In a weird sense, the EU exemplifies what the USA would be like without a strong federal government: Dysfunctional as states compete with, undercut and stifle each other.
isnt the eu basically a less federalist version of the usa? how is it then that the usa claims its more free? the individual state members in the EU have more freedom than individual states.
> isnt the eu basically a less federalist version of the usa?
And what good does it do? The EU cannot speak in a single voice - there is no foreign minister, no defense minister, no whatever minister.
Like the EU foreign function: you have a person claiming to be the EU voice, and then you have the foreign ministers of every EU member that can just say whatever they want if what the EU voice says is contrary to their political game in their own country. Same for the other functions.
Being less federalist is not better, it is worse. The EU does not speak in a single voice in any domain.
> And what good does it do? The EU cannot speak in a single voice - there is no foreign minister, no defense minister, no whatever minister.
Nor can Switzerland. And still it is one of the best country world wide both in term of living and economically.
Distributed federal power like Switzerland trades quick decision making for resilience.
If it might look up 'messy' on the surface, it is in fact a quality. A very valuable one in fact: because it is exactly what prevent fucked up like Trump to happen in the EU.
I've never seen the Swiss foreign minister being contradicted by another minister or by an official from a Canton.
But the EU foreign minister can be contradicted by basically any country president/prime minister or their foreign ministers if it says something that is not aligned with every other EU member.
You misunderstood me. If Kaja Kallas says "the EU will do X", then the French or Spanish foreign ministers can say "no, we will not do that". So the EU does not do X because it upset a big country, it will maybe do X-Y or not do it at all if X is dependent on the money spent by France or Spain, or some of their facilities or whatever.
In your example, the mayor can criticize the canton decision, but he cannot do anything about it. That's the difference.
The EU is in some ways closer to a confederation, but with various "hacks" - in the form of various treaties - to try to work around the problems that led the US to abandon it in favour of a federal model.
It's largely down to very different levels of willingness to integrate more, and various levels of opposition to the kind of constitutional changes that would be required for a federal model.
EU is no where near US. EU started as a economic union and became a political nightmare. It would have done far better had it stayed only as an economic Union. Further, EU doesn't have a constitution. In US every law maker swear to protect and uphold the constitution and I don't even know what is the equivalent in EU.
Id say the EU is less federal because each member country maintains its own sovereignty and local laws. Its more of a coalition of the willing. While in the US the federal gov can override states. The EU also has each state vote on different legislations. (Massive oversimplification)
The US lays claim to all kinds of bullshit. But more to the point; different values, different laws - does it matter how centralized the control is? I would argue neither is “more” free, just free in different ways. US has a huge problem in equal access to the law, which undermines freedom no matter how good the laws are.
In the US, the freedom is explicitly for the people, not Federal nor State government. States are relatively more free than the Federal government, but both are greatly restricted by the Constitution. Before the Constitution, the US had a previous government under the Articles of Confederation (see below) that had many deficiencies and only gave freedom to member States.
The EU is organized more similar to the US under the Articles of Confederation.
The first American government (Articles of Confederation) gave State governments almost unlimited power e.g. they could print their own money. It did not grant freedom to the people in any meaningful way. States were free to abuse this power both against their own citizens and, more importantly, the other member States. This created many practical problems.
The second and current American government (Constitution) learned lessons from this experience. It removed a limited set of key powers from the States and gave it to the Federal government such as the creation of currency. It also forced all States to interact with each other on the same terms, with strict oversight from the Federal government. Additionally, it explicitly granted rights to the people rather than their State governments, since the States had demonstrated they could not be trusted to do the right thing. These changes forced the States to play nicely with each other and treat their people better.
These changes were a large improvement. Almost every law an American experiences is State law, because States have much more freedom to create laws. The Federal government can only make laws from a short list. Both State and Federal governments are strictly prohibited from creating many kinds of laws.
In the US, freedom is for the people, not for the member States. The Federal government has even less freedom than the member States to make law.
> In the US, the freedom is explicitly for the people, not Federal nor State government.
I don't see how anyone can make this claim in 2026 and not expect to be laughed out of the room? In practice, freedom is for sale; it's not available to the people nor the citizens.
Normal in history. Change often isn't binary. Consider for example: the exact date of the end of the British empire is several possible dates between "the independence of Ireland in the immediate aftermath of WW1" and "it still hasn't".
You don't think US states compete with, undercut and stifle each other?
Second question: you think the USA has a strong federal government?
I mean that is actually an open question even in non-Trump years, not least when one side of the political aisle was famously dedicated to shrinking it down so small it could be "drowned in a bathtub", to quote one of its more famous assholes.
>You don't think US states compete with, undercut and stifle each other?
Compete with each other, yes.
But all US states take pride in Silicon Valley being American.
No EU project for its own "Silicon Valley" can succeed, because the French would insist on it being in France, Germans would insist on Germany, Dutch in the Netherlands, etc.
> No EU project for its own "Silicon Valley" can succeed, because the French would insist on it being in France, Germans would insist on Germany, Dutch in the Netherlands, etc.
France and Germany and the Netherlands may compete with each other to attract VC and tech firms, but they're ultimately no more capable of preventing each other from getting a runaway success loop than New York and Utah were at preventing California from getting actual Silicon Valley.
The EU as an institution just doesn't wield any magic wand of creating things like that to be fought over, just like Washington DC also doesn't.
>France and Germany and the Netherlands may compete with each other to attract VC and tech firms, but they're ultimately no more capable of preventing each other from getting a runaway success loop than New York and Utah were at preventing California from getting actual Silicon Valley.
Yes, but why hasn't said success loop occurred anywhere else yet? Silicon Valley has been a "thing" for five decades now.
> The EU as an institution just doesn't wield any magic wand of creating things like that to be fought over, just like Washington DC also doesn't.
What I meant is that every time HN or elsewhere talks about Europe being behind the US in terms of tech there is mention of the need for a "European Silicon Valley". But that is going to require a level of support that is probably beyond the scale of one national government.
The EU can trace its origins back to France and Germany agreeing to combine its coal and steel.[1] Berlin and Paris would be happy to designate, say, the Strasbourg-Stuttgart axis as the "EU technology hub", with corresponding EU funding, but other member states aren't going to be happy.
[1] And further to the long wrangling over Alsace-Lorraine, but that's neither here nor there
> Yes, but why hasn't said success loop occurred anywhere else yet? Silicon Valley has been a "thing" for five decades now.
So have twenty-three Superfund sites —- land from 1970s businesses that the federal government had to take over because nobody else could or would fix the uncosted externality.
someone explain this to me please