The euro crisis threatens the EU’s very existence. But it also provides an opportunity to broaden the crucial debate about Europe’s future – a debate that will work only in the context of a genuinely European parliamentary democracy.
BERLIN – The European Union has a long track record as a global beacon of peace, prosperity, and success in fields ranging from culture and science to sports. And yet Europe has attracted more global attention in the last two years than it did in the previous six decades, as its debt crisis – exacerbated by a sputtering economy and internal disagreements – makes headlines worldwide. After all, controversy sells. But the public debate that this controversy has fueled has not been entirely constructive.
Nearly six decades after the Treaty of Rome established the European Economic Community, the debates taking place throughout the EU continue to be conducted largely by national actors in national fora – and with a view to national interests. To make genuine progress, clearly defined European interests must replace national interests in determining the EU’s development.
Defining these interests will require a serious, honest, pan-European debate – one that is more than the sum of national debates. The discussion must be public, engaging European citizens, rather than just the small circle of policymakers that comprises the European Council.
To continue reading, register now.
As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.
With elevated global inflation likely to persist for some time, the prospect of competitive exchange-rate appreciations is looming larger. Instead of a race to the bottom in the currency market, there may be a scramble to the top – and poorer countries will likely suffer the most.
warns that a series of competitive exchange-rate appreciations would hurt poorer economies the most.
Neither the invasion of Ukraine nor the deepening cold war between the West and China came out of the blue. The world has been increasingly engaged over the past half-decade, or longer, in a struggle between two diametrically opposed systems of governance: open society and closed society.
frames the war in Ukraine as the latest battle for open-society ideals – one that implicates China as well.
Shlomo Ben-Ami
highlights the lessons countries like China and Iran are drawing from Vladimir Putin’s aggression, offers advice to Ukrainian peace negotiators, and considers the wisdom of Finland and Sweden's NATO membership.
Log in/Register
Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.
BERLIN – The European Union has a long track record as a global beacon of peace, prosperity, and success in fields ranging from culture and science to sports. And yet Europe has attracted more global attention in the last two years than it did in the previous six decades, as its debt crisis – exacerbated by a sputtering economy and internal disagreements – makes headlines worldwide. After all, controversy sells. But the public debate that this controversy has fueled has not been entirely constructive.
Nearly six decades after the Treaty of Rome established the European Economic Community, the debates taking place throughout the EU continue to be conducted largely by national actors in national fora – and with a view to national interests. To make genuine progress, clearly defined European interests must replace national interests in determining the EU’s development.
Defining these interests will require a serious, honest, pan-European debate – one that is more than the sum of national debates. The discussion must be public, engaging European citizens, rather than just the small circle of policymakers that comprises the European Council.
To continue reading, register now.
As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.
Register
orSubscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.
Already have an account? Log in