[mathw]

Except that the UK joined the EU before it was even called the EU and long before the Euro existed. The UK also never adopted the Euro or joined the Schengen area, so we never got the full open borders + same currency experience. Being over the water from the EU - with the exception of the Irish border, which is over the water from the rest of the UK anyway - helps add a sense of separation, uniqueness and sheer arrogance which has allowed our newspapers to lie about the EU for the entirety of its existence.

What's hurt us from leaving is the single market. It's now vastly more difficult to trade with the EU, our closest geographical neighbour. Lots of post-referendum talk about amazing trade deals with Australia and the USA and Canada and India came largely to nothing, and they're all so far away and much more difficult to manage the logistics of. Plus the awkward situation where Northern Ireland is still kind of in the single market and kind of not, due to the need to preserve various agreements about trade and movement over the Irish border.

Ultimately, EU membership was what helped us get out of the economic pit we were in in the early 1970s. It's what helped us build the massive services economy which fuelled the 1980s on a wave of consumer credit and London skyscrapers. I'm not saying those are necessarily good things, but the day to day impact of EU membership was actually enormous - just most people weren't consciously aware of it.

Which is why it was possible for a bunch of charlatans to convince a tiny majority to vote to leave it.

[blibble]

> Ultimately, EU membership was what helped us get out of the economic pit we were in in the early 1970s. It's what helped us build the massive services economy which fuelled the 1980s on a wave of consumer credit and London skyscrapers.

there was (and still is) no single market for services, so how could have joining the EEC have caused any of these things?

the 80s boom this was purely a result of Thatcherite policy (for better or worse), it had nothing to do with the EEC

[yokaze]

> there was (and still is) no single market for services, so how could have joining the EEC have caused any of these things?

Well, let's address the "there still is no single market...". You are entitled to your opinion, but it differs to the official stance from the EU.

Here the page about the Single Market for Services: https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/single-market/ser...

Now let's have a look at the Treaty of Rome (1957): https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM...

The summary says:

> It created a common market based on the free movement of:

> goods

> people

> services

> capital.

I assume we can differ in the opinion of how much of that has been achieved and at what time, and I agree it is far from perfect, but your statement is rather undifferentiated and categorical.

[blibble]

> You are entitled to your opinion, but it differs to the official stance from the EU.

the EU taking credit for things for which it was entirely uninvolved? imagine that

> Now let's have a look at the Treaty of Rome (1957)

the Treaty of Rome (1957) was, and still is, an aspiration

the signing of it did not spontaneously unify the laws and regulations of its parties, create a common market, unified defence policy, and create a political union. this took time and is still ongoing

> I assume we can differ in the opinion of how much of that has been achieved and at what time

the Single European Act itself, the instrument which created the EU single market did not enter effect until 1987, so clearly it could not have been the catalyst for the changes to the UK services economy in the 70s

the EU single market still does not encompass most services: professional qualifications are almost entirely controlled by member states, there is no banking union, there is no capital markets union, and it goes on

it does not exist in any functional way whatsoever

you don't have to make my word for it, you can read it in the EU's own reports on the subject, such as the latest here: https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/document/download... (1.1 Barriers in the Single Market)

this is very different to the single market for goods, which is extremely effective and functionally complete

but why debate this, when we have a direct example to refer to? a member state with significant intra-EU service exports leaving the single market

if being part of the EU single market for services was important, you would expect that UK service exports to the EU would decline significantly as a result

so, what happened in reality?

the exact opposite: UK service exports to the EU have increased since brexit

this should confirm to even the most pro-EU person that the single market for services is woeful

[orwin]

Did you mean, no single market for _financial_ services?

In that case, yes. But other kind of services do take advantage of the single market. The issue is the language barrier, so Germany, Austria benefits a bit more than other, but with non-english speakers aging out of the workforce, this is changing (we used to be mostly franco-belge, we now work with Spain, Italy and Romania. Weirdly our bad accent makes it easier to understand each others than Oxford English)

[fmajid]

Also the fact most of the UK’s newspapers are owned by non-UK, non-European citizens. The US doesn’t allow foreigners (non US persons, green card holders are US persons) to hold a controlling stake in the media, or to contribute money to the political process.