What you posted adds no information and comes across as the expression of a prejudice.
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:
The choice is really for British people not Euro mainlanders. The western European nations, particularly the French do not like the UK in the EU.
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.
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.
I should have clarified, French people don't like the EU. More than half don't want the UK in the EU. In addition CDG infamously vetoed the UKs entry in the days of the EEC.
The differences in culture in Europe divides people, trade unites them so I guess these companies love it.
Those are sweeping generalizations. CDG is long dead. French people don't like the British attitude of constantly keeping one foot out, and certain elites don't like them weakening the traditional future of a federated (French dominated) Europe (which actually turned out German-dominated, but i digress).
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.
Every country wanted something out of the EU other countries may have not agreed to, the French wanted agricultural subsidies. If you have 28 countries in a trade union, you're bound to have disagreements.
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.
> Perhaps then should be a referendum to ask the "Euro mainlanders" if they want a UK with the privileges they have.
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
EU and EEC are different things. I don't think anybody would object to the UK opting for staying in EEC but out of EU proper. After all that's what they want: a trade zone.
There are problems with being in the EEC but not in the EU.
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.
> EU and EEC are different things. I don't think anybody would object to the UK opting for staying in EEC but out of EU proper. After all that's what they want: a trade zone.
Yup No not in the EU but they are in the EEC meaning they have unrestricted trade access to the EU including the 3 freedoms.
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).
> Perhaps then should be a referendum to ask the "Euro
> mainlanders" if they want a UK with the privileges
> they have
The exact same sentiment (and it's an ugly one, I might add) was floated by less savoury corners of political discourse in England in the run-up to the Scottish independence referendum. It's not helpful; please don't stoop to it.
> Yes, but with the same rules than all the other countries
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).