Err kind of. I phrased my claim poorly. Something more like if you have a partial union it'll be less stable than the alternative, more human suffering, etc.

Err kind of. I phrased my claim poorly. Something more like if you have a partial union it'll be less stable than the alternative, more human suffering, etc. Look at the origin of the crisis, the union is simultaneously strong enough for international debt to be accumulated, but too weak to control the situation to keep the accumulation to survivable levels and too weak to keep humanitarian services operating regardless of financial market issues. A weaker (no?) union would have never accumulated the debt due to lack of procedure or trust, a stronger union would have regulated the loans and cut off the flow before Greece committed debt suicide years and years ago. Or look at midgame. The weak union had to decide if it should make German banks suffer or the Greek people suffer, the union was strong enough for them to enforce their decision, at least for several years... A weaker union would still have decided for the banks but the Greeks would have told them to pound sand and this would have been water under the bridge years and years ago. A stronger union would have sent in the tanks and troops and taken it out of their hide, pretty rough stuff but it would have all been over years ago and we'd be talking about the recovery that started years ago etc. The weak union doesn't really have any idea what to do. Looking at the endgame, a weak union has the possibility of creating a generational depression instead of getting it over with quickly like either alternative, basically the midgame argument but emphasizing the length of the crisis, like a weak union is optimally designed to maximize human suffering.