Some comments about people, European Union and the Euro crisis By Alisson Avila
"Designing the Euro, 1&2" by Dimitra Tzanos
"The Portuguese President stressed the need for "a cohesive and united Europe" rather than a "mere cluster of markets." And he stressed that this union is necessary in "both good and bad times," warning that "the founding principles of the European project are being put to the test in a very deep and even dramatic way" "The failure of the experience of the euro would drag across the Union," he said. He emphasized: "The dilution of the eurozone would be the beginning of a process that would culminate in the destruction of the united Europe"
There are many ways to understand the economic and institutional crisis of the European Union, and the Euro in particular. Discrepancies between country members + different stages of development + contrasting cultural backgrounds + investment priorities + so on. However, taking people as a starting point (which should be the most important question of any permanent change process, whether in countries or organizations), it seems "easy" to determine one of the pillars of European crisis: the utopian thought that integration based on a coin - at the expense of cultural and historical values, and apart from democratic common choices beyond countries - would be sufficient to generate a sense of continental unity. It’s hard to imagine that, just a few decades after two world/europeans wars, all the cultural and ideological differences between people in Europe would turn into a part of the past – and a currency would emerge as the social glue, with the inner strength to unite everything. It's an utopian illusion, since any economy is also made by the passing of time, and by the society to which it belongs. Well said, mixed with History. So when it comes to historical legacies and money, it is not possible to feed false hopes about the importance of time to heal wounds, and to mature institutional relationships between countries. People have been overlooked; the economic goal overtook the demand for national identity in many young european countries, or the defense of local interests, amongst the allies of old Europe. It is true that the leaders of the countries that gave rise to the European Union were aware of these challenges. But the logic of financial functionality, resource optimization, creation of new "domestic markets" and so on (at the expense of the weakening of domestic and isolated industries in weaker countries) was ahead of more subtle issues that now come to light. The US Dollar crossed the 20th century in line with America’s geopolitical and economical approach. It became a global currency without the formal requirement of being the national currency in any other country besides the United States. At the end, the US Dollar has infiltrated from bottom up to build the necessary legitimacy to "naturally" go global. Meanwhile, the Euro was born with clear intentions of being a symbol of a place, as the name says, while at the same time a response from a "structured economy" to a "new-rich economy" that became the leader of the pack from 1945 onwards. But the dream is over, and the national identity (society and culture plus economic interests, after all) rules again. Just think about the Finnish reaction to supporting Portugal, or the evident and uncomfortable situation in Germany (the role of a European leader versus the
country to be preserved from the storm). These are very immediate, simple and vivid examples of how Europe misunderstood people’s mindset in the name of an arduous goal to be achieved: behavioral unification through currency, bypassing real life. The votes that left Norway, England and Switzerland out of the Euro are also cases to take note of. Their own interests were ahead of everything, despite the continent. On the other hand, I remember a visit to Lisbon in 2000, where I asked people about their will to join the common currency. Although I am generalizing a bit here, the most common answer was that sovereignty was not the point: Portugal was receiving a lot of EU money and was still in the backyard of the continent at that time. In other words, there was no space to complain: all you had to do was jump on board. The context lead Portuguese people to accept the conditions, and it wasn’t the same as with the Norwegians, Swiss and English. Now, with the crisis striking again, it's time to re-evaluate - because people, History and Economy do walk the same line. At the end of the day, the dilemma strikes again: the crossing between culture and economy, and whether the economy or the people lead the way. It is still a sphinx to be deciphered.
22/12/2011