DOCSLIB.ORG

Debates of the European Parliament 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Debates of the European Parliament 1 16-01-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 1 WEDNESDAY, 16 JANUARY 2008 IN THE CHAIR: MR PÖTTERING President 1. Opening of the sitting (The sitting was opened at 9.05 a.m.) 2. Presentation of the programme of the Slovenian Presidency (debate) President. − Ladies and gentlemen, today is a very special day. It is a special day because for the first time in the history of the European Union the representative, the Prime Minister of this country, namely Slovenia, has the Presidency of the European Union. Slovenia is a country that joined the European Union on 1 May 2004 along with nine other countries. And it is the first time that one of the former communist countries now living according to the basic principles of freedom, democracy and parliamentarianism, namely Slovenia, has the Presidency of the European Union. I therefore warmly welcome the President-in-Office of the Council, the Prime Minister of Slovenia, Janez Janša. Welcome to the European Parliament! (Applause) Today is also special for another reason, however, and I therefore extend a particularly warm welcome to the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Durão Barroso, because it is exactly 50 years ago that the first President of the European Commission, Walter Hallstein, convened his first Commission. The 50th anniversary of the European Commission is another event for us to celebrate. And so I also send the Commission, as an exception in this rather solemn context, all good wishes for this special birthday. (Applause) Ladies and gentlemen, it is a pleasure to listen to the report of the President-in-Office of the Council. Janez Janša, President of the Council. – (SL) It is my honour and pleasure to be with you here today, and indeed also a matter of pride. I feel pride as a Slovene whose country is the first of the new EU Member States to be entrusted with the presidency of the European Council and also as a European whose Union is entering 2008 with a signed Lisbon Treaty and an enlarged Eurozone and Schengen area. I assure you that in the months leading up summer I will be delighted, if you invite me, to come here more often, and certainly after each meeting of the European Council. I look forward to close and constructive cooperation with the European Parliament throughout the six-month period. Today is a historic day in many respects. Slovenia is presenting its priorities for the presidency in the European Parliament as the first new Member State, as the first Member State from behind the former Iron Curtain, and also as the first Slavic country to lead the Council of the European Union. This would not have been possible without the profound changes that have occurred on the European continent in the past quarter of a century. They have enabled Europe to become united to a large degree, that is to say united in a union of peace, freedom, solidarity and progress. All this was unimaginable to millions of Europeans only 20 years ago. In May this year exactly 20 years will have passed since a very particular and personal experience of mine. Allow me to share it with you since it is very symbolic of the changes I have just referred to. In 1988, two other journalists and I, along with a non-commissioned officer, were arrested, imprisoned, tried and convicted before a military court because we had criticised the then totalitarian Communist regime in Yugoslavia, and in particular, the militaristic aspirations of the then Yugoslav army. There were no fundamental rights of defence, no right to a lawyer, and no public presence. We were tried in the middle of Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia, at that time still a republic of Yugoslavia, and tried in what was for us a foreign language. 2 EN Debates of the European Parliament 16-01-2008 Despite the trial being held in secret and the threats of intervention by the Yugoslav army, tens of thousands of people took to the streets and squares in peaceful protest. They demanded respect for human rights and democracy. They brought about the beginning of the changes. Almost exactly 20 years later I stand before you today in this esteemed chamber, in the European Parliament, in the middle of Strasbourg, which I am able to reach without stopping at borders. As the Prime Minister of the Republic of Slovenia and the President of the European Union, I can address you in my mother tongue. If anyone had told me this was possible 20 years ago in my cell of the military prison I would obviously not have believed a word of it. But it did happen and after only 20 years in the life of the same generation. In that time Slovenia has established a democratic parliamentary system and a market economy and become an independent, internationally recognised country and is now a member of the European Union and Nato and part of the Eurozone and the Schengen area. In 1988, 20 years ago, we had an income of around EUR 4 000 per capita in purchasing power, whilst in 2007 the figure was EUR 22 000. We have reached 91% of the European Union average, last year our economic growth exceeded 6%, and we have the lowest unemployment rate in history and one of the lowest in the European Union. The level of poverty is the second lowest in the Eurozone, we are the third least indebted member of the Eurozone, and we rank among the first six Member States on the European Union reform barometer. Following the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the democratic changes similar great progress has also been made by the other former Communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe which are now members of the European Union. Following the removal of the Schengen border between Italy, Austria, Hungary and Slovenia in December last year tens of thousands of people in Slovenia and on the other side of the former border spontaneously celebrated this symbolic act. Those of you who were with us at that time – the President of the European Commission was there and there was great rejoicing in other places too despite the cold weather – were able to see that people's reactions were very emotional. The situation was the same everywhere on the former borders of the one-time Iron Curtain from the Baltic to the Adriatic. On that occasion I met an elderly Slovene couple among the happy crowd at the former border crossing. Both had tears in their eyes. They told me about the hardships they had endured for decades living on the hard border and later the humiliation they had suffered almost every time they had crossed the border. The lady said she hardly dared to believe that all this was happening and that the border would practically no longer exist and that something was emerging which she had not even dared dream of 20 or even 15 years ago. I wish that the members of the European Parliament who supported enlargement of the European Union and the Schengen area could have been there that December evening. They would have found it very gratifying. However, as it was not possible for all of you to be there, may I take this opportunity here to say 'thank you'. Thank you on behalf of that elderly couple on the vanishing border at the former border crossing, on behalf of thousands, tens of thousands and millions, on behalf of the over 100 million Europeans of Central and Eastern Europe who 20 years ago where still on the other side of the Iron Curtain, some in prison with no political and many human rights who are now together in a united Europe, with genuine opportunities for a better life and opportunities the likes of which were never available to our predecessors. (Applause) You may not even be aware how immense the consequences have been of your decision to support our aspiration for freedom and show solidarity with us. The decision is probably unprecedented in the entire history of human kind, a decision which would bring so much good to so many people. I thank you on behalf of those of us who are here because you stood with us. You were in no way forced to take such an unselfish decision – freedom and solidarity triumphed because you cared. Those of us who belong to generations that were not born in the European Union probably have a more emotional view of everything that has occurred in recent years and decades. For us, the European Union is not something to be taken for granted. We know that another, far worse, alternative exists and that is another reason why we are prepared to do everything to ensure that the European Union is preserved, developed and strengthened. Our principle objective is for Europe to make progress in as many areas as possible in the next six months. We defined these key areas some time ago when we drew up the 18-month presidency programme together with Germany and Portugal. It was a unique experience and working as a trio was excellent, as was the 16-01-2008 EN Debates of the European Parliament 3 contribution of the European institutions. This Parliament has been informed of the programme and the significant progress which our partners in the trio achieved last year in implementing the joint programme. Slovenia will make every effort to complete everything that remains to be done. Therefore, our starting point remains the abovementioned programme since we wish to maintain the continuity of European Union policies.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Enlargement, Hospitality and Transformative Powers the Cases of Moldova and Ukraine by Jeppe Juul Petersen (Copenhagen)
    ENLARGEMENT, HOSPITALITY AND TRANSFORMATIVE POWERS The Cases of Moldova and Ukraine by Jeppe Juul Petersen (Copenhagen) First publication. The European Union has undergone tremendous changes in recent years with the most comprehensive enlargement in its history. On May 1, 2004 ten new countries acceded to the EU (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Malta 1 Cf. Dinan, Desmond: Europe and Cyprus) and more countries are eager to join or have even been accepted as candidate recast. a history of European union. countries for entry into the European Union. Recently, Romania and Bulgaria followed the Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan ten newcomers as they finished their accession process and became members of the EU in 2004, p. 267. January 2007. Currently, the EU consists of 27 countries, with a population of roughly 500 2 Leonard, Mark/Grant, Charles: million and the largest economy in the world. Georgia and the EU. Can Europe’s Regardless of the incongruence between the old member states of the EU, the enlarge- neighbourhood policy deliver? Centre ment seemed inevitable since the reunited Europe could not restrict itself to the western for European Reform Policy Brief part of Europe.1 Thus, the enlargement processes of the EU can indeed be viewed as an 2005, p. 1. example of a reunification and integration process of Europe after the end of the Cold War. 3 Wolczuk, Kataryna: Ukraine after The countries that were previously linked to the USSR (e.g. Poland, Czech Republic and the Orange Revolution. Centre for Hungary) or the Warsaw Pact, now enjoy independence and are on the path of democracy European Reform Policy Paper 2005, and market economy, which constitute the membership criteria adopted by the European p.
    [Show full text]
  • Turkey Country Report – Update November 2017 [3Rd Edition]
    21 November 2017 (COI up to 11th September 2017) Turkey Country Report – Update November 2017 [3rd edition] Explanatory Note Sources and databases consulted List of Acronyms CONTENTS 1. Main Developments since the attempted Coup d’état (July 2016) a. Overview of major legislative and political developments: i. Recent legislative developments incl. new amendments or decrees 1. State of Emergency 2. Emergency decrees a. Decree of 22 July 2016 (KHK/667) b. Decree of 25 July 2016 (KHK/668) c. Decree of 31 July 2016 (KHK/669) d. Decrees of 17 August 2016 (KHK/670 and 671) e. Decrees of 1 September 2016 (KHK/672, 673 and 674) f. Decrees of 29 October 2016 (KHK/675 and 676) g. Decrees of 22 November 2016 (KHK/677 and 678) h. Decrees of 6 January 2017 (KHK/679, 680 and 681) i. Decrees of 23 January 2017 (KHK/682, 683, 684 and 685) j. Decree of 7 February 2017 (KHK/686) k. Decree of 9 February 2017 (KHK/687) l. Decree of 29 March 2017 (KHK/688) m. Decrees of 29 April 2017 (KHK/689 and 690) n. Decree of 22 June 2017 (KHK/691) o. Decree of 14 July 2017 (KHK/692) p. Decrees of 25 August 2017 (KHK/693 and 694) 3. 2016: Observations by the Council of Europe Committee, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission 4. January – September 2017: Observations by the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly, the Council of Europe’s Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe, and the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Estonia As an International Actor in 2018: an Overview E-MAP Foundation MTÜ
    ISSN: 2560-1601 Vol. 13, No. 4 (EE) December 2018 Estonia external relations briefing: Estonia as an international actor in 2018: an overview E-MAP Foundation MTÜ 1052 Budapest Petőfi Sándor utca 11. +36 1 5858 690 Kiadó: Kína-KKE Intézet Nonprofit Kft. [email protected] Szerkesztésért felelős személy: Chen Xin Kiadásért felelős személy: Huang Ping china-cee.eu 2017/01 Estonia as an international actor in 2018: an overview Evidently, from the times when Estonia had been attempting to regain its independence back in 1990s, the country has never been more visible internationally than it has been during 2018. Partially, it was due to the factor of the centennial – while celebrating its big anniversary, Estonia seized the moment to ‘tell’ its comprehensive story to the world. At the same time, there were other factors, which ‘shaped’ the Estonian Republic’s actions on the international stage, and they could be singled out in the following three ‘baskets’ – the country’s application for the UN Security Council membership in 2020-2021 and its special attention paid to the Russian Federation’s aggressive stance in Europe. Estonia to the UN Security Council 2020-2021 Even though it was not a founding member of the organisation, Estonia managed to join the League of Nations in 1921, presumably anticipating its long-term active involvement in the complicated process of solving different issues of international significance. It did not go according to the plan, because the country had a bit less than 19 years of its existence as an independent state before it was occupied by the Soviet Union.
    [Show full text]
  • The Document Was Created from a File "S:\Cosac Permanent Member\COSAC-2014-2017\COSAC Documents-2016-2017\Estonian Presiden
    MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE LVIII COSAC Tallinn, 27-28 November 2017 IN THE CHAIR: Mr Toomas VITSUT, Chair of the European Union Affairs Committee, Estonian Riigikogu AGENDA: 1. Opening of the meeting of the LVIII COSAC - Welcome address by Mr Eiki NESTOR, President of the Estonian Riigikogu - Introductory remarks by Mr Toomas VITSUT, Chair of the European Union Affairs Committee, Estonian Riigikogu - Adoption of the agenda of the meeting of the LVIII COSAC 2. Procedural issues and miscellaneous matters - Information on the results of the meeting of the Presidential Troika of COSAC - Presentation of the 28th Bi-annual Report of COSAC - Letters received by the Presidency - Procedural issues 3. Session I - ‘The future of the European Union’ Speakers: H.E. Ms Kersti KALJULAID, President of the Republic of Estonia, Mr Michel BARNIER, EU Chief Negotiator for Brexit, Ms Danuta HÜBNER, Chair of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs of the European Parliament Moderator: Mr Toomas VITSUT, Chair of the European Union Affairs Committee, Estonian Riigikogu 4. Session II - ‘Bringing the European Union closer to its citizens - what are the best practices of national Parliaments?’ Speakers: Ms Katrin AUEL, Associate Professor in the Research Group European Integration, Vienna Institute for Advanced Studies, Mr Pieter OMTZIGT, Member of the European Affairs Committee, Dutch Tweede Kamer, Mr Kristian VIGENIN, Chair of the Committee on European Affairs and Oversight of the European Funds, Bulgarian Narodno Sabranie Moderator: Ms Monika HAUKANÕMM, Member
