Home What's New Speeches & Articles Newsletter - Jul 2008 Biography Diary Contact Information Photo Album Parliamentary Highlights Publications Links MEPs' Transparency   Conservative Party Latest News from Conservatives.com Conservative Party Website
		Letter to the Editor The Economist - Wednesday 3rd May 2006 Dear Sir I was astonished to see Charlemagne's claim (Apr 29th) that "The euro, in short, has provided currency stability...". It has done no such thing. It has been spectacularly volatile, ranging from 80 cents to $1.25. Measured against a basket of international currencies since the launch of the euro, the Pound has been much more stable than the euro. Which is remarkable, given that the main threat of the pro-euro lobby in 1999 was that poor little Sterling would be storm-tossed between big, stable currencies like the dollar and the euro. Nor is it clear that "flexible economies such as Ireland ... thrive in or out of the euro". Irish growth has slowed significantly since Ireland joined the euro-zone, and the country has faced serious inflationary problems. Having an inappropriate monetary policy is bad for any economy. Ask the Italians. Yours faithfully Roger Helmer MEP Economist: Euro blues (Charlemagne column in Economist, 29 Apr, p. 50): "The euro, in short, has provided currency stability but has done little to promote growth, jobs or reform. That is a long way from branding the currency a complete failure. But it is clear that what matters most is the “real” side of the economy (growth, jobs, markets), not the nominal indicators of stability (inflation, budget deficits) that are used to decide both whether countries are ready to join, and how they are doing once they are in. A key lesson is that flexible economies, such as Ireland's and Britain's, thrive, whether in or out of the euro. Inflexible ones can claw back lost competitiveness even inside the euro—but this takes a long time, and can come at a high price because they must keep growth in unit labour costs below average for years."