Archives of closed euro sites may be found at:

europa.eu.int/comm/mediatheque/multimedia/archive/index.htm Since it was decided to launch a single currency in Europe, numerous Internet sites dealing with the euro have been set up by individuals, institutions, companies, etc. In order to keep this Internet memory of the euro alive, the Directorate General Economic and Financial Affairs of the European Commission has decided to store all these documents –whether merely informative, in favour of or against the euro currency — in an electronic archival resource, Euro-Archives, which aims to make all points of view on the euro accessible to the widest possible audience.

For more information on the euro, see the QUEST database on the European Commission web server. Here is a brief extract of Q&A to give an example of what is available:

Officially, it is Economic and Monetary Union, the long-term project for the unification of Europe which began with the Maastricht Treaty of 1992. A major milestone in that is the creation of the euro, the new single currency for Europe, on 1 January 1999, from the fixing of conversion rates of eleven national currencies. EMU is also used more loosely to mean European Monetary Union. For more information, contact your national euro information body or see the EU site europa.eu.int/euro/

What are the advantages and disadvantages of EMU?

The pros and cons of EMU were summarised in a post (7-Sep-2000) to the euro2002 discussion list by Jay Levin of Wayne State University, reproduced here with his permission. It deals with the economic aspects of whether the UK should join EMU .

What are the benefits and costs to a country of joining a monetary union? With respect to the ECONOMIC benefits and costs, the best way to examine this question is with a framework developed by Robert Mundell, an economist at Columbia University, who devised the concept of an Optimum Currency Area.

This idea helped Mundell win the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1999, along with $950,000, and I think it’s worth paying attention to. Without going into all of the details, I’ll simply list the economic benefits and costs for any country contemplating joining the euro-zone.

Benefits:

1. Elimination of foreign exchange transactions costs with other euro-zone countries.

2. Elimination of exchange rate uncertainty of the country’s currency against the euro, which should improve the quality of information on which consumers and firms base their decisions.

3. Greater price transparency when all goods are priced in euros may lead to increased competition in the Single Market.

4. Participation in integrated market-based European financial markets as the result of the elimination of currency risk. Leads to more efficient European finance.

5. If the ECB keeps inflation in check, the country would be joining a low inflation area, which contributes to economic efficiency and credibility of the central bank. (Since inflation is not currently a problem in the UK, this would not be a current benefit in this case. Also, the Bank of England follows an inflation targeting policy anyway.)

Costs:

1. The country can no longer conduct monetary policy on its own behalf.

2. The country may have to substantially limit its use of expansionary fiscal policy under the Stability and Growth Pact.

3. The exchange rate is no longer available to cushion asymmetric shocks. For example, a decline in the demand for the country’s exports, which is specific to the country, would lead to an automatic depreciation of the currency if the exchange rate is floating. This would cushion the effect on the economy. On the other hand, if the country is part of the euro-zone, there is no longer a British pound, for example, to depreciate against other currencies, so the cushioning mechanism would be lost. Whether the economic benefits exceed the costs depend on four factors:

1. The amount of trade integration with the other countries in the euro-zone.

2. The amount of labor mobility with the other countries in the euro-zone.

3. The amount of asymmetric shocks that hit the country.

4. The flexibility of wages within the country.

The bottom line is that it is impossible to compute the economic benefits and costs of joining a monetary union with any degree of precision based on the current state of knowledge. So from a strictly economic point of view, I don’t believe anyone can legitimately say whether or not the UK should adopt the euro.

That leaves open the question of whether the UK would reap any net POLITICAL gains from adopting the euro. Since I am not a political scientist, I can answer this question even less sensibly. However, some highly respected economists have made some interesting remarks about the politics of EMU, and I would think these might provide some insight into the question, Should the UK adopt the euro?. I will take the liberty of quoting a few:

1. Politically, monetary unification has been seen as a practical and symbolic step toward the development of a capacity to formulate social and foreign policies at the European level. (Eichengreen & Frieden)

2. Political leaders in Europe see EMU as a way to further the political agenda of a federalist European political union, which will have a common foreign and military policy and a much more centralized determination of what are currently nationally determined economic and social policies. (Feldstein)

3. European economic integration has always been a politically motivated enterprise. If EMU succeeds on its economics, the political vision that gave birth to the project will be well served. (Obstfeld)

4. The euro is foremost a political project that is deeply entangled in European history. (Chabot)

5. If EMU succeeds, it will promote European political as well as economic integration, fostering peace and prosperity in a region that could some day include Eastern Europe. If EMU fails, however, its driving force, the goal of European political unification, will be set back. (Krugman & Obstfeld)

6. EMU should be understood as a bargain between Germany and France, where France wants monetary integration to recapture some control over the continent’s monetary policy [which it gave up to Germany under EMS], while Germany wants political integration in order to acquire a foreign policy role in the context of an EU foreign policy. (Eichengreen)

Take your pick. If you’re a political conservative, you will probably side with Feldstein and view adopting the euro with alarm. I suppose that others might feel that the UK would be left behind politically and lose its voice in European affairs if it doesn’t adopt the euro. Perhaps others can lend additional insight into this crucial question.

Jay H. Levin Department of Economics Wayne State University Detroit, MI 48202 U.S.A.

What is the euro?

The euro is the name of the new currency. It is not called the euro-dollar. (A eurodollar is a US dollar held in Europe, see the glossary ). The rules for its spelling, plural forms, pronunciation, gender, position of the symbol before or after the amount, use of the comma or the point for the decimal separator, and all similar usage issues, follow the rules of the language and the usages of currency notation of the country in which it is used. Like many other EU rules, it is a matter for subsidiarity — such things are decided at the national level.

(euro plurals: euros, euroa, eurorna, euroene, cent/centime/, eurocentime, centimo, Sentti, centesimo, eurocent, cкntimos, centen, eurocenten, centene)

European Commission English Translation Service Style Guide:

Paragraph 12.12 states:

The euro. Like ‘pound’, ‘dollar’ or any other currency name, the word ‘euro’ is normally written in lower case with no initial capital.

Guidelines on the use of the euro, issued via the Secretariat-General, state that the plurals of both ‘euro’ and ‘cent’ are to be written without ‘s’ in English. Do this when amending or referring to legal texts that themselves observe this rule. Elsewhere, and especially in documents intended for the general public, use the natural plural with ‘s’ for both terms.

In tables and documents where monetary amounts figure largely, make maximum use of the abbreviation EUR (before the amount) or the Ђ symbol (closed up to the figure).

Para 12.10: The currency abbreviation precedes the amount and takes a space: FRF 2 400; EUR 3 500; EUR 2 billion When used, currency symbols are closed up: $100; Ј78; Ђ120

evertype.com Michael Everson’s campaign for euros rather than euro.

BBC NewsOnLine Special Report May 1, 1998 — It’s a boy! The euro gets a gender

See the glossary for definitions of some euro-related terminology.

The European Commission page on which the conversion rates were published on 31 December 1998 is. europa.eu.int/eurobirth

Tipos de conversiуn del euro / Omregningskurser for euroen / Euro umrechnungskurse / Euro conversion rates / Taux de conversion de l’euro / Tassi di conversione dell’euro / Euro omrekeningskoersen / Taxas de conversгo do euro / Euron muuntokurssit / Konverteringskurser fцr euron. See the table below.

Here is the currency symbol table for currencies around Europe, including some non-EU states. Figures in bold are the fixed euro conversion rates (Greece joined 1.1.2001). Other rates are for approximate information only, current as of December 2001. (As of Dec 2001 I EUR = USD 0.89 )

European Union (EU) countries in the eurozone