ECB independent?

Last week I received an interesting question from someone on Twitter about the independence of the ECB. He didn't believe the ECB is independent as politicians have a lot of power. As I am confronted with more question's about this independency, it is a good subject for a post. A post which I will try to keep short and most easy to read. Leading in this will be Mr Duisenbergs' speech (ECB president 1998-2003) in may 2002. Here, "The Euro-our money", was honoured by the Charlemagne Prize association. Link

In order to come to an answer to this question about the ECB we better begin to look at the currency issued by the ECB, the Euro. Known by many as the coins and banknotes in our wallet. Now, the Euro stands for far more than this. This currency has become a symbol for underlying political vision. It was born out of a believe that in reaching peace and prosperity we should unify Europe. Also, shown by the next quote, the Euro is some kind of social contract.

"What is money? Economists know that money is defined by the functions it performs, as a means of exchange, a unit of account and a store of value. But, just as importantly, money is also defined by the community for whom it performs these functions. Because it is an economic instrument for each of its users, it is also a political and cultural bond between them. Consider this simple fact: we engage in an exchange of goods and services everyday by using money as the means of exchange; and we offer our labour in exchange for money, which, in itself, has no value. We only do this because we believe that we will, in turn, be able to exchange that money for more goods or services. This fact tells us much about the confidence that we place in money itself. And it tells us much more about the confidence that we place in each other. Hence, money is, in essence, a social contract."

For the fiat-people: 
We can see that our currency issuer (ECB) is pointing to the fact that our money in itself has no value. It is the confidence that we as the people have in money, performing it's three functions well. So can we agree here once and for all that we can leave the fiat discussions for what they are?
You didn't invent the wheel again...fiat is not relevant.
All currencies are fiat currencies now, and will be in the future. We simply have to deal with this as it has far more benefits than disadvantages.
Besides, this Duisenberg statement, can we call this transparent communication? I think we can. That this is no coincidence shows us the next paragraph.

"The euro, probably more than any other currency, represents the mutual confidence at the heart of our community. It is the first currency that has not only severed its link to gold, but also its link to the nation-state. It is not backed by the durability of the metal or by the authority of the state. Indeed, what Sir Thomas More said of gold five hundred years ago – that it was made for men and that it had its value by them – applies very well to the euro."

Again, the confidence is highlighted. Than Duisenberg moves on with a very interesting line. "Severed its link to gold, but also to the nation-state". This sentence is probably the most quoted sentence by Mr Duisenberg.
My view on this is as following:
By saying the currency has severed it's link to gold and in the next sentence mention it is not backed by the metal, Duisenberg is making a clear statement. By severing it's link he means GOLD is not MONEY.
It is and will become more and more a physical asset for the people to use. That this was completely new back then, I already described in my post Euro vs Dollar.

Do you consider stop reading?
Please stay with me, because this does not mean the ECB is throwing the function of gold overboard.
It's made clear further on, by stating, "it was made for men and that it had its value by them".
Actually this is the opposite of monetizing gold (gold owned by central banks) and central banks setting the price.
Gold should be demonetized and start to flow through the hands of the people. As I recently made clear,  this is what's happening now. Gold is getting more and more in the hands of the people. Do we put our excessive savings in our currency (the Euro), in gold, or both. It's up to us.

The separation of the nation-state is explained further on in his speech. 
Besides, did you notice the word politicians already? No?

"That the euro has economic origins does not reduce its significance as a social contract. However, its success as a social contract is only possible because it is rooted in a second accord, a constitutional contract, between the citizens who own it and the institution to which they have assigned the task of protecting it.

The recognition that the management of the currency, being a policy function, requires a constitutional backing is not exactly new. In 1360, the French bishop and philosopher Nicolas Oresme was among the first to successfully argue that money did not belong to the state, but to "the community and [to] each of its members".

One can only give credit to the architects of the Maastricht Treaty. They recognised the need for the functions of money to be provided at EU level. The architects of the Treaty also understood that a single currency can only fulfil its monetary functions and its role as an integrating force so long as it retains its value. Therefore, they drew up a solid monetary constitution to protect those functions and its stability."

Here we come to the core of our question. After defining that the Euro is a kind of social contract between it's users, it's also a contract with the institution (ECB) which we have assigned protecting it. Money doesn't belong to the state, but to the community and each of it's members. The architects of the Maastricht Treaty saw it was needed to protect the functions of money at EU level and gave the ECB the task of protecting it. Here we now have the ECB's sole mandate, price stability.

As the ECB is independent it can't be forced to support fiscal wishes by the separate nation-states. That this has been regulated so isn't coincidence, as just learned.
This will not mean the ECB doesn't intervene in a crisis-situation as this would harm the stability. But when other options aren't available any more. Balancing budgets is a very important option where the ECB keeps on pointing. Now you know why, these politicians aren't always that happy with this independence. It's limiting their spending drift in a way.

By asking what the influence is of politicians (the state) on the mandate of the ECB or at the constitutional contract we can be clear.
NONE.
By taking this constitutional contract away from the state we made a big step forward in the integration of our continent.
A necessary step, a giant leap.
Every time when we hear a voice calling to end the independence of the ECB, or that this independence is dangerous, we should think back to what we've learned. Taking this institutional contract back to the various nation-states means going back into time......and disintegrate.

This is the reason why the Euro-zone won't throw out members, or Germany will exit it. It would simply be the end of something big, started almost an age ago. With screaming for a Nordic Euro, you completely missed the reason of the creation of the Euro.
I hope you understand it was a logical step to make the ECB independent.
Independent of peasants, with other interests than price stability. Electoral interests clashing with monetary.
As we can conclude, the creation of the Euro has probably far more benefits as you might think of at first sight.
These giant steps are for us to follow. It's bringing us a different world.......

p.s. As I used some paragraph's from this historical speech, this post doesn't cover the speech as a whole. It's containing far more interesting statements, you'd better read it for yourself. Link