FOLLOWING THE EUROPEAN UNION

Nimh,

Thanks very much for the comprehensive and likely astute (I'm no expert) tour of the European political scene.

Several of the social and economic phenomena which you so well described are happening here as well, as employment shifts from manufacturing to services and the IT & biotech industries. Both parties here have tried to capture the 'new undecideds' with, I think, about equal success. A good deal of the public spending for which Bush is so frequently criticized is for the support of slightly diluted Democrat programs which he has pushed, I believe, as part of a strategy to capture their centrist voters and take their election issues off the table. So far he has been moderately successful in this, and has reduced our "left wing" party to hand wringing about the deficit, something never before done by Democrats.

Interesting to note the descriptions of the European radical left parties, generally comprising no more than 8% of the electorate. We too have our fringe elements - Socialists, Libertarians, etc. Generally they get less than 5% of the vote in Presidential elections. However every now and then a third party comes along. Even a mean little bastard like Ross Perot could get about 20% of the vote in the 1992 Presidential election, very likely the decisive factor in Clinton's first victory.

I believe the American electorate has long been a good deal more conservative than that in Europe. We don't share the social democrat revolutionary spirit (if that is the right phrase) that has animated the parties of the left in Europe since the mid 19th century. While we have more or less the same set of social and economic challenges we approach them differently, taking often timid half steps towards government social programs, instead of more comprehensive and (in some cases) more rational and self consistent whole ones. Americans are (justifiably I think) suspicious of government and generally believe that, with that commodity, less is generally better than more. Overall I suspect our social system is less fair & equitable than those in Europe, but more adaptable and better suited to competitive circumstances.

born follower reporting in

Liar ! You just feel bad because you tried to knock me around.

Yes, I am always disproportionally interested in fringe groups like that. And let me first add that in that bit of my post I only focused on the "red" far left - those who jumped into the void the communists left. But squeezed in between them and the Socialdemocrats are also still the various Green parties. France, Germany, Holland, Sweden, Finland and Italy all have both a socialist/(ex-)communist party and a Green party to the left of the Socialists/Socialdemocrats - both pulling in 3-8% of the vote. That makes the Socialdemocrats often look pretty centrist.

I also think it's important to distinguish between 1%-groups, 3%-groups and 7%-groups, say. If you're in a country that doesnt have PR, it may all seem small fry, in any case. But I'm at least as interested in election results for what they say about the sociological make-up of a country as for whatever actual political impact. And a 7%-party really - if it lasts for over the one election cycle - means something else than a 2%-one.

Consider this. It's not like back with the communists, when there were working class neighbourhoods in Amsterdam and villages up in the Groningen peat lands where they polled over 50%, but still, with just 6% of the vote nationally the Socialists are the biggest or second biggest party in a number of towns. The German PDS, the ex-communists, have at times been second biggest in a number of states, I believe. I live in a part of town where the Green Left is the biggest party, at least in local elections, even if nationally it only polls 6 or 7%. I'd wager a bet that at least two out of three of my friends and (close) family vote Green. Together, the Socialists and Greens pull in something like a quarter of the vote in cities like Amsterdam or Utrecht. These are veritable political subcultures.

In comparison, American Greens or Libertarians are different stuff. Nader got 0,7% and 2,7%, respectively, in the presidentials; the Libertarians never got over 1,1% - and that was over 20 years ago. I'm sure there's interesting results in Madison, Wisconsin (and what is it with those towns near Duluth on the Lake Superior-coast?), but I've trekked down the net some times to find out whether there's at least third-party city councillors etc in the States, and it seems there's really hardly anything. Some erratic stuff about the New Party, and a progressive list with a long tradition in San Francisco. There's Bernie Saunders of course, the lone Socialist Congressman from Vermont - but the last time any Socialist polled over 0,5% in the presidentials was in the thirties. You used to have the Progressives - now that was a party that constituted a strongly locally rooted subculture. Nowadays there's just Perot and Ventura.

