[iammisc]

The civil war was all about membership flexibility. Is it any surprise that the losers wanted their 'divetsity' to be accommodated.

Frankly we're heading down the path of membership flexibility if the next few years don't bring about significant change.

[rat87]

the civil war was about slavery If anything the federal government was too accommodating and it still wasn't enough for the slave masters who dominated southern politics

[iammisc]

Sure it was about slavery as the wedge issue over which to decide whether you can leave the union. This sort of reactionary rhetoric just skirts over the surface.

It's not like the confederacy was fighting for slavery and to be part of the union. Both Kentucky and Delaware were happy with the status quo. The confederacy wanted both slavery and to leave the union, which they perceived to be their right.

The federal government at the time was much smaller than the current one and much less empowered.

[watwut]

The union was good for them as long as union was supporting the slavery. They were perfectly ok with forcing free states to return escaped slaves. They were perfectly ok with the system in which north blacks could be kidnaped to slavery and had little legal recours.

The union stopped being good enough for them, when it stopped being perfect.

[iammisc]

Correct. Just like the eu was good for the uk until they decided it wasn't. Except the issue of secession was settled in the affirmative there and in the negative here.

You'd be hard pressed to argue the confederacy wanted to take over the union and then impose slavery on the free states. I mean, you could make the argument, but it's more likely to me they simply wanted to leave and continue enslaving people.

I don't know how this turned into a discussion on slavery. The issue was secession. The civil war answered that us states cannot secede. Itll be interesting to see how the dynamic in the eu changes since this is a possibility there (although I'm doubtful they'd let a continental member leave).

[pmyteh]

All states have a right to leave the EU by treaty - it was inserted to defuse a previous bout of Euroscepticism that argued by analogy with the US civil war that union author a secession right was tyranny.

I can't see its use being refused: that would disintegrate the bloc. And there was no question that we (the Brits) wouldn't be allowed to, so the precedent has been set.

I would imagine a few tweaks to the Article 50 exit mechanism will be made next time the treaties are revised - there are some game theory problems in the current trigger mechanism and the timescales set down turned out to be too short in practice - but it's no longer in dispute on principle.

[iammisc]

> but it's no longer in dispute on principle.

It was also not in dispute in the first constitution of the united states, but they just did away with that for funsies (I'm being facetious). I imagine we'll see something similar in the EU as the bloc becomes more integrated.