The eurozone is slowly emerging out of an existential crisis, which threatened its existence or could cause it to partially disintegrate.

The first time such a risk occurred was in 2012, when the stabilisation of the financial markets was the result of a daring declaration by the head of the European Central Bank (ECB) about its readiness to use all means of monetary policy necessary in order to defend the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). The second time this happened was in 2015, when the future of Greece as a member of the eurozone came into question. Painful experiences of crises indicated a number of weaknesses within this monetary system.

Taking part in the euro area project leads to serious economic, social and political consequences, especially when a given country’s economy is not ready to join the monetary union

The first conclusion to be drawn from this crisis is that taking part in this project leads to serious economic, social and political consequences, especially when a given country’s economy is not ready to join the monetary union. One must first carry out structural reforms and increase convergence with the most advanced economies of the euro area, before entry into such a union can take place, seeing as macroeconomic convergence does not occur automatically once a given country is in the eurozone, as was forecast earlier by certain economists^[1].

Secondly, for countries which are included in loans programmes coping during a time of crisis literally involves shock therapy, the suspension of democratic rules and political dependency on lenders in the most basic domestic policies. Monetary unions do not have the instruments needed to reduce the social impact of crises in countries which are most vulnerable, such as social transfers or anti-unemployment measures, which are described by economists as automatic stabilisers. The EMU also seems to lack policies which actually promote economic growth and restoration of competitiveness. Instead, the anti-crisis policies dictated by the EMU have multiplied both social and political costs. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), policies concerning countries such as Greece have focused too much on fiscal austerity, while failing to increase economic competitiveness^[2]. At the same time, they have also been ineffective in terms of limiting debt increases and failed to lead to structural changes within Greece itself.

Thirdly, the single currency system is asymmetrically beneficial for countries with the most competitive economies and with the greatest political influence within the monetary union. An example of this is Germany, which even during the time of crisis recorded high export and budgetary surpluses. In this, they clearly increased their political influence over the EU. The monetary union simultaneously aids the accumulation of all sorts of costs by the weakest countries, especially during times of economic downturn. Meanwhile, there is no political discourse about a systematic and effective reduction of this asymmetry, even though for decades such solutions, which balance inequalities arising out of monetary unions, have been discussed by economists^[3]. The mechanisms operating within the EMU move the impact of such adjustments onto individual countries and have proven generally ineffective, both in relation to countries which possess a surpluses, as well as current account deficits.

Exiting a monetary union – even if it turns out to be a complete catastrophe – is almost impossible

Fourthly, entering a monetary union is not easy, because it is loaded with a series of conditions and at the same time is dependent on negotiations which are, among other things, meant to define the exchange rate of the national currency for the euro, one which is most beneficial for all parties. Leaving the monetary union, however – even if it turns out to be a total catastrophe – is almost impossible. This creates an incredible dependency for states which are weaker or which are experiencing economic difficulties when compared to other countries in the union, especially those which are politically dominant.

A key question is whether the monetary union system has been firmly balanced, when we are talking about relations between the most competitive and the more economically weaker states

Discussions about the perspective of Poland’s membership of EMU has to take into account the above experiences. This is why before such a move can be made, we have to ask a few fundamental questions: has the EMU been reformed since the most recent crisis and are these sorts of reforms the subject of considerations by political decision-makers, and also can they be introduced soon? Can they fill the institutional gaps which were revealed during the recent economic crisis? And as a result, will the monetary union in Europe become better prepared for another crisis, or at least reversal in the economic trend? According to Jeana-Claude Trichet, the former boss of the ECB, the level of public and private debt across the globe is worryingly high, which is also true of the prices of various assets, which indicates the rising likelihood of speculative bubbles. In his opinion, this could foretell of a new economic crash in the near future^[4]. If this is the case, is there a chance that future anti-crisis political strategy will be less focused on austerity measures and more on increasing growth? And finally, the key question is whether a system of monetary union has been thoroughly balanced, if we are talking about relations between states which are most competitive and have the highest export surpluses, and then those which have weaker economies and are operating with a chronic current account deficit? If not, this means that the monetary union remains a firmly asymmetrical system. This would give some states economic benefits and strengthen their geopolitical position, and the rest would pay in economic and social terms, while diminishing their role in the international community, thereby increasing their political dependency on states which have a dominant position within the EMU and EU.