“The countries of a monetary share...not only the opportunities but also the risks. A momentary similarity of interests without a lasting political connection hardly forms a sufficient basis for monetary union.” Tietmeyer, Former Bundesbank President, 1994. [America vs. Europe, p. 128]

Tietmeyer presciently and honestly predicted that without a political union the Euro zone – instituted in 2000 – would fail. The 17 country Euro monetary area was always a political project, enacted by socialist elites and mandarins to impose a technocratic union over disparate nations with little in common except a shared heritage that most of their populations apparently loathe. Tietmeyer was at least more honest than most of the Euro elite about the whole point to the Euro. It was a forced monetary statism, enacted by ever-larger and closer government, to be used as a wedge to achieve a political union and complete control by the Brussels elite over the citizens of states which are as disparate in needs, cycles, investments, labor and capital exchange, as Chile is from Venezuela.

The EU is a statist construct dedicated to the perceived needs, belief systems, and desires of an elite, many of them unknown, unaccountable and unrepresentative. The EU has nothing in common with 'representative Democracy' – whatever that word might imply, given that each person has their own opinion on what the terms might mean:

“Importantly the political-economy of Europe does not follow the classic pattern of regional development as expressed in standard interpretations of region building. In fact the EU is embarked on a course and on a path that is driven mostly by political calculation, selective economic liberalisation and domestic security concerns. The EU's political economy is an admixture best described as 'statism' with an elite dominated management of political and economic integration. It is not liberal, democratic or even representative.” [ibid, p. 130]

This analysis conforms perfectly with Tietmeyer's rational and realistic observation. The EU is an experiment, and one going very badly, that is new and untried. The normal manner of setting up a currency union is to link nations with similarity in business cycles, investment cycles, labor and capital mobility and with deep trade exchanges across key sectors of the economy. Cultural, linguistic and historical connections and similarities also help. The Euro 17 has little of the antecedents for a currency union outside of the Benelux and Germany, and perhaps Germany with the Baltic states [the medieval Hanseatic League].

The Europeans tried many things at once. The re-integration of East and West Germany. The expansion eastwards of the Euro bloc. The joint partnerships with Moslem and Arab states around the Mediterranean basis [for oil, migrant labour, foreign market exports]. The creation of an unnatural currency area.

“If the EU succeeds in reforming its political institutions and its economic vitality it may rival the US an economic power. However, given is deep rooted socialist orientation, rigid labor and product markets, lack of military prowess and an ageing population as well as a very cumbersome supra-national governance, it is more likely that the EU will not rival the US but become a recalcitrant and quite junior partner.” [ibid]

The central nexus of failure in Europe is its socialism and statism. A common currency does not work with bankrupted states. A common currency cannot succeed if there is no firm basis in economic reality for the use of a fixed exchange rate currency. And of course, one of the main drivers of the Euro, which was in essence an uber-DM, was Germany, which used the lower valued [vs. The DM] Euro to increase German exports by 800% over 10 years to the rest of the subservient Euro-bloc. It is hard to see what the socialist constructs from Greece to France get out of the Euro. The French might get political relevancy, the Greeks some nice cars, but if the system is systemically bankrupt it truly makes little sense to keep it going.

“...the ideological creation of a 'European Model' that is differentiated from the supposedly coarse and uncaring Anglo Saxon model, through cultural superiority [or snobbery]. The protection of this model is the driving force behind economic union.” [ibid. p. 133]

One political scientist commented that 'we can hardly imagine that a European economic and political union, or a European federation, will abolish or erode the deeply ingrained historic identities and cultures of the very diverse peoples of Europe.' [ibid] How very true and quite obvious. Europe is nothing but a collection of smaller states with entrenched interests and vastly different political-economies. There is no need for a Euro, nor for yet another trans-national array of socialist programs, bureaucrats and unseemly regulations and taxes.

But one should never underestimate the power of the state, nor of politicians with their propaganda. GlobaloneyWarming is a case example of lies and corruption triumphing over truth and science. People will believe any lie if it is told and packaged in the right way. The idea of a 'European' identity is daily fodder for the European masses. My bet is that most people will reject the idea of being 'European' as the EU and Euro model fails, flounders and capsizes in debt, graft, chaos and mis-management. The systemic issues are so real and so rooted in reality that the entire concept of the Euro is not only laughable but sadly incredibly dangerous to the lives and life-styles of the average Euro citizen.