Debt help uk

Jobs, security and the euro, please: the TUC is not afraid to make the case for joining EMU - UK Trade Union Congress; European Monetary Union

At long last there are signs that the UK is waking up to the debate about the single European currency. Gordon Brown and Tony Blair have agreed on a referendum and called for a debate. I welcome that call: the TUC has been trying for months to get one going.

But it cannot just be a debate between those who want to wait to see whether the euro will go ahead before committing Britain, and those who oppose the UK's participation under any circumstances. The case for UK involvement from the start should be put.

Many people have been surprised that the TUC has been positive about the single currency. We might have liked a longer timetable. We certainly want parallel action by the EU on employment creation. We would have preferred the convergence criteria to have covered growth, employment and investment, and in any event we want the convergence criteria to be flexibly applied. But we have honestly recognised that the odds are in favour of the euro going ahead on time, and that there is little chance of changing the convergence criteria set out in the Maastricht treaty.

Why should the UK's national trade union centre be so bold - to the extent that we are well ahead of opinion in the Labour Party and in business circles?

The first and main reason is jobs.

We believe the risk to jobs is greater if the UK stays out. This is because UK interest rates would be likely to be higher than in the rest of the EU. In fact they already are because, in part at least, the government's wait-and-see policy is causing speculators to hedge their bets.

Outside the euro, sterling would be vulnerable and unstable. Inside, we would be part of the largest currency union in the world. Outside, sterling would only be stabilised if we practised a sterner monetary policy than in the euro area and so maintained our parity. Any flicker of a rumour about devaluation might well cause a surcharge equal to the devaluation to be imposed on British exports to the single market.

The stark reality is that unless we take a positive attitude towards the concept of the euro, our ability to influence events will be zero. It will be one more example of the "too little, too late" syndrome that has governed our approach to most important European decisions.

The latest error has been on the Working Time Directive, which the European Court of Justice ruled last week does apply to the UK. The UK approved it originally; changes we proposed were accommodated to make it more acceptable; a text was agreed. But the government challenged the directive's legal base in the European Court, arguing that the UK social chapter opt-out applied, even though by the time that opt-out was negotiated, talks were well advanced on working time as a health and safety matter. And now the government threatens the inter-governmental conference because it cannot get its way. These are shameful, pathetic tactics, unworthy of and demeaning to our country. They do not promote our influence; they provoke contempt.

The UK is finding it hard to adjust to its role in the world. The real choice is this: can we pursue an independent role in the world with any credibility? Or are our interests best served by being part of a bigger unit with similar-minded and geographically close countries? We cannot loosen our links with Europe, opt out of further EU provisions and still remain a full member. Either we come to terms with our membership or we leave.

To quit the EU would be a calamity. Britain would be marooned outside its main market with no influence over the decisions that can mean success or failure for whole sectors of its economy. It would be a final acceptance that we were reconciled to steady economic decline.

It is time the Eurosceptics were honest about the alternative. However wonderful the Commonwealth is as a political organisation, the empire is economically dead. There is no going back to the days of imperial preference. The EU accounts for most of our trade. And the transatlantic alternative simply does not exist.

Norway is no alternative model. They have invested their oil money. We have had ours squandered - spent on mass unemployment and tax cuts. At [pounds]1.6 billion per year, our oil income today can't provide a launch pad for growth. In the peak earnings year, 1984, at [pounds]12 billion, perhaps it could have done.

There is every chance that, whoever is in power, Britain will meet the convergence criteria for the euro. Nor should anyone doubt the likelihood that at least Germany, Benelux and France will proceed towards EMU. If EMU goes ahead with the required number of countries, the TUC believes that the balance of advantage is in joining. Britain should join with the first wave.

Yet if EMU is to be a success there will have to be greater flexibility shown in applying the convergence criteria over the whole economic cycle - as is provided for in the treaty. A single currency cannot be based on mass unemployment. The link in people's minds between EMU and unemployment must be broken. We are seeking real economic convergence in employment, productivity and competitiveness as opposed to nominal convergence in budget deficits, public debt and inflation rates. A more flexible timetable will help.

If we are positive, we can shape events. If we are negative, we will deserve no more than a spectator's role.

John Monks is general secretary of the TUC. This article is based on a speech he gave this week to the Federal Trust