Welfare Finland – Gone with the EU

TEAM, International Conference 24.3.2007 Wil, Schwitzerland

Thank you very much for inviting me to this conference in Wil. I have to apologize that I cannot stay until Sunday, but I have to be in Helsinki early on Sunday.

We are living very interesting times. Tomorrow, on the 25th of March there will be a lot of celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, which was the foundation of European integration.

At the same time there is a growing amount of people that say no the European Union. According to the opinion polls 71 % of the Finnish people oppose the EU.

The population of Finland is now 5,2 million around 8,7 % of the EU. We do not have much to say in EU, even if our politicians say that Finland is in the hard core.

Our unemployment rate is still high, its 7,3 %. For young people less than 25 years it is 17.8 %

(Fig.1, Eurostat, jan. 07).
We have a labour force of 2.575.000.

Finland is paying to EU 930,8 million Euro during 2006 – 2007. During the 13 years we have been members of EU we have paid a total of 2,55 milliard Euro. The depression from the 90’s has not improved as fast and on all the sectors where it should do. We still have enormous problems with elderly care, children’s day care, the seriously disabled and public health services (a shortage of doctors and nurses). Some of these problems could have been helped with the money we have paid to EU.

Finland is now richer than ever

Last year’s economic growth in Finland was the best over the last ten years. The growth of GDP was 5,5 %. The average growth is 3 % in the euro-zone. (Fig. 2. Statistical Central Office, HBL 2.3.07). The main reason to this growth is that the export grew 11 %. A very ironic fact is that the forest- and paper industry that really shows a big growth, nearly 20 %, has just in the end of last year closed down two big mills in Finland. One mill is in Voikkaa and the other one in Kuusankoski. These areas are in the eastern part of Finland where the unemployment has been high and is getting even higher now. There are no other jobs for people in these areas.

At the same time the Finnish households have bigger loans than ever. The households are taking year after year bigger loans and they show now a deficit of 5,4 milliard Euro. A great deal of the loans are for housing and now, when the European Central Bank, ECB is increasing the interest rate, which they did already once this year, people are struggling. The banks in Finland are expecting an increase of the interest rates still two or three times this year. The situation is going to be very serious for a lot of families.

The poverty in Finland

Last Sunday we had the parliamentarian election. Unfortunately there was hardly any public debate on EU and only 67,8 % of Finns voted. Centre Party is still the biggest party, Matti Vanhanen is starting the Governmental discussions and most probably we are getting a right wing Government. Maybe Antti Pesonen will tell you more about the election tomorrow.

The big parties promised less taxes and more money for the students, elderly care, child day care and health services. Everyone can understand that this is not possible.

Before the election campaign started the director general of the economic department at Ministry of Finance Jukka Pekkarinen warned the politicians not to let the economical growth bluff them. He said that the labour force in Finland is decreasing very fast, in fact fastest in EU, because of the ageing.

(Fig 3. EU:n talouspoliittisen komitean ikääntymistyöryhmä).
In 2008 the need of the labour force is decreasing very rapidly And the critical period is going to be during these coming four years. The structural changes have to be done very fast.

Income disparity has grown during the last years in Finland

Vappu Taipale, general director of the National Research and Development Center for Welfare and Health (STAKES) is very worried about the poverty in Finland. It does not seem to be enough that a country has a good economy. The real problems are still there, we have the long term unemployment, single parents, parents with more then three children, mentally ill people. These categories seem to be very stable and nothing is done for them, says Vappu Taipale.

(Fig. 4. Social assistance and poverty, Stakes and Statistical Centre)
(Poverty in %, poverty under 18 years,
red = persons who get social assistance,
blue= children in families that get the social assistance)

The poverty in Finland has increased. We have now 600.000 people below the risk-of-poverty threshold, which is 12 % of the population; in EU25 the per cent is 16 % and a total of 72 million people.
Who are the ones that live at risk-of-poverty in Finland? They are:

  1. single parent households 27 %
  2. families with three or more children 26 %
  3. one-person households + 65 years 24 % and
  4. one-person households under 35 years 41 %

(Fig. 5. Pasi Moisio/Yhteiskuntapolitiikka 71/2006:6, Stakes)
During the period from 1990 to 2004 all the other figures have increased, but not the one-person household over 65 years.

(Fig. 6. Eurostat, At-risk-of-poverty rate after social transfers)
Here one can see that at-risk-of-poverty has increased in Finland with 4 % from the year 1996.

This so called welfare Finland has long bread queues all around the country. The church and different organisations distribute food for free to people. In these queues one can find also working people. Working poor has also grown in Finland. Working poor are often women that are working part time or/and even full time but have very low salary. Some of the people have two or three jobs, which means that they do not have any time for their families.

The social expenditure has grown year after year. In 1995 34.644 million Euro and 2005 it was 42.001 million Euro.
(Fig. 7. OSF Statistical Summary 4/2007)

Financing of this social expenditure comes mainly from the local authorities and state, total of 45 %. The local authorities pay now 19,2 % as they paid in 1995 16, 7 % and the state paid 29,3 % as they pay now 24,8 %. There has also been an increase on the amount that the employers pay; it is now 38,5 % as it was 33,7 % in 1995.
(Fig. 8. OSF Statistical Summary 4/2007)

Lisbon Strategy and the ‘Paras’ Project/Framework Act in Finland

The Lisbon Strategy that adopted in 2000 by European Council is an action and development plan for the EU. It aims to “make Europe, by 2010, the most competitive and most dynamic knowledge – based economy in the world”. Wonderful words!

The Lisbon strategy is heavily based on the economic concepts.

The Deputy Managing Director of The Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities, Mr. Kari-Pekka Mäki-Lohiluoma said in one of his speeches during the Finnish EU presidency, that “the European competitiveness comparisons have proven that the Nordic countries have succeeded in carrying out structural reforms without giving up their high quality welfare services.” He also said that the Lisbon Strategy has been put in practise the best in countries in which administration is decentralised.

I do not agree with him at all. The situation in Finland looks serious in many areas.

A project to restructure local government and services is in progress in Finland. The Council of State launched the project titled ‘Paras’ Project in spring 2005. (The word ‘paras’ means `best´ in Finnish, and is shortening of service and structural changes). A proposal for the Framework Act was forged in June 2006 and it came in force in February this year and expires at the end of 2012.

The aim is to:

  • improve the productivity of operations of local governments
  • restrain the growth of local government expenses
  • ensure that municipal welfare services remain of good quality and are available for all Finns
  • maintain municipal democracy close to municipal citizen

Finland has been a country with a good reputation of its social security work. Finland has now 416 municipalities; only 54 of them have 20.000 inhabitants, and only 19 that have over 40.000 inhabitants. It says in the Framework Act that health services are to be taking care of in areas that have a population of at least 20.000.

I would say that this Framework Act means that all services that are now close to people, such as

  • health services
  • schools
  • child day care
  • elderly care

are not possible after 2012.

We have already seen a lot of action towards this so far. Last year over 300 schools were closed. This has been a trend already for some years and we cannot see an end to it. The schools are getting bigger and bigger and the teachers are having more pupils in their classes.

Another example is merging from the health centres. Some of the health centres in the capital areas of Finland are not open 24 hours a day. This means that one has to fall ill only during the daytime, not before 8.00 a.m. and not after 4.00 p.m.

As this Framework Act requires a population ground of 20.000 for the health centres we can count that in future Finland we will have only a few health centres. As you know Finland is very sparsely populated country, with long distances. Now all the people have to move to the centres (Fig. 9. map), which in fact has been introduced in this Framework Act. The Government has put forward to the 15 regions to make their plans to merging municipalities.

