…Integration and cohesion require clear political choices which must transcend to a great degree the common currency… The euro may very well exist through the iron laws of monetary policy and the indirect enforcement by states of adopting the recommended fiscal policies – without parallel political unification or the adoption of welfare policies. The mere fact that the euro was born without these two elements shows that it can also survive without them. Political unification and social cohesion are, therefore, not dependent on the euro – they are not even dependent on one another. Europe may well engineer its political integration – which will not put emphasis on social cohesion… Hence, in the same way that it transcends the euro, political union also transcends the talk about social cohesion – being something different and much greater. Political union, as Carl Schmitt said, implies affiliated bodies which are authorized to decide who is the enemy and who is a friend to Europe, and even to engage the former in conflict. Can this happen within the EU? And if so, is there sufficient reason to do so, given that the USA administrates the West’s vital interests in a way which subjects but at the same time protects and serves the old and weary Continent? And if there is sufficient reason to do so, can there be a single political body without France and Germany – Europe’s powerhouses – decisively taking the reins of Europe? «We believe the state system functioned, and, to a very large extent, it functioned satisfactorily,» he said, adding that Greeks should be more self-sufficient. «We can, and must, have an even more efficient system… Greek society must also realize its abilities and responsibilities. We must not expect everything from other people.» Skandalidis said efforts were focusing on northeastern Attica, where there were still problems regarding electricity and water supply, while some areas were still not fully accessible.