Creating the euro was a different level of ambition from building a common European market. The latter had historical roots. There had been free flow of goods, capital and people across parts of Europe in the 19th century and earlier. Political barriers and wars disrupted those flows, but at times and in places free trade and free migration across national borders was a reality. Indeed, by mid-20th century older people remembered with nostalgia how easy travel had once been.
Hence by removing the barriers to the movement of goods, money and people, the European Union was not imposing a novel blueprint. Had it stopped with free markets, tremendous economic and political benefits would have been achieved with little downside. I have to admit that I never understood the aggressive drive to impose a common currency.Read it at ThinkMarkets
Euro Crisis from Long Perspective
By Chidem Kurdas
Many people appear to still hold hope that the current EU crisis will ultimately resolve itself in the creation of a United States of Europe. Kurdas contrasts the historical conditions of the US and Europe prior to accepting a common currency. His conclusion, similar to that of Peter Boone and Simon Johnson in The End Of The Euro: A Survivor’s Guide, is worth repeating:
what needs to be kept in mind is that free trade and markets matter much more than the euro. Preserving them should be the priority.
Ending the Euro Currency, Not the European Union