DOCSLIB.ORG

Luxembourg Country Chapter

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Luxembourg Country Chapter EU Coalition Explorer Results of the EU28 Survey on coalition building in the European Union an initiative of Results for Luxembourg © ECFR May 2017 Design Findings Chapters Preferences Influence Partners Policies ecfr.eu/eucoalitionexplorer Findings Luxembourg Coalition Potential Preferences Policies Ranks 1 to 14 Top 3 for LU Ranks 15 to 28 Luxembourg ranks overall #12 at Preferences Luxembourg ranks #4 at ‘More Europe’ Top 3 for LU 1. UK 2. Slovakia Country Findings 1. Belgium #4 3. Croatia AT Austria #14 Q1 Most Contacted 2. IE NL Q14 Deeper Integration BE Belgium 3. Austria BG Bulgaria 1. Belgium Q16 Expert View Level of Decision-Making Q17 Public View HR Croatia #13 Q2 Shared Interests 2. Germany 3. France CY Cyprus 85% 52% All EU member states 50% 56% CZ Czech Rep. 1. Cyprus 4% 19% Legally bound core 14% 13% DK Denmark #10 Q3 Most Responsive 2. Belgium 2% 15% Coalition of states 14% 8% EE Estonia 3. AT MT 0% 8% Only national level 22% 23% FI Finland LU EU EU LU FR France DE Germany EL Greece HU Hungary Partners Networks IE Ireland Luxembourg ranks overall #14 at Partners Voting for IT Italy Top 3 for LU Belgium LV Luxembourg Latvia 1. Croatia Top 8 for LU LT Lithuania #15 Q10 Foreign and Development Policy 2. BE DE LV Austria LU Luxembourg 3. AT IT RO MT Malta Germany 1. BE HR NL Netherlands #23 Q11 Security and Defense Policy 2. Latvia PL Poland 3. Austria France PT Portugal LU 1. AT BE RO Romania #12 Q12 Economic and Social Policy 2. Latvia Netherlands SK Slovakia 3. Croatia SI Slovenia Croatia 1. Slovakia ES Spain #8 Q13 Fiscal Policy 2. Estonia Latvia SE Sweden 3. Belgium UK UK Italy Luxembourg Design Findings Chapters Preferences Influence Partners Policies ecfr.eu/eucoalitionexplorer Most contacted Votes for Luxembourg “In your view or experience, which other governments Of 1352 votes by would your own government generally contact first 394 respondents, Luxembourg received Q1 and/or most on EU matters? (select up to five)” 26 (1.9%) 5% Affluent 7 Share of EU Affluent Seven 5% Founding 6 votes by Big Six Southern Seven 1% Big 6 1% Southern 7 group Founding Six Visegrád Four Austria Italy Belgium Latvia 19% Belgium Share of 6% Ireland votes by Bulgaria Lithuania 6% Netherlands Croatia Luxembourg 5% Austria country Cyprus Malta 3% Italy 3% Romania Czech Rep. Netherlands 2% France Denmark Poland 1% Denmark Estonia Portugal 1% Germany 1% Portugal Finland Romania France Slovakia Germany Slovenia Greece Spain Hungary Sweden Ireland UK Preferences Overview Most Contacted Shared Interests Top % Most Responsive 10+ % Most Disappointing 5-9 % 1-4 % Rounded results. 0% shares not shown. Luxembourg Design Findings Chapters Preferences Influence Partners Policies ecfr.eu/eucoalitionexplorer Shared Interests Votes for Luxembourg “In your view or experience, which other EU member states Of 1594 votes by generally share many of your own country’s interests and 406 respondents, Luxembourg received Q2 preferences on EU policies? (select up to five)” 50 (3.1%) 8% Founding 6 Share of EU Affluent Seven 4% Affluent 7 votes by Big Six Southern Seven 4% Big 6 3% Southern 7 group Founding Six Visegrád Four Austria Italy Belgium Latvia 19% Belgium Share of 12% Germany votes by Bulgaria Lithuania 7% France Croatia Luxembourg 6% Ireland country Cyprus Malta 4% Netherlands 4% Slovenia Czech Rep. Netherlands 3% Austria Denmark Poland 3% Portugal Estonia Portugal 2% Italy 2% Sweden Finland Romania 1% Denmark France Slovakia 1% Spain Germany Slovenia Greece Spain Hungary Sweden Ireland UK Preferences Overview Most Contacted Shared Interests Top % Most Responsive 10+ % Most Disappointing 5-9 % 1-4 % Rounded results. 0% shares not shown. Luxembourg Design Findings Chapters Preferences Influence Partners Policies ecfr.eu/eucoalitionexplorer Most Responsive Votes for Luxembourg “In your view or experience, which other governments Of 1201 votes by or EU member states have shown to be most responsive 342 respondents, Luxembourg received Q3 or are easiest to work with? (select up to five)” 49 (4.1%) 9% Founding 6 Share of EU Affluent Seven 6% Affluent 7 votes by Big Six Southern Seven 5% Big 6 5% Southern 7 group Founding Six Visegrád Four Austria Italy Belgium Latvia 20% Cyprus Share of 17% Belgium votes by Bulgaria Lithuania 14% Austria Croatia Luxembourg 14% Malta country Cyprus Malta 11% Germany 9% Netherlands Czech Rep. Netherlands 8% France Denmark Poland 7% Greece Estonia Portugal 7% Ireland 5% Slovenia Finland Romania 4% Italy France Slovakia 3% Bulgaria Germany Slovenia 3% Romania 2% Spain Greece Spain 1% Denmark Hungary Sweden Ireland UK Preferences Overview Most Contacted Shared Interests Top % Most Responsive 10+ % Most Disappointing 5-9 % 1-4 % Rounded results. 0% shares not shown. Luxembourg Design Findings Chapters Preferences Influence Partners Policies ecfr.eu/eucoalitionexplorer Most Disappointing Votes for Luxembourg “In your view or experience, which other governments Of 1123 votes by or EU member states have disappointed your own 326 respondents, Luxembourg received Q4 government? (select up to five)” 18 (1.6%) 4% Visegrád 4 Share of EU Affluent Seven 2% Affluent 7 votes by Big Six Southern Seven 1% Big 6 1% Founding 6 group Founding Six Visegrád Four 1% Southern 7 Austria Italy Belgium Latvia 8% Hungary Share of 4% Belgium votes by Bulgaria Lithuania 4% Denmark Croatia Luxembourg 3% UK country Cyprus Malta 2% Czech Rep. 1% Italy Czech Rep. Netherlands 1% Poland Denmark Poland 1% Spain Estonia Portugal Finland Romania France Slovakia Germany Slovenia Greece Spain Hungary Sweden Ireland UK Preferences Overview Most Contacted Shared Interests Top % Most Responsive 10+ % Most Disappointing 5-9 % 1-4 % Rounded results. 0% shares not shown. Luxembourg Design Findings Chapters Preferences Influence Partners Policies ecfr.eu/eucoalitionexplorer Big Six Overall EU Policy Ranking by Luxembourg “Based on your view or experience, please rank the six large EU member states according to their overall influence on EU policy Q5 over the past five years. (first rank being the most influential)” EU Affluent Seven First Rank Second Rank Third Rank Big Six Southern Seven Founding Six Visegrád Four Germany France UK France Italy UK Austria Italy Belgium Latvia Bulgaria Lithuania Croatia Luxembourg Cyprus Malta Czech Rep. Netherlands Denmark Poland Estonia Portugal Finland Romania Fourth Rank France Slovakia Fifth Rank Sixth Rank Germany Slovenia Poland Italy Spain Italy Poland Spain UK Greece Spain Hungary Sweden Ireland UK Influence Overview Big Six Overall EU Policy Big Six Fiscal Policy Big Six Foreign and Security Policy Affluent Seven Other Countries Number of respondents: 3. Size of rectangles corresponds with respondents’ respective rankings. Countries with equal values are sorted from A-Z. Luxembourg Design Findings Chapters Preferences Influence Partners Policies ecfr.eu/eucoalitionexplorer Big Six Fiscal Policy Ranking by Luxembourg “Please rank the six large EU member states according to their influence on EU fiscal policy over the past five years. Q6 (first rank being the most influential)” EU Affluent Seven First Rank Second Rank Third Rank Big Six Southern Seven Founding Six Visegrád Four Germany France UK FranceUK Italy SpainItaly Austria Italy Belgium Latvia Bulgaria Lithuania Croatia Luxembourg Cyprus Malta Poland UK Czech Rep. Netherlands Italy Denmark Poland Estonia Portugal Finland Romania Fourth Rank France Slovakia Fifth Rank Sixth Rank Germany Slovenia SpainItaly Italy Spain PolandSpain PolandItaly UKPoland Spain UK Greece Spain Hungary Sweden Ireland UK Influence Overview UK