According to the economist, the problem does not lie in the idea of a common currency itself, but in the absence of a robust fiscal union and effective solidarity mechanisms among member countries. The euro's rigid rules, he argues, penalize economies with less room for maneuver during crises, turning the single currency into a 'straitjacket' for the weakest.
“"The problem is not just economic; it is also political. A system designed by elites who have been more attentive to financial balances than to the needs of their citizens."
This situation generates disaffection and distrust, fostering political options that openly question the European project. In this context, the Canary Islands hold a peculiar position. As an outermost region with an economy highly dependent on external factors such as tourism and imports, it is subject to the same rules as the rest of the eurozone, despite its vulnerability and the difficulty in adapting fiscal or energy policies to its island reality.
The discussion about the euro's future is therefore crucial. It is not about dismantling the single currency, but about recognizing the need for a more flexible and solidary design that allows for better absorption of crises without shifting the entire cost to citizens, especially the most disadvantaged. If these reforms are not addressed, a radical reformulation or even abandonment of the euro could be considered, an option that, although not desirable, reflects the seriousness of the current moment in Europe.
For the Canary Islands, it is essential to closely follow this debate. The difficulties faced by the single currency are not merely cyclical but are part of a structural problem related to the design of economic rules and who establishes them. The economist's conclusion is clear: economic systems are political constructs that can and must be reviewed and improved to build a fairer model and a stronger Europe.
