Here is a fascinating piece over at Spiegel Online describing the ambitions of the EU Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs (sic) to punish those EU member states which have the temerity to sell products which people want to buy and threby run a nice export surplus:

According to draft regulations drawn up by Rehn’s agency, countries with chronic current account surpluses or deficits (in other words, countries that export far more than they import, or vice versa) are to pay an annual fine amounting to 0.1 percent of their gross domestic product (GDP), because they threaten the stability of the euro zone.

The proposal calls for countries with imbalances to be given early warnings and reprimanded. If their accounts remain out of balance, the European Commission will make political recommendations for their financial and economic policies, as well as for wage increases and structural reforms.

Mind you, it’s not all bad:

The Commission also intends to monitor the budgets of member countries more carefully. It is introducing a new "principle of prudent fiscal policy-making," under which countries will not be allowed to let their budgets increase faster than the rate of economic growth.

As Commissioner Olli Rehn might say: "Fined – by me!"

The European Commission also plans to more vigilantly ensure that the euro-zone members energetically reduce their public debt levels towards the permitted upper limit of 60 percent of GDP.

If a country continuously exceeds this limit, or has had a budget deficit of over 3 percent of GDP (the upper limit under the stability pact) for over a year, then, at the beginning of the ensuing deficit proceedings, it has to pay a non-interest-bearing penalty deposit amounting to 0.2 percent of GDP.

The interesting thing about the European Union is that in a strange way it is always consistent. After all, the Union is basically a creature of international treaties between (now) 27 European countries. So it is not surprising that EU HQ broods on the way those countries and their respective governments behave, and if necessary tries to inflict some severe spankings when the naughty children get too far out of line.

That said, look at what is going on here. EU HQ appears to be planning to penalise workers and businesses in any country whose workers and businesses are especially successful.

Why?

Because too much success in one part of the European Union creates problems in the mediocre parts of the European Union, and therefore for the Eurozone as a whole.

This sort of thing is baffling to Brits.

How, we cry, can we punish (say) Yorkshire for being more successful than some other counties at exporting its production to other parts of the United Kingdom? If (say) Germany is doing particularly well at selling its production across the EU and beyond, that’s a handy market signal for everyone else. Greeks, Italians, Poles, Brits and everyone else need to note carefully what what those annoying Germans have been doing to become so efficient, and try to beat them at the same game.

In other words (we think), the EU grows and prospers in the long run precisely because some parts of the Union are doing better than others — that’s how market economies work. Trying to put artificial limits, nay punishments, on the efficient end of this process must be total madness.

"That’s all well and good," retorts the Commission. "But your feeble Eurosceptic analogy falls down.

Yorkshire indeed can’t and shouldn’t be punished for being relatively successful within the UK. It is part of the Poundzone, a single economic space with firm rules set down centrally.

The EU’s problem is that member states’ governments want the benefits of a single currency but refuse to accept the obvious responsibility of giving EU HQ the task of running the EU as a proper single economic space. This creates the contradictions which are now putting the whole project at serious risk.

The only way to keep the show on the road is, indeed, to do stupid things like punish successful exporting countries. The alternative would be far more stupid, namely to watch the Eurozone collapse.

In other words, don’t shoot the messenger. We are here to help you create a bright new future, especially when you don’t realise we are doing it."

Well, okay. Given the premises on which that esoteric but amusing argument is based, the conclusions do make some sense.

Back in the real world, it takes a former French Prime Minister to look reality squarely in the eye:

Europe at 27 is doomed to confusion and failure. It suffers from problems that the Lisbon Treaty has failed to correct. Lack of authority: the 1950s structure, with the [European] Parliament, the Commission and the European Council, being too heavy.

Oh well. The main thing is that Euro-virtue is always rewarded.

More lavishly than we mere mortals can possibly imagine.