Poland Italy Big Six Overall EU Policy Germany Poland Big Six Fiscal Policy Big Six Foreign and Security Policy Affluent Seven Other Countries Number of respondents: 3. Size of rectangles corresponds with respondents’ respective rankings. Countries with equal values are sorted from A-Z. Luxembourg Design Findings Chapters Preferences Influence Partners Policies ecfr.eu/eucoalitionexplorer Big Six Foreign and Security Policy Ranking by Luxembourg “Please rank the six large EU member states according to their influence on EU foreign, security and defence policy over the Q7 past five years. (first rank being the most influential)” EU Affluent Seven First Rank Second Rank Third Rank Big Six Southern Seven Founding Six Visegrád Four France Germany France Germany UK UK Germany Austria Italy Belgium Latvia Bulgaria Lithuania Croatia Luxembourg Cyprus Malta Czech Rep. Netherlands Denmark Poland Estonia Portugal Finland Romania Fourth Rank France Slovakia Fifth Rank Sixth Rank Germany Slovenia Poland Italy Italy Poland Spain Spain Italy Greece Spain Hungary Sweden Ireland UK Influence Overview Big Six Overall EU Policy Big Six Fiscal Policy Big Six Foreign and Security Policy Affluent Seven Other Countries Number of respondents: 3. Size of rectangles corresponds with respondents’ respective rankings. Countries with equal values are sorted from A-Z. Luxembourg Design Findings Chapters Preferences Influence Partners Policies ecfr.eu/eucoalitionexplorer Affluent Seven Ranking by Luxembourg First Rank Austria Belgium Netherlands “Based on your view or experience, please rank the list of affluent seven EU member states according to their overall influence on EU Q8 policy over the past five years. (first rank being the most influential)” EU Affluent Seven Big Six Southern Seven Founding Six Visegrád Four Second Rank Third Rank Fourth Rank Belgium Luxembourg Sweden Austria Finland Netherlands Luxembourg Austria Austria Italy Belgium
Load more

Recommended publications
  • No. 2138 BELGIUM, FRANCE, ITALY, LUXEMBOURG, NETHERLANDS
    No. 2138 BELGIUM, FRANCE, ITALY, LUXEMBOURG, NETHERLANDS, NORWAY, SWEDEN and SWITZERLAND International Convention to facilitate the crossing of fron tiers for passengers and baggage carried by rail (with annex). Signed at Geneva, on 10 January 1952 Official texts: English and French. Registered ex officio on 1 April 1953. BELGIQUE, FRANCE, ITALIE, LUXEMBOURG, NORVÈGE, PAYS-BAS, SUÈDE et SUISSE Convention internationale pour faciliter le franchissement des frontières aux voyageurs et aux bagages transportés par voie ferrée (avec annexe). Signée à Genève, le 10 janvier 1952 Textes officiels anglais et français. Enregistrée d'office le l* r avril 1953. 4 United Nations — Treaty Series 1953 No. 2138. INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION1 TO FACILI TATE THE CROSSING OF FRONTIERS FOR PASSEN GERS AND BAGGAGE CARRIED BY RAIL. SIGNED AT GENEVA, ON 10 JANUARY 1952 The undersigned, duly authorized, Meeting at Geneva, under the auspices of the Economic Commission for Europe, For the purpose of facilitating the crossing of frontiers for passengers carried by rail, Have agreed as follows : CHAPTER I ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF FRONTIER STATIONS WHERE EXAMINATIONS ARE CARRIED OUT BY THE TWO ADJOINING COUNTRIES Article 1 1. On every railway line carrying a considerable volume of international traffic, which crosses the frontier between two adjoining countries, the competent authorities of those countries shall, wherever examination cannot be satisfactorily carried out while the trains are in motion, jointly examine the possibility of designating by agreement a station close to the frontier, at which shall be carried out the examinations required under the legislation of the two countries in respect of the entry and exit of passengers and their baggage.
