Exactly the question, isn't it? And without a doubt it was a question on the minds of those who pushed for the Euro. They knew what an essential attribute of sovereignty it was, which is exactly why they pushed for it.
Sure, I'd like it if they were to do away with the currency rather than create a new country, but it's clear that the currency was put in there so that it would lead to a new country. That's because both main political parties in each country (socialists and "conservatives", by whatever specific names they're known) have wanted it for a long time. They're not going to give it up very easily. It's very difficult to break the stronghold that two nominally opposing parties can have on a country, especially when they're committed to centralizing power further. It's going to take a lot of effort to undo it.
But it is still no a country and now would seem to be moving even furhter away from it. what you are saying was not a secret, it is all in Delors's "plan." But the Euorcrats are off in their abstraction. At some point they will have to ditch it becuase they will not become a nation. It is a gamble that Brussels made and lost. Time will tell.
A currency without a country?
Exactly the question, isn't it? And without a doubt it was a question on the minds of those who pushed for the Euro. They knew what an essential attribute of sovereignty it was, which is exactly why they pushed for it.
-----
PRECISELY - That has been part of their deep plan since their conspiring to supercede the European Common market. It has been a step-by-step strategy that has now come to a big road block. The reason it came to a big road block is due to the opposing forces here. On one side, you have the real socialist forces in Fronge, Sveeeedon, and such and on the other side you have those who have some desire for actual economic freedom such as Ireland, UK, and now Poland and the Eastern block of countries. The EU bureaucrats decided they wanted an all powerful central gubmint to control, by-dung, instead of a lose confederation of states (which would actually make sense).
The Euro was to be a stepping stone that would act as a bridge - and it was drawing them closer by force. However, the disparities between nations and their economic policies and propensities have led to currency dislocations in different countries: deficits, etc...
They it is now known they have overplayed their hand in this attempt to move too quickly on a further unification, as well as trying to move too far. (I suspect this is in part because of the desire to counter the US, rather than work with us.)
Recall that the Framers of OUR constitution essentially decided to punt on the slavery questions because the different states could not agree - and instead of deciding all questions in the Constitution, they left many of them to the states. The EU bureaucrats for whatever reason chose to include every responsibility in their central government, and little is left to the nations. They decided to fold everything into this in their desire for strong central control but there is no room for flexibility. Everyone who looks at even a small part of it will start to shake their head and say, do I really want this?
They see and understand why the bureaucrats do: more power. The People don't, though.
The currency unification was a desire to force eventual central control via necessity based on Macroeconomic Theory from day one. There were people who understood this from day one, too.