Frank, you continue to dismiss or ignore the main arguments for having a SEURO Zone. The founders WOULD be the ones to set the basic policies of mutualism and surplus recycling and would set the terms on which other countries could join. Establishing such a union may have NO EFFECT until a collapse occurs. But then it becomes a safety net. In the event, should the EMU collapse, a country would have an option to join a currency union that had programs that addressed its needs and gave it more weight than it would have with just its old currency. Just those facts and the knowledge that each country that joins the SEURO union makes that monetary union stronger would force trade deficit countries to join.

If the EMU remains but changes, the countries that have trade deficits and remain will become the new victims in the EMU, being sucked dry by the surplus countries. That alone will give them a powerful reason to join the SEURO union, regardless of how they feel about the politics and entry requirements. As the EMU loses trade deficit countries to the SEURO union it will become pointless for Germany to remain in the EMU and it will reestablish its own new Deutschmark and quickly find just how strong it is. Meanwhile, the actual citizens of new members of the SEURO union will start to see the advantages of that system and may well elect new leaders. It is the leaders of the peripheral countries that dislike the mutual support, pro-growth polices of the SEURO union.

The most basic factor here is that, given even a two member SEURO union, designed along the lines I have outlined, events and pretty clear political and economic imperatives drive the rest of the developments until the SEURO union is the larger of the two monetary unions - or the only union remaining. As for the value of debts owed the remaining EMU members, if any, the response should be: "Lets talk!"

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."