The costs to a country of leaving the eurozone would be so high that many analysts think the bloc will do everything in its power to prevent an exit, even if that requires the richest members to keep bailing out weak states.
German magazine Spiegel reported on Friday that the Greek government had raised the possibility of breaking away from the 12-year-old eurozone and reintroducing its own currency in talks with the European Commission and other member states in recent days.
The report was vigorously denied by the Greek finance ministry and officials from other member states.
Leaving the currency union would carry huge economic, social, reputational and strategic costs for Greece or any other country. Greece would have to hive off its bank deposits from the rest of the eurozone banking system as it introduced a new currency, risking a run on its banks and huge disruption for its companies.
Banks across Europe would face losses on their Greek debt.
For the bloc as a whole, it would represent a humiliating setback because the common currency is broadly viewed as the culmination of half a century of European integration.
“To me the eurozone is a one-way street,” said Gilles Moec, senior European economist at Deutsche Bank. “A breakup would have catastrophic consequences for the country that left. It would precipitate a run on the banks. I can’t see how you do it in an orderly way.”
Speculation about a possible eurozone breakup reached fever pitch last November, but predictions that the bloc will fracture have come mainly from Anglo-Saxon skeptics.
Last summer, British economist Christopher Smallwood of consultants Capital Economics produced a 20-page paper entitled Why the euro zone needs to break up and US economist Nouriel Roubini, nicknamed Dr Doom, has said eurozone members will be forced to abandon the shared currency.
RESTRUCTURING RISK
Greece has struggled to meet the fiscal targets set out for it as part of its 110 billion euro (US$160 billion) bailout from the EU and IMF.
Over the past month, markets have priced in the sort of default risk that was once unthinkable for a eurozone state and expectations have risen that Greece will have to restructure its 327 billion euro debt load while other countries will have to provide more aid.
Political opposition in northern Europe to giving Greece more money and rising anger within the country at the tough austerity measures the government has put in place have created a dangerous new dynamic that has convinced more experts an exit may conceivably happen, although probably not for years.
By reintroducing the drachma, the argument goes, Greece could sharply devalue its currency against the euro and keep official interest rates ultra-low, regain competitiveness and tackle its debt problem without the political and social upheaval associated with years of austerity-fueled recession.
“I’m not suggesting that these stories are right, but we have said that we think it’s quite likely that there will be some change to the membership of the eurozone over the next four to five years and that one possible form will be the exit of a small economy like Greece,” said Jonathan Loynes, chief European economist at Capital Economics. “I don’t think the idea is implausible at all.”
However, US economist Barry Eichengreen, who authored a 2007 paper arguing that the single currency could not be undone, reaffirmed that belief last year as the Greek crisis deepened.
“Adopting the euro is effectively irreversible,” he wrote in an article on the economics Web site Vox.
“Leaving would require lengthy preparations, which, given the anticipated devaluation, would trigger the mother of all financial crises,” said Eichengreen, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley.
LEGAL NIGHTMARE
There is no legal procedure for leaving the eurozone and some economists said treaty changes would have to take place before an exit could happen.
“You would have to make it legal in order to leave,” Moec said. “You would probably have years of litigation on all the debt held outside the country.”
Trade flows would probably be severely disrupted. Business costs would become unpredictable, inhibiting investment. Labor unrest and social strife would likely result as citizens faced mass unemployment, inflation and brutal public spending cuts.
That would far outweigh any potential boost to exports or tourism revenues from a devaluation.
“But what if the bank runs and financial crisis happen anyway?” Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman wrote on his blog last November.
An exit that is neither planned nor chosen, but imposed by irresistible market forces would dramatically reduce the marginal cost of leaving the euro, Krugman said.
However, that economic logic may underestimate the political will that has driven European monetary union since its inception.
ADDITIONAL REPORTING BY EMELIA SITHOLE
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry