Europe's dogmatic ruling class remains wedded to its folly In his new year predictions, Mario Monti, the Italian prime minister, followed Rajoy and Rehn in pronouncing that "we have seen the worst of the euro-area crisis." So did the euro-friendly BBC, whose economics editor, Stephanie Flanders, foretold the recovery of the single currency in 2013. Then, on Monday, the European Commission's president, José Manuel Barroso, came out with this ex cathedra pronouncement: "I think we can say that the existential threat against the euro has essentially been overcome." The basis for all these remarks seems to be the pledge by the head of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi, to buy unlimited amounts of sovereign debt, the so-called "Draghi Put." It is true that, since this intervention, bond yields in Greece and Spain have fallen sharply. But the fundamental problem remains unaltered, namely that European nations enjoy the benefits of a single currency but lack the discipline of a single state. Without such a single uncontested authority (including a single Treasury, single revenue-raising system, and the legitimacy which can only come from a homogeneous electorate), the existential threat to the euro continues to exist, and it is absurd to claim it does not. I guess that Messrs Monti, Rehn, Draghi and Rajoy are sophisticated enough to grasp this; so their obfuscation has deeper roots. The problem is that European and British leaders tend to come from rival intellectual traditions. In Britain, empiricism - most closely associated with Hume, though its roots can be traced back to William of Ockham and others - is the native inheritance. Empiricism insists that all knowledge of fact must be based on experience. Most European schools of philosophy claim the exact opposite, namely that ideas are the only things that truly exist. This school of metaphysical idealism can be traced back through Hegel (for whom history itself is the realisation of an idea) and Kant to Plato. Anglo-Saxon empiricism and the idealism found on the Continent therefore prescribe directly opposite courses of political conduct. Empiricists are trained in scepticism and caution: if you put your hand in the fire once, you will not do so again. Idealists, by contrast, are much less likely to renounce a course of conduct or set of beliefs because reality gets in the way. Empiricists, alert to the lessons of history and conscious of man's tragic imperfection, are wary. So they concentrate on specific rules - honesty, decency, accuracy, compassion to friends or care for a particular community. Idealists tend to embrace grand plans for social reconstruction or for general human salvation. They are much less worried by rule-breaking, especially if they believe that it serves the greater good. It is this underlying philosophical disposition that explains the continued reverence felt by the European political class for the euro, when empiricists would have given up long ago. Indeed, it is impossible to avoid a certain grudging respect for the imperishable optimism of the single-currency enthusiasts, their absolute refusal to be deterred by adversity and contrary evidence. This is something they have in common with the American neo-cons, unrepentant despite the twin calamities of Afghanistan and Iraq, and still urging fresh fields for armed intervention. But it should be remembered that these European leaders are doing something very cruel indeed. The euro has caused mass misery and suffering on a scale not seen in peacetime Europe since the early 1930s. In Greece, with 58 per cent youth unemployment, the hopes of an entire generation have been wiped out. Spain is facing the same predicament. I am sure Mr Barroso is a kind, liberal man. But there is a comparison between the European Commission president and the fascists and communists who turned so much of the history of 20th-century Europe into a story of pure horror. All had been captured by a great enticing idea. For Mr Barroso, it does not ultimately matter how many tens of millions lose their jobs, how many businesses are destroyed, how many communities are ruined. For him, the critical thing is that his economic system survives its "existential" crisis. This sense of priorities means that it is fair to compare him to a doctor who tries to save the cancer, but does not care about the patient. Most of us would view a monetary experiment which has led directly to the bankruptcy of entire countries, and the ruination of so many lives, as an unqualified failure. But the European political class is determined to retain its insane financial architecture, regardless of human considerations. From this side of the Channel, we must continue to muddle along in our boring, matter-of-fact way: to hope that it all works out for the best, while making prudent provision in case it does not.