Evro in širitev na vzhod sta napaki, ki sta uničili Evropo

O tem se bo še govorilo. Sicer izjemno zdravorazumski kolumnist Wolfgang Münchau je v Financial Timesu izgovoril neizgovorljivo: evro in širitev na vzhod sta dve gromozanski napaki, ki sta uničili Evropo. Evro je problem, ker je temeljil na predpostavki, da bo kot zlata valuta prek prilaganj v plačah in cenah prinesel fuzijo nacionalnih v enotno evropsko gospodarstvo. Širitev na vzhod pa je bila napaka, ker je zaradi “širitve” EU zanemarila fokus na odpravljanje težav pri “poglabljanju” (monetarna in fiskalna unija).

Problem pri obeh je, … da sta ireverzibilna. Ni več mogoče nazaj, napake ni mogoče odpraviti. EU najbrž ne bo formalno razpadla, pač pa bo razvodenela. Spremenila se bo v zombija.

Kaj menite o tem?

Enlargement affected Europe’s ability to respond to the shocks of subsequent years in two ways. First, it forced the EU to take its eye off the ball at a critical time when it should have focused on building the institutions needed to make the euro work. Second, enlargement meant that EU countries that were not in the eurozone suddenly found themselves in the majority. That shift naturally shaped the EU’s own agenda. I recall the obsession during those years with competitiveness, a typical small-country economic issue. Debates on the reform of Europe’s treaties during those years focused on voting rights and the protection of minorities. It was the overwhelming view of European officials and members of the European Parliament that the eurozone itself did not need to be fixed.

At that time it would have been comparatively easy to set up a banking union. But once the crisis set in, and banks suffered huge losses, countries could no longer share their deposit insurance schemes, let alone to create a single one for everybody. After the crisis had started, the debate about common insurance mechanisms became intertwined with one about transfers. The crisis thus rudely interrupted the EU’s time-honoured, step-by-step approach to integration.

We should expect to see more crises, more unilateral action by member states, greater willingness to explore opt-outs, invocation of exceptional circumstances to suspend EU-level action, more rule breaking and the like.

The real risk is not a formal break-up. That would be technically hard to do. But this is no consolation. The real danger is that the EU is simply going to wither away and turn into a ghost.

Vir: Wolfgang Münchau, Financial Times

One response

  1. Oh, kako tipično! Kriza je kriva in pa širitev ker bi drugače menda lahko pravi čas vzpostavili bančno unijo? Problem ni v implementaciji , tempu širitve , itd…, problem je v sami zasnovi unije. Unija je zasnovana kot melting pot, vsa enakopravnost narodov je samo komezmetika , ki naj zakrije osnovni cilj. Problem melting pota je, da ubija bistvo Evrope, tj, njeno raznovrstnost. Ta raznovrstnost je njena kvaliteta, je njena konkurenčna prednost, je njena zanimivost, je to, kar je njena dodana vrednost človeštvu.
    Da se razumemo; ideja združene Evrope je čudovita. Vendar Europa kot si jo je zamislil DeGaulle, Evropa narodov, ki postopoma postaja tudi v Evropo državljanov. Kjer bi se morale evropske institucije koncentrirati na minimum potrebnega ne na to, da si v “mission creep” prisvajajo del za delom pristojnosti nacionalnih držav. Ideje združene Evrope se v okolju, ki ga sestavljajo deli s tisočletnimi zgodovinami ne da oktroirati, ta ideja mora imeti čas, da dozoreva. Če se bo ta proces nadaljeval na silo, ne da bi bilo za to zreli pogoji (kot pri Evru) bo Evropa eksplodirala. Begunska kriza čedalje bolj izgleda kot spožilec.

%d bloggers like this: