WHEN the Confederation of British Industry decided to hold a major debate on monetary union this week, they choose an Irishman to make the case for Europe. Peter Sutherland was, of course, well qualified for the brief. Ironically another Irishman, Niall FitzGerald of Unilever, also pleaded Europe's case and sharply criticised the British government's attitude to Europe.
Peter Sutherland is now a player in the City - the London financial community - as chairman and managing director of the big US owned merchant bank, Goldman Sachs. He is still as passionate as ever in arguing the case for Europe and for free trade. His background leaves him uniquely qualified to speak on both subjects.
Aged 50, Mr Sutherland has been called to the bar in Dublin, London and New York, and admitted to practice before the US Supreme Court. He has been the Attorney General of Ireland, and a European Community Commissioner responsible for competition policy, social affairs, education and relations with the European Parliament.
Former chairman of Allied Irish Banks, president of the Irish Bankers' Federation, as director general of GATT, he steered the far reaching Uruguay Round to its conclusion, founded the World Trade Organisation, and became its first director general.
Last year, he took jobs at Goldman Sachs International, as well as becoming the non executive deputy chairman of BP. He is the only non Swede on the board of Ericsson; the only non American on the board of Delta Air Lines; and is back on the board of Allied Irish Banks.
Generally modest about his achievement, he is, however, obviously proud of his role in the last GATT round, and the creation of the WTO. "To my mind, we're living through the greatest revolution in economic thought that has ever happened. Since the collapse of the Berlin Wall, we've seen a situation which has radically transformed the world: 124 countries at the conclusion of the Uruguay Round signed up to a document of 22,000 pages."
For the first time ever, he adds, there is now no ideological economic war, and a functioning, global economy; those who formerly believed in import substitution as an economic philosophy have now completely bought into the idea of competition.
For the reservations currently expressed in the developed world about competing with low wage economies he deploys what is in essence a moral argument, but one with a twist of self interest: "If you're going to deny people the comparative advantage of low wages, you are denying them the opportunity to increase their prosperity, and to raise their consumption - consumption of your products."
He is also quick to stress that he is not an absolute disciple of the free market, and that he believes in measures such as the payment by the EU of structural funds to support development in states such as Ireland. On a global scale, he adds, Africa needs to be treated differently.
"The market has to be given the maximum degree of opportunity to create efficiency and innovation through competition - otherwise I think it's self destructive. But I believe that there's a far greater moral responsibility on the world as a whole to provide substantial support for infrastructure to allow the market economy to function than has been evident in recent years.
Mr Sutherland is particularly critical at the slow pace of privatisation in the Republic. The issue, he says, is still debated here along ideological lines, whereas the consensus approach advocated by, for example, Mr Peter Cassells, general secretary of the ICTU should be adopted.
Of course, he is in favour of Ireland joining EMU, even if Britain fails to join.
"I believe that our interests have been best served by the closest possible integration into the European Union," he says. "The Irish economy's growth at the moment is really fantastic. If we've a 6.7 per cent, growth this year, even diminished somewhat by the effects of the BSE issue, it proves that we can do it. But the only reason that we, have it is not because of indigenous industry, it's because of indigenous talent, which is being applied largely by external industry which is located here because we're a full member of the European Union."
Should the pound remain outside the single currency, the Republic would be in danger of being viewed as a semi detached member of the EU, he adds.
Also, the discipline that has been forced on the Irish economy by compensating for past overspending has been helped by having to aim at the Maastricht criteria.
Having a strong currency is not a recipe for increased unemployment or increased deprivation. Quite the reverse. Germany, since the last war, has consistently maintained a strong currency, which has been extremely effective," he adds.
Sterling, on the other hand, has been in decline for as long as anyone can remember, he continues. "Back in 1971 you could buy nine marks and 13.5 French francs for £1 sterling... that didn't improve the economy. So I don't believe that linking ourselves to a weakening currency is going to be a positive thing.
But in the short term, he continues, the prospect of sterling dropping rapidly in value - causing an economic shock in Ireland - is highly unlikely. Britain, if it stays out of EMU initially, will peg its currency to the euro.
Before EMU, he says, it is vitally important that the European Union agrees a strong stability pact, preferably under the Irish presidency. This would build confidence in the project by assuring post union economic discipline.
He is convinced that Britain will join EMU, late, and that the enlargement of the Union will have to wait until after EMU.
"I think that expansion is inevitable, but it's going to be a much more difficult and slower process than people recognise . . . I think it will only be really addressed after EMU."
