Hacker News Reader

Comment by veltas | Hacker News Reader

It says "Pan-European" everywhere, but would this include the UK?

Its obviously EU - so not the UK, or Norway or Switzerland or Russia...

I agree it is Eu-wide or pan-EU rather than pan European.

Its probably not going to solve the problems it sets out to given all the differences between EU countries legal systems, tax, regulation etc.

It's not obvious to me at all, that's why I asked, precisely because of the use of "pan-European".

EEA applicability might be less obvious than you imply however.

The integrated taxes would be a very big step for the EEA, so would common company law and governance for these entities.

That said I think the headline proposal (single entity type and single registrar) is not important. The UK and (AFAIK) the US have few practical difficulties with multiple registrars and variations between jurisdictions.

It says "Pan-European" everywhere, but would this include Belarus?

That's what "Pan-European" would imply, actually. Similar to what "Pan-American" means for the Americas.

As the headline statements say “… EU-level …” rather than European, unless the smaller print explicitly mentions non-EU countries such as the UK I would assume that we aren't included.

"one europe" except for all the other bits of europe

Indeed, except for the bits of Europe which chose not to be part of the main part of Europe. That's how it works.

And by "it" we mean both "free choice to be part of the union or not" and "legal jurisdictions".

I don't think you know how continents work. It's a bit like saying Canada isn't "North American".

It is pretty common, when discussing matters of law and business - not geography, to read "Europe" as "the union of Europe" and not "the continent of Europe".

Much like "an American firm" doesn't mean Canadian or Brazilian.

See comment above:

> Its obviously EU

I know how continents work. I don't think you know when contextual usages of language work.

I think you can see from this thread that there is a lot more ambiguity when talking of "Europe", and also pushback against using "Europe" to mean "EU". It's not obvious, that's why I asked the question. I'm not stupid but just living in a different context to you, apparently, and have reasons to push back against this misuse of the word "European".

One might have said the use of the word "American" was misuse engineered by US Americans, to make themselves the "main" America. But for many reasons I think the context is very different in Europe, especially since the obvious grab by EU institutions hasn't really worked among Europeans, even EU Europeans.

EDIT: Further to that "Pan-American" is well understood to not just mean the USA, so "Pan-European" cannot possibly mean the EU only except by very poor wording choices or a very political agenda.

I don't agree that it's "misuse". it's a use, a common use. No pushback is called for. You asked a question about the title that was answered in the title - "EU–INC" means "EU" in this case. It's clear from context, and if that fails from the article. Others have said the same.

I don't "live in that context", I'm aware of it can can use it when appropriate.

Well, isn't it the same for America? America is more than the US. I know the name Americas is used, but that is more like an afterthought.

I dont think this is the same. If you started referring to North America as a name for the USA then it would be equal

No, but the UK already has easy company formation.

Formation might be easy but the laws, regulations and planning required to do almost anything are extremely burdensome.

no :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com