Eurozone entry is governed by the Maastricht convergence criteria on inflation, longterm interest rates, fiscal deficits, debt, exchange rate stability and legal regulations. 1 The criteria, rooted in the economic realities of the early 1990s, have long been critically discussed, notably as the new and on average faster growing EU member states became eligible for Eurozone membership. To date, the difficulties of changing treaty-based rules have however stalled reforms. The crisis has further weakened belief in the ability of the criteria to fulfill their core function of effectively distinguishing between countries likely to thrive and countries likely to struggle under monetary union. The ability to satisfy the inflation criteria in a single year (often assisted by one time administrative intervention) has not prevented subsequent sustained divergences in unit labor cost growth across Eurozone members now posing adjustment challenges. Neither the fiscal criteria nor the long-term interest rate criteria have prevented the emergence of fiscal sustainability challenges, with a large majority of member states currently subject to the excessive deficit procedure.Though much of the current debate on the future of the Eurozone centers on scenarios ranging from survival to various flavors of orderly or chaotic exits, all nonEurozone EU member states save Denmark and the United Kingdom are obligated to work towards the adoption of the single currency; and a number of non-Eurozone member states have recently affirmed their commitment towards a speedy entry. Expansion thus remains the default scenario. As non-members move towards application -most likely led by Lithuania -reconsidering entry criteria thus remains timely; equally important, the ongoing substantial changes in economic governance create a political window of opportunity whose absence has stymied earlier calls for reforms. The following note takes a short look at some of the issues arising in this context.