The European currency union has become like a bad marriage whose deep-seated problems have burst embarrassingly into public view, while the beleaguered partners stay together for the sake of the children. Maybe it's finally time for the unhappy couple to own up to the fact that they were never meant to be together. They bring too much historical baggage (a couple of World Wars, disagreements about whether it's okay for pork products to hang in shop windows). It often seem as if they are speaking different languages! The children -- Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland, for openers -- might actually be better off living by themselves. (Because, really, if your parents were Germany and France, with each decision in your life requiring their peaceful concurrence, how long ago would you have run away from home?)
The latest arrangement aimed at perpetuating this unhappy marriage is now emerging from the therapist's couch in Brussels, where most of Europe's member states were on Friday preparing to pledge that their finances should be tied together collectively in the name of fiscal discipline. Only one nation was holding out: Great Britain.
This deal, if it happens, sounds like a big one. It's certainly a major step toward the sort of integration that Europe structurally requires to instill faith in its common currency, the Euro (a marriage agreed to hastily, in the presence of a hired Vegas pastor, without a prenuptial agreement or consideration of the consequences). Except that no one familiar with the inner workings of this dysfunctional family of nations has any reason to believe that this pledge of fiscal fidelity will survive any better than so many other past declarations of faith.
What will come of this pledge, however, is a general reinforcement of the fiscal austerity that has become a leading source of strife under much of the European roof. For the moment, the market appears pleased that another deal is emerging to stave off the ugly, tabloid-fare divorce it has been fearing -- an abrupt dissolution of the Euro, with all the potential financial havoc. But the pattern here is already clear, and it is not comforting: Next comes the market's slower realization that Europe has no fuel for growth, which means more joblessness and bank losses and unhappy citizens taking to the streets to decry the slicing away of subsidies and public spending; and all of this resulting from the fiscal discipline Europe has embraced as the key to strengthening its marriage.
It's as if a couple, exhausted by years of bickering and distrust, has decided that the key to fixing its troubled marriage is to promise to never go to the movies again, forgo presents and dessert, and ditch cuddling as a timesuck that distracts from standing on the street selling the wedding presents.
But what about the children? Back when a deal might have still been struck that could have allowed the European Central Bank to function as lender of last resort, standing at the ready to assist Italy and Spain, along with Greece, it made all the sense in the world to strengthen the currency union and tighten the strictures that govern what member nations can do with their budgets. If the central bank is to print Euros to lower borrowing costs and alleviate worries of sovereign default, then, yes, it seems perfectly reasonable that rules ought to govern how big the budget deficits can be, with a central arbiter in Brussels keeping the books in order.
But the Germans -- who like central bank intervention about as much as the Dutch like Germans -- keep making it clear that this will not happen, not so long as Berlin is the largest guarantor of the funds. And this German unwillingness to arm the central bank to attack the crisis has become a leading source of fear in the global marketplace; fear that Europe will never solve its problems. This is why borrowing costs have been rising across the continent. This is why ratings agencies are downgrading sovereign debt, which exacerbates the borrowing costs.
There is no love and trust in this marriage, only talk of regimented rules. Market confidence rests on faith that someone really will step in when push comes to shove. All the markets hear now is lectures from Germany about fiscal prudence. This week, the new central bank chief, Mario Draghi, confirmed that his institution cannot be counted on to rescue the ailing and dismissed talk of selling bonds backed by the credit of member states.
Each deal to emerge from each summit has led only to another realization that yet another, bigger deal is yet required. Each failure to bolster confidence simply reinforces the reality that the nations in this marriage don't like each other and will be here again, pointing fingers. This makes the market nervous. The market is the guy walking by the house, wondering if he wants to buy the vacant place next door, and not liking the sound of shouting and breaking glass.
The children, as it were, might find more rewarding futures on their own. If Greece were to leave the structures of the Euro, it could devalue its own currency, making itself more attractive as a tourist destination. Italy could do the same, instantly boosting the competitiveness of its globally beloved products. Spain and Ireland would derive the benefits of lower-valued currencies, removing the straitjacket on their growth that has made high unemployment an entrenched feature of life.
To which you may rightly say, enough with the metaphor. Europe isn't a marriage. It's the world's largest marketplace, and its finances are intimately tied up in the rest of the global economy. An unruly end to its currency union could wind up being a Lehman Brothers-like event on many shores, sending money on a panicked retreat out of anything that looks even a smidgen risky. That could hurt small businesses in the United States, prompting fresh layoffs and unleashing another wave of anxiety and uncertainty.
All valid fears, but the problem is that a lot of these things are already happening, spilling over into other countries. We may be experiencing a Lehman-like event in slow motion.
All eyes turn to the slowdown in China, where the great export machine no longer looks indomitable, in part because of weakening orders from Europe. Small businesses in the United States are already complaining of difficulty getting their hands on money, and part of the reason is the nervousness of major banks to lend, so long as the great uncertainty of the Euro and its potential dissolution persists.