    [Show full text]
  • Judging the East Timor Dispute: Self-Determination at the International Court of Justice, 17 Hastings Int'l & Comp
    Hastings International and Comparative Law Review Volume 17 Article 3 Number 2 Winter 1994 1-1-1994 Judging the East Timor Dispute: Self- Determination at the International Court of Justice Gerry J. Simpson Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_international_comparative_law_review Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Gerry J. Simpson, Judging the East Timor Dispute: Self-Determination at the International Court of Justice, 17 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 323 (1994). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_international_comparative_law_review/vol17/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings International and Comparative Law Review by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Judging the East Timor Dispute: Self-Determination at the International Court of Justice By Gerry J. Simpson* Table of Contents I. Introduction ............................................ 324 1E. Some Preliminary Remarks about the Case ............. 327 III. International Politics and the International Court: A Functional Dilemma .................................... 329 IV. Substantive Questions of Law .......................... 332 A. The Existence of a Right to Self-Determination...... 333 B. Beneficiaries of the Right to Self-Determination ..... 334 1. Indonesia's TerritorialIntegrity and the Principle of Uti Posseditis................................. 339 2. Enclaves in InternationalLaw .................. 342 3. Historical Ties .................................. 342 C. The Duties of Third Parties Toward Peoples Claiming a Right to Self-Determination ............. 343 V. Conclusion .............................................. 347 * Lecturer in International Law and Human Rights Law, Law Faculty, Univcrity of Melbourne, Australia.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural History in Spain History of Culture and Cultural History: Same Paths and Outcomes?*
    Cultural History in Spain History of Culture and Cultural History: same paths and outcomes?* CAROLINA RODRÍGUEZ-LÓPEZ An overview &XOWXUDOKLVWRU\LVFXUUHQWO\DERRPLQJWRSLFLQ6SDLQ&XOWXUDOKLVWRU\LVQRZ ÁRXULVKLQJ DQG FHUWDLQ DUHDV KDYH GLVWLQJXLVKHG WKHPVHOYHV DV DXWRQRPRXV ÀHOGVRIVWXG\WKHKLVWRU\RIFXOWXUDOSROLWLFVUHDGLQJDQGSULQWLQJDQGPHGLFDO FXOWXUDOSUDFWLFHVIRUH[DPSOH+RZHYHUZKDWLVGHÀQHGDVcultural history in FXUUHQW6SDQLVKKLVWRULRJUDSK\LVQRWDQHDV\LVVXH/LNHWKHUHVWRI(XURSHDQ HYHQ$PHULFDQ KLVWRULRJUDSKLHV6SDQLVKKLVWRULRJUDSK\KDVJRQHWKURXJKDQ H[WHQVLYHDQGLQWHUHVWLQJSURFHVVVKLIWLQJIURPVRFLDOWRFXOWXUDOKLVWRU\7KH SURFHVV KDV QRW EHHQ H[HPSW IURP SUREOHPV DQG PLVXQGHUVWDQGLQJV DQG KDV GHWHUPLQHGQRWRQO\WKHZD\VLQZKLFKFXOWXUDOKLVWRU\KDVWUDGLWLRQDOO\ÁRZHG EXWDOVRWKHNLQGVRIUHVHDUFKDQGVFLHQWLÀFZRUNVWKDWKDYHEHHQODEHOHGZLWK the cultural history title. 