DOCSLIB.ORG

O Caso Da Centro-Esquerda E Da Centro-Direita No Parlamento Europeu

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
O Caso Da Centro-Esquerda E Da Centro-Direita No Parlamento Europeu OCTÁVIO FORTI NETO EMBATES POLÍTICOS IDEOLÓGICOS NA CRISE EUROPEIA: O CASO DA CENTRO-ESQUERDA E DA CENTRO-DIREITA NO PARLAMENTO EUROPEU. CAMPINAS 2014 i ii iii Ficha catalográfica Universidade Estadual de Campinas Biblioteca do Instituto de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas Cecília Maria Jorge Nicolau - CRB 8/338 Forti Neto, Octávio, 1987- F776e ForEmbates políticos ideológicos na crise europeia : o caso da centro-esquerda e da centro-direita no Parlamento Europeu / Octávio Forti Neto. – Campinas, SP : [s.n.], 2014. ForOrientador: Rachel Meneguello. ForDissertação (mestrado) – Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas. For1. Parlamento Europeu. 2. Partidos políticos - Europa. 3. Crise financeira. 4. Ideologia. 5. Ciência política. 6. Socialismo. I. Meneguello, Rachel,1958-. II. Universidade Estadual de Campinas. Instituto de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas. III. Título. Informações para Biblioteca Digital Título em outro idioma: Ideological political clashes in the European crisis: the case of the center-left and the center-right in the European Parliament. Palavras-chave em inglês: European Parliament Political parties – Europe Financial crises Ideology Political science Socialism Área de concentração: Ciência Política Titulação: Mestre em Ciência Política Banca examinadora: Rachel Meneguello [Orientadora] Oswaldo Estanislau do Amaral Karina Lilian Pasquariello Mariano Data de defesa: 17-10-2014 Programa de pós-graduação: Ciência Política iv v vi Resumo: Este trabalho tem como objetivo demonstrar os posicionamentos partidários das duas maiores agremiações e grupos transnacionais do Parlamento Europeu em relação à crise europeia, que se refletiu na área econômica, financeira, social e de emprego, no período entre 2009 e 2011. Para isto, esta dissertação analisou os programas partidários do S&D e do PPE-DC e seus documentos produzidos em quatro comissões do Parlamento Europeu. A principal conclusão dessa dissertação é que a ideologia foi importante para definir posicionamentos observados no âmbito das agremiações transnacionais. A partir desta descoberta, identificou-se também que a agremiação transnacional de esquerda e seu respectivo grupo no Parlamento Europeu produziram respostas políticas relacionadas a elementos da Terceira Via. Com referência à direita, descobriu-se que ainda persiste a defesa de políticas neoliberais. Outro achado importante foi que embora ambos os grupos apresentassem respostas e soluções diferenciadas para a crise, votaram em conjunto em muitos relatórios finais, mostrando que em âmbito transnacional os grupos tendem a cooperar mais do que competir. Palavras chaves: Partidos Transnacionais, Parlamento Europeu, Esquerda e Direita. vii viii Abstract: This research aims to demonstrate the party positions of the two major parties and transnational groups in the European Parliament in relation to the European crisis, which was reflected in the economic, financial, social and employment areas in the period between 2009 and 2011. To this end, this dissertation analyzed the party programs of the S&D and EPP-CD and their documents produced in four Parliamentary Committees of the European Parliament. The main conclusion is that the ideology was important to define positions observed in the context of transnational parties. From this finding, we also identified that the transnational leftist party and its respective group party in the EP produced political responses related to elements of the Third Way. In regards the right wing, it still defends neoliberal responses to the crisis. Another important finding was that although both groups presented different answers and solutions to the crisis, they voted together on many final reports, showing that at transnational dimension they tend to cooperate more than compete. Key words: Transnational Parties, European Parliament, Left and Right wing. ix x SUMÁRIO INTRODUÇÃO ________________________________________________________ 25 1. O PARLAMENTO EUROPEU: COMPOSIÇÃO E FUNCIONAMENTO ______ 33 1.1. Parlamento Europeu: história e importância ___________________________ 34 1.2. Funções e Poderes do Parlamento Europeu ____________________________ 