DOCSLIB.ORG

Internal Politics and Views on Brexit

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

BRIEFING PAPER Number 8362, 2 May 2019 The EU27: Internal Politics By Stefano Fella, Vaughne Miller, Nigel Walker and Views on Brexit Contents: 1. Austria 2. Belgium 3. Bulgaria 4. Croatia 5. Cyprus 6. Czech Republic 7. Denmark 8. Estonia 9. Finland 10. France 11. Germany 12. Greece 13. Hungary 14. Ireland 15. Italy 16. Latvia 17. Lithuania 18. Luxembourg 19. Malta 20. Netherlands 21. Poland 22. Portugal 23. Romania 24. Slovakia 25. Slovenia 26. Spain 27. Sweden www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary 2 The EU27: Internal Politics and Views on Brexit Contents Summary 6 1. Austria 13 1.1 Key Facts 13 1.2 Background 14 1.3 Current Government and Recent Political Developments 15 1.4 Views on Brexit 17 2. Belgium 25 2.1 Key Facts 25 2.2 Background 25 2.3 Current Government and recent political developments 26 2.4 Views on Brexit 28 3. Bulgaria 32 3.1 Key Facts 32 3.2 Background 32 3.3 Current Government and recent political developments 33 3.4 Views on Brexit 35 4. Croatia 37 4.1 Key Facts 37 4.2 Background 37 4.3 Current Government and recent political developments 38 4.4 Views on Brexit 39 5. Cyprus 42 5.1 Key Facts 42 5.2 Background 42 5.3 Current Government and recent political developments 43 5.4 Views on Brexit 45 6. Czech Republic 49 6.1 Key Facts 49 6.2 Background 49 6.3 Current Government and recent political developments 50 6.4 Views on Brexit 53 7. Denmark 57 7.1 Key Facts 57 7.2 Background 57 7.3 Current Government and recent political developments 59 7.4 Views on Brexit 60 8. Estonia 65 8.1 Key Facts 65 8.2 Background 65 8.3 Current Government and recent political developments 66 8.4 Views on Brexit 67 9. Finland 70 9.1 Key Facts 70 9.2 Background 70 3 Commons Library Briefing, 2 May 2019 9.3 Current Government and recent political developments 71 9.4 Views on Brexit 73 10. France 76 10.1 Key facts 76 10.2 Background 76 10.3 Current Government and recent political developments 77 10.4 Views on Brexit 80 11. Germany 89 11.1 Key facts 89 11.2 Background 89 11.3 Current Government and recent political developments 90 11.4 Views on Brexit 92 12. Greece 103 12.1 Key Facts 103 12.2 Background 103 12.3 Current Government and recent political developments 104 12.4 Views on Brexit 105 13. Hungary 108 13.1 Key Facts 108 13.2 Background 108 13.3 Current Government and recent political developments 109 13.4 Views on Brexit 112 14. Ireland 116 14.1 Key Facts 116 14.2 Background 117 14.3 Current Government and recent political developments 117 14.4 Views on Brexit 118 15. Italy 129 15.1 Key Facts 129 15.2 Background 129 15.3 Current Government and recent political developments 131 15.4 Views on Brexit 135 16. Latvia 141 16.1 Key Facts 141 16.2 Background 141 16.3 Current Government and recent political developments 142 16.4 Views on Brexit 144 17. Lithuania 148 17.1 Key Facts 148 17.2 Background 148 17.3 Current Government and recent political developments 149 17.4 Views on Brexit 150 18. Luxembourg 154 18.1 Key Facts 154 18.2 Background 154 18.3 Current Government and recent political developments 155 18.4 Views on Brexit 156 19. Malta 160 4 The EU27: Internal Politics and Views on Brexit 19.1 Key facts 160 19.2 Background 160 19.3 Current Government and recent political developments 161 19.4 Views on Brexit 161 20. Netherlands 165 20.1 Key facts 165 20.2 Background 165 20.3 Current Government and recent political developments 166 20.4 Views on Brexit 168 21. Poland 175 21.1 Key Facts 175 21.2 Background 175 21.3 Current Government and recent political developments 176 21.4 Views on Brexit 178 22. Portugal 184 22.1 Key facts 184 22.2 Background 184 22.3 Current Government and recent political developments 185 22.4 Views on Brexit 186 23. Romania 189 23.1 Key Facts 189 23.2 Background 189 23.3 Current Government and recent political developments 190 23.4 Views on Brexit 193 24. Slovakia 196 24.1 Key Facts 196 24.2 Background 196 24.3 Current Government and recent political developments 197 24.4 Views on Brexit 198 25. Slovenia 205 25.1 Key Facts 205 25.2 Background 205 25.3 Current Government and recent political developments 206 25.4 Views on Brexit 208 26. Spain 212 26.1 Key facts 212 26.2 Background 212 26.3 Current Government and recent political developments 213 26.4 Views on Brexit 215 27. Sweden 221 27.1 Key Facts 221 27.2 Background 221 27.3 Current Government and recent political developments 222 27.4 Views on Brexit 223 5 Commons Library Briefing, 2 May 2019 Contributing Authors: Eleanor Gadd, Antonia Garraway, Julie Gill, Daniel Harari, Matthew Keep, Sylvia de Mars, Tim Robinson, Matthew Ward Cover page image copyright: EU flags by Jo.schz. Licensed under CC BY 2.0 / image cropped. 