This also means privatising of the services. Already now the municipalities buy some of services from private sector. Merging of the municipalities and working in bigger units, also means reducing the democratic rights of the citizens.

Privatising the services means that fewer people are making the decisions. One of the aims of the Framework Act is also to increase the productivity. In Finnish this means less labour force, more unemployed people and bigger profits for the private companies.

There is also a great fear that once the social services are privatised, there is no way to have employees on the municipal sectors if needed.

The Lisbon strategy says that the decisions are to be taken to the local level. But already this Framework Act in Finland shows that the decisions have been made by our Government and the local municipalities, and the local councils have had very little to say. This privatisation is narrowing the democracy and people don’t have anything to say. The social services are moving further away from the people.

More than 60 % of the population in Finland would like that the local authorities take care of the social services. People are even ready to pay more tax if they are sure that they can get the services.

There is no guarantee that the private sector gives a better value or has a better productivity of labour in the social service field. In fact researches show that in the private health service the productivity of labour and the value added has been declining all the time since 1975.
(Fig. 10. Olli Savela, Kuntapuntari 2/2006).

Lea Launokari
production manager, activist, Alternative to EU Information Centre, chair person
Kaksosmäki 24, 02400 Kirkkonummi, Finland
+358-9-298 1588 home, +358-50-5522330 mbl. Job
e-mail: lea.launokari(a)nettilinja.fi

EU, or how to make a colony of a free nation-state

Thessaloniki, 21 June, 2003

In this paper, I firstly want to describe some characteristics of the Nordic welfare state. Secondly I will try to contrast this ideal of a welfare state against the policy performed in Finland as well as in the union since the end of the 1980-ies. My aim is to show, that there has been more of serving European union interests than Finnish interests, and that the welfare losses we have experienced are in fact due to the severe harmonisation policy we have been going through.

What is a welfare-state

Much of the public services are traditionally produced by the state in the Nordic countries. Publicly produced services are one trait of the Nordic welfare states. They are so called service-states in the sense that the public expenditures are more than sixty percent of the gross national product (62 % in 1995).

In other European Union countries they were around fifty percent 1995. If the state just transfers social services, which are mainly privately produced, it is a transfer-state. There is a third alternative to service-states and transfer-states, and that is the night-watchman-state. In a night-watchman-state the emphasis is mainly on defence, administration, security and law and order.

The traditional Nordic welfare state rests on four pillars: solidarity in wage policy, active labour market policy, active trade cycle policy and public sector expansion. Much of the welfare is the result of trade union work, or there would be no Nordic welfare state. The classical Nordic welfare state can be called an interventionist state, a social-state and a class co-operation state. Interventionism includes economic activity for welfare through tax collection, responsibility for securing full employment and fixing of public services as well as production regulation. The access to the public services and whether those services are obtained free of charge or must be paid for, must be examined as closely as their supply. Moreover, welfare societies must be judged on the basis of whether equal opportunities exist for all, and the manner in which we tend to the socially disadvantaged.

EU into the limelight

The welfare strategy in Finland and Sweden has clearly changed over the last 15 years, however. There is a tendency in the European Union, which is very strong in Sweden and Finland, which both became members of EU in 1995, to switch away from the service-state towards the transfer-state and to increase the role of private companies in welfare production. This, our governments declared, is necessary due to the high public indebtedness, high rate of interest costs, and to the continuous high unemployment eating public resources. We are moving in the direction of night-watchman-states as well. Guard companies came up like mushrooms. You can hardly pretend any more that the Nordic countries are exporting the Nordic economic model to the European Union, as many hoped when we entered the EU. The case is rather the opposite.


