European monetary union: the benefits, the problems and the traveller's tale : LETTER
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Michael Purshouse's arguments on monetary union (letter, 14 February) are not sustainable. He cannot understand, he says, how in practice individual EU governments will be constrained to pursue responsible fiscal policies. The Maastricht treaty sets out the direct constraints with unusual clarity (in Article 104c), which requires member states not only to "avoid excessive government deficits" and "exercise budgetary discipline", but also to keep the ratio of government debt to GDP down to strict levels (set out in the protocol on the convergence criteria). Alternative funds cannot therefore "be used with relative impunity" on the capital markets, as Mr Purshouse suggests.
Moreover, the "durability of the convergence achieved by the member state" must also be "reflected in the long-term interest rate". It would obviously not be acceptable for the latter to be forced up by excessive government borrowing.
Mr Purshouse is wrong to say that the effect on interest rates would be "proportionately" less when the increased borrowing was drawn from a larger pool. European borrowing is already largely internationalised, and the "larger pool" effect is likely to be largely offset by the bigger volume of borrowing.
But perhaps the greatest constraint of all on governments is the need to keep prices stable. This is not merely one of the principles to which we are committed under the Maastricht treaty. It is also basic common sense. Deprived of the addictive drug of devaluation (which enables a country with poor economic discipline to avoid making its production efficient and competitive), member states would have to keep their economy in good order with low inflation (price stability) and low interest rates in order to keep their export prices competitive. For that, they would have to pursue sensible and responsible fiscal and borrowing policies. I am astonished that anyone concerned about Britain's future should even consider prolonging the system under which the pound sterling has lost nine-tenths of its value since 1950.
Yours faithfully,
DEREK PRAG
Welwyn,
Hertfordshire
15 February
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments