Elections in Austria

This article provides information on elections and election results in Austria.
On the federal level, there are two main elections: presidential elections and elections to determine the composition of the National Council ("Nationalrat"), the lower house of Austria's bicameral Parliament. The upper house consists of delegates from the states and is not directly elected. These elections are governed by federal law, which also applies to European Parliament elections in Austria.
Austria's federal president ("Bundespraesident") is elected for a six-year term by a majority of the voters, rather than based on the highest number of votes, a system known as first-past-the-post. The majority rule may require a run-off when no one candidate receives more than 50% of the votes cast, as happened in 2016.
National Council elections must be held every five years by proportional representation. Such elections may be called early if the National Council is dissolved prematurely, as happened in 2017 and again in 2019.
Austria has a multi-party system. From 1945 to 1986, Austrian elections and politics generally were dominated by two main parties, one center-left, the other center-right, with a third party also winning seats in the National Council. From 1986 onward a multi-party system evolved, with no one party having enough support to hold a majority of seats in parliament, and the resultant need for alliances and power-sharing in a series of coalition governments. The two most recent coalition governments --- ÖVP & SPÖ and ÖVP & FPÖ -- both failed. Following the 2019 National Council elections, in which its former coalition partners suffered heavy losses, the victorious ÖVP is now negotiating with the Green Party to form a third variant of a two-party coalition government; one for which examples so far only exists at the state level.
For a political party to be represented in the National Council, it must either receive at least 4% of all valid votes cast nationwide or win one mandate (seat) in one of the regional electoral districts. If a party fails to satisfy either requirement, it is not entitled to participate in the proportional allocation of seats based on the party's share of the votes. This restriction is designed to discourage political parties from splintering and producing an unmanageable proliferation of small parties in parliament.
In some cases, a national referendum can be called by the Austrian Parliament.
In 2007, the voting age was lowered from 18 to 16 in all federal elections. Some states had already lowered the voting age for state and local election before 2007.
Voting rights and restrictions.
Austrian election law distinguishes between the "active" right to vote and the "passive" right to be elected, i.e. stand as a candidate ("actives" vs. "passives Wahlrecht"), with different minimum-age requirements. Citizens who will have attained age 16 by election day and older may exercise the right to vote in elections at all levels of government. Citizens 18 and up may stand as candidates in elections except for presidential elections, in which the minimum age to stand as a candidate is 35.
Citizens of other European Union member states with a permanent residence in Austria may vote in European Union elections and in municipal elections.
Citizens who are sentenced to more than five years of imprisonment can lose their voting rights for the duration of their sentence if the judge determines that such a suspension is warranted. This preclusion period is shortened to one year for specific offenses (such as terrorism, voter fraud, and treason).
Until 2011, members of current or former ruling noble houses (i.e. members of the Habsburg family) were ineligible for office.
The Proportional Representation (PR) System in Austria.
The overall objective of Austria’s election system for parliament and other legislative bodies is to assure the proportional allocation of seats based on the share of the votes received by the political parties at the polls so that the composition of the legislative body will faithfully represent the preferences of the electorate.
This system requires voters to select among political parties on their ballot, rather than among competing candidates. The standard manner of expressing that choice is by placing an ‘x’ in the circle next to the name of the party on the paper ballot ("Stimmzettel"). There is as yet no legal basis for e-voting in Austrian elections. Voters have some ability to affect the fortunes of particular candidates on their favored party’s list by casting preference votes. When doing so, however, they may not cross party-lines. Any preference votes for candidates of another party are invalid. Austria’s version of PR thus basically remains a party-list system despite the preference-vote feature.
Conversion of votes to seats in federal parliamentary elections
In elections for the National Council (Nationalrat), which is the lower house of Austria’s parliament, proportionality is maximized through the utilization of a three-stage process of allocating mandates; in state and local elections a similar method is used, but it is simpler: it only involves two stages. There are also some minor differences among states because each state has its own election law for state and local elections, whereas the National Council elections are governed by a specific federal election act (Nationalrats-Wahlordnung 1992). Presidential elections and European Parliament elections are also governed by federal law.
For purposes of National Council elections, each state (Bundesland) constitutes an electoral unit (Landwahlkreis), and each of the nine states is subdivided into regional electoral districts (Regionalwahlkreise), for a total of 39. Political parties may compete nationwide, but are not required to do so. In order to receive any representation in the National Council, however, a party must satisfy at least one of two alternative conditions: Win a basic mandate (Direktmandat) in one of the regional districts or receive at least 4% of all valid votes cast nationwide.
In order to win a basic mandate, the party must receive enough votes to meet or exceed the Wahlzahl in at least one regional district. The Wahlzahl is not a number fixed by law, but is determined by dividing the total number of valid votes cast in the state by the total number of mandates available to be allocated for that state. The number of mandates apportioned to states varies because of large differences in population size. It is periodically readjusted based on the results of the most recent census to assure that each vote has the same weight regardless of there in the country it is cast.
Any remaining votes (i.e. votes that did not result in the allocation of a seat as a Direktmandat) are then aggregated in the next stage of the process, in which seats based on the Wahlzahl are allocated based on the combined number of votes in the larger electoral unit. This procedure prevents votes that were not applied to meeting the Wahlzahl, and did not, therefore, contribute to the allocation of a mandate, from being "lost" or "wasted" and not having an impact on the ultimate election outcome. In National Council elections, any remaining seats in the 183-member body, i.e. seats not filled through the first two stages of the votes-to-seats conversion process, are then filled by aggregating votes nationwide and assigning the remaining seats to the parties based on the D'Hondt method. In state elections, there is no third stage because there is no nationwide vote.
Variation of Austria’s PR System of Election at the Sub-national Level
Austria’s constituent states (Bundeslaender) – also frequently referred to as "federal provinces" in English translation -- vary with respect to the minimum-requirement to enter the state legislature. The rules governing such elections are not uniform because they are governed by state law, rather than by national law.
In Styria, for example, no 4% or any other threshold requirement applies. Instead, a party must at least win one basic mandate (Grundmandat) in one of the four regional electoral districts (Wahlkreise); it may then aggregate its remaining votes from all four districts and participate on the allocation of the remaining mandates (Restmandate) in the second stage of the votes-to-seats conversion process. In the Styrian version of PR, the Wahlzahl in the second stage differs from the Wahlzahl that governs the district-per-district allocation of mandates in the first stage. In contrast to federal elections, the Wahlzahl is computed separately for each district. There is, therefore, inter-district variation in the number of votes a party needs to earn a basic mandate.
In the most recent elections for Styria’s legislature (Landtagswahlen) in October 2019, three small parties, including the Communist Party and the NEOS, were able to enter the Landtag by winning at least one Grundmandat in the district that includes Graz, the state’s capital. Each was then eligible to participate in the allocation of the remaining eight mandates (Restmandate), and each won one additional seat, while the remainder went to the larger parties.
As can be seen in this example, smaller parties do better under this variant of the PR system when their electoral support is concentrated geographically. As also illustrated, seemingly arcane details in the mechanics of how votes are counted and converted into seats can have important consequences.
Referendums.
The Austrian constitution defines two types of referendums on the federal level: binding referendums and non-binding referendums.
Binding referendum.
A binding referendum is mandatory:
A binding referendum is facultative (not mandatory) in case of non-comprehensive changes in the Federal Constitution. Such facultative referendum is to be conducted if at least one third of the members of the National Council or the Federal Council requests it.
There have only been two binding referendums in post-1945 Austria: The nuclear power referendum in 1978 and the European Union membership referendum which was called because accession to European Union was deemed to be a comprehensive change to the Constitution.
Non-binding referendum.
The National Council has the power to call on a non-binding referendum on matters of great importance. Such a referendum is called by majority of members of the National Council. Results of such a referendum are advisory. There was one such referendum in post-1945 Austria:
The "no" option won, and the National Council accepted the result of the referendum and acted accordingly.


Benjamin Greene

Benjamin Greene (5 April 1780 – 26 November 1860) was the founder of Greene King, one of the United Kingdom's largest brewing businesses.
Career.
Born in Oundle and apprenticed at Whitbread, Benjamin Greene initially founded a brewing business in 1801 with John Clark in Bury St Edmunds. Then in 1806 he dissolved that partnership and established a new venture with William Buck at the Westgate Brewery. It was this venture that became Greene King.
On the death of Sir Patrick Blake, 2nd Baronet he became the executor and, on the subsequent death of Sir Patrick's widow, the owner of some estates in the West Indies.
He was a supporter of the arts and in 1819 lent £5,000 to William Wilkins to build the Theatre Royal in Bury St Edmunds.
He acquired the "Bury and Suffolk Herald" in 1828 and as proprietor took an ultra-conservative position opposing both the Reform Bill and the Slavery Abolition Bill. This position attracted much criticism and three libel actions. He left Bury St Edmunds in 1836 and established with his son, Benjamin Greene & Son, West India merchants and shipowners, at 11 Mincing Lane, London.
He made three claims under the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 and was awarded a total of £4,033 15s 7d compensation for the 231 slaves he had owned on his estates in Montserrat and St Kitts. The Centre for the Study of the Legacies of British Slave-ownership at UCL describes him as an enthusiastic supporter of slavery, being particularly active between 1828-1833. In June 2020 Greene King announced that it would be paying reparations to BAME charities in recognition that he and by extension the company had benefited from the slave trade.
He died at Russell Square in London in 1860 and is buried at Highgate Cemetery.
Family.
He was married twice: first in 1803 to Mary Maling and then in 1805 to Catherine Smith with whom he went on to have seven sons and six daughters including:


Decree of Extended Freedom of Trade (Sweden)

Förordningen för utvidgad näringsfrihet ('Decree of Extended Freedom of Trade'), also known as 1864 års näringsförordning ('Trade Decree of 1864'), was a Swedish law reform introduced 18 Jun 1864. It was law until 1968.
The reform continued the reform of Swedish commercial life, initiated by the Fabriks och Handtwerksordning and Handelsordningen of 1846, by introducing complete freedom of economy. It abolished all requirements and privileges of the guilds and removed all restrictions of trade and handicrafts professions in the cities as well as the country side and granted the right to start a business to all citizens of legal majority, or those with permission from their guardian, regardless of gender.