6 The EU27: Internal Politics and Views on Brexit Summary Unity of the EU27 and Single Market integrity The EU27 Member States have maintained a largely united front in the Brexit negotiations, adopting joint negotiating guidelines in April 2017 following the UK Government’s Article 50 notification the previous month and mandating Michel Barnier to lead negotiations on their behalf. Examining the positions on Brexit taken by the EU27, a number of common themes emerge, notably insistence on the integrity of the EU Single Market and an unwillingness to divide the four market freedoms (relating to goods, services, capital and people) when it comes to negotiating the future UK-EU trading relationship. This has also come alongside concerns that the new trading relationship should not enable the UK to gain a competitive advantage by retaining participation in some elements of the Single Market while no longer being required to comply with all the requirements of membership, including regulations relating to competition, the environment and labour market. The governments of the EU’s two leading Member States, France and Germany, have been influential in promoting these lines. However, other EU governments have also stressed the importance of the Single Market and the need to balance trading access with certain obligations arising out of membership, including free movement of people. Certain EU governments, notably those of Poland, Hungary and Italy, have for varying reasons been in dispute with the European Commission or other Member States. Both the Polish and Hungarian Governments face questions regarding their compliance with the EU’s rule of law framework and (along with Slovakia) face European Commission infringement proceedings regarding non-compliance with the EU’s refugee relocation plan. The new Italian Government has clashed with other EU governments over its calls for greater burden sharing in relation to migrant and refugee arrivals and its unwillingness to comply with Eurozone budget strictures. However, notwithstanding occasional criticisms of the EU’s approach to negotiations from government figures in these countries, these differences have not translated into any major divergences from the principal EU lines in the negotiations. This partly relates to a preoccupation among these governments with their own national priorities and a lack of coincidence with those of the UK when it comes to the Brexit negotiations. Maintaining trade and security co-operation EU27 governments have expressed a wish to retain a close trading relationship with the UK and a desire to avoid a ‘no deal’ Brexit which would be harmful to EU economies as well the UK. Retaining strong trading links with the UK is a particular consideration for those Member States with a high proportion of trade with the UK, although this is secondary to preserving the Single Market. Table 1 identifies the level of trade each of the EU27 Member States undertakes with the UK, as well as the percentage of GDP to which trade with the UK is equivalent. It is notable that trade with the UK is equivalent to between 13% and 15% of GDP for Belgium, Cyprus, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, and more than 20% for Malta and Ireland. However, for the other 21 Member States trade with the UK is equivalent to less than 6% of GDP. While agreement on the future economic and trading relationship has proved difficult, there has been a greater level of convergence between the UK and the EU27 over continuing security co-operation. Former Soviet bloc states, including Bulgaria, Romania, Poland and the Baltic countries, have been particularly concerned to ensure that Brexit does not undermine the UK contribution to European security. 7 Commons Library Briefing, 2 May 2019 Table 1 UK trade with EU member states, 2017 (£ millions) Goods Services Total All trade with the UK as a Exports Imports Balance Exports Imports Balance Exports Imports Balance % GDP1 Austria 1,768 3,255 -1,487 1,320 1,462 -142 3,088 4,717 -1,629 2.7% Belgium 14,060 25,478 -11,418 4,685 2,733 1,952 18,745 28,211 -9,466 13.5% Bulgaria 334 389 -55 292 538 -246 626 927 -301 4.0% Croatia 99 77 22 101 537 -436 200 614 -414 1.9% Cyprus 268 113 155 739 1,304 -565 1,007 1,417 -410 14.5% Czech Rep 2,021 5,602 -3,581 1,076 661 415 3,097 6,263 -3,166 5.9% Denmark 2,657 4,865 -2,208 3,916 1,489 2,427 6,573 6,354 219 5.5% Estonia 133 197 -64 77 33 44 210 230 -20 2.6% Finland 1,262 2,466 -1,204 1,337 506 831 2,599 2,972 -373 3.2% France 24,248 27,455 -3,207 16,130 13,359 2,771 40,378 40,814 -436 4.3% Germany 37,135 68,722 -31,587 19,683 9,387 10,296 56,818 78,109 -21,291 5.3% Greece 887 816 71 1,079 3,114 -2,035 1,966 3,930 -1,964 3.6% Hungary 1,348 2,714 -1,366 770 770 0 2,118 3,484 -1,366 5.5% Ireland 20,309 14,488 5,821 13,725 7,300 6,425 34,034 21,788 12,246 23.5%
Recommended publications
  • How Big Is Belgium's Love Still for Europe? - the Low Countries 29/05/2020 21:18

