DOCSLIB.ORG

Elite Conflicts and Their Effects on Political Support As a Function of Elite and Mass Polarization

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Elite Conflicts and Their Effects on Political Support As a Function of Elite and Mass Polarization Elite Conflicts and Their Effects on Political Support as a Function of Elite and Mass Polarization By Gergő Závecz Submitted to Central European University Doctoral School of Political Science, Public Policy and International Relations In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science Supervisor: Gábor Tóka CEU eTD Collection Budapest, Hungary April 2017 Copyright Notice I hereby declare that this dissertation contains no materials accepted for any other degrees in any other institutions. This dissertation contains no materials previously written and/or published by another person, except where appropriate acknowledgment is made in the form of bibliographical reference. Gergő Závecz Budapest, April 5, 2017 CEU eTD Collection ii Abstract The main contribution of this dissertation is the exploration of how a certain type of disconnection between the political elite and citizens may impact support for the democratic political system. Specifically, this dissertation is concerned with how differences in elite and mass polarization mediate the effects of conflicts, verbal attacks and negativity among partisan elites on support for the political system. I find that it is not the frequently loathed conflict-rich talk of politicians in itself that raises negative feelings among the citizens about the political system and the actors. Rather, the effect occurs when differences in polarization between political elites and their followers are especially pronounced. Thus, the dissertation contributes to the political communication literature by identifying the condition under which negativity, disagreements and conflict-rich talk among politicians creates negative citizen attitudes towards how democracy works. The implication is that it is not the natural tendency of the democratic process to generate visible displays of elite conflict that makes citizens dislike democratic politics, but when it coincides with an apparent oversupply of ideological polarization among elites relative to how much citizens themselves get divided on an ideological basis. Chapter 2 uses three waves of European Election Study (EES) data to show that elite polarization increases how conflictual EU-related news are prior to a European Parliament (EP) election. Chapter 3 uses a dataset on university students in 24 countries prior to the 2014 EP election and finds that when citizens are more polarized, the same campaign debate is perceived as being less negative by them. Chapter 4 again uses EES data to examine the main CEU eTD Collection empirical argument of the dissertation. It finds that in countries where elites are more polarized than the electorate, support for the political system is more strongly undermined by exposure to explicit conflicts between politicians than elsewhere. Finally, in Chapter 5, based on a survey of a representative sample of the online population in a country with a clear iii disconnect between elite and mass polarization on EU issues, I test whether conflictual rhetoric in such contexts in fact hurts popular support for democracy as the previous findings suggest. In general, the dissertation partly supports and partly complements the elite integration theory outlined by John Higley (most recently in 2010), namely that strong elite divisions bring uncertainty and decreasing support among citizens for the entire political system. The dissertation shows that when partisan elites are divided to a larger extent than their supporters in the electorate, even less harsh debates are seen by citizens as more conflictual, and this decreases political support. However, my results also show that when elites differ little from the masses in how politically polarized they are, or when masses are more polarized, citizens are less sensitive to expressions of elite debates, perceive less negativity in politics, and their support for regimes does not decrease significantly when exposed to signs of elite conflict. These results support that citizens react to elite behavior: when citizens have to listen to endless elite disagreements and conflict-rich talk on a particular issue in which they are more or less united, this bothers them, and they articulate their distaste in the form of decreasing political support for the system that produced these endless disagreements. CEU eTD Collection iv Acknowledgements I have worked on this dissertation for almost six years, have been inspired during this process by experiences of a much longer period of time. This makes it hard to thank everyone who helped me finishing my work by some means. However, let me try to do so. First, I would like to thank my supervisors, Gábor Tóka, Levente