It's not so simple. Take the U.S. for example. If the Northeast were its own country, it'd have universal health care, abortion rights would be secure, etc. So how do people in New York feel about being lumped into the same polity with people from Florida, and having to make the compromises they have to make to do that? You don't have to follow American politics all that closely to know they're not always happy about it.

Throughout history, there has been a strong tendency for groups with shared values and culture wanting to form their own sovereign countries. It's intellectually lazy to hand-wave this away as mere irrationality. In reality, when aggregating people into larger groups works best (in fact, works at all) if those people share the same values. Otherwise, instead of "unifying the voices of all people" you end up in a situation where peoples' voices are canceled out by conflicting values. That makes people feel powerless, it destroys faith in public institutions, and it aggregates power in bureaucrats because the voices of people are too diluted to keep them in check.

> Unifying the voices of all people in Europe under one political entity doesn't zero out the playing field, but it may very well decrease the absurd order-of-magnitude scales of difference between political entities as these two juggernauts stomp inexorably towards their desired world order while the individual nations of Europe debate their own individual selfish interests.

The fallacy is with "unifying the voices". EU definitely doesn't feel that way. E.g. in the handling of the Greek crisis, it's mainly the German voice that's heard, and the voice of IMF (not even part of the EU!) echoes softly in the background. Sure, you might argue that Germany is so much bigger/more prosperous/more powerful/better than Greece, for the EU to stick together, it must be beneficial to every single nation within it.

It's easy to champion "solidarity" when it's mainly their solidarity for you, but not the other way around.

This has a lot to do with it.

The EU has mismanaged the Greek "Crisis" by not actually having a true crisis but rather having a crisis every six months.

In a world where threats are coming from Russia, Syria, etc. it would be in in the interest of Europe to have Greece be stable and they really should have made everybody feel some pain, write off part of the debt, and take the punch bowl away.

The biggest threats to the EU are not external, but internal.

In a nutshell:

- not enough buy-in of the population

- too much corruption

- too many languages

- too many EU politicians getting 'money for nothing' (further reducing buy-in)

- too many countries that slip their own protectionist measures in under the radar and get away with it

- no unified tax system

- way too many horses pulling in different directions at once

And we don't have a slavery problem to get rid of so there most likely will not be a unification by force happening any time soon.

Don't forget double standards, or at least the perception thereof, particularly in the application of the Stability Pact.

+ massive bureaucracy

How anyone can write a 4 page essay on the EU without mentioning the absurd bureaucracy and regulatory hell it has introduced to small businesses is beyond me.

People outside of Europe may not be aware of how bad it really is, so just let me point you to the perhaps most prominent example, the "Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1677/88 of 15 June 1988 laying down quality standards for cucumber" [1]. Let me pull some money quotes from the text:

- "Slightly crooked cucumbers may have a maximum height of the arc of 20 mm per 10 cm of length of the cucumber."

- "Cucumbers grown in the open must weigh 180 g or more. Cucumbers grown under protection must weigh 250 g or more. Moreover, 'Extra' Class and Class I cucumbers grown under protection weighing: 500 g or more must be not less than 30 cm long, between 250 and 500 g must be not less than 25 cm long."

[1] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELE...

The point of not including this is that every time it is mentioned people cherry-pick sentences from that regulation without context just as you do. What we see here is a regulation of cucumber labels not cucumbers itself. Your quotes are minimum standards for certain classes of cucumbers. It's still fine to sell other cucumbers but you just can't sell them as e.g. "Class 1".

The regulation was abolished in 2009 because it was mentioned in every debate the public had about the EU. Guess what happened then? Almost every contract of cucumber merchants now contains a verbatim copy of that regulation.

Merchants love that kind of standardization (and if not, they were free to ignore it by not using the defined labels). It makes it easier to transport produce and allow for better planning. If there is no central definition of quality classes everybody is creating their (likely slightly incompatible) ones. That's not less bureaucratic, it's more bureaucratic. Now every small business has to deal with dozens of different company-made regulations.

Because we are on HN think of it as an RFC standard with the addition of being legally bound to it as soon as you declare conformity.

> Guess what happened then? Almost every contract of cucumber merchants now contains a verbatim copy of that regulation.

> Merchants love that kind of standardization.

Indeed; so much so that (as you've demonstrated) they can establish it themselves without needing government help to do so.

