DOCSLIB.ORG

Future of Europe: Disruption Continuity and Change

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Future of Europe: Disruption Continuity and Change SCER Report The Future of Europe: Disruption, Continuity and Change Strategy report setting out the big future challenges for the EU – and Scotland’s contribution to that European future Kirsty Hughes Editor May 2019 The Future of Europe: Disruption, Continuity and Change The Scottish Centre on European Relations (SCER) is an independent EU think tank, based in Edinburgh, that informs, debates and provides up-to-the-minute, high-quality research and analysis of European Union developments and challenges, with a particular focus on Scotland’s EU interests and policies. Independent analysis. European perspective. Compilation © 2019 Scottish Centre on European Relations Chapters © 2019 The Respective Authors All Rights Reserved Scottish Centre on European Relations is the operating name of Centre on European Relations (Scotland) Company Registered in Scotland / Company No SC559785 Design and Typesetting by Anthony Salamone Set in Barlow under the SIL Open Font License Published in Edinburgh May 2019 scer.scot Foreword SCER’s wide-ranging survey of the principal challenges the EU faces, seen both in a Scottish and a broader perspective, is brilliantly timed for the European Parliament election campaign and the new five-year EU institutional cycle. Real issues tackled by real experts: it makes a refreshing change from the shallow slogans of the Westminster Brexit battle. I am sure that, at least in Scotland, Mr Gove was wrong: the country has not had enough of experts. If, as I hope, Westminster finally accepts that the people should have the final say on whether we should take back Mrs May’s Article 50 notification, these considered analyses will help them make a well-informed choice. Let’s hope they are widely read, on both sides of the Border, and more widely across the EU. John Kerr Advisory Board Member Scottish Centre on European Relations 3 Contents Foreword 3 Acknowledgements 6 Recommendations 7 EU Politics: Disruption, Continuity and Change 1. Europe’s Future in the Face of Systemic Challenges 14 Kirsty Hughes 2. The EU, Scotland and Human Rights 25 Maria Fletcher / Tobias Lock 3. Citizenship, Identity and the EU 34 Sionaidh Douglas-Scott 4. Small States and Regions: Evolving Strategies in EU Politics 42 Anthony Salamone 5. EU Politics, Populism and Democracy 51 Pontus Odmalm 6. Scotland in Europe: Future Prospects 58 Michael Keating Media, Youth and Culture 7. Youth, Scotland and the EU: Working with and for Young People 65 Paul Reddish 8. A Culture of Hostility: Is Britain ‘Open for Business’ but 70 Closed to Culture? Nick Barley 9. Changing EU Media and Communications Outlook 77 Alistair Burnett Sustainable Development: Challenges and Opportunities 10. Politics and Economics of Reform of the Eurozone 87 Anton Muscatelli 4 Contents 11. Tackling Inequality in Today’s EU 96 Craig Wilson 12. Industrial Policy in the EU and Scotland: Divergent 105 Pathways? Alison Hunter / Fabian Zuleeg 13. EU Action and Scottish Ambition on the Environment 113 Annalisa Savaresi / Miranda Geelhoed Global and Neighbourhood Questions for the EU 14. The EU’s Foreign, Security and Defence Policies in an 123 Unstable World Daniel Kenealy 15. The EU’s Irregular Migration Approach – Less Defensive, 129 More Strategic Andrew Sherriff 16. The EU’s International Development Strategy: Time 138 for Change? Cathy Ratcliff 17. Stopping the Protectionist Tsunami: EU Trade Strategy 147 under Water? David Gow About the Authors 155 Strategic Advisory Group 158 Funders 159 5 Acknowledgements The SCER team is grateful to all those who have made this report possible. Our Strategic Advisory Group for our future of Europe programme gave us insightful comment and advice from the start. All the expert authors in this volume have provided excellent in-depth analysis and been a pleasure to work with – not least in producing high-quality work in a short time frame. The SCER Advisory Board has also continued to support and encourage our work. We held two main events in connection with this programme of work – one in Edinburgh and one in London. Many thanks to all the speakers and participants, to our Edinburgh co-organiser, the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and to our London co-organiser, the Federal Trust, for excellent, wide-ranging inputs and ideas. The report has been designed in-house by Anthony Salamone. We are grateful to all our funders – not least to the 90 people who contributed to our crowdfunding for this project at the start of the year. We hope the ideas and analysis in this report will contribute to a broader and deeper debate on the future direction of the EU and Scotland’s contribution to that. And we very much hope to build on this programme of work in our future SCER activities. 