Finland had an economic boom in the 1980-ies, but after that we experienced the worst economic crash ever seen in my country. It is called The Big Recession (Suuri lama). The main question is thus: was the recession due to external pressure on the Finnish governments, Sorsa 4. 1983-1987; Holkeri 1987-1991; Aho 1991-1995 and Lipponen 1995-1999, in order to incorporate Finland into the European Union and not the least into adopting the single currency, the Euro? Because before, until 1989, Finland experienced a boom with full employment, low debt and a good regional balance. Since then the policy and regime shifted in the direction of full European integration. There was no great demand among the public for any run on EU, however. The government made an insidious propaganda for something they could not be downright on. The Central Bank of Finland, during the 1980-ies, the steering national macroeconomic policy instrument, of course, step by step was used in order to deregulate banking and money markets, encourage foreign indebtedness, even by municipalities, and to slacken its own power and reason for being. I will return to the Central Bank of Finland later.

The currency, the Finnish Mark (FIM), was not an option, I mean threatened, at the time, they told us, although the Maastricht top meeting in December 1991 agreed upon the single currency union in three steps, and the Finnish negotiators did not care for any opt-outs in their EU-negotiations between March 1992 and March 1994. A consistent EU-friendly policy started in Finland favouring the export sector, stabilising the exchange rate, shrinking the deficits of the public sector (6.8.1992). The new monetary policy was put forward by the Central Bank of Finland aiming at a permanent inflation of 2 % towards 1995 (4.2.1993) .

The Finnish unemployment rate boomed in the process:

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
3,4 7,6 13,1 17,9 18,4

When the Finnish people voted about EU-membership 16 October 1994, EU was offered us as the only solution to our big problems, the unemployment the biggest of them all. Unemployment rates provide an indication of the socio-economic health of the nation . Finland had become a sick nation.

The European Union aims at growing flexibility in the member states, so that the convergence criteria and the stability-pact of the economic and monetary union can be observed in face of the suppressed liberty of action in fiscal and financial policy matters in the member states. This means that people must move and flex, when the economic policy does not care to make politics to the benefit of people any longer. Previously Finland as a nation-state used to solve its own problems successfully. But Finland is now handicapped to do so, and suffers from mass-unemployment, uneven distributions, weaker welfare, environmental problems, powerlessness felt by people and brutal working life experiences, problems completely opposite to the ideal Nordic model.


There is a heavy propaganda for international market liberalism solutions, but the international market liberalism is not capable of solving big macroeconomic problems anywhere in the world. Such problems are best solved by the nation-state itself. But then the problem is: Is there a nation-state named Finland with full competence to solve Finnish problems any more, or have we become a satellite? If we have become a satellite, then how big are our political problems, not to speak of the economic ones, if the borders of our nation is not equivalent to the borders of our state?

No one has yet suggested that Europe constitutes a nation.

Could it be that the whole thing and most of all the monetary union with its forerunner mechanism, the ERM, is part of a programme to subvert the political as well as economic independence of Europe´s countries? The person who came to realise this as a fact was cut down, becoming one of the first dissidents of the European Union. People instinctively know that their democracies have been overthrown. The proofs are given on the 427 pages of Bernard Connolly´s book ”The Rotten Heart of Europe, The Dirty War for Europe´s Money”. For it he was sacked from his work in the European Union and tried in court and condemned. Bernard Connolly was head of the EMS National and Community Monetary Policies Unit in the Commission. He wrote his book when on leave from his job. He was told that he had no right to do so, or to analyse the ERM, not even to think about it. Sokrates, Galileo Galilei were they tolerated. No. Heretics are never tolerated. But why on earth, call it freedom, democracy and openness in 2003.

Finnish Depression and ERM

The Finnish events can clearly be connected with the conclusions drawn by Connolly. The official propaganda, however, said something else. As already mentioned the scenario was that we had a boom in the 1980-ies and then a crash, which hit Finland even harder than the crash in the 1930-ies. Before, during and after the crash the government, leading politicians and media presented the one alternative plan to the Finnish people. This plan was about taking Finland smoothly into the union without disturbing debates.

Below are selected a few of the happenings concerning the Finnish road to the EMU.

