Economic theorists, analysts, experts and commentators have all floated the idea of whether it would be beneficial or not for a country to leave the eurozone.

The question has been mulled over, debated, discussed, shot down, advocated and torn to shreds. The consensus is that it is more or less tantamount to economic suicide to even contemplate leaving the eurozone, even in the case of government default. Though in theory, in the old world (pre euro), it had worked.

But now, analysts, keen to keep up with the doom-mongers are moving onto the question of how a country might actually go about leaving the euro. The actual discussion really exposes Europe’s (and indeed the world’s) morbid fascination in wallowing in our own self inflicted woes.

Rather than look forward with optimism, it seems that pessimism is the order of the day. Of course it is. First of all, when one looks at the monumental tasks which are facing us, in terms of getting our finances sorted out, then there is bound to be a degree of pessimism. We are looking at a potential three western, modern European economies going bust.

Though Greece was bailed out, one cannot really deny that she is absolutely bankrupt, on the rocks. Ireland steadfastly claimed that she had the cash to back up her plans. She did not. Dublin is seeking an €83bn bailout. In real terms, the Irish economy has also gone bust. Next is Portugal – she will also seek a bailout.

Then there’s Italy, Spain, France… the list goes on and on. The second reason why pessimism prevails is because it benefits the very ambiguously termed ‘markets’. It is hard to describe how ‘markets’ work.

To fuel our ever increasingly materialistic culture, our governments get us into debt by spending more than we ‘earn’. This is not a point which should be bandied about politically. It is fact. Each and every nation in the world does it, has almost always done it and will, in all likelihood, always do it… at least under a capitalist model.

To finance that shortfall, governments sell bonds – promises of payment in the future. Those bonds (I.O.Us) then change hands all over the world. They go from continent to continent, government to government, private investor to punter. From bonds they become mortgages, from mortgages they become loans; and on; and on.

All the while, the credit ratings agencies act as ‘referees’. These agencies give the thumbs up, or down, to confidence in the ability a country has to pay out the bonds (debts), once the time is up.

But at the same time, these agencies have their own interests, being investors in their own rights. In other words, it’s simple. It all lies in their hands. While the agencies do act according to market forces, it is impossible for them to be both market regulator and player at the same time. The lines are, once again, far too blurred.

Perhaps the best idea would be for the EU to set up its own credit ratings agency. After all, if one were to look at it from a certain point of view, under the new rules expected to be agreed on soon in Brussels, the European Commission will be doing just that.

Leaving the euro is not only the wrong thing do morally, but it would also mean economic suicide. In addition to this, it would be practically impossible. The haemorage of funds from nations would be catastrophic. New currencies would be worthless – there are no baskets of currencies any more. No. It would be madness.