• Zedstrian@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    22 hours ago

    By that argument, the EU would be ‘punishing’ countries for not joining in the first place. EU membership comes with benefits and obligations; countries can choose to leave to avoid the obligations, but the benefits only come as a result of fulfilling them.

    • plyth@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      21 hours ago

      That’s what happened. Countries had to join. Of course it’s normal to expect people to fulfill the obligations for the benefits. But to rely on this to keep the EU together allows for corruption that will become a detriment for everybody.

      • Zedstrian@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        20 hours ago

        None of the benefits existed before the EU existed. Countries economically benefit from joining the EU due to those novel benefits, but in absence of them, countries otherwise don’t lose anything they had already by not joining.

        • plyth@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          20 hours ago

          None of the disadvantages of not joining existed either. If neighboring countries stop doing business because transaction costs with countries within the EU are becoming cheaper for them then a country can shrink, or join the EU. In democracies that will inevitably lead to pro EU parties winning.