Hacker News Reader

Comment by wolvesechoes | Hacker News Reader

Controlling currency is one of the most important aspects of being a sovereign country. Poland should adopt euro not sooner than Denmark and Sweden.

View on HN

Denmark have pegged the krone to the euro. They haven't adopted it, but tied themselves to the Euro. They still maintain control of their currency, but most of that control is used to maintain the value to the euro.

That's because the powers that be want the euro, but the people didn't. They were asked in 1992, 1993 and 2000; and effectively they said no to the euro every time (yes, I know; in 1993, the euro was specifically opted out, but the fact that it was approved when the year before a referendum with the euro was rejected suggests – at least partially – that it was a rejection of the euro (among other things)). Denmark thus came into the EU with 4 opt-outs (one of which has since been rescinded (defence) and one which turned out not to matter (union citizenship)), and they can only be removed with referendum (see for instance the euro one in 2000).

Prior to the adoption of the euro, the Danish crown was pegged to the D-mark (since about the mid-1980s), because Germany was the biggest export market for Denmark (still is), and thus having a currency that's stable towards what the Germans are using has been good for Danish exports (less sure how relevant that still is). (Sidebar; had the original motivation of Alternative für Deutschland been successful and abandoned the Euro for a return to the D-mark (neumark?), it would have put Denmark in an awkward position.)

This all reads as symbolic nationalist policies with an added burocracy thus costing more than it should. "We need own coin to control [insert nationalist thing here]" but in practice you won't and never did.

The last time I was in Denmark my bank nicely charged me for the conversion despite the coin being fixed to the euro. It is just a money costing machine which adds no value.

If being nationalistic means preferring that currency in your country is controlled by the government you have elected and not by ECB that you have zero control over, then yes.

Ask Greeks how much they enjoyed ECB involvement.

By adopting euro you get a seat at the ECB and can influence monetary policy of the whole Eurozone.

The same way as having the seat in the UN's Security Council gives you the influence, but in the end France has little to say when compared with US or China.

Germany even without any representation in ECB will have much more to say than other countries. Because in the end it is a real political power that allows anyone to make decisions.

The point is that all of the countries in the EU are well developed countries with similar growth and closely tied economies. I can't imagine a monetary policy that would benefit one state while at the same time damaging the other one so much it would negate all the benefits of joining Eurozone.

The Danish krone is pegged to the euro, meaning it's already effectively controlled by the ECB.

It is not fully pegged, and though it ties their hands somewhat, this is not "effectively" the same as adopting the euro. Krone still can be un-pegged if Denmark decides to do so.

It can be unpegged at a moments notice. Euro countries have a lot more work to break free.

As noted, the politicians wanted to switch to the euro; but it's the voters who said no. Twice or thrice, depending on how you count. That isn't a case of "symbolic nationalistic policies", but rather a state apparatus trying to get around the rejection, whilst sticking to the text of the referenda (but perhaps not the spirit of it).

If (when?) there's another Euro crisis, being pegged gives you a lot more room to manoeuvre than being actually in the Euro. If necessary de-pegging would be disruptive but very much possible, if you're fully in the Euro then you are riding the train to its destination whether you like it or not

De-pegging would require selling your euro reserves and buy other currencies. I wouldn’t call it disruptive but a disaster. You’ll end up getting enormous loans that generations after you will have to pay.

Having a stable and robust currency that enables economic activity is the most important thing. Adopting the Euro is certainly a way to achieve this.

That currency has a fixed exchange rate to the euro. Any perceived sovereignty benefits are fictitious.

The biggest sovereignty benefit is that it can stop following fixed exchange rate if necessary, what is much easier than moving away from euro.

In what way? Both need a constitutional change for every country this distinction is relevant for.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com