The euro is one such project. It was known in advance that it couldn't work.
Isn't it a bit extreme and possibly false to claim this? Was there a study that the euro could not work, followed by a conscious decision to pursue it nonetheless?
Isn't it a bit extreme and possibly false to claim this? Was there a study that the euro could not work, followed by a conscious decision to pursue it nonetheless?
The whole article is far too simplistic, lacking in nuance, far too reductive. It would benefit from attention to detail. But then it couldn't be quite as dramatic, excitable and voluble.
Some, such as the UK, doubted the € was workable -- but as the project is still in progress, as can be attested by the denominations of the accounts and coin of many a person, we still have to wait and see. Whereas some said that the conditions for entry mitigated the risks of failure. As things stand, the UK is right, the project will not succeed -- given the current conditions and economic trajectories. But, and it's a big but (hmm, never thought I'd write that clichéd phrase), maybe the conditions for the project to work shall be put in place. I, for one, certainly hope so.
Then others said "But Euro is different" never making it clear what's different about it.
I bet if you searched old newspapers and magazines you would find plenty of articles.