While the Commissions seeks a larger role in the public’s vision of the EU, the technicalities of the daily work of the Commission hardly lend to the headlines or public interest in EU affairs. Not surprisingly, bad press is the norm in the press of many member states (including France and the UK).

I’m not an avid fan of President Barroso, but if anyone from Brussels can chip in on the pound/euro debate, it is Barroso. I believe the pound will remain for the next 5-10 years at least and the same challenges facing the pound face the euro as well.

We have to remember that a number of eurozone countries have been hit by the building bubble. Take Spain and Ireland. But it is possible that their situation would have been even worse outside the euro area.

By shutting up, Barroso would have evaded renewed attacks from people with a doctrinary hatred of both the EU and the euro, but would anything be gained by self-censorship?

I found it more worrying that Barroso aired his sentiments in a situation where the United Kingdom is moving at high speed away from the convergence criteria it would have to fulfil. Was Barroso oblivious of the state of the British economy or the EU’s rules?

In addition, Labour has promised a referendum if it finds that Brown’s five criteria are met, and the Conservtives seem uncapable of constructive European engagement, so how and when could a meaningful general debate take place?

Still, there are economists, columnists and other more or less independent people who can try to look at the merits of different alternatives. For them it is never too early to comment on the situation as it evolves, because there is no firm goal-post indicating when there is enough information.

Sixteen EU member states have to date found the information earlier available sufficient for their decisions to adopt the euro. Should they have waited too?

Do they even have any PR people? Do they have any concept how to communicate a positive message?

The answer is pretty obviously No! In fact, the Barroso quote (and Kirchnre’s, and Juncker’s, et al) shows that a lot of the people at their level are hard pressed to avoid putting their foot right in it. I’d settle for them not changing feet every time they opened their mouth – actually getting them to the point where they can communicate a positive message (say, how the EU adds value in areas as diverse as healthcare and environmental protection) still seems a long way off.

However, does all of this only apply to handling British sensitivities?

As for the euro, I’m no economist and remain to be convinced. According to Eberhard Rhein:

Thanks to the Euro, members of the Euro-zone have been able to weather the international financial crisis much better than those outside the euro-zone. Hungary and UK, not to mention Iceland, have seen their currencies coming under pressure for devaluation, as they lacked the solidity and solidarity of the single currency.

- No Urgency to speed up the expansion of the Euro-zone

If we do not want to become a region of the EU no longer capable of self determination then we should not be taking centralising intergrationalist steps that will end in that scenario.

The whole idea behind this method of EU integration is that gradually we become enmeshed politically within the EU structure, so that eventually it becomes extremely difficult to separate our original nation state, which as you point our is also being dissolved internally.

We dont want to be in the EU because it is bad for Britain, or the people of Britain. Same thing.

The reason he should shut up is because by opening his stupid mouth he’s actually screwing up his chances of success in his job – not by exposing secret talks and thus some grand integrationist conspiracy (as ALL areas of politics have secret talks about major policy changes, not just when it comes to the EU), but by a) (probably) scaring off the British government from considering this option further, and b) raising the spectre of the “keep the pound” business at a time of severe economic strain.

If/when the debate over the Euro happens in the UK, it should indeed be over what is best – though not for Britain, as you say, but for the people of Britain. Likewise, when it comes to further EU integration, the needs of the state/country of Britain (or its constituent parts, if the Scottish nationalists get their way and split up the UK) are always, in my view, going to be secondary to the needs of the people of Britain.

I doubt the vast majority of the British people, several generations down the line (which is the earliest your nightmare superstate has any chance of becoming a reality) would care less about being part of a greater whole as long as they are better off. Just as I, born and bred in the old Saxon kingdom of Sussex, couldn’t care less about being part of the new state of England.

So yes, we need a debate. But sod the debate over sovereignty. What we need is a debate over what is best for the people. And that debate can not be had until we know the actual merits of the single currency versus the pound – which we still don’t.

Should Britain be part of the Euro now? No – not yet. The pound has been doing OK – if anything it has been far too strong – and its current drop in value is likely to aid the country during the coming recession. This whole economic situation, in other words, may damage the case of the Euro. And not just in Britain. If the pound and the UK does better than the Euro and the Eurozone over the coming couple of years, other EU countries may also start to worry about the wisdom of chucking all their eggs in one basket.

Ralf – you see, I don’t think we canhave a meaningful debate about the relative merits of the pound and the Euro yet. Various economists who understand the whole thing have been trying for years, and still there’s no definite theory that proves the case one way or the other. Because there can’t be yet – as a real currency, the Euro’s less than a decade old and is only now facing its first economic crisis. It’s far too early to tell whether it works.

If there is ever a debate about Britain Joining the Euro it will be framed in the area of the benefits of the Euro against the pound, and not as a mechanism for further European integration or a device for transferring more sovereignty to the EU.

The debate needs to be about Britain’s place in the EU and the desirability of becoming a non sovereign sub-state in a new nation state of Europe, and not about the various devices for achieving that goal whilst denying at the same time the goal exists.