6 Recommendations The EU still has a strong basis from which it can create a forward-looking, overarching strategy in these turbulent and disruptive times. The EU must regain its confidence that its values, interests and rights can go together rather than be in conflict, even at a time of disruption and change. This new report draws on a range of expert voices, from Scotland and the EU, to consider the EU’s future at this time of multiple challenges and systemic change. Across seventeen chapters, the report assesses current and future EU strategies, policies, pressures and needs and the extent of solidarity or divergence within the EU. Each author also considers Scotland’s interests, contribution and approach in their area of focus, and suggests where Scotland can best learn from the EU, and where too, in some areas, it can offer ideas, solutions and examples of a way ahead. The report makes 40 recommendations under five headings. These recommendations aim to contribute to an ambitious, strategic future of Europe – and to Scotland making a strong, creative contribution to that future. 1. The EU’s Strategic Future For the EU: The EU must show renewed and imaginative political leadership as it navigates a divided Union and disruption and change globally. Differentiated integration and flexibility can be part of the answer, as long as it creates a strategic path for the EU; as a pragmatic partial route ahead, it will not be enough. The EU must build on and strengthen its best strategies in key areas, including development, human rights and climate change, and continue to be a leading voice in promoting the benefits of multilateralism. It needs to urgently tackle its own divisions, and find a route to being a stronger global actor. A strong new overarching and inclusive strategy for sustainable development – a green new deal and a 21st century industrial strategy – can impact strongly and guide policy, and help overcome divisions (social, political and economic) at home and internationally. The EU must find new ways to work with citizens and civil society in building the future Europe. A set of European citizens’ assemblies advising on policy should be held as one major contribution to revitalising the role of the EU’s citizens in shaping future EU policy. For Scotland: The Scottish government should develop a clear, overarching European strategy and vision, taking as its starting point the current major issues, priorities and strategic debates within, and facing, the EU as it enters its new five-year institutional cycle. This should build on, but go beyond, its existing policies, networks and areas of leadership and be taken forward in alliance with partners within Scotland and at all levels across the EU. As part of this, the Scottish government needs to take a fresh look at its soft power/para- diplomacy and develop a strong and consistent strategic framework for its European and wider para-diplomacy. 7 Recommendations 2. EU Politics: Democracy, Rule of Law and Human Rights For the EU: The EU should act to strengthen economic, social, cultural and environmental rights. It must urgently consider how to strengthen its tools to tackle rule of law issues. The EU can learn from individual countries, including Scotland, which are moving forward in specific ways on protecting economic and social rights. The EU should accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. Brexit shows that it is premature to consider EU citizenship a fundamental right. If Brexit happens, the EU and UK should revisit the idea of associate citizenship for UK citizens who wish to retain their EU identity in some form. For Scotland: If Brexit goes ahead then, so far as within the competence of the Scottish parliament, Scotland should try to mirror human rights developments at the EU level. Scotland should promote, and continue to invest in, its goals of being at the forefront of economic, social and cultural rights. The Scottish government should institute a series of citizens’ dialogues on Europe to promote a genuine public discussion of the key European challenges and ways ahead for the EU. It should also consider launching a citizens’ assembly on the future of Europe and Scotland’s European strategy. The Scottish government should undertake a series of strategic audits of its EU bilateral relations, starting with its priority countries in the EU (and identifying those) – drawing on the example of Ireland’s bilateral audits. It should also look at how to integrate European opportunities and issues into its policy-making and analysis across the board. 3. Youth, Inequality, Media and Culture For the EU: The EU needs to reform and step up how it communicates, connects and engages with its young citizens. Policy is moving in the right direction, but across all relevant policy areas youth must be more engaged in shaping policy, not just in one-way communication about policy. In engaging youth, helping to create high-quality employment and tackling inequality, the EU must learn rapidly from successful and innovative youth and civil society programmes across the member states.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Transformation of Italian Democracy