The end of the Euro poses serious consequences, make no doubt about that. But maintaining the Euro without the necessary political agreement is a status quo that also has serious consequences. Getting to something better requires a spirit of unity that is lacking among the participants -- not because the partners aren't trying, but because they have irreconcilable differences. In Germany, fiscal discipline and fear of inflation are like a national religion. In Italy, Greece and Spain, fiscal discipline is destroying any hope for the future. Let's call the whole thing off.
Europe has become a codependent relationship, staying together for the sake of children, who are increasingly screwed up as a result of being reared by parents who are always storming away from the dinner table before the nourishment is complete. Peace reigns at the moment, but it's hard to believe it will last, because it never does.
Breaking up is hard to do, but it may very well be inevitable. If that's the case, better to do it earlier, while everyone can still get on with their lives.
Follow Peter S. Goodman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/petersgoodman
Take Poland e.g. Yes, it speaks a different language than that of its German neighbors and yes their common history was a very bloody and hurtful one. Nevertheless Poland staunchly defended the Franco-German proposal against the blackmail of the Mouth of the City-of-London, mr. Cameron.
Perhaps you should study contemporary Europe a bit more in detail? You do not seem to understand us at all and that makes your analysis into laughable gibberish.
Oh, for the record: I am Dutch.
human habitat, ecology, is part of culture Financial institutions [ merged banks and investment houses and big consultant/accounting firms], like mathematics, dont care about cultures
what started in England and spread to america has infected the continent of europe. margeret Thatcher was the first to allow banks and investment houses to merge.
usury is theproblem not the solution [ the problem basically is a spiritual one] Central Banks which are not branches of the government but private institutions, must be abolished or transformed
This is an economic model that cannot survive in disregard of human justice. Centuries of wealth built on the backs of the less advantaged, accumulation of advantage and power in the hands of the few, a failure of investment in our true human potential (a failure in educational approach to develop our true personal gifts, talents, skills or genius). The system has failed who we really are as human beings, time to let it go to the dogs (who will have it).
Since I am a long time resident of the state of Michigan, the parallels to the newly passed Public Act 4; are startling. In the eight months since the passing of the PA4 under the newly elected Governor Rich Snyder (R)...four minority communities and the Detroit Public Schools have lost the right to govern themselves. Their elected officials have been replaced through the auspices of fiscal insolvency determined by the governor; and "emergency managers" have replaced the democratically elected community boards. These managers have complete control and are not accountable for their actions.
In the 26 European nations, when it has been determined that the nation is fiscally insolvent under "automatic consequences" rules set by the banks, an unelected banker will control that nation. The will of the people leaves them without a voice in governing. The banker can impose harsh austerity measures without the will of the people.
If indeed, the dissolution of democracy and the ruling by financial institutions was a part of a grand plan, it is brilliant and the 1world-order has been set in place.
The economic growth and generalized prosperity of the last two decades was sustained (by both Republican and Democratic administrations and Congresses) with strong stimulants - big tax cuts to indviduals and corporations, massive military spending, huge corporate bailouts, out of control govt and individuals borrowings.
All of these have resulted in unsustainable personal and national debts (a.k.a. leaving payments to next generations), while we have a make-belief and propped-up standard of living unrelated to our true economic productivity.
It is time we end the charade and sharply down-size the borrowings - individual, national and international, which has been a job-creator for non-productive Bankers, Wall Street lawyers and accountants, and Speculators.
Will IMF and Central Banks engineer and lead the way to a "soft landing"? Or Is it going to be the same pumped-up stimulants (with different names) that we have seen in the last few years?
Military spending is govt subsidy to upper and middle class; while social spending is subsidy to the the lower economic class.
To hell with paying off all these derivatives. Invalidate them, 100%. See what you have left. If you're still not in a reasonable position, tell the banks and investors they're taking a "haircut" at 50%, 75%, whatever on the actual bonds. Derivatives are treated as toilet paper and are illegal, now and forever. The banks and the "market" caused this problem and to think that we should care one bit about protecting their profits is insanity to the third level.
The tail is wagging the dog and the longer each country puts these irresponsible criminals ahead of the citizens, these problems will never be solved. Personally, I've had it. I no longer support them. I will buy only what is necessary. No new cars unless I can pay cash. No credit cards, period. I don't do business with these criminal enterprises anymore. I use a credit union and a debit card on which there are no fees.
26 nations have just vowed to stay together even if that means a huge transfer of their sovereignty.
The reason they were so unified is that the City-of-London demanded that they be put above the law. This is literally what Cameron tried to blackmail Europe into. Europe's politicians said: no way. You bankers are the ones that created this mess. No, we are not surrendering to you.
Does that sound like the EU is dead???
Second, I hope the EU succeeds, but I don't think the odds are great.
Third. London isn't above the law, they just didn't agree to allow themselves to be governed by someone other than the UK government. I find that totally reasonable.
The whole premise of your proposed agreement relies on false premises. The markets will, and already have decided that the likelihood isn't great. Not that I care for the markets, but basically that's who the EU is trying to appease, the markets.
The "idea" of transferring sovereignty sounds great in times of great strife. Realistically whether it's ratified or not, at the first sign of internal problems that will inevitably be the result of external interference in a country's internal government actions, the citizens will be unwilling to allow it. It's just history. I'm sorry, but it's an unlikely scenario.