Sir, - The "No to the Euro" letter in last week's issue is part of the tennis match between the two views and is not helpful in sorting out ideas on the issues involved. The question is whether or not we would have a better standard of living overall if we adopted the Euro.

From the point of view of the manufacturer who buys all components from abroad, it is clear that once foreign suppliers lose their exchange rate advantage costs would go up. On the other hand, Nissan and its many UK suppliers are currently disadvantaged by the high value of the pound and the long-term view on where to manufacture does hold consequences for jobs.

As a trading nation we should look carefully at the pluses and minuses of being in the Euro. Daimler-Chrysler calculates the cost of being in the Euro would be covered by the gains within two years and from then on would be a permanent bonus. Marks & Spencer has completed a similar study with same answer. The current calculation for the cost of currency conversion linked to European trade is 1pc of the total. This represents more than £200m on the figures for 2000. More than that, the savings bring greater income and give better job security.

Four of the chancellor's targets have been and continue to be met with ease, contrary to the statement in the letter. The average consumer price inflation over the previous year must not exceed by more than 1.5 percentage points that of the three lowest inflation countries. The test is passed with ease since the worst case over the past few years has been 0.9 percentage points. Government debt must not exceed 60pc of gross domestic product. Test passed with ease debt is about 40pc of GDP. Government deficit must not exceed 3pc of GDP. Passed with ease through budget surpluses. Bond yield must not exceed by more 2pc that of the three lowest inflation currencies. The yield the lowest three inflation countries is 5.4pc. Passed again with 5.1pc.

Exchange rate stability. This is a problem for the UK and several other countries, most notably Italy where currency speculators have brought about changes in relative values to such an extent the criteria has been hard to meet. This has led to ideas that this criteria may be dropped to counter the effects of currency speculation.

Going into the Euro is a new situation that does not carry the baggage of the old. That means that we would all have to make some re-adjustments which will only be worth doing if the overall benefits are going to be greater than the current situation. Working on the figures as they appear and without regard to sentiment, the case is being made more and more strongly that we should adopt the Euro

BILL MOREHEAD

(Britain in Europe Movement)

Brompton Walk,

Darlington.

No to Euro slant

Sir, - Having carefully scanned the list of the 18 esteemed gentlemen saying NO to EURO (D&S, Aug.24), few of them, if any, actually export anything to the EU.

Large North Eastern manufacturers, such as Nissan, have a different view, since their future in the North-East depends on their EU markets. Their departure would result in catastrophic job-losses. For the sake of an objective debate, above party politics, let us not forget that adopting the Euro would result in substantially lower UK interest rates and the strength of the pound would no longer be a headache to UK exporters. The slanted and selective information dished out by Mr Elliott et al, sitting on top of a 100mm column of names, does not provide a balanced view of this important issue.

OLLY ANDRLA

Press Officer

Vale of York Labour Party

Thirsk.

Defra and Euro

Sir, - As a regular reader and sometime contributor to your letters page, I feel that I must make some comments on the letters published in today's edition.

Foot-and-mouth. - Reading the letter from Russell Simpson, one can only feel sympathy for the landlord of the Queen Catherine on having to make a decision whilst under pressure from local farmers. (You let Defra in and you lose our trade?) Nothing to do with supporting farmers.

P Gold's letter from Thirsk starts off with an emotive plea against animal genocide, when the policy implemented by Defra was supported all the way through by the NFU as being the only way to stop the spread of foot-and-mouth. The farmers must accept a percentage of blame for the spreading of foot-and-mouth, if not, who is to blame?

No to the Euro. - The letter from the boardrooms of the North-East highlights the good things about our economy, which have nothing to do with joining the Euro. How will these men feel if the Japanese close their car plants in the area? The letter protests that it is not political, but makes numerous references to the government and is blatantly politically biased in favour of keeping the pound. Joining the Euro does not mean giving up control of our economy. We change our money into the currency of the country we are visiting without any complaints, so let's not put scare stories into the public arena with the hope of increasing your small numbers of support.

Let us have a good open and honest debate on a subject of such importance.

JOHN P WEEDON

Carperby,

Leyburn.

Grim reminder

Sir, - The photographs of the aftermath of the explosion of the ammunition train at Catterick Bridge railway station (D&S Past Times, Aug 10) were a grim reminder of the tragic event. I was serving with the Royal Corps of Signals at the time and witnessed, and of course heard, the explosion from a vantage point in the camp.

I had previously experienced the air raids in both London and Hull (and a very minor one in my hometown Bradford). None of the latter I could remember had produced such a large explosion. A ball of fire and smoke shot high into the air.

There was aerial activity at the time. Heavily laden bombers were gaining height before going on a mission. We thought initially it was one of the aircraft exploding, until it rapidly became apparent the occurrence was ground-based. Many years afterwards I read that the possible cause was a spark from a nearby builder's tar heating boiler.

DENNIS GOODE

Dunsmore Close

Maltby,

Middlesbrough.