The first thing to say about what the two Foreign Ministers are advocating is that it is illegal.
A country cannot be expelled from the euro under the existing Treaties, and those Treaties cannot be amended without the consent of all 27 EU states.
This is no mere legalistic point. The EU has no police force to enforce the provisions of its Treaties on those who have signed up to them. The entire existence of the EU rests on the voluntary acceptance of the rules laid down in the EU Treaties by everybody. If that is called into question, as it would be if an attempt was made to put a country out of the euro, the whole basis of the EU itself ceases to have any meaning.
The framework of trust within which business is done would be shot through. One could no longer rely on EU rules being respected. The rule of the strong would be inaugurated, and business between countries would become impossible.
Anders Aslund says that the result, of even one country leaving the currency union, would be chaotic.
The first big problem would be what value to put in the uncleared, interbank, balances that would be outstanding in ECB payments system at the moment of the departure of one or more countries from the euro. This system is automated and allows money transfers which are essential to keeping commerce flowing. These balances would probably be owed to countries like Germany, with a trade surplus, by countries that are running trade deficits, like Greece.
If the valuation of these balances was disputed as between euros, and whatever new currency was issued overnight by (say) Greece, trade would freeze up, because no one would trust one another’s payments.
Would the balances be settled in newly appreciated euros, or in the newly depreciated currency of the countries departing the euro?
If one country had departed from the euro, which country would be next?
Everyone would send for their lawyers. The economy and trade could simply come to a stop because no one would trust the value of anybody else’s money
There would be huge losses of output and money, which would affect every country, creditors and debtors alike.
Because there would be so much uncertainty about the value of currencies, and doubt about the value of securities held by banks, there would be a risk of people no longer trusting their money in banks at all.
Since the abolition of the gold standard, all credit, and even money itself, are nowadays based simply on confidence and trust.
An attempt to break up a supposedly irreversible currency union, as envisaged by the Finnish and Austrian Ministers, would undermine the confidence and trust upon which the entire European economy rests.
It would not be like a devaluation of an existing currency, but would instead be an attack on the entire framework underlying money in Europe.
Anders Aslund does not believe it would be possible for one country, like Greece, to leave the euro, without the whole system breaking up.
When the rouble based monetary union of the old Soviet Union broke up, the newly independent central banks of the newly independent republics tried to give their own countries an advantage over others, by loosening the purse strings, and printing more of their new currencies. This led to hyperinflation, rates of inflation of 100% or more. There was a dramatic fall in living standards in all the former Soviet Republics, of about 52%.
People became 52% worse off than they had even been under the old decrepit Soviet system!
Some countries are still recovering from the chaos unleashed by the break up of that monetary union. Creditor republics, like Russia, lost just as much as did the republics that owed them the money.
That what actually happened the last time a multinational monetary and currency union broke up in Europe, just 20 years ago.
According to Aslund
“The causes of these large output falls were multiple: systemic change, competitive monetary emission leading to hyperinflation, the collapse of the payments system, defaults, exclusion from international finance, trade disruption and wars”
Similar events occurred in Yugoslavia when its currency union broke up, and also when the Austro Hungarian Empire currency union broke up after the First World War.
People would not want to accept new local currencies, if they had the option of using dollars, or a strong currency, whose value would be more reliable. Money would flow into a few strong currencies and these currencies would appreciate artificially.
This would mean a loss of competitiveness for the countries concerned, and that might prompt them to reintroduce exchange and capital controls to prevent the loss of their export markets. That would destroy a pillar of the EU single market.
The single EU market would also be damaged if other EU countries used competitive devaluations to win market share.
The situation in the EU would probably be worse than in the Soviet case, because euro area economies are much more complex, and with automated and electronic trading, contagion can now spread even more quickly even than it could in the 1990’s.
Some argue that Greece could gain from leaving the euro, because it could devalue, and thus make its exports more attractive. The devaluation would be like an overnight wage cut of 50%. But there could just as easily be a total loss of confidence, a rush of money out of the country, and hyperinflation. It is not clear anyway what export markets Greece could quickly exploit, with its new cheap currency, or how its neighbours would react.
The Austrian and Finnish Foreign Ministers should study a little more economic history before they make more statements.