Littvay and Zoltán Miklósi for all the guidance they gave me through the process. Gábor was my MA supervisor, and has helped me through the PhD process as well. I remember the first time we met, I wanted to ask him to be my supervisor, but I did not even have a topic. He accepted the suggestion anyways, and since then I have always been happy to work with him. He contributed to so many of my chapters both directly by talking about them, and by collecting data together, and indirectly by introducing me to scholars with whom I could work on related research. So, thank you Gábor! I am also grateful to Levente. I remember him talking about the Political Behavior Research Group (PolBeRG) on my very first day as a CEU MA student at the welcome reception, and how he said that I would be a great fit for the group. Since then he gave me so much support, as I was his TA and received the Best TA award, and as I selected my dissertation topic based on a final paper written for one of his courses. Thanks again Levi! I would also like to thank Zoltán for all the valuable insights he gave me to make this dissertation theoretically more coherent. I am grateful to my external supervisor, Diana C. Mutz. She helped me to be a visiting scholar for a semester at the University of Pennsylvania, one of the greatest universities in the world. She gave me perspective, as she helped me to structure this dissertation, and helped me CEU eTD Collection to find the most relevant research questions. Diana and her husband Robin Pemantle were always happy to meet me when I was in the US, and I am genuinely grateful for the Thanksgiving Dinners I could spend with them and their children. v I am very grateful to all of my other professors and teachers from primary school to university, who all formed the way I see the world, and without whom I would never have written these lines. I would especially like to thank three of my greatest inspirations from the ELTE Apáczai Csere János High School: Zoltán Falta, Péter Nagy Sz. and Miklós Száray. I am also grateful to all of my fellow graduate students at CEU, many of whom provided me with relevant insights (especially Constantin Manuel Bosancianu). Attendees at conferences (Political Psychology Networking Conference for the Post-Communist Region, Annual Doctoral Conferences at CEU, Annual Conference of the Hungarian Political Science Association, MPSA and APSA), where I presented parts of my dissertation, also gave me valuable feedback, so I am grateful to them as well. Chapter 5 would have never been written without the technical and substantial contribution and expertise of PolBeRG members (especially Anna Csonka, Gábor Simonovits and Federico Vegetti) to the collection of two different data sets in 2012 and 2014. The collection of the dataset used in Chapter 3 is a result of a joint effort by several universities across Europe (special thanks go to Jürgen Maier and Thorsten Faas, leaders of the research), and I would like to thank the leaders and members of the Peripato (especially Róbert Tardos, Zoltán Kmetty and Nikosz Fokasz), without whose support I would not have been able to participate in this study. I am also grateful to the Varieties of Democracy Project, the Political Participation – An International Comparative Research Project, and especially to its main Hungarian researcher, Zsolt Enyedi, as well as to the Equinox Consulting Ltd., who all gave me rewarding part time CEU eTD Collection jobs with flexible work schedules, and thus financial stability and opportunity for working on the dissertation once my university stipend run out. I would also like to thank Eszter Timár, who is probably reading these acknowledgements, and tries to delete all the unnecessary “rather”s I placed in the text, for all vi the help in editing. She has been a great help not only to finish this dissertation, but also for many of my term papers and articles over the years. Five years ago, when I was an MA student at CEU, and I was waiting for the results of my PhD application, I promised to a group of friends that if I got accepted I would mention them in the acknowledgments. I do not like broken promises, and I would not like to leave anyone else out, so let me thank: Artúr, Ata, Ati, two Attila-s, two Ádám-s, Ági, Balu, Bálint, Bea, Beus, Bécó, Csomi, two Dani-s, two Dávid-s, Detti, Dia, Ekka, Gábor, Győző, Gyuri, Hunor, Juli, Kende, Kristóf, Kriszti, Krisztike, Laci, Lacika, Levi, Lívia, Marci, Máté, Milán, Panda, Patrik, Réka, Soma, Szihám, Tamás, Tibi, Viki, Vivien and Zsoca. I also thank for their patience my closest friends whose invitations were so frequently turned down during the following years with the explanation that I do not have time since I am working on my dissertation: Dávid (Viszoki), the two Gábor-s (Imri and Pápai), József (Bogdán), the two Roland-s (Györkös and Reiner), the two Tamás-s (Szerbin and Takács), Péter (Koleszár), Tibor (Pikó), and two Zoltán-s (Csaba and Kovács). Finally, my utmost gratitude goes to my family. I remember my grandparents, who always motivated me to be a good student, since they wanted me to reach far.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Transcription of the “Eurovision Debate“ in the Run-Up to the European Parliament Election 2014