    [Show full text]
  • Wholehearted? Half-Hearted? the Response from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to Recent Developments in Turkey
    Wholehearted? Half-hearted? The response from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to recent developments in Turkey Dr Alice Donald (Middlesex University, London) and Anne-Katrin Speck (European Implementation Network)* Abstract The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has limited tools of sanction and scrutiny at its disposal to respond to serious transgressions of member states. Since the failed coup attempt in Turkey and the government’s subsequent crackdown, sanctions have barely been discussed, let alone used, in the Assembly. However, the monitoring procedure, the most significant tool of scrutiny, has been reopened in respect of Turkey—a step without precedent in the 70 years of the Assembly’s existence. Drawing on documentary sources and interviews, this paper analyses the three key debates about Turkey in the Assembly since the failed coup d’état. The paper documents how Turkey has disputed any criticism of its actions and pushed back against all exceptional treatment as punitive and damaging to long-standing relations. It finds that political support for the Erdoğan regime has been unstable and, if anything, diminishing. The Assembly, like other Council of Europe bodies, has declined to endorse the Turkish authorities' version of the events of 15 July 2016 and their aftermath. Considering its limited powers and scandal-ridden recent history, we conclude that the Assembly’s response to the decay of the rule of law in Turkey has been stronger than one might have expected. 1. Introduction The Turkish consulate and Permanent Representation to the Council of Europe (CoE) inhabit a monolithic and lavishly furnished building close to the European institutions in Strasbourg.
    [Show full text]
  • European and Russian Power in the Troubled Neighbourhood Nicu Popescu & Andrew Wilson
    THE LIMITS OF ENLARGEMENT-LITE: EUROPEAN AND RUSSIAN POWER IN THE TROUBLED NEIGHBOURHOOD Nicu Popescu & Andrew Wilson The European Council on Foreign Relations does not take collective positions. This paper, like all publications of the European Council on Foreign Relations, represents only the views of its authors. Copyright of this publication is held by the European Council on Foreign Relations. You may not copy, reproduce, republish Acknowledgements or circulate in any way the content from this publication except for your own personal and non-commercial use. Any other use requires the prior written permission of the European Council on Foreign Relations. © ECFR June 2009. Published by the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), 5th Floor Cambridge House, 100 Cambridge Grove, London W6 0LE [email protected] ISBN: 978-1-906538-13-2 Special thanks are due to our research assistant Stanislav Secrieru for all his hard work on the report. This report has benefited from data and analysis provided by experts from the six eastern neighbourhood states – Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. Each expert conducted a survey of his or her country’s economic and political relations with the EU. Our thanks go to Tevan Poghosyan, Tabib Huseynov, Vlad Lupan, Oleksandr Sushko, Vitali Silitski and Archil Gegeshidze. Although we have been informed by their research, responsibility for the arguments and analysis advanced in this paper lies with the authors alone. At ECFR we are indebted to Tom Nuttall, Mark Leonard, Rob Blackhurst, Ulrike Guérot, Thomas Klau, Alba Lamberti, Katherine Parkes, Vanessa Stevens, Vessela Tcherneva, José Ignacio Torreblanca and Nick Witney.
