Information of Denmark




The EURO-construction is contradictory, if the nations is not broad to an end. It is meaningless even then, because it is the common experimentation of the politicians with the European continent, the experimentation continues with the issuing of compulsory monetary units. The articles of the Maastricht-treaty is the starting point of the EURO. The articles are certainly not tied invariable claims to the monetary policy. Even four of five random claims of convergency were given up, because only Luxenbourg fulfilled them. The tragicomic in this fact is that Luxenbourg lives on EU-bureaucracy og banking.


And today France, Germany and Italy and others do not fullfill them either. They were just listed up for you to believe it was some kind of a hard German D-Mark anno 1955 in European disguise and perhaps to get the member states endeavour to do it a little better. I guess at least 80% of voters do not know that this kind of European hard currency actually was OFFICIAL-LY given up by both Germany and France in the midd 1990s.

European politician-created monetary unions have been tried twice before with den Latin- and the Nordic monetary union respectively before and after World War I. "When many deficits and many debt-entries are summed up the result is still deficit and debt". This logic ruled in 1914, in the 1920s and in the 1930s. After World War II we were meant to believe something else, thanks to J. M. Keynes' good faith or closely defined job at Bretton Woods.


The hard ECU presented by John Major - before he became Britain's Prime Minister - was the right solution, because the central banks of the nations then still could have remained independent. An ECU-emmission-house buing your less wanted national currency, if you prefered the ECU was much better. ECU was voluntary, the EURO is not. The national Counsellor of Exchequer was then punished, when you exchanged to ECU, because he then had to rise the interest rate, when the circula-tion of his money had to be decreased.


In principle there have always been two, and even more possibilities: A national central bank independent of politicians and private banks ruled by the constitution alone. No central bank at all with the possibility for the citizens to use every currency they like. The last possibility means no real state at all.


The nation and a compulsory currency are the two sides of the same coin.

This means EU with the Euro as proclaimed have to built a federal state.

This cannot be discussed, its a fact.


Great Britain and Sweden have chosen none of these possibi-lities until now (the voters in Sweden have a Euro-referendum September 14th). The voters of Denmark have voted NO to Euro, but we are sure they will ask us once again, "because we voted wrong."

The EURO-project is the plain dummy-experimentation by poli-ticians with Europe.The capital will have to flight from Europe with the EURO if they do not rise the interest rate sky high, and this will increase unemployment more than the politicians can live with (it is called "instability"). Tax- or notebased subvention can then be accellerated even more, but this means more cen-tralism - the dream of nearly every politician. The European Union is simply based on centralism. It is an Europe of the banks too. Former President of The EU-Commission the French centralist Jacques Delors proposed the last mentioned subven-tion-solution in 1996.


But the EURO is based on a misunderstanding of the financial relations of the world. The politicians know nothing real about economics!


After the collapse of the Euro there are other possibilities: