4 ms·

Ah yes because we saw how easy it is to leave the EU for the UK even though it still has its own currency. Realistically current EU countries are locked in. Th

Ah yes because we saw how easy it is to leave the EU for the UK even though it still has its own currency. Realistically current EU countries are locked in. They aren't allowed to reintroduce their own currency, but doing so is step one towards leaving.

gpderetta 4y ago
Of course it is not easy, but if it feasible for questionable reasons as in the UK case, certainly it will be more feasible in case of existential threats.
- revelio 4y ago
  That's not how it works, at all. History should make this clear! By the time a regime reaches "existential threat" level it's too late. You're already far gone, any and all political opposition has been driven underground and the regime has loyalists in place in all institutions and positions of power. There is no way to organize any resistance because attempts to do so are crushed immediately, the press is controlled and you're in the minority anyway because the majority are propagandized and kept in fear of instability or supposed external threats to their way of life. The EU is frankly far too close to that dystopian end already. It constantly justifies its own power via reference to external enemies of various kinds e.g. capitalist America, the European press barely challenges it and the institutions are controlled by EU loyalists who are willing to rip up the rules rather than let the EU lose control. Even in the UK that was always more distant than other nations, they went through multiple severe constitutional crises triggered by Remainers fighting to overturn the referendum. It wasn't at all clear that the UK could actually leave despite the referendum result not being in doubt. IMO the very fact that you think the UK left for "questionable reasons" is already part of the propaganda doing its job. The people who get out early are the only ones who actually can get out. By the time the case is unambiguous (to you), you're the one being labelled as questionable.
  - gpderetta 4y ago
    Mate, if you think the propaganda is only on one side, I don't know what to tell you.
    - raverbashing 4y ago
      True. But don't expect much from a throwaway account posting half-truths
    - revelio 4y ago
      Where did I say there's only propaganda on one side?
zirgs 4y ago
They could reintroduce their own currency after leaving. Montenegro is using the Euro despite not being part of the EU or Eurozone. They can switch to other currency if they want to.
- revelio 4y ago
  As part of leaving you'd be cut off from the ECB and that connection is required for the banking system to operate.
  - zirgs 4y ago
    But Montenegro's banking system works. They aren't part of the ECB.
    - revelio 4y ago
      They never formally joined the Eurozone to begin with, they just allow the Euro to circulate and accept it for payment. It's not even legal tender there, in theory. The integration issues are more to do with how the banking systems of formally Eurozone integrated countries are wired up to the ECB and how countries come to rely on it for "liquidity" (money printing to pay for expensive large government). Also note that the EU don't like Montenegro using the Euro and tolerate it only because it's tiny/doesn't matter.
      - zirgs 4y ago
        A leaving country could keep using the Euro while working on the transition back to their own currency. When the USSR collapsed - its former members continued to use Soviet rubles for some time until they transitioned to their own currencies. So yeah - if a country really wanted to leave - a shared currency would not stop it.
        revelio 4y ago
        It depends on how much cooperation the EU would extend (assume zero). For example paying other companies in euros requires transactions with the central bank. If the EU don't want you to leave they can just say, well, the moment you declare you're out we cut you off from the banking system and you can't settle your government debts anymore because you can't make euro transactions. For example.
Hamuko 4y ago
EU has no army so it can't keep EU countries locked in if they don't want to stay.
- suddenclarity 4y ago
  Violence isn't the only punishment.
  - Hamuko 4y ago
    What other punishments does EU have at its disposal?
    - revelio 4y ago
      For example the UK was threatened at various points with having its electricity supply be cut off, having its planes be banned from overflying Europe, having Spain seize UK territory like Gibraltar, and the EU did impose major financial sanctions against its key industries. The EU also likes to rope in US Democrat Presidents to threaten or suspend cooperation with the UK in various ways, if it doesn't do what the EU wants.
      - Hamuko 4y ago
        Got a source for all of those?
- revelio 4y ago
  They're working on raising an army actually: https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-leader-approve-defense-military-plan/ https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-leader-approve-defense-mi... "EU leaders approve updated military plan. The strategy envisions the creation of an EU rapid deployment force of up to 5,000 soldiers." However the EU doesn't need a physical army to stop a country leaving. It just needs sufficiently good control of local politics and law enforcement via loyalists in the countries establishment, which it has already. The EU has already proven it can replace governments in Italy and Greece against the will of the electorate, simply via "soft power" mechanisms like access to ECB liquidity, ECJ judgements and control over local institutions. In other words an inability to leave the EU doesn't look like an army crushing a well organized political opposition. It looks like that opposition being blacklisted from the press, being spied on by the EU secret police, found guilty of vague laws like "misinformation" with judgements upheld by the European courts, votes being tampered with or outright ignored and more. This is no theoretical problem. Anti-EU referendums in European countries are frequently ignored, even when in theory they are constitutionally binding. In the UK the Electoral Commission, the supposedly neutral body that runs the election and referendum process itself, was run by EU loyalists who professed in public that they wanted Leave to lose and spent significant amounts of time prosecuting Leave campaigners (fortunately their cases were ruled harassment and tossed out by the courts). The EU Commission also had a long track record of classifying true reports about their activities in the British press as "myths". These days they'd call it misinformation and try to prosecute the journalists in question. Ultimately it doesn't matter if a majority of the population want to leave, or reject a new EU proposal, if the people who rule them don't care about democracy and control the levers of power. That's how all dictatorships work.

