DOCSLIB.ORG

Lithuania Country Chapter

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. Latvia Romania SK Slovakia 3. Poland SI Slovenia Czech Rep. 1. Latvia ES Spain #22 Q13 Fiscal Policy 2. Hungary Hungary SE Sweden 3. DE IT PL ES UK UK Germany Lithuania Design Findings Chapters Preferences Influence Partners Policies ecfr.eu/eucoalitionexplorer Most contacted Votes for Lithuania “In your view or experience, which other governments Of 1352 votes by would your own government generally contact first 394 respondents, Lithuania received Q1 and/or most on EU matters? (select up to five)” 12 (0.9%) 2% Visegrád 4 Share of EU Affluent Seven 1% Big 6 votes by Big Six Southern Seven group Founding Six Visegrád Four Austria Italy Belgium Latvia 24% Latvia Share of 13% Estonia votes by Bulgaria Lithuania 5% Poland Croatia Luxembourg 3% Romania country Cyprus Malta 1% Czech Rep. Czech Rep. Netherlands Denmark Poland 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. Lithuania Design Findings Chapters Preferences Influence Partners Policies ecfr.eu/eucoalitionexplorer Shared Interests Votes for Lithuania “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, Lithuania received Q2 preferences on EU policies? (select up to five)” 26 (1.6%) 5% Visegrád 4 Share of EU Affluent Seven 2% Big 6 votes by Big Six Southern Seven group Founding Six Visegrád Four Austria Italy Belgium Latvia 21% Latvia Share of 12% Poland votes by Bulgaria Lithuania 5% Sweden Croatia Luxembourg 4% Romania country Cyprus Malta 1% Czech Rep. 1% Portugal Czech Rep. Netherlands 1% Spain Denmark Poland 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. Lithuania Design Findings Chapters Preferences Influence Partners Policies ecfr.eu/eucoalitionexplorer Most Responsive Votes for Lithuania “In your view or experience, which other governments Of 1201 votes by or EU member states have shown to be most responsive 342 respondents, Lithuania received Q3 or are easiest to work with? (select up to five)” 14 (1.2%) 2% Visegrád 4 Share of EU Affluent Seven 1% Affluent 7 votes by Big Six Southern Seven 1% Big 6 1% Founding 6 group Founding Six Visegrád Four Austria Italy Belgium Latvia 9% Latvia Share of 6% Sweden votes by Bulgaria Lithuania 5% Slovenia Croatia Luxembourg 4% Czech Rep. country Cyprus Malta 4% Poland 2% Netherlands Czech Rep. Netherlands 1% Denmark Denmark Poland 1% Germany Estonia Portugal 1% Italy 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. Lithuania Design Findings Chapters Preferences Influence Partners Policies ecfr.eu/eucoalitionexplorer Most Disappointing Votes for Lithuania “In your view or experience, which other governments Of 1123 votes by or EU member states have disappointed your own 326 respondents, Lithuania received Q4 government? (select up to five)” 10 (0.9%) 2% Big 6 Share of EU Affluent Seven 2% Southern 7 votes by Big Six Southern Seven 1% Founding 6 1% Visegrád 4 group Founding Six Visegrád Four Austria Italy Belgium Latvia 5% Greece Share of 4% Sweden votes by Bulgaria Lithuania 3% Poland Croatia Luxembourg 2% Italy country Cyprus Malta 2% Spain 1% France Czech Rep. Netherlands Denmark Poland 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. Lithuania Design Findings Chapters Preferences Influence Partners Policies ecfr.eu/eucoalitionexplorer Big Six Overall EU Policy Ranking by Lithuania “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 Italy 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 Italy Poland Poland Italy Spain Poland Greece Spain Hungary Sweden Ireland UK Influence Overview Spain Big Six Overall EU Policy UK Big Six Fiscal Policy Big Six Foreign and Security Policy Affluent Seven Other Countries Number of respondents: 7. Size of rectangles corresponds with respondents’ respective rankings. Countries with equal values are sorted from A-Z. Lithuania Design Findings Chapters Preferences Influence Partners Policies ecfr.eu/eucoalitionexplorer Big Six Fiscal Policy Ranking by Lithuania “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 FranceItaly Italy Spain UK 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 Spain Italy Italy Poland UK Italy UK SpainPoland Greece Spain Hungary Sweden Ireland UK Influence Overview UK Poland Italy Big Six Overall EU Policy Spain Germany Poland Big Six Fiscal Policy Big Six Foreign and Security Policy Affluent Seven Other Countries Number of respondents: 7. Size of rectangles corresponds with respondents’ respective rankings. Countries with equal values are sorted from A-Z. Lithuania Design Findings Chapters Preferences