The price of the Euro
Across the European Union, expensive propaganda campaigns are being organised to convince the population that the common European currency is a good thing. The introduction of the Euro is presented as a technical operation, and to everyone's advantage. When you go abroad on holiday, you won't have to change money any more. That's about the level of argument.
This cheap story masks the logic on which European Monetary Union (EMU) is built: an austerity programme, which is not at all beneficial for the majority of the European population.
Countries that want to join the common currency have to abide by the Treaty of Maastricht (1991) and the Stability Pact of Dublin (1996). These two agreements makes the price of the Euro very high. A few years of austerity and then...
For years now, all the EU countries have been caught in an almost permanent cycle of cuts and austerity, because the Maastricht Treaty requires among other things that the budget deficits of countries that want to join the common currency be reduced to 3% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) before 1 January 1998. The five convergence criteria of Maastricht are exclusively about money: not unemployment, social security or ecological norms. In other words, Maastricht style convergence of levels of inflation, interest rates, government debts and deficits will not lead to a decrease of the big gaps between EU members in unemployment and productivity rates or GDP per head.
The cuts are not over. At the end of 1996, EU states had an average budget deficit of 4.4%.' Only Luxembourg fulfilled all five of
Maastricht Treaty requirements about total government debt, inflation, interest rates and exchange rates, will still not be finished with austerity packages. The member states are forcing themselves and each other into a permanent state of budgetary anorexia that will not end until well into the next century.
The Stability Pact that was adopted during the Euro Summit in Dublin stipulates that state budgets must be reduced to close to balance' or balanced, so that when member states enter a recession, they will have room to manoeuvre. If they do cross the sacred 3% budget deficit limit, financial penalties as high as 0.5 percent of GDP will be imposed. The proceeds will be divided among the 'good' countries.
These austerity arrangements will continue to strengthen recessionary and deflationary dynamics in the EU after the introduction of the Euro, just as the convergence criteria of the Maastricht Treaty have done Uncontrolable bankers
The new European Central Bank (ECB) will take all important monetary decisions totally independently. This powerful new institution will not be controlled, even formally, by governments or parliaments: the Maastricht Treaty explicitly forbids attempts to influence the ECB's policies. The Treaty also decrees that the ECB has one priority at all times: price stability (=low inflation) above all. This reflects the monetarist dogma that low inflation will automatically lead to more growth, and more growth will automatically lead to more employment.
A race to the bottom
There will actually be a great increase in competition between countries inside the
Euro zone. The introduction of the Euro means that countries will no longer be able to manipulate interest rates, exchange rates, and budget policies in the pursuit of their economic policy priorities. The Maastricht and
Dublin agreements forbid it. But at the same
The Maastricht criteria
Inflation
Deficit
Interest
%
%GDP
Austria
1.8
6.3
-3.9
Belgium
1.8
6.5
-3.4
Britain
3.0
7.9
-4.1
Denmark
1.9
7.2
-1.7
Finland
1.5
7.1
-2.6
France
2.1
6.3
-4.1
Germany
1.2
6.2
-3.8
Greece
7.9
14.8
-7.4
Ireland
2.2
7.3
-0.9
Italy
4.0
9.4
-6.
2.7
6
Luxemburg
1.2
6.3
Netherlands
1.5
6.2
-2.2
Portugal
2.9
8.5
-4.0
Spain
3.6
8.7
-4.4
Sweden
0.8
8.0
-3.8
EMU target
2.6
8.8
-3.0
60
Interest refers to long term interest rates. Deficit and debt are Source: Netherlands Central Bank
Annual Report, April 1997
EMU. the Maastricht convergence criteria. These figures imply that EU member states will have to cut their expenses by a total of more then 1% of the all-European GDP, by the end of this year. Such an operation can only be done at the cost of a rise in unemployment and further destruction of social and collective services.
