232
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023
232 points (100.0% liked)
No Stupid Questions
35891 readers
1319 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Why didn't Denmark have to switch to the Euro? I can see how back in the 70s the UK had enough bargaining power to keep the Pound, but Denmark?
Every country that joined the EU after the 1992 Maastricht treaty has to adopt the euro. Denmark signed that treaty, UK as well, but if they rejoin, they'd more than likely be treated as a new member.
I disagree - on paper sure they would, but at the end of the day the UK is the ≈2nd biggest economy in Europe (UK and France make up 2nd & 3rd and who is bigger changes every couple of years), unlike Georgia or Moldova or whoever else where their joining is barely noticeable.
That means that the EU is more likely to want the UK to join, vs smaller countries wanting to join the EU, although it would be mutually beneficial of course - the UK would likely increase the EU's power a little more than the EU would increase the UK's power, but saying that hides the fact that it'd probably be a 10+% increase in both cases.
Of course the EU could make an example of the UK if they were want to rejoin, but if they were to look at it objectively then they'd most likely reach the conclusion that the negatives of making the concessions they made before are far outweighed by the additional collective power of having the UK as a member.
That's a fair point, however it's hard to see the EU making an example when it's so in its interest not to... Chances are they'd end up getting some hard proofs in terms of legislation commiting the UK to the EU for a lengthy time period and maybe some other "commitments" which don't boil down to anything but look firm to members and citizens (as loved by governments everywhere who want to look like they're doing things while also not wanting to do those same things)
I'd disagree - it hurts both the EU and the withdrawing nation to have a nation withdraw, so saying "if you withdraw you will end up coming back, but on terms more beneficial to us" is a good move for the EU to further decay eurosceptic movements around Europe. Letting places rejoin on the same terms would encourage eurosceptics as they'd say "we can always rejoin on the same terms"
Indeed it hurts both. But the EU will survive this issue. With the UK, I'm not sure.
It depends on the news you read. If you look at the polls, Scotland isn't in favour of independence and NI has never been in favour of joining the Republic.
If you're reading news that says the UK is about to fall apart I could point you in the direction of some equally wrong news saying that Italy, Poland etc. are about to leave the EU
Why would it not be in the interest of the EU to make an example? Poland and Hungary were (led by extremist right political parties) playing with the idea of leaving the EU, too. I think it has become mighty quiet on that front now that they have seen how much of a pain it is for the UK to empty a whole magazine into their own feet.
Same for France and Italy. Nobody is making loud noises about leaving the EU anymore.
This is exactly the mentality that made Brexit come true and the post-Brexit agreements such a mess: "The EU needs the UK more than the other way round!". Now look at it and tell me who needs whom more?
Neither truly needs the other - both are hurt by Brexit but they're both getting along ok without the other (although brexit was far softer than people tend to realise - aside from a few very major things the UK is still de facto in a lot of EU institutions, and not including issues caused by Russian invasions)
The best outcome for the EU would be to drag their feet and wait a decade for readmittance. Right now companies are moving from the UK to the EU.
This belongs on the side of a Brexit bus.
I don't think EU has any reason to "make an example" by being hard on UK, but they also have no reason to bend the rules to be soft on UK. It would be a really bad signal to send to other joining countries to let the ex-country in easier.
The longer the wait, the sweeter the deal - for the EU.
Yeah well, I'd like them to rejoin before they run the country further down. I've visited London several times and I'm shocked to see how it is noticeable falling behind already. If this keeps up, it won't be great for EU to accept a "Mississippi" state. The sooner they rejoin the better it is for both UK and EU.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/03/britain-economy-society
I wholly agree, but as long as the political scene is like it is, it will be quite unlikely. I guess it will take at least a generation to get over this in the UK alone, and then it will be questionable still.
It seems the British (IMO the English in particular) need to eat humble pie and the way to make them is sadly economic ruin.
It's no good letting in somebody who is that flaky and loud and proud about it.
Making the same concessions and signal to every other country that you can just hop in and out on a whim? Uhhh I have a bridge to sell you if you really believe that.
It was in regards to the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, which was sort of the founding treaty of EU. In order to complete the transformation from European Communities to a European Union, all involved countries had to sign the treaty.
Some of the countries just couldn't legally give off this amount of sovereignty without a domestic election. Denmark being one of them. So, even if it's a small country, it had the same power as any other country to obstruct the founding of the entire union.
So when the election turned out a narrow "no", it was a bit of wrench in the wheel. Denmark then negotiated having a few opt outs before they were able hold a new election which then gave a "yes".
Well I'm looking at it from the other point of view, as in "you're not allowed to join the EU unless you convert to the Euro".
The EU didn't exist at all back then. Today, the EU can make such a demand of a new joiner, say for instance the United Kingdom, because it's the entire EU vs UK. In 1992, it was Voltron coming together, and they needed that left leg lion to keep him upright.
Old members had a deal there, like the UK did. New members need to join the Euro as part of their joining the EU package.