John Evelyn (Parliamentarian)

Sir John Evelyn (11 August 1601 – 26 June 1685) was an English politician who sat in the House of Commons variously between 1626 and 1660.
Evelyn was the son of George Evelyn of West Dean, one of the Six Clerks in Chancery, and his wife Elizabeth Rivers, daughter of Sir John Rivers of Chafford, Kent. He was a cousin of the diarist John Evelyn, and nephew of another John Evelyn (1591–1664), of Godstone in Surrey, who served as MP for nearby Bletchingley in 1628, 1640 and 1660.
In 1626, Evelyn was elected Member of Parliament for Wilton. He became a JP for Wiltshire in 1637. In April 1640, he was elected Member of Parliament for Ludgershall in the Short Parliament, and was re-elected MP for Ludgershall in the Long Parliament in November 1640. He became a JP for Hampshire in 1641. He was a commissioner for Westminster Assembly, a commissioner for assessment for Wiltshire and a commissioner for levying of money in 1643. In 1645 he became a commissioner for the execution of ordinances in Hampshire, a commissioner for the New Model Army and then for the Admiralty. He was also commissioner for propositions for the relief of Ireland. In 1646 he was governor of the Covent Garden precinct and commissioner for abuses in heraldry and for exclusion from sacrament and for bishops lands. In 1648 he was a member of the committee of both kingdoms. He abstained from the House of Commons after Pride's Purge.
In 1660 Evelyn was Councillor of State. He was re-elected at Ludgershall in 1660 for the Convention Parliament but this was a double return and he sat instead for Stockbridge.
Evelyn died at the age of 84 and left his estate to one daughter, the mother of Evelyn Pierrepont, while cutting Sarah, the other daughter, off with five shillings because of her marriage to George Saunderson, 5th Viscount Castleton.
Evelyn married Elizabeth Coxe, daughter of Robert Coxe, grocer of London.
By her, Sir John had:
References.


Moses Gottlieb


Basque tax holidays

The Basque tax holidays were economic policies aimed at attracting foreign investment to the Basque Country, in Spain, implemented during the 1993–1994 period by the Basque Government of Lehendakari José Antonio Ardanza, the policy benefited companies that would settle in this autonomous community.
The policy included a gradual 10-year reduction in the corporate tax base and a 45% tax credit on new investments in excess of 15,025,303 euros in new tangible fixed assets to any company with a share capital of 120,000 euros or a minimum of 10 workers (in practice it affected almost any SME). All these benefits were issued by the three Basque Treasuries (Hacienda de Guipúzcoa, Hacienda de Vizcaya and the Hacienda de Álava). Some 300 companies benefited.
Both the autonomous community of La Rioja and Cantabria, lacking an economic agreement to counter these measures, considered that these benefits significantly damaged the companies established in territories bordering the Basque Country and encouraged corporate relocation, the measures were denounced as unfair competition.
In 2000 the European Union declared these measures to be illegal according to Community Treaty. In 2006 the Court of Justice of the European Union sided with the European Commission and asked the government of Spain to revert any benefit on December 14, 2006, considering them as "state aid incompatible with the common market".
In 2011, Joaquín Almunia, competition commissioner of the European Union demanded the Basque Government to revert these benefits and; ultimately, to the beneficiary companies to do so.


2007 Belarusian municipal elections

2007 25th convocation local councils of Republic of Belarus elections were held on 14 January.
General information.
Elections were organized by 1581 territorial committees — 6 regional and Minsk urban, 118 districtal, 13 urban in regional cities, 14 urban in districtal cities, 66 town and 1363 rural committees. Members of 45 political parties participated in committees. 30 October 2006 was a due date for commissions formation. In a single day of 14 January 2007 25th convocation rural, as well as district, urban and regional Concils of deputies election were hold under plurality voting. 22639 deputies were elected. According to oficial data voters participation was 79% all over the Republic and 60% in Minsk-city.
Participation of parties and candidates nomination.
candidates nomination started from 5 November till 4 December 2006.


Edward Sackville, 4th Earl of Dorset

Edward Sackville, 4th Earl of Dorset KG (159117 July 1652) was an English courtier, soldier and politician. He sat in the House of Commons from 1621 to 1622 and became Earl of Dorset in 1624. He fought a duel in his early life, and was later involved in colonisation in North America. He supported the Royalist cause in the English Civil War.
Early life.
Sackville was the younger surviving son of Robert Sackville, 2nd Earl of Dorset, by his first wife Margaret, a daughter of the Duke of Norfolk. He matriculated from Christ Church, Oxford, with his brother Richard, on 26 July 1605. He was awarded MA at Cambridge University and was incorporated at Oxford from Cambridge on 9 July 1616. He was one of the handsomest men of his time, and in August 1613 became notorious by killing in a duel Edward Bruce, 2nd Lord Kinloss. The duel concerned Venetia Stanley, a society beauty and a granddaughter of Edward Stanley, 3rd Earl of Derby. The meeting took place on a piece of ground purchased for the purpose two miles from Bergen-op-Zoom, Netherlands, which even in 1814 was known as Bruceland. Sackville was run through the body and lost a finger while attempting to disarm Kinloss, but ultimately dispatched his opponent with two thrusts to the chest. Though gravely wounded, Sackville survived, but Venetia Stanley ultimately married Sir Kenelm Digby who after his marriage maintained friendly relations with Sackville, referring to him as the "Mardontius" in his memoirs. Sackville sent, in self-justification, a long narrative from Louvain, dated 8 September 1613, with copies of Bruce's challenges. Sackville's life was attempted soon after his return to England.
Early political career and colonist activity.
Some sources claim that in 1614, Sackville was elected MP for Sussex and was one of the leaders of the popular party but this is disputed in other records of the Addled Parliament. In 1616 he visited Lyons and procured the release of Sir Edward Herbert who had been arrested there. He was made a Knight of the Bath on 3 November 1616 when Charles I was created Prince of Wales. From 1619 he was a leading member of the party of the Virginia Company which supported Sir Edwin Sandys. On 22 July 1620 he sailed as a commander in the forces sent under Sir Horatio Vere to assist Frederick V, the Bohemian king, who was James I's son-in-law. He was present at the Battle of White Mountain on 8 November 1620.
In 1621 Sackville was elected MP for Sussex. In March he was nominated chairman of the commons committee for the inspection of the courts of justice, but did not act. He spoke on behalf of Francis Bacon in parliament on 17 March 1621, and often pleaded for him with Buckingham. In July 1621 he was briefly ambassador to Louis XIII of France. In November 1621 he vigorously defended the proposal to vote a subsidy for the recovery of the Palatinate, declaring that "the passing-bell was now tolling for religion." This speech has been wrongly dated as of 1623, when parliament was not sitting. In April 1623, the King "roundly and soundly" reproved Sackville at a meeting of the directors of the Virginia company. He was governor of the Bermuda Islands Company in 1623. On 23 May 1623 he received a licence to travel for three years and was nominated ambassador to Louis XIII again in September 1623. He was at Rome in 1624, and visited Marc Antonio de Dominis archbishop of Spalatro, in his dungeon. While he was at Florence he received the news of the death of his elder brother Richard Sackville, 3rd Earl of Dorset, which took place on 28 March 1624 and he thereupon became fourth Earl of Dorset.
Earl of Dorset.
Dorset succeeded to family estates which were heavily encumbered and he was selling land to pay off his brother's debts on 26 June 1626 (money was still owing on 26 September 1650). He became joint Lord Lieutenant of Sussex and joint Lord Lieutenant of Middlesex, and held several other offices, including the mastership of Ashdown Forest, and stewardship of Great Yarmouth from 1629. He was made K.G. on 15 May 1625, and installed by proxy on 23 December. At the coronation of Charles I on 2 February 1626 he was a commissioner of claims, and carried the first sword, and he was called to the privy council 3 August 1626. His influence at court was fully established by his appointment as lord chamberlain to Queen Henrietta Maria on 16 July 1628. As such, he was a prime mover in theatre and drama in London, and was the force behind the founding of the Salisbury Court Theatre at Salisbury Court off Fleet Street where he lived. He was a commissioner for planting Virginia in 1631 and 1634.
As a peer and privy councillor Dorset showed great activity. He was a commissioner on 30 May 1635 and 10 April 1636 for dealing with the new buildings which had been erected in or about London and Westminster. He was a lord commissioner of the admiralty, one of the adventurers with the Earl of Lindsey and others for draining various parts of Lincolnshire and a commissioner for improving the supply of saltpetre. On 13 June 1636 he was constable of Beaumaris Castle. While sitting on the Star-chamber commission in 1636, he advised the imprisonment of the peers who refused to pay a forced loan although in April 1636 he himself was one of the defaulters for ship-money in Kent to the extent of £5. He kept up his connection with America, and petitioned for a grant of Sandy Hook Island (lat. 44°), on 10 December 1638. He was nominated on a committee of council to deal with ship-money on 20 May 1640 but abstained carefully from committing himself to the illegal proceedings encouraged by his more violent colleagues.
In 1640 Dorset was one of the peers nominated to act as regents while the king was absent in the north. In January 1641 he helped to arrange the marriage of the Princess Mary with the Prince of Orange, and was a commissioner of regency again from 9 August to 25 November. He opposed the proceedings against the bishops, and ordered the trained bands of Middlesex to fire on the mob that gathered to intimidate parliament on 29 November 1641. According to the historian Clarendon the Commons wished to impeach Dorset either for this or "for some judgment he had been party to in the Star-chamber or council table".
Civil War.
Early in 1642, Dorset joined the king at York, and pledged himself to support a troop of sixty horse. He attested the king's declaration on 15 June 1642, that he abhorred the idea of war. In July he attended the queen in Holland, but returned before the king's standard was raised at Nottingham. On 25 August he was sent, with Lord Southampton and Sir John Colepeper, to treat with the parliamentary leaders. At the same date parliamentary soldiers plundered Knole House. He was present at the Battle of Edgehill. He may have been in charge of the young princes as James II wrote in 1679 that "the old Earl of Dorset at Edgehill, being commanded by the king, my father, to go and carry the prince and myself up the hill out of the battle, refused to do it, and said he would not be thought a coward for ever a king's son in Christendom". He went to Oxford with the king, and more than once protested against the continuation of the war. He made a speech at the council table against one by the Earl of Bristol and this was circulated as a tract on 18 January 1643. He was made a commissioner of the king's treasury on 7 March 1643, and was Lord Chamberlain of the household from 21 January 1644 to 27 April 1646. Early in 1644 he was also entrusted with the privy seal and the presidency of the council. He made sensible speeches, which were printed in Oxford and London as "shewing his good affection to the Parliament and the whole state of this Kingdom." He signed the letter asking Essex to promote peace, in January 1644. He was one of the committee charged with the defence of Oxford; and was nominated by Charles in December 1645 one of those to whom he would entrust the militia. He was one of the signatories to the capitulation of Oxford on 24 June 1646.
In June 1644 Dorset was assessed by the committee for the advance of money at £5,000 and his eldest son was assessed at £1,500. In 1645 he resigned an estate of £6,000, the committee undertaking to pay his debts. In September 1646 he petitioned to compound for his delinquency on the Oxford articles, and his fine of one tenth was fixed at £4,360l. It was reduced to £2,415 on 25 March 1647, and he was discharged on 4 June 1650.
Dorset was said to be one of the six peers who intended to go to Charles at Hampton Court in October 1647 and stay with him as a council, but parliament did not permit this.
After the execution of the king in 1649, Dorset is said never to have left his house in Salisbury Court, Fleet Street. He died there on 17 July 1652, and was buried in the family vault at Withyham. His monument was destroyed by fire of 16 June 1663. An elegy on him was printed, with heavy black edges, by James Howell, in a rare pamphlet entitled "Ah-Ha, Tumulus Thalamus".
Clarendon described Dorset as "beautiful, graceful, and vigorous: his wit pleasant, sparkling, and sublime ... The vices he had were of the age, which he was not stubborn enough to contemn or resist." He was an able speaker, and on the whole a moderate politician, combining a strong respect for the royal prerogative with an attachment to the Protestant cause and the liberties of parliament. He was evidently an excellent man of business.
Family.
Dorset married Mary Curzon, daughter and heiress of Sir George Curzon of Croxall Hall, Derbyshire in 1612. Their children were:
In 1630 Lady Mary was appointed "governess" for a term of twelve years of Charles, Prince of Wales and James, Duke of York, both later Kings of England and Scotland. She received charge of the younger children, Henry and his sister Elizabeth, on 20 July 1643, and was allowed £600 a year, with Knole House and Dorset House, in recognition of her services. She died in 1645 when she was about to be relieved of her duties, and, as a reward for her "godly and conscientious care and pains," received a public funeral in Westminster Abbey. After the Restoration, her son Richard petitioned the crown for further recognition of his late mother's service.


