Re: And
The epithets are only used when one or more parties show such idiocy / lack of critical thinking that they are oblivious to an obvious pack of lies.
True, but I'm sure you could understand the non-EU point of view if you put your mind to it. Actually, no. I'm not so sure.
If you voted for Brexit (or Trump, Reform, FN etc) then own it.
I was ineligible to vote in the Brexit referendum, because I was living in another EU country at the time. How does that fit with your worldview?
But the “boo hoo hoo, they called be nasty names” is snowflakery pure and simple. There there, mummy’s precious little unicorn.
Nice bit of whataboutery, but it won't wash. You can call me any names you like, it reflects more on your sensitivities than mine.
I was very much a supporter of the EEC and it's predecessors like the Common Market & the Coal and Steel Community. They were extremely valuable in helping European countries put aside the post-war tensions and build a successful trading economy. They weren't perfect, nothing like that is, but they really helped build a strong and peaceful Europe.
The conversion of that into the political and fiscal union of the EU in 1993 was an unmitigated disaster for Europe, for multiple reasons.
The many EU countries have very different views on fiscal and social principles; some like the free market and others prefer protectionism; some prioritize individual freedoms, others go more for paternalism and solidarity. As a result much EU legislation isn't based on what everyone agrees on, but on whatever offends them sufficiently little not to reject it. It's why so much EU legislation has tens of thousands of words, to give sufficient ambiguity that it can be sold to all the varied voters.
That only leads one way, to the lowest-common denominator, and the result is the stagnation and mediocrity that has characterised the EU for the past 30 years. It's been left far behind by fast-growing countries like China and the USA, even non-Euro EU members have done better than those in the Eurozone. If the convergence criteria for the euro had actually been taken seriously things might be better, for the few countries that could have met them, but the way the rules were fudged to make it possible for so many countries to be absorbed led directly to the Italian and Greek crises from which the euro still hasn't fully recovered.
At the time of the Maastricht agreement few countries were permitted referendums. One that was, France, has always been a strong europhile, yet even it only voted "yes" by 50.6%. Briitish opinion polls showed people 65% opposed, but we had no referendum.
One of the most serious consequences of that was a very large portion of the population of EU countries feeling ignored, and without any voice. All the mainstream parties push the "more Europe will fix everything" line, so who can those unhappy voters turn to? Unfortunately the answer to that is that many turned go the extreme left and right, whose only common position was a dislike of the EU. We see the rise of the LFI and RN in France, AfD in Germany, Freedom Party in Austria, Vlaams Belang in the Netherlands, 5-Star and Fratelli d'Italia, etc. That's a very, very dangerous situation. If the EU doesn't start to take this seriously it will look very different in 5 years, and not for the better.