• Currency is proper to sovereign nations, not to super-national organizations.

    Currency is proper to a sovereign nation, it is the exchange mechanism used in commerce within the nation. That currency is buoyed or faulted by the nations economic performance. A nation currency represents the success or failings, in economic terms, of the nation. For instance, Japan's strong Yen of the 1980s was a result of Japanese economic strength and robust growth. What the Euro tries to do is erase national boundaries and treat the eurozone as a nation. The problem is that the euro is the currency of the EU eurozone... And the EU is not -- in spite of the rose colored views and dreamlike wishes of some euro phones -- a country. The EU is an super-national organisation, like UNESCO, NATO, etc. Organizations do not get to make a currency, as they represent the interests of the organization, not the people. Organizations are not sovereign; the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, for example, operate within a nation, they do not set laws for nations. Properly understood, a nation cannot delegate that authority to another organization, neither by logic nor treaty. Sovereignty demands a nation stands on its own: it has borders, proprietary laws, the mechanism to produce and control of currency, and, in the modern model of sovereignty, a connection to the people of the nation. A people plots its destiny. The EU appreciates none of this; it shouldn't and it cannot: it is an organization, it doesn't have a people. It represents no one, but it's own self. It is attempting to take away that which is proper to a nation by overreaching treaties and regulations. And that will always backfire. It's attempt to force "economic union" and a currency requires the illusion that Germany and Cyprus are the same economy, governed by the same rules. They are not. And that failure to comprehend that has cost sovereign nations dearly: the economic basket cases of Greece, Cyprus, Spain, Italy, Ireland... And dare I say, France, are a result of the hubris of the EU as it becomes a the ultimate cross-dresser. It dresses like a nation (flag, parliament, currency) but rip off the coverings and padding, and you have an organization (not a nation) underneath... And Organizations do not get to issue their own currency. The EU started as a trade and industry block, but it later grabbed at political power and played dress up to look like a nation. If the EU wants to be a nation, then by definition it must snuff out the other nations, and their governments. It must create a common language, culture and people. And it can't do that. Thus is cannot and should not pretend it is what it is not... It is not a country, and it should not have the trappings of a country, notably it should not have currency. Save Europe, kill the Euro, restore sovereignty to the nations of the EU and then reform the EU and make it into something useful.

  • No, it is dangerous.

    Abandoning the euro would mean that we lose the power over the people in the European countries. We have invested so much pride, so much money; our own lives in this project and we can not lose now. It doesn't matter if countries are ruined and people lose their jobs; the show must go on.

  • No, it can weather the storm.

    It makes sense for the EU to have a common currency, and though there are problems right now with Italy, Spain, and Greece, the shared commitment of the Euro is a stabilizing force that keeps the region from descending into an "every country for itself" mentality. Europe needs the unity, and in time, the efficiency of the currency will shine through.

  • Absolutely not.

    The Euro is the only thing holding together the economy in Europe. Greece is bankrupt, and Italy is doing their best imitation of Greece. Yet the Euro holds strong because the countries of the EU are holding fast to it. The Euro allows for easier trade between countries, and cuts down on the costs of currency conversion.

  • No, the Euro should remain a common currency.

    The Euro has been in use for a good deal of time and abandoning it would be difficult. One common currency makes international trade much easier and probably improves commerce. Although some countries in Europe are experiencing tough times, getting rid of the Euro in not likely to be a solution to the problems.

  • No, it should not

    Abandoning the euro won't fix the financially irresponsible actions that have gotten so many in the region in trouble. It is not the problem, it is careless usage of resources and then staring at neighbors saying "give money please" when it hits the fan and there's no way to get up. The literal currency isn't going to alter anything.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.