This is a process called brain drain, and we've recently made an entire video on the topic, so I don't want to repeat too much here, but in Europe, brain drain is even more of a problem, because unlike someone moving from India to the United States, someone moving from Bulgaria to Ireland wouldn't need to apply for a visa and go through the approval process, they could just move and find a job. The benefits of a shared currency are another double-edged sword. On one hand, they make trade and commerce between member states much easier. They also give those states access to a world reserve currency which attracts much more confidence internationally than any of their own currencies would individually. Possible exceptions would have been the French Frank or the German Deutschmark, and of course the British Pound, not that particular example is relevant anymore. All of the other countries in the EU would be forced to conduct their international trade and borrowing in an alternative reserve currency, which can be expensive, complicated and very risky. If countries can't get access to foreign currencies that they trade in, they can be put in a position where they can no longer pay for vital imports or make repayments on their loans. These desperate situations are playing out right now in countries like Sri Lanka and Pakistan, but again, we've recently done videos on these economies so I don't want to repeat too much. Sharing access to the world's second most widely traded and widely held reserve currency means that the countries in the EU will never find themselves in that sort of position, even if they do have debt problems. So it sounds like the benefits of a shared currency are pretty compelling, but the drawbacks are also quite serious, especially for countries that are not more responsible with their debt burdens. When Greece got into trouble in the early 2010s, it brought the Eurozone down with it. Now, other countries in the EU certainly weren't free of blame, but most of them probably could have avoided the protracted economic stagnation that came with having to make monetary decisions to look after the weakest economic link. Greece itself was also hurt by using the Euro during this time. Normally when an economy experiences a downturn, its currency will be devalued, which actually helps to attract foreign investment, trade and tourism, because if the Greek Druckma fell by 30%, then suddenly a trip to the Greek Islands becomes 30% cheaper for international visitors. This would give the country a source of income to help pay its debts, buy vital imports and keep its citizens' quality of life from completely collapsing. Of course, this works best if the country has highly attractive investment opportunities, exports or tourist destinations. Pakistan's currency has fallen significantly in recent months, but the price was never really what was keeping people from booking their next family holiday in Islamabad. But this process doesn't work at all if the country doesn't have its own free floating currency. During the time that Greece was days away from bankruptcy, other economies in the EU, most notably Germany, were doing just fine in exporting highly desirable goods and services, maintaining the price of the Euro in foreign exchange markets. This meant that the Euro didn't get as cheap as it would have if it was exclusively the national currency of Greece, and Greece didn't get the self-correcting market forces that they would have from a normal free floating currency. The inflexibility of a singular currency is having similar problems today. Even though 20 countries use the same currency, they all have different rates of inflation. Luxembourg's most recent inflation rate is 4.8%, which is high but not too far outside of the target range. If they manage their own monetary policy, they probably wouldn't need to take drastic action. A stonier on the other hand, has an inflation rate of 17.6%, which is a problem and would warrant some pretty drastic monetary policy action. The European Central Bank has to set interest rates to accommodate for everyone, which during periods of high inflation, like right now, ends up being ideal for nobody. From a macroeconomics point of view, the advantages of the EU outweigh the disadvantages for the member states. Countries that have recently become members have enjoyed increased growth rates and overall, Europe has become a wealthier place because of the union, but people tend to see problems more than they see benefits, and it won't be macroeconomists deciding if member states stay in the EU or not. It will be their voting populations. So, the next question becomes, what happens if the EU collapses? The only correct answer is of course that nobody knows, and it depends on what that collapse looks like. A slow and steady exodus of countries from the union, like a slow trickle of Brexit, would hurt economic growth over the next decade, just like Brexit itself is projected to do in the UK. The estimates for the economic cost of Brexit range from around 2.5% to 8% of the UK's GDP, but it had some advantages that other countries would not. It never adopted the euro and it kept its own currency, the pound, which is also a well recognised, and at least up until recently, widely respected global currency. Other countries would need to create a new currency from scratch, which would make even the most basic economic functions impossible until that system was set up.