Denmark not being part of the eurozone despite its central location is extremely funny to me. Like some monetary San Marino.
this post was submitted on 24 May 2024
202 points (99.0% liked)
Privacy
32456 readers
863 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
They can pry my kroner from my cold dead hands!
But seriously, you're right. What makes it even stranger is that the value of kroner is pegged at 746,038 kroner pr. 100 euro. Which, basically, is just euros with extra steps.
There's a lot more to sovereign monetary policy than currency exchange rates, such as the capital controls being exercised here
I was trying to find information about this restriction. It seems it applies to cash and relates to Danish banks' ability to implement AML controls. https://www.nationalbanken.dk/en/what-we-do/notes-and-coins/exchange-of-danish-cash-abroad
It's more related to the fact that once you join the Eurozone (ERM II) there's no way to take it back, and for some reason this resonates negatively with Danish people. AFAIK there's been opinion polls the suggest that a referendum on the matter would (still) not pass. Also AFAIK the Danish political agenda does not lean particularly for or against it otherwise, as you said, it's technically moot either way.
You do realize that Danish and Dutch are two entirely different people in two entirely different countries?
Ha ha, sorry, I'm having an early morning moment. I've kept talking about Dutch instead of Danish, I'll fix it.
I think it's important to remember that the Eurozone has two stages (ERM I and II) and they're both important but for different reasons.
ERM I is about achieving long term economical stability, which is established according to a series of indices called convergence criteria, that are evaluated every two years on even years. A member can technically apply for the second stage if they pass only two consecutive evaluations (4 years) with all-green marks, but the members that join nowadays do so after about a decade of green evaluations.
The goal of ERM I is to make sure a member's economy is stable to the point that switching the currency to the euro becomes moot. But it is also a win in itself (long term economical balance).
You may wonder why even bother with ERM II if every member were ERM I. Well, ERM I is what is called a common monetary policy – but ERM II is a common fiscal policy, which would mean deeper alignment and integration of all fiscal instruments across the Union.
There is no deadline that the members must meet but most EU members are legally committed to entering ERM II someday. There's no deadline because you can't wish economic stability true; each member will achieve it when it achieves it.
To give some examples:
- Denmark has been passing ERM I convergence criteria for more than a decade and can technically enter ERM II at any time and would be a formality. But they have an opt-out that says they are extempt from the legal committment to do so. Also, Danish public opinion is split fairly evenly about it.
- Croatia and Bulgaria have met the criteria for more than 10 years before they adopted the euro.
- The UK has never met the criteria between 2012-2018 so they couldn't have adopted the euro even if they wanted to. But of course they didn't want to, and also had a legal opt-out.
- Romania is one of the members that's legally committed to entering ERM II but have never managed to achieve two consecutive green evaluations since 2012. And that's despite the fact their economy is in arguably better shape than Bulgaria's (in volume and growth).
I am going to absolutely take this at face value without checking any of the text because anything that is so well written, must be true! Thanks, I learnt a heap from this.
erm 🤓
Only Nordic countries think Denmark is central. And Norway isn't even in the EU.
I mean, we got Finland and half the Baltics.
It's not really that central, every single eurozone country is south of Denmark. Denmark is only at the periphery of the eurozone.
Well, you have Finland in the north-east, Ireland in the north-west, and every land border faces a Euro-zone country. Few other countries can claim the latter.
Canada is not a Euro-zone country.
And also, Ireland is south of Denmark.
"Every land border"...There is only one...
Edit: and looking at a map, actually several countries have "every land border" to eurozone countries. Portugal, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg all fit that one, several with multiple land borders even. That's 30% of the eurozone countries.
Denmark does in fact have a very small land border with Canada - this happened quite recently and is pretty funny. So it's actually 2! 😄
That true...so it doesn't even share every land border with the eurozone! 😅
Spain has land borders with 3 non-EU countries...
Some of those probably have some tiny overseas territory for which that is not true.
overseas territories would probably be island states, so they're unlikely to have a land border to any country at all. But sure, maybe there is some. But then the Danish/Canadian border would count too, making it untrue for Denmark as well.
This is part of the law to stop money laundering.
Denmark had issues in the past that pulled money out of Denmark with either cash or money transfers, and therefore banks have to document where big transfers come from.
So this is basically an unfortunate example on how this also hits innocent companies.
But Denmark had to stop it all together, because we are talking about billions being pulled from Denmark this way.
I didn't recognize the DKK acronym and thought it was a cryptocurrency for a second.
Danes annoying Swedes on purpose? I am shocked! Shocked I say!
Well, not that shocked.
Use Monero.
Is there an easy way to buy monero?
Convert Bitcoin on a DEX.
When I was in Denmark I was shocked how many cameras there were, everywhere. I mean not just in the city, but everywhere on the countrywide.
Also Denmark is one of those weird countries where its illegal to have your map software tell you where the speed cameras are.
In general, it feels like Denmark loves panoptic surveillance.
When I was in Denmark I was shocked how many cameras there were, everywhere. I mean not just in the city, but everywhere on the countrywide.
I've lived in Denmark for decades. The only cameras I see are basically surveillance cameras in stores etc and speed cameras. I see more cameras in most other countries I go to.
We have nothing compared to fx. London.
Where did you see cameras?
Denmark is one of those weird countries where its illegal to have your map software tell you where the speed cameras are.
That's not correct. You can even buy gadgets for this in many stores.
Sounds like you haven't lived in Denmark for a while. Homes have cameras, beaches have cameras, forests have cameras, roads have cameras
You can't read.
Also Denmark is one of those weird countries where its illegal to have your map software tell you where the speed cameras are.
That is not true at all. The police has even officially recommended the use of speed trap avoidance software. We even have an entire market of it, most notably with Saphe that's probably the world's biggest producer of traffic alarms.