45 1.2.a. Poderes Legislativos __________________________________________ 45 1.2.b. Poderes Orçamentais _________________________________________ 48 1.2.c. Poderes de Fiscalização e Escrutínio _____________________________ 49 1.3 - Estrutura Organizacional do Parlamento Europeu ______________________ 51 1.3.a. Presidência _________________________________________________ 52 1.3.b. Vice-Presidentes ____________________________________________ 53 1.3.c. Quaestors __________________________________________________ 53 1.3.d. Escritório __________________________________________________ 54 1.3.e. Conferência de Presidentes ____________________________________ 54 1.3.f. Conferência dos Líderes das Comissões Parlamentares e Conferência dos Líderes das Delegações ____________________________________________ 55 1.3.g. Secretariado ________________________________________________ 56 1.3.h. Comissões Parlamentares _____________________________________ 56 2. SISTEMA PARTIDÁRIO EUROPEU: FUNCIONAMENTO DE GRUPOS PARTIDÁRIOS E ALINHAMENTOS IDEOLÓGICOS ______________________ 69 2.1. Organização e Funcionamento _____________________________________ 70 2.1.a. Os problemas de uma definição teórica de partidos transnacionais ________ 74 2.1.a.1. Conceitos de Partidos Políticos _______________________________ 74 2.1.a.2. A natureza dos partidos políticos transnacionais __________________ 77 2.2 - Clivagens Ideológicas ___________________________________________ 79 2.3 - Breve apresentação da Direita e da Esquerda e os seus significados _______ 82 2.4 – Grupos partidários e alinhamentos no Parlamento Europeu ______________ 85 2.5 - Partidos de Esquerda e de Direita no Parlamento Europeu _______________ 89 xi 2.5.a. Partidos dos Socialistas Europeus (PSE) e Grupo da Aliança Progressiva dos Socialistas e Democratas no Parlamento Europeu (S&D) ______________ 89 2.5.a.1. Posicionamento do S&D e do PES em relação à Economia, Finanças, Emprego, Europa Social e Imigração ______________________________ 94 2.5.b. - Grupo do Partido Popular Europeu (Democratas-Cristãos) no Parlamento Europeu (PPE-DC) e Partido Popular Europeu (PPE) ___________________ 101 2.5.b.1. Posicionamentos do PPE e do PPE-DC em relação aos temas de Economia, Finanças, Empregos, Sociais e Imigração ________________ 108 2.6. Funcionamento dos Grupos Partidários _____________________________ 116 2.6.a. Coesão Interna dos Grupos Partidários __________________________ 116 2.6.b. Constrangimento dos deputados _______________________________ 119 2.6.c. Competição ou cooperação ___________________________________ 120 3. PPE-DC E O S&D E AS COMISSÕES PARLAMENTARES NO TRATAMENTO DA CRISE EUROPEIA ________________________________________________ 127 3.1. Comissão Especial sobre a Crise Financeira, Econômica e Social _________ 128 3.2. Comissão de Empregos e Assuntos Sociais __________________________ 136 3.2.a. Relatórios elaborados por deputados do PPE na Comissão de Empregos e Assuntos Sociais ________________________________________________ 138 3.2.b. Relatórios apresentados por deputados do S&D ___________________ 143 3.3. Comissão das Liberdades Cívicas, da Justiça e dos Assuntos Internos _____ 148 3.3.a. Relatórios elaborados por deputados do Partido Popular Europeu (Democratas Cristãos) nesta comissão _______________________________ 150 3.3.b. Relatórios apresentados por deputados do S&D nesta comissão ______ 152 3.4. Comissão de Assuntos Econômicos e Monetários: políticas e diferenças entre o PPE-DC e o S&D __________________________________________________ 155 3.5. O debate sobre as soluções para a crise _____________________________ 162 CONSIDERAÇÕES FINAIS ____________________________________________ 177 xii REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS ____________________________________ 191 SITOGRAFIA ________________________________________________________ 207 ANEXOS ____________________________________________________________ 211 xiii xiv Dedico este trabalho à minha amada esposa e aos meus pais, os quais foram fundamentais em todo este processo. xv xvi Agradecimentos Primeiramente, gostaria de agradecer àquele que deu sentido aos meus pensamentos e mesmo a capacidade de discerni-los, como também uma graça inexplicável. Da fé que pensa a razão que crê, agradeço a Deus por simplesmente tudo. Sou grato aos meus pais (Otávio e Rosi) e minha irmã (Jéssica) pela força e