Byzantine economy

The Byzantine economy was among the most robust economies in the Mediterranean for many centuries. Constantinople was a prime hub in a trading network that at various times extended across nearly all of Eurasia and North Africa. Some scholars argue that, up until the arrival of the Arabs in the 7th century, the Eastern Roman Empire had the most powerful economy in the world. The Arab conquests, however, would represent a substantial reversal of fortunes contributing to a period of decline and stagnation. Constantine V's reforms (c. 765) marked the beginning of a revival that continued until 1204. From the 10th century until the end of the 12th, the Byzantine Empire projected an image of luxury, and the travelers were impressed by the wealth accumulated in the capital. All this changed with the arrival of the Fourth Crusade, which was an economic catastrophe. The Palaiologoi tried to revive the economy, but the late Byzantine state would not gain full control of either the foreign or domestic economic forces.
One of the economic foundations of the empire was trade. The state strictly controlled both the internal and the international trade, and retained the monopoly of issuing coinage. Constantinople remained the single most important commercial centre of Europe for much of the Medieval era, which it held until the Republic of Venice slowly began to overtake Byzantine merchants in trade; first through tax exemption under the Komnenoi, then under the Latin Empire.
Agriculture.
From 4th to end of 6th century the eastern part of Roman Empire had demographic, economic and agricultural expansion. The climate was opportune for farming. Even in marginal regions rural settlements flourished.
Development in the rural economy, though certainly slow, was continuous from the 8th to the beginning of the 14th century. Areas close to the sea featuring cereal crops, vines, and olive groves (the interior of the Balkans, and Asia Minor concentrated on stock raising) were relatively well-favored, and appear to have played an important role in the development of the Byzantine economy. The peasantry's tools changed little through the ages, and remained rudimentary, which resulted in a low ratio of productivity to labor. Nevertheless, according to certain scholars, the permanence of techniques, and tools are evidence of their successful adaptation to the environment.
From the 7th to the 12th century, the social organization of production was arranged round two poles: estate and village (a collection of free smallholders). The village social structure was the organizational form best adapted to insecure conditions, with the estate fulfilling this role once conditions were safe again. There was in principle a clear distinction between tenants who lived on the estates (and owed dues to the master of the place), and the village inhabitants, many of whom owned land, and consequently paid taxes to the state. Nevertheless, not all the cultivators on the estate lived there, and not all enjoyed a special status. Some of them were slaves and some were wage laborers; references to wage laborers occur continuously from the 7th century to the end of the Byzantine period. In the same way, the inhabitants of a village would not all be landholders, and of these, not all would be farmers; some village proprietors held the lowest rank of aristocrat status, and were wealthier than tenant farmers. The distinction between landholder and tenant farmer ("paroikos") was weakened once tenures held by "paroikoi" were considered hereditary, and once some "paroikoi" achieved owner status. From the 10th century on, large estates assumed the leading role that had been held until then by villages, albeit in an economy that was henceforth orientated toward demand, with monetary exchanges taking a larger share. By the beginning of the 14th century, the Macedonian countryside was made up of an almost unbroken network of estates that had replaced the former network of communes. Villages that are known to have possessed commune status in the 10th century became estates of the fisc, after which they might be ceded to a monastery or lay person.
The population was dense in the 6th century, but it diminished in the 7th and 8th centuries. Epidemics (such as the plague of 541/542 and its recurrences until 747) seem to have had greater effects on population volume than wars. From the 9th century on, the population of the empire increased, but it was unevenly distributed. A growing population would imply an increase in the area under cultivation. The automatic effect of a larger population was also amplified by the demand from a growing number of people who did not produce much or at all. Indeed, it is estimated that areas under cultivation must have almost doubled, and that the extension of crops might have affected a shift in the location of grazing lands, and pushed back the woodlands.
The 12th century saw the development of tilling and milling technologies in the West, but there is less evidence for similar Byzantine innovation. Western advances like the windmill were adopted by the Byzantines, but, unlike the West, Arabic numerals were not yet implemented for double-entry book-keeping. There are illustrations of agricultural implements from illuminated medieval manuscripts of Hesiod's Works and Days including the wheel, mortar, pestle, mallet and some parts for carts and soleard plough, but, even centuries later, neither the plough nor wheeled cart were widely in use, possibly because of the nature of the Pontic terrain.
The conquest of the empire by the Crusaders in 1204, and the subsequent division of the Byzantine territories affected the agrarian economy as it did other aspects of economic organization, and economic life. These territories split among small Greek and Latin states, lost much of the cohesion they may have had: the Byzantine state could not function as a unifying force, and, in the 13th century, there was very little to replace it. The 13th century is the last period, during which one may speak of significant land clearance, that is, the act of bringing previously uncultivated land into cultivation. But the progressive impoverishment of the peasantry, entailed the decline of a certain aggregate demand, and resulted in a concentration of resources in the hands of large landowners, who must have had considerable surpluses.
The demographic expansion came to an end in the course of the 14th century, during which a deterioration of the status of "paroikoi", an erosion of the economic function of village by the role of the large estates, and a precipitous demographic decline in Macedonia is established by modern research. The upper levels of the aristocracy lost their fortunes, and eventually there was a concentration of property on the hands of the larger, and more privileged monasteries, at least in Macedonia. The monasteries did not show great versatility or innovative spirit, and the rural economy had to wait, for its recovery, until the effects of epidemics had been reversed, security had been established, and communications restored: that is, until the firm establishment of the Ottomans in the Balkans.
Economic and fiscal history.
The Eastern Roman economy suffered less from the Barbarian raids that plagued the Western Roman Empire. Under Diocletian's reign, the Eastern Roman Empire's annual revenue was at 9,400,000 "solidi", out of a total of 18,000,000 "solidi" for the entire Roman Empire. These estimates can be compared to the AD 150 annual revenue of 14,500,000 "solidi" and the AD 215 of 22,000,000 "solidi". By the end of Marcian's reign, the annual revenue for the Eastern empire was 7,800,000 "solidi", thus allowing him to amass about 100,000 pounds/45 tonnes of gold or 7,200,000 "solidi" for the imperial treasury. Warren Treadgold estimates that during the period from Diocletian to Marcian, the Eastern Empire's population and agriculture declined a bit, but not much. Actually, the few preserved figures show that the largest eastern cities grew somewhat between the 3rd and 5th centuries. By Marcian's reign the Eastern Empire's difficulties seem to have been easing, and the population had probably begun growing for the first time in centuries.
The wealth of Constantinople can be seen by how Justin I used pounds/1.66 tonnes of gold just for celebrating his own consulship. By the end of his reign, Anastasius I had managed to collect for the treasury an amount of 23,000,000 "solidi" or 320,000 pounds/144 tonnes of gold. At the start of Justinian I's reign, the Emperor had inherited a surplus from Anastasius I and Justin I. Before Justinian I's reconquests the state had an annual revenue of "solidi", which further increased after his reconquests in 550. Nevertheless, Justinian I had little money left towards the end of his reign partly because of the Justinian Plague, and the Roman–Persian Wars (Justinian spent large amounts of money in annual subsidies to the Sassanian Empire), as well as his wars of reconquest in Italy and North Africa, all of which greatly strained the royal treasury. In addition to these expenses, the rebuilding of Hagia Sophia cost pounds/9 tonnes of gold. Subsidies to enemy states were also paid by Justinian's successors: Justin II was forced to pay 80,000 silver coins to the Avars for peace; his wife Sophia paid 45,000 "solidi" to Khosrau I in return for a year's truce, and then Tiberius II Constantine gave away pounds of gold each year for four years. Since Emperor Heraclius changed the empire's official language from Latin to Greek in around 620, the "solidus" (plural: "solidi") would thereafter be known by its Greek name, the "nomisma" (plural: "nomismata").
The Byzantine-Arab Wars reduced the territory of the Empire to a third in the 7th century and the economy slumped; in 780 the Byzantine Empire's revenues were reduced to only "nomismata". From the 8th century onward the Empire's economy improved dramatically. This was a blessing for Byzantium in more than one way; the economy, the administration of gold coinage and the farming of the Anatolian peninsula served to meet the military's constant demands. Since Byzantium was in a constant state of warfare with her neighbours (even if only by raiding) the military required weapons to be manufactured by the bigger cities (such as Thessaloniki) whilst the smaller towns were subject to grain, wine and even biscuit requisitions by Imperial officers. Even though the soldiers' pay was minimal, large armies were a considerable strain on Byzantium. As gold coins were spent on soldiers to serve in the army, these would in time spend their money acquiring their own goods and much revenue would return to the state in the form of taxation. As a result, the Byzantine economy was self-sufficient, allowing it to thrive in the Dark Ages. The success of the Byzantine army was in no small part due to the success of her economy.
Around 775, the land and head taxes yielded an estimated 1,600,000 "nomismata"/7.2 tonnes of gold annually for the empire. Commerce during this period slumped, therefore only contributing 200,000 "nomismata" annually. The expenditures of the period were quite large when compared to the annual revenues. Approximately 600,000 "nomismata" went to the payroll of the army annually while other military costs took another 600,000 "nomismata" annually. Supporting the Byzantine bureaucracy needed 400,000 "nomismata". Also, imperial largess cost the treasury 100,000 "nomismata" every year. All of these expenses meant that the Byzantine government had only about 100,000 "nomismata" in surplus revenue each year for treaties, bribes, or gifts.
Expenses again soared, when a massive Muslim army invaded the empire in 806, forcing Nikephoros I to pay a ransom of gold coins and a yearly tribute of gold coins. In order to impress the Caliph of Baghdad, Theophilos distributed 36,000 gold coins to the citizens of Baghdad, and in 838, he was forced to pay gold dinars to the Caliph. The Byzantine economic recovery in the early 9th century can be seen by the fact that Emperor Theophilos was able to leave 7,000,000 "nomismata"/31.5 tonnes of gold in the imperial treasury for his successor in 842. After Theophilos' death his wife Theodora II continued his successful policies and even increased the imperial reserves to 7,848,000 "nomismata."
Around 850, the land and head taxes yielded an estimated 2,900,000 "nomismata" annually for the empire. Commerce during this period increased dramatically, therefore contributing 400,000 "nomismata" annually. The expenditures of the period were large, but manageable by the treasury. Approximately 1,400,000 "nomismata" went to the payroll of the army annually while other military costs took another 800,000 "nomismata" annually. Supporting the Byzantine bureaucracy needed 500,000 "nomismata". Also, imperial largess cost the treasury 100,000 "nomismata" every year. All of these expenses meant that the Byzantine government had about 500,000 "nomismata" in surplus revenue each year, much more than in the 8th century.
Unfortunately under their son Michael III the reserves dwindled to about 100,000 "nomismata". However, under Basil I's prudent economic policies, the state quickly raised 4,300,000 "nomismata", far more even than the empire's annual revenue of "nomismata".
From the 10th century, however, until the end of the twelfth, the Byzantine Empire projected an image of wealth and luxury. Constantine V's reforms (c. 765) marked the beginning of a revival that continued until 1204. The travelers who visited its capital were impressed by the wealth accumulated in Constantinople; riches that also served the state's diplomatic purposes as a means of propaganda, and a way to impress foreigners as well its own citizens. When Liutprand of Cremona was sent as an ambassador to the Byzantine capital in the 940s, he was overwhelmed by the imperial residence, the luxurious meals, and acrobatic entertainment.
Sviatoslav I was paid pounds of gold by Nikephoros II to invade Bulgaria in 968. By the time of Basil II's death in 1025, the annual income had increased to "nomismata", which allowed him to amass a large surplus of 14,400,000 "nomismata" (200,000 pounds/90 tonnes of gold) in the treasury for his successor.
Nevertheless, the Byzantine economy went into a long decline until the Comnenian Dynasty was able to revive the economy. In the aftermath of the Battle of Manzikert, Alp Arslan at first suggested to Emperor Romanos IV a ransom of gold coins, but later reduced it to gold coins with a further gold coins annually.
