'roaming fees' :)

That's my point: that's the most marginal thing imaginable, it's borderline tabloid populism - even though yes, admittedly over a lot of issues, it' beneficial obviously.

The 'common market' is pretty valuable and it's what the focus should be.

Literally nobody is against that - it's what everyone agrees on.

As far as travel and roaming fees - you don't need a centralized government for any of that. This is the 'political project' substituting for what you think are benefits of what is mostly shared regulations.

But the 'currency' thing is the most misleading.

Your ability to 'not change currency while on holiday' does not come for free!

It comes with a massive cost, and that is nation states cannot control their own monetary policy.

What 'feels like' some kind of obvious amazing benefit, is possibly the most ugly structural think holding all of Europe back.

The theory is - you cannot have shared currency unless there is absolute political and economic integration.

The 'Euro' can only work if basically you have 'Europe Federal Superstate' - one country.

When it was introduced, the population would 'not yet' accept federal political integration, and it was assumed that the inevitable 'Euro' crisis would be just cause for deeper political integration.

The 'Euro crisis' arrived in early 2010's (it was inevitable) and Europe did not go to 'full federal state' (thankfully), but - it's never recovered from that mess.

When periphery countries joined the Euro, it was kind of assumed that risk would be shared. Nations were given lending rates far below what was appropriate.

That massive building in Spain in the 2000's was caused by Euro integration - was 'low rate' euphoria - money washing over the country.

But it was not sustainable, crashed, and left many countries in a horrible state. No 'bailouts' from German taxpayers, and no 'Eurobonds' or shared risk - and worse - no ability to devalue the currency to spur economic activity.

Unless there are transfers of wealth or other mechanisms (North Europe will never accept) then ... Mediterranean Europe is stuck in an economic prison due to 'half complete' currency project.

The evidence on the other side is strong: places Sweden and Denmark - that at least maintained their own currencies - are in much better position. Literally those that avoided the Euro are arguably better off.

It's a complicated subject obviously - but my overall point is, the 'psychology of the Euro' aka 'no exchange on holiday' and the sense of unity around common currency etc. can be very misleading. The Euro could very well be one of Europe's worst problems - again - even if it has benefits as well.

'The Euro' might be the best symbol of all over what is 'perceived' to be good for Europe, but what is actually bad.

And 'the answer' is probably not a pendulum of 'more or less integration' - but actually less integration in some areas, more integration in others.

> The 'common market' is pretty valuable and it's what the focus should be.

There is no such thing. Every country still has its own rules. You can’t even have the same Netflix across the EU, it is still fragmented at country level.

I could go on, but there is no single market.

Using Denmark as an example of somewhere doing well because they didn't adapt the euro would be wrong though. They pegged the Danish krone to the euro decades ago, and have as far as I know had to follow the European central banks interest rates fairly closely as a consequence.

It's a fair point but it means they are not part of the Euro financial system and would not have the oversight, lending rates, financial integration etc. etc..

And they have the option to leave at any time.

Case and point: nobody is strongly complaining about getting Kroners for travel etc..

Imagine if every nation did with Denmark did - and made small adjustments - then you'd have 'currency harmonization'.

So I think you have a fair point but still, Denmark is not Euro.

Yeah you're probably right. I see everything through my little consumer perspective and don't really understand the macroeconomics. But if the euro is so obviously bad, why are Greece, Spain, etc not ditching it? Surely there are some macroeconomic benefits after all.

It's Hotel California - nary impossible to leave.

The 'good countries' that are effectively managed and where the citizens trust their own gov. more than European gov. - maybe.

But Europe will threaten to existentially punish those that leave.

Greece ... citizens would not trust their own government, and would dump national currency for flight to EU.

There would be a run on Greek banks to move their money to European banks.

In this case, the 'German straighjacket' may be preferrable.

And of course switching costs - it's massive, takes 5 years of planning and 10 years to implement.

What might work is a 'Greek Euro' - where there are some central controls and oversight but it's a national currency.

Very easily exchanged for other national Euros etc.

Yet I as a citizen care about my own interests, I don't necessarily fight for my state, if it has drawbacks for me.

The mismatch between the existing monetary union and the lack of fiscal integration (ie, not even any imaginary authoritarian eurofederalism) indeed is the economic macro issue above everything else, and remains a major unsolved tension even after the acute years of the Eurocrisis. Basically, if you take it as described, we're in a highly suboptimal state with two radically different directions to go to try to fix it. Politically, it's a nightmare, at least in terms of having much hope for sensible public debate and deliberation, let alone giving politicians the potentially necessary wide room of maneuvre.

I wasn't aware of these things back then, but I've been sad to find out it's not like we weren't warned about exactly this way back in the 90s when the crucial first steps were taken. Including by Paul Krugman, of all people!

Of course, it was the 1990s, from "Winds of Change" to Western neoliberalism as the End of History. And the elite belief in integration advancing "one crisis at a time" was well-established by then. Easy to say now, but did they really think public debt crises and bailing out national governments would create better conditions for having a mature discussion about EU-level fiscal transfers and taxation without drawing in the worst of our national stereotypes and trust issues, zero-sum thinking, and widespread beliefs about the Brussels bureaucrats completely detached from the realities of the common man, issuing directives about the correct curvature range of cucumbers while shoveling regional aid funds to smooth-talking Neapolitan gangsters to promote more sustainable EU waste management strategies, or whatever?

Yes, this is it. And add to that the ugly pull of naive pro-EU populists (who are deceiving because they're generally a nice lot) and the other populists, borderline nazis who will burn a lot of things down.

And monetary union etc. is a very difficult concept to describe to regular people.

It's rational that people are attached to the 'concept of Europe' and worry about it being taken away from them, even though 'The EU is not Europe'.

One solution: a 'Periphery EU' status for UK, Norway, Switzerland - but ALSO - Morocco, Algeria, Turkey, Armenia, Georgia etc..

'EU light' could give the option for other states like Greece to downgrade into, maybe something could come out of that.

A more open Europe that somehow got over the 'immigration' problem could really integrate these huge new middle eastern areas, and maybe even a couple of African States.

It could be the biggest economy in the world.

Isn't easy travel already covered with their Schengen membership?

those are just conveniences relevant to relatively wealthy citizens. i regularly travel to places outside of EU and none of these missing "benefits" have ever posed more than minor challenges.

That's incorrect. There are no roaming fees.

Instead, some telecoms give you a generous number of "credits" for calls, transfer, etc, and sometimes try to limit these to your own country. Then you have to pay overage fees (the same in your home country or elsewhere within EU).

The legality (or ToS language around this) is dubious, but the fact that telecoms try to skirt around the rules doesn't mean they don't work - switch to a better provider.

I just spent a week in another EU country and didn't think for a second about data usage, calls, fees, etc.

Combined with not having to do fx or even carry a passport (national ID is enough), minimal queues at the airport and zero customs annoyance, travelling across continent was as much hassle going to the next town (modulo actual travel time).

(Not to mention the actual benefits of membership, in this case, EU institutions slowly but surely cleaning up house).

They're required to grant roaming credits proportional to your monthly payment, but those are usually lower than you get in your own country for the same monthly payment. But they're also usually enough, and free to you. Which is much better than the previous status quo.