> Click HERE to read an article from AEON!
> Click HERE for the translation!
Showing posts with label HISTORY. Show all posts
Showing posts with label HISTORY. Show all posts
Monday, 5 February 2018
Wednesday, 24 January 2018
Thursday, 7 December 2017
French "rockeur" legend Johnny Hallyday dies...
Fats Domino, Johnny Halliday, Ray Sugar Robinson (1962)
Click HERE to read an article from The Guardian!
Questions on the article from The Guardian:
- What is “the tragedy of Johnny Hallyday”?
- Why should he “have sung Piaf, not Presley”?
- What does “purveyor of pastiche” mean?
- Why was he “mercilessly teased by French satirists and despised by the many tribes of French intellectuals, both of the right and the left”?
- Are there aspects of American culture that French intellectuals do admire (why)?
- Do you agree he was “one of the most remarkable of all rock stars”?
- In what way is he “a symbol of French cultural resistance”?
- Do you, like De Gaulle, condemn him as a fifth columnist for “American cultural imperialism”?
- Do you agree “France is a grown-up country that does not have to rely on US missiles or US pop stars”?
- Why is France so afraid of cultural colonisation by the US do you think?
Sunday, 13 November 2016
The USA and the world, now and tomorrow...
To watch the TED talk by Ian Bremmer "How the US should use its superpower status...", click HERE!
Ian Bremmer, global research professor at New York University, teaches classes in the field of political risk. "G-Zero" (i.e. no G20 or G7) is a term used by Bremmer, and widely accepted by policymakers, for a global power vacuum in which no country is willing and able to set the international agenda...
Are we prepared to be a model country, one which the world will emulate? We need to change first! Another crisis (global financial crisis or economic depression or terrorist attack) could force us to change... We, individually, need to force our leaders to deal with the inequality in our country; this is urgent.
(Click HERE to watch a September 2018 interview of Prof. Bremmer!)
Ian Bremmer, global research professor at New York University, teaches classes in the field of political risk. "G-Zero" (i.e. no G20 or G7) is a term used by Bremmer, and widely accepted by policymakers, for a global power vacuum in which no country is willing and able to set the international agenda...
Summary of the TED talk by Ian
Bremmer:
Is the USA, “large and in charge”, still in fact the world’s “n°1”? We
are increasingly in a “driverless world” (i.e. the USA no longer “drives” the
world). Americanization and globalization were, up to now, the same thing (WTO,
IMF, World Bank, Bretton Woods Accord, etc., were “American” institutions).
US view: President Obama (USA) in charge of the world. The reality: US
now has little impact on G20; Putin, Xi Jinping, Angela Merkel, etc. are now “calling
the shots”. The problem is it's a G-Zero world that we now live in, i.e. a
world order where there is no single country or alliance that can meet the
challenges of global leadership.
Globalization is continuing. Goods and services and people and capital are moving across borders faster and
faster than ever before, but Americanisation is not.
What are the implications of the end of Americanisation for the whole
world, and what do we think about it in the United States?
Why are we in this situation? It’s because:
> the USA spent two trillion dollars on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
that failed and we don't want to get involved in (expensive) wars anymore;
> large numbers of middle and working class Americans feel they've
not benefited from globalization, so they are rejecting it;
> we don't need OPEC or the Middle East because we now produce most
of our oil in the United States.
Americans don't want to be the global sheriff for security or the
architect of global trade any more. They don't even want to be the cheerleader
of global values.
Europe: transatlantic
relationship is now weaker than it has ever been (crises: Brexit, French vs
Russians, Germans vs Turks, Brits vs Chinese, etc.).
China: wants leadership only in economic sphere, hence competition with US.
Russia: wants more leadership (cf. Ukraine, Baltic States, Middle East),
hence competition with USA.
Middle East: now very unstable because US and allies no longer provide military
security, oil revenue has gone down, and populations are rebelling against
corrupt despots (hence failed states, terrorism, refugees, etc.). Will entire
Middle East fall apart? No, Kurds, Iraq, Israel, Iran will do well.
Russia: antagonized by US and Europe expanding NATO right up to its
borders; also threat from China which is going to dominate (economically) every
country around Russia.