Those are different, I think. The Reform Party never really caught on as a party, did it? The whole thing remained very much based on Perot himself - a one-person-vehicle, with only the vaguest of socio-political outlines. There's not a lot of "Reform" people or communities out there, I dont think. That phenomenon is not unknown here, either - Belgium had Van Rossem, the populist businessman, Spain had a businessman who went into politics primarily to stay out of jail (and succeeded, I believe), and there's been a bunch of parties like that in Eastern Europe. But they come and go and leave no trace 'on the ground', attracting a bunch of floating voters that then float on again.

I find these small parties with a solid following much more interesting because they exist as real-life (sub)cultures outside the virtual reality of the election campaign as well. Of course there's a lot of to-and-fro - each election cycle, half of the Green Left voters are new, mostly crossing over from (and later back to) Labour. But its also got a rapid rising number of members. As for the Socialists, they've been the fourth-biggest party in terms of membership for I think a decade now - and those people are fierce. Even if you no longer have to pass a panel before you are allowed in, loyalty is still such that Socialist city councillors and aldermen give all the money they earn to the party. Its on points like this that I am just agag about France and its Trotskyites, for example. Ten percent of the vote! That means there must be entire towns where, say, one in five votes Trotskyite. Neighbourhoods where they are the biggest party. Who are these people? It's no freak occurrence - Lutte Ouvriere has been increasing its initially derisory percentage steadily over a decade or two. Most intriguing.

I've been in one physical fight in my life, and I lost, to a girl.

The contention has been aired, by local people who don't have enough to do in life, that whatever allotment of aggression god gave me, is of the passive variety. A claim pregnant with meaning, as we both know.

Well, of course, it is easy enough to make the speaker of such a charge feel really quite uncertain that he ought to have made it at all, and we watch him back out of the room. But, I'm hardly that sort of person, as we both know.

Blatham,

I was referring to your rhetorical intent. It's my story and I'm sticking to it. And as we both know, I am no more a martinet than you are a bully. (Though I did like the concept of the Thatcher clone factory).

Nimh,

It is interesting to note some of the differences in the structure of political parties between Europe and the United States. Some naturally arise out of the Parliamentary systems that prevail in Europe - they lend themselves far more to multi-party situations, with the attendant coalitions, than does our Presidential/Congressional system. Our system in many ways is structurally tuined to a two-party system. In such a system, it is neither easy nor advantageous to define the parties so narrowly around certain issues or groups of issues as, perhaps, do the various commuinist, green, social democrat, Christian democrat, Conservative etc. parties in Europe.

Our system probably does less well in representing public views directly in the organizations of the various political parties. On the other hand it (in its best moments) does create a bias towards pragmatic, as opposed to doctrinal, solutions to major political issues.

Our political discourse in the U.S. often degenerates to mere sloganeering that trivializes often complex issues. I don't know to what extent that is also true in Europe, but I would be surprised if it was much better thare, given the natures of politics and people.

The internal strength and loyalties you described in European political parties appears much stronger than what prevails here. This may explain some of the persistence of very small fringe parties. What motivates people to such enduring loyalties is beyond me. That 10% of the French vote for a Trotskyite party surprises me no more than does the persistent insularity and mean spirited character of that rather odd nation. (Perhaps they are too much like us.)

But this seems to happen in two-party-systems as well.


Beisdes, I think that European political parties are more "member-focued" than the US-parties. (Which certainly is one aspect of that said loyalism.)

You may have correctly identified the difference, Walter. Certainly party loyalty among Americans has diminished greatly over the last several decades.

Here party membership numbers kept falling and falling throughout the 80s and 90s, too. Especially Labour and, slightly less, the Christian Democrats suffered greatly. But its true that the numbers (especially of those two parties) started falling from what was initially quite a high percentage of "enrollment". The liberal parties lost less members but they had much less members to begin with (individualists as they are . And as said, the Socialists consistently increased their membership with patient grassroots work.

Holland is perhaps among the most striking cases in Europe. The "pillarisation" system that characterised our society for a near-century up to the 60s involved a very high degree of organisation along party lines. Party membership itself was at 15% after WW2 and 12% in the late 50s, but aside from that there was the newspaper you read, the radio organisation you were a member of, the school, sports club and camping site you frequented - all strictly on the basis of political/religious affiliation ("pillar"). But the post-60s individualisation has, obviously, also been among the most drastic of its kind. In fact, according to this article, the fall in party membership #s was the sharpest of Europe and the level it ended at in the mid 90s (3%) the lowest.

But the remarkable thing here is that those numbers have sharply risen again these past two years, probably inspired by the turbulence around the right-wing populist Fortuyn and his death. All the parties gained members in 2002 and the first half of 2003. It was in particular - interestingly - the left that attracted many new members, in some kind of counter-reaction. Especially the Greens and the Socialists had their membership go up by 20-40% within a year.

Can stae the same for Germany as nimh did for the Netherlands - only that the left didn't get explicte more members (besides the newfounded Greens).

However, especially on local basis, we get/got a some dozens of newly founded "voter associations" (mostly right), who take advantage of the general disenchantment with politics.

Very interesting. In the states there are several shifts of party allegiance going on - the South is becoming Republican, and the liberal states of the northeast even more Democrat. Meanwhile the labor movement, which traditionally supports Democrats, is losing both members and relevance (most of its membership is now employees of the government). Increasing numbers of ethnic minorities, blacks, hispanics, and Jews are voting Republican. California, which has long been closely divided between liberals and conservatives, is emerging from a failed Democrat regime and it is as yet unclear (to me) which direction it will take.

Overall Bush is a polarizing figure driving both left and right farther towards their loyalties. At the same time his domestic policies are quite centrist - even similar to those of the Democrats (which drives them crazy). All of these shifts are real, but difficult to quantify. We are told that Gore will endorse Dean today for the Democrat Presidential nomination. It appears this will likely ensure that Dean wins this contest. I believe the result will be a big Bush victory in November.

Well, the situation here in Germany(and all over Europe) is 'unclear', because since a couple of years fewer and fewer people were going to the elections. (The non-voters are the biggest "party" in Germany and most other countries.)

Interestingly, most of those, who usually are thought to vote left/center-left stay at home, while the more conservative/right parties can mobilize their clientel more easily.

Well, perhaps there is still hope for the European American alliance.

Just checking in here to put this thread "on my radar" ... a real bummer about my exalted position within the oligarchic hierarchy here at A2K is that I find I spend more time patroling and policing, and increasingly, correspondingly, personally irritatingly, less time participating in exchanges of topical discussion. Sometimes, its sorta like driving through a region and seeing the sights as opposed to strolling through a neighborhood and engaging folks in discourse, if you know what I mean . In fact, this thread came to my attention pretty much due to that ( and, no, this isn't gonna be one of those "mind your manners" posts ).

Anywho, I do have some thoughts about The EU, its component states, its relationship to the UN and to global and US economies, and its prospects ( :wink: ). I'm gonna try to catch up on the previous couple hundred or so posts here, then join the conversation. To my inconvenience and dismay, however, the exigencies of patroling and policing prevail at present.

Ahhl be Bahhhck

Oh, and no need to extend condolences to me for my A2K-related inconveniences ... the fabulous pay, comprehensive benefits, generous expense account, and extravagant perks more than make it all worthwhile. Why, the stock option plan alone is the stuff of dreams.

