Getting the euro right

As I wrote in a column for The American Spectator on Wednesday, Europe’s problems may yet spin us towards a depression, but at least they offer a catharsis for eurosceptics.

What eurosceptics have found galling, particularly since the introduction of the euro, is that their motives have been questioned. Euroenthusiasts took every opportunity to suggest that their argument was based on emotion rather than reason.

In fact, eurosceptics argued that it was crazy to have a single exchange rate and interest rate applied to somewhere as massive and diverse as the European Union. To ignore this reality, they said, was Europe’s big mistake, even if it took more than a decade to show just how big. Simply, economic union requires political union, and you can’t sustain that without the will of the people.

Eurosceptics will feel that they have now been proved right, and one or two of those in the opposite camp are admitting it. The editor of the Financial Times between 2001 and 2005, Andrew Gowers, has apologised, saying: “All of us paid too little attention to the arguments of those who opposed the project and worried about its viability.” That’s true. Rather than arguing for the euro on its merits, he and his colleagues too often chose to imply that eurosceptics were irrational and sentimental.

It was a foolish thing to do, for it’s always a sure sign that someone is losing an argument if they start attacking the character, rather than the logic, of their opponents.