Asia: political stability in most important economies (Modi in India, Abe
in Japan, Xi Jinping in China). Problems: South China Sea, Kim Jong Un. But most
leaders want to avoid xenophobia and escalation of geopolitical and
cross-border tensions because they want long-term economic stability and
growth.
Europe: suffering from refugee crisis (> Brexit, populism across all
of European states). In G-Zero world, Europe will get smaller (because Eastern
Europe and Turkey are too different from “core Europe” and NATO will be weaker
without US dominance). Germany and France and others will still function, but peripheral
countries (Greece, Turkey, others) will not.
Latin America: populism and opposition to USA > economic downturn. Hope
for Argentina, Cuba, Venezuela, Brazil? Not for Mexico (cf. Trump)…
Africa: in G-Zero world > extreme
segregation between winners and losers across Africa: the few countries that
are well-governed, urbanized, with entrepreneurship and women in workforce vs other
countries (with extreme climate, radicalism, poor governance, border wars,
forced migration, etc.).
United States: elections have highlighted loathing of Washington (the “establishment”),
the media and globalization. Americans now have to compete with the rest of the
world (it can easily). Protectionism and isolationism are not good options.
NAFTA is a good thing for USA. Terrorism and refugees are not as big a problem for
USA as for Europe or Middle East.
USA no longer wants to be global cop, architect of global trade, cheerleader
of global values. But, in G-Zero world, USA should lead by example. Clinton wants
to go back to the '90s (i.e. US dominating the world), Trump back to the '30s (i.e.
US rejecting the world). But, in G-Zero world, though the US will not be in economic decline, America will
no longer be able or willing to control the world.
Are we prepared to be a model country, one which the world will emulate? We need to change first! Another crisis (global financial crisis or economic depression or terrorist attack) could force us to change... We, individually, need to force our leaders to deal with the inequality in our country; this is urgent.
(Click HERE to watch a September 2018 interview of Prof. Bremmer!)
Wednesday, 24 August 2016
Monday, 9 March 2015
Friday, 13 February 2015
Wednesday, 10 December 2014
Monday, 24 November 2014
Why did the Cold War come to an end?
Document 1: Cartoon by Nicholas Garland published in the Daily Telegraph
in January 1986
Document 2: Extract of a speech given by Ronald Reagan in June 1987 in
Berlin
“And now the Soviets
themselves may, in a limited way, be coming to understand the importance of
freedom. We hear much from Moscow about a new policy of reform and openness.
Some political prisoners have been released. Certain foreign news broadcasts
are no longer being jammed. Some economic enterprises have been permitted to
operate with greater freedom from state control.
Are these
the beginnings of profound changes in the Soviet state? Or are they token
gestures, intended to raise false hopes in the West, or to strengthen the
Soviet system without changing it? We welcome change and openness; for we
believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human
liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the
Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically
the cause of freedom and peace."
Friday, 7 November 2014
November 9th, 1989: the fall of the Berlin Wall
Building the "Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart" in August 1961
On the 9th of November 1989, the Berlin Wall, that terrible symbol of the Cold War,
finally fell after having divided the city for 28 years. Family members and
friends who hadn’t seen each other in decades were finally reunited.
It was a momentous and joyous event, marking the beginning of the end of
a divided Germany and of a divided Europe. The Soviet Union collapsed two years
later...
After Germany’s unconditional surrender at the end of the Second World
War, control of the country was divided between the Allies: Britain, America
and France took over the west of Germany and the Soviet Union controlled the east of Germany. By 1949
Germany had become two separate countries.
Berlin was also divided between the former Allies (into four Sectors, cf. the map below) and it quickly became the focal point of the Cold War.
Hostilities between the ideologically-opposed superpowers, the USA and the USSR, grew.
Berlin was also divided between the former Allies (into four Sectors, cf. the map below) and it quickly became the focal point of the Cold War.
Hostilities between the ideologically-opposed superpowers, the USA and the USSR, grew.
Map of 1961 showing the wall around West Berlin
Life in the Soviet-controlled East was bleak. Many became disillusioned with communism and the increasingly oppressive social and economic
conditions. Large numbers of people began defecting to the West.
The Berlin "Wall of shame", 1960s
In 1961, the East German authorities erected the Wall ("die Mauer") around West Berlin, soon fortified with huge slabs of concrete and 300 control points, mostly
to prevent the young, well-educated citizens of East Germany from fleeing to the “Free world” (via West Berlin’s airport).
