Seniors Standing up for Europe
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
From Understanding to Cooperation Promoting Interfaith Encounters to Meet Global Challenges
20TH ANNUAL EPP GROUP INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE WITH CHURCHES AND RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS FROM UNDERSTANDING TO COOPERATION PROMOTING INTERFAITH ENCOUNTERS TO MEET GLOBAL CHALLENGES Zagreb, 7 - 8 December 2017 20TH ANNUAL EPP GROUP INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE WITH CHURCHES AND RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS / 3 PROGRAMME 10:00-12:30 hrs / Sessions I and II The role of religion in European integration process: expectations, potentials, limits Wednesday, 6 December 10:00-11:15 hrs Session I 20.30 hrs. / Welcome Reception hosted by the Croatian Delegation / Memories and lessons learned during 20 years of Dialogue Thursday, 7 December Co-Chairs: György Hölvényi MEP and Jan Olbrycht MEP, Co-Chairmen of 09:00 hrs / Opening the Working Group on Intercultural Activities and Religious Dialogue György Hölvényi MEP and Jan Olbrycht MEP, Co-Chairmen of the Working Opening message: Group on Intercultural Activities and Religious Dialogue Dubravka Šuica MEP, Head of Croatian Delegation of the EPP Group Alojz Peterle MEP, former Responsible of the Interreligious Dialogue Welcome messages Interventions - Mairead McGuinness, First Vice-President of the European Parliament, - Gordan Jandroković, Speaker of the Croatian Parliament responsible for dialogue with religions (video message) - Joseph Daul, President of the European People’ s Party - Joseph Daul, President of the European People’ s Party - Vito Bonsignore, former Vice-Chairman of the EPP Group responsible for - Andrej Plenković, Prime Minister of Croatia Dialogue with Islam - Mons. Prof. Tadeusz Pieronek, Chairman of the International Krakow Church Conference Organizing Committee - Stephen Biller, former EPP Group Adviser responsible for Interreligious Dialogue Discussion 20TH ANNUAL EPP GROUP INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE WITH CHURCHES AND RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS / 5 4 /20TH ANNUAL EPP GROUP INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE WITH CHURCHES AND RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS 11:15-12:30 hrs. -
ESS9 Appendix A3 Political Parties Ed
APPENDIX A3 POLITICAL PARTIES, ESS9 - 2018 ed. 3.0 Austria 2 Belgium 4 Bulgaria 7 Croatia 8 Cyprus 10 Czechia 12 Denmark 14 Estonia 15 Finland 17 France 19 Germany 20 Hungary 21 Iceland 23 Ireland 25 Italy 26 Latvia 28 Lithuania 31 Montenegro 34 Netherlands 36 Norway 38 Poland 40 Portugal 44 Serbia 47 Slovakia 52 Slovenia 53 Spain 54 Sweden 57 Switzerland 58 United Kingdom 61 Version Notes, ESS9 Appendix A3 POLITICAL PARTIES ESS9 edition 3.0 (published 10.12.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Denmark, Iceland. ESS9 edition 2.0 (published 15.06.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden. Austria 1. Political parties Language used in data file: German Year of last election: 2017 Official party names, English 1. Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs (SPÖ) - Social Democratic Party of Austria - 26.9 % names/translation, and size in last 2. Österreichische Volkspartei (ÖVP) - Austrian People's Party - 31.5 % election: 3. Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) - Freedom Party of Austria - 26.0 % 4. Liste Peter Pilz (PILZ) - PILZ - 4.4 % 5. Die Grünen – Die Grüne Alternative (Grüne) - The Greens – The Green Alternative - 3.8 % 6. Kommunistische Partei Österreichs (KPÖ) - Communist Party of Austria - 0.8 % 7. NEOS – Das Neue Österreich und Liberales Forum (NEOS) - NEOS – The New Austria and Liberal Forum - 5.3 % 8. G!LT - Verein zur Förderung der Offenen Demokratie (GILT) - My Vote Counts! - 1.0 % Description of political parties listed 1. The Social Democratic Party (Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs, or SPÖ) is a social above democratic/center-left political party that was founded in 1888 as the Social Democratic Worker's Party (Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei, or SDAP), when Victor Adler managed to unite the various opposing factions. -
Sobranie: « Jean Monnet Dialogue» for Peace and Democracy
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT – SOBRANIE: « JEAN MONNET DIALOGUE» FOR PEACE AND DEMOCRACY PROGRAMME - 17 - 19 May 2018 Thursday, 17 May 2018 Individual Transfers/Transfer from Skopje to Ohrid organised by Sobranie 16.00 - 19.00 Bus transfer of the EP Delegation from the EUDel in Skopje to Ohrid 19.00 - 20.00 Check-in at the Inex Gorica Hotel or Laki Hotel & Spa 19.45 - 20.15 Bus transfer of participants from Laki Hotel & Spa to Inex Gorica 20.30 - 22.00 Welcome Dinner at the Inex Gorica Hotel Restaurant Keynote address: “The central role of the Sobranie in driving the EU integration and reform agenda” Commissioner Johannes HAHN, European Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations (recorded message) Mr Antonio LÓPEZ-ISTÚRIZ WHITE, Member of the European Parliament and Secretary-General of the European People’s Party, on behalf of EPP President Mr Joseph DAUL Welcome by: Mr Eduard KUKAN, Mr Knut FLECKENSTEIN, Mr Ivo VAJGL, Members of the European Parliament President Talat XHAFERI, Speaker of the Sobranie 22.00 Bus transfer of participants staying in Laki Spa Hotel to the hotel Friday, 18 May 18 08.30 - 09.00 Bus transfer of participants staying in Laki Spa Hotel to the Inex Gorica hotel 09.00 - 10.00 Opening of the Jean Monnet Dialogue process: core principle consensus on pursuing a united approach to Euro-Atlantic integration for the Macedonian people and institutional strengthening of the Sobranie as the democratic pillar of all reforms. (Methodology and rules of engagement) Co-chaired by President Mr Talat XHAFERI and Mr Ivo VAJGL (3 MEPs always sitting together but rotate the Chair per session). -
EU-27 Watch No 8
EU-27 WATCH No. 8 ISSN 1610-6458 Issued in March 2009 Edited by the Institute for European Politics (IEP), Berlin in collaboration with the Austrian Institute of International Affairs, Vienna Institute for International Relations, Zagreb Bulgarian European Community Studies Association, Institute for World Economics of the Hungarian Sofia Academy of Sciences, Budapest Center for European Studies / Middle East Technical Institute for Strategic and International Studies, University, Ankara Lisbon Centre européen de Sciences Po, Paris Institute of International and European Affairs, Centre d’étude de la vie politique, Université libre de Dublin Bruxelles Institute of International Relations, Prague Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches Européennes Institute of International Relations and Political Robert Schuman, Luxembourg Science, Vilnius University Centre of International Relations, Ljubljana Istituto Affari Internazionali, Rome Cyprus Institute for Mediterranean, European and Latvian Institute of International Affairs, International Studies, Nicosia Riga Danish Institute for International Studies, Mediterranean Academy of Diplomatic Studies, Copenhagen University of Malta Elcano Royal Institute and UNED University, Madrid Netherlands Institute of International Relations European Institute of Romania, Bucharest ‘Clingendael’, The Hague Federal Trust for Education and Research, London Slovak Foreign Policy Association, Bratislava Finnish Institute of International Affairs, Helsinki Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Foundation -
Case Study: “We Don´T Want Islam in Czech Republic”
Case Study: We Don´t Want Islam in Czech Republic Jaroslav Valuch May 2018 Summary Martin Konvicka, co-founder and leader of the “We Don't Want Islam in Czech Republic” initiative (Islám v České republice nechceme – IVCRN) and one of its derivative movements, “Bloc Against Islam,” is currently under police investigation and awaiting trial for inciting hatred via comments on the Facebook page of the initiative. Inciting hatred against a group of persons or restricting their rights is a criminal offence according to the Czech legal code. This initiative started in 2009 as a very successful Facebook page community (the page had up to 160,000 followers in January 2016 before it was blocked by Facebook). It then morphed into a political movement with aspirations to gain representation in the Senate and parliament. At the height of his public political career, Konvicka and Bloc Against Islam received the endorsement of the President of the Czech Republic, who publicly supported the initiative by delivering a speech on their stage on November 17th 2015, the National Day of Fighting for Freedom and Democracy (anniversary of 1989 Velvet revolution). Konvicka decided to run in the Senate election in October 2016 with his new initiative called Alternative for Czech Republic (directly inspired by the German Alternative fur Deutschland). His run ended in failure, and he finished second from the bottom. Dangerous Speech Framework Analysis Social and Historical Context Since the rise of violent right-wing extremism after the Czech Velvet Revolution in 1989, measures to counter extremism (such as the training of security forces and the adoption of extremism and hate crime legislation) have been gradually implemented.1 The threat has received serious attention from even the highest political figures. -
(SRHR) in European Institutions. by Elena
Study for POLICY MAKERS on opposition to sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) in European institutions. by Elena Zacharenko Anti-gender mobilisations in Europe Study for policy makers on opposition to sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) in European institutions Author: Elena Zacharenko This study has been commissioned by Heidi Hautala MEP, Vice President of the European Parliament. Published in December 2020 Book cover illustration, design and layout by Laura Ospina - www.lauraennube.com 2 Table of CONTENTS Foreword from MEP Heidi Hautala.............................................................04 Executive summary.......................................................................................06 What is this study and who is it for? ........................................................... 08 Part 1: What drives the anti-gender movement?...........................................10 1.1 Origins and current manifestations...........................................................12 1.2 Global connections ..................................................................................13 1.3 The anti-gender movement in the EU...................................................... 16 1.4 Is it a backlash?........................................................................................23 1.5 Recommendations...................................................................................24 Part 2: Main anti-gender actors and their tactics at EU level........................26 2.1 Lobbying organisations -
Internal Politics and Views on Brexit
BRIEFING PAPER Number 8362, 2 May 2019 The EU27: Internal Politics By Stefano Fella, Vaughne Miller, Nigel Walker and Views on Brexit Contents: 1. Austria 2. Belgium 3. Bulgaria 4. Croatia 5. Cyprus 6. Czech Republic 7. Denmark 8. Estonia 9. Finland 10. France 11. Germany 12. Greece 13. Hungary 14. Ireland 15. Italy 16. Latvia 17. Lithuania 18. Luxembourg 19. Malta 20. Netherlands 21. Poland 22. Portugal 23. Romania 24. Slovakia 25. Slovenia 26. Spain 27. Sweden www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary 2 The EU27: Internal Politics and Views on Brexit Contents Summary 6 1. Austria 13 1.1 Key Facts 13 1.2 Background 14 1.3 Current Government and Recent Political Developments 15 1.4 Views on Brexit 17 2. Belgium 25 2.1 Key Facts 25 2.2 Background 25 2.3 Current Government and recent political developments 26 2.4 Views on Brexit 28 3. Bulgaria 32 3.1 Key Facts 32 3.2 Background 32 3.3 Current Government and recent political developments 33 3.4 Views on Brexit 35 4. Croatia 37 4.1 Key Facts 37 4.2 Background 37 4.3 Current Government and recent political developments 38 4.4 Views on Brexit 39 5. Cyprus 42 5.1 Key Facts 42 5.2 Background 42 5.3 Current Government and recent political developments 43 5.4 Views on Brexit 45 6. Czech Republic 49 6.1 Key Facts 49 6.2 Background 49 6.3 Current Government and recent political developments 50 6.4 Views on Brexit 53 7. -
Britain's European Question and an In/Out Referendum
To be or not to be in Europe: is that the question? Britain’s European question and an in/out referendum TIM OLIVER* ‘It is time to settle this European question in British politics.’ David Cameron, 23 January 2013.1 Britain’s European question It came as no surprise to those who follow the issue of the European Union in British politics that David Cameron’s January 2013 speech on Europe excited a great deal of comment. The EU is among the most divisive issues in British politics. Cameron himself drew on this to justify his committing the Conservative Party, should it win the general election in 2015, to seek a renegotiated position for the UK within the EU which would then be put to the British people in an in/out referendum. Growing public frustrations at UK–EU relations were, he argued, the result of both a longstanding failure to consult the British people about their country’s place in the EU, and a changing EU that was undermining the current relationship between Britain and the Union. As a result, he argued, ‘the democratic consent for the EU in Britain is now wafer-thin’. Cameron’s speech was met with both criticism and praise from Eurosceptics and pro-Europeans alike.2 In a speech at Chatham House backing Cameron’s plan, the former Conservative prime minister Sir John Major best captured some of the hopes for a referendum: ‘The relationship with Europe has poisoned British politics for too long, distracted parliament from other issues and come close to destroying the Conservative Party. -
The European Parliament
The European Parliament Kristin Archick Specialist in European Affairs Derek E. Mix Analyst in European Affairs July 22, 2009 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RS21998 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress The European Parliament Summary On June 4-7, 2009, the 27 member countries of the European Union (EU) held elections for the European Parliament (EP). The European Parliament is one of the three key institutions of the European Union, and the only EU institution whose members are directly elected. Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) serve five-year terms. Once limited to being a consultative assembly, the EP has accumulated more power over time—it performs important functions in the EU’s legislative and budgeting processes, and exercises supervision over the two other main EU institutions, the Council of the European Union (Council of Ministers) and the European Commission. Although it does not formally initiate EU legislation, the EP has “co-decision” power in about three-quarters of EU legislation, giving it the right to amend or reject proposals. The Lisbon Treaty, if ratified, would increase the EP’s role further, giving it amendment and veto authority over the vast majority of EU legislation. Moreover, supporters argue, as the only directly elected EU institution, the EP increasingly plays an important checks-and-balances role on behalf of Europe’s citizens. Supporters also claim that the EP’s influence is even growing in strictly consultative areas, such as the EU’s common foreign policy, and that the EP has become an important forum for debate on international issues. -
The Members of the European Parliament: Heavyweights Or Not?
