Alors que nous célèbrerons demain, 8 mai 2015, le 70e anniversaire de la fin de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, c’est l’occasion d’examiner comment, l’Allemagne d’aujourd’hui continue à faire face aux fantômes du passé.
Nous vous invitons pour cela à lire l’éditorial spécialement écrit par le Comité d’études des relations franco-allemandes (Cerfa) de l’Ifri : “70e anniversaire de la fin de la Seconde Guerre mondiale : Changement dans la culture de mémoire allemande ?”
“Le 8 mai 2015, pour la première fois, un historien et non pas un représentant politique interviendra devant le Bundestag pour commémorer le 70e anniversaire de la fin de la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Depuis 1964, le président fédéral et le chancelier se sont relayés pour assumer cette tâche clé pour la nouvelle identité démocratique de la RFA. La politique se retire-t-elle alors du cycle mémoriel comme le constatent plusieurs observateurs et connaisseurs de l’Allemagne ?”
Lisez la suite de l’article sur le site de l’Ifri.
En parallèle à cet éditorial et pour approfondir le sujet, nous vous invitons à relire l’article “L’Allemagne : le passé qui ne passe pas” publié dans le numéro de printemps de Politique étrangère (1/2014).
Retrouvez l’intégralité de cet article sur Cairn.info.
S’abonner à Politique étrangère.
Von 2007 an wurden die USA und Europa von schweren Finanzkrisen erschüttert. Diese Turbulenzen führten in der Anfangsphase zu einer verstärkten supranationalen Zusammenarbeit. Dabei betrieb die Gruppe der 20 größten Industrieländer (G20) ein erfolgreiches Krisenmanagement. Seit einigen Jahren jedoch stockt die Kooperation. Wichtige Akteure, darunter die USA, wenden sich von supranationalen Vorgaben ab und gehen stattdessen eigene Wege in der Finanzmarktregulierung. Dies wird von vielen Beobachterinnen und Beobachtern kritisiert, die eine Stärkung globaler Regeln für die Finanzmärkte fordern. Doch ist ein höheres Maß an Diversität in der Finanzmarktregulierung tatsächlich ein Problem? Oder ist die heute zu beobachtende „Balkanisierung“ der Finanzmärkte sogar nützlich, weil sie das internationale Finanzsystem stabiler macht?
In dieser Studie wird die These vertreten, dass globale Regeln für die Finanzmärkte per saldo mehr schaden als nutzen. Die empirischen Erfahrungen sind negativ, denn die bisherigen Versuche sind allesamt gescheitert, durch gemeinsam erarbeitete Regelwerke – etwa Basel I, II und III – Krisen zu vermeiden. Geeinigt hatte man sich jeweils auf den kleinsten gemeinsamen Nenner, und dieser Minimalkonsens verhinderte nicht die schweren Verwerfungen der letzten 25 Jahre. Nach den Erfahrungen in den USA und Europa sollte das Ziel sein, den Staaten größere Spielräume bei Regulierung der nationalen Finanzmärkte zu ermöglichen.
Regierungen sollten auswählen können, welcher Pfad der Globalisierung für die gesellschaftlichen Präferenzen in ihrem Land angemessen erscheint. Eine selektive, maßgeschneiderte Globalisierung berücksichtigt die Diversität von Volkswirtschaften, ohne ökonomische Zusammenarbeit und internationale Arbeitsteilung grundsätzlich in Frage zu stellen.
Albanie : quand Enver Hoxha finançait les maoïstes français
Albanie : quand le cinéma raconte la chute du régime communiste
Albanie : Leka Zogu, l'héritier qui rêvait de devenir roi, est mort
Albanie : l'ancien Président Ramiz Alia demande pardon pour les crimes du communisme
Albanie : où sont enterrées les victimes du communisme ?
Le roi Zog pourra enfin reposer en Albanie
Albanie : hommage patriotique mais pas unanime à l'ancien roi Zog
● Labour leader, Ed Miliband: if you are pro-EU what other choice is there?
If you are pro-EU, what other choice is there, really? Opinion piece by Jon Danzig Today, Britain votes on its next government in the most tightly-contested election in living memory.Tomorrow, all citizens from the rest of Europe now living in the UK, and all citizens from Britain now living in the rest of Europe, can only hope for one outcome if they want to continue enjoying where they currently reside.
Why? Because unless Ed Miliband, leader of the Labour Party, is handed the keys to number 10 Downing Street, the traditional home of all UK Prime Ministers, the future of Britain in Europe; of Britons in Europe, and of Europeans in Britain, will be in doubt for at least a year or two, and maybe forever.
Only the Labour Party has promised no referendum in the next five years (unless there are plans for a transfer of more powers to the EU – which is extremely unlikely in the course of the next Parliament).
Rightly in my opinion, Labour’s policy is that Britain should now be concentrating on re-building our economy, reducing our deficit, and strengthening our ties with Europe and our European allies.
A referendum on whether the UK should stay in the EU will be an unnecessary distraction at a time when the country needs to keep its eyes on a more important prize: the well-being of ordinary, every-day citizens living in the UK.
The Conservative Party has promised an in-out EU referendum within the next two years if the party is elected to be the next government. Although the party’s leader, David Cameron, says he wants the UK to stay a member, some Eurosceptics in the party state that most Conservative prospective MPs want the UK to leave the EU. Furthermore, David Cameron’s proposals for EU reform would entail an EU treaty change requiring the agreement of all 28 EU members. That would likely be impossible to achieve within two years, even if all the other 27 EU members agreed with Mr Cameron’s reform proposals (which they don’t).
If UKIP do well in the General Election and agree an alliance or coalition with the Conservatives to form a government, they have said they will demand as the price of co-operation a referendum before Christmas. Such a hasty and premature referendum date would plunge the country and its economic progress into turmoil.
The Lib-Dems, who like UKIP don’t have a chance to become the next government, swing both ways. The party has said they are staunchly pro-EU, and they’d be happy to form a coalition with Labour (with a few red-lined caveats) and would willingly accept Labour’s stance of no referendum. But the Lib-Dems are also happy to go to bed with the Tories – and although they’ve lipped their opposition to an EU referendum by 2017, this isn’t one of their red-lined pre-nuptial clauses. As The Guardian commented yesterday, the Lib-Dem leader, Nick Clegg, may see an EU referendum “as the price he must pay to form a government.”
The SNP are also staunchly pro-Union – European, that is, rather than the Union of the United Kingdom. Wanting to retain one union but undo another is not in the best interests of the UK or Europe. Labour has ruled out a coalition or deal with the SNP, meaning that the more seats SNP gains, the less chance Labour has of forming a majority government and thereby preventing a possible fast-track exit from the EU. In addition, the more seats won by the SNP, the more chance that the Eurosceptic Conservative party will win power. The SNP cannot form a government for the entire UK. The Labour party is the only pro-EU party that could form a government for all of Great Britain.
Only Labour offers Britain the chance to retain our membership of the European Union for the duration of the next Parliament, with a mission to concentrate our earnest efforts on building our economy as a member of the world’s biggest, richest economy (the EU), rather than throwing the country into two years of confusion and bickering on whether we should leave it, and with the greatest risk that we actually will.
Furthermore, only Labour is likely to win concessions and reforms across the EU by working together with our EU allies, rather than threatening to turn our backs on them.
Only @UKLabour offers certainty on Europe. If you’re pro-EU, what other choice is there? Opinion piece: http://t.co/NLQyg2JZQG #GE2015
— Jon Danzig (@Jon_Danzig) May 7, 2015
Other articles by Jon Danzig:
The post Only Labour offers certainty on Europe appeared first on Ideas on Europe.