Suchergebnisse

Introduction -- 1. Governance. A sorry state. A sad situation. Empire by stealth. Troubling waters. A dysfunctiomal family. A consequential constitution -- 2. Economics. Multi-polar World Order. Saving the Euro. Dismantling the Eurocracy. Hard Case: Germany. Hard Case: France. Hard Case Italy. Steps in the right direction -- 3. Innovation. Food fights and their consequences. Policy cleanup. Dr. Frankenfood goes global. Dr. Frankenfood's lab -- 4. Democracy. The British nonpresidency. The budget debacle. Decommissioned. At the gates. The meaning of the Maidan. The eye of the needle. Threading the needle. Not a bang and nary a whimper -- Postscript : neither superstate nor new market economy.

James Parkinson was born in 1755 in Shoreditch, close to the City of London and like his father practised medicine there as an Apothecary and Surgeon. His earlier years in practice were disturbed by a rebellious spirit, roused by the poverty and injustices he saw around him. Inevitably he was drawn into politics and joined the provocative London Corresponding Society. He wrote a number of highly critical pamphlets under the pseudonym of "Old Hubert". His criticisms of government and administration were at times so bitter and fearless that eventually they led to his being subpoened and examined by the Privy Council. During the course of these examinations he had to answer to the Lord Chancellor, the Prime Minister, Mr. William Pitt and others in high office. Fortunately his explanations impressed his interrogators by their honesty and sincerity and he escaped imprisonment. By the time he was 40, with the increasing demands of a busy practice and a young family, he seemed to turn all his efforts to his own work and writings. His interests were broad. His first book was on "The Organic Remains of a Former World". Later he wrote on medical education, the preservation of health, and a brilliant criticism "Observations on Doctor Hugh Smith's Philosophy of Physics". Nevertheless it was not for another 22 years that he wrote his classic essay on "The Shaking Palsy" which was published in 1817 (Critchley 1955).

The responses to Andrew Moravcsik's article discuss the main substantive and methodological points raised in it. Although most of the respondents agree that Moravcsik has properly highlighted the importance of commercial concerns for de Gaulle's policy on European integration, they question the validity of his sharp separation between de Gaulle's political and economic goals for France. Several commentators argue that political and commercial concerns (including agricultural concerns) were closely intertwined in de Gaulle's vision of French grandeur.John Keeler brings up another crucial question: Was French agriculture really an obstacle to France's position in Europe? He argues that de Gaulle successfully supported and modernized French agriculture because he was convinced that this would contribute to France's geopolitical position in Europe and the Western world. In two longer commentaries, Jeffrey Vanke and Marc Trachtenberg raise questions about Moravcsik's methodology and use of sources. Both agree that Moravcsik draws on an impressive array of available materials concerning de Gaulle. But they both wonder whether a definitive account of de Gaulle's policies can be written when the documentary record is still incomplete, a point raised by the

Résumé Le but de la Communauté Européenne du Charbon et de l'Acier n'était pas de reconstruire l'industrie passée, mais de construire le futur. Le Plan Schuman du 5 mai 1950 propose avant tout une solution à un problème historique, celui de la rivalité franco-allemande. Le succès de ce Plan s'explique par une convergence de facteurs : l'action de Jean Monnet, en partie soutenu par les États-Unis, mais aussi et surtout la volonté de la France, de l'Allemagne, de l'Italie et des pays du Benelux de construire l'Europe, ainsi que des sidérurgistes de retrouver l'esprit des cartels internationaux afin de stabiliser le marché européen. Mais ce succès n'est que limité : il n'a en rien influé sur les évolutions techniques (déclin du charbon au profit des hydrocarbures, passage à la sidérurgie sur l'eau) tandis que l'intégration européenne se faisait contre les cartels.