Gordon Brown's verdict on UK entry into the euro made for an amazing speech. Two-thirds of it gave the illusion that he was about to announce an early referendum, however, the last third, where he gave his Reasons for delaying a vote, was downright confusing.

In reality, what it all boils down to is the 1.75 per cent difference between the current European Central Bank (ECB) interest rate and that of the Bank of England.

The Government needs to come clean and tell the British people that this is the only obstacle to joining the eurozone. It also needs to instruct the Bank of England to begin a programme of slowly reducing UK rates until they converge -say, two years from now -to the same rate as the euro.

While the chancellor hinted that such a programme might lead to inflation in the UK economy through his talk of problems in the housing market, he understands perfectly that such an outcome in the present world economic environment is most unlikely.

His confused presentation suggests that he does not have a serious programme in mind for creating the conditions whereby his five tests are met and an early referendum is called. The short-term conditions for the UK's entry into the eurozone are ideal. The long-term national economic benefits are huge. They include:

> A strong increase in UKtotal trade and trade with Europe.

> Strong support for overseas investment in the UK.

> A permanent increase in the average hourly productivity of British workers.

> Higher average yearly income with lower average working hours.

The immediate consequences ,of saying "yes" would be:

> The current exchange rate of about 1.4 euros to the pound would stabilize on the market and we would enter the euro system close to that rate. That would give British business a level playing field in Europe and European business a level playing field here.

> The Bank of England's interest rate stands at 3.75 per cent, with the corresponding euro rate at 2 per cent. If the Bank of England was equipped with the knowledge that the UK was likely to enter

> The housing market would fall less rapidly than on the present outlook.

In short, the economic consequences of saying "yes" are all benign. National eco- nomic welfare will be higher at every point in the future than would otherwise have been the case.

The economic consequences of saying "no" will be significant, but not catastrophic. The pound sterling, squeezed on world markets between the increasingly unstable dollar and the increasingly stable euro, will not collapse. The cost in exchange commissions for travel to the Continent will continue to be outrageous but, will not prevent me from going there.

Why do I say that any scenario. other than yes means no? It is impossible for the Government to seriously claim that current conditions for entry are anything other than ideal. There is no need to wait for "reform " of the European Central Bank (ECB).

No doubt its performance can be improved, but according to my research, con- trary to City conventional wisdom the ECB already performs in practice at least as well as our own Monetary Policy Committee. There is no need to wait until the EU's celebrated Growth and Stability Pact has been modernized - it will be modernized whether the UK joins the euro or not.

The chancellor's "not yet" decision on euro entry can only be interpreted one way: he is saying that the British people, for one reason or another, will never agree to go in and that the economic goal posts will always be shifted to rationalize that unhappy choice. FW

Robin Marris is the author of the pro-euro pamphlet, Get Richer Now, published by Britain In Europe. The full text can be found at www.robinmarris.com