I wasn’t going to engage in this thread but I can’t let this nonsense pass.
You say this as if the UK was a passive victim of EU lawmaking rather than one of the biggest and most powerful members that played a very strong role in setting EU policy and formulating EU laws. This is revisionism of the highest order.
Quite so.
And the UK was on the “winning side” of votes most of the time. We “lost” about 2% of the time.
I mean how self centred* does one have to be to call that in any way bad.
*Of course…Trump. 
Is the word nonsense actually required? It’s a point of discussion and quite rightly you have corrected the poster but do we need " nonsense "
An explanation is far better
Like yourself, @Robert_Hodge is one of our more opinionated and robust posters, I’m sure he’ll cope.
Short answer Brexit was the worst decision ever made in the U.K. it has not benefited in any way expats living in France and never will .
No doubt and I agree, just wondering if it’s necessary to begin with, I do try to modify my approach and am always happy to listen to other points of view bec6thats how we get a broader picture.
It’s not British that emigrated to France that lost out, all the people living in Britain lost out.
I’m always happy to confess to being overly blunt and direct from time to time. I’m also always happy to debate over points of view and opinions. However, I do have a failing in that I tend to react quite strongly when something just denies reality
Next you’ll be accusing me too 
Ditto 
I would say it is, the question is whether some of us are honest enough to say it, or whether we were just roll our eyes and take the silent more cowardly approach
Are you more likely to convince someone to modify their thinking by
Giving them evidence? With no implied judgement.
or
Saying “nonsense”? And then giving evidence.
Edit to add:
Or asking a pointed question? 
I find myself rolling my eyes and saying nothing about many posts on here rather than pedanting over semantics. I don’t think that makes me dishonest or cowardly.
I don’t doubt that the UK was heavily involved in EU decision making during the period of membership, and that sometimes things went well, and at others not so well.
I’m also aware that governments in general have a habit of dressing up a not so good outcome as being something wonderful.
However, the above is not the point as far as I’m concerned.
My point is that having a law making body situated outside the UK, and which is not a wholly UK organisation in itself, imposing rules with which the UK must be compliant is not acceptable.
Also, and equally important, is the issue of a European court having supremacy over the UK courts. This to me is also not acceptable.
For me, an independent country is one that may make its own laws, and which may choose whether or not to make those laws in harmony with other countries.
Likewise, an independent country will have a judiciary that is free to make its own decisions without reference to, or subjugation by, other courts outside of its own lands.
For me it is the freedom of choice that creates and maintains an independent sovereign nation.
Let the UK harmonise its rules and regs to facilitate trade by all means. Let there be agreements and treaties about common defence. Let the red tape be cut to help out business, and also encourage and facilitate co-operation with others in scientific research.
However, let the UK do all of these things and more out of choice from within rather than by imposition from outside.
One can be on very good terms with neighbouring countries, but agreeing to allow them to decide what I may or may not do in my own country is a step too far.
I suspect that we’re in a topic where that ship has sailed and facts no longer matter
I think the United States is an example where united is a lot different from divided. Whether that is an example of success or a warning of danger remains to be seen.
I was speaking about myself but in the third person there 
You do that every day you live a country and obey it’s laws
I would politely disagree but just on timing Colin
The worst decision was not joining at the very start. After the uk joined indeed it had major influence and was a big player in pushing market freedoms. Things like the common agricultural policy and the bureaucracy would likely have been different with an anglo french led approach vs pure french. However that is what it is.
For now…getting back by some means is necessary for the mid term. The Uk is a middle power these days and we would be wise to listen to the Canadians to join into some robust group for economic self protection. What a surprise…thats what the EU is…
I’m not sure DeGaulle would agree, if I recall correctly.