Example collocations logo

Supranational in sentence

126 examples of Supranational in a sentence

Likewise, instead of providing a shining example of supranational cooperation and pooled sovereignty for the twenty-first century, the European Union remains mired in rather petty disputes.
But it is no exaggeration to state that whenever Britain has perceived an opportunity to wage a war of attrition against the European supranational project, it has done so, opposing any substantial increase in the EU’s competences or resources.
In Europe, price maintenance and supranational protectionism formed the political basis for European integration in the European Economic Community, which would become the foundation for the European Union.
Because the latter groups are those that have benefited the least from globalization, they were the most likely to reject supranational institutions (in the case of Brexit) or establishment candidates (in the case of Trump).
Though deciding such questions at a supranational level is not theoretically impossible, it is utterly impractical in the modern era.
The pan-European parties’ nomination of Spitzenkandidaten for the Commission presidency – and the three direct debates among the nominees – marked the start of building a genuine supranational European political space.
What makes the entrance negotiation invariably cumbersome and protracted, is the immense adaptation that new members must make to become truly integrated in the supranational body of laws and decision-procedures which are the essence of the EU.
The result has been a marked rise in nationalist populism – a trend that has led to new trade restrictions, the ongoing re-negotiation of existing arrangements (such as the North American Free Trade Agreement), and a backlash against supranational institutions (such as the United Kingdom’s vote to exit the European Union).
Britain’s Leave campaign was a revolt against not only economic mismanagement, but also the pretension of supranational government.
Now the four presidents propose an independent supranational commission for trade and tariffs in order to forge a common customs policy.
Meanwhile, the European Union remained (and remains) the only democratic experiment on a supranational level, taking pride in its promising advances, despite being burdened by multiple defects.
What if the evolution of European consciousness proceeds not by an upward transfer of attachment to supranational institutions, but by a devolution of loyalties, and a revival of smaller, more meaningful, communities?
At the heart of the debate – currently being conducted within leading economies’ treasuries and central banks, as well as in supranational bodies such as the International Monetary Fund and the BIS – is the relationship between monetary policy and financial stability.
Europe, with its unique experience of creating a democratic model of supranational governance, should lead the way.
There is also friction between national supervisors, who prefer domestic mergers, and supranational supervisors, who prefer cross-border mergers within their jurisdiction (the eurozone, in the European Central Bank’s case).
These can be provided at different levels: local, regional, national, or supranational government, i.e., the EU.
It would be absurd to delegate education and culture to a supranational level.
If a supranational organization had been created, it could have introduced joint strategies to manage drought, coordinate crop patterns, develop common standards to monitor river flows, and implement investment plans to create livelihoods and develop water-treatment technologies.
Even in bilateral or regional crises, viable solutions are possible only at the supranational level.
Creating supranational institutions adequate to the task would require not only a willingness to give up national sovereignty but a considerable degree of convergence in national preferences regarding what constitutes a desirable set of social arrangements.
Such fears are reinforced by the prospect of extending unification to the political sphere in order to give supranational governing institutions sufficient democratic legitimacy.
European unification never meant to limit freedom by expropriating individual rights in favor of a distant supranational power.
To that end, it was crucial to construct supranational bodies that tied Europeans to one another and, in the name of integration, imposed limits on individual countries.
This conviction lies behind the establishment of international humanitarian law and the supranational courts that address violations of it.
Institutionally, this means supporting supranational bodies while also allowing for more flexibility in areas where national governments, rather than Brussels, are better positioned to solve problems.
But pushing rule-making onto supranational bureaucracies, such as the World Trade Organization or the European Commission, can result in a democratic deficit and a loss of legitimacy.
More generally, international liquidity comprises the liabilities of OECD countries’ central banks (their “high-powered money”), those countries’ AAA-rated and AA-rated central-government bonds, the debt securities of supranational organizations like the World Bank and regional development banks, and gold in official and private hands.
The EU was supposed to be a supranational endeavor, shaped by the spirit of collective action for the common good that Havel championed.
What is needed are constraints on fiscal policy by each country, not a supranational fiscal authority.
The response was eventually enshrined in the Maastricht Treaty, which extended the European Union’s competences to foreign affairs and judicial matters, making them partly supranational.
Back