Wouldn't it be better to replace the EU with an expansive multilateral free trade treaty that encompasses the same states? Why do we need an additional layer of government?
The European single market is essentially the largest international free trade agreement, going far further and deeper than any other by eliminating as many barriers to both trade and individual freedom between states. In order to support that and provide a level playing field, there needs to be common set of rules on things like regulation, worker’s rights, state funding of industry and so on. And in order to administer those, you need a level of bureaucracy. Quite quickly, you’ll find you’ve recreated the EU.
It’s totally reasonable to argue for the EU to take a particular direction - like closer integration, or more distant cooperation, or less bureaucracy or whatever. But the arguments in the Brexit case in particular often seem to fall apart on interrogation of the details.
The total EU budget is about 2% of the total public spending of the member states. That’s a chunk of change at at international level, but is relatively lightweight as a layer of government. Much of its spending is investment into shared projects that are intended to encourage development, trade and collaboration between member states.
What are the specific EU programmes or endeavours that represent “globalist excess” and should be cut? Do those changes really fundamentally affect the structure of the EU?
I'm pro-EU, but I'd say the Euro is questionable, at least in hindsight. However the UK opted out of it (and Schengen), which makes this a non-argument for Brexit.
One thing the UK could have done but never did, was to require EU citizens to move out if they were jobless for 3 months. Given this, it's mind-boggling that part of the reason some voted for Brexit was to get foreigners out. One can say the UK purposefully didn't opt for less globalism in this case.
Another similar example is the "red-colored passports": a minor issue that got blown out of proportion, but the UK could have had them without leaving the EU.
this argument is constantly stated and it's still as bogus as ever
the vast majority cost of implementing powers delegated to the EU is borne by national budgets
once correctly attributed: the "lightweight" label becomes somewhat of a joke
You’re right that implementation of regulation is funded domestically. But it would be incorrect to attribute all of the spending to “the EU”, given that much of it takes the place of whatever alternative domestic regulation and implementation would be required in the same area.
Also two percent is a stupefyingly large amount if it were simply about effectively administering a FTA (and it isn't as per the above). NAFTA on the other hand requires roughly 0 percent, which is markedly better. Given the precedent of low overhead FTAs, I don't accept the premise of the EU.
You could make a reasonable argument that the EU should generally refrain from funding infrastructure and other development projects, and that this is a power best reserved for member states.
But don’t sell it short; those programs are generally intended to provide long-term support for the stability of the single market by developing international cooperation and helping the least developed regions and countries catch up. It’s more intertwined with supporting free trade that it may initially seem.
NAFTA on the other hand requires roughly 0 percent, which is markedly better.
NAFTA (or USMCA now) is not really comparable to the European single market even from a free trade perspective. The latter eliminates barriers to the extent that trading with other member states is like trading between different US states. I could load a van up with products, drive them to another EU country, and deliver them to a customer - with no need for customs forms, tariffs, inspections, bureaucracy or anything else of the sort. It’s hard to overstate how much easier this makes trade.
The cost is that removing barriers means greater harmonisation between member states is required on many levels, and the purpose of the EU is to provide the means for that harmonisation.
Again, it’s fine to feel that a better approach is possible. But I think it’s also important to be honest about what the trade offs really are. Neglecting to do that is what led to Brexit.
Just being able to deflect other parties to negiotiate with the EU instead of national goverments can be a help: https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-trade-merkel-germany-e...
A tighter foreign and military policy integration could also enable more independence from the US but most EU countries prefer to reap the dividends of the waning pax americana than to spend necessary ressources on defense.
Interesting multipolar times are ahead where standing alone might not be the best choice.
I don't know much about it, but I suppose if you want a free trade without a race to the bottom or a "giant sucking sound," you'd need something like a government to set standards across the area.
Also, it seems like there's some obvious benefits to a currency union (drawbacks too), and if you want to have that, then you need some kind of body to manage it.