For example, Britain colonized North America, and what now constitutes the United States, until 1783 when the Brits were kicked out because out they imposed high taxes. The Declaration of Independence had it exactly right: “He [King George III] has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.”

Today, the United States makes George III look like a piker. It is amazing how, with respect to taxes and freedom, the U.S. government has copied and often been more ruthless than the British Empire. As a consequence, the extent to which economic liberty has been destroyed in America and what is now the EU is almost beyond belief. It is as if the American and French revolutions never took place, or took place to provide cradle-to-grave management by government over our lives.

The U.S. governments—federal, state, and local—find that extracting 35–40 percent of incomes is not sufficient. They need more to continue their march toward the perfect welfare state and, in the case of the national government, military dominance of the world. As a result the tax burden under which the average American suffers is now about 20 times higher than under George III.

The EU countries are even worse, with governments raking in around 50 percent of national output. Even Louis IV of France would now be viewed as a benevolent uncle compared to that. The U.S. and EU governments intrude on the financial lives of citizens in every conceivable way, from taxes to regulations to absurd laws that shape and control their citizens.

Empire of the Welfare State

The welfare state, even more than the war on drugs or organized crime, drives the financial imperialism of the U.S. and Europe. Financing the welfare states—most of them are technically bankrupt because of the huge costs of Social Security, public-sector pensions, medical care, and aging populations—creates massive problems, so the United States and Europe look hungrily abroad for more money.

Thomas Paine, who wrote of “the greedy hand of government, thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry,” would be astounded at today’s situation. Some taxpayers subsidize other taxpayers, or pay taxes that they later themselves get back as subventions, or pay for services they do not want or even positively oppose. Industry after industry is regulated by millions of bureaucrats and thousands of pages of regulations.

Not content with levying excessive taxes on their citizens at home, large governments using the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have in their sights the tax policies of small and less-influential countries whose cardinal sin is to siphon off revenues or poach wealthy taxpayers.

Instead of fighting Britain, the United States has now joined hands with its former colonial oppressor and several other European countries in seeking to prevent a major threat to their treasuries. (For some examples see Daniel Mitchell’s July/August 2009 Freeman article, “In Praise of Tax Havens.”) What is the nature of this threat?

There are a number of countries, disparagingly called tax havens (or offshore financial centers), most of them small and insignificant, such as Bermuda, Monaco, Liechtenstein, and Cayman, that are allegedly sabotaging the grandiose plans of the United States and the European Union to create their utopian welfare states and undermining expensive military ventures in obscure places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

What on earth can these toe-holds on the world atlas be up to?

According to a March 2, 2009, floor statement of Senator Carl Levin of Michigan on the introduction of the “Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act” (an earlier version of which was supported by then-Senator Obama), a tax haven is a foreign jurisdiction that maintains corporate, bank, and tax secrecy laws and industry practices that make it difficult for other countries to find out whether their citizens are using the tax haven to cheat on their taxes. He went on to say, “that secrecy breeds tax evasion. Tax evasion eats at the fabric of society, not only by starving health care, education, and other needed government services of resources, but also by undermining trust—making honest folks feel like they are being taken advantage of when they pay their fair share.”

It is dubiously alleged that offshore tax abuses cost the U.S. treasury an estimated $100 billion each year in lost tax revenues. (As Mitchell says, “That number is phony.”) “Tax havens are engaged in economic warfare against the United States, and honest, hardworking Americans,” Levin said. The implication is that no country should derive a comparative economic advantage from its fiscal policies and that such policies should be harmonized with countries like the United States.

An appropriate response might be that this $100 billion is channeled from tax havens into productive investment that creates jobs, wealth, and opportunities for Americans rather than disappearing into the rat-hole of government spending. Or that tax policy should not be decided by OECD bureaucrats.

Truly in many ways the world has changed—and not always for the better—during the past two centuries. High taxes are good, and low taxes are bad now. Freedom to spend your money in the way you deem best is no longer a virtue but a sin. Diversity is out, homogeneity in. Millions of people in the United States and Europe now depend on taxing others in order to enjoy income, medical care, and unemployment and other benefits.

The greatest enemy of the modern State is not the terrorist, criminal, hoodlum, or even the foreign aggressor; it is the citizen who simply wants to keep his own income or to protect his own wealth. “Need” is defined as getting your hands on other people’s money, and greed has come to mean the natural desire to protect your own property and assets from sequestration by governments.

