The financial crisis that we are facing in the present scenario is said to be the worst since World War two or even since the great depression. We can't compare our situation to the one in 1929 but we have to be realistic that the crisis is a global issue. We are now far away from the German finance minister's declaration (Peer Steinbrück) who said last month that ''the credit crunch was an American matter''. The Former French President Valery Giscard D'estaing, in a recent interview for La tribune has said that '' it was unrealistic to find common solutions for 27 nations''. This statement can seem to be pessimistic knowing that it comes from someone who was the president of the Convention on the Future of the European Union that drafted the Treaty establishing a constitution for Europe. This example shows that the European Union is living a decisive period for it's future, some decisions have to be taken even if they are some oppositions and the only thing that we know is that those decisions can change the union.
[...] That way of doing is the complete opposite of what was said of the European Union conservative and slow process of decisions). Those two crises could be the signal of the comeback of the politics in the union. By politics I mean: involvement of representatives, negotiations, legitimacy, transparency, accountability, debates, and nowadays personalization and culture of the emergency. To give another example of the change caused by the crisis, we can ask "Who would have imagined obtaining a consensus on the need to introduce more European regulation? [...]
[...] I would like to show in this short essay that both crises reveal the difficulty faced by the European Union to take decisions, and how the crisis stresses the change in the way decisions are taken. The crisis has cruelly stressed the institutional and political difficulties of the European project. But we have to study how this difficulties can result in a positive point for Europe, for example, with the common efforts to establish a rescue plan, or with the intent to build up a new world financial and monetary architecture. [...]
[...] After the cacophony that reigned at the beginning of the crisis, a co- ordinated action can even seem to be a miracle. To quote Mr Sarkozy ''For the first time history', plans drawn up by the EU have inspired measures in other countries of the world, including the United States.” After those agreements, the European Union asked for the organization of a global summit to discuss the creation of a ''new form of capitalism, based on moral values, and the effective regulation and supervision of all corners of the financial world, including hedge funds and rating agencies''. [...]
[...] After the Georgian crisis, the European Union can forget its divisions about the war in Iraq and begin to consider its geopolitical challenges as a single and powerful entity Conclusion I would say that crises are always times of great difficulties for the unity and the stability of Europe. In these periods, each European citizen is more aware than ever of the weakness of the organization .But if Europe has to continue its existence as a united entity, it has to show the evidence of the possibility do to so. [...]
[...] According to Gordon Brown ''The world needs more transparency, integrity and systems of global governance'' He wants to see cross-border “colleges” of national supervisors to assume oversight of the 30 largest financial institutions in the world, by the end of the year, and see the IMF become an ‘early warning system' for problems looming in the world economy.'' It is really amazing to see such declarations from the leader of the United Kingdom which has always been the most reticent country as far as common European decisions are concerned. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