    Transcription of the “Eurovision Debate“ in the Run-Up to the European Parliament Election 2014 Jürgen Maier Thorsten Faas No. 2/2014 Working Paper and Documentation of Research Focus ”Communication, Media and Politics” ISSN (Online): 2195-6030 The working papers of the research focus „Communication, Media and Politics“ appear at irregular intervals to document intermediate results. All rights reserved especially (also in extracts) for translation, reprinting, reproduction by copying or other technical means. Publisher/Editors Members of Steering Committee of the Research Focus „Communication, Media and Politics” Prof. Dr. Rüdiger Grimm (Faculty 4: Informatics) Prof. Dr. Jürgen Maier (Faculty 6: Cultural and Social Sciences) Prof. Dr. Michaela Maier (Faculty 8: Psychology) Prof. Dr. Manfred Schmitt (Faculty 8: Psychology) Transcription of the “Eurovision Debate“ in the Run-Up to the European Parliament Election 2014 Jürgen Maier Thorsten Faas No. 2/2014 Contact Information Jürgen Maier Department of Political Science Institute of Social Sciences Faculty 6: Cultural and Social Sciences University of Koblenz-Landau, Campus Landau Kaufhausgasse 9 76829 Landau E-Mail: [email protected] Thorsten Faas Empirical Political Science Institute of Political Science Faculty 2: Social Sciences, Media, and Sports Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz Hegelstr. 59 55122 Mainz E-Mail: [email protected] Transcription of the “Eurovision Debate“ in the Run-Up to the European Parliament Election 2014 About the Debate On May 15, 2013 the first TV-debate between all leading candidates for the Presidency of European Commission, the “Eurovision Debate” took place. Participating candidates were Jean-Claude Juncker (EPP), Martin Schulz (PES), Guy Verhofstadt (ALDE), Ska Keller (European Greens) and Alexis Tsipras (PEL).
    [Show full text]
  • CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA SEMINAR European Media and Informed Citizenship 27-28 November 2014, Milan
    CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA SEMINAR European media and informed citizenship 27-28 November 2014, Milan Contents Foreword 3 Theevent 4 Thecontextoftheseminar 4 Programme 5 DayI 6 Opening session 6 Panel I 7 Panel II 9 Panel III 10 DayII 12 Opening session 12 Panel IV 13 Closing session 16 Participants 18 Quotesfromthedebates 20 Biographies 22 Foreword Dear all, At our 8th Civil Society Media Seminar in Milan, we took independence of journalists must be safeguarded and the a closer look at how the European Union communicates freedom of public service media must be taken seriously. and discussed the extent to which information conveyed is actually absorbed by European citizens. The lively debate Social media has led to significant changes in the way which took place and the positive feedback we have we communicate and has provided a new window of received both confirm that we have chosen the right topic. opportunity, which the EU must utilise. The EU must get involved, whilst asking “what can we offer our followers?”. The key message which emerged from the seminar Social media can help build trust through transparent was that our communication must be more immediate. communication. It is also an important additional platform People want to see and experience the added value that for political discussion and a source of information. the EU brings on a daily basis, preferably in their own local In order to ensure transparency, journalists and citizens area. Policies should be explained using examples and who receive this information must view sources and legislation should be described in terms of what it means content with a critical eye.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding the Spitzenkandidaten Process
    BRIEFING Election of the President of the European Commission Understanding the Spitzenkandidaten process SUMMARY The European Parliament has long sought to ensure that, by voting in European elections, European citizens not only elect the Parliament itself, but also have a say over who would head the EU executive – the European Commission. What became known as the 'Spitzenkandidaten process' is a procedure whereby European political parties, ahead of European elections, appoint lead candidates for the role of Commission President, with the presidency of the Commission then going to the candidate of the political party capable of marshalling sufficient parliamentary support. The Parliament remains firmly committed to repeating the process in 2019 and, with EP elections now only weeks away, attention has shifted to