-
"Today the European single currency, which many commentators in Britain said would never happen, goes ahead without the UK."
-
Truth.
-
"It is the biggest event on the European continent since the establishment of the Common Market in 1957 and it will affect the British people whether we like it or not."
-
Abuse of truth.
Implies equal "in/out" affects. "Out" affect is minor; "In" affect is major.
-
"As many business leaders have been warning, staying out means British business losing out."
-
Abuse of truth.
"As many...warning" does not equal "means".
"Many" business leaders believe, for multiple reasons, that "going in" will lose British business much more.
-
"We will not enjoy the exchange rate and monetary stability, the price-transparency or the competitiveness we would enjoy within it."
-
Unsupportable assertion/assumptions. Arguably stupid statement.
a. There are absolutely no grounds for assuming either exchange rate or monetary stability on the part of the euro versus any other major currency in the world.
b. We will "enjoy" the benefits of visible "price-transparency" across the 11 Euro-zone countries far more from "outside" than from "within".
c. There is no shred of evidence suggesting the euro will - or could - in any way, shape or form contribute to any improvement in British competitiveness.
-
"And when British business loses out, hardworking British families lose out too."
-
Platitude.
-
"This week alone, we have seen evidence from Irish business and the Australian government that investing in Britain could be a risky business."
-
Non sequitur.
-
"These are worrying signs that, outside the euro, our status as investment gateway to Europe will erode even faster than feared."
-
Undocumented, unsupportable assertion.
-
"And it is not just in the world of business that we are beginning to feel the costs of exclusion: in politics, too, Britain is in danger of being left out and ultimately left behind."
-
Apposite assertion. But false.
Britain, to the contrary, is leaving Euroland "behind" across virtually every major economic indicator. It is precisely its political inclusion that is increasingly damaging Britain.
-
"Outside the single currency, we are outside the room when our European neighbours discuss vital matters of monetary policy."
-
True.
We also do not sit in the rooms where U.S and Japanese monetary policies are discussed.
And we do, in fact, make our "vital matters of monetary policy" discussions public, unlike the declared secrecy policy of the European Central Bank.
-
"The cost of exclusion will grow the longer Britains hesitates on the margins."
-
Unsupportable assertion, incorrect assumption.
Without a definition of what is meant by "cost of exclusion", there can be no justifiable support for the claim that it "will grow".
Britain is not "hesitating" on the margin; it is waiting for the British people to have the chance to decide; no entry, no "cost".
-
"The time is fast approaching when we will have to decide once and for all: are we in or are we out?"
-
Lie.
There is no "once and for all" decision not to be "in". The British children growing up today withthe British pound will have ample time to learn the nature of the euro and its (possible) life over business cycles, and through crises.
Euroland is not going to say "Never come in"; it seems most willing, however, to say, "Once in, neverout."
The only saving elements of the ill-fated "snake" and the ERM were those that enabled Britain to escape the artificial and politically unfeasible European "monetary dream constructs".
-
"No one can be more keenly aware of this than the Prime Minister."
-
Competitive "parity claim".
"Nothing washes whiter than ...".
If, as they are not excluded by this statement, everyone is as "keenly aware", let the referendum take place - now.
-
"He has rightly been cautious so far, but now that the effects of Britain's exclusion are beginning to be felt, it is time for the Government to come out publicly in favour of membership, and to set a target date for entry."
-
Acceptable subjective observation and subjective conclusion.
If accepted as a point of view, the acceptee will presumably be honourable enough to accept that another subjective point of view deems "cautiousness" as deriving either from fearof hearing British voices sound a "Nay!" or having no way of knowing when any set "target date" could possibly be justified.
-
"An end to uncertainty about the UK's position would be a huge boost for business and allow us to retain the confidence of international investors."
-
False premise.
A "huge boost" is an undefined absurdity on its face. Britain's retention of the confidence of international investors, if anything, has been strengthened by its retention of the pound.
-
"And we could finally begin the debate that is vital to persuading the British people that we should join."
-
Allowable hyperbole from an advocate.
Why do people need persuading when a choice is "vital"?
Or is it that this advocate does, in fact, understand that the British people already understand too well that the "euro" - in its many ramifications - is indeed "life-threatening".
By all means, let the debate begin.