carinho derramado e pelo amor incondicional. Agradeço também pelos pais da minha esposa (Cida e Cláudio), que agora são meus familiares, os quais sempre oraram pela minha vida. Agradeço a minha amada esposa (Natália). Pela inteligência, delicadeza, amor e apoio incondicional em todo o mestrado. Estar com você para sempre foi a melhor decisão em toda a minha vida. Sou muito grato pela minha orientadora Rachel Meneguello, a qual escolheu o meu projeto, teve muita paciência durante todo o processo e indicou ótimas soluções. Sou grato também por minha orientadora da graduação na UNESP - Regina Laisner -, sem a qual seria muito difícil entrar em um programa de mestrado. Agradeço também ao professor Kai Enno Lehmann (USP-IRI), o qual me proporcionou novas experiências na área acadêmica e me permitiu trabalhar em seu projeto. Agradeço aos novos amigos adquiridos na UNICAMP, tais como Sidney e Fernando. Ao grupo de política brasileira da Unicamp, o qual me ajudou no início do programa de mestrado. Sou grato também pelos
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Crisiswatch, Nr. 71
    1 July 2009, No71 Board of Trustees CrisisWatch: Co-Chairs summarises briefly developments during the previous month in some 70 situations of current or potential Christopher Patten conflict, listed alphabetically by region, providing references and links to more detailed information sources Thomas Pickering (all references mentioned are hyperlinked in the electronic version of this bulletin); assesses whether the overall situation in each case has, during the previous month, significantly deteriorated, President and CEO significantly improved, or on balance remained more or less unchanged; Gareth Evans alerts readers to situations where, in the coming month, there is a particular risk of new or significantly escalated conflict, or a particular conflict resolution opportunity (noting that in some instances there may in Executive Committee fact be both); and Morton Abramowitz summarises Crisis Group’s reports and briefing papers that have been published in the last month. Emma Bonino* Cheryl Carolus CrisisWatch is compiled by Crisis Group’s Brussels Research Unit, drawing on multiple sources including Maria Livanos Cattaui the resources of our some 130 staff members across five continents, who already report on some 60 of the Yoichi Funabashi Frank Giustra situations listed here. Comments and suggestions can be sent to [email protected]. Stephen Solarz George Soros To search past issues of CrisisWatch visit our databases and resources page at www.crisisgroup.org. Pär Stenbäck *Vice-Chair June 2009 Trends Adnan Abu-Odeh Deteriorated
    [Show full text]
  • College Decision 2018-09 of 26 June 2018 Adopting the Opinion of the College on the Eurojust Final Annual Accounts 2017
    College Decision 2018-09 of 26 June 2018 adopting the opinion of the College on the Eurojust Final Annual Accounts 2017 THE COLLEGE OF EUROJUST, Having regard to the Council Decision of 28 February 2002 (2002/187/JHA) setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against serious crime, as amended by the Council Decision of 18 June 2003 (2003/659/JHA), and by Council Decision of 16 December 2008 (2009/426/JHA) (hereinafter referred to as “the Eurojust Council Decision”), and in particular Article 36 thereof, Having regard to the Financial Regulation applicable to Eurojust and adopted by the College on 14 January 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “the Eurojust Financial Regulation”), and in particular Article 99 (2) thereof, Having regard to the preliminary observations of the European Court of Auditors with a view to report on the annual accounts of Eurojust for the financial year 2017, Having regard to the final annual accounts of Eurojust for the financial year 2017 signed off by the Accounting Officer on 11 June 2018 and drawn up by the Administrative Director on 13 June 2018 and sent to the College on 20 June 2018. Whereas: (1) The final annual accounts of Eurojust for the financial year 2017 are attached as Annex I to this opinion; (2) The Preliminary observations of the European Court of Auditors with a view to a report on the annual accounts of Eurojust for the financial year 2017 are included in Annex II to this opinion; (3) PKF Littlejohn LLP Independent Auditors Report on the provisional annual accounts 2017 is attached as Annex III to this opinion.