By the end of the 1980s, demands for freedom were growing across the ‘Eastern Bloc’. There was a series of largely peaceful revolutions in Eastern Europe. Within months of the Wall’s checkpoints being opened, German reunification was complete.
The end of Communism in Europe cannot of course be explained by or reduced to just one event; the fall of the Wall remains however very important in many people’s lives because it symbolised
the liberation of millions and an end to the constant threat of world-wide nuclear
war.
The fall of the Wall showed too that change can happen quickly and involve the people directly (i.e. through "people power"); it has
inspired people across the world, like the pro-democracy protesters
in Hong Kong recently.
It is important, however, to keep the significance of that event in perspective... China and Russia, among other countries, still run authoritarian regimes, so to think that more freedom and more democracy can be won through a peaceful and joyous resolution like in Berlin 25 years ago seems somewhat naïve…
It is important, however, to keep the significance of that event in perspective... China and Russia, among other countries, still run authoritarian regimes, so to think that more freedom and more democracy can be won through a peaceful and joyous resolution like in Berlin 25 years ago seems somewhat naïve…
"Die Mauer", November 1989
Question:
The fall of the Berlin Wall is often seen as proof of the "power of the powerless" (i.e. of the people) to bring about important social and political change... Do you think it is up to the people themselves to determine what is best for them (think of the separatist mouvements in Scotland, Catalonia, or Ukraine, and the pro-democracy mouvement in Hong-Kong)?
The fall of the Berlin Wall is often seen as proof of the "power of the powerless" (i.e. of the people) to bring about important social and political change... Do you think it is up to the people themselves to determine what is best for them (think of the separatist mouvements in Scotland, Catalonia, or Ukraine, and the pro-democracy mouvement in Hong-Kong)?
Saturday, 1 November 2014
Is the USA still the world's most powerful country?
Cartoon by Cameron Cardow
Criteria to measure US influence in the world:
Diplomatic relations
Perception of the USA by other
countries
Research and education
Wealth
Foreign trade
Military strength
Nuclear weapons
In which parts of the
world are US troops deployed? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Current_US_military_deployments.png
Tuesday, 7 October 2014
Why did an iron curtain descend across the Continent after WWII?
Document 1: extract of a speech given
by Winston Churchill in 1946
From what I have seen of our Russian
friends and Allies during the war, I am convinced that there is nothing they
admire so much as strength, and there is nothing for which they have less
respect than for weakness, especially military weakness. For that reason the
old doctrine of a balance of power is unsound. We cannot afford, if we can help
it, to work on narrow margins, offering temptations to a trial of strength. If
the Western Democracies stand together in strict adherence to the principles of
the United Nations Charter, their influence for furthering those principles
will be immense and no one is likely to molest them. If however they become
divided or falter in their duty and if these all-important years are allowed to
slip away then indeed catastrophe may overwhelm us all.
Document 2: 1947 political cartoon by Jay Darling
Sunday, 28 September 2014
Saturday, 9 August 2014
Tony Blair and Europe
Tony Blair, British Labour Prime Minister from 1997 to 2007
As British Prime Minister (1997-2007) Tony Blair was a Europhile. He felt his mission was to reinforce EU institutions and decisions. The UK took part actively in the work of the Commission and in Brussels debates and votes during his time. He saw the EU as a means of promoting British interests too.
"I believe in Europe as a political project. I believe in Europe with a strong and caring social dimension. I would never accept a Europe that was simply an economic market." (2005)
Blair was a firm believer in the free market (though leader of the Labour Party). He wanted to promote the single market, and a more flexible labor market. The gas and electricity industries as well as the financial markets needed to be liberalized.
During the 1998 UK Presidency of the EU, Blair said that he wanted Britain to join the eurozone.
Tony Blair wanted reform of the CAP, which he considered too expensive; the EU should instead invest more in dynamic and innovative sectors of the economy. British contributions to the EU Development Budget for new member countries increased (and effectively reduced the UK rebate by 20% to the satisfaction of European partners).
During the 1998 UK Presidency of the EU, Blair said that he wanted Britain to join the eurozone.
Tony Blair wanted reform of the CAP, which he considered too expensive; the EU should instead invest more in dynamic and innovative sectors of the economy. British contributions to the EU Development Budget for new member countries increased (and effectively reduced the UK rebate by 20% to the satisfaction of European partners).
