Euro Swansong (UK Telegraph's euro vote editorial)

www.telegraph.co.uk ^ | 15 Sep 2003 | Opinion Page

[July 4th]

Deep down, even the most fanatical supporters of the euro must now recognise that it isn't going to happen. Their two main contentions - that the euro is inevitable, and that Britain is too small to go it alone - have been blown away by Sweden's "nej".

Goran Persson, Sweden's Social Democrat prime minister, launched his campaign in the most propitious circumstances imaginable. When he announced the referendum 10 months ago, opinion polls gave the "yes" side a 15-point lead. The big battalions of Swedish society were quick to rally to his banner. All the political parties except the extreme Left ranged themselves behind him, as did business groups, trade unions and every major newspaper.

The "yes" side was calculated to have spent more than the George Bush election campaign. Five days before polling, Anna Lindh, the hugely popular foreign minister and public face of the pro-euro campaign, was stabbed to death, generating a surge of sympathy for her cause. Yet, through all this, Swedes remained unimpressed. Politely, but firmly, they rejected their leaders' advice and voted to keep the krona.

Look at it from Tony Blair's point of view. Our euro supporters are in an immeasurably weaker position than their counterparts in Sweden - or, for that matter, Denmark, where, almost exactly three years ago, a similarly unbalanced referendum also saw the "no" campaign come from behind to win. In Britain, unlike these countries, one of the main political parties is campaigning to keep the existing currency, the press (if not the BBC) is divided, many businesses and even some trade unions are anti-euro and, not least, the public is two-to-one against.

The British, Swedish and Danish opt-outs now look permanent. The question is no longer, "Will Britain join the euro?", or even, "Should Britain join the euro?", but, "Given that Britain is not joining the euro, what kind of relationship should we forge with our neighbours?"

All three parties need to do some muscular thinking about this for, at present, our foreign policy is built on a falsehood. Central to Britain's diplomacy is the notion that, by "leading in Europe", we can make the EU more receptive to our needs, and so amplify our power in the world. Yet, whatever the pretensions of our successive leaders, it is clear that the British people have no desire to "lead in Europe" if that means surrendering their currency and diminishing their independence. The way in which British Europhiles disregard this reality is, in its way, awesome. What part of "no" don't they understand?

If only our politicians and diplomats had the courage to tear themselves away from the dogma of the past 40 years, they might catch a glimpse of an attractive alternative. Instead of always wanting to be at the heart of Europe, never quite making it, sulky and resented, Britain could become the leader of an alternative grouping of nonfederalist, peripheral states.

As well as Sweden and Denmark (and possibly Ireland), such a group would be likely to include a number of the new entrants, who may wish to follow Sweden's example by keeping their currencies. It could embrace some states outside the EU - Norway, for example - and forge strong links with North America. As for a name for such a bloc, how about the "European Free Trade Area"?

[July 4th]

This is a great editorial. It finally speaks up and tells people to accept the "no" vote. Britain and the other non-eurozoners have been making decisions as if accession is inevitable. It's time that other arrangements for their national futures start to be made.

[Mon]

At least some countries ask their citizens. Germany for example didn't care that most citizens were against the Euro.
Then when the Euro came into effect no laws were put into place against greedy businesses. Example: If something cost 10 Marks before, it should have become about 5 Euro. Well, lots of them made it a 10 Euro. Insanly expensive there now.