[flagged]
Sure, but that freedom means not doing any trade with your neighbours, not letting people from your country visit the EU (and vice versa), not importing any energy, etc.
No. A big point in favor of the EU is that countries do not negotiate individually but as a single block. This is an advantage because it gives them more power and the ability of getting better deals (in aggregate). Which is exactly the sort of "bullying" that you are complaining about: by deciding to go alone, the UK is weaker and gets worse deals.
In fact, a well-functioning EU is one of the only ways in which European countries can hope to count anything in a world dominated by much larger economies (US, China, India, ...)
To defend (y)our interests against other economic blocks that are more powerful and not necessarily nice to you. With ASML you are well covered for now, but China is catching up. And how can 18 million people compete against 1.4 billion? The Dutch GDP is just a bit higher than Beijing'!
I'm not gonna defend every EU policy and I am not arguing that the current state of the EU is satisfactory. All I am saying is that European countries are better off together; there is a reason why "divide and conquer" is a thing.
My whole point is: there should never have bin a EU. What was wrong with the agreement between countries?
Why is it baffling that they need a deal when that's exactly what they wanted? It sounds like you want the ability for a country to leave the EU, but then not have to negotiate all of the benefits that came with being in the EU. Which, isn't exactly how it works.
As a similar analogy, it would be like if one of the states here in the US successfully seceded. The US would be under no obligation to make deals with said state, they would have to negotiate as two separate countries and all of the geopolitical stuff that comes with it.