    Bulletin of Italian Politics Vol. 1, No. 1, 2009, 29-47 The Transformation of Italian Democracy Sergio Fabbrini University of Trento Abstract: The history of post-Second World War Italy may be divided into two distinct periods corresponding to two different modes of democratic functioning. During the period from 1948 to 1993 (commonly referred to as the First Republic), Italy was a consensual democracy; whereas the system (commonly referred to as the Second Republic) that emerged from the dramatic changes brought about by the end of the Cold War functions according to the logic of competitive democracy. The transformation of Italy’s political system has thus been significant. However, there remain important hurdles on the road to a coherent institutionalisation of the competitive model. The article reconstructs the transformation of Italian democracy, highlighting the socio-economic and institutional barriers that continue to obstruct a competitive outcome. Keywords: Italian politics, Models of democracy, Parliamentary government, Party system, Interest groups, Political change. Introduction As a result of the parliamentary elections of 13-14 April 2008, the Italian party system now ranks amongst the least fragmented in Europe. Only four party groups are represented in the Senate and five in the Chamber of Deputies. In comparison, in Spain there are nine party groups in the Congreso de los Diputados and six in the Senado; in France, four in the Assemblée Nationale an d six in the Sénat; and in Germany, six in the Bundestag. Admittedly, as is the case for the United Kingdom, rather fewer parties matter in those democracies in terms of the formation of governments: generally not more than two or three.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fourth Report of Senior Pay and Perks in UK Universities History This
    Transparency at the top? The fourth report of senior pay and perks in UK universities History This is the fourth report on pay and perks at the top of British higher education institutions (HEIs) to be published by the University and College Union (UCU). It forms part of the union’s ongoing campaign for greater transparency in higher education, including the rationale behind senior pay rises. UCU submitted a Freedom of Information (FoI) request to 158 HEIs in October 2017. This followed similar requests submitted in 2016, 2015 and 2014. All requests were designed to shine a light on the arbitrary nature of senior pay and perks in universities, and support the union’s call for reform. The basis for this report The FoI request that forms the basis of this report was sent to 158 (HEIs). It requested details of vice-chancellors’ (or head of institution if known by a different title) salaries and those of other senior post-holders earning over £100,000 at the institution during the academic year of 2016/17 (1 August 2016 to 31 July 2017). It also asked for details of flights, spending on hotels, spending on expenses and if the vice-chancellor was provided with accommodation by the university. Finally, we requested to know whether or not the vice-chancellor was a member of the remuneration committee, and requested a copy of the most recently ratified minutes of the institution’s remuneration committee. Variety of responses The questions on expenditure on flights, hotels, expenses and accommodation for vice-chancellors elicited a huge variation in responses with many institutions deploying exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act to avoid providing data.
    [Show full text]
  • Subsidies and Funding from Some of the Largest UK Industries, She Also Signalled a Break with the Idea of the Economic State
    James Webber All Change? UK State Aid after Brexit What Law? Whose Courts? Copy Proof POLITEIA A FORUM FOR SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC THINKING POLITEIA A Forum for Social and Economic Thinking Politeia commissions and publishes discussions by specialists about social and economic ideas and policies. It aims to encourage public discussion on the relationship between the state and the people. Its aim is not to influence people to support any given political party, candidates for election, or position in a referendum, but to inform public discussion of policy. The forum is independently funded, and the publications do not express a corporate opinion, but the views of their individual authors. www.politeia.co.uk All Change? UK State Aid after Brexit What Law? Whose Courts? James Webber POLITEIA 2020 First published in 2020 by Politeia 14a Eccleston Street London SW1W 9LT Tel: 0207 799 5034 Email: [email protected] Website: www.politeia.co.uk © Politeia 2020 ISBN 978-1-9993662-9-2 Cover design by John Marenbon Politeia gratefully acknowledges support for this publication from The Foundation for Social and Economic Thinking (FSET) Printed in the United Kingdom by: Millnet Limited 6-7 Princes Court 11 Wapping Lane London E1W 2DA Foreword State Aid, the EU and the UK Economy Different Systems, Different Rules Sheila Lawlor, Director of Politeia The battle and its background.1 Very shortly the next battle with the EU will begin over an unlikely battleground: what rules should govern UK State aid and what are their implications for a trade deal with the bloc? For the UK, a country that, more than most others, has championed free trade, unfettered and competitive markets and an economy under the rule of law, the subject seems uncontentious.