7KLVFKDSWHURIIHUVDEULHIRYHUYLHZRIZKDW,KDYHMXVWPHQWLRQHGDERYH ,QRUGHUWRGRVRLWLVGLYLGHGLQWRWKUHHVHFWLRQV7KHÀUVWRQHGHDOVZLWKWKH KLVWRULFDODQGKLVWRULRJUDSKLFDOFRQWH[WVZKHQWKHÀUVWUHVHDUFKDQGGHEDWHVLQ 6SDLQIRFXVHGRQFXOWXUDOKLVWRU\,QWKHVHFRQGVHFWLRQ,LQWURGXFHWKHUHVHDUFK JURXSVLQVWLWXWLRQVDFDGHPLFSURJUDPVDQGSXEOLVKLQJKRXVHSURMHFWVWKDWKDYH HQFRXUDJHG DQG DUH FXUUHQWO\ RUJDQL]LQJ 6SDQLVK FXOWXUDO KLVWRU\ NQRZOHGJH DQGSURGXFWLRQ$QGODVWEXWQRWOHDVW,SUHVHQWDÀUVWDQGWHQWDWLYHOLVWRIH[DFW- ,DPJUDWHIXOWR(OHQD+HUQiQGH]6DQGRLFDIRUGHWDLOHGVXJJHVWLRQVDQGWR3DWULFLD %HUDVDOXFHDQG(OLVDEHWK.OHLQIRUDFFXUDWHUHDGLQJRIWKLVFKDSWHUάVÀUVWYHUVLRQ 211 Carolina Rodríguez-López O\ZKDW6SDQLVKKLVWRULDQVKDYHZULWWHQRQWKHÀHOGRIFXOWXUDOKLVWRU\,QRWKHU
    [Show full text]
  • Castellon De La Plana, Spain •••• August 2019-January 2020 by Wanjiku Gatua •••• Castellon
    CASTELLON DE LA PLANA, SPAIN •••• AUGUST 2019-JANUARY 2020 BY WANJIKU GATUA •••• CASTELLON Castellon is located in the northern region of the Valencian community. The town is famous for its local produce like oranges, Mediterranean dishes such as paella, and a combination of beaches and mountainous terrain. I lived with a Spanish host family in Castellon which helped integrate me into the culture and beauty of Spain 2 •••• UNIVERSITAT DE JAUME I UJI was founded in 1991 and was named after the King that founded the Kingdom of Valencia. Above is an image of my intensive Spanish class that was taken at the university. Along with Spanish, I also was able to take courses in history, art, and business management. •••• VALENCIA ... / II ,fa:II l [ JI Valencia is the third largest city in Spain, and is located about 40 minutes away from Castellon by train. The image on the far right depicts a climate strike held in the main streets of Valencia. 4 •••• VALENCIA City of Arts and Sciences Valencia is known for its mix of gothic and modern architecture. The City of Arts and Sciences is a cultural complex that includes a open-air oceanographic park, a plaza for sporting events, a museum, and more. 5 •••• BARCELONA Barcelona is located on the eastern coast of Spain and is about 2 hours from Castellon by train. It is a very tourist filled city known for its beaches and the famous Sagrada Familia church. The city also boasts many architectural masterpieces created by Antoni Gaudi. His work and influence are seen all throughout the city.
