"Euro-MPs call for an immediate Government campaign in favour of scrapping the pound"  (27 June 2000).
"Blair sets deadline for scrapping the pound" (17 January 2000).
"Case against ditching pound is stronger than ever, says report" (6 June 2000).

The above are typical quotes, the latter two headlines, from the Daily Telegraph, which sometimes make me wonder whether I am reading a serious newspaper or someone's propaganda machine.

Such blatant bias and appeals to one's emotions may be perfectly legitimate in political commentaries, but not, I think, in plain reporting.

The pound is only under threat of being "scrapped", "ditched" or "forsaken" in the minds of those fundamentally opposed to adopting the Euro in its stead.

Nobody wants to "scrap" or "ditch" the pound, which has served us well, and to which we are all emotionally attached. But that does not mean that it may not well be in our best interests to give it up in favour of the Euro.

Joining the Euro will mean still closer ties with Europe, with Britain putting both its feet firmly on the Continent. That is what whose who determine the Daily Telegraph's anti-Euro attitude are really so opposed to, but by appealing to our emotional attachment to the pound they merely reveal the weakness of any rational arguments they may have.

There are rational arguments against us joining the Euro, of course - just as there are rational arguments for us joining.

I think that the rational arguments for us joining are overwhelming. There are also emotional, cultural and historical reasons.

The economic advantages of being part of such a large common market with a common currency will be immense. And if we join, our democratically elected politicians will at least have some influence on the future
fiscal and economic world climate, while if we do not, they will have none at all, and we will be entirely at the mercy of others' fiscal and economic decisions and interests.

Also, Britain is not just geographically a part of Europe, but historically and culturally as well. What is referred to as modern civilisation is almost entirely European, with so-called American civilisation being little more than the expansion and development of European civilisation in the Western Hemisphere. To say, as your proprietor, Conrad Black did, that "Europe is a magnificent continent which has contributed hugely to civilisation" (I resent being called an outsider, says Black, 25 March 2000), is like saying that the Greeks contributed enormously to Hellenic civilisation!

The significance of European civilisation is perhaps difficult to see and appreciate because its effects are so pervasive and dominant on all continents. The modern, science and technology dominated world arose in the countries now forming the European Union. Historically, culturally and - dare one say it? - until very recently, ethnically, we are a natural family. America and Australasia are young family members moved to other continents.

In Asia and Africa non-Europeans had European ways forced on them, or chose to adopt them to a greater or lesser extent. Millions have migrated to areas of European civilisation, attracted by its high culture and material prosperity.

Britain is closer to America and to the whole English-speaking world than any other European country, and with Britain firmly (both feet!) in Europe, it will be in the best possible position to cultivate and extend the deep, natural bonds that already exist between the Old and New Worlds.

Britain has a uniquely important role to play to play in Europe and the world, which it can only fulfil if its roots are firmly imbedded in the European soil from which it arose.

Cultivating and extending national and local identity and self-determination, while at the same time, in those areas that demand it, moving closer to European unity, are what we should be debating and working on.

I wish that the Daily Telegraphy, its proprietor and editors would recognise the historic challenge and take it up, instead of opposing it.