In exchange for an alliance, Alexios I sent gold coins to Emperor Henry IV. The wealth of the empire under the Comnenians can be seen by how Emperor Manuel I was able to ransom some Latin prisoners from the Muslims for dinars, then dinars for Bohemond III in 1165, dinars for Raynald of Châtillon, and dinars for Baldwin of Ibelin in 1180. When Manuel became emperor he ordered 2 gold coins to be given to every householder in Constantinople and 200 pounds of gold (including 200 silver coins annually) to be given to the Eastern Orthodox Church. When his niece Theodora married King Baldwin III of Jerusalem in 1157, Manuel gave her a dowry of gold coins, gold coins for marriage expenses, and presents (jewels and silk garments) which were worth gold coins total. The expense of Manuel's involvement in Italy must have cost the treasury a great deal (probably more than 2,160,000 "hyperpyra" or pounds of gold). Then he also promised to pay pounds of gold to the Pope and the Curia. During his reign, Manuel bought a very rich jewel (for silver marks) which was used during the coronation of the Latin Emperor Baldwin I. The main source of the state's wealth in the 12th century was the "kommerkion", a customs duty levied at Constantinople on all imports and exports, which was stated to have collected "hyperpyra" each day. This, combined with other sources of income, meant the empire's annual revenue was at 5,600,000 "hyperpyra" in 1150. Under the Komnenian emperors, many exemptions of trade duties were given to the Italian traders, which meant the loss of about 50,000 "hyperpyra" annually. A Venetian embassy visited Constantinople in 1184 and an agreement was reached that compensation of 1,500 pounds of gold (or 108,000 "hyperpyra") would be paid for the losses incurred in 1171. By the end of Manuel I's reign the amount of money used to maintain the Komnenian imperial family is said to be able to maintain an army of 100,000 men.
After the demise of the Komnenoi, the Byzantine economy declined under the impact of several factors: the dismemberment of the Empire after 1204, the successive territorial losses to the Turks (although the strong economic interaction of Byzantine territories with those lost by the Empire continued), and the Italian expansion in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. When Isaac II Angelos became Emperor in 1185, a mob broke into the palace and carried off pounds of gold, pounds of silver, and 20,000 pounds of bronze coins. In 1195, Holy Roman Emperor Henry VI forced Byzantine Emperor Alexios III Angelos to pay him a tribute of pounds of gold (originally pounds of gold) and in 1204 Alexios III took pounds of gold (or 72,000 "hyperpyra") when he fled Constantinople. The presence of the crusading army not only culminated in a violent sack that dispersed and destroyed the accumulated wealth, and culture of centuries, but was accompanied by a series of fires that ravaged the northern and central sections of the city resulting in a steady exodus of the city's residents to the Greek centers of government in exile. The sack of Constantinople by Latin crusaders in 1204 was an economic catastrophe. Due to the financial crisis, the state could only pay silver marks ( pounds of pure silver) out of silver marks (equivalent to 800,000 "hyperpyra") to the Crusaders in 1204. The official tally of plunder from Constantinople was about silver marks, the equivalent of about 3,600,000 "hyperpyra" or 50,000 pounds/22.5 tonnes of gold. The impoverished Latin emperors melted down statues for coin, while the Venetians exported their declining profits, along with choice relics and architecture spolia for their churches. In 1237, Latin Emperor Baldwin II pawned the Crown of Thorns to a Venetian merchant for gold coins.
By the time the Palaiologoi took power, Italian merchants had come to dominate the trade by sea whilst Turkic incursions prevented any success from trade across roads. Michael VIII Palaiologos strove to restore the capital's greatness, but the resources of the empire were inadequate. In 1282, Michael VIII was forced to drain the treasury to pay the enormous bribe of "hyperpyra" to King Peter III of Aragon to invade the Kingdom of Sicily. Constantinople became once more, as in the seventh and eighth centuries, a ruralized network of scattered nuclei; in the final decades before the fall, the population numbered people. Gradually, the state also lost its influence on the modalities of trade and the price mechanisms, and its control over the outflow of precious metals and, according to some scholars, even over the minting of coins. By 1303, the empire's annual revenue dropped to less than 1,800,000 "hyperpyra", under Andronikos II Palaiologos. In 1321, only with extreme effort was Andonikos II able to raise revenues to 1,000,000 "hyperpyra".
The Byzantine economy had declined so much that by 1343, Empress Anna of Savoy had to pawn the Byzantine crown jewels for Venetian ducats, which was the equivalent of 60,000 "hyperpyra". In 1348, Constantinople had an annual revenue of "hyperpyra" while across the Golden Horn in the Genoese colony of Galata, the annual revenue was "hyperpyra". When Emperor John VI Kantakouzenos attempted to rebuild the Byzantine navy, he was only able to raise an inadequate "hyperpyra". The only success during this period was when the Republic of Genoa agreed to pay a war indemnity of "hyperpyra" in 1349. When Emperor John V Palaiologos was captured by Ivan Alexander in 1366, he was forced to pay a ransom of florins. In 1370, the empire owed Venice, "hyperpyra" (of which only "hyperpyra" had so far been paid) for damage done to Venetian property. In February 1424, Manuel II Palaiologos signed an unfavorable peace treaty with the Ottoman Turks, whereby the Byzantine Empire was forced to pay silver coins to the Sultan on annual basis. In 1453, the economy of the Genoan quarter in Constantinople had a revenue 7 times greater than that of the whole Empire — not even a shadow of its former self. Emperor Constantine XI owed Venice 17,163 "hyperpyra" when he died in 1453.
The exact amount of annual income the Byzantine government received, is a matter of considerable debate, due to the scantness and ambiguous nature of the primary sources. The following table contains approximate estimates.
State's role.
The state retained the monopoly of issuing coinage, and had the power to intervene in other important sectors of the economy. It exercised formal control over interest rates, and set the parameters for the activity of the guilds and corporations in Constantinople, in which the state has a special interest (e.g. the sale of silk) or whose members exercised a profession that was of importance for trade. The emperor and his officials intervened at times of crisis to ensure the provisioning of the capital and to keep down the price of cereals. For this reason, the empire strictly controlled both the internal circulation of commodities, and the international trade (certainly in intent; to a considerable degree also in practice). Additionally, the state often collected part of the surplus in the form of tax, and put it back into circulation, through redistribution in the form of salaries to state officials of the army, or in the form of investment in public works, buildings, or works of art.
Coinage.
Coinage was the basic form of money in Byzantium, although credit existed: archival documents indicate that both banking and bankers were not as primitive as has sometimes been implied. The Byzantine Empire was capable of making a durable monetary system function for more than a thousand years, from Constantine I to 1453, because of its relative flexibility. Money was both product and instrument of a complex and developed financial and fiscal organization that contributed to the economic integration of its territory.
The first features of the administrative organization of monetary production were first established by Diocletian and Constantine, and were still in existence at the beginning of the 7th century. During Byzantine history, supervision of the mints belonged to the Emperor; thus the government controlled, to a certain degree, the money supply. Nevertheless, the Emperor and his government were not always capable of conducting a monetary policy in the modern meaning of the term.
Ever since the creation of the Byzantine monetary system by Constantine in 312, its pivot had been golden "solidus", a coinage whose nominal value was equal to its intrinsic value, as is proven by the Theodosian Code. "Solidus" became a highly priced and stable means of storing and transferring values Novel 16 of Valentinian III punished with death anyone who dared "refuse or reduce a gold "solidus" of good weight." Weight and fineness of the coinage were joined by another element: the authenticity of the stamp, which served to guarantee the other two. Alongside this "real"-value gold coinage, and a slightly overvalued silver coinage, there was also a bronze coinage of a fiduciary nature that made up the second specific feature of the monetary system. At the end of the 10th and in the 11th centuries, money underwent a profound transformation, followed by a crisis; the denomination affected all metals at different dates, and according to different modalities. The reform of Alexios I Komnenos put an end to this crisis by restoring a gold coinage of high fineness, the "hyperpyron", and by creating a new system destined to endure for about two centuries.
In 1304 the introduction of the "basilikon", a pure silver coinage modeled on the Venetian ducat marked the abandonment of Komnenian structures under the influence of western models. The system that began in 1367 was constructed around the "stavraton", a heavy silver, equivalent to twice the weight of fine metal of the last "hyperpyra". By the end of the 12th century, especially from 1204 on, the political fragmentation of the empire resulted in the creation of coinages that were either "national" (e.g. in Trebizond in 1222, in Bulgaria in 1218, and in Serbia in 1228), colonial or feudal. Venetian coins soon penetrated the monetary circulation in Byzantium. This situation stands in contrast with the monopoly that Byzantine currency had enjoyed until the 12th century, within its own frontiers, and through its diffusion in the lands beyond — a measure of its political and economic influence.
Trade.
One of the economic foundations of the empire was trade. Constantinople was located on important east-west and north-south trade routes. Trebizond was an important port in the eastern trade. The exact routes varied over the years with wars and the political situation. Imports and exports were uniformly taxed at ten percent.
Grain and silk were two of the most important commodities for the empire. The Arab invasion of Egypt and Syria harmed the Byzantium's trade, and affected the provisioning of the capital with grain. As the population increased in the 9th and 10th centuries, the demand for grain also increased. There was a functioning market for grain in Constantinople, but it was not entirely self-regulating: the state could play a role in the availability of grain, and the formation of prices.
Silk was used by the state both as a means of payment, and of diplomacy. Raw silk was bought from China and made up into fine brocades and cloth-of-gold that commanded high prices through the world. Later, silk worms were smuggled into the empire and the overland silk trade became less important. After Justinian I the manufacturing and sale of silk had become an imperial monopoly, only processed in imperial factories, and sold to authorized buyers. The raw silk merchants could buy the raw silk from outside Constantinople but did not themselves have the authority to travel outside the city to get it — possibly in order not to jeopardize the activities of the provincial merchants selling the silk.
The other commodities that were traded, in Constantinople and elsewhere, were numerous: oil, wine, salt, fish, meat, vegetables, other alimentary products, timber and wax. Ceramics, linen, and woven cloth were also items of trade. Luxury items, such as silks, perfumes and spices were also important. Trade in slaves is attested, both on behalf of the state, and, possibly, by private individuals. International trade was practiced not only in Constantinople, which was until the late 12th century an important center of the eastern luxury trade, but also in other cities that functioned as centers of inter-regional and international trade, such as Thessaloniki and Trebizond. Textiles must have been by far the most important item of export; silks were certainly imported into Egypt, and they also appear also in Bulgaria and the West. The empire had also trading activity through Venice (as long as the latter was part of the empire): salt, wood, iron, and slaves, as well luxury products from the East, were the products exchanged. In 992, Basil II concluded a treaty with Pietro Orseolo II by the terms that Venice's custom duties in Constantinople would be reduced from 30 "nomismata" to 17 "nomismata" in return for the Venetians agreeing to transport Byzantine troops to Southern Italy in times of war. During the 11th and 12th centuries Italian trade in the empire took place under privileged conditions, incorporated in treaties and privileges that were granted to Amalfi, Venice, Genoa, and Pisa.
The Fourth Crusade and the Venetian domination of trade in the area created new conditions. In 1261, the Genoese were given generous customs privileges, and six years later the Venetians regained their original quarter in Constantinople. The two northern Italian trading powers created the conditions that allowed them to reach any point in Byzantium, and to put the entire economic region in the service of their commercial interests.
The Palaiologoi tried to revive the economy, and re-establish traditional forms of political supervision, and guidance of the economy. It was, however, apparent that the late Byzantine state was unable to gain full control of either the foreign or domestic economic forces. Gradually, the state lost its influence on the modalities of trade and the price mechanisms, and its control over the outflow of precious metals and, according to some scholars, even over the minting of coins. Late Byzantine officials supposed to implement a regulatory policy used the state prerogatives placed into their hands to pursue their private businesses. Private commercial activity was also affected by the crises in foreign policy, and the internal erosion of Byzantium.
GDP.
The Byzantine GDP per capita has been estimated by the World Bank economist Branko Milanovic to range from $680 to $770 in 1990 International Dollars at its peak around 1000 (reign of Basil II). This corresponds to a range of $ to $ in today's dollars. The Byzantine population size at the time is estimated to have been between 12 and 18 million. This would yield a total GDP somewhere between $ and $ billion in today's terms.


Thomas Fell

Thomas Fell (1598–1658), was a lawyer, member of parliament and vice-chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster.
Biography.
Personal.
Fell was born at Hawkshead, near Ulverston. He was the son of George Fell, a gentleman of ancient Lancashire family. He was admitted student of Gray's Inn in 1623, called to the bar in 1631, and practised successfully for several years. In 1632 he married Margaret Askew, with whom he had nine children, and resided at Swarthmoor Hall, near Ulverston, his paternal property. In 1641 he was placed on the commission of the peace for Lancashire, when some royalists were removed, and in the following year he was appointed one of the parliamentary sequestrators for the county.
Career.
In 1645, he was elected to parliament for the city of Lancaster. In the following year, on the newly remoulded section of the local church, his name appears on the list of laymen for the presbytery of Furness. In 1648, Oliver Cromwell named him a commissioner for the safety of the county, and in 1649 he was nominated vice-chancellor of the duchy and attorney for the county palatine. From 1650–1 he was chosen as bencher of Gray's Inn, and is recorded as being at that time a judge of assize for the Chester and North Wales circuit.
Fell was considered a leading puritan in the district of Furness, and practised hospitality with his wife's assistance. When, during his absence on circuit in 1652, the family was converted by George Fox, Fell hastened home and was met by Fox, who explained his doctrines. Although Fell never embraced Quakerism, he granted the use of Swarthmoor Hall for friends to meet in, and frequently sat in an adjoining room with the door open, so as to afford them the protection of his presence. His wife said, "He was very loving to Friends."
In 1652 he worked the northern circuit with President John Bradshaw. In 1653 he was, with certain other justices, directed to prevent royalists landing or gathering in Cumberland or Lancashire, and at the end of that year he was, with Bradshaw, appointed a commissioner for reviving the duchy jurisdiction at Westminster. In 1654, he was appointed one of the commissioners for keeping the seal of the county of Lancaster.
From a letter written to him by Thomas Aldam in 1654, it appears that his favouritism toward Quakers made him unpopular; but in 1655 he was directed to proceed to London to determine cases in the duchy court at Westminster. For several years before his death, Fell withdrew from parliamentary life, disapproving of the Protector's assumption of authority in civil and religious matters. Although Cromwell is believed to have made several overtures to him, he still declined to take any active part in the government.
Personal.
He died at Swarthmoor on 8 October 1658, and was buried in Ulverston Church by torchlight. The record of his burial states that he was chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster. He left one son and seven daughters, one of whom, Sarah Fell, a Quaker minister, was noted not only for her beauty, but also for her eloquence and knowledge of Hebrew. She married one Mead. By his will Fell founded the Town Bank Grammar School at Ulverston, and left other legacies to the poor.


