Alternative answers, as suggested:

A. Un-honorably: just like that, the Euro-zone will be finished by the current crisis.

B. As previously programmed, in which case two other (sub-)alternatives might be here expected:

B1. As making the EU a State-federative structure, given that all other alternatives, here including the given integration development implies contradictory aspects in all phases.

B2. Otherwise (many scenarios might be here expected).

Once, in 1961, the Hungarian economist-professor Bela Balassa offered a model of (his famous ever-since) “five-stages”: (1) free trade area; (2) customs union; (3) common market; (4) economic union; (5) economic and monetary union.

I believe that Balassa was right at least partly, partly he succeeded to impose to this Union’s language his slang of “common market”, “economic & monetary union”, market competition etc. Moreover, one might have something of a genius by foreseeing the “monetary union” at the end of the process, as foreseen in 1961, when the international monetary order at the time was well in place and a restricted monetary union project for this region might have been out of the question. On the contrary, he was wrong on all: too much distinct phases, as his “five” ones for the process, placing the monetary union as the presumptive end of the process, and limiting to this liberal view of integration (as dominated by market, money and other related issues), whereas the today Union was also built up on its non-liberal part of the same project with issues like: budget(ing), sustained and regional development(s), structural policy and funding, social cohesion etc.

So, the debate stays open, but, yes, our times are hard – but, not only, dear colleagues and friends: the European integration times were always hard and harmful, don’t you think?!