[chippiewill]

Member states are sovereign insofar as the EU institutions only have jurisdiction because the member states allow them to do so. EU law only applies because local law says it applies. The ECJ is the highest court in any of the member countries because the law in those countries say it is.

This differs from the situation in the US where Texas couldn't pass an amendment to their state constitution declaring that they are no longer subject to federal law. State law is subordinate to federal law / the US constitution.

[Longhanks]

Couldn’t Texas exit the US in the same way that European countries can exit the EU?

[arlort]

No

There is no codified legal process for a US state to leave the Union, and the only previous attempt caused a civil war

A member of the EU has both an implicit right to withdraw from the treaties (deriving from international customary law around treaties) and an explicit legal path to follow. A process which they control in their entirety (as in they can't be forced to stay longer than they wish by the other countries and can't be forced to leave earlier than the prescribed deadline)

[gpderetta]

EU treaties explicitly say that a member can leave them (in particular article 50 of the Treaty of the EU).

In general a country can't get out of an international treaty unless the treaty itself has provisions for it. Of course the only way to enforce an international treaty, if threats or sanctions are not enough, is war.

[ben_w]

No, the EU has a specific process for leaving by asking, while the US states can only leave if a sufficient number of the other states agree to it.

The EU isn't really a country, it's a free trade agreement with an unusually democratic (by the standard of FTAs) process for updating its own rules.

[M2Ys4U]

>The EU isn't really a country, it's a free trade agreement with an unusually democratic (by the standard of FTAs) process for updating its own rules.

The EU isn't just a free trade agreement and it has never been just a free trade agreement. It has always been a political endeavour.

Of course that doesn't make it a country or a nation state at all, but let's not go too far in the other direction when trying to describe it.

[ben_w]

Every free trade agreement is a political endeavour. The entire concept of free trade is in part where the term "liberal" originates from (not that the term should be considered a guide to current policies of parties with that title, lots has changed since it was Liberals vs Whigs).

[bhupy]

The EU isn't a country (yet), but it's a political union that increasingly walks and quacks like a country.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lj127TKu4Q

[effie]

Indeed it is not a country. But democratic process is a very wrong word here, even with the adjective "representative". The EU process for updating its own rules is a bureaucracy directed by prime ministers, and those influenced/controlled by powerful groups. E.g. Scholz and Macron pushing for federalization and weakening the power of states - this is great for EU apparatus and those wanting to make it stronger, but state citizens do not want this.

[ben_w]

Can you name any trade agreement with a more democratic process?

[effie]

I wouldn't connect those concepts at all. Democratic process is expected in a state that proclaims to be a democracy. Not in a trade agreement of multiple states. Also, EU is not just a trade agreement.

[jfk13]

Some states tried that in the 1860s. It was traumatic.

[anony999]

Technically the answer is yes. In practice I believe there would be civil war before that happens.

[kwhitefoot]

> Technically the answer is yes.

Really? You mean that there is something in the US Constitution that explicitly allows a state to secede?

"In the public debate over the Nullification Crisis the separate issue of secession was also discussed. James Madison, often referred to as "The Father of the Constitution", strongly opposed the argument that secession was permitted by the Constitution.[29] In a March 15, 1833, letter to Daniel Webster (congratulating him on a speech opposing nullification), Madison discussed "revolution" versus "secession":

    I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession". But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States

[IntrepidWorm]

If the threat of secession requires going to war over, it would seem that no, secession is not a legally supported process.

[Archelaos]

But could it not be possible to allow the secession of a state by an ammentment to the constition?

[lstodd]

Why bother?

If things went so far that the secession is desired it is already a civil war, and constitution of 'some people out there over the creek' doesn't matter.

I think that was the lesson of the 1860s.

[sveme]

Out of curiosity: can Swiss cantons leave the Swiss confederation?

[Archelaos]

The 26 cantons are mentioned in the Swiss constitution by name. If one wants to leave, the constitution would have to be changed. So a canton can only leave, if a majority of the whole people as well as the cantons voted in favour.