It's a funny idea that the Euro debate is just about economics. It's an even rummer idea that this debate should be led by businessmen and settled by juggling a few numbers.

The government is trying to make it all as dull as ditch water. We are given five economic tests that are as boring as they are vague. We are told that all the big questions have been settled, and now all we have to do is to wait patiently until a few economic figures have come into line and all can go ahead.

Is this the same Euro that I have been reading about on the continent? Is this the currency that will launch Europe firmly on passage to political union? Is this the self same Euro that will end wars, create a new political structure and pioneer a United States of Europe? On the continent they have not been frightened to raise the rhetorical ceiling. This is a single currency that has never been knowingly undersold by French or German leaders. They see it is as crucial to the new powerful Europe they want to create. Indeed the economic details to them are a bit of a nuisance.

The British government say they see no constitutional barrier to joining the Euro. They concede that there will be some transfer of power from the UK to the European institutions, but do not seem to mind about this. They should realise that this is a huge step which the public will want to debate. People need reasons why it is a good idea to transfer these powers.

At the moment voters hold the government responsible for levels of unemployment, inflation and general prosperity. The Bank of England may well be more independent than it was, but everyone knows that if things went wrong the Chancellor would be called to account. He could always take the powers back or issue new instructions to the Monetary Policy Committee.

How much to raise in taxes

British governments decide how much money to raise in taxes, how much to spend, how much to borrow. Interest rates are set for British conditions. Businesses and individuals who do not like the policy know how to lobby for a change.

In the world of the Euro all these things are altered. The power to set interest rates and to decide how much money should be in circulation rests with the European Central Bank, whether it is working for us or not. The UK government would come under more and more control over how much it can spend and borrow. The European Union plans new Europe wide taxes on energy, on landfill waste, on business and on savings. Writing to your MP or arguing with the Chancellor would be a waste of time.

European visionaries say that the nation state is too small and old fashioned. They want us to become an important region in a new European area, with one central European government taking more and more decisions for us. They think the old nationalisms of Europe are dangerous, whilst the new united nationalism of the EU is seen as a beneficial force in the world. They like the idea of one interest rate to fit all. They want more Europe wide taxes to meet environmental, social and business objectives. They look forward to a strong European foreign policy backed up by European forces, so we collectively have clout on the international stage.

Aiding and abetting by stealth

Why doesn't the British government set out this vision? This is the cause they are aiding and abetting by stealth. Some of their own supporters believe in it. Shouldn't we see and hear the government leading it, as their French and German opposite numbers do? Those of us who disagree are not extreme because we wish to keep a Parliamentary democracy in these islands. It does not make us far right because we are worried about how such mighty European power might be wielded. We have genuine doubts on whether the Western European peoples in general, and the British in particular, are ready to be governed by a Brussels government which we do not directly elect. Most of my worries about the European constitutional scheme are shared by many Labour supporters.

The British government keeps implying that the currency is just a business issue, and that business should lead the debate. Trying to contain the debate to commercial matters has led to many a pro-Euro U turn. First we were told that the pound was a sickly currency, always devaluing against the DM. We should join the Euro because it would be strong, a force to reckoned with.

Crucial for exporters

When the Euro sank we were told we should join it because it was weak: it would help our exporters. No-one could tell us the exchange rate for entry, which is crucial for exporters. Every new inward investment is played down, because it implies that Britain does have a future outside the Euro zone. Every foreign company deciding to invest elsewhere is taken as proof that we must join the Euro. It is a pathetic debate.

It just shows that this great argument cannot and must not be left to businessmen. Any sensible British business knows that it needs to sell things to people who want to keep the pound, and has to sell to people who want to abolish the pound. Why antagonise either group in such an emotive argument by declaring a corporate view? Few British businesses have held board meetings to settle a company position, and it would be surprising if they did given the risks.

Senior British business people

Some senior British business people have ventured themselves to support the Euro, usually without the endorsement of their Boards and shareholders. They are now feeling rather rueful that their bravery has not been backed by ministers leaping to support them. They are worried that entry at this level of the pound would be a very painful experience. Many of them are the self same business leaders who strongly recommended we join the Exchange Rate Mechanism, only to see it do untold damage. They were wrong then, and they could be wrong again.

I want to see some passion and robust argument injected into this big issue. Many who support my view do so because they feel our British democracy would be too badly damaged if we gave so many powers of government away. Those on the continent who argue for the Euro usually do so because they want to become European instead of being Belgian or Italian, Spanish or Greek. They feel it will be better, smarter, more modern to be European. They have reason to be unhappy with their own country or its system of government.

Time to decide

It is time to do justice to the European project. It is a project of economic, monetary and political union. It is time for Britain to decide whether we want to be part of a United States of Europe, or whether we wish to belong to a common market with our partners but not share a common government. Sitting on the fence is bad for us and bad for our continental colleagues. Only the government can lead the debate. It should do so now, and it should do so honestly.