Monday, 13 June 2011

The solution to Eurozone's problems

Much is being written and said these days, especially today, around the globe re the Eurozone and its future etc etc etc.

Here is my 2 (euro)cents worth:

In addition to specific measures to address situations at specific member states, what the Eurozone needs is:

a) A "softer Euro" policy. A 1.4 or 1.5 USD per Euro rate hurts Eurozone exports and services such as tourism plus makes the Eurozone's market a "playground" for cheaper Chinese, American, British, Swedish, etc products. IMO this affects all Eurozone members, including the German economy, even exports.

b) A single currency needs a single Polity. In other words, it EU political union, all the way to a Prime Minister and proper government is needed. It should have been decided 19 some years ago in Maastricht.
European Political Union, be it with 26, 23, 20, 17 or even 15 members, will mean that the single currency will be based on a single (federal) Polity, with a proper European government, a federal income tax (US style) and a US style IRS, a central bank that is in line with the decisions of the European government (eg on exchange rate policy, see JC Junker's views expressed at the EP last week), a European NHS, a real single market for capital, goods, services and jobs.

(a) + (b) are IMO the best if not only decisive solution to Eurozone systemic problems. They are rather straight-forward but require realtalk to their eleectorates by the leaders of the states that will choose to participate.

53 years after the start of the EEC, the time for real union in Europe has come. It is as simple as that. With anything from 26 to 15 member states.

4 comments:

  1. You're completely right. Too bad the people of Europe are too stupid/nationalistic to see that and that our politicians don't have the balls.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The people of Europe are being showered with voodoo news and info, once the issue is clearly explain, the majority in many states will understand. As per politicians, altho many are occupied by party political concerns (political cost), they all know what needs to be done. Some will have to be the ones to lead forward and the rest will follow.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Followed your link off the Guardian piece.

    Like the old adage of campaigning in poetry but govering in prose, I'm not sure how your proposal makes any sense to a european citizen living in a country where the local issues are the important ones.

    It still beggars believe how a union for coal and steel has trundled forward till political union seems somehow inevitable?

    In no period of history have distinct countries come under a central federal authority and prospered with due regard for their distinctiveness. As an Irishman I don't see how our soverignity is maintained through a shared soverignity with an abstract EU identity which seems to exist only in fervent pockets.

    We already tried shared soverignity and that didn't seem to go down too well so excuse me if I am a tad skeptical of this centralized notion.

    It must be a truly fearful thing to be annoyed by distinct countries having trade agreements and recognizing that our differences are to be treasured rather than obscured by some fuzzy pan european identity which will never supercede the national one.
    That's not being nationalistic, that's recognizing countries are a natural consequence of people grouping around ethic, geographical and cultural ties. Is that meant to be a source of shame?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dear Cian
    Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

    Here are my comments:

    Re "Like the old adage of campaigning in poetry but govering in prose, I'm not sure how your proposal makes any sense to a european citizen living in a country where the local issues are the important ones."

    Especially in our era, few if any "local issues" are not intertwined with regional (EU) or global issues. Unless humanity goes back to countries-fortresses.


    Re: "It still beggars believe how a union for coal and steel has trundled forward till political union seems somehow inevitable?"

    Not the ECCS but the EEC. See my post of Friday, 27 May 2011
    "The EEC was never (mainly) about economics"

    Re "In no period of history have distinct countries come under a central federal authority and prospered with due regard for their distinctiveness."

    1) How "disctinct" are they at the end of the day?
    2) Should I mention the UK as an example? The USA? You think eacj US state was not distinct and still is? Spain?
    3) But even if what you say is so, there is always a first time. See also below.

    Re: "As an Irishman I don't see how our soverignity is maintained through a shared soverignity with an abstract EU identity which seems to exist only in fervent pockets."

    Simple: Shared sovereignty (via a real political union USA or FR of Germany style) is a better option than being colonised (economically etc) by one of the world powers, ie China, India, USA, Russia.

    Everyone is different, But that is a relative term. Which is more feasible eg a political union between Ireland and Greece or between Ireland and eg South Korea?

    Re: "We already tried shared soverignity and that didn't seem to go down too well so excuse me if I am a tad skeptical of this centralized notion."
    Was it really shared sovereignty?

    Re: "It must be a truly fearful thing to be annoyed by distinct countries having trade agreements and recognizing that our differences are to be treasured rather than obscured by some fuzzy pan european identity which will never supercede the national one."

    1) Ireland will not be forced to join (ie not obligatory).
    2) Local, Irish, European and global citizen identities can well co-exist. The issue is at what level, local, national, EU or global the Polity is.

    Re "That's not being nationalistic, that's recognizing countries are a natural consequence of people grouping around ethic, geographical and cultural ties. Is that meant to be a source of shame?"

    1) See my reply above.
    2) "Natural"? The US or even just NYC (or London) is a place where nationalities, languages etc can co-exist in a melting pot under a common polity, currency, laws and language spoken at work. Do you know eg how many hundreds of languages are spoeken in US homes or even just NYC homes?

    Cheers
    Nick

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Share/Bookmark