[Longbow1969]

Ireland’s government was highly resistant to any loans to bail them out, and that resulted in the government falling and being replaced with a government that was willing to take the loans. Same thing happened with Portugal and Spain.

That is the people in those countries fault. If a government falls it means it lacks popular support in said nation. The bailout position became more popular among the people, and the result was a pro-bailout government.

No one is forced to stay in the EU. No one has to take bailouts. A country like Greece could pass on the bailout and leave, instead they chose to take bailouts and stay. It is what it is. The people are responsible for their own government.

The USA isn’t a member of any imperial-like socialistic body with the cohesion of the EU

The individual American states are - it's called the US federal government. Wherever possible the Democrat party prefers taxation done on a federal level to prevent some states with low taxes from being more competitive than the more socialist states. They do the same thing with regulation. The left much prefers that the US federal government mandate environmental rules through the EPA, for example, than fight for them on a state level. This is because they know those rules cost money and would make the states that don't enact them even competitive. The goal of the EU is essentially the same thing.

[Olog-hai]

No, the governments didn’t fall because of popular demand. That’s not how it works. Take a look at the circumstances surrounding José Socrates’ resignation, just for one example.

Never mind the supposed cure being worse than the disease. In every country “bailed out” with these loans, unemployment shot up. Even worse, Ireland is being pressured by the EU to raise its corporate tax rate to match the members that have higher rates.

There is no easy out for a member state of the EU any more than there was for a Soviet Republic to leave the USSR (and the latter had clauses that claimed that any SSR could “freely secede” from the USSR). The EU’s language is a bit more complicated (this is from Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon):

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
   
   
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention.
   
   In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
   
   
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
   
   
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it. …

Not bilateral by any stretch, and highly complicated. A member state can declare clausula rebus sic stantibus as a last resort, but with the USA basically out of the picture, who will support their contention?