I refer to Lawrence Zammit’s article ‘Bashing the euro again’ (October 21). The whole euro project was fraught with problems from the outset. A one-size-fits-all currency was totally inappropriate given the differing rates of growth of the EU economies. Part of the problem emanating from the financial crisis was the over-indebtedness of some eurozone economies leading to several countries being bailed out.

Further issues that cause the euro ‘bashing’ include the EU desire to encourage as many countries as possible to join, almost regardless of their financial and economic situation. Then there is the situation in Greece and the ECB’s long delay in responding to the weakness of the eurozone economy, hindered in part by the Bundesbank’s fear of loosening monetary policy.

If the growth rate has been “acceptable” why has it been necessary to have negative interest rates to stimulate growth? In addition to monetary policy governments and in particular Germany should have introduced fiscal measures to stimulate growth.

To suggest that the UK economy “has not been as robust as some analysts are making out” is inaccurate. Since the UK left the ERM growth has in most years been higher than in Europe.

Furthermore, the level of unemployment in Europe is highly unsatisfactory and more than twice the level in the UK. I agree, however, that labour, education and welfare reforms in the EU are still needed, particularly if unemployment is to be reduced. However as yet there is little evidence that these reforms are coming in the near future.

It shows the sclerotic nature of the EU when it takes 10 years to negotiate a trade deal with Canada and then is about to fail because a regional government in Belgium opposes it.

Finally, the latest challenge to the authority of the European Commission has come from Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi who said he would not change his 2017 budget plan even if it breaches EU rules on fiscal consolidation.

Is it any wonder that the sustainability of the euro is being questioned?