the European political parties. A number of parties have nominated lead candidates, and this briefing gives an overview of their nominees, as well as looking more broadly at the process. This is a revised and further updated edition of an earlier briefing; previous edition from February 2019. Lead candidates of the six European political parties due to participate in the Eurovision debate, to be held in Parliament’s Brussels hemicycle, on 15 May 2019. EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service Author: Laura Tilindyte Members' Research Service PE 630.264 – April 2019 EN EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service The 2019 elections: European political parties It is widely acknowledged that the European political parties will play a crucial role for the future of the Spitzenkandidaten procedure. In this respect, commentators consistently point to the daunting and, before 2014, unprecedented challenge of a multilingual, continent-wide campaign in 27 or 28 countries, each with their own political culture and sensitivities.1 The Commission has made recommendations (February 2018) in this regard, suggesting, for example, earlier selection of the lead candidates (ideally by the end of 2018), leaving more time for the campaign.
    [Show full text]
  • Of 7 the EUROVISION DEBATE TERMS of USE of SIGNAL the Present Document Sets out the Terms According to Which the Producti
    Terms of 29.04.2014 THE EUROVISION DEBATE TERMS OF USE OF SIGNAL The present Document sets out the terms according to which the production/signal of the programme mentioned hereafter is to be made available for transmission by broadcasters (available for EBU Members and non-EBU Members) as well as by European and national political parties wishing to retransmit the Debate. Programme Information Title: Eurovision Debate Venue: Plenary Chamber of the European Parliament in Brussels Date: 15 May 2014 Time: 21:00 CET Duration: 90 min. Producer: European Broadcasting Union under the guidance of the Editorial Board (see below) Conditions of broadcast Transmission: Live, deferred and repeat use Period: unlimited in time Exclusivity: non (non-exclusive right for the broadcaster’s territory) Media: any operated media services (Linear and Non-Linear) on any fully-owned platforms. Editing: allowed but to be undertaken under the sole responsibility of the broadcasters. Restrictions/disclaimer: The Eurovision Debate is to be produced by the EBU under the guidance and the supervision of senior editors from European Public Service Media (the “Editorial Board”), the composition thereof being given under Annexe 1 hereto along the lines described in the document attached hereto as Annexe 2 (the “Rules”). The Rules provide information as to the selection criteria of the candidates invited to participate in the Eurovision Debate and the format of the Debate Broadcasters wishing to transmit the Eurovision Debate are invited to submit the Rules to their respective in-house legal department in order to verify that national requirements regarding the coverage of EU elections (if any) in their country are met.
    [Show full text]
  • European Elections 2019: the Spitzenkandidaten Debates As Seen from Twitter by Francesco Castelli
    European Elections 2019: the Spitzenkandidaten debates as seen from Twitter By Francesco Castelli The 2019 European Elections have led to a reshaping of the political composition of the European Parliament. The two ‘incumbent’ groups (EPP and S&D) managed to keep the relative majority, even though they lost a number of seats in favour of the Greens, the liberals of ALDE and the right-wing populist/nationalist groups. This mixed result has further put into question the Spitzenkandidaten system, the mechanism introduced in the 2014 election by which the candidate whose party received the highest share of votes would automatically become the President in pectore of the next European Commission. Nevertheless, during the whole campaign, the Spitzenkandidaten have paid little attention to their potential delegitimization, and acted as effective candidates for the ‘EU top job’: they flew across the continent looking for support, they communicated policy plans on behalf of their transnational group in the EP and, last but not least, they participated in three public debates where they had the chance to confront each other in front of the camera—and the voters. The Spitzenkandidaten appeared to be more concerned in gaining the citizens’ trust than in focusing on specific issues—something the electorate looked more interested in doing. Debates of this kind—broadcast all across the Union, mainly through internet streaming—offer a good chance to analyse the public debate on political topics on social networks like Twitter. They tend to catalyse the attention on political topics in short, well-defined windows of time and with a broad usage of frequent words and hashtags.
