[toraway]

  > Another big wrong point: US states have a ridiculous amount of power, imho, far more power than a European nation state has these days.

A nation-state choosing to delegate power by treaty agreements does not mean they have lost the ability to exercise that power. Any state in the EU can withdraw at any time, as evidenced by Brexit.

Setting that aside, US states are prevented by the constitution from exercising control over trade or migration across their borders within the US, conducting independent foreign policy, issuing passports, are unrecognized by any other country, etc so that argument doesn't withstand the slightest scrutiny and is somewhat absurd. What they do have is an independent legal system and police powers that the federal government respects as settled law (with give and take on specific areas but still constrained by the judiciary).

Israel can and does override any action the PA may take at any time, once again on the basis of "security". There is very limited de jure autonomy and non-existent de facto autonomy. Much like how a state can override decisions a city makes, the difference still being that Israel again uses "security" as an ever present wildcard without judicial limitations that act as guardrails such as exist in US municipal governance.

[spwa4]

> A nation-state choosing to delegate power by treaty agreements does not mean they have lost the ability to exercise that power. Any state in the EU can withdraw at any time, as evidenced by Brexit.

All I can say is that there is legal definitions about that, and to suggest you go read them. No, EU states cannot withdraw, just like US states cannot withdraw (the constitution forbids it, and some interpret the constitution as if it authorizes the US military to act against congress to prevent it. But even if you disagree with that, the constitution authorizes pretty extreme measures to prevent US states from withdrawing. More importantly, a US state would be immediately kicked out of the global financial system due to debts to the FED, which would decimate even California's economy in weeks or less, despite those debts being entirely fictional), and the UK violated a LOT of treaties withdrawing and it absolutely is not legally possible. They did it anyway for 3 reasons.

Why did the UK do it anyway? First, it was in the EU, but not in the Eurozone (and so did not owe massive debts to the ECB, and the ECB could not simply bankrupt UK banks on a whim like they did with Greek and Italian banks). Second, the EU does not have an army, and certainly not one authorized to act against member countries. Third, the really important core economies (France, formerly the UK, and Germany) have simply stopped respecting their own laws and treaties. A de-facto situation was created by the UK and the system just pretends everything is fine, like Europe always does. The EU was originally a conglomerate, a company, and so it has always worked to accept what states do, and they threaten countries with economic measures, with loan repayments, foreclosures, mass-layoffs, bank closures, that sort of thing. Countries do what they want and send a military squad "with clear instructions". If you want to see what a total disaster the UK withdrawal was (and is), go visit Northern Ireland and talk to a few people how and why goods are traded there.

You see, states make laws, but as is demonstrated every week these days, don't see their own actions as bound by laws, or treaties, or ... at all. And I don't just mean the US, or Iran but equally countries like Spain or France or ...