    [Show full text]
  • Archbold Review 5-6, and the News Pieces of EU Legislation in the Area of Justice and Home Item, [2016] 2 Archbold Review 9
    Issue 5 June 22, 2016 Issue 5 June 22, 2016 Archbold Review Cases in Brief Appeal—inconsistent verdicts—development of case law— the clear law set out in Devlin J’s test and apply it rather than reassertion of proper test—undesirability of elaboration of test the reformulation in Dhillon. The Stone test did not need in judgments; Court of Appeal—proper approach of Court to elaboration, but rather careful application to the circum- development of case law stances of each case. In particular (the contrary having been FANNING AND OTHERS [2016] EWCA Crim 550; suggested), different tests did not apply to multiple counts April 28, 2016 arising out of a single sexual episode, and those arising over (1) Giving judgment in four conjoined appeals, the Lord a long period of time; and it was unnecessary and inappropri- Chief Justice reviewed the authorities on the role of the jury ate to compare the circumstances of one case with another and the approach of the court to applications to appeal based as was urged on the court in R v S [2014] EWCA Crim 927. on what were said to be inconsistent verdicts by the jury. The (3) Although the approach the Court set out needed no fur- starting point was the adoption of the approach set out by ther elaboration, it was necessary to mention three matters: Devlin J in Stone [1955] Crim LR 120, quoted in Hunt [1968] 2 (a) the burden to show that verdicts could not stand was with QB 433 and formally adopted in Durante (1972) 56 Cr.App.R the applicant; (b) a jury may logically find a witness credible 708, that the burden was on the applicant to show that the on one count but not another (contra an interpretation of Griz- verdicts could not stand together, that is, that no reasonable zle [1991] Crim LR 553 and Cilgram [1994] Crim LR 861); and jury could have arrived at that conclusion, which was fact- (c) in the overwhelming generality of cases it would be appro- specific.
    [Show full text]
  • Is the Turkish Cypriot Population Shrinking?
    CYPRUS CENTRE 2/2007 REPORT 2/2007 Is the Turkish Cypriot Population Shrinking? Shrinking? Cypriot Population Turkish Is the The demography of north Cyprus is one of the most contested issues related to the island’s division. In particular, the number of indigenous Turkish Cypriots and Turkish immigrants living in the north has long been a source of dispute, not only among the island’s diplomats and politicians but also among researchers and activists. Until recently, the political use of demog- raphy has hindered comprehensive study of the ethno-demographic make-up of the north, while at the same time making a thorough demographic study all the more imperative. The present report addresses this situation by providing an analysis of the results of the 2006 census of north Cyprus, comparing these fi gures with the results of the previous census. The report focuses mainly on identifying the percentage of the population of north Cyprus who are of Turkish-mainland origin and also possess Turkish Cypriot citizenship – an important factor given claims that such citizens play an signifi cant role in elections in the north. In addi- tion, the report examines the arrival dates of Turkish nationals in order to analyze patterns of migration. This, in turn, is indicative of the numbers of naturalized Turkish Cypriot citizens who have arrived in Cyprus as part of an offi cial policy. The report also presents estimates for Turkish Cypriot emigration to third countries, based on immigration and census fi gures from the two main host countries: the United Kingdom and Australia. Following analysis of these latter fi gures and the results of the 2006 census, it is argued that claims of massive emigration by Turkish Cypriots to third countries are largely misleading.
