The ways in which Europe’s economy and the Eurozone are governed have changed fundamentally over the course of the Eurozone crisis. The resulting constitutional constellation is nothing less than a deep transformation of the European project. Christian Joerges, Professor of Law and Society at the Hertie School of Governance in Berlin, looks at how the project of a European economic constitution has been abandoned, and instead replaced by entirely new modes of European economic governance.
The transformation of European economic and political governance patterns (the EU’s constitutional constellation) occurred step by step through what the European University Institute in Florence has named the ‘Euro Crisis Law‘. The German court had asked whether the European Central Bank had overstepped its monetary policy competence with the Outright Monetary Transactions programme (OMT), and interfered with the powers of the Member States in the sphere of economic policy. On 16 June 2015, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) found the ECB’s programme to be legal. Continue reading
In this post, Nicola Countouris, Reader at the UCL Faculty of Laws, analyses the reasons why the Greeks may have rejected the creditor institutions’ economic and reform proposals. Arguing that frustration is not the only explanation for Tsipras’ win at the ballot box, and recognising the daunting challenge that lie ahead of the 19 Eurozone democracies, he argues that Europe’s constitutional envelope can be spacious enough to accommodate different versions of democratic economic and human aspirations.
For the second time in six months the Greeks have voted for a political project (which many have and will continue to describe as a ‘political adventure’) that runs against the grain of the unanimous expectations and imperatives of the EU institutions, the IMF, and the bulk of both centre-right and centre-left European governments. Against the odds, against the economic and reform instructions imparted by the lending institutions, and – many will say – against their best interest, the Greeks have refused to conform, and have flatly rejected on two occasions now, the politics of austerity.
In this post, Kalypso Nicolaïdis, Professor of International Relations at Oxford, and Othon Anastasakis, Director of the European Studies Centre, St Antony’s College Oxford, explain how a ‘yes’ vote in tomorrow’s Greek referendum is a choice for dignity rather than fear, as canvassed by the No campaign.
The SYRIZA government claims that a No vote in the referendum is about dignity. A Greece that can say no, no matter the consequences. A Greece that can at last resist creditors’ demands, just as its national heroes of yesterdays resisted the Italian and Nazi invasions. For many Greeks, – supporters of SYRIZA-ANEL-Golden Dawn – today’s no echoes the OXI in 1940 spelled out with trees on the hillside of Epirus for the advancing enemies to behold. Seventy five years later, they think that will show the world that they can still take the heroic stance. Against such a no, according to them, the YESes are the cowards, those who accept to be bullied and blackmailed, the German collaborators. In this simple world view, YES means fear. No means pride.
What is wrong with this picture? What is wrong with the “dignified” No? Continue reading