Joining the euro would only lock us into that problem - not solve it.
There's a vague potential here for a token of negative JUDGEMENT. If we were "locked into that problem", the we would be incapacitated, hence a potential negative assessment can arise. Similarly, anyone advocating joining the euro might, thus, by implication be guilty of recklessness or stupidity. There is, however, nothing explicitly JUDGEMENTAL here.
Daft Government regulations and mad new taxes such as the Climate Control Levy, which penalises manufacturing by taxing energy, do not help. But when more of a product is being made than used something has to give.
There is an interesting evaluative ambiguity here. Is it possible for regulations, of themselves, to be "daft", or for taxes to be "mad"? Or is it a matter of the formulation of those regulations and taxes by some human agent which is "daft" or "mad"? This sort of ambiguity will be discussed in more detail later. For now, I'll take it that here it is the Government itself which is the most obvious target for the accusation of daftness and madness and hence classify both these intances as explicit inscribed negative Judgement.
"Penalises manufacturing". The process of "penalising" can be a perfectly legitimate exercise - "You have been penalised for driving while dangerously under the influence of alcohol." However here, of course, there is an implication of illegitimacy - the ideology informing the text and its evaluations is one in which constraints on manufacturing are generally seen as "a bad thing". Accordingly "penalising manufacturing" can be seen as a token, as an implicit negative Judgement of those who do the penalising - the government.