    [Show full text]
  • Learning About the Unknown Spitzenkandidaten
    Learning about the unknown Spitzenkandidaten: The role of media exposure during the 2019 European Parliament elections Simon Richter1, Sebastian Stier2 1FU Berlin 2GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, Cologne Conditionally accepted at European Union Politics Abstract The Spitzenkandidaten were meant to personalize European Parlia- ment (EP) elections. This paper asks whether and through which channels the lead candidates were actually able to make themselves known among voters – a necessary precondition for any electoral effect. Combining panel surveys and online tracking data, the study explores candidate learning during the German 2019 EP election campaign and relates learning to different types of news exposure, with a special focus on online news. The results show that learning was limited and unevenly distributed across candidates. However exposure to candidate-specific online news and most types of offline news helped to acquire knowledge. The findings imply that Spitzenkandidaten stick to voters’ minds when they get exposed to them, but that exposure is infrequent in high-choice media environments. 1 Introduction European Parliament (EP) elections have traditionally suffered from low turnout (Franklin, 2001), a fact that is commonly attributed to their “second-order nature” (Reif and Schmitt, 1980). Accordingly, an impressive body of research found electoral behavior in EP elections to be driven primarily by national rather than European concerns (e.g., Hix and Marsh, 2007; Schmitt, 2005). The underlying reasons for this might be the long discussed democratic deficit of the European Union (Follesdal and Hix, 2006) and its complex political and institutional setting (Schmitter, 2000). To increase the appeal of EP elections, the establishment of the so called Spitzenkandidaten system in 2014 was meant to personalize the vote by linking EP election results to the nomination of the European Commission (EC) presidency such that the nominee should come from the party family with the biggest vote share.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Is Driving Whom: the Media, Voters and the Bandwagon
    UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) Who is driving whom The media, voters and the bandwagon Stolwijk, S.B. Publication date 2017 Document Version Final published version License Other Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Stolwijk, S. B. (2017). Who is driving whom: The media, voters and the bandwagon. General rights It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl) Download date:10 Oct 2021 Opinion polls of vote intentions play a prominent role in today’s political campaigns. Stolwijk B. Sjoerd and the bandwagon media, voters The is driving whom: Who When positive opinion poll results trigger additional support for a party, this is denoted as a “bandwagon eff ect”. This dissertation has added a communication Who is driving whom: science perspective to the study of the bandwagon eff ect, by evaluating how poll ratings infl uence party coverage, and how exposure to poll coverage across a campaign infl uences a voter’s campaign interest, emotions about parties, turnout The media, voters and vote choice.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of Contemporary European Research
    Journal of Contemporary European Research Volume 15, Issue 4 (2019) ResearCh ArtiCle Is it all about European Democracy? The Motives behind the Institutionalisation of the Spitzenkandidaten Lukáš Hamřík and Petr Kaniok Citation Hamřík, L. and Kaniok, P. (2019). ‘Is it all about European DemoCraCy? The Motives behind the Institutionalisation of the Spitzenkandidaten’, Journal of Contemporary European Research 15(4): 354-377. https://doi.org/10.30950/jcer.v15i4.950 First published at: www.jcer.net Volume 15, Issue 4 (2019) Lukáš Hamřík and Petr Kaniok Abstract The European Parliament elections in 2014 and 2019 were different insofar as European citizens had the possibility to ‘directly’ influence who could become the next President of the European Commission. This innovation is based on the idea of ‘Spitzenkandidaten’, where a vote for a given political party also represents a vote for its lead candidate. This article examines the process behind the institutionalisation of the Spitzenkandidaten procedure, with attention focused on the actors involved and their motivations for supporting this institutional innovation. Using a qualitative content analysis of EU institutional and party documentation, the article confirms that the Spitzenkandidaten procedure should be perceived as the culmination of a long-term process beginning in the pre- Amsterdam era. It also concludes that the procedure, as firstly applied in 2014, represents the common effort of two supranational institutions and four European political parties. It is also argued that while the emergence of the Spitzenkandidaten is primarily a result of perceived shortcomings of the EU’s democratic quality, actors’ self-interest was also driving force. Keywords Spitzenkandidaten; Lead candidates; EU democracy; European Commission; European Parliament; European political parties The European Union (EU) has been contending with issues of legitimacy for over half of its existence.