    [Show full text]
  • Jo Swinson: the New Liberal Democrat Leader
    Jo Swinson: the new Liberal Democrat Leader 22 July 2019 Who is Jo Swinson? Jo Swinson was born in 1980, growing up and going to school in East Dunbartonshire, which she now represents in Parliament. Her mother was a primary school teacher while her father worked in economic development. She cites her earliest political experience as signing petitions against animal testing in the Body Shop. A Liberal Democrat supporter since she was at school, Jo joined the Liberal Democrats aged 17, while studying Management at the LSE. During her time at university, she worked as a Research Assistant for the Employers’ Forum on Disability. After graduating, Swinson moved to Hull, working as Viking FM’s Marketing & PR Manager. Aged 21, she stood against John Prescott at the 2001 general election in Hull East. Relocating back to Scotland, she worked as Marketing Manager for SpaceandPeople Plc and then as Communications Officer for the UK Public Health Association prior to her election as an MP. In 2011, she married Duncan Hames, who was the Liberal Democrat MP for Chippenham from 2010 to 2015, and is now an anti-corruption campaigner. The couple have two sons. What is Jo Swinson’s political background? Swinson was successfully elected to Parliament in 2005, winning East Dunbartonshire from Labour. In the Commons, she became a Lib Dem whip and spokesperson for culture, media and sport, before being promoted to Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland in 2006. Swinson gained additional responsibility in 2007 becoming Shadow Women and Equality Minister. She returned to the backbenches later that year, before becoming Shadow Minister for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in 2008, retaining this role until the 2010 election.
    [Show full text]
  • EU Renegotiation: Fighting for a Flexible Union How to Renegotiate the Terms of the UK’S Membership of the EU
    EU Renegotiation: Fighting for a Flexible Union How to renegotiate the terms of the UK’s Membership of the EU (Quotation in title taken from President Glyn Gaskarth September 2013 ii © Civitas 2013 55 Tufton Street London SW1P 3QL Civitas is a registered charity (no. 1085494) and a company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales (no. 04023541) email: [email protected] Independence: Civitas: Institute for the Study of Civil Society is a registered educational charity (No. 1085494) and a company limited by guarantee (No. 04023541). Civitas is financed from a variety of private sources to avoid over-reliance on any single or small group of donors. All the Institute’s publications seek to further its objective of promoting the advancement of learning. The views expressed are those of the authors, not of the Institute. i Contents Acknowledgements ii Foreword, David Green iii Executive Summary iv Background 1 Introduction 3 Chapter One – Trade 9 Chapter Two – City Regulation 18 Chapter Three – Options for Britain 26 Chapter Four – Common Fisheries Policy 42 Chapter Five – National Borders and Immigration 49 Chapter Six – Foreign & Security Policy 58 Chapter Seven – European Arrest Warrant (EAW) 68 Conclusion 80 Bibliography 81 ii Acknowledgements I would like to thank Tamara Chehayeb Makarem and Susan Gaskarth for their support during the compilation of this paper and Dr David Green and Jonathan Lindsell of Civitas for their comments on the text. iii Foreword Our main aim should be the full return of our powers of self-government, but that can’t happen before the referendum promised for 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comprehensive Plan to Innovate Democracy in Europe
