This conference brings together an impressive number of eminent politicians, outstanding representatives from business, public administration and academia. Notwithstanding nuances there seems to be a broad consensus that the crisis has demonstrated not only that we need more Europe, but also —having read many contributions— how this «more Europe» should be realized. Bearing in mind the atrocities of two World Wars, the separa-tion of Europe by the iron curtain, the challenge stemming from

more »

... isation and a rapidly changing world who would not support the project of a strong and prosperous Europe to guarantee peace in this sphere and to assert, if not enhance its position in the world. However, agreement on the goal does not necessarily imply agreement on the way and the tools by which this end can be achieved. While the positions presented at this conference and at many other occasions have been straightforward and firm, my position is much more cautious. I will, in fact, mainly raise a number of questions. «If the Euro fails, Europe will fail», is Chancellor Merkel's dictum. I am critical on this. The Euro, not to mention Europe is not at stake. What is at stake is the euro zone, and by that I mean the composition of the euro zone rather than the euro zone itself. A popular argument is that the crisis confronts «Europe» —or rather EMU— with two alternatives. Either political integration is strengthened with the «finalité» of political union or monetary union is doomed to collapse.