Without the EU you wouldn't have a single set of annoying overly-bureaucratic bloc-wide regulation for trade between member states, you'd have a bunch of bilateral agreements between individual countries. You might not be paying a new tax to the EU, but instead you'd pay much more for your postal service to file customs paperwork based on declarations you'd have to write. And I'd guess countries would still want you to have a local representative for a bunch of things, not to mention compliance with tens of slightly-different safety standards (think CE).
Maybe it wouldn't be that much worse, but certainly not better than what we have today.
The EU existed for a long time now and you could replace all of this with bilateral organisations focused on narrow topics, rather than a bureaucratic body with an open agenda and no real checks and balances.
You think without EU there would be no regulations and everything would be free for all? You must be young or don't remember pre-EU times.
In CS terms, the EU turned an O(n^2) problem, bilateral agreements, into an O(n) problem, everybody trying to get their view into a single body. The advantages should be obvious to anybody knowing O notation.
Again, not to say EU doesn't have problems. But dismantling the EU is not the solution. Improving it is.
I never understand this argument. The same logic would suggest that things like the GPL, CNCF, OCI etc. are somehow harmful when, objectively, it's the opposite. Standardisation and conformity lead to much larger and more efficient ecosystems. Why should it not be the same for the EU?
Interestingly, the number is over a span of 15 years, and is only the calculated "Growth and investment".
Other numbers are "Savings in production costs" at €15.6 billion, and "Consumer savings" at 25€ per consumer per year for an impressive total of €176.5 billion.
It also lists "Business adjustment costs" at €8.1 billion, "Business administrative costs" at just €69.8 million and "Implementation and enforcement" at €105.5 million.
I wonder why "Growth and investment" was chosed as the number to use. Maybe to keep emphasising their gist of "the EU is the future for sustainable growth"?
Also, here are the announcements by the Commission:
I ran into a different site where every single action had a debug breakpoint pausing everything if you had devtools open. Luckily, you can disable breakpoints.
Huh, did you get this example from an LLM, or is it the bog-standard way of explaining it? I asked ChatGPT to explain what a "copper plate" is because I was lazy, and it used 1:1 the exact same example as you did (Germany,wind generation in the north paying a thermal plant in the south)
Nope, not LLM, and yes it's just the textbook example and that's why the LLM says the same thing (it's as if you were surprised someone explained distributed systems using Byzantine generals and the LLMs did the same).
that would ideally be true, but it takes a lifetime for that to happen. (basically until all people who have experienced gimp as an insult are no longer alive)
reply