I agree that the later half of the article is the stronger portion; I was just surprised to see the lower quality front half under the FT masthead. I also suspect you’re right about what the EU will do, rather than my focus on what they can do.
But if the FT’s argument is that the EU doesn’t have the stomach for a strong euro and reduced exports, that’s something that can change quickly. If your assumption is you can wait out the mad king, doing nothing is clearly the cheapest option. But if your assumption changes to be that you cannot (which it seems more and more people are coming to that conclusion) then you want to be the first to sell. Legal hurdles would be a much stronger constraint than EU leaders’ preferences.
I agree that the later half of the article is the stronger portion; I was just surprised to see the lower quality front half under the FT masthead. I also suspect you’re right about what the EU will do, rather than my focus on what they can do.
But if the FT’s argument is that the EU doesn’t have the stomach for a strong euro and reduced exports, that’s something that can change quickly. If your assumption is you can wait out the mad king, doing nothing is clearly the cheapest option. But if your assumption changes to be that you cannot (which it seems more and more people are coming to that conclusion) then you want to be the first to sell. Legal hurdles would be a much stronger constraint than EU leaders’ preferences.