European Constitution and National Constitution

Preface "The history of the question of alliance, integration, and unification of European states along different lines reaches far back. We only have to mention I. Kant and J. C. Bluntschli, who saw the future of Europe in establishing a union of its states based on the rule of law. It was on the grounds of freedom and republican democracy that J. Lorimer of Edinburgh envisaged the possibility of uniting European states. Much like him, Polish thinkers too, including A. Mickiewicz, B. Limanowski, and K. Kelles-Krauz, believed that Europe would unite as soon as its constituent states were driven by shared ideals of freedom and republican democracy."(...

A more strategic and effective governance

There is a consensus that the European Union should modernise its budget, tackling the new challenges and breaking away from bureaucratic inertia and the juste retour logic that hitherto have prevented change. The decision to undertake a budget review has provided the opportunity for doing so. This opportunity is still available. Cohesion policy is part of the review, but there are conflicting views on its rationale, its results, and the need and scope for reform. The risk of wrong changes is high. The risk that no change will take place is also very high. The purpose of this Report is to help avert these risks by setting an agenda for reform and seeking to initiate a frank, informed and timely debate on conceptual, political and operational aspects. A start has been made with the consultation undertaken for preparing the Report

Shifting EU Institutional Reform into High Gear. Report of the CEPS High-Level Group. CEPS Task Force Reports

To contribute to the important debate on EU institutional reform in the run-up to the European Parliament elections and the start of a new Commission, CEPS formed a High-Level Group on EU Institutional Reform under the leadership of Danuta Hübner MEP and member of the CEPS Board of Directors. The report of this distinguished group of MEPs, former and current EU institutional members and leading scholars on EU law and institutional affairs focuses on reforms that could be taken within the framework of the current treaties to build a more responsive and accountable Union. The report analyses the main inter- and intra-institutional weaknesses in terms of efficiency, democracy and differentiation and puts forward a number of recommendations addressing issues such as the reorganisation of the College of Commissioners, the promotion of strategic legislative planning, the enhancement of the role of the EP and the rotating Presidency of the Council, the improvement of the democratic accountability of the European Council and the adequate engagement of the national parliaments

History trumps government unpopularity: the June 2003 Polish EU accession referendum

This analysis explains why Poles voted overwhelmingly to join the EU and how the 50% turnout requirement was achieved fairly easily. It argues that most Poles appeared to accept the historical significance of the referendum and de-coupled the issue of EU membership from that of confidence in an extremely unpopular government. This occurred because most key political and social actors, including the opposition parties, called for a Yes vote, while, at the same time, a vigorous campaign by pro-EU civic organisations presented a ‘non-political’ face to the campaign. Although the No camp made tactical errors and had difficulties staying focused on its main arguments, lack of both access to the public media and a convincing or attractive alternative made it extremely difficult for them to mount an effective campaign. At the same time, the stability of the opinion polls in the years leading up to the referendum suggested that most Poles had already made their minds up about the issue well in advance. In spite of the low levels of trust in political parties, partisan cues appeared to be a better predictor of referendum voting behaviour than socio-economic and demographic factors

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field