Because if it is decided that (example off the top of my head) "cucumbers grown in the pesticide Toxiciomosis cannot be sold as 'Class 1' cucumbers", there is just one place which needs updating, rather than K contracts.

DRY applies to more than code.

Please read the rest of the paragraph.

I did. Your post provided a specific example where merchants have standardized on a compatible standard despite the regulation no longer existing.

What evidence do you have that merchants will standardize on incompatible sets of standards? Compatible standards benefit them.

Of course they are standardizing on that. It's what they have been using for 20 years.

Naturally compatible standards benefit them as a whole. But that does not mean someone is actually going to develop them. In fact, trade groups specifically asked the EU to create that cucumber standard.

It's also important note that such standards don't fall from heaven. They are the result of long consultations (often taking up to a decade) with all stakeholders. It's also not an EU-exclusive thing. I would be very surprised if there were no similar standards in the US.

A one-minute search has led me to this US government standard from which I can cherry-pick similar sentences:

https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Cucumber_...

> The maximum diameter of each cucumber shall be not more than 2-3/8 inches and the length of each cucumber shall be not less than 6 inches

> "Injury caused by scars" means scars which aggregate more than the area of a circle three-eighths inch in diameter on a cucumber 6 inches in length, or correspondingly greater areas of scars on larger cucumbers.

Implementation of that is (as far as I understand) voluntary but if you label your cucumbers "U.S. Fancy." you have to adhere to those standards. That's exactly the same as with the quoted EU regulation.

There is a reason why countries around the world develop such standards and it's not their love of bureaucracy.

A deep, significant secret of modern society as we know it, all around us:

Modern technological society is not a product of technology alone. We've had relatively intricate mechanical devices dating back to the Roman Coliseum, and before. Suits of armor had hasps, fasteners, catches, and wingnuts.

Modern society is a product of technology crossed with cheap flow of information crossed with interoperability standards. The suits of armor had wingnuts, but the wingnuts had individual faces carved onto them, because not even the left and right shoulder wingnuts were swappable. Common standards have built the shipping, transportation, telecommunications, and computing infrastructures that heavily define modern society today.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6481969.stm discusses this and some other urban legends of British-EU compliance.

Notably, the fruit and vegetable size/shape standards declare three categories for each item, and a producer can then advertise them as such and a seller can rely on the product being as advertised. "Extra" class conforms completely, "Class 1" mostly conforms, and "Class 2" is much looser.

Pretty much every western country has similar standards for economically important agricultural produce. They just specify what you're buying if you buy Class 1 Cucumbers. If your cucumber is too curvy, you can't sell it as class 1, you have to sell it as class 3 or unclassified. That's all.

"that's All".. Because Europeans are too stupid to classify cucumbers on their own.

I have heard an explanation for these vegetable regulations is that all the member countries had their own rules anyway, so having a single EU rule was better than what there was previously, and the EU wasn't getting involved in vegetables where previously government wasn't.

I have also heard that these standards only apply if you want to describe your vegetables as meeting the standard. If you don't then I have heard that they don't apply.

I don't know if either of those are true or not, or if it's a meaningful excuse for anyone, though. You could argue the EU should have got involved and got everyone to agree to abolish the regulations, or you could think that a common way of describing vegetable standards is good.

An analogy from the United States: after the September 11th attacks, one of the side-effects was standardization of the emergency responder radio codes at a national level. Previously, each jurisdiction had its own radio short-number codes; they worked in the jurisdiction just fine, and were incompatible cross-jurisdictions. This was generally a non-issue, until the friction from NYC first responders and Jersey first responders needing to inter-operate under a shared command structure revealed what a problem it was.

There's a perhaps surprising number of things that are not done in a standardized way. Firefighting in general is still done in a very local fashion vis. best practices, equipment, etc... With the exception of the radio codes and the national / international standards for labeling shipping containers (necessary because if a firefighting team rolls up on an overturned tractor trailer engulfed in flames, they need to be able to tell quickly whether the trailer contained the sort of thing that pouring on water will douse or the sort of thing that pouring on water will cause spatter or (much worse), violent combustion / polymerization reactions.

This is a real flip-flop problem.

One day is it clearly obvious that you should let people self-organise and let good ideas float up without regulation.

The next day it is clearly obvious that everyone should standardise.

