An excerpt from Tocqueville, arguably the greatest of the French political writers.

In England writers on the theory of government and those who actually governed co-operated with each other, the former setting forth their new theories, the latter amending or circumscribing these in the light of practical experience. In France, however, precept and practice were kept quit distinct and remained in the hands of two quite independent groups. One of these carried on the actual administration while the other set forth the abstract principles on which good government should, they said, be based; one took the routine measures appropriate to the needs of the moment, the other propounded general laws without a thought for their practical application; one group shaped the course of public affairs, the other that of public opinion.

The Treasury's assesment of Britain's future in the Euro has stirred interest in what was once a tired debate. Prime Minister Blair (Number 10) and Chancellor Brown (Number 11) are feuding furiously over the issue, with Brown a hardened Euro-skeptic (primarily because he's actually looking at the economics of it all) and Blair motivated by political reasons (his political aspirations is assume the presidency of Europe). However at the end of the day to sacrifice the pound for the Euro, when harmonisation clearly doesn't exist (four of the five economic tests failed within the five year period) and Britain an economic giant doesn't rank with its lagging counterparts such as France and Germany however has economic affinity with the booming European economies such as the Netherlands, Ireland and Spain. Britain lacks macro economic stability and flexibility to delegate interest policy to the powers that be in Brussels (well actually the European Central bank is in Frankfurt). Despite the euro strengthening especially against the dollar (where its hitting against new highs) it just doesn't seem feasible that Britain will join the Euro this decade if ever. Chancellor Brown's concillatory gesture in merely suggesting that Britain "wasn't ready yet" only blurs somewhat the impracticalities of the single currency. Of course I support his shift to long term fixed rate mortgages since it would reduce the volatility of the British property by making homeowners less exposed to changes in the base rate and also it could allow for more liquidity in the economy if these mortgages are securitised by the banks.

Wilhelm Nolling, director of the Bundesbank, firmly stated that it would be foolish for Brtiain to join the Euro and rebutted every europhile argument. The United Kingdom's competitive advantage and trade position vis-a-vis Europe is not affected by its entry in the Eurozone, after all America and the EU are one of the largest trading partners but there is no question of adoption of a single currency. At any rate as for the argument for greater British influence in the EU the fact that Germany, the largest economy, has to compromise with Netherlands and Spain means that national sovereignty is diluted more than anything by entry. Indeed he goes on to say that the EU was born for failure and though I wouldn't agree with such an extreme position I believe that a fundamental restructuring of the French and German economies must occur for the EU to be viable. Convergence in government policies and national realigment in every aspect of the currency is what will guarantee the effectiveness of the Euro. Cast a glance across the Atlantic towards the United States and despite its federal status its regional economies (said by Tom Friedman to be 5, which I believe is the East Coast, Mid-West, California, Deep South and Manhattan) are sufficiently flexible, in synch and conform to a federal legal standard thereby allowing for the formulation of a successful monetary policy.