Plebiscito.eu

Plebiscito.eu, originally known as Plebiscite 2013 (, P2013), is a supposedly cross-party nonpartisan committee that campaigns for the independence of Veneto from Italy. Its main leaders have been Lodovico Pizzati, a former secretary of Venetian Independence (IV), one of the most active Venetist-separatist parties so far, and Gianluca Busato, who came to regional prominence in March 2014 as the main organiser of the "plebiscito", an online referendum on independence.
History.
Background and formation.
The committee is part of a long-time effort started in November 2012 with the endorsement by the Regional Council of Veneto of resolution 44/2012 on the self-determination of the Venetian people through a referendum. In April 2013 Stefano Valdegamberi, a regional councillor of the Union of the Centre and later of Popular Future, introduced a bill (342/2013) in order to call a referendum on independence by the end of the year. By 7 June the bill was endorsed by more than 15 regional councillors, sufficient to convene a special session of the Council on the issue. Also several municipal councils endorsed the bill.
In June 2013 Pizzati formed a joint separatist cartel with Valdegamberi of Popular Future (FP), Antonio Guadagnini of Veneto State (VS), Fabrizio Comencini of Liga Veneta Repubblica (LVR), other Venetist groups, associations and individuals. Subsequently, on 7 July, Pizzati launched P2013, which has since been endorsed by politicians from different parties, activists, intellectuals, professionals and entrepreneurs. They notably included Franco Rocchetta, founder and early leader of Liga Veneta (and former federal president of Lega Nord), who returned to active politics after virtually 20 years of absence from the political scene.
The birth of P2013 caused a rift within IV as some members, led by president Luca Azzano Cantarutti, rejected Pizzati's initiative and formed Let Veneto Decide, which was endorsed by Valdegamberi, VS, LVR, "Raixe Venete", Veneto First, Independentist Youth, other Venetist groups and individuals (see article).
In October P2013 launched Veneto Business, a platform for separatist entrepreneurs, in partnership with Business for Scotland.
Online referendum on independence.
In November P2013 launched "Plebiscito.eu", an online referendum to be held in each and every municipality of Veneto on 16 February 2014. The leadership of the initiative was taken by Gianluca Busato, a software entrepreneur and long-time Venetist activist, whose firm powered the digital consultation.
The vote, with no official recognition, was later postponed and took place from 16 to 21 March 2014.
According to "Plebiscito.eu"'s staff, 2.36 million Venetians (63.2% of all eligible voters) participated in the online referendum and 89.1% of them (that is to say 56.6% of all eligible voters) voted yes. This was enough for P2013 to proclaim Veneto's independence from Italy in Treviso on the night of 21 March.
In the poll, ten "delegates for independence" were elected too: Gianluca Busato was the preferred candidate with 135,306 votes, followed by Stefano Vescovi (48,320), Selena Veronese (46,947), Silvia Gandin (43,025), Lodovico Pizzati (25,731), Gianfranco Favaro (16,670), Raffaele Serafini (16,627), Manuel Carraro (16,627), Gianluca Panto (16,321) and Paolo Bernardini (16,299). Finally, voters were asked to express their opinion on three "foreign policy issues", where Veneto to become independent: adoption of the Euro (supported by 51.4% of voters), accession to European Union membership (supported by 55.7% of voters) and accession to NATO membership (supported by 64.5% of voters); turnout was however much lower for these three questions (24.6%, 22.3% and 19.8%, respectively).
The reliability of these results was contested by a number of analysts, while some pollsters confirmed Venetians' support of independence (see here).
Aftermath of the referendum.
The day after the referendum, Busato announced that the separatist process generated by the referendum was to be led by Veneto Yes, which would be transformed "from committee for yes to independence to a political organisation which will defend the results obtained with the declaration of independence".
P2013, whose goal was reached, was basically supplanted by "Plebiscito.eu", engaged in the "structuring of the Venetian Republic", and Veneto Yes.
According to "Plebiscito.eu", the self-proclaimed "Venetian Republic" has two "legitimate organs": the "Delegation of Ten", comprising the aforementioned elects, and the "Treasury". The latter was established with the self-styled "Decree 2/2014 of the Venetian Republic", issued by the Delegation of Ten on 22 April, and was initially composed by Cristiano Zanin (treasurer), Stefano Venturato (counselor), Gianfranco Favaro (counselor) and Lodovico Pizzati (consultant).
In September 2014 "Plebiscito.eu" and the "Venetian Republic" experienced an internal reshuffle, which brought to the abandonment of leading roles by several founding members of the committee, notably including Pizzati, Zanin, Gianluca Panto, Manuel Carraro and Giovanni Dalla-Valle. The latter, along with Franco Rocchetta and Andrea Arman, distanced from the Venetist organisation over disagreements with the Delegation of Ten.
In March 2015 "Plebiscito.eu" organised an "election of the Provisional Parliament of the Venetian Republic". A large majority of the elects were VS members.


William Boteler

William Boteler ("fl." 1640s and 1650s) was a member of the Parliament of England. After the English Civil War, he was appointed Major-General for Bedfordshire, Huntingdonshire, Northamptonshire and Rutland during the Rule of the Major-Generals.
Early life.
He was born in Barnwell, Northamptonshire, the son of Noel or Neville Boteler; Ivan Roots considers that the clergyman Edward Boteler (died 1670) was his brother.
Political career.
In April 1640, Boteler was elected MP for Bedford in the Short Parliament in a double return and was taken off. He became a Colonel of Horse (cavalry) in the New Model Army. He was zealous and uncompromising in his hostility to his religious and political enemies, and was a severe persecutor of Quakers in Northamptonshire. In 1656 he advocated that James Nayler should be stoned to death for blasphemy. Boteler was also aggressive in his persecution of Royalists in his area, unlawfully imprisoning the Earl of Northampton for failing to pay his taxes.
Boteler represented Bedford in the First Protectorate Parliament, and he represented Northamptonshire in the Second Protectorate Parliament from 1656 to 1658. Early in 1658, Boteler replaced William Packer as commander of Cromwell's regiment of horse.
Legal problems.
Boteler was not returned to Third Protectorate Parliament in 1659, and his record as a Major-General in Northamptonshire, et al., was severely attacked, he was nearly impeached, by MPs in that Parliament. At the Restoration he was declared "exempt from pardon", making him liable for legal punishment, but he was not prosecuted. He lived at Oatlands Park, Walton-on-Thames and became a lawyer. In 1665, he was arrested on suspicion of plotting against Charles II, and, ironically, was arrested in 1670 for attending an unlawful prayer meeting. The date of his death is not known.


Service class people

Service class people or sluzhilyye lyudi () were the free people in Russia in the 14th to the 17th centuries, obliged to perform military or administrative service on behalf of the state.
Categories.
There were two main groups of service people:
In Siberia.
In early Siberia, service-men and "promyshlenik"s were the two main classes of the Russian population. Service-men were nominally servants of the tsar, had certain legal rights and duties and could expect pay if they were lucky. "Promyshlenik"s were free men who made their living any way they could.
A minor group were sworn-men ("tseloval'niki", literally [cross or bible] 'kissers'). These men swore an oath and gained certain rights and duties.
In practice the groups blended into each other, and the distinction was most important when dealing with the government. When petitioning the tsar, a service-man would call himself 'your slave' and a promishlenik 'your orphan'. These people were often called Cossacks, but only in the loose sense of being neither landowners nor peasants.


Union of Albanian Women

Union of Albanian Women was an important mass organization in socialist Albania. The union was headed in 1990 by Lumturie Rexha, a member of the Central Committee of the Party of Labour of Albania. Its tasks mobilizing the political and social activities of the country's women, handling their ideological training, and leading the campaign for the emancipation of women. This campaign, initiated in 1966 by Hoxha, had considerable success in securing equal social and political rights for women. As part of the campaign, women from the cities were dispatched to rural regions to explain to the party's line on the role of women. By the late-1980s, women accounted for 47 percent of the labor force and about 30 percent of deputies to the People's Assembly. Women held responsible jobs at all levels of government and received equal pay in most jobs.
As with other mass organizations and associations during the time period, it was affiliated with the Democratic Front.


