No, it wouldn't work. The coordination and decision-making processes would be even slower than the EU's current glacial speed. In order to persevere, the European countries must coordinate quickly and act with decisiveness for the next couple of years or risk becoming vasalls to a strong Russia and China.
Well, I think to counter invasive countries military ambitions, a military defense pact is needed. Not central regulation of the size of cucumbers.
And as for everything else, open borders, freedom of movement, standardisation of infrastructure etc. all can work without being mandated as well, if there is a common interest in them. The EU was designed, when there was no internet. Coordination can happen transparent and quickly without kafkaesk buerocratic institutions. And when there is no common interest to do things - then the EU in its current shape is not working so well either.
This take is shortsighted on many levels. Coordination without a fixed framework to do it in creates kafkaeque negotiations where every involve party can fight tooth and nail for their pet rule or exception and everything slows down to a crawl. A government like structure sets clear enough rules and processes that force results.
European defense structures rely on economic collaboration as well. There are lots and lots of multilateral weapon R&D programs that are only really possible because cross border collaboration between the involved companies is trivial because of the EU.
"kafkaeque negotiations where every involve party can fight tooth and nail for their pet rule or exception and everything slows down to a crawl."
That is pretty much how I see the EU as it is. Maybe you are aware of the luxory of moving the whole parliament once a month between Bruessel and Strassbourg?
And calling my comment shortsighted is just inviting me to return the compliment and further degrade all debate btw.
The EU has its warts. I'm not going to deny that. The EU parliament moving between Brussels and Strasbourg is indeed silly. Have you looked at the ridiculously long list of exceptions Britain had negotiated for their EU membership? These are the kind of compromises it took to construct a set of rules to create a framework for exceptionally close international cooperation between sovereign countries. Now that that framework is in place, there is no more room for further exceptions. If every little trifle of a thing had to be negotiated separately between all the EU member countries without any governance structure, can you even remotely imagine how slow, kafkaeque the process would be and how much each nation would try to inject their own petty interests into everythin? We probably wouldn't have a nice uniform rule for importing cucumbers(yeah, I said it...), but one with a myriad exceptions that are truly maddening. And it would have taken at least a couple of extra years to pass.
I can't see how your vision is even the tiniest bit practical. It just ignores reality.
Or it acknowledges reality as it is. (I have seen lot's of europe)
I don't see a need for universal regulation of everything, which of course will get messy and weird.
I do see a need for standardisation of infrastructure. Track gauge of railways. No expensive roaming for telecommunication. Energy grid. Education certificates. Europol. Those things - and the debate there can also get exhausting for sure, but must not be.
But whether I will buy polish meat in what shape, or french cheese in what condition, is something I would like to decide on my own and don't need EU intervention. So no debates needed there, no complications of things that need no regulation.
I also don't see a need for a parliament that big at all, or actually a european parliament that has to physically meet in the first place. So expert comitees, that work on the bordercrossing problems yes - and then all the local state parliament can legalize the implementation.
Pretty much what is happening right now, just with less complications.
So you see the point that governance on the level of the EU is needed! The current lawmaking process on the EU level is still too convoluted and there were some minor reforms already to straighten it out a little. If we keep honing it, we'll eventually get a fine government structure at that level that works.
I feel this discussion thread has run its course. I said what I want to say and anything more would be pointless repetition.
It is indeed a fundamental debate out of scope for this thread. But please don't insult people in the future for coming to different conclusions than you. The tensions are high enough in general already.
My main point is and was, voluntarily coorperation beats forced cooperation most of the time. And if there is a will (even if it just comes out of the fear of external forces) - then even hardcore nationalists are able to compromise. Right now they use the EU to blame anything and block things out of general principle. Using the EU as a cheap scapegoat for own failures, but also for the feeling of it being imposed on them - and to this I can relate, even though I am far from being a nationalist.
