In the Times Anatole Kaletsky asks if it matters that Ken Clarke has described the euro as a failure. The point he is making is that it does not. Ken Clarke is a contender for the Tory leadership, and realizes that his support for a European federal state counts against him. The fact that he would sell his granny's skin for lampshades if it would move Britain closer into a federal union does not sit well with Tory MPs these days, much less with Tory voters. Hence the belated denunciation.

Kaletsky points out that artificial currencies like the euro depend on people's confidence in them.

Why does all this matter? Because the euro, like any other paper currency, is just an illusion; its power to command people’s lives and motivate effort depends entirely on a suspension of disbelief. People must not only think that these elaborately printed but worthless bits of paper will be exchangeable for valuable goods and services. They must also believe that their intrinsically worthless paper money will continue to be honoured for the indefinite future by the whole world. That belief, in turn, rests ultimately on the faith that the value of paper money will be upheld by a government with the right and the ability to levy taxes on a wealthy nation.

While Kaletsky does not say the euro is headed for oblivion, he clearly thinks this a possibility, with pressure from the Italians at the forefront. It is, to say the least, a challenging and interesting idea. On the other hand, one could argue that too much political capital has been invested in it for failure to be an openly admitted option. We live in exciting times; but Ken Clarke's views, coming so long after everyone else has seen how things are going, do not add to that excitement.