> I'm not sure what "Trade within Europe has massive restrictions." means without context.

We actually do have a good amount of issues regarding internal trades, according to https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2025/7792....

“The International Monetary Fund estimates that the persistent barriers to the EU single market still represented the equivalent of a 110 % tariff on services.”

There is a good amount of work to be done to complete the single market, what we currently have is way too fragmented

▲

skippyboxedhero an hour ago | parent [-]

That is politically impossible. Everyone knows it is impossible because if you open up some countries to free services trade then the political basis for the EU and the traditional governing countries would collapse.

The limitations on trade within Europe are intentional design. The attempts to stop the economy from collapsing with these massive government spending packages are the death throes.

▲

dgellow an hour ago | parent [-]

I mean, it is extremely difficult, but the whole union was seen as impossible the last century. With strategic developments over decades I don’t think it’s impossible

▲

skippyboxedhero an hour ago | parent [-]

What you said comprises the exact error in logic that people make. Because we did this, this other thing is possible.

The EU was a certainty in a region that is hostile to change, wants big government, wants centralization, is suspicious of democracy, etc. Free trade would be a massive change, that is why it hasn't happened. The EU is basically the logical conclusion of European forms of governing.

	▲	dgellow 29 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> The EU was a certainty in a region that is hostile to change, wants big government, wants centralization, is suspicious of democracy, etc I don’t understand how you can say that with a straight face, it’s such a contradictory statement