I am referring to my 06/25/2016 post: “Brexit not End of “World” but Hopefully End of EU Non Governance”, I am herewith repeating a concrete proposal made X times in my blog for a two-speed Eurozone to be installed instead of the past and current obsolete Eurozone Commission “organization (sic) of a 19 countries potpourri and a not decisive anymore Germany-France axis.

This “radical change proposal” is not due to the Brexit but to the decades’ long inefficiency and indecision of the EU and Eurozone’s “Governance.

The Brexit now happened and long exit negotiations will start on October 2016 and will last for 2 years at least and more. We will once more see how all the already announced  meetings will come out with zilch since everything is based on improvisation as usual.

Several forms of partnership with the EU exist, with varying degrees of integration. But none really are suited to the new situation created by the Brexit

The European Economic Area is not interesting for the UK since it would have to comply with EU legislation, neither is the “Swiss Compromise” and falling under WTO rules is not acceptable to the UK.

Therefore long negotiations might end with a revised free trade area scheme and other important mutual cooperation items  to be included in a series of bilateral country agreements.

In my blog and my September 2014 self-edited Amazon book on Eurozone “Governance” (“Why Obsolete Macro Governance is Killing the World Economy”) I made concrete proposals on how the Eurozone  could gradually reach social economic integration and accordingly  function efficiently. I will only include here the call them highlights:

I formulated my proposals by including a “modus operandi”, like with private corporations’ organization and inter functional “instructions”…

This Eurozone restructuring proposal needs to be understood as referring “only” (sic) to the social (including education and training) – economic and financial topics in Eurozone “Management”.

It does not extend to all the other ”regal” governmental areas, such as the major areas of health, defense and military, interior, foreign affairs, etc…

Instead of being an Organization which gives “Directives” to member countries, the Eurozone “Governance” should be reflexive, pro active, involved in “the “field” with local governments, in summary act as an executive counseling unit.

 From an “operational” standpoint, the 19 Eurozone countries should be divided, at the beginning, into 2 categories of countries:

–  “Speed 1 “ countries, these being the most performing countries, which are Germany, The Netherlands, Finland, Austria, including Luxembourg which is very ”atypical”.

 –  “Speed 2” countries, these being Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, Greece (*), Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, to which I add France, the 2nd biggest Eurozone country, but whose future is quite uncertain for the time being.

(*) I have felt for a long time that Greece should have exited the Eurozone long ago, this would have been beneficial and far less costly to both the Eurozone and Greece itself.

If a corporation had kept a product which did not “make it” for years, it would have suffered considerably, and would have had to sacrifice putting adequate resources on their existing “good“ products” and eventual projects on ”new” products, running also the risk of lacking adequate financing for the whole corporation, this goes back to the famous and still actual BCG method of the 60’s of the ”golden cow and the rest  of the ”animals” (products) and what to do  with them…

Instead of having lost all this time and money, the Eurozone Governance (?) should have had positive discussions with the UK, second biggest country in Europe and 5h biggest economy worldwide which has been increasing its GDP and decreasing unemployment substantially.

1. Operational Social-Economic decision making organization and modus operandi

“Speed 1” countries will commit to transitionally financing “Speed 2” countries, under certain conditions, and mainly under a totally different reciprocal communication “methodology”, under the supervision, control  and follow –up of a new and compact Eurozone Central Governance Unit.

– All countries must prepare short (1 year), medium (3 to 5 years) and long-term term (above 5 years going up to 10 years) strategies, clearly defining priorities.

– All countries need to define Operational plans – short and medium term (see above)

– All countries need to determine their Financial Needs plans – short and medium term, based on operational plans

The Eurozone Central Governance Unit needs what private corporations call a “Controller”, which in macro terms should be called a Eurozone Minister of Economy, who reports to the “General Manager”, that is the President of Eurozone‘s Central Governance Unit.