1. In 1979 EMS (European Monetary System) was introduced in the EEC countries.
2. In 1986 Finland became full member of EFTA (European Free Trade Association).
3. During the Finnish boom in 1988 housing prices rose at a rate of over 30 % annually.
4. In 1989 the first company crashed on the Exchange.
5. In 1989 the Finnish government informed the parliament that they supported a common European Economic Sphere for EFTA and EEC in Western Europe.
6. In 1989 the chief of the savings-banks union (SKOP) committed suicide. In 1990 the unemployment rate in Finland was 3,4 %, the lowest since 1975.
7. In 1990 (autumn) the unemployment started to grow.
8. In 1990 the two German states united.
9. In 1991 the Swedish crown was tied to the Ecu.
10. In 1991 (May) president Mauno Koivisto declared to the government that at the moment Finland officially excludes EU-membership.
11. In 1991 (July) Sweden applied for membership in the EC.
12. In 1991 (December) the EC top meeting in Maastricht, Holland decided about the economic and monetary union with a single currency, a common central bank and a common monetary policy.
13. In 1992 (March) Finland decided to apply for membership in the EC
14. In 1993 (February) Finland starts negotiations about EC membership in Brussels accepting the Maastricht treaty.
15. In 1993 (August) has the unemployment risen fivefold to 500,000. Finland has 5 million inhabitants.
16. In 1994 (March) Finland and EU signed the negotiation result in Brussels.
17. In 1994 (October) Referendum about the EU-membership. 56,9 % voted for and 43,1 % voted against. A referendum o today might give the opposite result!
18. In 1994 (November) The parliament accepted the EU- membership for Finland.
19. In 1995 (January) Finland joined the EU and the EMS (European monetary system) and left EFTA.
20. In 1996 (October) Finland joined the exchange rate mechanism ERM.

The change of regime was not properly discussed. Hardly anybody knew that Maastricht meant the abandonment of the national currency. The policy was forced through by kind of decrees, only afterwards people realised what was going on. Because the decision process was too quick, people will not stop recapitulating afterwards. The book of Bernard Connolly is about why the Exchange-Rate Mechanism, the ERM, was damaging to the economies in its clutches. The attitude in my country is, however, that we caused our difficulties ourselves. There are since 1994, in compliance with the Maastricht treaty, a deepened economic and monetary policy cooperation governing public finances, overall economic policy and the position of the central bank . This means, of course, the traditional Nordic model cannot resist. Alarming unemployment and imbalance of public finances, typical of almost all Member States, which is also recognised by Finnish economists, no doubt upsets people and they naturally blame integration in the way it is pursued. A single market is one thing, which is acceptable to many. A single currency is something that came on top of it and is not demanded. A monetary union cannot resist without a political union. This can be seen here in Thessaloniki 2003 top meetings.

Maastricht = political union

Why should any country subordinate its domestic policy goals to the defence of the exchange rate? There are two possible answers. Firstly domestic policy goals, which are not economic, might be furthered. Secondly domestic goals might be subordinated to the exchange rate, if that advances the goals of some wider political entity.

The success of the Maastricht strategy depended on three conditions.

1)A price was promised – participation in a single currency (1997) so anything that threatened to derail the Maastricht timetable would reduce the incentives for the authorities to whip on the population to go through the pain barrier (starvation cure) in striving for the prize.
2) The authorities must continue to lust after the prize – or be allowed to by their electorates. Any doubts about their commitment to the single currency might lower their convergence pain threshold, or make them loosen their severe policies.
3) Third, the pain of convergence within the ERM must not become unbearable. If it did, then the markets might expect the runner to retire from the race, to rest outside. The markets, might consider factors such as recessions and unemployment be more important fundamentals than the Maastricht convergence criteria.

