We all like to pop round to the convenience store for a couple of things we forgot at the supermarket, but we never expect it to be anything other than convenient.  We wouldn’t expect it to have the range of products, or the special offers, of the supermarket.  Convenience is good, but that’s only one part of the picture.

Now that the Euro has arrived we are being asked to adopt it for no other reason than convenience.  I used to be an accountant, and had to consolidate multi-currency balance sheets in the era before computers.  I hated it.  As an accountant I would welcome the Euro.  And I used to be a business traveller, with a bedside drawer full of currencies from different countries that I might re-visit.  As a traveller I would welcome the Euro.

But is convenience enough?  When I was an international manager I wanted my subsidiary operations to conform to HQ standard, but I also wanted the flexibility to treat each country separately if it suited me ~ which it often did.  If you listen to the administrators we should have a Euro; if you were to be given the task of running the British economy for more than just the next term of office you would want as much flexibility as you could get.

In fact, even the convenience card is overplayed.  Cash is used for a very small percentage of Europe’s transactions, and the use of credit cards round the world is not dependent on a single currency. 

UK supporters argue that we cannot afford not to adopt the Euro.  Double negatives are never very convincing, and ever since the British Government embraced Beeching’s wide-reaching cure for a single problem there has always been a strong case to look at the bigger picture.   The pro-Euro argument seems to boil down to removing the uncertainty of exchange rates between the Euro and Sterling.  Politicians do like to reduce everything to a common denominator.  In fact, the Euro has declined 20% against the US dollar since its introduction in 1999, and is hardly an attractive currency for investors.

A single currency is just another step towards political, economic and social integration.  That is the question Britons should be examining.  Do we want to lose the right to set our own taxation, interest rates, and legislation?  The Euro is not important except in this context.

The argument is also put forward that foreign manufacturers would not invest in a Sterling Britain.  Any that have done so in the last three years will have seen their investment hold its value by 10% over the rest of Europe.  In consequence, exports from Britain have been more expensive.  But a rising yen did not slow down exports from Japan in the 1980’s.  If you have products that people want they will continue to buy.

Even if we go all the way and achieve a level currency playing field throughout Europe, why would a foreign manufacturer choose to invest in Britain?  Surely he would go for cheap labour, an effective postal system, good road and rail links, and a health service that keeps his employees working.  In fact, why would a British employer choose to saddle himself with our infra-structure, when he could probably benefit from European grants in southern Europe?

The debate needs to be widened beyond the present five curious self-imposed tests.  Unless we are able to solve our problems the Euro could present us with the worst-case scenario: an inability to address the very problems that keep foreign investors away.

Still, it would be convenient to buy a coffee with your loose change.