Influence Partners Policies ecfr.eu/eucoalitionexplorer Big Six Foreign and Security Policy Ranking by Lithuania “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 Germany France UK France Germany UK Austria Italy Belgium Latvia Bulgaria Lithuania Croatia Luxembourg Cyprus Malta Poland Czech Rep. Netherlands Denmark Poland Estonia Portugal Finland Romania Fourth Rank France Slovakia Fifth Rank Sixth Rank Germany Slovenia Italy France Italy Spain Spain Poland Greece Spain Hungary Sweden Ireland UK Influence Overview Big Six Overall EU Policy Poland Big Six Fiscal Policy Big Six Foreign and Security Policy Affluent Seven Other Countries Number of respondents: 7. Size of rectangles corresponds with respondents’ respective rankings. Countries with equal values are sorted from A-Z. Lithuania Design Findings Chapters Preferences Influence Partners Policies ecfr.eu/eucoalitionexplorer Affluent Seven Ranking by Lithuania First Rank Netherlands Sweden “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 Netherlands Belgium Austria Belgium Belgium Austria Austria Italy Belgium Latvia Bulgaria Lithuania Denmark Croatia Luxembourg Cyprus Malta Sweden Finland Czech Rep. Netherlands Denmark Denmark Poland Estonia Portugal Finland Romania France Slovakia Fifth Rank Sixth Rank Seventh Rank Germany Slovenia Denmark Finland Sweden Denmark Finland Luxembourg Greece Spain Hungary Sweden Ireland UK Influence
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]
  • Flash Reports on Labour Law January 2017 Summary and Country Reports
    Flash Report 01/2017 Flash Reports on Labour Law January 2017 Summary and country reports EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion Unit B.2 – Working Conditions Flash Report 01/2017 Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union. Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you). LEGAL NOTICE This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017 ISBN ABC 12345678 DOI 987654321 © European Union, 2017 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Flash Report 01/2017 Country Labour Law Experts Austria Martin Risak Daniela Kroemer Belgium Wilfried Rauws Bulgaria Krassimira Sredkova Croatia Ivana Grgurev Cyprus Nicos Trimikliniotis Czech Republic Nataša Randlová Denmark Natalie Videbaek Munkholm Estonia Gaabriel Tavits Finland Matleena Engblom France Francis Kessler Germany Bernd Waas Greece Costas Papadimitriou Hungary Gyorgy Kiss Ireland Anthony Kerr Italy Edoardo Ales Latvia Kristine Dupate Lithuania Tomas Davulis Luxemburg Jean-Luc Putz Malta Lorna Mifsud Cachia Netherlands Barend Barentsen Poland Leszek Mitrus Portugal José João Abrantes Rita Canas da Silva Romania Raluca Dimitriu Slovakia Robert Schronk Slovenia Polonca Končar Spain Joaquín García-Murcia Iván Antonio Rodríguez Cardo Sweden Andreas Inghammar United Kingdom Catherine Barnard Iceland Inga Björg Hjaltadóttir Liechtenstein Wolfgang Portmann Norway Helga Aune Lill Egeland Flash Report 01/2017 Table of Contents Executive Summary ..............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Croatia's Constitution of 1991 with Amendments Through 2010
    PDF generated: 26 Aug 2021, 16:24 constituteproject.org Croatia's Constitution of 1991 with Amendments through 2010 This complete constitution has been generated from excerpts of texts from the repository of the Comparative Constitutions Project, and distributed on constituteproject.org. constituteproject.org PDF generated: 26 Aug 2021, 16:24 Table of contents I. Historical Foundations . 3 II. Basic Provisions . 4 III. Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms . 7 1. General Provisions . 7 2. Personal and Political Freedoms and Rights . 9 3. Economic, Social and Cultural Rights . 14 IV. Organization of Government . 18 1. The Croatian Parliament . 18 2. The President of the Republic of Croatia . 22 3. The Government of the Republic of Croatia . 26 4. Judicial Power . 28 5. The Office of the Public Prosecutions . 30 V. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia . 31 VI. Local and Regional Self-Government . 33 VII. International Relations . 35 1. International agreements . 35 2. Association and Succession . 35 VIII. European Union . 36 1. Legal Grounds for Membership and Transfer of Constitutional Powers . 36 2. Participation in European Union Institutions . 36 3. European Union Law . 37 4. Rights of European Union Citizens . 37 IX. Amending the Constitution . 37 IX. Concluding Provisions . 38 Croatia 1991 (rev. 2010) Page 2 constituteproject.org PDF generated: 26 Aug 2021, 16:24 I. Historical Foundations • Reference to country's history The millenary identity of the Croatia nation and the continuity of its statehood,
