Hacker News Reader

Comment by unity1001 | Hacker News Reader

No way in hell the European countries would let the UK in after all the smears and scorn directed at them over a decade and especially during the Brexit process. Just one country's people rejecting the UK in the obligatory referendum would scuttle the process. And there are many countries which would just do that.

Smearing, scorning, talking bad about everyone have become habits in British public discourse, as if they are exempt from the consequences of such conduct and everyone has to 'just take it' without having a reaction. A kind of exceptionalism that looks like a remnant of the old imperial era. Many Brits strongly assert that they do not live in Victorian times, but they sure behave like they do.

View on HN

The EU may let them back in, but not with all the special deals they had before. First on the list is they would need to drop Pounds for Euros.

The UK will never ask, because one ironclad requirement will be adopting the EU's financial transparency laws.

Avoiding those laws was the reason for Brexit in the first place. London is the money laundering capital of the world.[1]

1. 2017: https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/economics-and-finance/lon...

2014: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/london-is-money-launderin...

2022: https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/world-int/21280-why-is-london-m...

I suspect Dubai's taken over since the Ukraine war and Russian oligarchs being sanctioned (even when those who donated to the Tory party were given plenty of advance notice to shelter their assets with a nod and a wink). That spooked all other shady money, and they decamped to the UAE where dirty money is welcomed with open arms. After all, before the discovery of oil, the economy of Dubai was based on smuggling gold to India.

I expect if you rephrased the asked question to include that the answers would be very, very different. I’d love to rejoin the EU, but dropping the pound to do so? That’s a higher price than you might think.

Why? It's just a currency. I'm from the UK, I think I had the same view. But now, having lived in several different countries, it just doesn't matter what currency I use. If I were in the EU then the Euro would be the convenient choice.

And if it's about interest rate setting I think as one of the top economies the UK wouldn't have any issues.

Don't stick with the pound out of sentimentality. It's a liability.

The Euro has a single monetary policy. The benefit is less trade friction. The draw back is that monetary policy may not fit well with the general economy. This is what Greece experienced, the loss of currency control made other European businesses a lot more competitive.

I am pro EU but anti-Euro, it's not just sentimentality. If you are not aware, you should read about the Eurozone debt crisis of 2009. The Euro ties the economies of 19 companies that demonstrably should not all be joined. Germany and Greece having the same central bank just doesn't make sense, and it should not have happened.

As per my reply elsewhere:

And yet in the last few weeks the UK government managed to cause a run on sterling. If they were using the Euro then that wouldn't have happened / limited effect and Mrs Truss could potentially have implemented her tax changes. Not that I support that, just pointing out there are also downsides to a sovereign monetary policy. I personally think that being in the bigger club, the EU trade zone and Euro, would be better for Britain.

Greece is a cautionary tale, but not necessarily a currency one. Yes, they had limited options after everything blew up, but they were heading in that direction because they kept taking loans and the loans kept being given. If they had been able to devalue their currency its not actually clear that would have solved the problem - doing so also requires tight fiscal policy. Iceland did it, with a tight fiscal policy.

I’m not saying the view is correct or not, I’m just saying that I believe it to be the case in general.

It’s a source of part of the national identity.

And, even if right now I’m not correct and most people don’t care, if this became the condition for joining then anyone who opposes the EU would make this a division issue, highlighting that it’s part of the national identity, oldest currency still in use, how can we sacrifice that etc etc.

Then suddenly people would care.

Because sovereign monetary policy is a much-underappreciated but absolutely key element of sovereignty. Joining a monetary union and ceding independent control of monetary policy is extremely risky, especially when that monetary union is not accompanied by large scale intra-union fiscal transfers (i.e. on maybe 10x the magnitude existing in the EU or Eurozone).

What happened to Greece is a cautionary tale, and Britons would be wise to reject joining the Euro absent major political and fiscal reforms.

I agree with your thinking. The other question would be what is in the EUs interest.

Much as I like the Euro, it hasn't gone to plan. I suspect if the EU could back out of it gently, it would - but it can't. It even bailed out Greece to prevent the idea of a country leaving the Eurozone. Everyone who doesn't have the Euro now is either committed to getting it eventually, or has a very special exception, like the UK did.

The EU might not want to, therefore, write a side letter for a new applicant, letting them pick and mix on Euro membership, as it might make the single currency more optional and less unremovable.

