You are quite right. It is not a huge amount of money, if anything it is quite reasonable indeed. However, certain populist right-wing media in the country have went ahead and attempted to present this as yet another sign of EU being 'evil' and 'corrupt' and wanting to 'punish' Britain for leaving. A short term visa to the UK from outside the EU right now is set at £97, to give you a little bit of perspective.

Britain right now, as a member of the EU, 'enjoys' freedom of movement. This means one can travel to and from the UK and the EU, with minimal obstacles along the way. The UK is not however a member of the Schengen Treaty, which gives them certain additional rights in terms of denying entry, custom controls, etc. British people travelling to the EU right now face no checks, no custom controls, and no visa or other entry fees. The proposed change will cover administrative costs and the cost is kept at a minimum, which is a good gesture. But it doesn't mean that a British citizen will be able to travel as freely into the EU as before. For the most part, very little will change, but they will have to declare goods in customs checks, and they could also be denied entry as the principle of the freedom of movement will no longer apply.

Of course, this is only pertinent from 2021 and afterwards. Until then, the UK is most likely to stay in the Union through an agreed extension to the timeline of leaving, what is described as a 'transition period'. 

Of course, that is not the only repercussion of leaving. In fact I am surprised this has even made it to the news. This is a non-issue as far as BREXIT goes, really. 

True story.  Quebec nationalists invented the term "sovereignty association" whereby they somehow magically believe they will have sovereignty over their own affairs, while still being associated with Canada (as Quebecers generally support Canada's international trade agreements, treaties Canada has signed, don't want to have to get a visa to enter Canada, want to keep the Canadian dollar, etc.).  It's fantasy of course, as Quebec nationalists envision a future where they get to pick and choose what they have control over, and what Canada gets stuck having to do for them.  That's not how these things work, as Brexiteers are starting to find out.

Yes because economic domination is exactly what the EU is doing... how exactly?

The EU is a byzantine institutional mess, but at its heart it has always been reluctant to become an imposition. If you even paid close attention to the history of EU summits, you would have seen that any attempts at further integration were shot down by various EU members (UK included).

Yes the EU does seek further integration. But as things stand, they are bound to respect the wishes of all their members as well. Of course, in practice they end up dictating fiscal policy to such smaller nations as you said, for example Greece -- but this is mostly because they have to keep the books in order and also because Greek fiscal and economic policy was a literal black hole for public funds and bonds. They are also responsible to those who give this money, e.g. UK which was very much against the idea of funding Greece.

The true problem with EU is that it has to appease both the poorer weaker members, as well as cuddle the more powerful and obnoxious members like the UK.

The EU *is* in trouble. There is no way around this. It will either have to integrate further (the German/France side) or become more minimal (the UK), or the impossible (what the weaker countries want, which is a mixture of greater integration in terms of lending, etc whilst at the same time seeking more independence - "lend us money, but don't tell us what to do with it fiscally")

So you blatantly admit that study of politics in itself can't hold up to scrutiny by it's own content ... 

FWIW, "proofs" are literally a concept that can only exist in logic/mathematics. The word you are looking for is "evidence" and performing science is just another method for a systematic collection of information but unlike history which is nearly a method of recollection of information. Science has the benefit of having a far more elegant and higher standard verification process like having testable hypothesis however, history on the other hand has no such luxury so you're nearly left with just many unverifiable past accounts when studying further back in time so it'll be extremely difficult to verify evidence for many cases including potentially your example of colonization ... (as if the subject was relevant to this topic at hand)

Not saying that what you studied was trivial but you if you're going to denigrate a stranger's background then expect the same retaliation in kind ... 

That being said you can't deny that there's a far lower barrier to entry with political science than there is with the natural sciences. It must be very nice being able to read or examine many old texts and documents that are at least dozens decades old then maybe give your own interpretation/analysis frequently once in a while ... 

It's as you yourself mentioned, "The arts, whether that is philosophy, sociology, psychology, politics, economics, or literary critique, is by definition not a science. One cannot 'prove' Plato, or Marx, or Nietzsche. You can only contemplate their views, weigh them up, and produce a substantive but ultimately subjective perspective of the topic/concept/idea you are studying." which means just about everything you've studied up to this point has being entirely conceptually arbitrary. I don't blame you one bit for it since you've subsequently denoted paradoxical thoughts like I've shown to you in many of your proceeding posts but that's what happens when many of the leaders in your field don't actually want to advance the framework itself and many are left without a bloody consensus of the definitions of many concepts involved ... 

It's probably the reason why you feel threatened that any layman can compete against you in your own field when not a lot of details are built upon each other. Many of the ideas in your field can be competently grasped in less than a season which makes it very hard to paint an ordinary Joe who informally dabbles with the subject from time to time as incorrect than those with a similar educational background like yours but if they tried discussing a somewhat advanced topic in depth about the natural sciences, our progressive curriculum equipped with learning heavy-handed tools such as differential equations or organic chemistry means that they will serve as our best bullshit detectors while those with a specialty in the arts can hardly afford a similar solution ... 

"Since this has become a ridiculous litany of assaults and ad hominems", LOL like you should be the one to talk when you were the first one who came headstrong at me along with some others so how very hypocritical of you ... 

Yes, I absolutely could otherwise and it's because you only demonstrated a socially constructed understanding of race rather than a biologically grounded one. I know you and left wing "race" deniers want to disconfirm the extent of natural selection as much as possible but if we take the biological definition of race to be genetically clustered subpopulations of a species then their perception of race is probably real and it's not some coincidence that these lineages are structurally lined up along the geographical continental boundaries either ... (here's your problem, you made a straw man that you thought that they thought that religion was equivalent to race so let me tell you now that it's not how most would view as "race")

@Underlined What you just wrote is not supported by current evidence which extended upon another previous work ... (the people of Mozambique is nearly devoid of neanderthal DNA while people in Iceland still have some of the neanderthal DNA left, an individual's ancestral origins can definitely be tracked down)

@Bold I don't care about the damn button but every time that you encourage users with a post saying "they know what their talking about", it seems in quite a few instances that you seek justification from others for your position. Don't seek validation with me, eh ? You realize that got protective over your credentials in your previous paragraphs ... 

Please elaborate where my comment was racist? You should really take off your tin-foil hat. So you really think you can fight German dominance from outside with a much weaker stance now? Your statement would be funny wouldn’t it be so sad.

Please identify what century you are talking about. 

Maybe that fee isn't a childish retaliation, but it looks a lot like it.

Muslim isn't a race though. Should've said Turkish to make more sense since a Muslim can be an Englishman, a German, a French, a Canadian, they can be a Baloch from Pakistan or a Rajput from India an arayan a Saxon, an Egyptian, a Japanese, a Chinese, an aboriginal from austrAust or native of America, a Spanish, a Mexican, an Italian or a person from a race and country you've never heard of. I don't know when but Jews somehow became a race though. Also I can't wait for this narrative of scary Muslims to die down so we can be aeesas people with varying levels of decency from scum to the best of the best just like any other population instead of being confined in a very specofsp box by those who hate us and fear us and those who say they are with us and supposedly protect us. 

There were talks about such fee for all people from outside the passport-free zone, but AFAIK nothing concrete has been done yet about it, up until now, so should such plans get real after Brexit, it would look a lot like retaliation. Also, as the excuse for it is security, regular travelers having to pay it and clandestine immigrants entering without paying it would be quite ridiculous.

Lol we're really shafted in the UK when even this clown is back peddling it seems many in this camp are now realising the implications of what's coming.