"Union" and "United" are the same word, so you could make an equal criticism of the EU for not being "united" enough because laws happen to vary between Germany and Spain.
What if some bureaucrat decided to move your family and 10 others (from radically different cultures) into big house? You can all agree on who cleans what common areas at what times, who cooks, what pets everyone can have, when are the quiet hours, etc. Does that sound appealing?
If so, then I see why you have a different opinion than I do, and I'm not sure we'll ever agree. If that doesn't sound appealing, then you should acknowledge that "united" is only good in reasonable doses.
The problem is that it's too easy for the majority on an issue to feel like they are universally right, and it's just fine to impose their will on the 40% minority. But the people in the minority rightly feel oppressed. And guess what: opinions change and sometimes you will end up in the minority, so it's a good idea to set up a system of tolerance where people can live in the same country without telling each other what to do in every situation.
There are vast differences between the EU and the interaction with states and federal government. Everyone views other countries as just that - other countries. The government systems even vary. The thing is that no one looks at states as countries. People state their nationality as American, not Hoosier or .. um.. whatever else locals name themselves. Most Americans fully expect free travel without worry of arrest throughout the entire US. An arrest, even without a conviction, can cause someone to lose their livelyhood.
And it IS important to protect the minority, but that is different laws: sometimes having basic federal laws to protect the minority is most definitely needed as I don't trust states to do it themselves, especially in places with a voter base intent on keeping things 'traditional' over making sure people are free enough to be happy.
Switzerland enjoys the same "state-level" autonomy, and they still get to call themselves "Swiss" at the end of the day.
Having studied the Constitution and surrounding documents with some degree of rigor, I think it's incorrect to assert that that a large difference was intended between the United States and the European Union.
It's of course open to interpretation, but the idea that states espouse a degree of autonomy beyond a monolithic federal government isn't absurd, and is even codified into both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
"Union" and "United" are the same word, so you could make an equal criticism of the EU for not being "united" enough because laws happen to vary between Germany and Spain.
What if some bureaucrat decided to move your family and 10 others (from radically different cultures) into big house? You can all agree on who cleans what common areas at what times, who cooks, what pets everyone can have, when are the quiet hours, etc. Does that sound appealing?
If so, then I see why you have a different opinion than I do, and I'm not sure we'll ever agree. If that doesn't sound appealing, then you should acknowledge that "united" is only good in reasonable doses.
The problem is that it's too easy for the majority on an issue to feel like they are universally right, and it's just fine to impose their will on the 40% minority. But the people in the minority rightly feel oppressed. And guess what: opinions change and sometimes you will end up in the minority, so it's a good idea to set up a system of tolerance where people can live in the same country without telling each other what to do in every situation.