    [Show full text]
  • No. 1168 BELGIUM, DENMARK, FRANCE, IRELAND, ITALY
    No. 1168 BELGIUM, DENMARK, FRANCE, IRELAND, ITALY, LUXEMBOURG, NETHERLANDS, NORWAY, SWEDEN and UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND Statute of the Council of Europe. Signed at London, on 5 May 1949 Official texts: English and French. Registered by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on U April 1951. BELGIQUE, DANEMARK, FRANCE, IRLANDE, ITALIE, LUXEMBOURG, NORVÈGE, PAYS-BAS, ROYAUME-UNI DE GRANDE-BRETAGNE ET D'IRLANDE DU NORD et SUÈDE Statut du Conseil de l'Europe. Signé à Londres, le 5 mai 1949 Textes officiels anglais et fran ais. Enregistr par le Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d* Irlande du Nord le II avril 1951. 104 United Nations Treaty Series 1951 No. 1168. STATUTE1 OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE. SIGNED AT LONDON, ON 5 MAY 1949 The Governments of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the French Republic, the Irish Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Norway, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland : Convinced that the pursuit of peace based upon justice and international co-operation is vital for the preservation of human society and civilisation; Reaffirming their devotion to the spiritual and moral values which are the common heritage of their peoples and the true source of individual freedom, political liberty and the rule of law, principles which form the basis of all genuine democracy; Believing that, for the maintenance and further realisation of these ideals and in
    [Show full text]
  • Trade and Investment Factsheets: Denmark
    Denmark This factsheet provides the latest statistics on trade and investment between the UK and Denmark. Date of release: 17 September 2021; Date of next planned release: 7 October 2021 Total trade in goods and services (exports plus imports) between the UK and Denmark was £11.6 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q1 2021, a decrease of 16.5% or £2.3 billion from the four quarters to the end of Q1 2020. Of this £11.6 billion: • Total UK exports to Denmark amounted to £5.5 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q1 2021 (a decrease of 10.2% or £626 million compared to the four quarters to the end of Q1 2020); • Total UK imports from Denmark amounted to £6.1 billion in the four quarters to the end of Q1 2021 (a decrease of 21.5% or £1.7 billion compared to the four quarters to the end of Q1 2020). Denmark was the UK’s 22nd largest trading partner in the four quarters to the end of Q1 2021 accounting for 1.0% of total UK trade.1 In 2019, the outward stock of foreign direct investment (FDI) from the UK in Denmark was £6.4 billion accounting for 0.4% of the total UK outward FDI stock. In 2019, the inward stock of foreign direct investment (FDI) in the UK from Denmark was £7.2 billion accounting for 0.5% of the total UK inward FDI stock.2 1 Trade data sourced from the latest ONS publication of UK total trade data.
    [Show full text]
  • Circular Economy Strategy Luxembourg Strategie Kreeslafwirtschaft Lëtzebuerg
    Circular Economy Strategy Luxembourg Strategie Kreeslafwirtschaft Lëtzebuerg EN Circular Economy Strategy Luxembourg Strategie Kreeslafwirtschaft Lëtzebuerg Published by : Ministère de l’Énergie Ministère de l’Environnement, du Climat et de l’Aménagement du territoire et du Développement Durable Authors : Paul Schosseler (MEA) | Christian Tock (MECO) | Paul Rasqué (MECDD) Contact : Ministère de l’Énergie et de l’Aménagement du territoire Département de l’énergie E-mail : [email protected] Publication: Luxembourg | February 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of figures 4 List of tables 4 Abbreviations and Acronyms 4 Foreword 6 1| Executive Summary 7 2| Introduction 9 2.1 Rationale 9 2.2 The circular economy in a nutshell 9 2.3 The opportunities for Luxembourg 11 2.4 Purpose of the strategy 13 3| The strategy 15 3.1 Definition of the CE in Luxembourg 15 3.2 Vision for a circular Luxembourg 18 3.3 Stakeholders 19 3.4 Circular tools and methods 19 3.5 Where do we stand today? 21 4| Governance 23 4.1 The key players and tools 23 4.2 The national CE coordination unit 24 4.3 The CE stakeholder consultation platform 25 4.4 The Internet portal ‘Circular Economy Luxembourg’ 25 5| Circular action item lists and roadmaps for Luxembourg 27 5.1 Methodology 27 5.2 Sectoral action item lists 29 5.2.1 Construction 29 5.2.2 Education & training 32 5.2.3 Finance 35 5.2.4 Food & biomaterials 37 5.2.5 Industry 41 5.2.6 Retail 43 6| Conclusions and Outlook 47 7| Appendices 49 Circular Economy Strategy Luxembourg | 3 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: The resource
    [Show full text]
  • Lithuania Country Chapter
