Lot?s of good points in quids post but the main areas I disagree with would be: Primarily, I wonder had the euro project NOT happened, if things would be significantly better as things stand. You can speculate any which way you like about how things might be better or what would be different, but the eurozone clusterf*** didn?t cause the current global financial meltdown, rather the reverse brought it?s structural problems to the fore A number of countries which benefitted form the eurozone, and who extended themselves too much would, IMO be in a worse position today, insasmuch as they wouldn?t be facing a global crisis on the back of years of growth. Secondly, it is possible to accept all warnings and criticisms of a large project beforehand and still decide that on balance it?s Still Something That Needs Doing. That doesn?t diminish the risks, but again, I?m not sure leaving things as they were was enough. I accept that some people will take that as following ideology blindly but that's not what I think Millions suffering for sure but laying all of that suffering at the feet of the eurozone alone? It?s certainly a key factor but as I say, not the only one A retrenching of countries looking out for their own interests might be forseeable, but is surely something to be argued against ? not just accepted as an outcome.