However, Mr Van Rompuy, the president of the European Council, said: “Let us be clear: we will not prune the eurozone to a more selective club.
“That would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the European political pact, as embodied in the treaties.
“If the eurozone’s integrity would not be preserved, one should not take the continued functioning of the internal market for granted.”
Gosh? Why\’s that then?
We\’ve still the basic treaty insisting upon the free movement of goods, labour and capital, haven\’t we?
And we did have the Single Market before we had the euro as well. So the absence of the euro shouldn\’t mean the absence of the single market.
By the way: soimething that should be pointed out. Yes, free trade is desirable, yes, free movement of goods people and capital are. However, there\’s not actually great evidence that inter-European trade has been all that important in terms of economic growth.
Further, while a single currency should in theory increase such inter-European trade (it being one of the justifications for it of course) there\’s also no great evidence that it\’s had much effect. From memory (and as always, I welcome clarification) people have gone looking for that trade effect and not found as much as they thought should be there.
So me, I think rumpy pumpy is just waving the bloody shirt. Look at what disaster will happen: when in fact, the disaster predicted probably won\’t be much of a disaster. We\’ve not seen the upside promised so we probably won\’t see the downside threatened.