Some literature claims that Euro membership will make us liable for other EU countries' underfunded pensions. The only "authority" is a quote from retired Commissioner Jacques Delors. Although anti-Euro, the Economist (14.12.96) disputed a Commons committee's fears that in joining, Britain might have to bail-out the liabilities of a bankrupt EU member. It felt that we had the right to veto this.

Blair since signed up in principle for 'harmonisation of social systems' and gave the EU a means to suspend our veto. The Treaty of Nice gives more away. (See Treaties of Amsterdam, Nice; 'The Euro is a political project', IoD, 2002; Resistance, Nov 2000 Treaty supplement). It is our EU membership, not the Euro that provides the pension threat.

The Times (1.4.02) reported on new proposals from "EU countries without extensive funded pension systems" infuriating the pensions Industry. Alan Rubinstein of the National Association of Pension Funds despaired:" It is hard to understand why an effective & successful UK pensions model should be potentially destroyed".

German Finance Minister Eichel warned that the single currency will fall apart without a common tax system (Times, 23.12.01). Others point out that Euro membership limits the 'balance' between public spending and borrowing, which might affect tax levels?

Although much of their pamphlet. is sound, the 'No' campaign (slogan: Europe Yes, Euro No) claims Euro membership might cause VAT on housing, rises in stamp duty and Capital Gains Tax as well as the need to subsidise continental pensions (EU treaties do not support this!)

Though signing up for an overt tax harmonisation Directive would be political suicide, the Government has already accepted the 'voluntary' EU Code of Practice. Gordon Brown has been stealthily increasing tax take towards EU levels.

Eurosceptic City adviser Andrew Smithers argued that Brown would have to raise tax levels to prepare Britain's economy for Euro entry (Evening Standard, 18.6.01)

Some would see tax rises as more acceptable if the money goes towards 'public services', but not all 'public spending' has been as voters want - e.g. £30m has been spent on Euro preparations (FT, 19.7.02).

July 2002's [Government] Spending Review hints that much has been earmarked for 'EU' military & other non-domestic use. (Other schemes might include ID cards, est. up to £3Bn, and reorganising government regionally, £2Bn).

Some see the sober Brown as a "good guy" compared with the vain Blair. He even "toughened" his "Five Tests" on joining the Euro - a judgement must be made by June 2003. His blessing for the Euro might be more credible than the PM's?

Some leading campaigners feel that Blair would not risk losing a referendum this side of the next General Election. He admits public trust is a problem. However Brown is reported to favour entry and believe the "Tests" will be passed (Sunday Telegraph, 19.5.02). NB Commentators have noticed that they are so vague and general that they can be "passed" or not, as convenient.

In January 2002, both Sweden and Denmark announced referendums on joining the Euro. Although some construe this as potentially putting Britain under pressure to join, the Swedish government has since cooled. In Britain, the ousting of arch-Europhile Sir Ken Jackson from the AEEU union has recently weakened the Euro camp.

However the European Commission plans to spend £173m of taxpayers' money on 'Europe-wide' propaganda in 'the four years from early 2003' (Telegraph, 1.7.02). The Foreign Policy Centre believes that the 'disunity' of the 'No' camp can be exploited (their "Winning the Euro Referendum" is worth reading as an exercise in propaganda).

Are they testing the temperature of the water? No need to panic - but we should not err on the side of being complacent either.