University of Twente Faculty of Management and Governance Bachelor Thesis The Members of the European Parliament: heavyweights or not? Supervisor: H. van der Kolk Student: Melissa van Supervisor 2: Nellestijn M. Rosema August 17, 2015 Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background of the thesis . .1 1.2 Scientific and Social Relevance . .1 1.3 Research Question and Sub-Questions . .2 2 Theory 4 2.1 The Member States . .4 2.2 The Political Party . .6 2.3 Summarizing the argument . .7 3 Methods 9 3.1 Research Design . .9 3.2 Case Selection and Sampling . .9 3.3 Data Collection Methods . 10 3.4 Operationalization . 10 3.4.1 A heavyweight . 10 3.4.1.1 Coding of the individual MEPs . 10 3.4.1.2 The Reliability and Validity of the scorecard . 14 3.4.2 Region classification . 15 3.4.3 Electoral system . 15 3.4.4 Small or large Member State . 16 3.4.5 Age groups . 17 3.4.6 Small or large political party . 17 3.4.7 Comparing the variables . 18 3.4.8 Overview of identified independent variables . 18 4 Results 19 4.1 Region and heavyweight . 21 4.2 Member State size and number of incumbent members . 21 4.3 Member State size and heavyweight . 22 4.4 Political party size and heavyweight . 23 4.4.1 Party size and heavyweight score . 23 4.4.2 Gender, political party size and heavyweight . 23 4.4.3 Age, political party size and heavyweight . 25 4.5 More women is fewer heavyweights? . 26 5 Discussion 27 6 Conclusion 29 References 31 A The changed scorecard and effect on the scores for the MEPs 33 B The national political parties 36 i 1 Introduction The European Parliament has developed since the start in 1952 in to \one of the most powerful institutions of the European Union" (Hix, 2002, p.688). -
List of Members
Committee on International Trade Members Helmuth MARKOV Chair Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left Germany DIE LINKE. Corien WORTMANN-KOOL Vice-Chair Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats Netherlands Christen Democratisch Appèl Godelieve QUISTHOUDT-ROWOHL Vice-Chair Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats Germany Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands Cristiana MUSCARDINI Vice-Chair Union for Europe of the Nations Group Italy Alleanza nazionale Kader ARIF Member Socialist Group in the European Parliament France Parti socialiste Francisco ASSIS Member Socialist Group in the European Parliament Portugal Partido Socialista Daniel BAUTISTA Member Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats Spain Partido Popular Daniel CASPARY Member Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats Germany Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands Françoise CASTEX Member Socialist Group in the European Parliament France Parti socialiste Trevor COLMAN Member Independence/Democracy Group United Kingdom UK Independence Party 01/10/2021 1 Christofer FJELLNER Member Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats Sweden Moderata Samlingspartiet Glyn FORD Member Socialist Group in the European Parliament United Kingdom Labour and the Gibraltar Socialist Labour Party Béla GLATTFELDER Member Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) -
50 YEARS of EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT HISTORY and Subjugated
European Parliament – 50th birthday QA-70-07-089-EN-C series 1958–2008 Th ere is hardly a political system in the modern world that does not have a parliamentary assembly in its institutional ‘toolkit’. Even autocratic or totalitarian BUILDING PARLIAMENT: systems have found a way of creating the illusion of popular expression, albeit tamed 50 YEARS OF EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT HISTORY and subjugated. Th e parliamentary institution is not in itself a suffi cient condition for granting a democratic licence. Yet the existence of a parliament is a necessary condition of what 1958–2008 we have defi ned since the English, American and French Revolutions as ‘democracy’. Since the start of European integration, the history of the European Parliament has fallen between these two extremes. Europe was not initially created with democracy in mind. Yet Europe today is realistic only if it espouses the canons of democracy. In other words, political realism in our era means building a new utopia, that of a supranational or post-national democracy, while for two centuries the DNA of democracy has been its realisation within the nation-state. Yves Mény President of the European University Institute, Florence BUILDING PARLIAMENT: BUILDING 50 YEARS OF EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT HISTORY PARLIAMENT EUROPEAN OF YEARS 50 ISBN 978-92-823-2368-7 European Parliament – 50th birthday series Price in Luxembourg (excluding VAT): EUR 25 BUILDING PARLIAMENT: 50 YEARS OF EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT HISTORY 1958–2008 This work was produced by the European University Institute, Florence, under the direction of Yves Mény, for the European Parliament. Contributors: Introduction, Jean-Marie Palayret; Part One, Luciano Bardi, Nabli Beligh, Cristina Sio Lopez and Olivier Costa (coordinator); Part Two, Pierre Roca, Ann Rasmussen and Paolo Ponzano (coordinator); Part Three, Florence Benoît-Rohmer; Conclusions, Yves Mény.