All that you say is correct. However, I would like to mention that motivation for the euro was at least as much economic as political. Many companies in Europe

All that you say is correct. However, I would like to mention that motivation for the euro was at least as much economic as political. Many companies in Europe have means of production that span several countries. Having a stable currency across those countries decreases their uncertainty which certainly increases their willingness to invest. Vaclav Klaus is correct in his diagnosis of the problems with a single currency - this is nothing new - Jane Jacobs described everything he said in his article more than 30 years ago in her book "Cities and the wealth of nations". He is incorrect in that he ignores the motivations behind the euro. Americans, of which I'm one, should try to imagine a world in which a company in New York that has a supplier in New Jersey would have to hedge their future payments to account for potential currency fluctuations. While the cost of currency hedging has decreased in the past twenty years, it is still a significant business driver. Not one of my European friends and colleagues believes that the end of the Euro would be a good thing. On the other hand, I'm not so sure that currency revaluation always represents a sleight-of-hand. It can and often does, but at it's best it forms an immediate positive feedback that the balance of accounts between two countries with different currencies have become out of line. What the world needs is a feedback mechanism as immediate and accurate as currency fluctuation that doesn't impose the kind of economic risk to individual economic entities within those countries - plus, what you said above about politicians and voters. Sorry, again tl;dr.