Example collocations logo

Union in sentence

2117 examples of Union in a sentence

The end-2013 deadline for implementation of the banking union is a long way off.
When the local United Steelworkers union president complained publicly, the famously thin-skinned Trump responded by getting into a Twitter spat, blaming the union president for the lost jobs.
Calm has returned to financial markets, amid ironclad assurances by the European Union authorities – particularly the European Central Bank – that the monetary union will be preserved.
Many countries would have limited scope for counter-cyclical fiscal policy, either because of the EU’s rules on public debt or because market tolerance for public debt is lower in a monetary union, as has become apparent since 2010.
Recall that the German government adamantly rejected the eurozone banking union and the European Stability Mechanism, both of which were ultimately launched (though some say it was too little, too late).
For example, when the Delors Committee prepared its report in 1988-1989 on how a monetary union could be established in Europe, experts devoted considerable attention to the issue of whether market pressure would suffice to discipline states.
Thus, his long-term objective has been to rebuild it in some form, perhaps as a supra-national union of member states like the European Union.
While the EAU is still only a customs union, the European Union’s experience suggests that a successful free-trade area leads over time to broader economic, monetary, and eventually political integration.
The plan has been clear: Start with a customs union – initially Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan – and add most of the other former Soviet republics.
Then, perhaps a couple of decades after the customs union is formed, its members consider creating a true monetary union with a common currency (the Eurasian ruble?) that can be used as a unit of account, means of payment, and store of value.
As the eurozone experience proves, sustaining a monetary union requires banking, fiscal, and full economic union.
And, once members give up their sovereignty over fiscal, banking, and economic affairs, they may eventually need a partial political union to ensure democratic legitimacy.
But the first step is a customs union, and, in the case of the Eurasian Union, it had to include Ukraine, Russia’s largest neighbor to the west.
Russia’s lack of reform and adverse demographic trends imply low potential growth and insufficient financial resources to create the fiscal and transfer union that is needed to bring other countries in.
The sovereign-debt-and-banking crisis that has roiled the monetary union since 2010 has steadily exposed the realities at play here, as irrevocably fixed exchange rates lock in and deepen differences in eurozone members’ competitiveness.
In a monetary union, there are only two ways to close a competitiveness gap between countries: transfers from the more competitive to the less competitive, or internal devaluation, which means real wage cuts.
Unlike Japan (and, of course, the United States), France, as a member of a monetary union, cannot pursue domestic goals unilaterally.
There are two reasons why, until now, the second option – leaving the monetary union – has been unthinkable.
On the contrary, the sustainable prosperity that would result from that adjustment would create a much healthier long-term foundation for continuing the quest for an “ever closer union” in Europe.
Their fears are warranted, because the current financial crisis is undermining the very union that was established to heal Europe’s wounds at the end of World War II.
Even though Britain has long been able to opt out of the euro and much else (and thus is not forced in any way to participate in the process of deepening Europe’s political union), this is the ideological essence of the controversy.
The growing strength of euroskeptic forces in many EU member states has raised the same issue on the continent, where many believe that the goal of a political union might overburden member states’ citizens and should be abandoned.
Like the British, many Continental Europeans are asking whether transnational regulation by Brussels-based institutions and a political union are actually necessary.
Why bother with all that complicated integration involving the Schengen Agreement, a monetary union, and EU regulations, which in the end don’t work properly and only weaken the member states’ global competitiveness?
EFTA’s aims were a straightforward customs union and a common market, and it was designed from the outset to compete with the EEC, particularly in northern Europe and among the neutral countries.
This is why the majority of EU member states must never abandon the aim of an “ever closer union.”
Are Britain’s parliamentary arithmetic and public opinion moving in favor of or against the “hard Brexit” – a drastic clampdown on immigration and withdrawal from the European Union’s customs union, single market, and legal jurisdiction – planned by May before the election?
The upshot is that a new relationship based on the EEA model, allowing Britain to keep most of the benefits of the EU customs union and single market alongside free movement of people, would not only be economically less painful than a hard Brexit; it would also be supported by a large majority of voters.
The first is the Hamlet scenario, in which the chaos continues until the UK crashes out of the European single market and customs union.
And a banking union, once completed, should contain the risk of financial crisis and contagion.
BackNext