Introducing a single currency for the European Union was never going to be an easy business. There are incredibly complicated decisions to make, not the least of which is fixing the permanent, irrevocable exchange rate between the participating countries. It only needs one false step, and the whole enterprise could turn into a gigantic disaster.


But in some ways, the most difficult task of all is also the most simple. What should Europe's new currency be called?


The EU currently uses a largely notional unit, the ecu. It does not exist in the form of notes or coins, but EU governments sometimes issue ecu bonds and private banks settle some transactions in ecus. Its value derives from a weighted average of national currencies, meaning it is stronger than weak currencies like Spain's peseta but weaker than strong currencies such as the German mark.


And therein lies the problem. In the 16 years since the EU launched its European Monetary System, the mechanism intended to pave the way to monetary union, the ecu has lost about 40 percent of its value against the mark. Not surprisingly, a majority of Germans oppose the idea of giving up their sacred mark in favor of a currency whose name they associate with devaluation, economic weakness and the latent threat of inflation.


German politicians have therefore been lobbying in Brussels to find a different name for the single currency. Insiders say that the recent German preference is to call it the "franken." This proposal, it seems, has several merits. First, it sounds like the French franc so it will be acceptable to French public opinion. Second, it sounds like the famously strong Swiss franc, so Germans will feel reassured. Finally, it doesn't sound anything like the ecu.


However, reaction outside Germany to the franken idea has been frankly hostile. One former British minister, Norman Tebbit, said the EU should go whole hog and call the currency the "frankenstein." Many officials in the EU's Executive Commission are also skeptical. They insist there is nothing wrong with the ecu, which is the word for a now obsolete French coin but also has the virtue of standing for European Currency Unit.


The trouble is that everyone knows the single currency will never get off the ground unless the Germans are satisfied the right name has been chosen. If Chancellor Helmut Kohl or the directors of the Bundesbank flatly say "nein" to the ecu, then no it will be. Such are the realities of economic power.


The deadlock in the debate over ecu or franken means that a search is underway for other names. One proposal is the "crown," which has a solid, authoritative ring to it. Unfortunately, crowns are used in Denmark, which is not sure it wants to join the monetary union, and in Sweden, whose currency has recently been falling through the floor.


Another suggestion is the "schilling," which is an old German word and the name of Austria's very robust currency. Alas, it also sounds like the late and unlamented British shilling, and that more or less rules it out.


The name of the future single currency matters. For the project to work, the name must inspire public trust. But it must not be a name that implies one country lording it over others. So it cannot be, for example, the "mark." My own choice would be a currency that was once widely used all over Europe. It signifies wealth, stability and elegance. It transcends national differences: the "ducat."