Rather than waste everyone's time on an unqualified economic analysis which won't get us very far, I am using the Euro/EU issues as an example of illusory totalitarian politics, that is governments managing policies people would never actually want so need to both cover them up very well and when they are too obvious to hide then lie about their benefits.
The EU and Euro have been growing like a tumour since I was born, enveloping one organ after another who willingly join for entirely selfish reasons, not realising the only people who benefit are the politicians and Germans while the rest are milked dry and kept under iron rule just as if, well, they'd actually won the last war. That should ring an extremely loud bell with anyone old enough to remember, as these buggers will not give up their ambition, and if they couldn't win it the old way as people don't want to be invaded so fought the crap out of them in the last war until they eventually lost, they'll do it politically which 95% of the population appear not to understand. My earlier examples of all the bailed out countries voting to stay in prove my point perfectly, as not a single victim including Cyprus who had their money stolen from them would dream of leaving, and as a therapist seems the same phenomenon as the wives who spend decades with violent husbands for the same reasons, ie ignorance and fear. There's a little fear in those dumb enough to still believe we're avoiding wars by being in the EU, as the results economically have been just as disastrous although there won't be any more bombs and bullets, we've left that to the terrorists now who don't respect EU membership as a reason not to target anywhere. But bombs and bullets in conventional wars are means to an end, so if they can gain that end gradually without a single military act then it doesn't prevent the same results in the end.
My personal issue here is no one under the thumb of the Eurocrats and suffering in their own local ways has to, as it's a choice not by governments but voters, as there can always be a party set up to leave as UKIP have done here and are gaining support. The second way of leaving is being kicked out, which the media claim is possible by defaulting on a debt, which so far does not actually look possible. The reason for that is the Euro came with its own insurance, so by deliberately allowing Greece and all the other piss-poor almost third world states around the edges into the Euro knowing they would be guaranteed to fail, the mechanism was set up beforehand to deal with it. Max Keiser and Vicky Pryce are insiders who don't work for others, and as a result both said there wasn't a single chance of a default a couple of years ago, and since then all that happens is the debts are extended and the countries just go into a deeper recession of choice. The next step is debt pooling, which needs full economic and political union, ie what we'd have had had we lost the war, as Germany is the richest and most powerful EU country by a long way.
So we have Germany making the rules of the EU, bailing them out with longer and longer debts, in exchange for whichever rules they must follow in return. Therefore all talk of a default clearly is unaware of the prior arrangements designed exactly to let these countries bob along the bottom while having their entire wealth slowly drained in the direction of Berlin and Frankfurt, with the French and Italians getting the crumbs as usual to keep them onside. Francois Hollande is a good example, his manifesto included a similar one to the Greeks and the comedian's party in Italy, ie not to follow austerity for debt. Unlike the other countries mentioned Hollande won the election outright, so rather than attempt to hold a coalition to ransom as they couldn't elsewhere with under a quarter of politicians being against austerity, Hollande came across as a full on rebel, brought in his old-fashioned socialist policies straight away as that is what he was elected to do, and so far (ad infinitum) has not upset the EU establishment besides a few rude comments when he was first elected. Now even if he intended to stay in the EU and break their rules, as he claims, that is not possible, demonstrated by France's lack of change since his arrival, as as long as you remain in the EU you do as they say. Like the mafia.
So every few months when one of the indebted countries runs out of cash (anyone can do the accounts, there isn't enough in the world to pay back their total owings, let alone the interest) they simply either make it another few years or (as in the case of Cyprus) take the money directly as you would on a court judgement. If you imagine an undisclosed department whose sole function is to hold the failing economies together by any means possible, then for example in theory should one do so badly even the German people could work out they could never pay the money back today or in 100 years, guess what they'd do. They'd take it over, like a company in administration. If they agree then it would be a quiet handover to the EU, thus creating the first non-national country but a pure EU department, and if not then a little friendly persuasion (at will) wouldn't need a great deal of effort against a country with very little left to fight back. Whether things would reach that point is not known, but if the financial solutions become impossible when maybe Spain or Italy fell (which I also don't believe is possible as they were not part of the plan to do so, but just so bloody useless they fell apart anyway), or the Greeks peed away all the rest of their money so there would never be enough to pay back under any conditions, what else would the EU do about it?
So politically at least I hope the EU and Euro crisis between them have demonstrated that as well as lying to the citizens ("We will never take over any country's criminal laws") ("It is only a trading group") etc., it has systematically arranged things to cause such dire economic problems in countries never qualified to join in the first place that very little if anything is down to chance but all planned in minute detail since the end of the war. Having followed every vote for more power, where countries either needed parliamentary approval or a referendum, would you have expected them to be unanimous? Every parliamentary vote and referendum? I am not including the referendums which were ignored of course, as they didn't have an effect and just retaken to get the result they wanted. Even I don't know how they manage that and would expect Paul McKenna and Derren Brown to be doubtful as well, but they did and they do. Then when you try and work out the reasons the logical answer would be every parliament is so pro-EU then of course they always vote yes to giving them more power, but in many votes they win by one or two votes alone, like the single casting vote of the Speaker to get Britain to accept the Maastricht Treaty (followed by the simple welshing on the promise for a vote on the last one in Lisbon). Having the advantage of having studied EU law I know the official lines here, and had they been in the form of a proper constitution I would not be writing this here now, as not imposing on national criminal law would have been binding, but try advertising something in Imperial measures and not getting a criminal record.
So the basic point of this is to demonstrate how there are no surprises in the EU as whatever has happened has been arranged, and whatever could happen has solutions in place, and are means to the ends of greater power under the Hegelian dialectic, creating a problem to make the people vote for the solution you wanted which they wouldn't have voted for otherwise, in this case making the bailout requirements so high they'd need debt pooling, which in turn needs a federal Europe, which coincidentally and unofficially (at the start anyway) would be led by, er, Germany. Mein Kampf indeed.