The Finnish rainbow governments in the 1990-ies can be explained by the fact that they tied all parties to the common goal and it was easier to show the population ”Look this is what everybody wants”, because a government that was not friendly towards EU could not be allowed to reach power. The Finnish governments were unwilling to miss the ”train”. Finland got the highest unemployment (together with Spain), almost 20 %, and a recession deeper than ever, but was completely overrun by the euphoric rush towards an unconditional EU membership performed by its governments even before anyone had heard a word such as ”convergence criteria”.

The Finnish government, indeed, had learned the lesson of Bundesbank: ”Aspirant members of EMU should demonstrate their commitment to a sworn co-fraternity – all for one and one for all – on advance of full monetary union” . I would say that this fairly well reflects what really happened in my country. People in Finland are used to hardships and indeed the situation was unbearable, but the politicians pursued energetically something their electorate had not chosen them for. In the absence of information and discussion the helplessness of the people has been and still is paralysing. Not in their wildest fantasy could people then believe that they were cheated on their most precious possession, the independence of the country. The people felt, however, that the politicians played a double play and started to despise them. There is still a great confusion around.

The Finnish nightmare 1990-1993, debt-deflation, is not extraordinary though. Debt deflation, was described 1932 by Irving Fisher in ”Booms and Depressions”. Indebted people become over-indebted when incomes and interest rates do not correspond to their expectations. The over-indebted households meet with liquidity problems, they have to sell out their properties and when this happens on a mass scale, prices go down, they loose their houses while their nominal debts remain high. What is extraordinary is that we had to go through it all in order to place ourselves into a political union. A monetary union cannot last unless there is a political union. Who wants a political union, or who cares about one?

A dream came through

It is an old dream, is it not! Germany intended a Grosswirtschaftsraum in the Third Reich where the Reichsmark would be the leading currency in a German economic area. Within the German currency bloc, fixed exchange rates would be introduced to ease the way later to a currency and customs union. There would be a Bank of Europe, but ´For political reasons it could be undesirable to damage the self-esteem of member states by eliminating their currencies´. Initially individual countries would maintain their own currencies and would agree to permanently fixed exchange rates against the Reichsmark. The members would be Germany, Austria, Bohemia, Moravia, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary. This scenario from the 1940-ies did not include France.

In the 2000-s progress has been made by unionists. National currencies and national Central Banks have been eliminated. Finland is the only country in Scandinavia so far, which has eliminated both its currency and its Central Bank. Denmark and Sweden have pursued a more clever policy. Norway and Island are not members of EU. The new law about the Central Bank of Finland came into force 1, December 2000. The Central Bank of Finland no longer is the instrument of the Finnish parliament and people. It is by law subordinated only to the European Central Bank (ECB) in Frankfurt.

”Belgiassa rahaliittoa kaupataan taloudellisena pelastuksena. Mutta työntekijät joutuvat valitsemaan työttömyyden tai matalampien palkkojen välillä.”

Peter Vanderbruggen, belgialainen toimittaja ja ekonomisti (The European 23.-29.11.97)

Aina samat tyhjät lupaukset

Vuoteen 2000 mennessä työttömien määrä Saksassa puolitetaan, julisti kansleri Kohl viime vuoden keväällä. Siitä lähtien työtä etsivien määrä on vain kasvanut. Viisi talousviisasta (taloustutkimuslaitosten tutkijoita) tosin lupaavat, että Saksan talous tulevana vuotena (1998) tulee kasvamaan noin kolmella prosentilla – mutta työmarkkinoille ei muutosta ole odotettavissa. Noin puoli miljoonaa työpaikkaa häviää jo tänä vuonna, edelleen 174 000 työpaikkaa lopetetaan – synkän asiantuntijaraportin mukaan vuonna 1998. Ellei vielä enemmänkin.”

Der Spiegel 47/1997

Spiegel: Ketkä ovat pääuhreja, jos euro otetaan liian aikaisin käyttöön?

Neuman: Silloin viime kädessä kansalaiset maksavat kustannukset. Muutamat heistä jäisivät työttömiksi ja se saattaisi merkitä kaikkien kohdalla elintason laskua.