The jihad against low-tax jurisdictions and the imperialist tax policies being implemented by the United States and the European Union have at least four adverse consequences.

Privacy is reduced. Increasingly, the right to be left alone or to tell the government, “Mind your own business,” is seen as a quaint throwback to the eighteenth century. But is not the principle a fundamental part of privacy and liberty?

The enjoyment of financial and personal privacy is the essence of a free and civilized society. Freedom means the right to spend your own money as you like and to talk to your lawyer or banker without fear he is a government agent.

Government power is increased. The tax laws of most countries are voluminous, so much so that even tax lawyers and accountants have trouble interpreting them. Everyone breaks them inadvertently. The more laws, the greater is the power of government, and proportionately the freedom of the individual is diminished. John Mitchell, the attorney general under President Nixon, is alleged to have said to his boss, “Let me know who you wish to be arrested, and I will find a law he has broken.” He likely wouldn’t have to look further than the tax code. For anyone.

The sorry and tragic history of government power is that it is likely to be abused, and the likelihood, or even the certainty, of abuse grows along with that power. This point was made early on after the creation of the income tax, when Richard E. Byrd, speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates, predicted, “[A] hand from Washington will be stretched out and placed upon every man’s business. . . . Heavy fines imposed by distant and unfamiliar tribunals will constantly menace the taxpayer. An army of Federal officials, spies and detectives will descend upon the state.”

The income tax changed the relationship between the taxpayer and government. Taxpayers are allowed to retain a portion of their earnings as pocket money while the government filches the rest. Freedom to spend hard-earned wages is at the discretion of the tax authorities.

Capital investment is reduced. One of the fundamental and settled propositions of sound economics is that the standard of living of everyone depends on capital investment, which today is not only tools, factories, and equipment, but human capital. Capital investment requires resources not consumed but saved. Ludwig von Mises said it best: “The confiscation of business profits does not benefit the masses. It prevents the efficient entrepreneur from expanding his efforts to supply the consumers in a better and cheaper way, and it shelters the less efficient against the competition of more efficient newcomers. It substitutes rigidity and immutability for progress and continuous improvement.”

Inhibiting, through punitive taxation, the production of wealth in order to create the impression of equality is not humanitarianism but simply stupidity because it makes everyone less well-off—especially the poor.

Tax policy is “harmonized,” that is, “cartelized.” Tax harmonization is the equivalent of tax bullying. The hypocrisy of governments’ bullying tax havens is appalling. If the OECD tax systems were mild, most people who now use tax havens wouldn’t bother.

The belief that tax harmonization is sound public policy has its genesis in the mistaken belief that government spending is good and private spending is bad. This is the private affluence/public squalor argument sanctified by the 1958 publication of The Affluent Society by the late John Kenneth Galbraith—patron saint of political big spenders. However, history tells us that when you leave people alone and keep taxes low, economies flourish and people prosper. If the ability to avoid taxes were impossible, a tyrannical regime could squeeze the taxpayer orange until the pips squeaked.

Guilt by Lack of Association

One of the latest stunts of the OECD is to compel offshore financial centers to sign tax information exchange agreements (TIEAs), under which authorities in these centers can be forced to provide information. Failure to sign a sufficient number of TIEAs can place a jurisdiction on a blacklist. This is a bully-boy tactic.

Appearing on the blacklist means that there is a strong suspicion that monkey business is going on, and that the low-tax jurisdiction is using improper secrecy to shelter potential money launderers, terrorists, tax evaders, and other assorted financial riffraff. However, the pristine reputation of the United States has been undermined lately by research conducted by Jason Sharman of Griffith University on Australia’s Gold Coast. Sharman tested the difficulty in setting up anonymous bank accounts in various places around the world, including tax havens. The highest standards of probity were small island tax havens, while the lowest standards arose in Somalia and the United States, where service providers were prepared to set up anonymous bank accounts without proper identification. This led Jean-Claude Juncker, prime minister of Luxembourg, to state, “If there must be a blacklist, then America should have its place on it.”

Tax competition compels governments to think more carefully before spending the public’s money and frees entrepreneurs for greater access to investment funds. Contrary to common belief, low-tax jurisdictions do not siphon off capital from high-tax areas, but allow a better and more effective means of making investment decisions.

The Bible established a tax rate of 10 percent, known as the tithe. That should be enough for governments. There is little hope for optimism on that score.

