Incoherent, Bald Eagle? Well, a couple of commas, and a new sentence to break up one that was maybe a bit long, and it seems pretty coherent to me:

"It strikes me having a common currency is just convenient. Going back to the way it always used to be. It's the wrong issue. Now, having some pillocks in government, any government, try to tell us what weights and measures to use - that's far more important. The people who just rolled over on that are now the ones who claim to be so worried about the euro. Once the single European Act was signed by Thatcher's lot, the rest is just tidying up the mess."

"The way it always used to be" - that means way back when all the fragments of Europe shared a common currency, gold, even though the coins would have different symbols printed on them.

I just don't think the currency is the right ground on which to fight centralisation. Excessive and irrelevant centralisation can be imposed even with a fragmented currency, and decentralisation could be achieved even with a common currency. Americans wouldn't put up with a lot of the centralising tendencies of the European system. It isn't the euro in itself that threatens things like Habeas Corpus.

"Subsidiarity" is supposed to be a fundamental element in how the European Union works, and that is supposed to mean decisions taken at the lowest possible level - a lot lower than the nation state for a lot of things. That's what we should be working towards achieving and developing, whichever part of Europe we are living in.

The daftest thing was the news, with tourists returning from Europe being interviewed on the subject "How easy did you find to use the new notes?" they were asked. "Well, we found it quite straightforward really."