    How Big Is Belgium's Love Still for Europe? - the Low Countries 29/05/2020 21:18

    How Big Is Belgium's Love Still for Europe? - the low countries 29/05/2020 21:18 © Trui Chielens Zero Point 1945 SOCIETY HISTORY How Big Is Belgium's Love Still for Europe? By Ellen Vanderschueren, Jasper Praet, Hendrik Vos translated by Elisabeth Salverda 29/05/2020 ! 11 min reading time After the Second World War, Belgium was one of Europe’s founders. Over the years, Belgian politicians have played a prominent role in European politics. There was always a shared feeling among the population that integration with Europe was useful and in the national interest. In recent times, however, this consensus has been somewhat worn down. n 2009, the first President of the European Council to be appointed was a I Belgian, when Herman Van Rompuy became “President of Europe”. Five years later Donald Tusk, a former prime minister of Poland, took over the helm. And five years after that, in 2019, the role fell to a Belgian once more: Charles Michel fit the jigsaw of nominations and was asked by his colleagues to chair the European Council. Belgians have quite often had a steering role in European politics. Belgium was one of the founders of the European project, and has played a very active role over the years in its process of integration. https://www.the-low-countries.com/article/how-big-is-belgiums-love-still-for-europe Pagina 1 van 15 How Big Is Belgium's Love Still for Europe? - the low countries 29/05/2020 21:18 Herman Van Rompuy and Charles Michel, the first and current President of the European Council Much has changed over the past seventy years: the Community with a focus on coal and steel has grown into a European Union that plays a significant role in almost all economic and political spheres.
  • The Luxembourgish EU Presidency and Financial Services – July-December 2015

    The Luxembourgish EU Presidency and Financial Services – July-December 2015

    The Luxembourgish EU Presidency and Financial Services – July-December 2015 The Luxembourgish EU Presidency and Financial Services 1 July – 31 December 2015 Kreab Brussels 2 avenue de Tervueren, 1040 Brussels, Belgium www.kreab.com/brussels – @KreabEU 1 The Luxembourgish EU Presidency and Financial Services – July-December 2015 Contents Political Context of the Luxembourgish Presidency 3 Priorities of the Luxembourgish Presidency 4 Key Financial Services Initiatives and Legislative Dossiers 5 Organisation of the Luxembourgish Presidency 12 Annex I – Contact Information 13 Permanent Representation of Luxembourg to the European Union 13 Economy and Finance 14 Government of Luxembourg 16 Ministry of Finance of Luxembourg 17 Bank of Luxembourg 18 Financial Regulatory Body of Luxembourg 20 Annex II – CVs of Key Luxembourgish Ministers 21 Annex III – Provisional Calendar 23 Annex IV – Key Council Meetings 25 Annex V – Country Fact Sheet 26 Annex VI – The EU Presidency 28 2 The Luxembourgish EU Presidency and Financial Services – July-December 2015 Political Context of the Luxembourgish Presidency The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg will assume its twelfth Presidency of the Council of the European Union on 1 July 2015. Luxembourg is one of the smallest countries in the EU, but it is also the wealthiest per capita. Following Italy and Latvia, Luxembourg is the third in this Presidency Trio, and will be the second full Presidency to work with the new Commission headed by compatriot and former Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker. Luxembourg is the seat of several major institutions such as the European Court of Justice, the European Investment Bank, and the Court of Auditors. Attitude toward the EU Luxembourg is one of the six founding members of the European Union and has historically played a key role in its formation.
  • Rétrospective 2015 CHÈRES DUDELANGEOISES, CHERS DUDELANGEOIS

