[coldtea]

...if only that currency was controllable by Britain's government according to Britain's needs, instead of being run according to some other country's interests to propel its own economy (using a number of satellite states to vote in its favor) -- and causing the exact same problem the grandparent described in the periphery countries...

[siscia]

Where this narrative of German driving the EU comes from?

Please note that I am not taking any position, I just want to get more informed about the internal EU problems.

[JanSt]

It‘s not based on facts but on feelings.

The facts show that GB had way more rights and power to decide than Germany (exlusions from certain EU rules everyone else accepted etc.)

Germany is also by far the single biggest financial contributer to the EU.

The GB politicians used to blame the EU for all their own problems. There will be a hard awakening coming at the end of the year, but I‘m sure the EU will still be their scapegoat somehow.

[dash2]

The general point that the Euro will be controlled by the ECB, which must balance the priorities of all member states, is true. It’s also true that this generates some well-known public goods problems. And it is widely accepted among economists that ECB policy has been better suited to Germany than to e.g. the PIIGS countries of the Mediterranean. Hence the anger about European austerity in Italy, Greece....

Seriously, nobody in Britain, Remainer or Brexiteer, is arguing for us to join the Euro. That argument is not currently live.

[JanSt]

No, you are wrong.

The ECB does not have to balance interests. It‘s independent and it‘s job is monetary stability, not economic interests.

It‘s also not widely accepted that it‘s in Germanys interest. In fact it is against it. Germans hold most of their wealth in cash. They received interest for it. That‘s hundereds of billions now gone. Germans are poorer than most other Europeans (even than Spaniards and Italians) At the same time the southern countries have so high debt loads that they would be bankrupt without QE.

The Euro is too weak for North Europe and to strong for the South.

[coldtea]

>The ECB does not have to balance interests. It‘s independent and it‘s job is monetary stability, not economic interests.

That's the version one would teach to high schoolers, not the real political/historical truth by any margin. In fact it's so naive I don't even know where to start addressing it.

You can follow the power plays in the ECB in all kinds of outlets, if leftist ones are not your thing, even Le Monde, Die Zeit, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Corriere della sera, The Economist and co will do.

>It‘s also not widely accepted that it‘s in Germanys interest. In fact it is against it. Germans hold most of their wealth in cash. They received interest for it. That‘s hundereds of billions now gone.

When Germany has control over EU/ECB policies, it could not give less ducks about the German people. It's about German banks and elites doing good.

[pjc50]

> Germans are poorer than most other Europeans (even than Spaniards and Italians)

er, citation needed? Or is this due to the former DDR?

[JanSt]

That may be a part of it, but it's mostly due to homeownership. Germany is a super risk-averse country, thus few people invest their money. Most people hold everything in cash, thus they get very low returns. It's also the reason why they are hit so hard in a low-interest environment.

https://jakubmarian.com/wealth-per-capita-by-country-in-euro...

It's describing the median wealth based on a Credit Suisse Wealth Report

You can also find these results in the ING research ("Surprising differences between countries", page 14ff): https://www.ezonomics.com/pdf/Household-wealth-in-Europe.pdf

"When dividing the Eurozone into a group of countries often labeled as ‘core’11and a group of Southern-European12countries, it turns out that Southern-European households are more capable of keeping up their standard of living compared with those living in the core countries (see figure 18)"

"It is striking that German households have fewer assets than Eurozone households have on average. They not only own relatively little real estate(see figure 20)but also hold less financial assets than is common in the Eurozone(see figure 21)."

[kipqi]

>Germans are poorer than most other Europeans (even than Spaniards and Italians)

You get to read some things here that you don't know whether to laugh or cry.

[JanSt]

Welcome to HN! There are a lot of facts to find here.

Median wealth (USD) per adult:

#13 Spain 87,188

..

#15 Italy 79,239

..

#29 Germany 35,169

#30 Slovenia 34,043

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_pe...

[coldtea]

>Where this narrative of German driving the EU comes from?

Historical experience, including recent historical experience. Naively, most discussions of EU power balances resolve in the nominal voting system, and the vote count allotted to each country. Germany uses its economic and political might to push around smaller nation states, secure satellite votes, and do as it pleases within the EU, far more than its allotted voting power (besides a lot of the serious decisions are taken in backroom deals, and informal bodies like the "Eurogroup", through raw power, bypassing voting altogether).

Here's a good take: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/can-europe-make-it/germany-...

Even this Spiegel article simultaneously downplays and confirms that Germany runs Europe:

"When Angela Merkel travels to Brussels, she does so as the leader of by far the strongest economy in the euro zone. Policies she doesn't agree with don't get passed. Power as such isn't a bad thing when those that have it use it wisely. But do they? There is a new tone in Germany. It is one that no longer abides by the noble customs of diplomacy. Whispering, suggesting and hinting have been replaced by ranting and blustering. (...) The economically powerful Germany got its way. In order to put the struggling countries on the right track -- on the German track, that is -- Merkel brought in the International Monetary Fund so as to free Germany from having to play the strict overseer. Still, it has not escaped notice that Berlin is in charge. (...) German sociologist Ulrich Beck, who has since passed away, referred to the pressure being exerted on Europe from Berlin as "Merkiavellismus." [2]

As a matter of fact, one of the stated goals of the bureaucrats that created EEC was (and remains) to contain Germany.

  "The German question produced the Europe of today, as well as the 
  transatlantic relationship of the past seven-plus decades. Germany’s 
  unification in 1871 created a new nation in the heart of Europe that was 
  too large, too populous, too rich, and too powerful to be effectively 
  balanced by the other European powers, including the United Kingdom. The 
  breakdown of the European balance of power helped produce two world wars 
  and brought more than ten million U.S. soldiers across the Atlantic to 
  fight and die in those wars. Americans and Europeans established NATO 
  after World War II at least as much to settle the German problem as to 
  meet the Soviet challenge, a fact now forgotten by today’s realists—to 
  “keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down,” as 
  Lord Ismay, the alliance’s first secretary-general, put it. This was also 
  the purpose of the series of integrative European institutions, beginning 
  with the European Steel and Coal Community, that eventually became the 
  European Union. As the diplomat George Kennan put it, some form of 
  European unification was “the only conceivable solution for the problem of 
  Germany’s relation to the rest of Europe,”

[2] https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-power-in...

[achamayou]

Yeah it’d be even better for Britain if it was in control of that currency, you’re definitely right there!

[coldtea]

Is this supposed to be a parody of sarcasm?

First, I didn't say it would be better if Britain was in control of Euro. Obviously it would be better if the Euro was controlled to the interests of all the Eurozone, not particular to the interests of some top-dog states. Which might even need a "two/three zone" currency.

Second, if you ask whether it be better for Britain to control its own currency, that's a given. EU aside, that's what any economist will tell you: a country is better off when it controls its own currency. Denying that is as kooky as being an anti-vaxxer.