His vision of Europe was one which promoted solidarity among nations in order to preserve peace, prosperity and democracy. No individual country, he thought, however powerful, can alone defend democratic values. Tony Blair wanted to promote a strong Europe.
He also wanted the EU to fight organized crime and illegal immigration.
He also wanted the EU to fight organized crime and illegal immigration.
Tony Blair did not approve of Margaret Thatcher’s attitude to Europe nor of the fact that John Major had obtained concessions for the UK in the Maastricht Treaty (on issues such as the single currency, employment, and defence). He signed the Social Chapter of the Maastricht Treaty (which included the minimum wage and the 48-hour working week). He also signed the European Convention on Human Rights (allowing citizens to defend their rights at the European Court of Human Rights).
The European Constitution, which included the proposal for a full-time president of the European Council and a common defence policy, was rejected in referendums in France and in the Netherlands in Spring 2005... In June of the same year, in an address to the Members of the European Parliament, Tony Blair said: "This is a union of values, of solidarity between nations and people, of not just a common market in which we trade but a common political space in which we live as citizens."
For him, the EU had to reform so as to deal with globalization: "We should be leading the way in Europe, shaping the direction of Europe, participating in debates and working in partnership with the others for a more prosperous economy for our people." Modernizing the EU was necessary in order for European voters to believe in it once more.
Blair today remains active in European affairs and is a probable candidate for the position of President of the European Council.
Monday, 4 August 2014
John Major and Europe
Sir John Major, British Conservative Prime Minister
from 1990 to
1997
In a speech he gave a few months before the Maastricht summit, John Major said: "It is because we care for
lasting principles that I want to place Britain at the heart of Europe".
He thought the UK could "inspire
and shape" the European
project…
Though
Major secured a number of opt-outs from the Maastricht Treaty regarding social
policy and membership of the single currency, the Conservative Party's internal
arguments over the ratification of Maastricht (and over Europe generally)
undermined Major's premiership.
On 16 September 1992 (“Black Wednesday”), the UK was
forced to abandon membership of the Exchange Rate Mechanism (intended to keep inflation low by linking exchange
rates to the Deutschmark); it was one of the lowest points in Britain's
relationship with Europe.
Tuesday, 3 June 2014
Thatcher and Europe
Margaret Thatcher (1925-2013) was the Conservative
British Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990. She saw “Brussels” as having
excessive power…
In 1980, she called for the UK's contributions
to the EEC to be adjusted: "I want my money back!" she exclaimed. She did get a rebate, but relations with European partners became strained after that.
Mrs Thatcher, having signed the 1986 Single European Act, commented: "Advantages will indeed flow from that achievement
well into the future."
In her controversial 1988 "Bruges speech", Mrs Thatcher declared: "We have not successfully rolled back the
frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them re-imposed at a European
level, with a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels".
In October 1990, Mrs Thatcher agreed to join the ERM. That same year, Jacques Delors, the president of the
European Commission, had proposed a reform of EU institutions. Thatcher, fearing more interference by Brussels, responded at the end of October by saying to the House of Commons: "No. No. No." Within a few weeks, her
anti-EU views led her party to force her to resign.
The European project in the years 2000
May 1, 2004 cartoon by Chapatte celebrating European enlargement
In 2001, the Treaty of Nice was signed. It was
intended to improve the Maastricht Treaty and bring greater democracy to the European institutions in anticipation of further enlargement: one Commissioner
from each member state; the weighting of votes in the Council (i.e. the bigger
the country in terms of population, the more votes it has at the European Council).
The Euro became the new currency for eurozone countries in 2002.
During 2003, the member states did not act in a
concerted manner regarding the Iraq War, showing up the lack of influence of
the EU in international relations (basically, each country continued to act on
its own).
2008 cartoon by KS
In 2005, the project for a Constitution,
elaborated by a team headed by Valérie Giscard d’Estaing, was rejected by the French
and Dutch in referendums, putting a brake on political integration. However,
enlargement went ahead in the same year: ten east-European countries from the
former Soviet bloc joined the EU. This added 75 million new citizens. Their
integration was not easy as their standard of living was very low, though some
countries, such as Poland, have made spectacular progress. In 2007, Romania and Bulgaria also joined.