    EU Coalition Explorer Results of the EU28 Survey on coalition building in the European Union an initiative of Results for Lithuania © ECFR May 2017 Design Findings Chapters Preferences Influence Partners Policies ecfr.eu/eucoalitionexplorer Findings Lithuania Coalition Potential Preferences Policies Ranks 1 to 14 Top 3 for LT Ranks 15 to 28 Lithuania ranks overall #21 at Preferences Lithuania ranks #11 at ‘More Europe’ Top 3 for LT 1. Latvia 2. Estonia Country Findings 1. Latvia #11 3. CZ EL AT Austria #19 Q1 Most Contacted 2. Estonia Q14 Deeper Integration BE Belgium 3. Poland BG Bulgaria 1. Latvia Q16 Expert View Level of Decision-Making Q17 Public View HR Croatia #22 Q2 Shared Interests 2. Poland 3. Sweden CY Cyprus 63% 52% All EU member states 50% 46% CZ Czech Rep. 1. Latvia 13% 19% Legally bound core 14% 18% DK Denmark #22 Q3 Most Responsive 2. Sweden 17% 15% Coalition of states 14% 21% EE Estonia 3. Slovenia 7% 8% Only national level 22% 15% FI Finland LT EU EU LT FR France DE Germany EL Greece HU Hungary Partners Networks IE Ireland Lithuania ranks overall #20 at Partners Voting for IT Italy Top 3 for LT Latvia LV Lithuania Latvia 1. Latvia Top 8 for LT LT Lithuania #19 Q10 Foreign and Development Policy 2. Poland Poland LU Luxembourg 3. Sweden MT Malta Estonia 1. Latvia NL Netherlands #12 Q11 Security and Defense Policy 2. HR RO PL Poland 3. DK PL SE Sweden PT Portugal LT 1. Estonia RO Romania #21 Q12 Economic and Social Policy 2.
    [Show full text]
  • The Immigration Conundrum in Italy and Spain
    AMERICA Immigration, Law& The Immigration Conundrum in American Identity Italy and Spain Laws and policies in Italy and Spain reveal ambivalence about immigration. by Kitty Calavita Both Spain and Italy have significant undocumented immigration populations. In this article, Kitty Calavita explains the origins of increased migration to Italy and Spain, beginning in the 1980s, the role of immigrants in the economy, the anti-immigrant backlash, and immigration law and policy today. pain and Italy have long been countries of emigration, sending millions “Spain and Italy of working men, women, and children to every corner of the globe since the late 1800s. In the decades after World War II, Spaniards and Italians found labor opportunities closer to home, shuttling back and forth to passed their first Snorth and central Europe where they supplied the backbone of the industrial labor force for the post-war economic boom. This migrant stream began to immigration laws in reverse itself in the early 1980s, as many former emigrants returned home, and these southern European countries attracted large numbers of immigrants from 1985 and 1986, beyond their borders. Italy experienced its own “economic miracle” in the post-WWII decades, respectively.” drawing large numbers of rural people from its less developed southern regions to its northern industrial centers. By the mid-1970s the gap between Italy and its northern European neighbors had narrowed. The increased employment opportunities and higher wage levels associated with this transformation attracted immigrants from Africa, Asia, and Latin America, much as in earlier years Italians had migrated north to better jobs. By 2006, approximately 4 million foreigners resided in Italy, with an estimated 300,000 being undocumented.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards the Kalmar Union
    S P E C I A L I Z E D A G E N C I E S TOWARDS THE KALMAR UNION Dear Delegates, Welcome to the 31st Annual North American Model United Nations 2016 at the University of Toronto! On behalf of all of the staff at NAMUN, we welcome you to the Specialized Agency branch of the conference. I, and the rest of the committee staff are thrilled to have you be a delegate in Scandinavia during the High Middle Ages, taking on this challenging yet fascinating topic on the futures of the three Scandinavian Kingdoms in a time of despair, poverty, dependence and competitiveness. This will truly be a new committee experience, as you must really delve into the history of these Kingdoms and figure out how to cooperate with each other without sending everyone into their demise. To begin, in the Towards the Kalmar Union Specialized Agency, delegates will represent influential characters from Denmark, Norway and Sweden, which include prominent knights, monarchs, nobles, and important religious figures who dominate the political, military and economic scenes of their respective Kingdoms. The impending issues that will be discussed at the meeting in Kalmar, Sweden include the future of the Danish and Norwegian crowns after the death of the sole heir to the thrones, Olaf II. Here, two distant relatives to Valdemar IV have a claim to the throne and delegates will need to decide who will succeed to the throne. The second order of business is to discuss the growing German presence in Sweden, especially in major economic cities.