    [Show full text]
  • Implementing the Protocol 36 Opt
    September 2012 Opting out of EU Criminal law: What is actually involved? Alicia Hinarejos, J.R. Spencer and Steve Peers CELS Working Paper, New Series, No.1 http://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk http://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/publications/working_papers.php Centre for European Legal Studies • 10 West Road • Cambridge CB3 9DZ Telephone: 01223 330093 • Fax: 01223 330055 • http://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Protocol 36 to the Lisbon Treaty gives the UK the right to opt out en bloc of all the police and criminal justice measures adopted under the Treaty of Maastricht ahead of the date when the Court of Justice of the EU at Luxembourg will acquire jurisdiction in relation to them. The government is under pressure to use this opt-out in order to “repatriate criminal justice”. It is rumoured that this opt-out might be offered as a less troublesome alternative to those are calling for a referendum on “pulling out of Europe”. Those who advocate the Protocol 36 opt-out appear to assume that it would completely remove the UK from the sphere of EU influence in matters of criminal justice and that the opt-out could be exercised cost-free. In this Report, both of these assumptions are challenged. It concludes that if the opt-out were exercised the UK would still be bound by a range of new police and criminal justice measures which the UK has opted into after Lisbon. And it also concludes that the measures opted out of would include some – notably the European Arrest Warrant – the loss of which could pose a risk to law and order.
    [Show full text]
  • The Police Foundation's Response
    Select Committee on the European Union (Sub-Committee E - Justice, Institutions and Consumer Protection & Sub-Committee F - Home Affairs, Health and Education) Joint inquiry into the UK’s 2014 Opt-out Decision (Protocol 36) The Police Foundation’s response About the Police Foundation The Police Foundation is the only independent charity focused entirely on developing people's knowledge and understanding of policing and challenging the police service and the government to improve policing for the benefit of the public. The Police Foundation acts as a bridge between the public, the police and the government, while being owned by none of them. Founded in 1979 by the late Lord Harris of Greenwich, the Police Foundation has been highly successful in influencing policing policy and practice, through research, policy analysis, training and consultancy. Introduction 1. Under Protocol 36 to the EU Treaties, as amended by the Lisbon Treaty, the UK is entitled to withdraw from approximately 130 EU policing and criminal justice measures. The Government has until 31 May 2014 to decide whether to continue to be bound by the measures, or whether to use its right to opt out. The right to opt out is exercised en bloc, i.e. all pre-Lisbon measures must be opted out of in one go. Application could then be made to opt back into specific measures. 2. The Home Secretary has announced that the government is currently minded to use its right to opt out of all the pre-Lisbon police and criminal justice measures and then negotiate with the European Commission and other member states to opt back into those individual measures which are judged to be in the national interest.1 At this stage it is not clear which measures the Home Office would plan to opt back in to, which it would like to opt out of completely, and the reasons for this approach.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Affairs Forum News January 2015
    SOCIAL AFFAIRS FORUM NEWS JANUARY 2015 SECRETARIAT UPDATES Our next Social Affairs Forum and study visit at CSV UK will take place on 9 and 10 March 2015 in London. Please register here: http://solidar.org/spip.php?page=agenda&date=2015-03- 09 The agenda will follow in due time. Advisory group on asylum, migration and integration SOLIDAR constituted a transversal advisory group on asylum, migration and integration coordinated by our Italian member ARCI with the support of the Secretariat. The political reason for creating such a taskforce is that - despite the fact that migration is currently a very relevant political, social and cultural matter - a common approach has not emerged. On the contrary, migration more and more became a divisive question between different political and cultural visions on the future. The aim of the advisory group is to work together on a common approach on the issues of asylum, migration and integration by providing a platform to better understand the challenges that civil society organisations are facing at local level as well as to share knowledge about practices that SOLIDAR members are carrying out. A brainstorming meeting will take place on 10 February from 10:00 to 13:00 at SOLIDAR Offices. The aim of the brainstorming is to make a first exchange with members on the priorities, objectives and expectations about the work of this advisory group in 2015. Please also note that the brainstorming meeting will be followed by the SOLIDAR-CGIL round table Rights-based approach to EU migration policies: the role of the Trade Union Network on Mediterranean and Sub-Saharan Migrants that will take place on 10 February from 15:00 to 17:30.