    [Show full text]
  • How Different Were the European Elections of 2014?
    Politics and Governance (ISSN: 2183-2463) 2016, Volume 4, Issue 1, Pages 1-8 Doi: 10.17645/pag.v4i1.591 Editorial Introduction: How Different Were the European Elections of 2014? Wouter van der Brug 1, Katjana Gattermann 2,3 and Claes H. de Vreese 2 1 Department of Political Science, University of Amsterdam, 1018 WV Amsterdam, The Netherlands; E-Mail: [email protected] 2 Amsterdam School of Communication Research, University of Amsterdam, 1018 WV Amsterdam, The Netherlands; E-Mails: [email protected] (K.G.), [email protected] (C.H.V.) 3 Amsterdam Centre for Contemporary European Studies, University of Amsterdam, 1018 WV Amsterdam, The Netherlands Submitted: 8 February 2016 | Published: 29 February 2016 Abstract This issue brings together papers that focus on the question of whether and in which ways the 2014 European Parlia- ment elections were different from previous ones. This is important from the point of view of emerging scholarship on changes in the EU and from the point of view of the self-proclaimed ‘This time it’s different!’ slogan from the Parlia- ment. The papers centre around three themes: 1) the role of the Spitzenkandidaten, 2) media and voters, and 3) electoral behaviour. Keywords campaigns; elections; European Parliament; media coverage; media effects; parties; Spitzenkandidaten; voting behaviour Issue This editorial is part of the issue “How Different Were the European Elections of 2014?”, edited by Wouter van der Brug, Katjana Gattermann and Claes de Vreese (University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands). © 2016 by the authors; licensee Cogitatio (Lisbon, Portugal). This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribu- tion 4.0 International License (CC BY).
    [Show full text]
  • Debate Media Sweep 15-16 May 2014
    Debate media sweep 15-16 May 2014 Date Media outlet Title (and link when available online) EU LIVE: EU Commission candidates debate in 15 May EurActiv Brussels Diversity wins as EU presidential candidates try 16-May EurActiv to impress voters Greece steals the spotlight at main presidency 16 May European Voice debate 16 May European Voice The EBU candidates debate - as it happened A contest that has failed to excite the European 15 May European Voice electorate Agenda: Eastern neighbourhood in the 15 May EU Observer forefront this WEEK 16 May EU Observer Dress rehearsal for 2019? Left and Right trade blows on economy in EU 16 May EU Observer election debate 16 May Europolitics Eurovision “Presidential” debate fails to sparkle 15 May New Europe Election 2014: the big debate is tonight EU Hunger Games: the Eurovision presidential 15 May New Europe debate... ECR claim they were "excluded" from European 16-May New Europe candidates debate Greek bailout is no success story, EU candidate 16 May Reuters Tsipras says 16 May Wall Street Journal European Election Debate Gets Shake Up Austria 15 May Der Standard One of us here will be the next President 16 May Die Presse EU top candidates for hard line against Putin 15 May Kleine Zeitung Eurovision debate with the top candidates A Retrospective of the top candidates in the 16 May Kurier European Parliament EU is European: First "Elephant Round" in 15 May Kurier Brussels 16 May ORF Call for tough sanctions against Putin 16 May Salzburger Nachrichten Duel of the EU leading candidates: Hard rate against
    [Show full text]
  • Eurovision Debate Between Candidates for the Presidency of the European Commission (9/10): Europe - Priorities of the Future (Part 2)