These cuts will also stifle the EU's (already mediocre) economic growth. One of the most cynical aspects of the whole business is that no economist can explain why a common currency can only function with budget deficits below 3%, or why deficits of 4 or 5, or even 6% are such an economic disaster. ... a few more
Those countries that manage to reduce their deficits to 3% and that fulfil the other
e) PECI, PO Box 85, 75522 Paris, cedex 11 France e-mail 100666.1443@compuserve.com fax 331/43792961 Rest of world US$ 70
Labour, the least mobile production factor, will pay the price, in the form of unemployment, wage cuts, and more flexibilisation. And countries will compete even more than they do now to attract investments. The only tools available will be tax cuts for companies, megalomaniac infrastructure projects, cheapening the welfare state, and reducing ecological regulations. This will be a race to the bottom: to harmonisation at the and co-ordination of monetary, fiscal and budgetary policies could have big advantages. But the current project, the Euro project, leads only to more unemployment, increasing social polarisation, and the dismantling of the public sector. The Euro is being used as a crowbar for neo-liberal policies, for more deregulation, flexibilisation and austerity.
Opposing the Euro and the European Monetary Union because of their disastrous social consequences has nothing to do with nationalism or chauvinism. On the contrary, opposition is an essential part of working towards co-ordinated European-wide policies for a shorter work-week without loss of pay, more money for useful work in the public sector (transport, housing, education, health, environmental investments) and taxing of capital flows. * Note 1. Estimate released in April 1997 by the European Monetary Institute (EMI), the predecessor of the future European Central Bank.
lowest level.
Dangerous illusions
Social democratic and trade union
Economists against EMU leaders argue that a common currency will become a means for a re-launch of economic growth. More jobs and social policies, they
A statement by 70 Dutch economist Dublin has confirmed this tendency, and claim, can no longer be guaranteed on a national level. Therefore we need to accept in De Volkskrant, a major Dutch dailies, room for fiscal policy, particularly for the Euro, and then work to change the priorities of the EU.
This argument is impossible to maintain, because the neo-liberal logic of the convergence criteria, the stability pact and the future
European Central Bank is inextricably woven into the various juridical rules and treaties.
Some social democratic politicians are beginning to become a bit nervous as they realise that the European Central Bank will
Netherlands against the EMU, published February 13 has spectacularly opened a real debate about the Euro in a country where. until recently, almost everybody seemed to support the Euro project.
The economists state that they "anticipate with increasing concern the moment at which Europe's Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) enters its third phase even aggravated it: the manoeuvring social and ecological purposes, has become narrower than ever.
Rather than signalling the birth of a modern European welfare state, this EMU is creating the institutional framework for a further dismantling of national social and fiscal policy and of the European public sector. From a social, ecological and democratic point of view, this
The Maastricht Treaty, which took is undesirable. determine to a large extent the margins within which social and economic policies can be financed. The new idea is to propose more 'political control' by Econfin, the EU council of Ministers of Finance and central bankers of the member states. But this would only mean more power for another supranational executive organ: just as undemocratic and uncontrollable as the ECB. Euro? No thanks!
For all these reasons, we should continue protesting against the introduction of the Euro. Opposition to a common currency is not a principled question, but a social and political choice. In itself a common currency effect on 1 November 1993, is imperfect in many ways, particularly in the areas of democracy, employment, income distribution, environment, and poverty reduction inside and outside the Union. In addition, the Treaty was based on dubious economic assumptions.
Nothing has changed in the intervening years.
On the contrary, implementation of this EMU is being accompanied by high costs, including growing unemployment and social tensions. The EMU is proving to be little more than a monetarist project. The "Stability Pact" agreed to in economic benefit is itself a common currency could have benefits, but with this project the European Union is taking the wrong road. It is time to reflect, reconsider, and begin a critical discussion of Europe's economic agenda."
In co-operation with economists in other EU countries the initiators of the Dutch appeal have drafted an Open Letter that will be published on the eve of the Amsterdam Euro Summit, signed by economists in all EU countries. * Interested economists should contact <epe@fee.uva.nl>
International Viewpoint - half price until 31 July!
The Fourth International's hard-hitting monthly magazine
YOUR NAME
ADDRESS
CITY
CODE
E-MAIL/O
Belgium
Denmark
Germany
Greece
Holland
Spain
regular special offer
BEF 2000 •
BEF 1000 •
DKK 380
DKK200
DM 55
DM 110
6000 dr
3000 dr
6000 pts
3000 pts
COUNTRY
Send no cash with order. We will invoice you.
International Viewpoint #290
Sweden
Australia/NZ
Canada
SEK 400
SEK 200
USS 70
----- photo credits and running heads -----