    A comprehensive plan to innovate democracy in Europe Civil society vision for the European Democracy Action Plan A comprehensive plan to innovate democracy in Europe Civil society vision for the European Democracy Action Plan CIVIL SOCIETY VISION FOR 04 THE EUROPEAN DEMOCRACY ACTION PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive summary 07 Introduction 09 1. Civic space and active citizenship 12 1.1 Policy framework with guidelines on civic space 14 1.2 Anti-SLAPP directive 16 1.3 Whistleblowers protection 16 1.4 Space for youth 17 1.5 Financial support to CSOs 18 1.6 Conditionality related to the EU funds 20 1.7 Expanding the Rule of Law Mechanism 21 1.8 Stakeholder participation in strengthening democracy and the rule of law 22 1.9 Structured dialogue with Civil Society at EU and Member State level 22 1.10 Active citizenship fit for the 21st Century 24 1.11 European public sphere 26 1.12 Participation of underrepresented groups 27 1.13 Conference on the Future of Europe 28 2. Elections 31 2.1 European electoral reform 32 2.2 Inclusiveness & equal suffrage rights 33 2.3 Accessibility of elections 34 2.4 European political parties’ conduct, transparency & resilience 35 2.5 Online political advertising 37 2.6 Elections during a pandemic 41 2.7 Citizen election observation 43 2.8 Data Protection and elections 44 2.9 Election Infrastructure 45 CIVIL SOCIETY VISION FOR THE EUROPEAN DEMOCRACY ACTION PLAN 05 3. Disinformation and online public sphere 46 3.1 Governing internet platforms 48 3.2 Transparency of dominant platforms 50 3.3 Addressing the online manipulation business model by enforcing data protection rules 52 3.4 Upholding fundamental rights in the EU approach to disinformation 53 3.5 Central coordination and decentralised cooperation on disinformation 54 3.6 Decentralised framework fund 55 3.7 Sustainable and transnational journalism and media to counter disinformation 56 3.8 Global coordination and knowledge-sharing around hybrid threats 57 3.9 Data access for public interest scrutiny 58 3.10 Elections and disinformation 59 4.
    [Show full text]
  • European Commission
    CONFERENCE PROGRAMME Social Europe TABLE OF CONTENTS 5 INTRODUCTION 6 CONFERENCE PROGRAMME 6 Day 1: 3 December 2018 8 Day 2: 4 December 2018 10 SPEAKER BIOGRAPHIES 20 EXHIBITION 22 THE ACCESS CITY AWARD 26 EASY-TO-READEASY-TO-READ DESCRIPTION 31 CONFERENCE PROGRAMME 31 Day 1: 3 December 2018 32 Day 2: 4 December 2018 34 EASY-TO-READEASY-TO-READ DICTIONARY 43 CONTACT INFORMATION Audio description will be available at the conference. The annual conference on the European Day of Persons Induction loops will be available in the lobby room, before entering the conference hall. with Disabilities will take place on 3-4 December 2018. Hosted by the European Commission in partnership with the European Disability Forum, this event is part of the EU’s wider efforts to promote the mainstreaming of disability issues and to raise awareness of the everyday challenges faced by persons with disabilities. Politicians, high-level experts and self-advocates will discuss the challenges, the solutions and the projects that are being prepared for improving policies for persons with disabilities. The 2018 conference will give participants the opportunity to discuss the potential shape of the next European Disability Strategy, and the ways in which it could be implemented, notably in the context of the next Multiannual Financial Framework. In 2018 we also celebrate the European Year of Cultural Heritage and this event will be an opportunity to ask ourselves about the accessibility of cultural heritage. What has been done so far and how does the EU plan to ensure that persons with disabilities can enjoy its cultural wealth on an equal basis with other citizens? How can we make sure that cultural heritage will be taken into account in the next strategy? Cultural heritage will also be an important element of this year’s Access City Award.
