I'm not sure it does. Or, more precisely, I'm not sure that other, less regulatory and more 'open' options wouldn't provide at least the same measure of benefit. A strict model of more unity could do much the same too.
Because European countries are not legally equivalent to the states of America. Each European country has a separate identity in language, culture, law and religion. The European Union is only a confederation on certain things that are practical when it comes to mutual cooperation. Europe is not one country in its own right as the USA is.
On continents, it makes sense to have an oversight of common issues - such as water rights for rivers that travel through many states.
I didn't say anything about damn commie leftist. Some say I am one ( your guess is as good as mine on that one.)
Yes we abandoned the Articles of Confederation. Yet the the original Constitutional framework that came after also is in support of such loose power and governing at the Federal level. As in, any power not granted to the federal government is to be granted to the states. The very basis of our nation and it's form of government is outlined as a bottom-up instead of a top-down format.
@Glis -- I owe you an apology. The overwhelming majority of people who advocate for a return to a much weaker federal government (and comparatively stronger state governments) are on the political right.
Since you were implicity critical of the evolution of the US federalist system, I inferred you were one of those "states' rights" advocates. That was my mistake, and I apologize for jumping to that conclusion
@Glis -- In the abstract, it makes sense to have a variety of jurisdictions which are more responsive to local concerns than an all-encompassing national government.
In practice, there is no consistent principle we can invoke to decide what the boundaries of jurisdictions should be, nor how power and responsibility should be distributed between them.
Hence, your assertion that any particular distribution of federal/state/local power is "the way it should be" is unsupported, and the history of states/localities abridging the rights (which we now believe should be universal) of citizens suggests granting more power at the state and local level has drawbacks as well as advantages.
Agreed, there needs to be a balance. Each one has to keep the other in check. I get what you were thinking I was implying. I support a certain amount of states rights but those who champion it tend to take it way too far. Same goes for those who oppose the idea. Really my first comment wasn't trying to support either side. Just say that we have that to an extent and as you said have had a previous system where the power was way to loose.
For one thing, Britain is pulling out of the EU. It's called the Brexit. Ever hear of that? By comparison, California, for example, can't pull out of the union. That's one way the EU is looser. The following link is a good brief explanation of how the EU is not a nation-state like the U.S.
True. It's worth noting the states have much more economic liberties and ability to set their own standards than EU nations do under the EU banner. Not to mention the states only have to abide by the rules set by their own countries government. An EU nation is bound by the decisions of other foreign nations influence. It would be like having Mexico and Canada having a say in our policies and laws.
Of course California or any other State can leave the Union should they want to for some crazy reason. It's just not a very easy process. The most obvious way would be by Constitutional amendment which, in essence, means that they have to receive permission from 37 of their neighbors. Don't hold your breath on that one though, just like don't hold your breath on California (or any other State) breaking up into smaller States.
Benedict Arnold 