DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Yes I agree. The deals would be a negotiation and, as with any negotiation, it requires compromise and both sides doesn't get everything they want. The point being that the UK can conduct its side of the negotiations in the interests of the U.K. alone, while the EU has to satify all of its members first. It means it takes much longer and can't include things that might conflict with one member's interests. In short the UK can be more nimble alone.
Ultimately with the EU, you are correct that the EU has to balance the needs of its various members. That's counterbalanced by that the EU is bigger and has more negotiating power. Very roughly speaking, we end up as something like 1/6 of a voice in an organisation that's 6 times bigger. It's not obvious in that situation which arrangement gives us more say, but most international diplomats seem to think that the UK ends up more influential in the EU.
Having said all that, I do think there is a bigger issue of the good of humankind as a whole, and that's not always best served by each individual country going 'Me! Me! Me! Me!' The great advantage of the EU to my mind is the way that it provides a framework for a group of countries to work together for the mutual good of Europe - and at the same time the EU does try to play a good citizen - by for example giving favourable trade deals to many poorer countries and taking a strong stand on things like climate change.
You also need to consider that there are approximately 200 countries in the world. If every country took the approach you're suggesting of negotiating it's own deals, that means about 200 countries each dealing with 200 other countries... Around 40000 separate bilateral deals on trade etc. I think it should be obvious that that kind of arrangement would be too complex to be tenable... which again speaks to the advantage of having larger blocs like the EU.