    [Show full text]
  • A Short History of Poland and Lithuania
    A Short History of Poland and Lithuania Chapter 1. The Origin of the Polish Nation.................................3 Chapter 2. The Piast Dynasty...................................................4 Chapter 3. Lithuania until the Union with Poland.........................7 Chapter 4. The Personal Union of Poland and Lithuania under the Jagiellon Dynasty. ..................................................8 Chapter 5. The Full Union of Poland and Lithuania. ................... 11 Chapter 6. The Decline of Poland-Lithuania.............................. 13 Chapter 7. The Partitions of Poland-Lithuania : The Napoleonic Interlude............................................................. 16 Chapter 8. Divided Poland-Lithuania in the 19th Century. .......... 18 Chapter 9. The Early 20th Century : The First World War and The Revival of Poland and Lithuania. ............................. 21 Chapter 10. Independent Poland and Lithuania between the bTwo World Wars.......................................................... 25 Chapter 11. The Second World War. ......................................... 28 Appendix. Some Population Statistics..................................... 33 Map 1: Early Times ......................................................... 35 Map 2: Poland Lithuania in the 15th Century........................ 36 Map 3: The Partitions of Poland-Lithuania ........................... 38 Map 4: Modern North-east Europe ..................................... 40 1 Foreword. Poland and Lithuania have been linked together in this history because
    [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]
  • Speech by SJ at Hungary National Day Reception (English Only)
    Speech of Ms Teresa Cheng, SC Secretary for Justice Hungary National Day Reception 6 November 2019 (Wednesday) Consul General (Dr Pál Kertész), ladies and gentlemen, Good evening. It’s my pleasure to join you all this evening to celebrate the National Day of Hungary. On behalf of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, may I extend to you, Consul General, and the people of Hungary, our warmest congratulations on your Day of Freedom. Hungary’s Rapid Growth 2. Hungary today is one of the European Union’s leading economies in GDP growth. The Hungarian Government’s commendable efforts in driving its growth momentum are internationally recognised. International Monetary Fund recently commented last month that “Hungary’s growth has continued to exceed expectations” and that “its economy is now running above capacity”. Ties between Hungary and China 3. As mentioned by the Consul General earlier, this year marks the 70th anniversary of diplomatic ties between Hungary and China. With President Xi visiting Hungary last November and Hungarian Prime Minister Orban visiting Mainland China this April, the bilateral relations between the two nations will grow stronger and create limitless opportunities for businesses and people of both sides. 4. Indeed, Hungary has been a frontrunner in our national Belt and Road Initiative, being the first European country to sign a relevant Memorandum of Understanding 2 in 2015. Followed by the upgrade of Hungary-China relations to a comprehensive strategic partnership in 2017, the bonds between the two countries are envisaged to grow closer and closer on various fronts. Further Co-operation between Hungary and Hong Kong 5.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Going Against the Flow: Sinn Féin´S Unusual Hungarian `Roots´
    The International History Review, 2015 Vol. 37, No. 1, 41–58, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07075332.2013.879913 Going Against the Flow: Sinn Fein’s Unusual Hungarian ‘Roots’ David G. Haglund* and Umut Korkut Can states as well as non-state political ‘actors’ learn from the history of cognate entities elsewhere in time and space, and if so how and when does this policy knowledge get ‘transferred’ across international borders? This article deals with this question, addressing a short-lived Hungarian ‘tutorial’ that, during the early twentieth century, certain policy elites in Ireland imagined might have great applicability to the political transformation of the Emerald Isle, in effect ushering in an era of political autonomy from the United Kingdom, and doing so via a ‘third way’ that skirted both the Scylla of parliamentary