    Rétrospective 2015 CHÈRES DUDELANGEOISES, CHERS DUDELANGEOIS

    Rétrospective 2015 CHÈRES DUDELANGEOISES, CHERS DUDELANGEOIS, Après une année entière passée en tant que bourgmestre de notre ville, un petit bilan s’impose. Les projets entamés ont été poursuivis, voire achevés avec succès, et Dudelange continue son développement. En ayant toujours à l’esprit le bien-être et la qualité de vie qui définissent le vivre ensemble dans notre ville. Et c’est pourquoi nous avons opté pour la participation citoyenne, qui nous tient à cœur, dans l’élaboration du nouveau Plan d’Aménagement Général (PAG) : impliquer les habitants, les inviter à s’exprimer. Être au plus proche des citoyens, c’était aussi l’objectif de la permanence hebdomadaire du collège des bourgmestre et échevins qui a accueilli entre février et novembre une centaine de citoyens. Le vivre ensemble aussi dans le choix de l’aménagement «shared space» (espace partagé) qui donnera au centre-ville de Dudelange un visage plus convivial, tout comme le réaménagement de la place à côté de l’église et le projet Am Duerf, ses commerces et sa place piétonne. Sans oublier l’un des projets majeurs de ces 2 dernières années : le nouveau Centre sportif René Hartmann et ses équipements parmi les plus modernes et les plus performants du pays. Finalement, le bien-être qui préside au destin de notre ville fait tout logiquement aussi l’objet de notre nouvelle campagne : « Diddeleng, liewe wéi am Süden – Dudelange, on dirait le sud » qui souligne une fois encore que c’est bien là ce qui caractérise notre ville et façonne son identité et celle de ses habitants.
  • Our European Future OUR EUROPEAN

    Our European Future OUR EUROPEAN

    Our European Future European Our OUR EUROPEAN ChartingFUTURE a Progressive Course in the World Ideas contributed by László Andor, Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis, François Balate, Peter Bofinger, Tanja A. Börzel, Mercedes Bresso, Stefan Collignon, Olivier Costa, Emma Dowling, Saïd El Khadraoui, Gerda Falkner, Georg Fischer, Diego Lopez Garrido, Hedwig Giusto, Giovanni Grevi, Ulrike Guérot, Paolo Guerrieri, Lukas Hochscheidt, Robin Huguenot-Noël, Guillaume Klossa, Halliki Kreinin, Michael A. Landesmann, Jean-François Lebrun, Jo Leinen, Lora Lyubenova, Justin Nogarede, Vassilis Ntousas, Alvaro Oleart, Carlota Perez, David Rinaldi, Barbara Roggeveen, Vivien A. Schmidt, Ania Skrzypek, Mario Telò and Britta Thomsen edited by Maria João Rodrigues OUR EUROPEAN FUTURE The Foundation for European Progressive Studies (FEPS) is the think tank of the progressive political family at EU level. Our mission is to develop innovative research, policy advice, training and debates to inspire and inform progressive politics and policies across Europe. We operate as hub for thinking to facilitate the emergence of progressive answers to the chal- lenges that Europe faces today. FEPS works in close partnership with its members and partners, forging connections and boosting coherence among stakeholders from the world of politics, academia and civil society at local, regional, national, European and global levels. Today FEPS benefits from a solid network of 68 member organisations. Among these, 43 are full members, 20 have observer status and 5 are ex-of- ficio members. In addition to this network of organisations that are active in the promotion of progressive values, FEPS also has an extensive network of partners, including renowned universities, scholars, policymakers and activists. Our ambition is to undertake intellectual reflection for the benefit of the progressive movement, and to promote the founding principles of the EU – freedom, equality, solidarity, democracy, respect of human rights, funda- mental freedoms and human dignity, and respect of the rule of law.
  • Hungary Covering the Period of January to December 2020