This Eurozone Minister of Economy will head the Social-Economics Council, where the main responsibility is furthering job creation and reducing “official” unemployment and even more so under employment.

In private corporations, the Controller has reporting to him/her a “Planning Manager” who is knowledgeable of all “functions” of the corporation, to accordingly coordinate the various activities, and enable this function to plan effectively on a corporate basis to help build Operative corporate planning.

In every Eurozone member country’s government this function should be filled by the Budget Secretary reporting to the country’s Minister of Economy.

The Eurozone Economy Ministry includes under the Eurozone Planning Manager’s supervision: “country social – economic counselors” assigned to specific Eurozone Member countries.

In private corporations, there exists a “Human Resources Director” who reports to the “General Manager.”

In every member country’s government this function is that of the Minister of Labor, who reports to the Prime Minister.

This Minister of Labor function needs to be far more liaised with the Minister of Economy, and be closely related to the Budget Secretary, who needs to prepare, analyze and follow up on the country’s budget/plan. This is necessary in order to integrate the analysis of Job Creation and various forms of Unemployment and Underemployment, which are the top priority factors to be improved, into the Operational Planning of the country.

2. Financial modalities and decision making which are required to finance agreed upon strategic and operational plans.

The Eurozone Central Governance Unit needs what private corporations call a “Treasurer”, which in macro terms could be called a Eurozone Minister of Finance, who reports to the “General Manager”, that is the President of Eurozone‘s “Governance”.

The Eurozone Minister of Finance will head the “Finance Council”.

The Eurozone Finance Ministry includes under its supervision: “country financial counselors” assigned to specific Eurozone Member countries.

This pragmatic social economic and financial Eurozone Central Governance Unit organization is what will make for a dynamic, hands on, pro active, ”in the field working” and “managerial” relationship between the Central Eurozone Governance Unit and the various Eurozone’s countries ’governments.

It will have the great advantage of implicating – constantly – and giving responsibility on an individual basis to Eurozone’s countries’ Prime Ministers: Economy, Labor and Financial Ministers, and to their Governments obviously (Prime Minister and President).

This whole organization is extensively developed in my above cited book.


In my blog and my 2014 book on Eurozone “Governance” (“Why Obsolete Macro Governance is Killing the World Economy”) I made concrete proposals on how the Eurozone could gradually reach social economic integration and accordingly  function efficiently. I will only include here the call them highlights:

I formulated my proposals by including a “modus operandi”, like with private corporations’ organization and inter functional “instructions”…

This Eurozone restructuring proposal needs to be understood as referring “only” (sic) to the social (including education and training) – economic and financial topics in Eurozone “Management”.

It does not extend to all the other ”regal” governmental areas, such as the major areas of health, defense and military, interior, foreign affairs, etc…

Instead of being an Organization which gives “Directives” to member countries, the Eurozone “Governance” should be reflexive, pro active, involved in “the “field” with local governments, in summary act as an executive counseling unit.

1. Operational Social-Economic decision making organization and modus operandi

From an “operational” standpoint, the 19 Eurozone countries should be divided, at the beginning, into 2 categories of countries:

–  “Speed 1 “ countries, these being the most performing countries, which are Germany, The Netherlands, Finland, Austria, including Luxembourg which is very ”atypical”.

 –  “Speed 2” countries, these being Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, Greece (*), Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, to which I add France, the 2nd biggest Eurozone country, but whose future is quite uncertain for the time being.

(*) I have felt for a long time that Greece should have exited the Eurozone long ago, this would have been beneficial and far less costly to both the Eurozone and Greece itself.
If a corporation had kept a product which did not “make it” for years, it would have suffered considerably, and would have had to sacrifice putting adequate resources on their existing “good“ products” and eventual projects on ”new” products, running also the risk of lacking adequate financing for the whole corporation, this goes back to the famous and still actual BCG method of the 60’s of the ”golden cow and the rest  of the ”animals” (products) and what to do  with them…

Instead of having lost all this time and money, the Eurozone Governance (?) should have had positive discussions with the UK, second biggest country in Europe and 5h biggest economy worldwide which has been increasing its GDP and decreasing unemployment substantially. Brexit now happened and long negotiations of exit will start.

