Javier Solana gives his take on Dani Rodrik's "trilemma" of global economy, which insists that the coexistence of the triad - "global economic integration, the nation-state, and democracy" is out of question and that "global democracy" - may well be an illusion. The best choice would be a cherrypicking of any two of the three options, while sacrificing the third.

The author thinks the path the EU is taking, "one that aims to expand democracy beyond the realm of the nation-state", is worth considering. In his view the "sovereignty" that matters is the one that is both "effective and inclusive" - a vision that Emmanuel Macron outlined in his Sorbonne address on September 26, adding "two more key pillars: unity and democracy" to the European design.

The 1989 Washington consensus" - following the economic strictures of the US Department of the Treasury, the IMF and the World Bank in favour of keeping inflation in check, preventing large budget deficits, and upholding a free market, by opening the economy to the private sector and private capital flows - had enabled "global economic integration." But the 2008 global financial crisis "eroded the credibility" of this neoliberal economic order, which critics said had failed to deliver. In came the "Beijing Consensus."

When Obama came to office in 2009, he had his eye on the Chinese economic model. In pursuit of national economic stability, the Obama administration moved towards the kind of greater government intervention that China has been promoting over the past two decades. While benefiting from the global market, the leadership in Beijing retains power through strict control over every aspect of China's economy - a contrast to "liberalization, deregulation, and privatization."

The author points out that the word "nation-state" emerged from the subconscious to the conscious mind during the Brexit campaign and at Trump's rallies last year. Sound bites like "Britain First - taking our country back" were Brexiters' motivation to leave the EU. Trump's "America First" and "Make America great again" targeted the "accumulated powers" of Wall Street, and multinational companies. The anger incited on both sides of the Atlantic upended the "long-established balance among globalization, the nation-state, and democracy."

Although the Brexit vote and the rise of Trump are globalisation's nemesis, their supporters adopt "other aspects of the Washington Consensus, such as financial deregulation – and strengthening democracy through the nation-state." However their idea of sovereignty revolves around nativism and micro-nationalism, which "could paradoxically result in a loss of effective sovereignty." The author aims to say that the size and strenght of a country matter in geopolitics. What is the good of being sovereign if a country's strength is diminished?

In order to contain the threat of globalisation and to protect domestic interests, borders must be closed or a wall be built - as was the rhetoric in Britain and the US in 2016. The price for isolation can be high, because this inward-looking approach will weaken a country's international standing, which makes it more vulnerable to external factors, as it has no allies to rely on when facing global challenges and tackling common threats. "The spirit of cooperation, along with constructive competition" are healthy for societal development and help boost a nation's growth and welfare.

The author's advice is that "even in states that have succumbed to reductionist discourses, much of the population has not." We need to help the 48% of Britons who did not vote for Brexit, the Americans who didn't vote for Trump, or the "49% of Turks who voted 'no' to expanding the Turkish presidency’s powers, implicitly rejecting a narrative that used the EU as a scapegoat. Many of these voters would surely be disappointed if the EU turned its back on them."

While "global democracy" may be a pie in the sky, we can still strive for a vibrant global community. This requires constant dialogues to "avoid perpetuating the deficiencies of the Washington Consensus, which were revealed with such clarity in 2016." With today's information and communication technology we can build a "framework of a common and democratic public sphere" to facilitate contacts and interactions. The author believes this "common public sphere" would help us overcome "the pre-eminence of the nation-state" and move forward "step by step" toward global democracy. However utopian it may sound, the author says the EU is on its path of this experiment and we should cross our fingers that it would succeed.