[close04]

> dirty compromises and band-aid solutions

Were the US or UK any different at the start? Founded by conquest and agreements, they involved a lot of give and take on all sides. Even ~100 years after independence and signing the Constitution the US was in the middle of a civil war with the compromises that followed.

The only way to have a union that doesn't require compromises is if everyone is on the exact same page. And that simply can't happen the second you cross a border (most times even inside that border). Once the union is created you start trying to homogenize and give it time.

[DiogenesKynikos]

I'd argue that the Constitution provided a much more rational basis for government than the hodge-podge of treaties and agreements that make up the EU right now. At the very least, the US had a well defined system of government that was relatively easy to understand, and at least the US was clearly a country, as opposed to whatever the EU is.

In contrast to what the other poster in this thread is saying, there is no clear end goal for the EU. There are people who want a federal state and people who want a loose set of agreements between sovereign states.

I'm not saying that the EU is entirely bad. I'm just saying that it's a mess. It's very useful in some ways (freedom of movement of people and goods), and damaging in other ways (monetary union without fiscal union is a big problem, and austerity policies imposed on Greece et al.).