“Speed 1” countries will commit to transitionally financing “Speed 2” countries, under certain conditions, and mainly under a totally different reciprocal communication “methodology”, under the supervision, control  and follow –up of a new and compact Eurozone Central Governance Unit.

– All countries must prepare short (1 year), medium (3 to 5 years) and long-term term (above 5 years going up to 10 years) strategies, clearly defining priorities.

– All countries need to define Operational plans – short and medium term (see above)

– All countries need to determine their Financial Needs plans – short and medium term, based on operational plans

The Eurozone Central Governance Unit needs what private corporations call a “Controller”, which in macro terms should be called a Eurozone Minister of Economy, who reports to the “General Manager”, that is the President of Eurozone‘s Central Governance Unit.

The Eurozone Minister of Economy will head the Social-Economics Council, where the main responsibility is furthering job creation and reducing “official” unemployment and even more so under employment.

In private corporations, the Controller has reporting to him/her a “Planning Manager” who is knowledgeable of all “functions” of the corporation, to accordingly coordinate the various activities, and enable this function to plan effectively on a corporate basis to help build Operative corporate planning.

In every Eurozone member country’s government this function should be filled by the Budget Secretary reporting to the country’s Minister of Economy.

In private corporations, there exists a “Human Resources Director” who reports to the “General Manager.”

In every member country’s government this function is that of the Minister of Labor, who reports to the Prime Minister.

This Minister of Labor function needs to be far more liaised with the Minister of Economy, and be closely related to the Budget Secretary, who needs to prepare, analyze and follow up on the country’s budget/plan. This is necessary in order to integrate the analysis of Job Creation and various forms of Unemployment and Underemployment, which are the top priority factors to be improved, into the Operational Planning of the country.

The Eurozone Economy Ministry includes under the Eurozone Planning Manager’s supervision: “country social – economic counselors” assigned to specific Eurozone Member countries.

These “country social-economic counselors” require having had previous successful experience as budgetary directors in Eurozone member countries.

These ”country social-economic counselors” will visit regularly (quarterly) the Eurozone country assigned to each of them, meet with the local government functional units who prepared the above mentioned plans to discuss them in-depth, give his/hers opinions and suggestions, explaining the reasons behind these propositions.

The first elements to be reviewed are the breakdown on how Revenues are composed, which includes a review of direct taxes and indirect taxes, their percent impact on total country’s revenues and their evolution over the last 3 to 5 years, and a review of the other composition of Revenues made on levies on labor (charges on salaries and other impositions) and their impact on total.

The end result will allow an analysis of the level of imposition of the country and how it measures with respect to the Eurozone average. This will include a review on other possibilities of revenues if the total level of imposition is exaggerated and affects growth, provided there is growth, if not, urgency (not ”reactivity”, nor “precipitation”) is necessary to adopt corrective measures –jointly.

The same analysis will be made on Spend items, by identifying productive expenses and unproductive ones (like a great number of existing “subsidies/subventions” for example) and expenses that are traditional but have become not affordable, and proceed to gradually eliminating them. Productive expenses are those who help to create growth and fill necessary existing and potential jobs, and who help developing innovation.

These expenses relate to schooling orientation and formation and training targeted towards activities which are expanding or have the potential to do so. Discussions will include all the “social” elements which can affect productivity and produce eventual savings.

Discussions will also include the number of public employees and how they are deployed, retirement ages and eventual differences in policies between private companies’ employees and public employees, and if different, discussions on reasons why.

Discussions will take place on Regional decentralization including layers of regional distribution of responsibilities to be the object of in-depth analysis of feasible elimination of layers of intermediate regionalization which can be dispensed with. This is a highly “political” issue, the only country in the Eurozone where regionalization has worked out being, once more, Germany, with its ”Laender” structure.

