The
is considered as the first bullet in the history of the United States of America is one in which it shows a snake cut into pieces under the title " Join, or die ." Posted by none other than Benjamin Franklin in his Pennsylvania Gazette in 1754, drawing has been used for various reasons since its first appearance, with its original intention of stirring up the American colonies to unite against the French and Indians. Over time, the bullet has been with the unit calls to U.S. federal, confederal against the vagaries of advocating for greater differentiation between its states. The current European crisis becomes relevant application to our old continent.
Europe is not a nation but a cluster of nations, said the famous Salvador de Madariaga-European. That is the drama of Europe, which so preoccupied the founding father Altiero Spinelli: a continent that needs to be united to be competitive in the global world, but that does not have a collective identity strong enough to form a government under the people ( democracy). The current crisis is a litmus test for Europe: if the Greeks and English are able to accept reforms induced by Germanic Iron Lady, the idea of \u200b\u200ba European president elected by universal suffrage will be a little less impossible.
The Anglo-Saxon media commentators as James Surowiecki or Niall Ferguson is clear: Spain and Greece are not much worse than California or Michigan. But the latter states within a federation that makes financial transfers where necessary, and have a Federal Reserve can buy public debt, unlike the European Central Bank, gripped by a clause in the Treaty of Lisbon which will help to explicitly prevent a member state.
The European project has always been indirect, cold and gray. As if Monnet and Schuman knew that European unity ever be achieved with calls to popular involvement (Spinelli model), but co-opted by national elites and the famous functional integration (slow economic sector) rather than a clear division of powers in a constitution legible.
Complexity is the inevitable consequence of the diversity is generally thought. The European ideal defends the compatibility of the small (of the nearly three hundred regions or nations of Europe) with large (a common market of 500 million people, the largest in the world). Is it possible to maintain that balance?
In a recent and very interesting book ( Euro-clash: The EU, European identity, and the future of Europe, Oxford, 2008), sociologist Neil Fligstein defends the idea that Europe is divided between a new and emerging European purely class (business woman who travels almost daily on the Eurostar and has made three security numbers Social as many European countries, or Erasmus student who is working in the country of destination) and another class Europeans (perhaps the majority) who only see their life within the confines of the old nation-state, which are asking for protection in the midst of financial turmoil that plagues us. The first would be prepared for a European market in which a Dutchman I can snatch a university teaching position, because they know they can do the same in Rotterdam. The latter are in the new Europe a futile illusion, the Trojan horse of the dreaded neo-liberalism, or a replay of Hitler or Napoleon's conquests in command of a faceless bureaucracy.
Are Europeans prepared to revive the old dream of the United States of Europe? Or prefer a non-elected technocracy review the accounts of the states before they ratify them in their parliaments, in order to maintain administrative fiction that nothing has changed? The debate between the two Europes (the dynamic that calls for freedom and mobility against the reactionary, asking for protection and safety) fascinates Americans (Fligstein is a professor at California-Berkeley ), but seems to elude the Europeans themselves. How long?
# # #
0 comments:
Post a Comment