To me, that just demonstrates how little real impact the European Union has had so far on the everyday lives of its citizens, from Helsinki to Lisbon. OK, so there’s no need to flash your passport so much anymore in your travels around Europe - when you cross that border, they will still be speaking a rather different language on the other side (even in Flanders, I’m told). And OK, so here and there you see big, dark-blue signs telling you that the construction of this particular road, or building, or public urinal has been made possible by funds from this-or-that EU fund. But I still think that, up to now, the European Union has yet to become a true everyday presence for those who live under its authority.
I don’t mean to say here that, if European citizens were truly aware of the full impact of the European Union upon their lives, they would agree with Boom Chicago and call it a "monster." Then again, coming up fast on the calendar is a "monstrous" even that will surely thrust the EU into the forefront of the consciousness of every European - or at least those Europeans living in the nine member-states (including NL, of course) which are due to replace their national currencies with the euro on (more-or-less) 1 January 2002.
The misgivings of any homo economicus towards a currency substitution tend to be considerable, and there’s every good reason for that. For of course one of the prime functions of money, as any good economist can tell you, is as a store of wealth; change the money, and there is at least the potential for changing a society’s wealth distribution. The Nazis liked to do that in conquered territories; it was also high on the "to-do" list of Communists (whether native or Soviet-supplied) seeking to create a new "people’s republic" on the ruins of the ancien regime. The "reactionary classes" (i.e. the big losers in the preceding struggle) usually still had substantial bank accounts to their names. Rather than do anything so crude as seize that money outright, better simply to declare it no longer valid, and replace it with a new money emanating exclusively from the new authorities. The Soviet Union inflicted such measures (under the innocent-sounding label "currency reform") several times upon its own citizens. As a result of this shady history, public distrust can run high even during what are supposed to be "innocent" currency changes, as when the government of the Russian Federation declared certain high-value banknotes to be invalid a number of years ago.
Clearly, the introduction of the euro is supposed to be another "currency reform," in the sincere sense. Yet the modification of a currency - any modification of a currency - can’t help but hit each one of us in a most-sensitive place, namely our pocket-books. No matter how innocent the intentions of the authorities, such changeovers at the very least carry the potential for confusion, mix-ups, and sheer fraud.
First off, there is the sheer logistical problem of transporting, securely, the huge masses of new coins and bills from the mints, the printers, and the vaults of the European Central Bank to the national banks of the nine member-states involved, and then to the retail stores and other commercial establishments which need to get them in time for January 1. That process has already started this September - look around, you should see more of those red "waardetransport" armored cars on the streets than usual - but it won’t be time to declare it a success until the changeover is complete, with crisp new notes in everybody’s pockets and none of these special money shipments has been intercepted by unauthorized parties - or at least not too many. (News reports say that the Waardetransport companies are facing personnel shortages for this busy time, and so are looking to retired workers to help them out. I don’t know: Somehow the thought of opa in a waardetransport uniform, even armed with a pistol, doesn’t give me much confidence that would-be truck hijackers will be deterred. Besides, word on the street has it that the criminal gangs are also calling up their retired personnel for the new hunting season.)
The real trouble at the man-in-the-street level could arrive in the form of doubt as to whether those new euronotes that store clerk has given you - or is extending in your direction, wanting to give to you - are real or fake. None of us will be familiar for a while with how genuine euronotes are supposed to look and feel (taste? smell?), no matter how many times we see the commercials explaining their built-in anti-counterfeiting devices. This opens an extraordinary window of opportunity for those seeking to put their printing skills to use for windfall profit. At the very least, commercial life is going to slow somewhat, as people carefully check whether they want to trust those new bills and coins they’ve just received in a transaction. As we wait in the long lines for those ahead of us to decide, at least we will be able to ponder what we didn’t realize before, namely the very real value to society of a currency that time has made for us as familiar as an old shoe. Don’t worry: only a couple of years, and we should be back at that stage again!
Is there an alternative? Of course: electronic payment! Pull out your bankcard with the PIN stripe - and dig out that ChipKnip card from the bottom of the drawer - and pay the 21st-century way rather than with those old-fashioned pieces of metal and paper. The stores will thank you for it; you’ll probably also thank yourself. This much has always been clear: "old-fashioned" money has to disappear sooner or later, in favor of electronic payment or who-knows-what-else. Nevertheless, people have proven amazingly loyal to the sort of payment-by-atoms (rather than payment-by-electrons) going back to when the Lydians in Anatolia first struck coins three thousand years ago. A greater appreciation for electronic payment will surely be a lasting legacy for the future of the great, monstrous ride from one currency to another of 2001/2002 - if we’re lucky, it will be the only one.