History of the Jews in Croatia

The history of the Jews in Croatia dates back to at least the 3rd century, although little is known of the community until the 10th and 15th centuries. By the outbreak of World War II, the community numbered approximately 20,000 members, most of whom were murdered during the Holocaust that took place on the territory of the Nazi puppet state called Independent State of Croatia. After World War II, half of the survivors chose to settle in Israel, while an estimated 2,500 members continued to live in Croatia. According to the 2011 census, there were 509 Jews living in Croatia, but that number is believed to exclude those born of mixed marriages or those married to non-Jews. More than 80 percent of the Zagreb Jewish Community were thought to fall in those two categories.
Today, Croatia is home to eight synagogues and associated organizations, located in Zagreb, Rijeka, Osijek, Split, Dubrovnik, Čakovec, Daruvar, Slavonski Brod. Of these, the Zagreb community is the largest and most active, organizing events such as the annual Zagreb Jewish Film Festival to promote Jewish culture and identity.
History of the community.
Ancient community.
Jewish traders and merchants first arrived in what is now northern Croatia in the first centuries of the Common Era, when Roman law allowed free movement throughout the Empire. Archaeological excavations in Osijek reveal a synagogue dating to the 3rd century AD, and an excavation in Solin discovered Jewish graves from the same period. A Jewish community in Split was found to have also emerged in the 3rd century. In the 7th century Jews sought refuge in Diocletian's Palace after the Dalmatian capital Salona was overrun by the Avars. A synagogue was built into the western wall of the palace in the 16th century, and descendants of the Salona refugees are still living in the area.
Early Middle Ages.
One of the oldest written sources, which could indicate the presence of Jews on Croatian territory, comes from the letter of the vizier Hasdai ibn Shaprut, which was sent to King Joseph of the Khazars. This letter from the 10th century refers to the "King of the Gebalim - Slavs", see the article Miholjanec, whose country borders the country of the Hungarians. The King sent a delegation, which included "Mar (Aramaic:"Lord") Shaul and Mar Joseph", to the Caliph Abd-ar-Rahman III of Córdoba. Delegates reported that "mar" Hisdai Amram came to the Khazar king's palace from the country where the "Gebalim" lived. In Hebrew "gebal" means "mountain". Hungarian sources reported, that a vineyard near Miholjanec was named "master of the mountain". Croatia is also represented as a country of "Gebalim" in a letter of Bishop Gauderich addressed to Anastasius as a co-author of the legend of Cherson in the 9th century.
Late Middle Ages.
The Jewish communities of Croatia flourished in the 13th and 14th centuries, with the communities enjoying prosperity and peaceful relations with their Croatian neighbors.
This ended in 1456, when Jews, along with most non-Catholic Croats, were forced out. There followed 200 years where there are no records of Jews in Croatia. In those 200 years Jews from Croatia were usually on diplomatic missions to Bosnia on behalf of the Republic of Venice.
Arrival of the Spanish Refugees.
The 15th century saw increasing persecution of Jews in areas of Spain retaken in the Reconquista. From 1492 onward, Jewish refugees fleeing the Spanish and Portuguese Inquisitions arrived in Ottoman territories, including the Balkan provinces of Macedonia and Bosnia. Some of these refugees found their way to Croatia, in particular to Split and Dubrovnik, on the Dalmatian coast.
Habsburg rule.
In the 17th century, Jews were still not permitted to settle in northern Croatia. Jews traveled to Croatia as traveling merchants, mostly from neighboring Hungary. They were generally permitted to stay only a few days. In the early part of the century, the Croatian Parliament ("Sabor") confirmed its ban on permanent settlement when a Jewish family attempted to settle in Đurđevac.
In 1753, although still officially banned, Jews were allowed to settle in Bjelovar, Koprivnica and Varaždin, by General Beck, the military commander of the Varaždin region. In order to streamline the treatment of Jews in Croatia, Count Franjo Patačić, by order of the Royal Office in Varaždin, wrote a comprehensive report advocating Jewish permanent residence in Croatia on the basis that "most of them are merchants, and trade makes towns flourish".
The prohibition against Jewish settlement in northern Croatia lasted until 1783, until the 1782 Edict of Tolerance issued by the Habsburg Monarch Emperor Joseph II went into effect. Jews were subsequently allowed to settle in Croatia, but were not allowed to own land or engage in any trade protected by a guild, and were not allowed to work in agriculture. Despite these measures, Jews settled in Zagreb and Varaždin.
In 1840, the Sabor (parliament) voted to "gradually" allow full equality for the Jews, and over the next 33 years there was gradual progress.
In 1867 the new Zagreb Great Synagogue was inaugurated and Rabbi Dr. Hosea Jacobi became Chief Rabbi of Zagreb. In 1873, Ivan Mažuranić signed the decree allowing for the full legal equality of Jews and, as with other faiths, state funds were made available for community institutions.
By 1880, there were 13,488 Jews in Croatia, rising to 20,032 by 1900. At the beginning of the 20th century, there were 21 Jewish communities in Croatia, the largest being in Zagreb (3,000 people) and Osijek (3,000 people). The Jewish community of Croatia became highly successful and integrated. By 1900, 54% of Zagreb Jews and 35% of all Croatian Jews spoke Croatian as their mother tongue. Despite their small numbers, Jews were disproportionately represented in industrial and wholesale business in Croatia, and in the timber and food industries. Several Jewish families were amongst Croatia's wealthiest families. Despite the apparent wealth, most Jews were middle class, and many second generation Croatian Jews were attracted to the fields of law and medicine.
World War I.
World War I brought about the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and upheaval for the Jewish communities of the region. After the war, Croatia joined with Slovenia, Serbia which included Vardar Macedonia and Montenegro, and Bosnia and Herzegovina to form the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.
Prior to World War II, the Croatian, and especially the Zagreb Jewish community, was the preeminent community of Yugoslavia. In 1940 there were about 11,000 Jews living in Zagreb: about 76% were Ashkenazi Jews, 5% Sephardi Jews, 17% unaffiliated and the remainder being religious.
The Holocaust.
On 25 March 1941, Prince Paul of Yugoslavia, an ethnic Serb, signed Yugoslavia's alliance with the Axis Powers under the Tripartite Pact. The decision was unpopular in many parts of the country, and massive demonstrations took place in the Yugoslav capital, Belgrade. Prince Paul was overthrown, and a new government under Peter II and Dušan Simović took power. The new government withdrew its support for the Axis but did not repudiate the Tripartite Pact. Nevertheless, Axis forces, led by Nazi Germany, invaded Yugoslavia on April 6, 1941.
With Germany and Italy's support, the Croatian ultra-nationalist Ustaše movement came to power in the newly established puppet state called the Independent State of Croatia (NDH). The Ustaše were notoriously antisemitic, and wasted little time in instituting anti-Jewish legislation and persecuting the Jews under their control. Indeed, NDH Interior Minister Andrija Artuković said in 1941 upon the proclamation of racial laws: "The Government of NDH shall solve the Jewish question in the same way as the German Government did". Already in April 1941, the Ustaše and Volksdeutche burned the synagogue and destroyed the Jewish cemetery in Osijek, while the Ustaše mayor of Zagreb, Ivan Werner, ordered the destruction of the main Zagreb synagogue, which was completely razed in 1942The Ustaše set up a number of concentration camps with the most notorious being Jasenovac in which 20,000 Jews were murdered.
During the Holocaust, a total of 29–31,000 Jews in the NDH were killed, around 75% by the Ustaše and around 25% by the Germans. This constituted 79 percent of the country's pre-war Jewish population, including 20,000 of the 23,000-25,000 Croatian Jews. Only 5,000 Croatian Jews survived the war, most as soldiers in Josip Broz Tito's National Liberation Army or as exiles in the Italian-occupied zone. After Italy capitulated to the Allied Powers, the surviving Jews lived in free Partisan territory.
When Yugoslavia was liberated in 1945, Croatia became part of the new Yugoslav federation, which eventually became the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
Post-war community.
After 1945, atheism became the official policy of Yugoslavia and Croatia, and because of this there were no rabbis in Croatia until the mid-1990s. Most Croatian Jews identified as Yugoslavs, or as Serbs or Croats. After the founding of Israel, about half of the survivors renounced their Yugoslav citizenship as a prerequisite for leaving the country and acquiring Israeli citizenship. Those who opted to leave for Israel signed a document by which they left all property, land, and other unmovable property to Yugoslavia.
The post-war Jewish community of Croatia became highly assimilated, with 80% of Zagreb's 1,500 Jews either born into mixed marriages, or married to non-Jews. In 1991, there were approximately 2,000 Jews in Croatia.
Twenty-first century.
The 2001 Croatian census listed only 495 Jews, with 323 in Zagreb. Approximately 20 Jews lived in each of Primorje-Gorski Kotar County, Osijek and Dubrovnik.
The Jewish community in Croatia is organized into ten Jewish "municipalities" () in the cities of Čakovec, Daruvar, Dubrovnik, Koprivnica, Osijek, Rijeka, Slavonski Brod, Split, Virovitica, Zagreb. Since 2005, Zagreb also has a separate Jewish organization named "Bet Israel", formed by a splinter group in the original organization led by Ivo Goldstein and others. A Chabad organization is also registered in Zagreb and held most Jewish activities around the year.
Jews are officially recognized as an autonomous national minority, and as such, they elect a special representative to the Croatian Parliament, shared with members of eleven other national minorities.
Regional communities.
Dalmatia.
The Jewish communities of the Croatian coast of Dalmatia date back to the 14th century CE. A letter from 1326 refers to a Jewish doctor in Dubrovnik. The community remained small throughout the years (100-330 members), although the community distinguished itself in trade and medicine. The community was augmented from 1421 by refugees fleeing increasing persecution in Spain, and then from 1492 as Jews fled the Spanish and Portuguese Inquisitions.
The Jewish synagogue in Split is more than 500 years old and is the third oldest active synagogue in Europe. Except for a brief period during WW2 the synagogue has been in continuous use since it was established. Although there is no rabbi in Split, the 100-member strong community conducts regular Friday evening Shabbat services (the Jewish sabbath) and a kosher meal is prepared and served to all who come. The synagogue is open every day from 9 am until around 2 pm for tours. Although the interior of the synagogue was restored in 1996 the interior is from the 18th and 19th Centuries.
Antisemitism, based on the attitudes of the Catholic Church and on Venetian law (which applied at the time), was a constant issue for the community, which lived in ghettos in Dubrovnik and Split. When Dalmatia was occupied by Napoleonic forces, the Jews attained legal equality for the first time. In 1814, when the Austrian Empire annexed Dalmatia, legal equality was again withdrawn. Jews were granted legal equality under Croatian law in the mid 19th century.


