Finland and Zone of Euro
Finland enty to the euro zone was made in Parliament in the spring of 1998. Membership was not organized through referendum. To Parliament was not given the bill, but only in the Government's communication. The Communication was presented to membership almost exclusively in a positive light, even if there were a wealth of information related negative impacts and risks.
Finland has suffered from membership in the euro area as more than most other member states. In connection with the Greek crisis has shown an increase in euro area economic solidarity and the development of a complete economic union, which includes a joint and several banking union, a common Minister of Finance and Budget as well as remain remittance systems between member states. French President Francois Hollande has proposed to the euro area up to a common government.
The euro area has not developed as submitted to Parliament in 1998 was presented. It affiliation has caused financial loss to Finland, unemployment and bad government deficit. In violation of the EU Treaties have been taken to financially support the member states in distress. These support mechanisms are being strengthened, and escorted them permanent basis. The euro area decision-making system is being changed in a manner that essentially would reduce the economic and state independence of Finland.
For these reasons, we suggest that Finland's membership euro area as a referendum, which describes the context of an open date, the effects of membership and related future threats and risks. If the majority of the people should Finland adherence euro area as, in practice, it would adopt the euro area to change to debt union and supranational federation. If the referendum instead would lead to Finland's withdrawal from the euro area, the euro would be introduced alongside the national currency. In this case Finland would be monetary and economic policy in relation to the same position as the other Nordic countries.
European Economic and Monetary Union was decided by the Maastricht Treaty. It included a timetable for the gradual transition to a single currency the euro. The Agreement also defined the criteria by which had to be met at the time when the third stage of EMU at the beginning of 1999 and move to a single currency will be introduced. Under the agreement, the euro passed on all those EU Member States which meet the criteria. Denmark and the United Kingdom were, however, reserved the legal possibility to stay outside. Finland and Sweden stated that it would decide belonging to the euro area separately.
Finnish membership of the euro area
Paavo Lipponen's government submitted to Parliament 24.2.1998 Communication on Finland's participation in the euro area.
The Communication was based on the legal interpretation of the Finnish membership of the euro area as became resolved in the context of the parliament after a consultative referendum in 1994 approved Finland's accession to the European Union. This interpretation was contrary to the fact that upon accession expressly stated that the integration of the euro area will be decided separately. Even the Speaker of the Parliament noted that he had not realized that the referendum would be decided also belonging to the euro area.
The government submitted to Parliament a communication even if the parliament had for EU membership in dealing required that "Finland's possible accession to the third stage of monetary union shall be adopted in due course in parliament on the Board's separate proposal." Communication is not a government bill.
The majority of the Constitutional Law Committee of Parliament approved a legal interpretation of the Board and the membership was solved in parliament Communication from the procedure. The minority MPs argued that joining the euro area should have a referendum and that it should have been resolved on the basis of the government bill. They argued that in the same context would have to amend the Constitution, because the Constitution 72§: According to Finland's monetary unit was the markka.
Sweden and Denmark, the Maastricht Treaty was interpreted differently. In both countries, the euro area has a separate referendum was held.
Although Denmark was under a contract the opportunity to remain permanently outside the euro zone, the government took the accession referendum in 2000. A clear majority rejected membership.
In Sweden, a referendum was held in 2003. There, too, membership became clear figures have been rejected.
On the basis of opinion polls, it was clear that Finland's accession to the euro zone should be rejected, if it would be organized in 1998 a referendum.
Broad euro area
According to the Maastricht Treaty, it was a precondition to the third stage of EMU transition, that at least half of the member countries meets the prescribed criteria for EMU. This condition was not fulfilled.
In the present example it was. The current option put forward by the German Finance Minister, Wolfgang Schauble, according to which the euro area would have initially by only five countries, namely France, Germany and the Benelux countries. They would have formed the so-called. optimal currency area. Their political integration had progressed and they had set up the "hard core". For these countries, the euro was the single currency (the single currency). Other EU countries would have used euro as the single currency (the common currency) alongside their respective national currency.
The Communication announced that the government would seek the widest possible range member into the euro zone from the outset. The Board also stressed that it wants Finland to be involved in the condensing core. This meant that Finland also supported the accession of countries that did not meet the criteria. Excluded from the left seeking to enter the euro area countries initially only in Greece, but in the end it too was included before the introduction of the euro. Accession of Greece did not deal with the Finnish parliament.
Eurozone crisis is due to the presence of too different economies. This problem is now trying to solve the full reversal means.
The so-called drawn up by the Commission President, Jean-Claude Juncker as chair. five presidential report suggests that, alongside the monetary union must be to create the perfect economic union, which would include a joint and several banking union, a common Minister of Finance and Budget as well as remain between the remittance of the Member States. French President Francois Hollande has proposed that the euro area will receive up to a joint government.
The second option presented last year worked with Professor Vesa Kanniainen under the leadership of the working group. In the euro area were canceled so that all countries take to include re-use of the national currency.
Another option proposed by the Kanniainen was that Finland withdrew from the euro area alone. This could lead over time to the fact that few other countries would differ to come closer to the solution put forward by Schauble course.
Finland has suffered from the membership euro area
In recent weeks, disputes over support for Greece have highlighted the problems that the Finnish membership of the euro area as are led.
Finland has suffered from the single currency more than the other crisis countries supported countries.
Initially, the problems caused by steep fluctuations in the exchange rate between the euro and the dollar. When switched to the euro, it depreciated against the dollar by about 50 percent. The euro became Finland's too cheap currency, our economy was overheating and the cost level rose sharply. Then the euro revalued hundred per cent, so that an increased cost level and a too strong euro is hampered exports. Although the share price then fell slightly, the euro has been in Finland too expensive currency.
Finnish situation shows graphically the comparison to Sweden. Our economy are very similar. Sweden has had its own currency at a rate that is appropriate, varied. Economic growth is due to the employment situation has remained relatively good and the public finances have been in good condition. When there is no euro area as Sweden, it was not required to provide financial support to crisis countries.
Euro due to Finland's economic growth has been weak and unemployment high. Public finances have grown evil deficit, which is why taxes will be increased, while state and local government spending harshly pruned. The crisis countries, Finland has supported himself by taking on additional debt.
It is no wonder that Finns dimension has been reached. To support Greece has finally taken a firm position. For this reason, Finland has had a very negative light in many EU member countries and beyond.
If the euro area as Finland will continue, we will according to deeper economic solidarity, and more to supranational decision-making. That is the direction we go, whatever is ultimately the fate of Greece.
If we continue on the current path, things go wrong for us. Our economy is suffering in its acquired and we lose more and more economic and also by the state independence.
If the majority of the people should Finland adherence euro area as, in practice, it would adopt the euro area velkaunioniksi change and supranational federation. If the referendum instead would lead to Finland's withdrawal from the euro area, the euro would be introduced alongside the national currency. In this case Finland would be monetary and economic policy in relation to the same position as the other Nordic countries.