My Lords, a suitably gloomy note has been struck in the past few minutes which reflects a great deal of the thinking and articulation that we have had to endure during the past few hours. It is an absurdity to attempt to judge the effects of the euro on the British economy 20 days after its introduction. In that sense the holding of this debate is ill-timed and indeed is almost frivolous. What I find deeply depressing is that once again not only the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, who introduced the debate, but the Government, like their predecessor, have failed to rethink sufficiently their relationships with Europe.
For God's sake let us get away from the absurd charges and the bandying across the Floor of the House against each other. I am not speaking with any sense other than of friendliness and a wish to co-operate with my European neighbours. Nor do I minimise the important part that they are playing and will play - and with my blessing - in the world in which we live. But what we do not seem to be able to understand is that for entirely honourable reasons they are pursuing a different goal from the one that we, the British people - most of them - wish to pursue. That different goal is what they constantly state. But we do not hear it or do not listen to it. They want to create a state. They say it and they have never said it more clearly, more loudly or more persistently than in the few weeks that led up to the introduction of the euro and with the opening of the German Presidency.
Good heavens, I have in my hand the speech made on 12th January by the German Foreign Minister, Fischer, to the European Parliament in Strasbourg outlining the aims of the German Presidency. He said - rightly to begin with:
"On 1 January 1999 with the introduction of the euro ... an important part of national sovereignty, to wit monetary sovereignty, was passed over to a European institution ... The introduction of a common currency is not primarily an economic, but rather a sovereign and thus eminently political act".
He went on or say:
"Political union ... must be our lodestar from now on: it is the logical follow-on from Economic and Monetary Union".
Herr Fischer was not speaking alone. I ask the House to listen to what a former Spanish Prime Minister has said:
"The single currency is the greatest abandonment of sovereignty since the foundation of the European Community ... It is a decision of an essentially political nature. We need this United Europe".
What does Mr Duisenburg, the President of the European Central Bank, have to say? He said this:
"The process of monetary union goes hand in hand, must go hand in hand, with political integration and ultimately political union. EMU is, and always was meant to be, a stepping stone on the way to a united Europe".
I finish with what Oskar Lafontaine. the German Finance Minister, has said:
The United States of Europe has been the aim of the Social Democratic Party [of Germany] all along".
Why do we not face it? That is their will and wish. It is not disreputable at all that they should wish that. But we do not wish that. And because our history and institutions - all the things that make us what we are - are different from those of continental Europe, we cannot and will not go along with this enterprise.
Why do we not face it? Why do not people like the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, my old friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, who are frankly crypto-federalists, come out and state what their aim is - that they actually want to create that state and they welcome economic and monetary union because they know that it carries them forward a very long way.
Until we can be honest about the fundamental difference between our continental friends and ourselves, we shall not earn their respect. We shall not be able to engage in honest debate, and we shall find ourselves, willy-nilly, always in a minority having to use the veto to prevent a common fiscal policy. Of course they are going to have a common fiscal policy. Fiscal union follows economic and monetary union as night follows day. If Britain uses the veto, virtually alone, with only one ally or so, where shall we be then?
We shall be exactly where the Government feared most to be and criticised their predecessors for being - on the fringes, on the outside, not playing a central part, not giving a lead to Europe. I almost despair of anyone on the Europhile side ever being brought to face what the real difference is. Until they do so debate is almost meaningless.
However, perhaps I may say a word about the economics. Of course the situation cannot be judged after 20 days. The currency will succeed within its limited terms. It will succeed or fail according to whether genuine convergence has taken place. If the minimum convergence criteria laid down in the treaty were not met, if they were fudged and avoided, then as every year goes by the differences between the real performance of different member states will grow, and the disadvantages of the weaker areas will show in terms of rising unemployment and general dissatisfaction with what has been done, and there will probably be major political disruption inside Euroland as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Cobbald, made an impressive, knowledgeable contribution. But the noble Lord asked whether we can survive if we do not join the single currency. Whether we can Survive!. Frankly, I wonder where he or I have been over the past 70-odd years. There are 182 separate national sovereign states registered at the United Nations. Until 20 days ago 180 of them had a separate currency. Gosh, how did they manage it? How could they survive? Now 11 have come together. That still leaves 169 nation states, each with their own currency. Oh dear, what are they going to do? Are they to give up? What happens to Canada? There are only 22 million people, but somehow Canada still manages to be among the G7. What happens to Australia and New Zealand They cannot exist. They must give up at once. They must join up with Japan, or whichever is the largest economic neighbour state - just as Canada must join up immediately with the United States in order to survive! What rubbish it all is!
I shall make one final point, and it is my noble friend l Lord Barnett who provoked me. It relates to the idea of inward investment being choked off. Britain alone among the member states of the European Union for nearly 18 years was a member of the EMS, but not of the exchange rate mechanism - the inner grouping. During the two years that we were a member, it was awful. Yet, throughout that period, Britain attracted the largest amount of inward investment - much larger than that of any other European Union state.
For heaven's sake let us in future face the real choices that exist between ourselves and the European. Let us face the difference in genuine national objective. And, frankly, let us all be a little more sensible and balanced regarding the economic advantages and disadvantages of the single currency.