Manfred J.M. Neuman, Saksan valtiovarainministeriön tieteellisen neuvoston puheenjohtaja (Der Spiegel, 8/1997)

330 eurooppalaisen ekonomistin kirje päättäjille

Kirje julkaistiin useissa eurooppalaisissa lehdissä 12.6.1997. Allekirjoittajia oli lähes kaikista EU-maista.

Tämä EMU, lyhyesti sanottuna, ei ole hyvä malli laajalle eurooppalaiselle talousintegraatiolle. Olette ehkä toimineet uskossa, että ekonomistit ovat yhtä mieltä Emusta ja, vaikka kaikki aiheutuvat muutokset ovat hyvin huolestuttavia sosiaalisesta ja taloudellisesta näkökulmasta, ne ovat kuitenkin tarpeellisia taloudellisista syistä. Näin ei ole.

EMU:lle ei ole olemassa mitään vahvaa tieteellistä perustaa ja moni meistä on kiinnittänyt tähän tosiasiaan huomiota ammattilehdissä ja muissa tilanteissa. Sen vuoksi me vetoamme teihin, että arvioisitte EMU-projektin uudelleen. Emme pyydä teitä lopettamaan eurooppalaista yhteistyötä, päinvastoin.

Yhteinen valuutta ja rahapolitiikkaa voisi tarjota huomattavia etuja. EMUa ohjataan kuitenkin peruuttamattomasti sovituilla kriteereillä ja dogmeilla. Viisasta talouspolitiikkaa ei tule korvata kurinalaisilla säännöillä, vaan siinä tulee ottaa huomioon valitsevat olosuhteet. Tämä on myös demokraattinen kysymys: EMUn rakenne vapauttaa väärällä tavalla Teidät ja kolleeganne arvokkaasta demokraattisesta velvollisuudestanne kantaa poliittinen vastuu valinnoistanne.

Vallitsevissa oloissa EMU ei tarjoa minkäänlaista mahdollisuutta kantaa vastuuta ympäristöongelmista, Euroopan 20 miljoonan työttömän ja 50 miljoonan köyhän auttamisesta tai hyvinvointiyhteiskunnan puolustamisesta ja laajentamisesta.

”Sveitsissä toimiva International Federation of White Collar Workers (FIET, Kansainvälinen liikealan Ammattiliitto) on teettänyt tutkimuksen nimellä ”Keskuspankkitutkimus” selvittääkseen, mitkä ovat EMU:n vaikutukset virkailijoiden työttömyyteen. FIET:in arvio on, että EMU:n myötä katoaa 200 000 – 500 000 työpaikkaa. FIET:in pääsihteeri Philip Jenningsin mukaan pankit kieltävät tämän, eivätkä suostu kertomaan omia lukujaan.”

The European 27.3.-2.4.97

”EMU lisää työttömyyttä”

”EMU tulee muutamilla alueilla johtamaan sosiaalisiin oloihin, joita on mahdotonta hyväksyä. Saamme politiikan, josta määräävät pankinjohtajat, joita ei voida erottaa toimestaan. Tasoittavia tulonsiirtoja ei sallita. EMU tarkoittaa täten demokratian tahallista heikentämistä. Samalla vähätellään epäluuloja; sanotaan, että ihmiset eivät ymmärrä parastaan. Projektin nostaminen sodan tai rauhan kysymykseksi edustaa sitä paitsi sellaista retoriikkaa, joka on johtanut valtioita ja kokonaisia maanosia onnettomuuteen.”

Carl Tham, Ruotsin opetusministeri (Dagens Nyheter 29.12.96)

”Euroopan johtajat ovat näköjään valmiita hyväksymään pysyvän korkean työttömyyden vielä muutaman vuoden toteuttaakseen rahaunionin.”

Herald Tribunen artikkelisarja EMU:sta vuodelta 1996