Hacker News Reader

Comment by erkkie | Hacker News Reader

Where would you draw the line?

Euro as a common currency makes travel super convenient for example, not to mention the Schengen area and open borders.

Same could be said for certain regulations in health and sanitation for example, knowing you could rely on some forms of standards existing (however poorly implemented or not).

Also why would you make artificial barriers based on language, shouldn't the lines be formed based on culture and common understanding instead? Language is not what is preventing common people from participating in politics.

View on HN

Not having to change currencies is convenient but at least in the UK you can get Credit Cards without charge for use overseas including cash withdrawl - http://www.halifax.co.uk/creditcards/clarity-card/. Then when you travel you don't need to change currency, just head to the ATM or just use your card. You can't compare prices so easily, but then taxes are different even within the eurozone.

Language is preventing me from watching Austrian TV and phoning into their radio debates. That is, the population of Europe is silo'd whilst their political masters are attempting to work together. This is fractured because the electorate that place these politicians into positions of power cannot unite together to challenge them.

If there was a political union between the UK and Ireland then language wouldn't prevent me from calling an RTE show. We even already have a political party operating both in Westminster and Dublin - Sinn Féin.

>Euro as a common currency makes travel super convenient for example, not to mention the Schengen area and open borders.

Perhaps the various recommendations made in the late 80s and early 90s would be useful to reconsider. Hayek, for example, often suggested that the EEC could make every member nation's currency legal tender in all the others, to create a free market of currencies. He was a big fan of denationalising currencies anyway, and of having currencies compete against each other.

Another proposal on the table for many years was the idea of launching the Euro as a parallel currency to every nation's own currency. So, you could still pay your restaurant bills accross Europe with a single currency if you wanted to, but nations would still be able to fluctuate against it in case of trade surplus or deficit, the very thing that has been putting so much stress on the Euro's frequent deficit members (i.e. Greece, Portugal and Spain), and stress on the Euro itself.

> the EEC could make every member nation's currency legal tender in all the others

Dude may be a great economist, but he clearly has no idea about ergonomics.

Like what, every store has to have twenty different cash drawers? This idea is _spectacularly_ poorly thought out.

I'm not sure. I was in Maastricht for a few months in 92 when the treaty was being signed. Maastricht is a border town between Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany. Every bar and restaurant I went to, every market stall, and many shops easily accepted 3 or 4 different currencies. Today this would be even easier, since so many people just pay with plastic.

Imposing sanitary standards from the centre sounds great but in reality is one countries ideals being pushed onto another's. For example, the EU is trying to prevent restaurants serving olive oil from jugs: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10064787...

This might seem sensible to many in Northern Europe, but I imagine that in the Mediterranean this is almost an attack on their culture. If countries like Britain and Germany want higher hygiene levels on the olive oil served in their restaurants then they can do that themselves but they shouldn't be imposing that onto Spain and Italy.

Part of the excitement on travelling to other countries is the differences; the longer the EU goes on with it's powertrip the more homogenised we will become.

Being from a EU country which overzealously implements all new directives (and having travelled the southern countries) I agree with the sentiment, but think we would all be better served discussing the implementation (is x going too far or not) not the ideology (don't tell me to do x).

Sometimes things go too far and then it's time to back off, but at the same time knowing that there's a good chance obviously dangerous things are banned is a good thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com