Low-tax countries are an affront to high-tax countries that believe they have a right to tell the rest of the world how to live. So high-tax countries try to force their tax regimes on everyone else. That is financial imperialism.

In May, President Obama declared war on Americans who shelter their money in low-tax jurisdictions overseas.

Meanwhile, at the behest of politicians from high-tax nations, international bureaucracies are persecuting these tax havens. The Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), for instance, blacklisted 41 such jurisdictions as part of its “harmful tax competition” project earlier this decade and is now trying to bully them into changing their attractive policies. The European Commission has several anti-tax-competition schemes, including a “saving tax directive” that seeks to coerce low-tax jurisdictions into helping Europe’s welfare states track—and tax—flight capital. And the United Nations has a Committee of Experts on International Tax Matters whose objective is to impose global rules to hinder the flow of jobs and capital from high-tax nations to low-tax nations. As though this weren’t enough, the G-20 communiqué last spring singled out tax havens for a crackdown.

The common theme of all these efforts is that politicians want to replace tax competition with tax harmonization. Tax competition exists when politicians feel pressure to improve tax policy so the geese that lay the golden eggs will not fly away. Ever since the Reagan and Thatcher tax-rate reductions began the process of tax competition, nations have been racing to lower rates in hopes of attracting—or retaining—jobs and investment. Since 1980 average top personal income tax rates in the developed world have dropped about 26 percentage points and corporate tax rates more than 21 points. And there are now 27 jurisdictions with flat taxes, an amazing development. No wonder the global economy—notwithstanding current turmoil—is so much stronger today than it was in the 1970s.

According to stereotypes, tax havens are little islands in the Caribbean, and indeed that’s true of some of the world’s premiere offshore centers. But to be more accurate, a tax haven is any jurisdiction that satisfies two criteria: First, its tax laws are attractive to global investors and entrepreneurs, and second, it protects its fiscal sovereignty by choosing not to enforce the bad tax laws of other nations, at least when they are trying to tax economic activity outside their borders. This means, of course, that individuals and businesses from high-tax nations have the option of using those jurisdictions as havens against excessive taxation.

Havens Are in The Nationality of The Beholder

So what are the tax havens? Places such as Liechtenstein and the Cayman Islands belong on the list, but so do many “onshore” nations. One of the world’s leading experts on offshore issues, Marshall Langer, wrote in Tax Notes International that “the most important tax haven in the world is . . . Manhattan. . . . [T]he second most important tax haven in the world is London.” The United States and United Kingdom are havens because the law enables foreigners to invest money and not report the income to their tax police. That’s good for the U.S. and U.K. economies, and for foreign taxpayers.

By some counts there are more than 70 tax havens in the world, ranging from big nations like the United States to obscure, tiny jurisdictions such as Melilla, an autonomous part of Spain on the coast of Morocco, and Sark, a tiny British-controlled island off the coast of France. In some cases, such as the United States, the tax-haven policies are designed to attract global capital and are only available to foreigners. In other cases, such as the Bahamas, the beneficial tax rules are open to both residents and nonresidents.

Tax havens are good for the global economy primarily for four reasons. First, they promote good policy around the world by pressuring politicians in high-tax nations to lower tax rates. The pro-growth changes noted earlier have been happening mostly because of tax competition, and tax havens are valuable precisely because politicians are less likely to be greedy when they know taxpayers have escape options. Remarkably, even OECD economists understand that tax competition is a pro-growth force in the world economy. They have admitted that “the ability to choose the location of economic activity offsets shortcomings in government budgeting processes, limiting a tendency to spend and tax excessively.”

Tax havens have been especially helpful in convincing politicians to reduce the double taxation of income that is saved and invested. Many nations have lowered or eliminated death taxes and wealth taxes because the politicians have finally figured out that oppressive tax laws simply lead taxpayers to move their money to havens such as Luxembourg or Panama. Likewise, nations have reduced double taxation of dividends, interest, and capital gains. The politicians figure it’s better to have a low rate and collect some money rather than to have a high rate and drive investment to Switzerland or Singapore.

From an economic perspective, these lower tax rates are critical because they reduce the tax bias against saving and investment. This encourages people to set aside more of today’s income to finance tomorrow’s growth—and even socialist economists agree that capital formation is the key to long-run prosperity and rising living standards.

