[derriz]

That's quite a stretch.

US states cannot just ignore federal law - unless the federal law is deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court - a federal institution.

There are effectively no limits to US federal powers - while the treaties governing the EU enshrine the principle of subsidiarity[1] - and the powers granted to the EU are specified in treaties. A topical and obvious example is that the current Roe vs. Wade controversy just couldn't happen in the EU - as it's unrelated to trade or competition, the EU has no competence in this area. Or the idea of the EU imposing a health care system like the Affordable Care Act or deciding drug laws or gun control laws is unthinkable.

An individual cannot be arrested, charged, convicted and imprisoned for breaking EU law the way the feds can do in the US, regardless of state law. There are no EU prisons.

By any measure the US is far more centralized than the EU - money is power as they say and 64% of government receipts in the US are at the federal level while the EU budget represents only 2% of government spending in the block.

[1] - https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/7/the-pri...

[sgjohnson]

> or deciding drug laws or gun control laws is unthinkable.

They have. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_(EU)_2021/555

This stupid thing almost caused Switzerland to leave the Schengen area, and it upset a lot of countries that didn’t want anything to do with it.

At least the complete ban on handguns (that the Netherlands wanted) didn’t happen.

As a firearms enthusiast in the EU, this actually upset me. Not that it affects me too much in the country where I live (I just can’t have 30rd mags, which is stupid, but it could have been a lot worse).

> There are effectively no limits to US federal powers

There is. The 10th amendment. Of course, there’s the commerce clause, that’s been abused ad infinitum.

[pmoriarty]

"A topical and obvious example is that the current Roe vs. Wade controversy just couldn't happen in the EU - as it's unrelated to trade or competition"

The US Federal government has been very crafty in associating just about anything to "interstate commerce"[1] and thereby expanding its power enormously.

I'm sure the same thing could happen in the EU given some creative lawyering and a judiciary willing to swallow their arguments.

It's the appointment/election of particular judges and their willingness to craft or go along with certain arguments and interpret laws in certain ways that is really at the crux of how nations are governed.

Like the old saying goes: It's not votes that count, but those who count the votes. Likewise, it's not the laws that matter, but those who interpret the laws.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

[blibble]

EU budget is far craftier than that

member state departments that are under its sole control are still funded by national budgets

the 2% is just the head of the snake

[derriz]

The EU budget is tiny - under €150B euro per year[1]. And what's more it has being falling in absolute terms in the last number of year.

While the US federal government spends over $20 trillion a year. This isn't comparable at any level - regardless of any snake-anatomy analogy.

I'm not sure what your definition of a "member state department" is? But knowing something of the political set-up in a number of EU countries, none are under the "sole control" of the EU (commission I guess you mean?).

[1] https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/eu-budget/eu-budget-added...

[seoaeu]

Your point still stands, but US federal spending is more like $4-7 trillion depending on the year. I assume you went based on Google’s answer box, which somehow confuses total GDP with government spending.

[blibble]

that's because agencies used to implement federal policy (e.g. the FDA) are attributed to the federal government budget,

whereas the EU member state equivalents that implement EU policy get attributed to national budgets

the EU doesn't fund enforcement of the GDPR, the national information commissioners do

not having to pay to implement its policies makes the EU look many, many times more efficient than it actually is

[syshum]

Doesnt the EU pass unfunded liabilities back onto the member states?

Meaning the EU will pass a law or regulation or program that the member states then have to fund with domestic taxes?

Generally speaking for the federal government, if they want to pass a program or requirement the federal government must also pay for that, for example the federal government could not require the state governments to put in bike lane on all road with out giving the states the money to do it.

That is why the Federal government is so large..

Also defense spending, We actually honor our NATO treaty by spending no less than 3% of our GDP on national defense, something the EU nations never do

[syshum]

>>US states cannot just ignore federal law

They absolutely can and do. State government are under no compulsion to enforce federal law, nor do they have aid federal law enforcement. Sure the FBI can still arrest you but as a practical matter the federal government relies heavily on local law enforcement for support in their efforts and task forces.

The state governments can neuter federal enforcement by refusing to supply personnel and equipment or other support to federal law enforcement task forces and actions

Conversely the federal government also supplies (i.e bribes) local law enforcement with money, and gear to grease the wheel for that support.

The supremacy you are referring to with the Supreme court is about when Federal Law and State law conflict then Federal law would win over State Law. Personally I think this is bad but until there is a constitutional amendment to change it that is the reality. However that supremacy does not mean state law enforcement or governments must enforce federal law, only that they can not overrule/supplant a federal law with their own

>> A topical and obvious example is that the current Roe vs. Wade controversy just couldn't happen in the EU - as it's unrelated to trade or competition

Well according to the Current Draft our federal government did not have the power either. It is funny you mention trade, you do know that ACA is a trade regulation the constitutional power that allows ACA to exist is the interstate commerce clause of the US Constitution, that was MASSIVELY expanded in power by the court in the abomination / disgraceful 1942 Wickard decision which effectively made every activity a commercial interstate activity that can be regulated by the federal government.

Personally if the court is in the mood for over turning precedent someone should take a case to them aimed squarely at over turning that abomination, putting the federal government back into their proper scope and place

[B1FF_PSUVM]

On the other hand, I still remember how, back in the 1980s, U.S. states that were reluctant to raise beer-drinking age from 18 to 21 were brought to heel: no federal funds for highways, I think it was.