    [Show full text]
  • Annotated Agenda…………………………………………………………19 Annex Iii: Introductory Speeches to Working Sessions……………
    SUPPLEMENTARY M E E T I N G OSCE Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting DEMOCRATIZATION: STRENGTHENING DEMOCRACY THROUGH EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION Final Report Vienna, 2-3 November 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY………………………………………………………………….....3 II. RECOMMENDATIONS……………………………………………………………………...6 III. SUMMARIES AND OUTCOME OF THE SESSIONS……………………………………..9 SESSION I: Empowerment of legislatures: A modern and democratic parliamentary infrastructure ……………………………………….…………………………………………….9 SESSION II: Political parties and parliamentary factions …………..………………..……... 11 SESSION III: Law Making and Access to Legislation in a Democratic System of Government....………………………………………………………………………………..... 14 IV. ANNEXES………………………………………………………………………………….17 ANNEX I: AGENDA……………………………………………………………………...……17 ANNEX II: ANNOTATED AGENDA…………………………………………………………19 ANNEX III: INTRODUCTORY SPEECHES TO WORKING SESSIONS……………...........25 SESSION I: Empowerment of legislatures: A modern and democratic parliamentary infrastructure ………………………………………………………………………...………….25 Mr. Alessandro Palanza, Deputy Secretary General, Italian Chamber of Deputies………….…25 Ms. Donka Banovic, Chairperson of the Committee for Education in the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia ..……………………………………………………………………...30 SESSION II: Political parties and parliamentary factions……………………………………...32 Mr. Ivan Doherty, National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, USA……………...32 Ms. Mira Karybaeva, Social Technologies Agency, Kyrgyzstan……………………………….37 SESSION III: Law Making and Access to
    [Show full text]
  • European Parliament
    EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ««« « « 2004 « « 2009 « « ««« DELEGATION FOR RELATIONS WITH THE COUNTRIES OF SOUTHEAST ASIA AND THE ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN NATIONS (ASEAN) Report of the 4th EP/Laos Interparliamentary Meeting and working group to Thailand (Bangkok - Vientiane - Luang Prabang) 18-23 March 2007 INTRODUCTION A working group from the Delegation for relations with the countries of Southeast Asia and the ASEAN visited Laos for the 4th EP/Laos Interparliamentary Meeting from 19 to 23 March 2007. On its way to Laos, the working group had a 24-hour stop in Bangkok to assess the political situation in Thailand since the military coup d'état on 19 September 2006; this visit was meant to be a fact-finding mission, without endorsing the status of an official visit. The working group was led by Mr Hartmut NASSAUER (EPP-ED), Chair of the Delegation. It included also Mr Mr Jas GAWRONSKI, Mr Bert DOORN, Ms Margie SUDRE (EPP-ED), Mr Robert GOEBBELS (PES), Mr Frithjof SCHMIDT (Greens/EFA) and Mr Gintaras DIDŽIOKAS (UEN), Members of the ASEAN Delegation, as well as Mr Glyn FORD (PES) in his quality of rapporteur on "EU's Economic and Trade Relations with ASEAN" for the Committee on International Trade. MAIN CONCLUSIONS Thailand The politicians, diplomats and civil society activists we met, reflecting feelings observed by EU diplomats, did not perceive toppling of the government of Prime Minister Thaksin and the abrogation of the 1997 Constitution as a major catastrophe for democracy in Thailand as one could expect after a military coup d'état. Indeed, the widespread feelings were that under Prime Minister Thaksin the Constitution had been unable to guarantee the neutrality and smooth functioning of the State (personal privileges and cronyism, but also constant demonstrations and finally the failed general election) even before the coup formally suspended it.
    [Show full text]
  • The Limits of Enlargement-Lite: European and Russian Power in the Troubled Neighbourhood
    THE LIMITS OF EnlaRGEMEnt-LITE: EUROPEan anD RUSSIan POWER IN THE TROUBLED NEIGHBOURHOOD Nicu Popescu & Andrew Wilson POLICY REPORT THE LIMITS OF ENLARGEMENT-LITE: EUROPEAN AND RUSSIAN POWER IN THE TROUBLED NEIGHBOURHOOD Nicu Popescu & Andrew Wilson The European Council on Foreign Relations does not take collective positions. This paper, like all publications of the European Council on Foreign Relations, represents only the views of its authors. Copyright of this publication is held by the European Council on Foreign Relations. You may not copy, reproduce, republish or circulate in any way the content from this publication except for your own personal and non-commercial use. Any other use requires the prior written permission of the European Council on Foreign Relations. © ECFR June 2009. Published by the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), 5th Floor Cambridge House, 100 Cambridge Grove, London W6 0LE [email protected] ISBN: 978-1-906538-13-2 Acknowledgements Special thanks are due to our research assistant Stanislav Secrieru for all his hard work on the report. This report has benefited from data and analysis provided by experts from the six eastern neighbourhood states – Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. Each expert conducted a survey of his or her country’s economic and political relations with the EU. Our thanks go to Tevan Poghosyan, Tabib Huseynov, Vlad Lupan, Oleksandr Sushko, Vitali Silitski and Archil Gegeshidze. Although we have been informed by their research, responsibility for the arguments and analysis advanced in this paper lies with the authors alone. At ECFR we are indebted to Tom Nuttall, Mark Leonard, Rob Blackhurst, Ulrike Guérot, Thomas Klau, Alba Lamberti, Katherine Parkes, Vanessa Stevens, Vessela Tcherneva, José Ignacio Torreblanca and Nick Witney.