    [Show full text]
  • Brexit and EU Agencies What the Agencies’ Existing Third Country Relations Can Teach Us About the Future EU- UK Relationship Nicolai Von Ondarza / Camille Borrett
    Working Paper SWP Working Papers are online publications within the purview of the respective Research Division. Unlike SWP Research Papers and SWP Comments they are not reviewed by the Institute. RESEARCH DIVISION EU / EUROPE | WP NR. 02, APRIL 2018 Brexit and EU agencies What the agencies’ existing third country relations can teach us about the future EU- UK relationship Nicolai von Ondarza / Camille Borrett Contents Introduction 3 I. The EU’s defined interest 4 II. EU agencies and their relevance to Brexit 5 The integrity of the single market 7 Relevance for Northern Ireland 8 Internal and external European security 11 III. EU agencies relationships with third countries 12 Full participation (EEA model) 12 Bilateral cooperation agreements 14 Fringe cases 20 IV. The UK and EU agencies during transition 23 Conclusions 25 List of Abbreviations 28 Overview: EU Agencies and their third country relationships 29 2 Introduction The Brexit negotiations are amongst the most complex the European Union has conducted. After more than 45 years of membership the UK’s exit from the EU is about more than leav- ing the Union’s institutions and its major policy areas. It is also, crucially, about its disen- tanglement from the EU legal order as well as the rules and regulations governing the single market and beyond. One crucial example in order to understand how this disentanglement of the legal order will affect the future relationship, are the 36 agencies the EU has set up to help regulate its single market and support coordination between its members states across many different policy areas.1 Almost two years after the UK’s population voted to leave the EU and less than a year until its formal exit, legally set for 29 March 2019, the Brexit talks are entering the next crucial stage.
    [Show full text]
  • A Divided Civil Society in Stalemate Esra Cuhadar and Andreas Kotelis
    9 Cyprus: A Divided Civil Society in Stalemate Esra Cuhadar and Andreas Kotelis The conflict on the island of Cyprus is long-standing, intractable, and currently at a stalemate. In this chapter we explore the functions of civil society in the Cypriot conflict, tracing its historical background, providing an overview of the status of civil society on Cyprus, and presenting findings about peacebuilding-oriented civil society. Then, following the theoretical frame- work developed by Thania Paffenholz and Christoph Spurk (see Chapter 4), we elaborate on the peacebuilding functions that are performed by Cypriot civil society. Context Located in the eastern Mediterranean, Cyprus is the third largest island in that sea; it lies south of Turkey and is strategically positioned near the Middle East. Its population is currently slightly more than 1 million, mainly Greek (748,217 concentrated in the South) and Turkish (265,100 concentrated in the North),1 with minorities of Armenians, Maronites, and Latins. The Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities are the main adversaries in the conflict, although the conflict cannot be separated from the broader conflict between the coun- tries of Greece and Turkey. It is difficult to summarize the conflict in a few paragraphs, especially when considering the historical narratives adopted by the parties (Dodd 1998; Hannay 2005; Mijftiiler Bag 1999; O’Malley and Craig 1999; Boliikbasl 2001; Anm 2002; Chrysostomides 2000; Papadakis 1998; and Volkan 1979). Below we describe the conflict in the context of peacebuilding and civil society. Even though intercommunal violence became rampant in the 19603, for some scholars the conflict dates to British colonialism, when the seeds of eth- nocentric nationalism were sown (Anastasiou 2006; Hasgijler 2000).