The Great Recession which started in 2008 undermined the efficacy of the Euro.
The 2009 Lisbon Treaty was intended to modernize EU institutions to better cope with enlargement.
Friday, 30 May 2014
The European project in the 1990s
In
Maastricht, on 7 February 1992, the Foreign and Finance Ministers of the 12
Member States of the European Communities signed the Treaty on European Union.
The Treaty of Rome was amended
again, this time by the 7 February 1992 Maastricht Treaty (which came into force in November 1993). The agenda set out
under the Single European Act in
1986 took a significant step forward by ostensibly creating a “European Political Union”
(EPU).
The Maastricht Treaty created:
- a new organizational structure based on three 'pillars': (1) economic relations, essentially controlled by the Commission and which incorporated the three Communities, (2) foreign affairs and (3) home affairs controlled by the European Council;
- the European Union (EU);
- Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), which lead to the Euro (2002), reinforcing the economic responsibilities of the European Community;
- an expanded European Council giving national governments more say.
The Treaty is seen as a central moment of European integration. However, it met strong opposition from eurosceptics; the Danes only ratified it after a second referendum, and John Major’s Government only narrowly won the vote on the treaty in the British House of Commons. Douglas Hurd, the British Foreign Secretary from 1989 to 1995 summed up British recalcitrance: “Those in favor of the creation of a European state want to see all European co-operation channeled through the institutions established by the Treaty of Rome. We do not accept that model.”
The Treaty resulted in the widening of EU responsibilities (to include a Common Foreign and Security Policy, home affairs, and the environment) and the deepening of integration. This meant using supranational structures in some areas while using intergovernmental ones in others. The process of closer integration through Monetary Union made it vital to have closer political co-operation.
The deepening measures of the Treaty pushed forward a federalist model of European integration, based on the supranational institutions. Jacques Delors, the EU Commission President, said in 1993: “We're not just here to make a single market, but a political union.” However, the British Government succeeded in including the principle of subsidiarity in the Treaty (the idea that the EU should act only when member states cannot act), which helped counter-balance federalist tendencies. Even Delors recognized that the European Union was in fact more a "federation of Nation States".
In the 1990s, Europe underwent important changes following the end of the Cold War. German reunification in 1990 meant that Germany was to become more powerful; Helmut Kohl and François Mitterrand ensured the continuing constructive French-German relationship. The war in ex-Yougoslavia from 1991 to 1999 showed that, despite its CFSP, the creation of Eurocorps in 1992 and Eurofor in 1995, the EU was incapable of coordinating its efforts to deal with a major conflict even within the continent without help from NATO or the USA...
The 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam was the third major amendment to the 1957 Treaty of Rome. It changed the operation of the Council of the European Union, absorbed the Schengen Convention and increased the role of the EU in home affairs, pushing forward the model of a supranational European Union at the expense of intergovernmental co-operation.
The Treaty resulted in the widening of EU responsibilities (to include a Common Foreign and Security Policy, home affairs, and the environment) and the deepening of integration. This meant using supranational structures in some areas while using intergovernmental ones in others. The process of closer integration through Monetary Union made it vital to have closer political co-operation.
The deepening measures of the Treaty pushed forward a federalist model of European integration, based on the supranational institutions. Jacques Delors, the EU Commission President, said in 1993: “We're not just here to make a single market, but a political union.” However, the British Government succeeded in including the principle of subsidiarity in the Treaty (the idea that the EU should act only when member states cannot act), which helped counter-balance federalist tendencies. Even Delors recognized that the European Union was in fact more a "federation of Nation States".
Signatories of the Amsterdam Treaty, 2 October 1997
The 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam was the third major amendment to the 1957 Treaty of Rome. It changed the operation of the Council of the European Union, absorbed the Schengen Convention and increased the role of the EU in home affairs, pushing forward the model of a supranational European Union at the expense of intergovernmental co-operation.
The Treaty of Amsterdam:
- gave the framework for the future accession of ten East European member states;
- incorporated the Schengen Convention into EU law;
- expanded the role of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) by creating a High Representative for EU foreign affairs;
- extended the powers of Europol, the European police agency;
- increased the number of decisions covered by Qualified Majority Voting (QMV), including on some foreign policy issues;
- gave the Commission a say over the majority of Justice and Home Affairs;
- created the idea of enhanced co-operation to allow some members to co-operate without unanimous agreement;
- it recognized the idea of constructive abstention (a member state could opt out of security or foreign affairs without preventing other countries from going ahead), which effectively created a two-speed Europe.