That said, when there is a will, there is a way: the pound could be pegged to the Euro, exchange rate volatility dropped, and eventually you could have Euros and Pounds be like Pounds and Scottish Pounds (which are separate but fungible). If there is a will...

Adopting the Euro is literally one third of the Copenhagen criteria.

No one would make the uk join the euro. Sure it has to promise it will, but it cant and wont be forced.

> The EU may let them back in, but not with all the special deals they had before

That's only the bureaucratic angle that is related to the Eu rules. A country joining must be confirmed with referendums in other countries for it to happen. And the UK will never get in because of that.

For it to get in, the UK must totally change, leave the delirious cultural and political adherence to its long-gone empire behind, and prove that it is a modern, civilized neighbor to everyone. And that would take up to 50 years and more, if it ever happens.

The EU has 27 member countries, only 19 of which use the Euro; maintaining a sovereign currency doesn't seem to be a 'special deal'.

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

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

Technically, new EU members are required to join the Eurozone at some point. Only Denmark (and - before Brexit - the UK) have an explicit opt-out. But Sweden, which does not have an opt-out, have yet to join the Euro as well, and has no plans of doing so. So I'm not sure about the exact rules here.

I think, it is reasonably explained here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_the_eurozone

They are required to adopt the Euro, as soon as they fulfill the Convergence criteria Those convergence criteria include "Compatibility of legislation", and Sweden simply doesn't make their laws compatible. (Details here: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/economy-financ...)

In summary, they have to join, if they are compliant. For that they have to pass laws, and they chose not to. So, it isn't quite as mandatory as some people paint it.

To quote from the report:

> The Swedish authorities are invited to remedy the abovementioned incompatibilities

The rules are you have to but when you want, are allowed, or the time is right. Like sweden no one is made to commit to a date.

And Denmark is interesting case as they have opt-out, but they are still pegged to Euro...

By then we will all be using cryptocurrencies anyway /s

that would be great.

To get to the point of re-joining will take a long time with plenty of time for governments and minds in Europe to change.

Ultimately the EU is stronger with the UK as a member, and I’m sure if it’s willing to pay a high enough price it will be let back in (metrication, no-rebate, the euro etc).

> Ultimately the EU is stronger with the UK as a member

No, really, it wasn't. The UK always acted as the trojan horse of the US inside Europe and sabotaged practically every initiative that could make the Eu a more synchronized, powerful entity. It sabotaged all central initiatives. It even acted as de facto pusher of US trade deals like TTIP, which would turn the Eu into a colonial corporate backyard for the US.

Which is one reason there wasn't much reaction from the European countries' establishments to the UK leaving the Eu, and it even looked like they wanted to facilitate it as fast as possible.

The ever prescient Yes, Minister https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37iHSwA1SwE

Those were deliberate actions by the UK government to try to make it as hard as possible to reverse the decision. A new party in power in the UK would frame things very differently.

> No way in hell the European countries would let the UK in after all the smears and scorn directed at them over a decade and especially during the Brexit process. Just one country's people rejecting the UK in the obligatory referendum would scuttle the process. And there are many countries which would just do that.

Minor correction: the countries' peoples don't really have a lot of say in any EU-level policy. They elect their national governments, who do.

If you need an example of this, read up on the 'Spitzenkandidaten' process and how - despite it, and the Parliament - Ursula von der Leyen ended up getting her job.

There is a lot of good stuff that results from the EU. A shining example of direct democracy in action, not so much.

> Minor correction: the countries' peoples don't really have a lot of say in any EU-level policy

That's factually false:

Every single Eu rule and initiative must be approved by the European parliament. The European Parliament's members are elected directly by the European people through proportional representation. Its much more democratic than the UK with its veto-powered royals, upper house with hereditary aristocrats and FPTP system.

> Every single Eu rule and initiative must be approved by the European parliament

I'm not sure what good that does. When did your MEP last initiate a piece of legislation?

The EU is as far from a direct democracy as it's possible to be. I'm currently in Switzerland, they have regular referendums, that's what makes a direct democracy.

Ursula von der Leyen was picked for her job in an intransparent closed-doors process, she wasn't even a candidate for anything.

"On 2 July 2019, von der Leyen was proposed by the European Council as the candidate for president of the European Commission"[0]

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursula_von_der_Leyen

Hard disagree on that one. Everybody talks smack about the EU and the UK in the EU would mean a lot of money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com