Example collocations logo

Union in sentence

2117 examples of Union in a sentence

The model of a federal union that emerged from its history consists of a single currency managed by a federal agency; closely integrated markets for products, labor, and capital; a federal budget that partly, but automatically, offsets economic disturbances affecting individual states; a federal government that assumes responsibility for tackling other major risks, not least those emanating from the banking sector; and states that provide regional public goods but play virtually no role in macroeconomic stabilization.
Space at the table for China could be obtained if the eurozone countries, signaling their commitment to the common currency, agreed to surrender their individual seats in exchange for one representing the entire monetary union.
The “yes” campaign hoped to win supporters with a utopian vision of an independent Scotland that included European Union and NATO membership; a currency union with England, but no fiscal union; improved public services and social benefits; and lower taxes.
To reap the benefits, sub-Saharan Africa must form an oil-based confederation under the tutelage of thoroughly reformed regional groupings aimed at encouraging economic integration and political union.
It isn’t surprising that May would choose a Brexit variant whereby Britain leaves both the EU’s single market and its customs union: she knows little, and cares even less, about economics.
May was less honest about the implications of leaving the customs union.
Rather than come clean about this, May is seeking “frictionless” trade through “associate membership” in the customs union, even though this directly contradicts her assertion that Britain does not want to be “half-in, half-out” of the EU.
But Germany is skeptical of what it sees as a “transfer union,” in which its taxpayers would hand over cash to profligate countries that have failed to remodel their economies along German lines.
Lord North is remembered for losing the British union with America.
The creation of a banking union and the establishment of the “European Semester,” aimed at strengthening budgetary coordination across the union, are both steps in the right direction.
But, because the EU is not a nation-state, such solutions must be negotiated – no easy feat, when citizens are being turned against the union.
With Ireland’s troubles threatening to spill over to Portugal, Spain, and even Italy, it is time to rethink the viability of Europe’s currency union.
Unlike others, such as my Harvard colleague Martin Feldstein, who argue that Europe is not a natural monetary area, I believed that monetary union made perfect sense in the context of a broader European project that emphasized – as it still does – political institution-building alongside economic integration.
The European Union has taught us valuable lessons over the last few decades: first, that financial integration requires eliminating volatility among national currencies; next, that eradicating exchange-rate risk requires doing away with national currencies altogether; and now, that monetary union is impossible, among democracies, without political union.
As the long American struggle for “states’ rights” – and indeed the Civil War – shows, creating a political union out of a collection of self-governing entities is hardly a smooth or speedy process.
Worse still, economic union itself can fan the fires of nationalism and endanger political integration.
Neither of these initiatives is a game changer as regards the depth of economic integration within the eurozone, but both promise to open a new debate on the structural underpinnings of monetary union.
In addition, the Vatican objects to the fact that conception is the result of a “technical action” rather “a specific act of the conjugal union.”
And everyone knows that Europe’s much vaunted banking union is deeply flawed.
Its banking union may be flawed, but at least it exists, and over time those flaws can be fixed.
But with even trade union leaders such as Unite’s Len McCluskey now criticizing Corbyn, a more moderate replacement could be found.
The argument against European structures depends on hostility to a transfer union that might lead to some redistribution of resources.
To save the euro – which is essential, because the European project’s fate depends on the success of monetary union – Europe needs action now: in addition to indispensable austerity measures and structural reforms, there is no way to succeed without a viable economic program that will assure growth.
And British financial services should be welcomed in the EU, but only if they help it to move away from its bank-centric system and complete the capital market union.
Addressing these problems, the drafters of the US Constitution proposed the creation of a national government accountable to the people of the US, empowered to attend to the interests of the entire union and to mediate conflicts among member states.
The vast majority of the country’s citizens had lived their lives within a 30-mile radius of where they were born; their political attachments, if they had any, were to their state – not to the union.
It took bold political action to change the course of history and give birth to a new and stable union.
As German and Dutch officials, in particular, have argued, banks’ financial health must be addressed before completion of European banking union can take place.
At the recent European Banking Conference in Frankfurt, there was near-unanimous agreement that a functioning banking union requires a central resolution authority (to deal with failing financial institutions) and a mutually guaranteed deposit-protection fund (to boost confidence in weaker banks in the eurozone’s troubled economies).
But there was also near-unanimous agreement that Europe’s banking union would not meet either of these needs – at least not at the outset.
BackNext