1. How many Currencies are there in the World?

There are at least 180 independent currencies in the world today. Outside the European Union, there is not a single sovereign country which has plans to give up its own distinctive money. On the contrary, the first thing that any country does, on gaining independence, is to establish its own currency, as we have seen recently with the break up of the former Soviet Union. Countries with their own money are rich and poor, large and small. Some are open to the world and others are closed societies. Some are democratic and others authoritarian. Some, like Canada, are adjacent to very much larger - even dominant - neighbours. Many have an economy much smaller than Britain's, which now ranks fifth in the world. To argue, against this evidence, that we have no alternative but to join the euro is plain nonsense. It flies in the face of evidence from every quarter of the globe.

There is a simple reason why every independent country wants to have its own currency. It provides huge advantages. It enables choices to be made about taxation and expenditure policies, which otherwise have to be taken elsewhere. By changing the exchange rate, it is possible for any country with its own currency to ride through disruptive economic changes, whether caused by unexpected world events, different rates of inflation, or other unforeseeable events, without growth rates going down and unemployment rising. Above all, control over your own money and your own country are inseparable. No country can be a genuine democracy within its own borders without having its own currency. Once such control is lost, real power has gone somewhere else. This is why the Single Currency is not fundamentally an economic issue. It is about democracy and self government.

There is no evidence at all that investment in Britain would go down if we stayed outside the euro. Despite the fact that we were outside the Exchange Rate Mechanism during most of its existence, the proportion of Foreign direct investment coming to Britain was much higher during this period than to other EU countries - as it still is. Nor is likely that the City would be disadvantaged. The main strength of Britain's financial services industry lies in its flexibility, its responsiveness and its ability to adapt, none of which will change whether we are in the Single Currency or outside it.

The real reason why the Single Currency was established in the first place had little to do with economics. It had everything to do with politics. There are large numbers of people in powerful positions in the European Union who want to build a United States of Europe. They want to reduce the role of national governments to those of county councils, while power is concentrated in Brussels and Frankfurt. They see the establishment of the Single Currency as far the most effective way of doing this. For historical reasons, there may be more support for integration on the continent than there is in Britain, though there is plenty of opposition too. It is clear, however, that there is no majority in Britain for developments along these lines. This is why, although the Leader of the Conservative Party has acknowledged that there are major constitutional issues connected with the Single Currency, Labour and Lib Dem leaders still present it as just being about our economic interests, brushing the democratic issues under the carpet. This puts them in a false position, as the economic arguments for the Single Currency are remarkably weak.

5. Is the Single Currency the right economic policy for the European Union?

We might have some more influence in the EU if we were in the Single Currency rather than outside it, but it is questionable how much. We would be one country out of fifteen, with probably more to join, often with interests conflicting with the others. Where votes count, we would therefore be liable to be outnumbered more than the average. But it many parts of the EU institutions, neither national nor popular votes are relevant at all. The European Central Bank, the European Court of Justice, and the Commission are all beyond the reach of effective democratic control. On the other hand, if we join the Single Currency, giving up our independent national status as euro-integration proceeds, we are likely to lose out heavily in other directions, surrendering much more influence in the world than we would gain within the EU. Where would we stand on defence and in NATO? What would happen to our role in the United Nations, the Commonwealth and the International Monetary Fund? Above all, in economic terms, where would we be if we were unable to control our own economy, particularly if competitive developments in the EU and elsewhere in the world led to us doing relatively poorly? In these circumstances are the British people really going to be expected to stand idly by, watching economic growth disappear, unemployment rise, and welfare services being slashed, accepting that nothing can be done about such developments?

There is absolutely no doubt about the answer to this question. Of course we could. There is nothing "inevitable" about our joining the euro. We can choose whether to stay out or go in, and we should do so based on a rational consideration of the pros and cons, and not on irrational and loaded propaganda slogans about "missing trains". We need to judge whether our economic prospects are likely to be better in than out. Even if, on balance, there were persuasive economic arguments for joining the Single Currency - which we do not believe is the case - would the price to be paid in giving up our national sovereignty would be one worth paying? These are the crucial issues which the European Monetary Union debate is about.