    Hungary Covering the Period of January to December 2020

    ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION OF LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, TRANS, AND INTERSEX PEOPLE IN HUNGARY COVERING THE PERIOD OF JANUARY TO DECEMBER 2020 Hungary ACCESS TO GOODS AND SERVICES EDUCATION In December, the Equal Treatment Authority (ETA) found that On 15 December, parliament amended the Fundamental Law a hotel discriminated when refusing to host an event of a local to further entrench the anti-trans framework by establishing NGO that organised Pécs Pride. children’s “right” to identify with their birth sex, to be ‘protected’ from interventions to change it, and to be educated according to Christian values. ASYLUM On 16 July, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in the Gergely Gulyás, Minister of the Prime Minister said educators Rana v. Hungary case that an Iranian trans refugee had the who use ‘Wonderland is for Everyone’ (see Bias-motivated right to legal gender recognition. The government paid the speech and violence) may face criminal charges. Two local compensation, but the man’s documents have still not been governments banned the book in kindergartens, and a third one changed. banned LGBTQ propaganda in all institutions. BIAS-MOTIVATED SPEECH AND VIOLENCE EMPLOYMENT In August, PM Viktor Orbán called on neighbouring governments Háttér Society prepared a detailed practical guide to help to stand up for Christian values, warning against Western employers navigate difficulties arising from the ban of legal efforts to “experiment with a godless cosmos, rainbow families, gender recognition in an employment context. migration and open societies”. A coalition of NGOs issued a guide for employers on the COVID-19 Several local governments raised the rainbow flag during the pandemic’s impact on vulnerable employees, including LGBTQI Pride Festival, some of which were forcibly removed or burned by people.
  • The Year in Elections, 2013: the World's Flawed and Failed Contests

    The Year in Elections, 2013: the World's Flawed and Failed Contests

    The Year in Elections, 2013: The World's Flawed and Failed Contests The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Norris, Pippa, Richard W. Frank, and Ferran Martinez i Coma. 2014. The Year in Elections 2013: The World's Flawed and Failed Contests. The Electoral Integrity Project. Published Version http://www.electoralintegrityproject.com/ Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:11744445 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA THE YEAR IN ELECTIONS, 2013 THE WORLD’S FLAWED AND FAILED CONTESTS Pippa Norris, Richard W. Frank, and Ferran Martínez i Coma February 2014 THE YEAR IN ELECTIONS, 2013 WWW. ELECTORALINTEGRITYPROJECT.COM The Electoral Integrity Project Department of Government and International Relations Merewether Building, HO4 University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Phone: +61(2) 9351 6041 Email: [email protected] Web: http://www.electoralintegrityproject.com Copyright © Pippa Norris, Ferran Martínez i Coma, and Richard W. Frank 2014. All rights reserved. Photo credits Cover photo: ‘Ballot for national election.’ by Daniel Littlewood, http://www.flickr.com/photos/daniellittlewood/413339945. Licence at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0. Page 6 and 18: ‘Ballot sections are separated for counting.’ by Brittany Danisch, http://www.flickr.com/photos/bdanisch/6084970163/ Licence at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0. Page 8: ‘Women in Pakistan wait to vote’ by DFID - UK Department for International Development, http://www.flickr.com/photos/dfid/8735821208/ Licence at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0.
  • Finland Bilateral Relations Finland and India Have Traditionally Enjoyed

    Finland Bilateral Relations Finland and India Have Traditionally Enjoyed

    March 2021 Ministry of External Affairs **** India – Finland Bilateral Relations Finland and India have traditionally enjoyed warm and friendly relations. In recent years, bilateral relations have acquired diversity with collaboration in research, innovation, and investments by both sides. The Indian community in Finland is vibrant and well-placed. Indian culture and yoga are very popular in Finland. 2019 marked 70 years of diplomatic relations between the two countries. High-level visits - Prime Ministers • Prime Minister Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru Finland in 1957 • Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi in 1983. • Prime Minister Pt. Manmohan Singh in 2006. • Mr. Vieno Johannes Sukselainen in 1960 - First Prime Minister of Finland • Prime Minister Mr. Kalevi Sorsa in 1984. • Prime Minister Mr. Matti Vanhanen visited India in March 2006, February 2008 and February 2010 (last two occasions to attend Delhi Sustainable Development Summit). • Prime Minister Mr. Juha Sipilä: Feb 2016 (for Make in India week) Presidential Visits • President of Finland Mr. Urho Kekkonen in 1965 • President Mr. Mauno Koivisto in 1987 • President Mr. Martti Ahtisaari in 1996. • President Mrs. Tarja Halonen in January 2007, February 2009 and February 2012 to attend the Delhi Sustainable Development Summit. • President Shri V.V. Giri in 1971 • President Shri R. Venkataraman in 1988. • President Shri Pranab Mukherjee: October 2014 President Shri Pranab Mukherjee, paid a State Visit to Finland on 14-16 October 2014 accompanied by Minister of State for Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, four Members of Parliament, Officials, academicians and a business delegation. Agreements for cooperation in New and Renewable Energy, Biotechnology, Civil Nuclear Research, Meteorology, Healthcare and Education were signed during the visit.
  • 1. Debbie Abrahams, Labour Party, United Kingdom 2

