>Otherwise we'd have kept the Common Market we had in the '80s, with all the instability that the multi-currency setup brought. For all its faults, the Euro kept inflation and borrowing rates extremely low and stable for almost 20 years now. The minute we manage to disentangle public-debt markets from nationalistic sensibilities, we are golden.

Again that's your "opinion" or ideal to be more exact, the facts on the ground that the EU was established on the grounds that the sovereignty of it's member states will be maintained at virtually every cost.
This is why there is so much contradiction for example each member state has it's own foreign policy but the EU as a whole also has one, on many occasions especially in regards to polarizing subjects the EU foreign policy and statements contradict the ones of individual member states.

>No, I don't think so. States do suffer a lot even in the US setup. As I said, the difference is that at the top you have someone who cares deeply about electoral colleges, especially in marginal states. In the EU there is nothing of the sort, so all pressure has to come from coordinated alliances between member states in the Council.

The states in the US are the legislative body which also holds the federal budget, oddly enough if you take the US federal model then states have more "sovereignty" in many aspects as well as more support and political influence over the federal government.

>The FED looks at the US economy as a whole and does what it needs to do to keep the overall system afloat; if that means Alabama gets screwed, so be it. That's also what the ECB does, more or less.

You are taking my analogy into the wrong direction.
The FED would not intervene in the case of California which is exactly what the ECB should have done in the case of Ireland, but it didn't it threatened to shut down their banks and cut them off from the payment system, the same threat was also issued to Greece.
This is no more in the mandate of the ECB than it is the mandate of the FED and that was exactly my point if the FED would act like the ECB, Congress would've have burned it to the ground, and if would not stop there.

>In fact, EU states have a nuclear option that US states don't: they can leave. Greece could (and IMHO should) have left, but they came to the duel underprepared and eventually blinked first. Ireland is not in that position because it relies too much on its status as "tax haven cum operational base" for companies entering the EU market. So you can't leave and you can't keep being a tax haven, but if you play fair you can keep all you got and keep building from there.

Article 50 is not a realistic option, it also has nothing to do with how the EU and ECB policies are applied in reality, the fact that you suggest that as an option speaks about the general attitude problem of many people who see the current version of the EU as a stepping stone to anything but a complete catastrophe.

If the EU does not do a complete 180 on it's current policies it would just continue to do more and more damage not only to it's member states but to whatever is left of the idea that it can be more than a shared market and now a concrete anchor around your ankles unless you are in the G20, and considering the current state of affairs in the G8.

I don't object in principle to the idea of a federated Europe (If I were a European national I would strongly object however), but I just don't see it happening and the current state of the EU drive it further and further away, it's policies are destructive and they breed contempt.
If the EU is to become a federation it cannot go on as the Franco-German conglomerate while being indecisive and contradictive.

You can't force countries like Ireland and Greece to swallow it and say I know it's hard now but in 10-15 years when everyone's forgotten about it we might start thinking about federalization again and in 2078 we'll "pay you back".

This doesn't work like that, there is absolutly no political capital for federalism in the EU currently the likelihood of it falling apart completely which is slim as it is, is still considerably higher than it becoming a federated union.

>Most EU states say they don't, but in practice they do. It makes life easier for everyone, keeps the peace, and protects the block from US/Russian/Chinese power. There will always be critics, but hey, that's life.

Most voters within the EU member states do not want federalization and they want their national sovereignty and identity kept as it is, in the past few years it's even going completely the other way.
Federalists within the EU exists, but they exists within the ranks of the elites, a lot of them are unelected Eurocrats that while hold a lot of power within the EU do not have much power in individual states.
There isn't a single member state where this is a popular idea, in most of them even in Germany it is political suicide to even speak about federalization.

>Actually Luxembourg was in a pickle not long ago, because of their tax affairs. The difference is that Luxembourg will never be a competitor to large countries "where it matters", so it's given a bit of leeway; plus, its representatives are first-class and know how to play the game.

Luxembourg is protected by Juncker even tho the EUP is in brussels all the important EU institutions and the money is in Luxembourg the EUP is more or less of a "joke" since The Council of Europe and the Commission do most of the "grownup" work.
If the EU Parliament had power it would look differently rather than being overly representative of fringe elements and political laughing stock that wouldn't get elected nationally.

>Norway has the same population

Israel has 8M
Turkey has 75M
What's the point? Norway isn't in the EU, norway isn't a hub for multinationals, norway is a very rich country due to nationalized natural resources and a very smart investment portfolio.

>Actually, Norway has 5M and Ireland 6+M

No the Republic of Ireland, hence Ireland in this context has under 5M people (4.5-4.6 to be exact), Ireland as a geographical construct has about 6M people but this includes the 1.8M residents of Northern Ireland which are British nationals at least for the time being.