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
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) concludes his fourth visit to China since leaving office, Taiwan finds itself once again trapped in a familiar cycle of political theater. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has criticized Ma’s participation in the Straits Forum as “dancing with Beijing,” while the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) defends it as an act of constitutional diplomacy. Both sides miss a crucial point: The real question is not whether Ma’s visit helps or hurts Taiwan — it is why Taiwan lacks a sophisticated, multi-track approach to one of the most complex geopolitical relationships in the world. The disagreement reduces Taiwan’s
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is visiting China, where he is addressed in a few ways, but never as a former president. On Sunday, he attended the Straits Forum in Xiamen, not as a former president of Taiwan, but as a former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman. There, he met with Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference Chairman Wang Huning (王滬寧). Presumably, Wang at least would have been aware that Ma had once been president, and yet he did not mention that fact, referring to him only as “Mr Ma Ying-jeou.” Perhaps the apparent oversight was not intended to convey a lack of
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) last week announced that the KMT was launching “Operation Patriot” in response to an unprecedented massive campaign to recall 31 KMT legislators. However, his action has also raised questions and doubts: Are these so-called “patriots” pledging allegiance to the country or to the party? While all KMT-proposed campaigns to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers have failed, and a growing number of local KMT chapter personnel have been indicted for allegedly forging petition signatures, media reports said that at least 26 recall motions against KMT legislators have passed the second signature threshold