    1. Debbie Abrahams, Labour Party, United Kingdom 2

    1. Debbie Abrahams, Labour Party, United Kingdom 2. Malik Ben Achour, PS, Belgium 3. Tina Acketoft, Liberal Party, Sweden 4. Senator Fatima Ahallouch, PS, Belgium 5. Lord Nazir Ahmed, Non-affiliated, United Kingdom 6. Senator Alberto Airola, M5S, Italy 7. Hussein al-Taee, Social Democratic Party, Finland 8. Éric Alauzet, La République en Marche, France 9. Patricia Blanquer Alcaraz, Socialist Party, Spain 10. Lord John Alderdice, Liberal Democrats, United Kingdom 11. Felipe Jesús Sicilia Alférez, Socialist Party, Spain 12. Senator Alessandro Alfieri, PD, Italy 13. François Alfonsi, Greens/EFA, European Parliament (France) 14. Amira Mohamed Ali, Chairperson of the Parliamentary Group, Die Linke, Germany 15. Rushanara Ali, Labour Party, United Kingdom 16. Tahir Ali, Labour Party, United Kingdom 17. Mahir Alkaya, Spokesperson for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation, Socialist Party, the Netherlands 18. Senator Josefina Bueno Alonso, Socialist Party, Spain 19. Lord David Alton of Liverpool, Crossbench, United Kingdom 20. Patxi López Álvarez, Socialist Party, Spain 21. Nacho Sánchez Amor, S&D, European Parliament (Spain) 22. Luise Amtsberg, Green Party, Germany 23. Senator Bert Anciaux, sp.a, Belgium 24. Rt Hon Michael Ancram, the Marquess of Lothian, Former Chairman of the Conservative Party, Conservative Party, United Kingdom 25. Karin Andersen, Socialist Left Party, Norway 26. Kirsten Normann Andersen, Socialist People’s Party (SF), Denmark 27. Theresa Berg Andersen, Socialist People’s Party (SF), Denmark 28. Rasmus Andresen, Greens/EFA, European Parliament (Germany) 29. Lord David Anderson of Ipswich QC, Crossbench, United Kingdom 30. Barry Andrews, Renew Europe, European Parliament (Ireland) 31. Chris Andrews, Sinn Féin, Ireland 32. Eric Andrieu, S&D, European Parliament (France) 33.
  • Codebook Indiveu – Party Preferences

    Codebook Indiveu – Party Preferences

    Codebook InDivEU – party preferences European University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies December 2020 Introduction The “InDivEU – party preferences” dataset provides data on the positions of more than 400 parties from 28 countries1 on questions of (differentiated) European integration. The dataset comprises a selection of party positions taken from two existing datasets: (1) The EU Profiler/euandi Trend File The EU Profiler/euandi Trend File contains party positions for three rounds of European Parliament elections (2009, 2014, and 2019). Party positions were determined in an iterative process of party self-placement and expert judgement. For more information: https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/65944 (2) The Chapel Hill Expert Survey The Chapel Hill Expert Survey contains party positions for the national elections most closely corresponding the European Parliament elections of 2009, 2014, 2019. Party positions were determined by expert judgement. For more information: https://www.chesdata.eu/ Three additional party positions, related to DI-specific questions, are included in the dataset. These positions were determined by experts involved in the 2019 edition of euandi after the elections took place. The inclusion of party positions in the “InDivEU – party preferences” is limited to the following issues: - General questions about the EU - Questions about EU policy - Questions about differentiated integration - Questions about party ideology 1 This includes all 27 member states of the European Union in 2020, plus the United Kingdom. How to Cite When using the ‘InDivEU – Party Preferences’ dataset, please cite all of the following three articles: 1. Reiljan, Andres, Frederico Ferreira da Silva, Lorenzo Cicchi, Diego Garzia, Alexander H.
  • ESS9 Appendix A3 Political Parties Ed

