Open Letter from a Eurocitizen Living in London: Brits, Vote for Brexit
opendemocracy.net
opendemocracy.net
And I don't see that changing. Due to a combination between structural issues, different interests between North, West, East and South and the crisis-related rise of right-wing populism across many European countries (to various degrees, not every country has turned into Hungary), it's getting worse. And I don't see what's going to change that.
I used to be in favour of an EU "federal state". Now, I'm not so sure. Political union makes sense for countries with similar culture and economic interests. But as it is, I see regional blocks, not political Europe. Maybe dropping the common currency and splitting the EU into "mini-EUs" would be a better approach?
Dear letter writer, the view from London counts for nothing, you should try a view from the minor colonies (UK outside London and the home counties).
Yes, the UK has opted out of several parts, but it can't (yet) opt out of everything. There's precious little accountability within the EU, but it does, at least for now, hold a more centerist position.
Also the EU regional development funds have done more for the UK regions than Westminster ever has.
Condensed further: "Dear British voters: Screw yourselves. Literally."
Either way, this piece propounds a deeply and unnecessarily divisive opinion. We are not our government, and it saddens me greatly to be reminded that the exclusionist prejudices half the Commons are currently busy whipping up into a frothing idiocy here are just as present on the continent.
But below the satyrical level, there is a point. The British government has long been unpopular in European circles. British politicians insist in interpreting the EU as a trade zone rather than a long-term federalist project, and this is at odd with pretty much everyone else. Also, the EU got too big too fast, and if it is to ever make real progress again, it will have to slim down and lose troublesome countries (UK but also some of the Eastern bloc and maybe Greece). In that sense, Brexit might be a belated step forward for the Union, and it would likely hit only the British themselves (well, maybe some French companies too).
I find this (fairly common) statement pretty opaque. I'd appreciate someone explaining what he means and why it's a good argument.
However, transcontinental treaties like TTIP and its ISDS provision would effectively remove a big chunk of each nation's (and the EU's as a whole) capacity to make decision which could be seen as "business-unfriendly". Additionally, the fact that modern economies are so intertwined make them quite fragile (witness the way the financial crisis crossed oceans), which in turn mean less control by national governments.
Also ask Tsipras if he has any idea what this is about :)
All of the european north is not in the Euro, other countries (e.g bulgaria) are not in Shengen, and every other country has the same options too choose (with consequences). There is nothing special about the UK in the EU, as much as Cameron wants to claim the opposite. Despite political gestures, the UK has no other option than to stay in the EU, the opposite would be inane. As the author himself suggests, if they left, they would soon find themselves wanting back, for purely practical reasons. They are not even a barrier to a closer union, there are other more important issues.
It's almost certain Britain's trading position would be weakened outside the EU. But I'm unsure if the EU would benefit from Britain's exit. It depends if the UK is blocking things would be positive for the EU, something I've seen no evidence of yet.
There's a lot to be gained from being in the EU. As a startup having the possibility to 'passport' into the EU is one of the most magnificent things, one license 28+ countries. This includes banking & finance (FCA) licenses. It is enviable to do this even in the US where 50 separate licenses are needed in some cases.
Perhaps then should be a referendum to ask the "Euro mainlanders" if they want a UK with the privileges they have
> There's a lot to be gained from being in the EU
Yes, but with the same rules than all the other countries, not like now that they cherry pick what they want.
The EU mainlander area's elected representatives forged this deal.
The privileges the UK sought like the 'red card' system apply to the whole of the EU.
There's nothing stopping an EU country from getting the same terms on the integration bit, indeed some countries have done that to varying degrees - Switzerland (EEC), Iceland (EEC), Denmark (own currency), Norway (EEC with EU laws) & Sweden (own currency) & Turkey (customs union)
If you're a Spaniard don't you have to worry about Catalonia?
