For those who admire the European Union’s matchless ability to inject an element of farce into the highest political dramas, the dispute over how to spell "euro" in Bulgarian is a collector’s item. Here we are on the eve of the EU’s vital October 18-19 summit in Lisbon, summoned to put an end to years of agonising over the EU’s internal institutional arrangements, and the question bothering everyone is whether to let the Bulgarians spell euro "evro".
It reminds me of the monumental fuss that broke out in 19th century Austria-Hungary over whether the Habsburg Empire’s central institutions should be called "kaiserlich-königlich" (k-k, imperial-royal) or "kaiserlich und königlich" (k und k, imperial and royal). We all know how that ended - a world war and a 1,700-page novel by Robert Musil.
Bulgaria’s gripe is that the EU’s insistence on transliterating "euro" directly into Bulgarian would make its sound inconsistent with other Bulgarian words about things European. For example, the word "Europe" in Bulgarian is "Evropa" and European is "evropeiski". It’s only sensible that "euro" should be rendered "evro".
Not so, says the EU. A euro is a euro in any language - with a "u", not a "v". Bulgarians will just have live with it.
As one would expect, the European Central Bank has a hand in all this. The ECB regards "euro" as a brand name that mustn’t be tampered with under any circumstances. The fact that Bulgaria’s EU accession treaty uses the word "evro" is neither here nor there. It was a lawyers’ oversight. (Sack them!)
Obviously, Bulgaria was never going to veto the EU’s reform treaty in Lisbon, or even block the EU association agreement with Montenegro to be signed on October 15. In fact, Bulgaria seems happy enough to have secured a declaration by EU ambassadors in Luxembourg to the effect that there is a "technical-linguistic problem" over how to translate "euro" into Bulgarian.
But excuse me. Isn’t that a "technical and linguistic problem"?