gpderetta 4y ago

Of course it is not easy, but if it feasible for questionable reasons as in the UK case, certainly it will be more feasible in case of existential threats.

revelio 4y ago
That's not how it works, at all. History should make this clear! By the time a regime reaches "existential threat" level it's too late. You're already far gone, any and all political opposition has been driven underground and the regime has loyalists in place in all institutions and positions of power. There is no way to organize any resistance because attempts to do so are crushed immediately, the press is controlled and you're in the minority anyway because the majority are propagandized and kept in fear of instability or supposed external threats to their way of life. The EU is frankly far too close to that dystopian end already. It constantly justifies its own power via reference to external enemies of various kinds e.g. capitalist America, the European press barely challenges it and the institutions are controlled by EU loyalists who are willing to rip up the rules rather than let the EU lose control. Even in the UK that was always more distant than other nations, they went through multiple severe constitutional crises triggered by Remainers fighting to overturn the referendum. It wasn't at all clear that the UK could actually leave despite the referendum result not being in doubt. IMO the very fact that you think the UK left for "questionable reasons" is already part of the propaganda doing its job. The people who get out early are the only ones who actually can get out. By the time the case is unambiguous (to you), you're the one being labelled as questionable.
- gpderetta 4y ago
  Mate, if you think the propaganda is only on one side, I don't know what to tell you.
  - raverbashing 4y ago
    True. But don't expect much from a throwaway account posting half-truths
  - revelio 4y ago
    Where did I say there's only propaganda on one side?

zirgs 4y ago

They could reintroduce their own currency after leaving. Montenegro is using the Euro despite not being part of the EU or Eurozone. They can switch to other currency if they want to.

revelio 4y ago
As part of leaving you'd be cut off from the ECB and that connection is required for the banking system to operate.
- zirgs 4y ago
  But Montenegro's banking system works. They aren't part of the ECB.
  - revelio 4y ago
    They never formally joined the Eurozone to begin with, they just allow the Euro to circulate and accept it for payment. It's not even legal tender there, in theory. The integration issues are more to do with how the banking systems of formally Eurozone integrated countries are wired up to the ECB and how countries come to rely on it for "liquidity" (money printing to pay for expensive large government). Also note that the EU don't like Montenegro using the Euro and tolerate it only because it's tiny/doesn't matter.
    - zirgs 4y ago
      A leaving country could keep using the Euro while working on the transition back to their own currency. When the USSR collapsed - its former members continued to use Soviet rubles for some time until they transitioned to their own currencies. So yeah - if a country really wanted to leave - a shared currency would not stop it.
      - revelio 4y ago
        It depends on how much cooperation the EU would extend (assume zero). For example paying other companies in euros requires transactions with the central bank. If the EU don't want you to leave they can just say, well, the moment you declare you're out we cut you off from the banking system and you can't settle your government debts anymore because you can't make euro transactions. For example.

Hamuko 4y ago

EU has no army so it can't keep EU countries locked in if they don't want to stay.

suddenclarity 4y ago
Violence isn't the only punishment.
- Hamuko 4y ago
  What other punishments does EU have at its disposal?
  - revelio 4y ago
    For example the UK was threatened at various points with having its electricity supply be cut off, having its planes be banned from overflying Europe, having Spain seize UK territory like Gibraltar, and the EU did impose major financial sanctions against its key industries. The EU also likes to rope in US Democrat Presidents to threaten or suspend cooperation with the UK in various ways, if it doesn't do what the EU wants.
    - Hamuko 4y ago
      Got a source for all of those?
revelio 4y ago
They're working on raising an army actually: https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-leader-approve-defense-military-plan/ https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-leader-approve-defense-mi... "EU leaders approve updated military plan. The strategy envisions the creation of an EU rapid deployment force of up to 5,000 soldiers." However the EU doesn't need a physical army to stop a country leaving. It just needs sufficiently good control of local politics and law enforcement via loyalists in the countries establishment, which it has already. The EU has already proven it can replace governments in Italy and Greece against the will of the electorate, simply via "soft power" mechanisms like access to ECB liquidity, ECJ judgements and control over local institutions. In other words an inability to leave the EU doesn't look like an army crushing a well organized political opposition. It looks like that opposition being blacklisted from the press, being spied on by the EU secret police, found guilty of vague laws like "misinformation" with judgements upheld by the European courts, votes being tampered with or outright ignored and more. This is no theoretical problem. Anti-EU referendums in European countries are frequently ignored, even when in theory they are constitutionally binding. In the UK the Electoral Commission, the supposedly neutral body that runs the election and referendum process itself, was run by EU loyalists who professed in public that they wanted Leave to lose and spent significant amounts of time prosecuting Leave campaigners (fortunately their cases were ruled harassment and tossed out by the courts). The EU Commission also had a long track record of classifying true reports about their activities in the British press as "myths". These days they'd call it misinformation and try to prosecute the journalists in question. Ultimately it doesn't matter if a majority of the population want to leave, or reject a new EU proposal, if the people who rule them don't care about democracy and control the levers of power. That's how all dictatorships work.