The EU allows states to 'minitiarize' and devolve down once the trivialities of sovereignty and the '3 basics' EEC principles are sorted out
I mentioned each of these have a varying degree of integration to the EU. Being in the EU means there is representation of which Switzerland, Norway and Iceland do not have.
This isn't a great situation though as these places effectively enact EU legislation without representation and nearly pay full fees for EU membership (per person).
For the 'sovereignty' issue this is the worst as there is no representation in the creation of the laws. That would be even worse than being out of the EU.
Keep in mind Norway pays something like 90% per person of what the UK pays for its EEC membership. One day Brussels will make a law Norwegians don't like and they will be upset about it and won't be able to do anything about it.
A trade zone requires consistent laws among its members too.
Yes, this is what I wanted to say.
> Perhaps then should be a referendum to ask the "Euro
> mainlanders" if they want a UK with the privileges
> they have
Plenty (if not all) EU countries have negotiated exception to various treaties. It's the nature of these "exceptions" which matter (like the UK wanting a voice in the Euro policy, despite not being part of the Eurozone, and doing everything they can to prevent reforms of their bloated and dangerous banking sector).
Meh, you should ask French companies like EDF, Bombardier and friends... They don't like the UK in, they love it. No trade barriers, mature and profitable market, no real competitors in traditional industrial sectors anymore... It's almost like printing money.
The differences in culture in Europe divides people, trade unites them so I guess these companies love it.
If Britain fully engaged in good faith, joining the Euro, losing the special clauses and renouncing their constant fight to abolish cornerstone policies like agricultural subsidies, I don't think anyone would want them out.
The government in the UK was particularly enraged about FTT (Financial Transaction Tax) a couple of years ago & that is what has actually led to this whole referendum thing. Every country is good at its own things and they wouldn't like it if was attacked. Imagine a tax on manufactured exports, Germany would have a fit.
It's not like there are policies in the EU that attempt to reduce trade in financial services such as the tobin tax on financial transactions. Italy enacted the tax and its reduced trade quite considerably.
Every country has it's own fight in the EU, it's not just Britian, France had the subsidies problem, Greece had its bailout problem.. each has had its own. There isn't a reason for Britian to be treated differently.
Sweeping generalisations you say? Have you not asked Frenchmen their opinions of the UK in the EU? There are a couple of firms that have done unbiased polls all over the EU and Frenchmen quite simply do not like the UK in the EU, some things just don't change.
CDG is long dead but he is still relevant as he chimes in with the unchanged opinions.
Agricultural policies were planned in 1957 and mostly finalized in 1964, long before the UK even joined. This is what I mean by cornerstone: agriculture, energy, industry, economic development... these were defined at the very beginning with the Treaty of Rome. By constantly attacking them, one undermines the whole setup, and that is unclout from someone who joined much later.
> The government in the UK was particularly enraged about FTT (Financial Transaction Tax) a couple of years ago & that is what has actually led to this whole referendum thing.
You conveniently ignore more than 20 years of sustained attacks by the British press on European legislation on all sorts of issues. UKIP did not start in response to the FTT. The referendum idea started gaining traction around the time Blair won his second mandate, when Brown's position on the Euro looked a bit weak, but had been around ever since Thatcher joined. The actual referendum timetable has been entirely defined by the need for settling disagreements internal to the Conservative Party once they had secured a majority. There is simply no single policy that is responsible for precipitating it.
> It's not like there are policies in the EU that attempt to reduce trade in financial services such as the tobin tax on financial transactions.
These policies were discussed while the UK government went through an acute bout of isolationism. Looking back only a couple of years, Brown's influence over European response to the 2008 crash was widely recognised as huge, and it's a fair bet to say that with him at the negotiating table things would have looked very different.
If you don't engage, they will ignore your needs, simple as.
As I mentioned, you've unfortunately been violating the spirit of this site quite a bit. Please re-read the HN guidelines and post civil and substantive comments only from now on:
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
(We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11192140 and marked it off-topic.)