Second, tax havens generate high living standards. According to World Bank data, nine of the world’s 13 richest jurisdictions are tax havens. Not surprisingly, academic researchers have confirmed that tax havens grow faster and create more prosperity for people than higher-tax areas. This is especially important in the developing world, where poor nations that become tax havens enjoy big reductions in poverty.

Third, tax havens promote better governance. One of the problems plaguing the developing world is the lack of sound institutions. Property rights, the rule of law, and sound money are the indispensable building blocks for wealth creation and economic growth. Two academics, James Hines and Dhammika Dharmapala, found that the desire to become a tax haven leads nations to improve their institutions for the simple reason that global investors don’t want to place their money in poorly governed jurisdictions. And the World Bank’s governance indicators find that tax havens rank very high. This is something that should be applauded not assaulted.

Fourth, tax havens promote economic activity in high-tax nations. This seems paradoxical, but most countries, even high-tax nations, generally have more favorable tax rules for inbound investment than for their citizens’ economic activities. Politicians figure their own citizens are captive customers who can be overtaxed, but they understand that they have to compete for global investment. Moreover, academic experts have found that citizens in high-tax nations often take advantage of this preference and use a neighboring tax haven as a platform to invest in their own country. This additional investment, which otherwise would not have taken place, increases the prosperity of the high-tax nation.

The case for tax competition also is bolstered by Nobel laureates who recognize that competition between nations is a critical force for better policy. To cite just three examples, James Buchanan wrote that “tax competition among separate units . . . is an objective to be sought in its own right,” and Milton Friedman noted that “Competition among national governments in the public services they provide and in the taxes they impose is every bit as productive as competition among individuals or enterprises in the goods and services they offer for sale and the prices at which they offer them.” Gary Becker, meanwhile, wrote that “competition among nations tends to produce a race to the top rather than to the bottom by limiting the ability of powerful and voracious groups and politicians in each nation to impose their will at the expense of the interests of the vast majority of their populations.”

Shelter From Persecution

Low-tax jurisdictions also offer a safe haven for people subject to persecution. The vast majority of the world’s population lives in nations where governments fail to provide the basic protections of civilized society. Indeed, in many cases governments are the problem since ruling elites use their power to exploit people. Corruption often is rampant, expropriation common, and crime endemic. There is also widespread persecution. Not surprisingly, people with money are common targets of oppression—particularly if they are members of religious, political, ethnic, racial, or sexual minorities.

Tax havens protect people from venal and incompetent governments by providing a secure place to invest their assets. A Jewish entrepreneur, for instance, would be foolish to keep his money in a local bank when the government is controlled by anti-Semites. Indeed, Switzerland’s admirable, centuries-old human-rights policy of protecting financial privacy was strengthened in the 1930s to protect German Jews who wanted to guard their assets from the Nazis.

Many groups in the world face discrimination and hostility, often from government. The ethnic Chinese in nations such as Indonesia and the Philippines frequently are resented by the local population. The same is true for people of Indian descent in East Africa. When people belong to groups that are unpopular and susceptible to being targeted by the government, it makes sense for them to protect their families’ interests by putting money someplace like Hong Kong, where the politicians from their country have no feasible way to find out about it. The same financial-privacy laws that make tax havens so attractive to French families and Swedish entrepreneurs who want to escape oppressive taxation also protect other people from different forms of persecution.

Tax Hypocrisy, Not Harmonization

It is worth noting that even the international bureaucracies acknowledge the valuable role of tax havens and financial privacy. The UN, for instance, admitted in a 1998 report that “For much of the twentieth century, Governments around the world spied on their citizens to maintain political control. Political freedom can depend on the ability to hide purely personal information from a Government.” The leader of the OECD’s anti-tax-competition campaign, Jeffrey Owens, admitted to the U.K.-based Observer that “tax havens are essential for individuals who live in unstable regimes.”

The campaign against tax havens interferes with the right of jurisdictions to pursue pro-growth policies, which is especially discriminatory against poor nations. Having “no or low taxes” is the main criterion for being listed as a tax haven by the OECD. Yet most OECD nations did not have income taxes during the 1700s and 1800s, when they climbed from agricultural poverty to middle-class prosperity. We should all be offended that such nations now want to deny that same opportunity to poor nations. It is rather unseemly for powerful white-governed nations in Europe, which control the OECD and European Commission, to target less powerful nonwhite jurisdictions in places such as the Caribbean.