    [Show full text]
  • British Politics and Policy at LSE: Why Major Party Reforms Had to Be Sidelined During Jeremy Corbyn’S Leadership Page 1 of 2
    British Politics and Policy at LSE: Why major party reforms had to be sidelined during Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership Page 1 of 2 Why major party reforms had to be sidelined during Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership Bradley Ward argues that while Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership was initially drawn towards a more grassroots vision of rank-and-file democracy, this came into tension with the demands facing the leadership in the context of intense intra-party factionalism. In a Brexit-dominated political landscape, the constraints facing internal party democracy meant that major party reforms were increasingly sidelined. Despite the promise to continue with the legacy of his predecessor, Keir Starmer’s first twelve months in office have been characterised by glaring attempts to distance his ‘new leadership’ from the last vestiges of Corbynism. This is evidenced by Rebecca Long-Bailey’s sacking from the Shadow Cabinet; the decision to withhold the whip from Jeremy Corbyn and ban local parties from discussing the case; the dismantling of the Community Organising Unit; the policy of ‘abstentionism’ on bills seen as anathema to progressive values; and an unwillingness to embrace some of the more daring policies of the previous leader. For many critics on the left, these moves have divided the party at a time when everyone should be working together to tackle the big issues of the day. Those who defend Starmer, however, see these moves as important first steps towards showing the rest of ‘the country they have their Labour Party back again’ after the rollercoaster of the previous five years. The difference between Corbyn and Starmer becomes even more pronounced if we look at internal party politics.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1 of 15 Mr Jean-Claude Juncker President European Commission Cc
    Mr Jean-Claude Juncker President European Commission cc: Frans Timmermans, First Vice-President, in charge of Better Regulation, Inter-Institutional Relations, the Rule of Law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights Andrus Ansip, Vice-President for the Digital Single Market Jyrki Katainen, Vice-President for Jobs, Growth, Investment and Competitiveness Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President for the Energy Union Vytenis Andriukaitis, Commissioner for Health and Food Safety Elžbieta Bieńkowska, Commissioner for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs Violeta Bulc, Commissioner for Transport Miguel Arias Cañete, Commissioner for Climate Action and Energy Corina Creţu, Commissioner for Regional Policy Carlos Moedas, Commissioner for Research, Science and Innovation Cecilia Malmström, Commissioner for Trade Pierre Moscovici, Commissioner for Economic and Financial Affairs, Taxation and Customs Tibor Navracsics, Commissioner for Education, Culture, Youth and Sport Günther Öttinger, Commissioner for Budget and Human Resources Marianne Thyssen, Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs, Skills and Labour Mobility Karmenu Vella, Commissioner for Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Margrethe Vestager, Commissioner for Competition Brussels, 16 June 2017 Re: Contribute to economic growth and climate change mitigation through a EU Cycling Strategy Dear President Juncker, With this letter, signed by leaders from businesses, public authorities and civil society, we call upon the European Commission to unlock the potential for creating jobs
    [Show full text]
  • Dimensions and Alignments in European Union Politics: Cognitive Constraints and Partisan Responses
    Working Paper Series in European Studies Volume 1, Number 3 Dimensions and Alignments in European Union Politics: Cognitive Constraints and Partisan Responses DR. SIMON HIX DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS AND POLITICAL SCIENCE Houghton Street London, WC2A 2AE United Kingdom ([email protected]) EDITORIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE: GILLES BOUSQUET KEITH COHEN COLLEEN DUNLAVY ANDREAS KAZAMIAS LEON LINDBERG ELAINE MARKS ANNE MINER ROBERT OSTERGREN MARK POLLACK GREGORY SHAFFER MARC SILBERMAN JONATHAN ZEITLIN Copyright © 1998 All rights reserved. No part of this paper may be reproduced in any form without permission of the author. European Studies Program, International Institute, University of Wisconsin--Madison Madison, Wisconsin http://polyglot.lss.wisc.edu/eur/ 1 Dimensions and Alignments in European Union Politics: Cognitive Constraints and Partisan Responses Simon Hix Department of Government, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom Abstract As the European Union (EU) has evolved, the study agenda has shifted from ‘European integration’ to ‘EU politics’. Missing from this new agenda, however, is an understanding of the ‘cognitive constraints’ on actors, and how actors respond: i.e. the shape of the EU ‘political space’ and the location of social groups and competition between actors within this space. The article develops a theoretical framework for understanding the shape of the EU political space (the interaction between an Integration-Independence and a Left-Right dimension and the location of class and sectoral groups within this map), and tests this framework on the policy positions of the Socialist, Christian Democrat and Liberal party leaders between 1976 and 1994 (using the techniques of the ECPR Party Manifestos Group Project).
