A brief guide to the euro defenders

1. Do not enter the trap « What happened in Croatia and Estonia » – Avoid induction and analogy. Many of the arguments for and against the euro, including among fellow economists and public speakers, are based on induction – monitoring of the past and summarizing: what has happened in other countries, what has not happened in Bulgaria so far, etc. This also includes thinking by analogy (for example: « How did it happen in Croatia »). Such approaches can be useful illustrations, but they are not a strong basis for decision -making.

Inductive arguments are rarely strong enough when it comes to systemic risks. The future is formed by the structure of incentives and restrictions today. That is why we should talk about boundaries and mechanisms, not promises and hopes.

2. Do not claim that the euro will make direct changes – almost everyone comes on other lines. After the introduction of the euro, many changes will occur – but the vast majority of them will not be the result of the currency itself. Inflation, confidence, interest rates – they all are already overflowing to us because the lion is tied to the euro.

Remember that every argument-promotion will be easily attacked by the Euro-skeptics-they only need one observation to rebut you until you will never be able to prove for sure that you are right.

3. Do not wash the euro area risks under the carpet. But remind us that we already live with them.

The euro area does not guarantee success – but it excludes some of the worst scenarios in Bulgaria.

4. Explain the qualitative difference between risks in and outside the euro area. The risks in the euro area are serious – but mostly « known »: fiscal crisis in France, a banking problem in Spain, « New Greece ». The risks in Bulgaria are less aware, as if invisible, but quite real. A simple majority in parliament is enough to cancel the board. There is no need for a crisis – only the desire to spend. There is no need for evil intent – nonsense or inertia is enough.

In the euro area, the risks are less personalized. In Bulgaria – they carry a human face, to MPs at the National Assembly.

5. Express that stability comes not from the will of the governing, but from the rules. As Krasen Stanchev recalls: « In 2020, rules for the stability of public finances were canceled since 2012 – 2% deficit, 40% expenses and debt, the requirement that deficits are exceptions. This is a complete change of management philosophy. »

A fiscal or debt crisis is not excluded in BGN. But in the euro area, such a crisis will not destroy the money themselves. In a crisis with lion – the currency will be destroyed. This has already happened. Last – in 1996-1997

6. Protect citizens, not the state. Yes, the euro limits fiscal freedom of governments. But in conditions of dubious budget discipline, this is not a loss – but protection. Not for politicians, but for citizens.

The loss of « fiscal sovereignty » by a government with dubious standards is actually getting an additional sovereignty for citizens – the freedom to plan their lives and business without fear of the destruction of money.

7. Via Negativa: Show that stability comes from restrictions, not from ideologies. The stable unions between nations are built not so much on common utopias, but on shared limits of what should not be allowed – aggression, economic destabilization, suppression of human rights.

This applies to:

– NATO – by definition of defense union;

– the European Union – which gives freedom of movement but puts the rule of law as an entry condition;

– the currency board – which limits the local innocence in order to protect people from recurrence of a crash;

– The euro area – which deprives the right of uncontrolled printing and spending national governments to restore the security of citizens.