Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
From this side of the pond, one interesting observation is about the lack of EU-wide parties. Here in the US of A, the parties (the main two, plus most of the third parties) are largely national in scope. Some of the organization (or disorganization, in the current case of Iowa democrats) is at the state level, such as candidate selection for state and local offices, but the national party really has most of the say as to policy positions--and has a lot to say about state-selected candidates who don't align property with the national party.

Obviously the EU isn't a fully federalized setup, but given that there are members of the EU parliament who need to work together, why isn't there more EU-wide party organization?

by asdf on Wed Feb 5th, 2020 at 07:01:46 PM EST
properly
by asdf on Wed Feb 5th, 2020 at 07:03:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Most political action still takes place at the national level so political parties are primarily focused on trying to obtain power through national parliaments. However they are also affiliated to European Party groupings in the European Parliament.

For instance:
Fine Gael is part of the European Peoples party (centre right Christian democrats)
Fianna Fail is part of  the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party
Sinn Fein is part of the European United Left-Nordic Green Left party
and Labour is aligned with the European socialists

There is quite a lot of policy coordination and cooperation between national parties within these European groupings, but the real power is still vested in the EU Council (made up of prime ministers) and the European Commission (made up of Government nominees - usually ex prime ministers or cabinet ministers of the ruling parties in each country).

It's not as centralised as the USA, but within the constraints of the Treaties, national states within the EU are still sovereign. Alao the EU budget is only 1-2% of U GDP compared to the Federal Budget which is c. 20% of GDP.


Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Feb 5th, 2020 at 11:30:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The US federal government was pretty weak until they passed the income tax amendment in 1909.
by asdf on Thu Feb 6th, 2020 at 12:38:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
cite
by Cat on Thu Feb 6th, 2020 at 12:38:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I thought it was common knowledge.
https://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=360
by asdf on Thu Feb 6th, 2020 at 03:19:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
yeah?

The origins of federal growth are in the Constitutional Convention. But the modern [!] period of growth began with the Progressive Era before World War I
Would that include the period between the first Great Depression (1874 ± 24 mo.) and US entry into WWI (1917)? Formation of the reactionary Progressive Party around Wm. Jennings Bryan and fists fulla silver dollars?

huh. It's true. Metalheads prefer FRB birth in 1913 for every calamity of liberty not specified in the Federalist Papers. Far and few between is the reader familiar with the history of US federal customs tariffs, property taxes [1], [2], [3], [4], and personal income tax collections. Prior to 1913.

No wonder most Americans oppose reparations for slavery.

Me? I always peg it, growth of US federal gov, to the series of acts between 1861-1863--although 1789 was a seminal year for US federal treasury bonds issuance and surety--full faith and credit blah blah spanish dollar blah. The Constitution, to be sure, damaged states' and private bankers deposit and currency businesses, but didn't kill them. For that  there was unregulated, international (FX, rail, and real estate) "investment banking" panics and depressions over the next 50 years.

by Cat on Sat Feb 8th, 2020 at 12:58:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The phrase for which you might be searching to describe inter-state structure of US political parties' organization imposed on EU governance is

archived
transnational list

such that a political association (club, party), eg. Green, FG, En March, CDU, etc., maintains a nomination committee in each of the EU (nation) states for the purpose of controling candidatures for EU gov public offices, for example, EP seats apportioned to each, every, (nation) state; more pertinent, to consolidate legislative authorities in its party institutional apparatus viz. executive prerogative and reduce or eliminate minority associations and policy credentials among and between each (nation) states' political divisions.

by Cat on Thu Feb 6th, 2020 at 12:37:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Even US Federal institutions are populated using elections organised a state level - e.g. Congress, Senate, Presidential electoral college. I think we are a long way off transnational lists within the EU, but they have their advocates.

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Feb 6th, 2020 at 12:51:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The function of state committees for each of these private political organizations (corporations, club, association, party) operates on every political division of that state: The two "market participants" monopolize elected (and appointed) offices, colloq "up and down ballot". Conversely, each state's legislature, divided into the two parties representatives, control electoral process--not least of which voters' eligibility--within that state. Were the parties' representatives in the US Congress to grant themselves that authority constitutionally reserved to the states (an DNC initiative which I have denounced), the sham of a democractic polity would completely collapse around the republic, which it is.

Wounding the vanities of some pubic intellectuals and prolific authors of fiction.

Indeed, (nation) states that constitute the EP resist incorporation of their sovereign prerogatives and powers into an unelected executive body politic. This condition--weakness of EU gov--is the principle barrier to transnational organization by "elites."

by Cat on Fri Feb 7th, 2020 at 11:32:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The US has been moving, step by step, away from the original republican system for quite a while. There's lots of enthusiasm for popularly elected presidents, for example.

The entire system will require re-work when the climate catastrophe becomes obvious enough.

65 degrees F in Antarctica isn't enough, though, apparently...

by asdf on Sat Feb 8th, 2020 at 01:11:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The US has been moving, step by step, away from the original republican system. The very one that consumed its junior partners in Greece.

I say again. Let Walter Scheidel draw you a picture. Your challenge, evidently, is to describe how the US Congress (1789-present) has not recreated the Roman republic --its social structures, legal institutions, Ponzi economy, cliens, protector(ates), patroni, and coloniae among the ahh united nations.

Waiting for the entire system to re-work--by WHOM?--when the climate catastrophe becomes obvious enough--to WHOM?--a strange proposition, somewhat antithetical to shady principles of Enlightenment which have seized the imaginations of doctrinaire liberals for several centuries.

By which "systemic" -ism would you prefer to address human civitas after the next crisis? Polis state has a ring to it, yes?

by Cat on Sat Feb 8th, 2020 at 02:43:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm pretty sure the original US system was not a clone of the Roman republic.
by asdf on Sat Feb 8th, 2020 at 04:12:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The founders had read Gibbon. They were aware of the problems present in the Roman state and provided some institutions, hopefully, to prevent the recurrence of those problems. The most significant difference was a written and ratified constitution. The Roman Republic had an unwritten constitution.

The second difference was that institutional tension was formally built into the system. Each of the three branches was reasonably well defined and each had its own prerogatives which each could be expected to defend. The weakness of that system has turned out to be exactly what the founders feared - extreme factional partisanship.

They could have been more explicit in defining norms of public behavior. This should, IMO, have been included in the Preamble, stating explicitly that elected officials, during their tenure, serve the public and the public interest and that serving personal interests through the power of their offices was grounds for immediate removal by impeachment. As it is at least half of the US electorate does not seem to apprehend the requirement. Public service in the public interest should have been enshrined as the highest public virtue.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sat Feb 8th, 2020 at 05:23:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
by Cat on Sun Feb 9th, 2020 at 03:14:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Fri Feb 14th, 2020 at 11:55:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I voted for Flowers over Chris Van Ho in '16. How about you?

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Fri Feb 14th, 2020 at 11:57:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The short answer is that it isn't in the perceived interests of the national governments, therefore the "government parties", centre left and centre right, make sure it doesn't happen. It is only currently possible to register as an official EU party if you already have elected representatives in several jurisdictions, which means that only federations of national parties can exist. Having lived through an attempt at bootstrapping a genuine EU party, I can attest that the status quo is tightly locked down.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Fri Feb 14th, 2020 at 12:31:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series