    [Show full text]
  • ESS9 Appendix A3 Political Parties Ed
    APPENDIX A3 POLITICAL PARTIES, ESS9 - 2018 ed. 3.0 Austria 2 Belgium 4 Bulgaria 7 Croatia 8 Cyprus 10 Czechia 12 Denmark 14 Estonia 15 Finland 17 France 19 Germany 20 Hungary 21 Iceland 23 Ireland 25 Italy 26 Latvia 28 Lithuania 31 Montenegro 34 Netherlands 36 Norway 38 Poland 40 Portugal 44 Serbia 47 Slovakia 52 Slovenia 53 Spain 54 Sweden 57 Switzerland 58 United Kingdom 61 Version Notes, ESS9 Appendix A3 POLITICAL PARTIES ESS9 edition 3.0 (published 10.12.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Denmark, Iceland. ESS9 edition 2.0 (published 15.06.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden. Austria 1. Political parties Language used in data file: German Year of last election: 2017 Official party names, English 1. Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs (SPÖ) - Social Democratic Party of Austria - 26.9 % names/translation, and size in last 2. Österreichische Volkspartei (ÖVP) - Austrian People's Party - 31.5 % election: 3. Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) - Freedom Party of Austria - 26.0 % 4. Liste Peter Pilz (PILZ) - PILZ - 4.4 % 5. Die Grünen – Die Grüne Alternative (Grüne) - The Greens – The Green Alternative - 3.8 % 6. Kommunistische Partei Österreichs (KPÖ) - Communist Party of Austria - 0.8 % 7. NEOS – Das Neue Österreich und Liberales Forum (NEOS) - NEOS – The New Austria and Liberal Forum - 5.3 % 8. G!LT - Verein zur Förderung der Offenen Demokratie (GILT) - My Vote Counts! - 1.0 % Description of political parties listed 1. The Social Democratic Party (Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs, or SPÖ) is a social above democratic/center-left political party that was founded in 1888 as the Social Democratic Worker's Party (Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei, or SDAP), when Victor Adler managed to unite the various opposing factions.
    [Show full text]
  • A Dynamic and Democratic Eu Or Muddling Through Again? Assessing the Eu’S Draft Constitution
    EUROPEAN EPIN POLICY INSTITUTE NETWORK EPIN WORKING PAPER NO. 8 JULY 2003 A DYNAMIC AND DEMOCRATIC EU OR MUDDLING THROUGH AGAIN? ASSESSING THE EU’S DRAFT CONSTITUTION KIRSTY HUGHES This series of Working Papers is published by the European Policy Institutes Network (EPIN). Unless otherwise indicated, the views expressed are attributable only to the author in a personal capacity and not to any institution with which she is associated. ISBN 92-9079-450-X Available for free downloading from the CEPS website (http://www.ceps.be) Copyright 2003, Kirsty Hughes CEPS gratefully acknowledges financial support received for EPIN from the Prince Programme of the European Commission. Place du Congrès 1 ▪ B-1000 Brussels ▪ Tel: (32.2) 229.39.11 ▪ Fax: (32.2) 219.41.51 ▪ VAT: BE 424.123.986 e-mail: [email protected] • website: at www.epin.orghttp://www.ceps.be A DYNAMIC AND DEMOCRATIC EU OR MUDDLING THROUGH AGAIN? ASSESSING THE EU’S DRAFT CONSTITUTION EPIN WORKING PAPER NO. 8/JULY 2003 * KIRSTY HUGHES Introduction The draft Constitution is on the table. Attention is moving towards the traditional intergovernmental game that will be played out at the intergovernmental conference (IGC) during autumn 2003 – and quite possibly into early 2004 (despite the intentions of the Italian presidency). Much of the structure and the detailed substance of the draft treaty will stay but the IGC will be far from a rubber-stamp exercise. Moreover, despite the pessimists’ (or perhaps realists’) view that the IGC will only make the draft Constitution worse, the governments do have an opportunity to improve and clarify many areas.
    [Show full text]