Main reasons to me:
1. The whole project never was for or by the people, but it was a pet-hobby, nursed and raised by some self-declared elites that were disconnected from reality in that they ignored profound economic wisdom and reason that both spoke out against implementing this currency.
2. It was a weapon in a fundamental ideologically moptvated clash between forces that duelled inside the EU since the erarly 60s. The one camp wanting to enforce a centralised, almost absolutistically run European superstate at all cost, this camp was led by post-de-Gaulle France, with heavy support from Belgian "elites". The other camp understood Europe not to be a monolithic one-state-solution, but an alliance of sovereign nations that cooperated on economic and fiscal issues.
3. France wanted to prevent Germany becoming strong a one-nation after unification, and made German agreement to premature implementation of the Euro a non-negotiable condition for the French acceptance of unification in Germany, for it knew that the obligations for the Germans would weaken them in the future. Mind you, the German D-Mark was a stable currency which was seen by many as the prime example of how a "good" currency should lok like, an d the German Central bank was an unwavering opponent of letting the indepednecne of central banks from poltics get corrupted by centralistic claism for power by especially French politicians - in france, centralist rule is very dominant, it seems to me. What made the German Central Bank a shining exmaple for most of the world to admire, was its sovereignity, and the stability of the currency it kepot indepedent. These principles have been successfully brought down by now. Also it was aimed at trying to weaken Germany as an indusatrial and economic rival that to equal or suproass by purely economic and industrial own potential neither France nor any other nation in Europe has the potential.
4. A decade-long history of making debts, debts, debts, and living beyond the means one could afford.
5. The in herent problem of democracy: that public assets get used by small elites to buy their own legitimation by the elecorate: Tax presents, in other words. This kind of corruption most likely will always relativise the value of a democratic system, it seems to me, since you cannot avoid it without accepoting major losses to the democratic principles themselves in order to prevent this inherent corruption.
6. The wake of the US decline in industrial competitiveness on the globalised market. Ironically, the US once was the inventor and biggest propagator of what casued it'S fall: this thing called globalisation.
7. The short-termed selling of key technology and knowhow to potential future rivals on the global markets - to make the quick profit and ignoring the long-termed consequences.
8. Points 5-7 together are the major cause why the basis of social system and communal adminstration in Europe have been pushed beyond braking point - by allowing a constant erosion of factors inevitably for their supporting for too long.
9. Misled migration policies and their increase in net-costs for the social systems. We would need qualified, educated, integration-willing m igrants, we should, must and do welcome these. But the majpoirty of migrants are not contributors to our social and financial security systems, but net-receivers. That can be compensated for some time, and in small qunities of such abuse. But not when it takes place over decades and forms the majority of migation.
10. The US-made crisis that broke out since 2008 and pulls all other nations on the globe down alongside with itself.
Have I left out something major?
Perspective for the Euro, the EU, European nations? Total collapse in the medium run, maybe followed by a braking-apart by the EU in the long run. Both will not tak eplace be3fore national states have completely exhausted themselves in their attempt of self-deception over the Euro. Which m eans when the EU has broken down, most national states, if not all, will be ion a very shabby, poor codnition as well. This fight is a struggle that wastes one'S own potentials over nothing. In the end, one will have gotten rid of the strangling sling around one'S neck - but possibly die of exhaustion. Civil rebellions, maybe even civil-war like conditions are possible in most European states, including France and Germany.
Perspective for the dollar, the US? Constantly progressing slow death, with intermittend outbursts of crisis when another buble is bursting. In a hundred years, the Us probably will be a periopohery state only.
Russia? Lives as long as it can sell enough oil and gas for high enough a price. Take both away, and it will do a long fall and impact very hard on the ground deep deep below.
China? Needs tpo play extremly clever, though it is strong and isd in the best position of all players, there are risks ahead that could seriously tackle it'S projected steep rise. But that is another thread.
BRISC without China? I think they will do best if they focus on becomign strong and dominant local powers, focussinmg on using their different, typical ressources. These may not be such that they would support global dominance. The bigest thread to Brasil and India is that they allow to overstretch their goals and spheres of influence.
P.S. Tyrant, you will pay for this.