    [Show full text]
  • GOING GLOBAL EXPORTING to SPAIN and PORTUGAL a Guide for Clients
    GOING GLOBAL EXPORTING TO SPAIN AND PORTUGAL A guide for clients #GlobalAmbition Capital city Madrid Currency ¤ Population 46.7m1 GDP per capita ¤25,0012 GDP growth MADRID 2.5% (2018), 2.1% (2019)3 GDP ¤1,208,2484 Unemployment rate 14.7% (2017)5 Enterprise Ireland client exports (2018) ¤338.6m6 2 WHY EXPORT TO SPAIN? With seven times the landmass of decreased by 1.23% in 2018 compared to the same period in 2017 (Jan-Dec). Exports in 2018 stood at Ireland and 10 times the population, €2,564 million while imports totalled €1,441 million - the scale of Spain is not to be a balance of €1,123 million in Ireland’s favour. Exports underestimated. by Enterprise Ireland clients reached €338.6 million in 2018.14 Neither is the size of the opportunity it can offer, not least because of its role as a valuable bridge to the Sectoral success South American market. Spain has been historically a very important point of Having suffered enormously in the financial trade in Europe. While the market has been perceived crash, the country is showing sustained recovery. as a more difficult Eurozone market to enter for According to an IMF report in late 2018, Spain’s exporters, this is changing. Spain is currently economy has continued to grow strongly, reflecting experiencing a post-crisis renaissance in business. its improved fundamentals. The country’s real GDP This paves the way for new opportunities for Irish and employment growth are set to exceed that exporters, in nascent Irish-Spanish export sectors of the euro area for the fourth year in a row.
    [Show full text]
  • Automatic Exchange of Information: Status of Commitments
    As of 27 September 2021 AUTOMATIC EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION (AEOI): STATUS OF COMMITMENTS1 JURISDICTIONS UNDERTAKING FIRST EXCHANGES IN 2017 (49) Anguilla, Argentina, Belgium, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Bulgaria, Cayman Islands, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus2, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Faroe Islands, Finland, France, Germany, Gibraltar, Greece, Guernsey, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Isle of Man, Italy, Jersey, Korea, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Montserrat, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Seychelles, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Turks and Caicos Islands, United Kingdom JURISDICTIONS UNDERTAKING FIRST EXCHANGES BY 2018 (51) Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan3, The Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belize, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, China, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Curacao, Dominica4, Greenland, Grenada, Hong Kong (China), Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Lebanon, Macau (China), Malaysia, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Monaco, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue4, Pakistan3, Panama, Qatar, Russia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sint Maarten4, Switzerland, Trinidad and Tobago4, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Vanuatu JURISDICTIONS UNDERTAKING FIRST EXCHANGES BY 2019 (2) Ghana3, Kuwait5 JURISDICTIONS UNDERTAKING FIRST EXCHANGES BY 2020 (3) Nigeria3, Oman5, Peru3 JURISDICTIONS UNDERTAKING FIRST EXCHANGES BY 2021 (3) Albania3, 7, Ecuador3, Kazakhstan6
    [Show full text]