So, why should Britain sacrifice its cherished currency for a dubious project?

	EMU will be painful, especially in the short term.	BRITAIN is the only country in Europe where supporters of the single currency argue seriously about the economics. Elsewhere, it is frankly admitted that EMU will be painful, especially in the short term; but this is seen as a price worth paying for political union. In Britain, of course, Europhiles know that they will win few supporters by championing EMU as the quickest road to a federal Europe. So they have instead contrived to portray the abolition of the pound as a technical adjustment that will help British industry. The trouble with this strategy is that it is, in the proper sense, incredible. Supporters of the euro may start by discussing transaction costs, but they quickly lapse into cant about retaining our influence, or preserving peace in Europe. The choice of Peter Mandelson to co-ordinate the pro-EMU campaign exemplifies their difficulty. Mr Mandelson is a doctrinaire federalist who, earlier this year, argued that surrendering sovereignty was desirable provided there were discernable benefits. His support for EMU has nothing to do with a calculation of economic advantage, and everything to do with his belief that Britain must be part of a large European bloc.
	By their own logic, this means that the euro is going to be unstable and weak.	Labour had hoped that the pro-EMU campaign would be led by business, but business has stubbornly refused to play ball. With the exception of a handful of multi-nationals, most companies believe that we should wait and see whether the euro works elsewhere. Indeed, such momentum as there is rests with anti-EMU industrialists, who have recently been voicing their fear that the single currency would lead to higher taxes, more regulation and increased borrowing costs. The sheer elasticity of the arguments deployed by Europhiles should lead us to question their motivation. Six years ago, they warned that failure to join would leave us with a worthless currency - a "Ukrainian coupon" was the phrase they liked to use. Today, without a blush, the same people are telling us that staying out would leave us with an uncomfortably strong currency. By their own logic, this means that the euro is going to be unstable and weak - so why do they want us to be part of it?
	Joining EMU would make us poorer and less free.	The Government's decision to rest its case on economics carries its own risks. Consider Gordon Brown's five criteria for membership. The first is that our economic cycle should converge with the rest of Europe; but there is no sign of such convergence. Indeed, our exports to the EU actually fell in 1997, while our exports to the rest of the world rose - a trend that appears to be accelerating. The second test is the interests of the City, which has much to lose from being smothered by European financial regulation. The third is inward investment, which has remained high despite - or because of - Britain's coolness towards EMU, but which would be jeopardised if we lost our competitive tax regime. The fourth and fifth criteria are labour flexibility and jobs, but surely no one wants to converge with continental levels of unemployment.
	related... dissent amongst the europhiles (15 Oct)	The truth is that, on the Chancellor's stated criteria, Britain would not join the euro for decades, if at all. Yet, to sell the euro, the Government plans to convince us that the economic gains would outweigh the political costs. This tactic is fundamentally dishonest: joining EMU would make us poorer and less free.