Another issue is the OECD’s hypocritical treatment of capital compared to labor. The Paris-based bureaucracy is upset that investment funds are flowing to low-tax jurisdictions, many of which are in the developing world. But OECD nations are big beneficiaries of a “brain drain” from developing nations. This flow of talent is beneficial to “labor-inflow” nations, just as global financial flows are beneficial to “capital-inflow” nations. Yet the OECD is not suggesting that developing nations have the right to tax emigrant income earned in OECD nations. So why should OECD nations be allowed to tax flight capital in non-OECD nations?

Another example of hypocrisy is that the United States, United Kingdom, Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, and Luxembourg are all OECD members and yet were not on the original OECD blacklist even though they are tax havens for foreign investors. (The list was later revised.) Only smaller less-powerful nations were subject to this form of discrimination. And of course the ultimate hypocrisy of all is that the bureaucrats who work at the OECD and UN all get tax-free salaries, yet they run around the world demanding that other nations raise taxes.

Politicians from high-tax nations and their agents at the international bureaucracies often admit that the moral issues are pertinent. But then they say that they are worried that havens enable some of their residents to avoid the tax net. But why is that the fault of jurisdictions with better tax policy? If high-tax nations want better compliance, shouldn’t they fix their tax systems instead of trying to bully other nations into surrendering their fiscal sovereignty and becoming vassal tax collectors? In any event, the notion that there are huge amounts of unpaid tax is just one of several myths disseminated by opponents of tax competition. Let’s have a look at these myths.

Myths of Anti-Competition

Myth 1: Tax havens result in $100 billion of unpaid taxes. President Obama wants to dramatically increase the power of the Internal Revenue Service, claiming that this is the only way to collect the money that supposedly is hiding in low-tax jurisdictions. The number is phony. The IRS—which certainly cannot be considered a fan of tax havens—estimates that the overwhelming share of the so-called tax gap is the result of what happens in the United States. Part of the make-believe $100 billion apparently comes from a former John Kerry staffer, who concocted an estimate of $70 billion in unpaid individual income tax. But when the Congressional Research Service (CRS) asked for the method used to generate the number, the staffer confessed, for all intents and purposes, that he made it up. According to the CRS memo, he “was not able to send us a written discussion of his estimating procedure” and he “indicated that the estimate was an uncertain one.” That’s the understatement of the century.

Myth 2: Cracking down on tax havens is the best way to improve compliance. Politicians from high-tax nations and bureaucrats at the OECD claim that “offshore” jurisdictions deprive politicians of much-needed tax revenue. This assertion is rather strange since tax receipts were at record levels in OECD nations until the current downturn. But how best to improve tax compliance? Academic research strongly indicates that the biggest factor in tax compliance is tax rates. When tax rates are excessive, people are less likely to obey the law. And if they can’t protect their income using tax havens, they’ll use the domestic underground economy. Or they’ll be less productive. The world’s leading expert on the issue, Friedrich Schneider at the Johannes Kepler University in Austria, explains that income and payroll taxes are “the main causes for the existence of the shadow economy” and higher tax rates increase “the incentive . . . to work in the shadow economy.”

Myth 3: Tax Havens Lead to Higher Taxes for ordinary people. One of the worst myths is that low-tax jurisdictions reduce taxes on sneaky people and this causes politicians to raise taxes on others to make up the difference. But if this were true, increasing amounts of money flowing to tax havens should be accompanied by higher tax rates in the outflow countries. Yet, as noted, the opposite has occurred. Politicians are lowering tax rates because of the competition from tax havens. This means that all taxpayers benefit because of the risks taken by those who invest in low-tax jurisdictions.

Myth 4: Tax havens are money-laundering centers. Contrary to this routine smear, all the objective evidence shows that they have the toughest rules against dirty money. Not a single tax haven is on the blacklist of the Financial Action Task Force. A few tax havens are considered money-laundering centers by the CIA, but there are far more non-havens on its list. The State Department says the same thing. It’s also worth noting that every major tax haven has been cleared by the IRS for having good know-your-customer laws to hinder dirty money, and all of the major havens also are members of the Egmont Group, which is open only to jurisdictions that have effective financial intelligence units to fight dirty money. No wonder an Australian academic found it was much easier to launder money in onshore nations than in offshore jurisdictions.

