Because to eliminate the EU means, technically, throwing out the Treaty of Maastricht (1992), the Treaty of Rome (1958) and the Amsterdam Treaty (1997) which together define most of the framework, institutions, conventions and law enabling European freedom of movement and trade.
There are several other treaties but these are the three most significant.
In other words, they are simultaneously the EU's constitution and they are the instruments keeping those trade & migration barriers down. So one cannot have one without the other. Instead a whole new set of treaties & governing organisations would have to be negotiated from scratch.
This is unlikely in the current, fragmented European political puzzle.
And even if they could be, well, the funny thing is, because of the nature of human specialisation, their details would be negotiated by the same diplocrats running the current system. I leave it to your imagination what the result of that will be.
> cause to eliminate the EU means, technically, throwing out the Treaty of Maastricht (1992), the Treaty of Rome (1958) and the Amsterdam Treaty (1997) which together define most of the framework, institutions, conventions and law enabling European freedom of movement and trade.
So your telling me that they cannot possibly abandon the EU without abandoning these treaties? That and what stops them from simply re-writing and re-signing them?
The multilateral complexity of negotiating the removal those pieces that aren't desirable anymore from those that are
The massive number of directives that have been issued under the auspices of said treaties that have to be reconsidered
The lack of political will
The need to recreate the political sentiments active in Europe in the '50s
The necessity for every European state to ratify said rewritten treaties in their parliaments
We're talking about disentangling tens of thousands of pieces of legislation and policy from the last fifty years, at both national and international level.
Honestly, it would be easier to progress to full federalism or just ditch the whole thing, than try to edit the EU and achieve any kind of systemic consistency at the end of it.
There are several other treaties but these are the three most significant.
In other words, they are simultaneously the EU's constitution and they are the instruments keeping those trade & migration barriers down. So one cannot have one without the other. Instead a whole new set of treaties & governing organisations would have to be negotiated from scratch.
This is unlikely in the current, fragmented European political puzzle.
And even if they could be, well, the funny thing is, because of the nature of human specialisation, their details would be negotiated by the same diplocrats running the current system. I leave it to your imagination what the result of that will be.