Every time I hear comments about the need to save the euro because it is in Britain's interests to have a stable eurozone I recall a conversation between Harold Nicolson and his wife Vita Sackville West at the time of the Sudetan crisis that led up to Munich. Nicolson had been one of the Foreign Office officials at the Versailles negotiations and felt that all of its outcome in Europe was his responsibility. The idea of anything collapsing filled him with pain.
When Vita asked him why it was such a problem for the Germans to have Sudetenland he almost wailed. If Germany takes a chunk then Poland will want a part, the Slovaks might announce that they want to be independent and Hungary will demand those areas that had been taken away from her at the Treaty of Trianon, one of a series of treaties signed in 1918 -1920. Czechoslovakia would simply cease to exist. Well, said Vita very rationally, if it is that easy for the country to fall apart what is the point of propping it up. (I am quoting from memory as my copy of the Nicolson Diaries is upstairs.) That is more or less how I feel about the euro. What is the point of propping up a currency that is quite so unstable and so badly structured? It would have been much better not to create it in the first place as a number of us said at the time and were shouted down. Now we are stuck with it. That does not mean that we, and I mean all of us across Europe, need to be stuck with it for ever.
Oh and by the way, I refuse to write about Jemima Khan's interview with Nick Clegg. (Here is Ruth Dudley Edwards's take on it. The two deserve each other but I don't see why the rest of us should suffer.