If no agreements are reached, discussions need to continue until joint conclusions are achieved.

After each visit, a formal meeting with the country‘s government needs to take place in the country itself, to present a “progress report” on the results obtained so far versus those planned, and the necessary agreed upon actions which need to be taken. Country governments then have to discuss eventual disagreements and conclude with a jointly agreed plan of action, which could necessitate a change in above mentioned planned content.

Once this first “step” is finished, this new planning will be prepared locally, approved locally, and then sent to the “assigned” Eurozone country economic counselor, who will review it and then present it to the Eurozone Central Governance Unit for discussion and eventual approval

2. Financial modalities and decision making which are required to finance agreed upon strategic and operational plans.

The Eurozone Central Governance Unit needs what private corporations call a “Treasurer”, which in macro terms could be called a Eurozone Minister of Finance, who reports to the “General Manager”, that is the President of Eurozone‘s “Governance”.

The Eurozone Minister of Finance will head the “Finance Council”.

The Eurozone Finqance Ministry includes under its supervision: “country financial counselors” assigned to specific Eurozone Member countries.

These financial counselors will have received the social-economic plans that were jointly made by the countries and the Eurozone “social-economic counselors” (please refer to Point 1 above), their analysis needing now to be centered on financial planning and its execution.

These ”country financial counselors” will visit regularly (quarterly) the Eurozone countries assigned to each of them, meet with the local government functional units who prepared the Eurozone member countries’ financial plans, to discuss them in-depth, give his/hers opinions and suggestions, explaining the reasons behind these propositions.

These ”financial counselors” will review together, with Ministers of Finance of each of Eurozone’s 2 “speed” countries’ areas, the possible pan-Eurozone financing resources that have been approved, like ESM + EFSF and how they could be utilized, plus all ECB’s recent QE (quantitative easing) printed money offers, TLTROs , ABS, etc… large  liquidity creating offers.

A review of the financial plans that had been established will be made contemplating what resources have been integrated in planning, how real results compare to previous plans, and what eventual ”additional / corrective” measures could be adopted.

The most important factors are to determine, in conjunction with local Finance Ministers in each country of the 2 “areas”, why differences occur between planning and reality and what can be done to “correct” and improve situations.

After each visit from an Eurozone “financial counselor”, a formal meeting with the country‘s government needs to take place in the country itself, to present a “progress report” on the results obtained so far versus those planned, and the necessary agreed upon actions which need to be taken. Country governments then have to discuss eventual disagreements and conclude with a jointly agreed plan of action, which might necessitate a change in above mentioned planning.

If so, this new planning will be prepared locally, approved locally, and be presented by the Eurozone’s financial counselors to Eurozone’s Central Governance Unit for analysis and eventual approval.

The Eurozone Minister of Finance will head a “Financial Council” to function with quarterly meetings which will be attended by the ECB President, the ESM Manager, the financial counselors.

The Minister of Finance, and his staff, need to closely coordinate with the by country Eurozone “economic counselors” (please see point 1 above).

No country requesting a loan from EFSF/ESM should be granted one if it has not complied with the obligations and commitments resumed in point 1 above, and mainly those related to implementation of social -economic structural reforms.

This will be the best possible “operational safe guard“ for the Eurozone “Speed 1”countries which would be temporary lenders to the “Speed 2” Eurozone countries, through the ESM fund.

This pragmatic social economic and financial Eurozone Central Governance Unit organization is what will make for a dynamic, hands on, pro active, ”in the field working” and “managerial” relationship between the Central Eurozone Governance Unit and the various Eurozone’s countries ’governments.

It will have the great advantage of implicating – constantly – and giving responsibility on an individual basis to Eurozone’s countries’ Prime Ministers: Economy, Labor and Financial Ministers, and to their Governments obviously (Prime Minister and President).