[restless]

"Because size does matter. It seems to me that progressive, reasonable, pacific and prosperous states - like the Nordic countries, or Switzerland or New Zealand - tend to be less than 10 million people." That is what I often thought regarding the EU. A EU of regions instead of nations. United under a banner for economy, foreign affairs, standards and military and let the regions handle social insurance, police, taxes. Im actually a big fan of the EU but right now it seems to go in some wrong directions and politicans of national governments always using Bruessel as an excuse, while the EU itself is not speaking with one voice in conflicts like in Ukraine.

[m_mueller]

As a Swiss I like your idea - I do think that an EU handled the right way[TM] could be a successor to national governments of federalistic countries such as Switzerland. However, there is one big thing missing right now in the EU (and you do hint at it yourself): Strong civil rights for the population resulting in keeping the political apparatus in check. The right to stop (and even introduce) any and every law through national votes keeps politicians nicely at bay. Large government projects need to be explained really well if people are to vote for it - yet they're still possible as the gotthard base tunnel proves[1]. Even the banking secrecy has the effect of keeping governments humble when it comes to taxation - people will simply just pay what they think is fair. It comes down to the government being more like an employee rather than an employer - and the Swiss people would loose dearly if they had to give this up. The EU at this point would require a complete reboot to get such strong mechanisms of checks and balances - and I'm not convinced that the Swiss system couldn't work for larger entities.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel.

[tormeh]

Yeah, the EU as a concept is phenomenal. Its execution is more questionable and its PR is flat out disastrous, with national politicians blaming it for all kinds of ills.

Also, banana curvature. Really, how was the EU not able to squash that myth? I get that the EU fundamentally answers to national governments and not voters directly, but the tiniest bit of PR effort towards voters might help in the long run, don't you think?

[rodgerd]

> Really, how was the EU not able to squash that myth?

When people like Rupert Murdoch are heavily invested in having people adopt a particular view it's rather hard to make headway with anything so unimportant as the truth.

[pjc50]

- It wasn't entirely false, just misleading (there is a standard defining what a banana is for the purposes of trade categorisation, tax and subsidy)

- the EU does not believe it's dependent on the goodwill of voters; the elected part of the EU itself is the weakest

- the UK media is very anti-EU and the EU has no real UK media operation

- it's "tone accurate": the EU does produce an awful lot of fiddly little rules. The proposal to ban unsealed olive oil from restaurant tables got quite far recently before the public heard about it and it was laughed out of feasibility.

[tormeh]

If the EU does not believe it's dependent on the goodwill of voters, then why did it care about the unsealed olive oil ban being laughed at? The Brussels bureaucracy is a mess, but it's not ridiculous. The proposal would never have passed, regardless of public attention.

Okay, that's just my belief, but it would be fairly depressing if I'm wrong.

[rayiner]

The problem with this theory is that military force is the begin and end of sovereignty. Once you let go of that, weaker regions become beholden to the Wishes of the stronger ones.

[avmich]

That used to be the case, but changes slowly now. Enough less powerful states may understand common needs and unite to combat the stronger region, both economically and militarily.