of Europe. Trump doesn't want to finance American forces in Europe. If NATO becomes ineffective, what will deter Russian aggression..?
A multi-national coalition not dominated by an American regime that no longer wants to ally itself with the "old world" as it sees us, is necessary to deter the increasing threat from Russia. Britain would not have to give over control of its nuclear forces as some are alleging. Project Fear works both ways, you know.
I could go on, but this is already a long enough post and debunks most of what you argue above.
You tell me I should do my research. Well, it seems to me that you have an inadequate knowledge of the history of Britain and it's post-war social and industrial development. Perhaps it's YOU who needs remedial history lessons.