Robot Patent

The Robot Patent is an English-language scholarly term for the imperial decrees (patents) in the 1700s abolishing compulsory labor (robot) of serfs, issued by Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor, who had carried out a register of all land with a division between peasant and noble holdings.
Joseph II outlawed the buying of 'rustic' land by the nobility and at the same time giving the rusticalists security of tenure. His motive was to prevent the increase in 'dominical' land, which paid fewer taxes to the government. This led to the survival of the peasantry, with rustic land still having the robot. In 1789 it was abolished by Joseph II, but Leopold II restored it when his brother Joseph II died in 1790. The abolition of the Robot during the Revolutions of 1848 broke the last legal tie which held the peasants to the land, and was seen as a great victory by the peasants.
When the Robot was ended, the landlords had no interest in keeping peasantry to the soil. The smaller peasants sold their land and moved into the cities. The larger landlords could now run their great estates more economically. However the small gentry were ruined; they could not run estates even with the robot compensation as it was far too little, in contrast with Hungarian nobles who owned mills, paper factories, and coal mines, all gained by the much larger compensation paid to them.


History of the Jews in Jamaica

The history of the Jews in Jamaica predominantly dates back to migrants from Spain and Portugal, as well as migrants from France and United Kingdom. Starting in 1309, many Jews began fleeing from Spain because of the persecution of the Holy Inquisition. When the English captured Jamaica from Spain in 1655, the Jews who were living as conversos began to practice Judaism openly. By 1611, the Island of Jamaica had reached an estimated population of 1,500 people. An estimated 75 of those people were described as "foreigners," which may have included some Portuguese Jews. Still, many Jews faced persecution from English merchants.
History on Jews.
The first Jews came to the island during the Spanish occupation of the Island, 1494–1655.
They came from Spain and Portugal, having fled the Spanish Inquisition. During the Spanish Inquisition, the Spanish government required the Jews to leave the country or convert to Catholicism. The punishment for disobedience was death. To conceal their identity they referred to themselves as "Portuguese" or "Spanish" and practiced their religion secretly. At the time of the British conquest of the island in 1655, General Robert Venables recorded the presence of many "Portuguese" in Jamaica. Details pertaining to how many times or any of these Portuguese were Jews or New Christians is unknown. Also, it is unclear how many of these possible New Christians converted to Judaism. The Portuguese on the island were often persecuted by the Spanish and so many helped the English with their invasion. The Jews were allowed to remain after the conquest and began to practice their religion openly. They were granted British citizenship by Oliver Cromwell, which was confirmed in 1660 by King Charles II of England. For many Jews, Jamaica became a safe place they could live in without fear of persecution. Jews from Amsterdam, Bordeaux, and Bayonne moved to Jamaica, mostly residing in Port Royal. Port Royal even had what was called a Jew Street.
Abraham Blauvelt was a Dutch-Jewish pirate, privateer, and explorer of Central America and the western Caribbean, after whom the towns of Bluefields, Nicaragua, and Bluefields, Jamaica, were both named.
In 1719, the synagogue Kahal Kadosh Neve Tsedek was built. It was originally planned to turn Jamaica into an agricultural powerhouse, but this plan failed. However, for local merchants, Port Royal became a successful center for trade. Port Royal became an attractive place to trade commodities such as gold, silver, porcelain, embroidery, and silk. The Jews participated as well, particularly in the trade of silver and gold, and in money-changing. This success, however, led to a backlash. English merchants accused the Jews of coin clipping, a method of shaving off precious metal from money and putting it back into circulation at face value. The English merchants accusations occurred many times. This resentment led to the coalition of a Legislative Council that represented English merchants and planters in 1691. For example, the Council petitioned to the Royal Government that the Jews were evading taxes. Some have found these accusations to be false or exaggerated because the Jews did not play a large role in the economics of Port Royal.
In 1815, a fire nearly destroyed all of Port Royal. Many Jews left Port Royal for another Jamaican town called Kingston, where a new economy was flourishing with commercial success. The Jews in Kingston provided four Mayors, many Justices of Peace, members of Parliament, and countless builders, dentists, doctors, teachers, lawyers, and actors. The community of Ashkenazi Jews in Kingston were called "The English and German Congregation." In 1787, they built a synagogue called Shangare Yosher. There had been an Ashkenazi synagogue in the nineteenth century called Rodphei Zadek, but it was later united with a Sephardic congregation in 1850. By 1720, 18 percent of the population of Kingston was Jewish. For the most part, Jews practiced Orthodox rituals and customs. The Jewish population was also part of the slave owning class and owned Black slaves, who were sometimes bequeathed to their synagogues in their wills.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, the Jewish population began introducing Progressive Judaism into their rituals. Progressive Judaism had a combination of reform and conservative rituals. Since the Inquisition made its way to many parts of the New World, Jamaica offered a type of haven for the Jews. The Jews in Jamaica felt at peace with life even though they still faced certain restrictions such as not being able to vote or hold office. In 1826, however, free people of color were on track to gain equal rights to others in Jamaica, and the Jewish community noticed the possible threat of being the only group in Jamaica without voting rights.
Thus, the Jews decided to fight for their right through petitions to the English government. They attained full political rights in 1831. The status of British citizenship enabled ownership of property by the Jews.
This victory proved to be significant not just for the Jews of Jamaica but also elsewhere. In 1832, Jews in London used the victory in Jamaica as reasoning for their own rights to such freedoms. That same year in Canada, a similar story unfolded as Jews were granted same political rights as their Christian counterparts.
Jamaica's Jewish population was never large. However, their contribution to the economic and commercial life of the nation has been significant.
Modern times.
Only 506 people are religiously practicing Jews in Jamaica and most Jews have migrated out of Jamaica. While many are non-practicing, it is recorded that over 2,000 Jamaicans religiously identify as Jews.
Common Jewish surnames in Jamaica with mostly Portuguese origin are Abrahams, Alexander, Andrade, Barrett, Babb, Bent, Carvalho, Codner, DeCosta, De La Roche, Da Silva, De Souza, De Cohen, De Leon, Delisser, DeMercado, Eben, Fuertado, Henriques, Ibanez, Isaacs, Levy, Levell, Lindo, Lyon, Machado, Marish, Matalon, Mendes, Myers, Magnus, Nunes, Pimentel, Rodriques, Sangster. Some of these surnames were then made to sound more English, in order to 'blend' with the newly arrived British. An example would be De La Roche being changed to Roach(e) and Eben /Ibanez changed to Ebanks.
The Chabad-Lubavitch movement opened a branch in Jamaica in 2014 servicing locals as well as a welcome centre for international visitors.
Institutions.
The Shaare Shalom Synagogue in Kingston, first built in 1885, was the only synagogue in the country until 2014 when Chabad opened the second synagogue in Montego Bay. The congregation has their own siddur, blending together Spanish-Portuguese tradition and British Liberal and American Reform liturgy. The Hillel Academy, a private school founded by the Jewish community, today is non-denominational but still serves as a meeting place for the children of the Jewish community. A Jamaican Jewish Heritage Center opened in 2006 in celebration of 350 years of Jews living in Jamaica. At least 21 Jewish cemeteries also exist in the country.


Elections in Switzerland

Elections in Switzerland gives information on election and election results in Switzerland.
Background.
Switzerland elects on national level a collective head of state, the Federal Council, and a legislature, the Federal Assembly.
The Federal Assembly ("Bundesversammlung/Assemblée fédérale/Asamblea Federale/Assemblea Federala") has two chambers. The National Council ("Nationalrat/Conseil National/Consiglio Nazionale/Cussegl Naziunal") has 200 members, elected for a four-year term by proportional representation in multi-seat constituencies, the cantons. The Council of States ("Ständerat/Conseil des Etats/Consiglio degli Stati/Cussegl dals Stadis") has 46 members, elected for four years in 20 multi-seat and 6 single-seat constituencies which are equal to the 26 cantons and half-cantons.
One of the members of the Federal Council assumes the honorific title of President of the Confederation for a one-year term.
Elections to the National Council conclude on the penultimate Sunday of October. In most cantons, the first round of the election for the Council of States is held alongside the National Council election, while runoff stages are held 3 to 6 weeks later. The new Federal Assembly takes office at the start of the following year.
Switzerland has a multi-party system with numerous parties. A world-unique characteristic of Switzerland is that all the executives, from federal to municipal level, are plural and often include members from all main parties.
Federal elections.
Latest elections.
see 2019 Swiss federal election


List of massacres in Ukraine

This is a list of massacres in Ukraine.


Dynatoi

The dynatoi (, "the powerful") was a legal term in the Byzantine Empire used from the 10th century on, denoting the senior levels of civil, military and ecclesiastic (including monastic) officialdom, who usually, but not always, also commanded considerable fortunes and landed estates. Although such positions were not usually hereditary, by the late 10th and early 11th centuries they had started to become monopolized by a limited number of families who by the mid-11th century formed a hereditary aristocracy.
Although the exact composition of the "dynatoi" class has been the subject of considerable scholarly debate (cf. Lemerle), in economic terms, it encompassed the wealthy land-owners as opposed to the middling and small landowners, the "penetes" (πένητες). The former were usually members of military families, who had been able to use their influence to grab up the extensive lands that had been abandoned, especially in Asia Minor, as the result of the invasions of the 7th and 8th centuries. As the Empire's military position recovered from the 9th century on, these lands became profitable again, and major provincial magnate families began to appear. Among the main examples are the Phokades and the Maleinoi, who almost monopolized the senior administrative and military posts in Asia Minor in the early and middle 10th century. The "dynatoi" were able to use their political and financial strength to enrich themselves at the expense of the "penetes", who had hitherto formed the main pillar of Byzantine society and economy. Consequently, several emperors from Romanos I Lekapenos (reigned 920–944) to Basil II (r. 976–1025) enacted agrarian legislation to combat the activities of the "dynatoi", and to prevent their acquisition of the "stratiotika ktemata", the military lands allocated to the maintenance of the thematic armies. Basil II in particular showed care to check the "dynatoi" through the imposition of the "allelengyon" ("mutual guarantee") tax, making them liable to pay the taxes of their poorer neighbours.
In the event, these efforts failed due to the rise of the provincial aristocracy, represented by the Komnenos dynasty, to power: in the 12th century, large "latifundia" spread throughout the countryside at the expense of smaller communities. The influence of the "dynatoi" reached its apogee in the Palaiologan period (1261–1453), and was marked by a concomitant decline in the authority of the central state government.