    [Show full text]
  • Bulletin of the European Union
    ISSN 0378-3693 European Commission Bulletin of the European Union 10·1995 The Bulletin of the European Union reports on the activities of the Commission and the other Community institutions. It is produced by the Secretariat-General of the European Commission and published 10 times a year in the official European languages. The following reference system is used: the first digit indicates the part number, the second digit the chapter number and the subsequent digit or digits the point number. Citations should there­ fore read as follows: Bull 1/2-1994, point 1.1.1 or 2.2.3. Supplements to the Bulletin are published in a separate series at irregular intervals. They contain official Commission material (e.g. communications to the Council, programmes, reports and pro­ posals). European Commission Secretariat-General Editorial team: rue de Ia Loi 200- B-1049 Brussels- Tel. 2957930 Sent to press in January 1995 © ECSC-EC-EAEC, Brussels • Luxembourg, 1995 Reproduction is authorized provided the source is acknowledged. Printed in France European Commission Bulletin of the European Union 10 ·1995 Bulletin information service Readers can obtain information on developments since this issue went to press (date of adoption of instruments by the Council, of opinions given by Parliament or the Economic and Social Committee, of publication in the Official Journal, etc.) by tele­ phoning the documentation service of the Commission Offices on the following numbers: London (171) 222 8122 Belfast 240 708 Cardiff 371 631 Edinburgh 225 2058 Dublin 671 2244 References in the text References to other parts of the same issue of the Bulletin are given in parentheses in text, thus (--+ point 2.1.53).
    [Show full text]
  • European Parliament Parliamentary Elections
    EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS MOLDOVA AD HOC DELEGATION Election Observation 4-7 March 2005 REPORT Annexes: List of participants Programme OSCE/ODIHR Press Release Statement Mrs Mikko ______________ 21 March EUR/TB/em FdR 567363 PE 358.272 Background The Moldovan parliamentary elections of 6 March 2005 were conducted to elect a new, unicameral Parliament with a four year mandate, consisting of 101 deputies who are elected by proportional representation in a single nationwide constituency. In order to enter Parliament single parties needed to obtain six per cent of the valid votes cast (the second highest threshold in Europe after Turkey), coalitions of two parties required nine per cent and three or more parties required twelve per cent. A 50 per cent voter turnout was required for the election to be valid. The newly elected parliament subsequently elects the President, for which 61 votes were necessary. 23 parties or blocs were standing in the elections, however only five were considered to have a realistic chance of obtaining seats in Parliament - the Communist Party (CPM), the centrist Bloc of Moldova Democrats (BMD), the Christian Democrats (PPCD), the pro-business Social Democratic Party of Moldova (PSDM) and the pro- Moscow Patria-Rodina. The election administration was based on the 1997 Central Electoral Code and had a three tier system; the Central Election Commission (CEC), 37 District Election Commissions (DECs) and 1,967 Polling Station Election Bureaux (PSEBs) In the previous parliament the Communist Party had 71 seats, the centrist Braghis Alliance 19 seats, and the Christian Democrats 11 seats. No other parties passed the threshold for obtaining seats.
    [Show full text]
  • Force Mineure? the Effects of the EU on Party Politics in a Small Country: the Case of Estonia
    Sikk, A; (2009) Force Mineure? The Effects of the EU on Party Politics in a Small Country: The Case of Estonia. Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 25 (4) pp. 468-490. 10.1080/13523270903310852. Downloaded from UCL Discovery: http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/72380. ARTICLE Force Mineure? The Effects of the EU on Party Politics in a Small Country: The Case of Estonia Allan Sikk School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College London Abstract The article analyses whether the first four years of EU membership had a tangible impact on Estonian party politics. In particular, the article argues that in small countries the EU perspectives and European Policy Specialists (EPS) may remain sidelined in the decision making processes within political parties merely due to mechanical effects of small numbers of EPSs. The creation and expansion of the European Union (EU) has perhaps been the most important political development in Europe during the past half a century. After re-gaining independence, joining the EU was without doubt the main political and economic change for Estonia. Therefore, one could predict that membership would have led to changes in national politics, beside more immediate effects on the country’s economy. However, the experience of old member states shows that despite substantial delegated powers, the EU has only modestly influenced national party competition – especially directly regarding the power of the European issue itself for structuring domestic party competition.1 This article analyses whether the first four years of EU membership had a tangible impact on Estonian party politics – in areas covered in earlier studies more (party organisation and policy space) or less (party system and the role of new EU-politicians) deeply.
    [Show full text]