    Eurovision debate between candidates for the Presidency of the European Commission (9/10): Europe - Priorities of the Future (Part 2) Reference: I089483_01 Duration: 00:07:28 Location: Brussels Date: May 15, 2014 Type: EbS Live Background: Debate organised by the Eurovision between the candidates for the Presidency of the European Commission. Jean-Claude JUNCKER for the European People's Party Martin SCHULZ for the Party of European Socialists Guy VERHOFSTADT for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Ska KELLER for the Green Party, Alexis TSIPRAS for the Party of the European Left. Debate moderated by Monica MAGGIONI, Director of the Italian public television channel RAI News24. Summary: On May 25, 2014 a debate was organised at EP in Brussels between the five candidates to EC Presidency: Jean-Claude JUNCKER (EPP), Martin SCHULZ (PES), Guy VERHOFSTADT (ALDE), Ska KELLER (Green Party) and Alexis TSIPRAS (Party of the European Left). The debate was moderated by Monica MAGGIONI. Only the original language version is authentic and it prevails in the event of its differing from the translated versions. TIME DESCRIPTION DURATION 00:00:00 SOUNDBITE (English), Monica MAGGIONI, Moderator, 00:00:19 SOUNDBITE (English), Franziska KELLER, for the Green 00:00:19 00:01:09 Party, On corruption and lobbying in the EU SOUNDBITE (English), Guy VERHOFSTADT, for the 00:01:28 00:01:15 Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, xx SOUNDBITE (French), Jean-Claude JUNCKER, for the 00:02:43 00:01:00 European People's Party, x SOUNDBITE (Greek), Aléxis TSÍPRAS, for the Party of the 00:03:43 00:01:07 European Left, x SOUNDBITE (English), Martin SCHULZ, for the Party of 00:04:50 00:01:19 European Socialists, On corruption and lobbying SOUNDBITE (English), Franziska KELLER, for the Green 00:06:09 00:00:47 Party, x SOUNDBITE (English), Guy VERHOFSTADT, for the 00:06:56 00:00:27 Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, x 00:07:23 End 00:00:05 Audiovisual Services European Parliament Conditions of Use audiovisual.europarl.europa.eu © 2018 European Union.
    [Show full text]
  • European Union
    VMUN 2019 European Union BACKGROUND GUIDE Vancouver Model United Nations The Eighteenth Annual Session | January 25–27, 2019 Dear Delegates, Jerry Xu Secretary-General Welcome to the European Union! My name is Jamin Feng and this year, I will be serving as your Director. Staffing with me will be Tamerlan Nuhiyev, your Chair, and Cathy Hu, your Assistant Director. On behalf of the dais team, I very much look forward to hearing engaging debate on the two topics and examining the resolutions you all will craft. Nick Young Chief of Staff This is my third year of involvement in Model United Nations, and it has been one of the most worthwhile extracurriculars I have pursued. Delegates are able to represent a real country and Angelina Zhang argue for its views and policies, while also educating themselves on pertinent global affairs. To Director-General me, Model United Nations is a way of sparking curiosity about the issues of the world in even the most unengaged of people. It has allowed me to come out of my shell, and I highly encourage all of you to step out of your comfort zones as well. Allan Lee This year, the EU will be discussing two topics: Disinformation and Cybersecurity and Director of Logistics European Elections. Both of these topics question the fundamental framework of the European Union, and their resolution is vital to its long-term stability. In order to come up with lasting Katherine Zheng and effective solutions, delegates must be well-informed on both the topics and their respective USG General Assemblies countries’ stances, as well as able to effectively vocalize their opinions.
    [Show full text]