When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Germany

Top Ten Reasons Why The Euro Was A Dumb Idea

Op-Ed: Except for soccer and the Eurovision Song contest, there isn’t much common ground holding Europe’s diverse nations together. Then there are problems like trust, language and mobility – plenty of reasons, in other words, why the euro was a bad idea

Olaf Gersemann

BERLIN - We now have to rescue whatever is left to rescue of the euro, at any price. And as the crisis continues, one thing is abundantly clear: a decade ago, when the currency was introduced, we were way too gullible.

Here are 10 reason why the euro was a mistake. Some of them – superficially at least – seem fairly obvious. Some were aired, and discarded, in the various public and private debates that took place in the 1990s. Other aspects were simply overlooked at the outset, even by currency's most ardent opponents.

1. No conflict resolution mechanism In its first decade, Europe's economic integration was uniquely successful. At their summits, leaders divvied up profits. That dynamic changed with the euro crisis: now they had to share burdens -- something no one was prepared for, either institutionally or mentally. This, in turn, has led to squabbling among nations at a level that hasn't been seen since 1957, when the Rome Treaties were signed.

2. No rallying pointsWith the exception of soccer and the Eurovision Song Contest,there'snothing around which Europeans rally as a whole – no regional TV stations or newspapers, and certainly no common language. During the win-win period, this wasn't much of a problem. But as soon as the euro crisis broke out, a bad-mouthing "us vs. them" attitude quickly took hold. Even if the crisis itself doesn't tear the European Union apart, the basic rallying point problem remains.

3.Language barriers Why were institutions such as Germany's central bank, or the EU Commission not made aware during the last decade of the extent of the problems in Greece and Portugal? Because experts depended on the Greek and Portuguese governments for whatever information they were getting. Not knowing the languages meant they couldn't independently read Greek and other newspapers, which would have made the situation abundantly clear. This is an ongoing problem.

4.Trust Experiences so far are sobering. A case in point is the fudged figures on which Greece's entry into the zone were based in the first place. And there are no signs presently of any behavior anywhere that would warrant greater trust.

5. Control It's not just about the four big economies: Germany, France, Italy and Spain, which together represent three-fourths of the euro zone's economic performance. The crisis has made it clear that even a country like Greece, which barely contributes 2% of the currency zone's GDP, is "system relevant." That means that with the possible exception of tiny Malta, any euro country has the potential to blow up the whole system. A related problem is shifting power – usually seen as German dominance, but it can also mean weaker members taking the others hostage.

6. Shared-value deficit Europe wouldn't necessarily need many shared values to function as a free trade tone. But as a currency union, survival depends on shared economic and political values. Some northern European governments seriously thought the euro would bring a German-style "culture of stability" to southern European countries. But it's become clear that France, Italy, Spain and Greece continue to perceive the European Central Bank as an opportunity. Seen objectively, that may not be wrong, but it contradicts the deeply-held German conviction forged out of negative experience that an independent central bank is the only guarantee against governments piling up debt that is then "inflated away" by printing more money.

7.The missing European mind Differences in mentality between nations would not pose a problem if at the very least there were people in national government and the joint institutions who had cast off national thinking. But there are no "true Europeans' either among politicians, technocrats or among the members of the supposedly independent European Central Bank.

8. Interest rates When the euro was first introduced, even skeptics thought the economic situations among currency union members would soon balance out. Not so, and that's a problem because there's only one key interest rate. It's too high for some countries, too low for others. The results are unnecessarily long declines in economic activity and high rates of job loss on the one hand, and high inflation -- and in some cases bubbles (think: real estate markets in Spain and Ireland) – on the other.

9. Lack of mobility People have to be mobile in a currency union – ready to move to wherever the good jobs are so that areas where jobs are plentiful balance areas where they aren't. With time, Europeans are becoming more mobile, as the number of Spaniards migrating to Germany shows. But there's still a long way to go.

10.No real will to enforce the rules Despite all the difficulties, the currency union could work if governments would exert "peer pressure" on each other. But the fathers of the currency union overestimated their own political caste. Greece, Italy, Germany – all have treated Maastricht Treaty rules like non-binding suggestions and no amount of EU Commission "Blue Letters' have done any good in changing that. None of the violators, in other words, have been punished.

Read the original story in German

Photo - Images_of_Money

You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
  • $2.90/month or $19.90/year. No hidden charges. Cancel anytime.
Already a subscriber? Log in

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
Society

Whispers In The Abbey: How Long Can King Charles III Hold On To The Crown?

It's passed down by bloodline, and Charles has publicly vowed to a life of service. But is a rather un-beloved old white man with a complicated past the right royal for this moment? Even if a monarchy is undemocratic by design, popular opinion matters today more than ever. Just look at the Spanish monarchy.

King Charles III during the ceremonial procession from Buckingham Palace to Westminster Hall on Sept. 14

Sophia Constantino

-Analysis-

Grappling with the loss of its Queen, Britain is simultaneously embarking on a rapid process of transition — and that begins with a face and few key words. Postage stamps, speeches, national anthems: all of it will change visage and verbiage from Queen to King, Her Majesty to His Majesty, as Elizabeth’s son Charles III takes power.

But these differences are just scratching the surface of potentially far deeper changes afoot, and a looming sense of trepidation only being whispered about, as the nation joins together to try to assure a smooth transition of royal power.

Yet there are questions that will only grow louder: Will the aging son pale in comparison to his mother’s lifelong standard? How far has society evolved since Elizabeth took the crown in 1952? Will Charles' past as prince come back to haunt him?

Put a tad more bluntly: How long will his reign last?

Keep reading...Show less

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
  • $2.90/month or $19.90/year. No hidden charges. Cancel anytime.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Writing contest - My pandemic story
THE LATEST
FOCUS
TRENDING TOPICS

Central to the tragic absurdity of this war is the question of language. Vladimir Putin has repeated that protecting ethnic Russians and the Russian-speaking populations of Ukraine was a driving motivation for his invasion.

Yet one month on, a quick look at the map shows that many of the worst-hit cities are those where Russian is the predominant language: Kharkiv, Odesa, Kherson.

Watch VideoShow less
MOST READ