The European project in the 1980s
.jpg)
The Le Monde cartoon above is by Plantu. It comments the outcome of the Fontainebleau
European Council (June 1984). Thatcher is happy with the rebate she obtained on the UK’s contribution
to the European Communities budget, and Mitterrand, who lead the Council, proudly holds up the first European passport. Plantu mocks everyone here: Thatcher for her self-satisfaction and the others for their "togetherness". Margaret Thatcher had said: "We are not
asking the Community or anyone else for money, we are simply asking to have our
own money back". The UK (which was not as wealthy at the time as it is
today) was going to become the biggest net contributor to the EU budget (it
gave twice as much to Europe as it received back, mainly because it did not
benefit from agricultural subsidies as much as the others). Thatcher's stance (symbolized in the Plantu cartoon by her standing apart) was seen as being typical of her anti-federalist attitude.
In 1981, Greece joined the European Communities. In 1986, Spain and Portugal joined too. These three countries were poor and joining the Common Market was a means of development for them; it meant also that there were henceforth disparities of wealth and standards of living between the member states.
In 1981, Greece joined the European Communities. In 1986, Spain and Portugal joined too. These three countries were poor and joining the Common Market was a means of development for them; it meant also that there were henceforth disparities of wealth and standards of living between the member states.
In June 1985, the Schengen Agreement abolishing border controls was signed (it came into force in 1995, and the 1997 Amsterdam Treaty incorporated it into European Union law). In the Schengen Area, there is free movement of people. The outside borders of the area have been reinforced.
The Single European Act (SEA), signed in 1986, amended the 1957 Treaty of Rome with the aim of:
- achieving at last a full single market, concerning both the private and public sectors, by deregulation, i.e. overcoming barriers, namely: physical (border controls), technical (rules and regulations) and fiscal (different tax rates);
- strengthening democracy by giving greater legislative powers to the European Parliament;
- making it easier for laws to be passed by the Council of Ministers by increasing the number of areas covered by Qualified Majority Voting (QMV);
- expanding the role of the Commission;
- laying the basis for a common European Foreign, Justice and Home Affairs policies.
The
SEA’s push for a more open market pleased Margaret Thatcher, who declared: “The
Community is now launching itself on a course for the 1990s, a course which
must make it possible for Europe to compete on equal terms with the United
States and Japan... What we need are strengths which we can only find together.
We must be stronger in new technologies. We must have the full benefit of a
single large market.”
The
SEA increased co-operation between member states on more areas of policy, i.e.
it deepened integration, which was necessary in order to cope with new members.
The ambition was summed up by Helmut Kohl, the German Chancellor, in 1989: “We want a European Union, we want the
United States of Europe.”
The
SEA also made it easier to pass EU legislation by loosening the voting rules in
the Council of Ministers and emphasized the role of the European Parliament. Jacques Delors, the European Commission
President from 1985-1995, said: “In ten
years, 80% of the laws on the economy and social policy will be passed at a
European not the national level...”
Thursday, 29 May 2014
The European project 1973 to 1979
French poster for the 1979 elections to the European Parliament
In 1973, the same year the UK, Ireland and Denmark joined the Common Market, the first petrol crisis started, multiplying the cost of petrol by four. This made the process of European integration difficult as nations struggled to cope with economic havoc and unemployment.
Enlargement meant that relations between countries of the Common Market needed deepening (i.e. an ever closer union). Hence the setting up in 1974 of the European Council which brought together the Heads of State or of Government several times a year to determine policy (it was not, initially, any more efficient than the Council of Ministers which was handicapped by the rule of unanimous voting on "important issues").
In 1979, elections by direct universal suffrage gave the European Parliament more credibility but it continued to have little more than a consultative role. Subsequent European Parliament elections have suffered from increasing abstention rates, despite the increasing powers of the institution, due to citizens' indifference, incomprehension, or even hostility; Euroscepticism was already on the rise...
Also in 1979, the EMS (European Monetary System) was created to improve cooperation regarding financial matters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)