I have this vague recollection that one of the reasons Denmark never joined the EMU and kept the kroner as their currency, had something to do with arcane regulations regarding cucumbers.

Possibly, and it's a perfect example how the right-wing exploits the stupidity of people.

- The cucumber regulation has nothing to do with the Euro – it (was) in effect in Denmark anyway.

- It wasn't arcane.

Well may they can write 4-page essays because:

- That regulation is no longer in effect

- How was anyone negatively impacted by that regulation? It was actually demanded by the merchants.

The UK doesn't feel that way either. The country is largely run by, and for, a small sliver of our society and does little to help vast swathes of it.

Of course you have bickering, because you have different interests, just as with any group where number of members > 1.

So if it doesn't feel that way, yes, because (a) you're looking at it from the inside and (b) we're not particularly integrated, yet.

But the main question comes from (b) - will we ever be integrated? Ignoring Britain and the rest of non-Euro countries, Germany and their unwillingness to even consider a fiscal union seems to be the main stumbling block. Can you imagine the US government introducing capital controls only in Alabama?!

Huh? I am fairly certain that fiscal union was always the plan, not achievable politically, so left for later introduction when it became obviously necessary.

Anyway, I don't buy that it's Germany that's blocking. Of course, fiscal union means giving up a good chunk of sovereignty, which is where many of the member states balk. Fiscal union is OK if it means we get money, not so OK if we are no longer allowed to spend any way we want.

The question is, what is good for the others?

Germany has the biggest population and the most wealth.

The smallest countries seem to do well, too.

My answer: all or nothing, not something in-between like now.

Either disintegrate the currency union, possibly Schengen as well, and let each country govern itself as it sees fit (seemed to work quite well 20 or so years ago) - simply by the virtue of common European heritage and values (at least compared to the rest of the world - China, US, Muslim countries), we'll end up collaborating quite well.

Or establish a United States of Europe, where the federal government takes care of the budget (no more "Greece defaulting" and "Cypriot capital controlls"), military (no more "UK intervention in Syria") and probably a few other things. Of course, to implement this, we need to agree on a common set of values from the beginning, which IMO we should model on Germany/Switzerland/Denmark (i.e. direct democracy, strong military but non-interventionism abroad, publicly-funded schools and healthcare but allow private services as well, strong consumer and environmental protections, flexible employment but with a strong social net). Personally, I'd add freedom of speech and the right to self-determination (secession) as well, but most of Europe seems quite opposed to that...

> It feels a little like there should be a simple, rational argument from politics and economics for retaining the EU as a single unit

According to Ronald Coase, people begin to organise their production in firms when the transaction cost of coordinating production through the market exchange, given imperfect information, is greater than within the firm [1].

One could extend this concept to subsidiarisation. People should elevate decisions to a higher level of government only when transacting/negotiating with other effected parties at the same level of subsidiarisation becomes costlier (e.g. the New York Area's MTA and Port Authority in comparison with the Bay Area's lack thereof).

Note that a conclusion around "always coalesce" or "always devolve" doesn't appear across all parameters. If Britain's and her trading partners' institutions were more efficient than the EU's, it would be rational to leave.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm

Europe cannot compete with Russia and China. And the NHS will be dismantled thanks to TTIP whether the UK leaves the EU or not.

Brexit is therefore a choice between political elites. A remote, unseen, neoliberal, corrupt political elite or a closer, familiar, neoliberal, corrupt political elite.

Presenting this as a choice of economic self-interest is irrational.

Russia is on verge of bankruptcy. Average Greek has much better life that average Russian.

China have even bigger structural problems: corruption, aging population, empty cities, lack of own technology, weak retirement system, bad education etc.

This choice about Brexit will impact mostly economic situation. If UK vote for Brexit people will start losing jobs.

small, isolated, selfish interests have long been the drivers of global progress.

Poor Switzerland. It's small, has relatively low population, and not in a union with any other country. Moreover, everyone has guns. And yet, it's one of the most (if not the most) prosperous countries in Europe.

> not in a union with any other country

They contribute EU funds, they are in the Schengen borderless zone, they implement EU directives and regulations (without being able to veto them like members can), and they are part of the European free trade zone.

Sure, de jure they are not in the union. De facto that is just a nice fiction to satisfy the ultranationalists from the Swiss People's Party.

I feel like your comment is misleading. People who are military trained have guns - but no ammunition. Ammunition is harder to come by. People are psychologically evaluated before they join the military.