When he was a senator President Obama sponsored legislation designed to persecute tax havens, and his chairman of the National Economic Council, Larry Summers, is a harshly ideological opponent of low-tax jurisdictions. Now Obama has made good on his word. That places the U.S. on the side of countries like France and Germany, giving the OECD’s previously stymied tax-harmonization efforts new life.

Advocates of economic liberty need to resist these efforts. The Center for Freedom and Prosperity, which was founded in 2000 to help protect tax competition, has done an excellent job (I’m a board member, so perhaps I am biased). But preserving tax competition in the new political environment is going to be a major challenge.

Since many economists are skeptical about the new euro currency, European politicians have decided to make the issue about something other than economics.

Some claim that the euro is a currency for peace, referring to the fact that the European Union (EU) was founded to prevent another war between France and Germany. When the first notes and coins were issued, Wim Duisenberg, head of the European Central Bank, predicted that the euro would “create a new era of peace” and forever change the way Europeans relate to one another. He is probably right about the prospects for peace—and without the euro, he would still be right. Little indicates that countries within the EU plan to attack each other, regardless of what currency they use.

Swedish members of the European Parliament seek support for the euro by telling people how convenient it would be not having to change money when they go to Spain on their summer vacation. This argument would be legitimate if there weren’t credit cards for people who find it difficult to handle more than one kind of coin. The same goes for businesses engaging in foreign trade.

European businesses can already use the euro if they wish, thereby avoiding the cost of using multiple currencies when trading within the euro bloc. No business owner needs to spend sleepless nights guessing tomorrow’s exchange rate. Nor will countries with their own currencies, as the Swedish Liberal Party claims, be unable to participate fully in the decisions that shape Europe’s future. Influence is guaranteed by representation in the various EU assemblies, which is based on factors independent of the euro.

If the reasons are invented, what are the real motives for the efforts to expand the euro zone? One answer is that the creation and growth of the European Union has created a new species of European elite politician. Dwelling in Brussels, this politician identifies primarily with EU and not with the citizens of his own country. In addition to a common currency, the European elite discusses having an EU president and a more efficient process for decision-making without veto rights. In short, strong forces push to transform the EU into something that for all practical purposes would be one big country.

Some American economists and economics writers are less than enthusiastic about the euro. In the Wall Street Journal, George Melloan expressed well-grounded fears that harmonized taxes are coming along as part of the euro package. Virtuous low-spending states would thereby lose their advantage over those that tax and spend. Thus the euro EU states would not have the option of attracting business by cutting taxes and regulations, because the common-currency regime would not permit it. Ireland, a country that has recently experienced terrific economic growth, risks its EU subsidies if it goes further in its efforts to create a better business climate.

Melloan also points out that the Maastricht Treaty, which created the EU and which was to establish sound financial guidelines, did not result in more responsible economic policies. On the contrary, European governments increased spending in the years that followed the treaty’s signing.

The European socialist parties generally prefer centralized solutions to political problems. European nonsocialists are split between those who oppose the EU’s growing powers and those who view the euro as a project for openness and free-market solutions. Many free-market advocates in overtaxed countries, such as the Scandinavian welfare states, hope the euro will force the national leaders to cut taxes and reduce deficits. So far nothing of the sort has happened as a result of EU membership, and the Irish example hints that it might be difficult for market-oriented EU governments to deregulate. The EU has provided Europe rule-laden agriculture subsidies that are more expensive for the taxpayers and more difficult for the farmers to handle than anything the national governments ever devised. EU also administers regional redistribution of economic resources, which is likely to increase with a common currency.

Unhappy Shoppers

People in countries already in the euro club are not satisfied with their new currency. The happy euro shoppers outnumber the unhappy ones only in France and Belgium. In Germany a majority of citizens want to leave the euro bloc and dust off their old marks. This cannot be explained solely by the euro’s initially weak performance. Many feel that giving up a national currency is to cut a tie to history. Imagine the U.S. government’s deciding to give up the dollar for a newly created multinational currency.

The stagnating European economies are not the result of too many currencies, but rather of a weak private sector and big governments’ eating up resources. Overwhelmingly complicated and unfriendly regulations make life difficult for the small businesses the economy depends on for growth and jobs. Strengthening the EU by expanding the euro bloc will only build up the organization responsible for much of the political interference. How the non-euro EU members deal with the pressure to adopt the new currency will send important signals to Brussels. Countries saying yes to the euro will be signaling that they are happy with a growing EU. Countries that say no make it clear that they don’t believe in European centralism.