'Vaster than empires and more slow'.

The business leaders' debate and supporting commentary ("Adoption panel", April) make a valuable contribution to the economic arguments for euro membership. Since 1946 there have been 57 years of peaceful coexistence in the EU, following 11 years of war in the preceding 32 years. These are compelling factors and they underline the overall advantages of European integration.

But it also has to be considered probable that a "yes" vote to the future euro referendum will result in other consequences--loss of sovereignty and national identity and loss of local economic controls--possibly leading to the creation of a federal state of Europe. Already a "draft of the treaty establishing a constitution for Europe" has been prepared and could, according to the Daily Telegraph (7 February), "if adopted and accepted, lead to the abolition of parliamentary democracy and the creation of a European superstate".

Media comments about the existing EU structure and administration do not inspire confidence. The FT (13 March) described its accounts as "shambolic" and pointed out that the chief accountant refused to sign the 2001 EU accounts. The Court of Auditors certified only 5 per cent of its spending as legal. The Daily Mail (15 February) described the EU as being an "overpriced, inefficient and anti-democratic cartel". The report of internal audit chief Jules Muis was scathing about the 2001 accounts. These were also criticised by Marta Audreaseu, chief accountant, who was later suspended. Without clarification, it seems unwise to ignore such reports.

If true, the allegations suggest the EU is top-heavy and costly, suffering from mismanagement, swamped by regulations (180,000 in 2002) and in need of radical reform. The EU will grow to 25 member states within three years and this will doubtless bring further problems.

An overhaul of the whole EU operation should precede any euro referendum. Get the house in order before moving in.

L Perryer FCMA