formulations aimed at securing ‘home rule’ for Ireland and the Charybdis of revolutionary violence. In the political agenda of Sinn Fein during its first decade of existence, Hungary loomed as a desirable political model for Ireland, with the party’s leading intellectual, Arthur Griffith, insisting that the means by which Hungary had achieved autonomy within the Hapsburg Empire in 1867 could also serve as the means for securing Ireland’s own autonomy in the first decades of the twentieth century. This article explores what policy initiatives Arthur Griffith thought he saw in the Hungarian experience that were worthy of being ‘transferred’ to the Irish situation. Keywords: Ireland; Hungary; Sinn Fein; home rule; Ausgleich of 1867; policy transfer; Arthur Griffith I. Introduction: the Hungarian tutorial To those who have followed the fortunes and misfortunes of Sinn Fein in recent dec- ades, it must seem the strangest of all pairings, our linking of a party associated now- adays mainly, if not exclusively, with the Northern Ireland question to a small country in the centre of Europe, Hungary.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Lithuanian Economic Review
    Lithuanian Economic Review 2019 MARCH 1 LITHUANIAN ECONOMIC REVIEW ISSN 2029-8471 (online) MARCH 2019 The Lithuanian Economic Review analyses the developments of the real sector, prices, public finance and credit in Lithuania, as well as the projected development of the domestic economy. The material presented in the review is the result of statistical data analysis, modelling and expert assessment. The review is prepared by the Bank of Lithuania. The cut-off date for the data used in the Lithuanian Economic Review was 1 March 2019. The Bank of Lithuania macroeconomic projections are based on external assumptions, constructed using information made available by 12 February 2019, and other information made available by 1 March 2019. Reproduction for educational and non-commercial purposes is permitted provided that the source is acknowledged. © Lietuvos bankas Gedimino pr. 6, LT-01103 Vilnius www.lb.lt 2 CONTENTS LITHUANIA’S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND OUTLOOK ........................................................... 6 I. INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENT........................................................................................... 9 Box 1. Potential impact of the US tariffs on car imports from the EU on the Lithuanian economy ......................................................................................................................... 12 II. MONETARY POLICY OF THE EUROSYSTEM .......................................................................... 14 III. REAL SECTOR ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • In Hungary and Poland
    21 . 9 . 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No L 257/ 1 I (Acts whose publication is obligatory) COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 2698/90 of 17 September 1990 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3906/89 in order to extend economic aid to other countries of Central and Eastern Europe THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, 2. Article 1 is replaced by the following : Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European 'Article 1 Economic Community, and in particular Article 235 thereof, The Community shall make economic aid available to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe listed in Having regard to the proposal from the Commission ('), the Annex in accordance with the criteria laid down in this Regulation.' Having regard to the opinion of the European Par­ liament (2), 3. Article 2 is deleted. Whereas the Community and its Member States have 4. In Article 3 ( 1 ): decided to take concerted action with certain non­ member countries in the form of measures intended to — 'in Poland and Hungary* and 'in Hungary and support the process of economic and social reform under Poland' are replaced by 'in the countries referred to way in Hungary and Poland ; whereas Regulation (EEC) in Article 1 ' and *of the countries referred to in No 3906/89 (3) lays down the conditions for the provision Article 1 ' respectively, of economic aid to these countries ; — the following subparagraph is added : Whereas the Group of 24 countries and the Community The aid may also be used to provide humanitarian decided at the ministerial meeting on 4 July 1990 that assistance'.
    [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]