Agricultural policy in Europe
In: European Policy Research Unit series
35 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: European Policy Research Unit series
In: The political quarterly, Band 90, Heft 3, S. 553-558
ISSN: 1467-923X
AbstractMay 2019 marks twenty years since the first elections to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. This report discusses a paper published by the Institute for Government (IfG) that reflects on the experience to date of devolution, drawing on interviews with thirteen individuals who have served as ministers in the devolved governments. Reflecting the structure of the IfG paper, there are three main themes in this report: governing without a majority, institutional change, and—in the light of Brexit—relationships between the devolved governments, Westminster and the EU. The conclusion is that the report, although limited in coverage, provides a useful addition to the literature on devolution.
In: The political quarterly, Band 89, Heft 1, S. 134-138
ISSN: 1467-923X
In: Journal of European public policy, Band 24, Heft 11, S. 1585-1603
ISSN: 1466-4429
In: European journal of government and economics: EJGE, Band 2, Heft 2, S. 119-136
ISSN: 2254-7088
After highlighting the budgetary context and the historical trends on the funding of the CAP, this paper considers contemporary debates about its reform in the context of two 'historic firsts'. Negotiations about the multiannual financial framework (MFF) for 2014-20 for the first time took place in tandem with a proposed CAP reform, within the broader context set by the financial crisis after 2008. Second, the CAP reform debates took place within the new institutional arrangements introduced in the Lisbon Treaty, which by extending the co-decision mechanism to the CAP potentially has increased the influence of the European Parliament (EP). Indeed the CAP reform dossiers were the first real test of these new arrangements and provide an insight into how the new institutional structure will work in practice. In both cases the paper highlights a continuing cleavage among member states and stakeholder interests - that maps partly onto a broader budgetary gainers/losers division - between advocates of radical reform (e.g. the UK, Sweden) and those who favour the retention of the traditional CAP (such as France, Spain and Ireland).
After highlighting the budgetary context and the historical trends on the funding of the CAP, this paper considers contemporary debates about its reform in the context of two 'historic firsts'. Negotiations about the multiannual financial framework (MFF) for 2014-20 for the first time took place in tandem with a proposed CAP reform, within the broader context set by the financial crisis after 2008. Second, the CAP reform debates took place within the new institutional arrangements introduced in the Lisbon Treaty, which by extending the co-decision mechanism to the CAP potentially has increased the influence of the European Parliament (EP). Indeed the CAP reform dossiers were the first real test of these new arrangements and provide an insight into how the new institutional structure will work in practice. In both cases the paper highlights a continuing cleavage among member states and stakeholder interests - that maps partly onto a broader budgetary gainers/losers division - between advocates of radical reform (e.g. the UK, Sweden) and those who favour the retention of the traditional CAP (such as France, Spain and Ireland).
BASE
After highlighting the budgetary context and the historical trends on the funding of the CAP, this paper considers contemporary debates about its reform in the context of two 'historic firsts'. Negotiations about the multiannual financial framework (MFF) for 2014-20 for the first time took place in tandem with a proposed CAP reform, within the broader context set by the financial crisis after 2008. Second, the CAP reform debates took place within the new institutional arrangements introduced in the Lisbon Treaty, which by extending the co-decision mechanism to the CAP potentially has increased the influence of the European Parliament (EP). Indeed the CAP reform dossiers were the first real test of these new arrangements and provide an insight into how the new institutional structure will work in practice. In both cases the paper highlights a continuing cleavage among member states and stakeholder interests - that maps partly onto a broader budgetary gainers/losers division - between advocates of radical reform (e.g. the UK, Sweden) and those who favour the retention of the traditional CAP (such as France, Spain and Ireland).
BASE
In: Public administration: an international quarterly, Band 90, Heft 1, S. 280-283
ISSN: 0033-3298
In: Public administration: an international quarterly, Band 90, Heft 1, S. 280-282
ISSN: 0033-3298
In: Parliamentary affairs: a journal of representative politics, Band 56, Heft 3, S. 523-542
ISSN: 0031-2290
In: Public administration: an international quarterly, Band 81, Heft 3, S. 646-647
ISSN: 0033-3298
In: Public administration: an international quarterly, Band 80, Heft 3, S. 453-474
ISSN: 0033-3298
In: Political studies, Band 48, Heft 4, S. 884-885
ISSN: 0032-3217
In: Political studies, Band 48, Heft 3, S. 638
ISSN: 0032-3217
In: Parliamentary affairs: a journal of representative politics, Band 52, Heft 4, S. 598-615
ISSN: 0031-2290
World Affairs Online