In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
If the EU superstate project had been squashed at birth (as Thatcher was
advocating when it first came up - hint, suggest listening to her, it's
all of 30 seconds), we would almost certainly not be in the mess now.
We'd have the EEC and free trade minus most of the stuff that isn't
working.

Interesting hypothesis. You think there wouldn't have been a vast number
of regulations covering that free trade? You can only have a free trade
area if all follow common rules. Otherwise each country would try to gain
an advantage over the others.
For example. The UK brings in tighter controls over vehicle emissions
because of severe problems in London, etc. So any imported vehicle must
meet them too. Those living in a country where pollution wasn't such a
problem would call foul. And so on.

So who decides on those regulations to be adopted throughout that free
trade area? And fairly, so they don't give one country an advantage over
another? Some form of committee where they all are represented. All
unelected? That would never do.

All countries retain their own currency with no exchange rate controls
between them. The poorer countries flood the market with cheaply produced
goods. Like say agricultural produce.

I can quite understand mere politicians not actually having a clue about
how things work - but surely we have more sense on here?

Well the EEC worked quite well until it morphed into the EU.
--
bert