And the union thing - Switzerland is part of the economic area, officially, and observes a lot of treaties/agreements in exchange for the benefits they get. This is a point of contention in Swiss politics as some feel like Switzerland gets pushed around a lot.

Switzerland takes _great_ advantage of the other countries. People living near the border go to other countries to buy their stuff (france, germany, italy). Switzerland also has economy incentives for companies which work if small countries implement-it, but not all.

Switzerland is a exception, not the rule.

Switzerland is my example of the best case scenario for the UK if they leave.

A haven for corporations/money, a good government that cares about the people, still open borders, still free trade with the EU, no say in anything they do.

But that's if the UK manages it well - I don't see that happening, corps will just jump over to Ireland, NHS is under heavy pressure, tariffs are still high (not because of the EU, but in spite, just look at food prices), wages rather low...

It will do alright, but not better I think...

Open borders is why the Brexit people want to leave in the first place.

They're not going to want to leave just to do a EFTA/EEA type deal. Which means opening borders to the EU, adopting EU regulation, paying the EU and having no say within the EU all to get access to the single market.

I agree they'll be bitterly disappointed if they end up with an EEA type deal, but despite that they keep using Norway a an example of how you can manage well outside the EU. Ignoring that Norway is almost as integrated as the UK is - in some ways more (part of Schengen).

In the case of Brexit, I predict a rush from the pro-EU contingent in parliament to get an EEA style deal in place before the next elections.

The pro-EU contingent would certainly push for that but then the UK would be basically in the same situation they're in now. It's one thing not to have a voice within the EU in your imagination, it's a different thing really not to have one.

I think that what's really going to happen is that this will goes the same way all these independence movements go, they'll vote to remain in the end. It's one thing to imagine yourself as independent and I can see how it might be appealing but taking a step over the edge into the realm of uncertainty is not a comfortable or very human thing to do.

> The pro-EU contingent would certainly push for that but then the UK would be basically in the same situation they're in now.

And that's exactly why it is likely to push for it. And given that there's a solid pro-EU majority in parliament, it's likely that getting a deal as comprehensive as possible with the EU will be high priority, similar to how it was for Norway after the no vote in the referendum, where the EEA was used as a "consolation price" by the pro-EU parties.

They will argue that they have a strong mandate to do so, given that the Leave campaign have kept bringing up Norway as an example of how the UK can do fine outside the EU...

I do hope the UK votes to remain - I'm Norwegian, living in the UK. Though it won't affect me personally that much, as I qualify for leave to remain under at least three different categories. I agree with you that a good chunk of voters will end up voting remain even if they may be thinking of leaving now. The question is just if it will be enough.

There are so many more reasons to leave the EU than this one.

Switzerland has one the best quality of life indices. Just becoming as good as Switzerland would be a massive accomplishment.

There is more to quality of life than just number indices.

I have not spent enough time in Switzerland to form an opinion, but many people find Switzerland boring and overly strict/regulated - for example, if you take your trash to the dumpster after 8pm, you will be reported to the police by your neighbors.

Switzerland is part of the EFTA and has access to the EU's single market. They might not be part of the EU but to say that they're "not in a union with any other country" is just wrong and not even remotely close to the truth.

Switzerland is a very interesting country, but it only exists by virtue of the mountains surrounding it and historically, if those mountains had not been there Switzerland as we know it today would not exist.

What works in Switzerland my not necessarily work elsewhere.

On another note, the Swiss neutrality has caused them to end up on the wrong side of history in more than one occasion.

No that I know much of Swiss history, but according to that argument, Poland would be by now a footnote in European history, and thy seem to manage...

> Poland would be by now a footnote in European history, and thy seem to manage...

As much as I love Poland I would not consider them a candidate for the 'most prosperous' country in Europe, and I think that you'd agree with me given your choice of words.

Banking. From nazi art & gold looted from europe, to the modern place to store your ill gotten money, it's amazing how rich you can get when you look the other way and help the crooks.

In fact the Swiss just cancelled their application to join the EU...

It's part of the EU (yeah that surprised me too). Also, the guns are tied to military service ('well-regulated militia')

No it isn't, it's part of EFTA. It sits on the very edge of the EU but it's definitely outside; several hundred years of neutrality is hard to give up.

Switzerland is not part of the EU.