    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.
  • Lettre Conjointe De 1.080 Parlementaires De 25 Pays Européens Aux Gouvernements Et Dirigeants Européens Contre L'annexion De La Cisjordanie Par Israël

    Lettre Conjointe De 1.080 Parlementaires De 25 Pays Européens Aux Gouvernements Et Dirigeants Européens Contre L'annexion De La Cisjordanie Par Israël

    Lettre conjointe de 1.080 parlementaires de 25 pays européens aux gouvernements et dirigeants européens contre l'annexion de la Cisjordanie par Israël 23 juin 2020 Nous, parlementaires de toute l'Europe engagés en faveur d'un ordre mondial fonde ́ sur le droit international, partageons de vives inquietudeś concernant le plan du president́ Trump pour le conflit israeló -palestinien et la perspective d'une annexion israélienne du territoire de la Cisjordanie. Nous sommes profondement́ preoccuṕ eś par le preć edent́ que cela creerait́ pour les relations internationales en geń eral.́ Depuis des decennies,́ l'Europe promeut une solution juste au conflit israeló -palestinien sous la forme d'une solution a ̀ deux Etats,́ conformement́ au droit international et aux resolutionś pertinentes du Conseil de securit́ e ́ des Nations unies. Malheureusement, le plan du president́ Trump s'ecarté des parametres̀ et des principes convenus au niveau international. Il favorise un controlê israelień permanent sur un territoire palestinien fragmente,́ laissant les Palestiniens sans souverainete ́ et donnant feu vert a ̀ Israel̈ pour annexer unilateralement́ des parties importantes de la Cisjordanie. Suivant la voie du plan Trump, la coalition israelienné recemment́ composeé stipule que le gouvernement peut aller de l'avant avec l'annexion des̀ le 1er juillet 2020. Cette decisioń sera fatale aux perspectives de paix israeló -palestinienne et remettra en question les normes les plus fondamentales qui guident les relations internationales, y compris la Charte des Nations unies. Nous sommes profondement́ preoccuṕ eś par l'impact de l'annexion sur la vie des Israelienś et des Palestiniens ainsi que par son potentiel destabilisateuŕ dans la regioń aux portes de notre continent.
  • A Comparative Constitutional Analysis Between Italy and Hungary

    A Comparative Constitutional Analysis Between Italy and Hungary

    Department of Political Science Master’s Degree in International Relations – European Studies Chair in Comparative Public Law POPULISM IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE EUROPEAN UNION: A COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS BETWEEN ITALY AND HUNGARY SUPERVISOR CANDIDATE Professor Cristina Fasone Claudia Mattei 635892 CO-SUPERVISOR Professor Giovanni Orsina Academic Year 2018/2019 1 Table of contents Introduction 6 1 CHAPTER – POPULISM 9 1.1 What is populism? A definition for a highly contested phenomenon 10 1.2 Understanding populism 14 1.2.1 Who are the people? 14 1.2.2 Who are the elites? 18 1.2.3 The real meaning of the volonté générale 19 1.2.4 The people and the general will: populism vs. democracy 20 1.3 Historical birth of populism 24 1.3.1 The American People’s Party 24 1.3.2 The Russian narodnichestvo 26 1.4 Marriage between populism and ‘host’ ideologies: different families 29 1.4.1 Right-wing populism 30 1.4.2 Left-wing populism 31 1.4.3 Populist constitutionalism 33 1.5 Why does populism develop? 36 1.5.1 The causes behind the populist rise 37 1.5.2 The cause of the cause: the auto-destruction of politics as origin of populism 39 1.5.3 Technocracy replaces politics: the case of the European Union 41 1.6 Populism in the world 44 2 CHAPTER – POPULISM IN EUROPE 48 2.1 Genesis of populism in Europe: Boulangism 48 2.2 Populism in Western Europe 51 2.2.1 Post-WW2 populist experiences in Western Europe 51 2.2.2 The rise of modern populism in Western Europe 53 2 2.3 Populism in Eastern Europe 58 2.3.1 Interwar populism in Eastern Europe 58 2.3.2