PARIS A European Union deeply divided over a draft constitution appeared to drift farther apart Tuesday as France, Germany and Spain traded harsh words over the proposal three days before leaders are scheduled to meet in Brussels for a final round of negotiations..
President Jacques Chirac of France said he "cannot imagine" how Poland and Spain would block a deal on the constitution that is supported by the rest of the EU..
Spanish officials, meanwhile, distributed a document that accused members of using threats in their campaign to gain acceptance for the draft constitution, an apparent reference to Germany and France, which have hinted in the past that they could withhold funding for programs from which Spain would benefit if the constitution does not pass..
The continued hardening appears to reduce what many analysts consider the already slim chances that leaders will reach a deal during the final round of negotiations this weekend. The main question at the talks will be whether to reform the EU's voting system, which would result in a redistribution of power among member nations..
Chirac, speaking at a press conference in Paris with Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany, said he hoped for a successful outcome at the meeting "but I am not sure.".
"The chancellor and I will not accept a deal at any price and under any conditions," Chirac said. "We want a deal that is in line with the idea we have for the Europe of tomorrow and which conforms to the Europe that we built together.".
Chirac and Schröder have embarked on an energetic campaign to present a united front in the days before the meeting..
Standing side-by-side at a news conference, each leader frequently remarked "I have nothing to add" or simply "me, too" after the other spoke..
The two men are the most vocal supporters of the mathematical voting system that faces strong opposition from Spain and Poland. Both members would lose power under the proposal..
As a measure of how important the issue is for Poland, the country's prime minister, Leszek Miller, continued to lobby leaders from his Warsaw hospital bed after suffering back injuries in a helicopter crash last week..
A Polish government spokesman, Marcin Kaszuba, was quoted Tuesday by The Associated Press as saying that the prime minister would call Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain to seek support for its position..
On Tuesday, Spanish officials circulated a document laying out the arguments for maintaining the current voting system, concluding that a change would be "extremely negative" for Spain because its power to influence decisions would be "severely and adversely modified.".
The document leaves little room for negotiation and says that the constitutional convention that created the draft "lacked both legitimacy and a mandate" to decide on a new voting system. Spain was represented at the conference..
The document, which was prepared by a Spanish think tank in October and endorsed by the Spanish Foreign Affairs Ministry, says that under the new constitution the EU would in practice end up being governed by its four most populous members: Britain, France, Germany and Italy..
In defending the document, Chirac said that "one cannot imagine that one or two countries can block the progress for the rest." Schröder said he was traveling to Brussels "in the skin of an optimistic skeptic.".
But he also did not dismiss the idea of a Franco-German Union in the longer term, an idea that French leaders have advanced as an alternative to the EU..
The idea of such a union Schröder said, was "a vision of the future, perhaps long term, but certainly interesting.".
Other governments in Brussels have reacted angrily at the musing of such an alliance, taking it as a threat..
There were signs Tuesday that the months of squabbling inside the European Union - over Iraq, EU's rules and the constitution - have taken a toll on public perception about Europe's experiment in unity..
The European Commission released a poll showing that only 48 percent of the 16,000 people questioned believed membership in the Union was "a good thing." Although not the lowest approval rating for the Union - a poll in 1997 showed a slightly lower result - it was a drop of six percentage points since the last poll in the spring..
Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany showed the sharpest drop in approval of EU membership..
The president of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, blamed the lower approval ratings on "bitter disputes like that over the Stability and Growth Pact and unseemly horse-trading between national governments.".
The poll was conducted in October and early November, just as the dispute over the Stability and Growth Pact, which sets the budgetary rules for countries participating in the single currency, was heating up..
The pact, once described as a pillar of European monetary union, was effectively suspended last month..
International Herald Tribune

Humpty Dumpty sat on the wall
Humpty Dumpty has a great fall
The French and Germans
could not put Humpty Dumpty together again
They said the hell with it and went their own way.

Terrible poetry but is that where it is headed. Will the EU break into seperate power blocks.

It's going to become increasingly divisive between the marriage of Germany and France against the rest of the EU countries. I'm not sure why all the 'minor' countries of the EU could not anticipate these problems before they joined. I wonder how they weighed their pros and cons and ended up with "yes." All they have done is lose control of their own countries monetary policy.

I don't believe in a marriage between France and Germany. There's enough potential conflict between the two, and I expect that future European history will be a fairly rapid sequence of changing ad-hoc coalitions.

As for the small countries, both the status quo ante and the new European constitution have pretty strong safegards against them being bullied by the large countries. And since joining the EU isn't the same as joining the Euro zone, I don't see your point about them losing control of their monetary policy -- at least not as a result of them joining the EU. (For counterexamples, see Sweden, Denmark and the UK, all of which are doing quite well as EU members with their own national currencies.

Thomas, My mistake for confusing EU and the Euro. However, isn't it also true that most of the countries participation in the Euro are also in the EU except for the three you listed?

I'm not 100% sure and too lazy to look it up, but I think these are the three only ones so far. But none of the 10 new members will be joining the Euro right away, so the share of non-Euro members will rise.

As for the other small countries, many of the small countries didn't have much monetary souvereignity to lose because they had basically tied their currencies to the D-Mark before. I don't think that was a smart idea either. But the point is that for these small countries, the Euro had a big advantage: They have some influence on the European Central Bank now, while they had none on the Deutsche Bundesbank.

Thomas, Thanks for the explanation. It really helps clean up the fog in my brain - as if something is there. LOL