    [Show full text]
  • A One-Stop Shop for Fighting Serious Cross-Border Crime in the European Union and Beyond
    Eurojust: a one-stop shop for fighting serious cross-border crime in the European Union and beyond In recent years, organised crime groups have gone increasingly global. The European Union is strongly committed to fighting such crime based on the principles of justice and rule of law that define our democratic systems. Judicial and law enforcement authorities in the European Union, however, work within national legal systems, which govern what acts are considered to be crimes, which sanctions apply and how investigations and trials are conducted. To detect, investigate and effectively prosecute cross-border crimes, judicial and law enforcement authorities from different countries therefore need to work closely together. Eurojust is the European Union's Judicial Cooperation Unit, an EU agency located in The Hague, Netherlands. Eurojust was started in 2002 and is fully focused on providing practical support to investigators, prosecutors and judges from different countries. Judicial practitioners come to Eurojust for support in a wide range of criminal investigations, including investigations of fraud, money laundering, corruption, trafficking in human beings, drug trafficking, migrant smuggling, cybercrime and terrorism. In 2018, Eurojust provided support in 6 500 cases, an increase of almost 19 % compared to 2017. Practical support and services to prosecutors and joint investigation teams Eurojust offers a range of practical tools and services especially designed for prosecutors and investigators of serious crime, including: On-call coordination for urgent requests, for example when a European Arrest Warrant needs to be quickly arranged to arrest a suspect in another country. On-call coordination is available 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
    [Show full text]
  • The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice Ten Years On
    THE AREA OF FREEDOM, SECURITY AND JUSTICE TEN YEARS ON SUCCESSES AND FUTURE CHALLENGES UNDER THE STOCKHOLM PROGRAMME THE AREA OF FREEDOM, SECURITY AND JUSTICE TEN YEARS ON SUCCESSES AND FUTURE CHALLENGES UNDER THE STOCKHOLM PROGRAMME EDITORS ELSPETH GUILD SERGIO CARRERA AND ALEJANDRO EGGENSCHWILER CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN POLICY STUDIES BRUSSELS The Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) is an independent policy research institute based in Brussels. Its mission is to produce sound analytical research leading to constructive solutions to the challenges facing Europe today. This paperback is published in the context of IN:EX, a three-year project on converging and conflicting ethical values in the internal/external security continuum in Europe, funded by the Security Programme of DG Enterprise of the European Commission’s 7th Framework Research Programme. The opinions expressed in this publication and the analysis and arguments given are the sole responsibility of the authors writing in a personal capacity and do not necessarily reflect those of CEPS or any other institution with which the authors are associated. ISBN 978-94-6138-034-0 © Copyright 2010, European Union and Centre for European Policy Studies All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means – electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise – without the prior permission of the Centre for European Policy Studies and the European Union. Centre for European Policy Studies Place du Congrès 1, B-1000 Brussels Tel: 32 (0) 2 229.39.11 Fax: 32 (0) 2 219.41.51 e-mail: [email protected] internet: http://www.ceps.eu CONTENTS 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Combating Violence Against Women
    8.7.2010 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 184 E/131 Wednesday 22 April 2009 OPINIONS EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Combating violence against women P6_TA(2009)0259 Declaration of the European Parliament on the ‘Say NO to Violence against Women’ campaign (2010/C 184 E/27) The European Parliament, — having regard to the UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women of 20 December 1993 and the resolution on the elimination of domestic violence against women, adopted by the UN General Assembly on 22 December 2003, which recognise the urgent need for elimination of violence against women, — having regard to its resolutions of 16 September 1997 on the need to establish a European Union wide campaign for zero tolerance of violence against women ( 1 ) and of 2 February 2006 on the current situation in combating violence against women and any future action ( 2), — having regard to the UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) campaign ‘Say NO to Violence against Women’, which highlights the need for action and protection of women against violence, — having regard to Rule 116 of its Rules of Procedure, A. whereas violence against women and girls is a universal problem of pandemic proportions, B. whereas, in its above-mentioned resolutions, Parliament stressed the need to establish an EU-wide campaign for zero tolerance of violence against women, C. whereas the recent Council of Europe campaign ‘Stop Domestic Violence against Women’ confirms the need for action and protection of women against violence, 1. Asks the Commission to declare, within the next five years, a ‘European Year on Zero Tolerance of Violence against Women’, as repeatedly requested by Parliament; 2.
    [Show full text]