But wait until you see the reduced regulations you will end up with.

US is demanding regulatory alignment in agriculture and food safety as a condition of the FTA for example. And the US has significantly higher rates of food borne illnesses compared to the UK due to these weaker regulations:

https://www.sustainweb.org/news/feb18_US_foodpoisoning/

I suspect we won't see that because there has been too much publicity about it already. Workers rights are a different matter though.

That fact check is only evaluating the very specific claim:

>"One in six people in the US get food poisoning each year and one in 66 people in the UK get food poisoning each year."

Saying that while correct, the two specific studies use different methodology and should not be used together in a sentence.

At least in the US more productive states like New York and California heavily subsidize less productive states like New Mexico.

I think there was real fear that Brexit was required to avoid a similar situation developing in the EU.

I thought Germany was already propping up the less productive countries? They haven’t raised domestic salaries but their productivity remains high so they have a massive trade surplus which then then use to provide cheap loans to consumers in other euro countries who buy more German goods (because, stereotype or not, German stuff is generally damned good).

At least that was my understanding of today.

The mechanism through which wealth is redistributed among EU countries is the EU budget. The wealthier countries (Germany and several others) are net contributors to the EU budget, whereas the more economically challenged nations are net receivers of EU funds. However the EU budget is quite tiny in relation to the EU economy, so the redistribution of wealth among EU members that takes place in this way is modest.

Modest is putting it mildly, it's pretty much irrelevant as a net transfer (would take something like 50+ years to align countries, and by then other factors are magnitudes of order more salient in the output).

EU budget always had a kind of political and strategical value attached to it — e.g. to protect agriculture, which is sound strategically (to be able to feed yourself in isolation if it comes to that), but the deeper symbol is that Europe is very afraid of famine. In the 1940s, it all began with cooperation around coal, energy. The EU, at least originally, is built to ensure individual countries can't F with the really important stuff (between each other, nor shoot themselves in the foot).

Evidently, the mission has been met with some difficulties.

EU budget is a “puddly” 150b/year. Still, with the vast difference in economic development it adds up to a 500+$ per person per year funding differences between several country’s. Which as you say is not going to change things dramatically in a given year, but it’s still meaningful over decades.

Of note, England negotiated a rebate before joining. So, it’s a demonstrated issue for them.

The big difference was we don't share a currency with the rest of the EU and were never likely to do so.

The subsidize with money, but not blood. The poor red states send their young off to die in wars for the blue states. If you add some value to the death of the young, it evens out.