5 weeks to EU-Election - who are you voting for?

[CaptainPanic]

Although I think I already know which national (Dutch) party I favor to represent me in the European Parliament, I want to learn more about the European political parties and political party-groups.

Some parties have formed alliances and have therefore effectively merged (although they still have their own programs).

 

Those parties and party-groups aren't very well known, because in many countries, people vote for their national parties, and people don't seem to care much for the (larger) European groups. Your national parties are member of a European party / party-group (alliance).

 

The groups/alliances are:

 

- EPP-ED: European People's Party–European Democrats

- PES: Party of European Socialists

- ALDE: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe

- UEN: Union for Europe of the Nations

- Greens - EFA: European Greens–European Free Alliance\

- EUL-NGL: European United Left–Nordic Green Left

- ID: Independence/Democracy

- Non-Inscrits (not member of any groups)

 

Note that for all groups listed above, the member-parties (national parties) are all listed on the wikipedia pages!

Also, if it's an alliance, the individual parties can be found through wikipedia.

 

If you're going to vote: check it out.

I'll post my final choice after some more research (all this info is also new to me).

[bascule]

Haha, as a total outsider American-type person, that list cracks me up. Europe really is filled with hippies!

[Klaynos]

bascule, what a very worthwhile point that was.

 

I'm not sure who I'm going to vote for, or even if I'm going to bother...

 

I watch with interest though, to see just how badly the current government in the UK does in them...

 

As for the european groups the three major parties in the UK are members of:

 

Conservative:

Movement for European Reform, European Democrat Union

 

Liberal democrats:

Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe

 

Labour:

Party of European Socialists

[CaptainPanic]

I watch with interest though, to see just how badly the current government in the UK does in them...

 

The UK government isn't very much related to the parliament of the EU, except that members of both institutions might be a member of the same party in England. Members of the European parliament are still independent, and don't take any orders from the big shots in the UK government (at least, that's the theory).

 

I fear that many people will vote exactly like that: just vote for the national party they like most... many people won't even check the program of the European groups... even though this might significantly differ from the national party.

 

Alternatively, I think that many people will vote in relation to one single topic, like immigration or the possible membership of Turkey.

 

I'll vote on the left side of the options (still haven't decided exactly what)... because I'd like to protect the rights for workers, and because I like the social character of my own country, and I'd like to see this become the standard in Europe.

 

Haha, as a total outsider American-type person, that list cracks me up. Europe really is filled with hippies!

I do agree - the EU is quite full of hippies... and thankfully our democracy is actually functioning and we have more than 2 parties in the parliament to represent not only the industry, but also the hippies who live on this continent.

The fact that the list cracks you up (you, being an "outsider American-type person") is probably a compliment for our democracy. We Europeans also have a good laugh when we discuss the "American democracy"

[Klaynos]

The UK government isn't very much related to the parliament of the EU, except that members of both institutions might be a member of the same party in England. Members of the European parliament are still independent, and don't take any orders from the big shots in the UK government (at least, that's the theory).

 

I know, people here are likely to treat it as a way to punish the government as opposed to voting for good reasons.

[CaptainPanic]

I know, people here are likely to treat it as a way to punish the government as opposed to voting for good reasons.

 

Same here. In fact, politicians and media are both mixing up European and local politics, which is quite sad because these two groups of people should know better (not 100% sure about the media though - quality can be quite poor ).

[Klaynos]

We've local elections on the same day, so it's even worst! No one really cares about the European elections here...

[CaptainPanic]

We've local elections on the same day, so it's even worst! No one really cares about the European elections here...

 

The percentage of voters who go voting might be higher though.

 

All in all, I think it's a safe conclusion that the EU elections have a marketing problem

 

I wonder if the EU parties/groups and the parliament as a whole will start some campaign, or if the campaigns will also remain only local (like it is until now).

 

With less than 1 month to go, I haven't even seen 1 political advertisement or even 1 poster on a wall. It would be the first time that I'd ask for commercials, so I won't do that... but it's weird nonetheless.

[bascule]

I do agree - the EU is quite full of hippies... and thankfully our democracy is actually functioning and we have more than 2 parties in the parliament to represent not only the industry, but also the hippies who live on this continent.

The fact that the list cracks you up (you, being an "outsider American-type person") is probably a compliment for our democracy. We Europeans also have a good laugh when we discuss the "American democracy"

 

Yes, American Democracy is not in a good way.

[abskebabs]

Despite the fact I see this as a kind of grand excercise in futility, I've registered to vote, and will probably vote for anybody that will get the UK out of the EU, because I see it as nothing more than a racket.

[bombus]

Despite the fact I see this as a kind of grand excercise in futility, I've registered to vote, and will probably vote for anybody that will get the UK out of the EU, because I see it as nothing more than a racket.

 

I agree with the principle of the EU, but not the practice.

 

It's becoming a 'playground for capitalists' and the result is the part privatisation of our postal service - if not ultimately the NHS.

 

However, due to the fact that many interests are represented by the EU Parliament, the Greens and the Left can (and do) have a big influence. E.g. Water Framework Directive, Habitats Directive, etc.

 

So, I agree with the creation and purpose of the EU, but not with its current direction.

[The Bear's Key]

All in all, I think it's a safe conclusion that the EU elections have a marketing problem

Or an intended strategy of reverse-marketing (the less you know, the better).

 

(I'd view any lack of details on the grander picture with a healthy bit of suspicion)

[abskebabs]

I agree with the principle of the EU, but not the practice.

 

It's becoming a 'playground for capitalists' and the result is the part privatisation of our postal service - if not ultimately the NHS.

 

However, due to the fact that many interests are represented by the EU Parliament, the Greens and the Left can (and do) have a big influence. E.g. Water Framework Directive, Habitats Directive, etc.

 

So, I agree with the creation and purpose of the EU, but not with its current direction.

 

Fair enough. I guess, I wouldn't mind a free trade pact with the rest of Europe, but the rest of it seems to me like a great way for bureacrats to make an unproductive living financed by taxes and inflation.

 

I'm also very skeptical of Green parties as they just seem to be cloaked socialists, and are more concerned like other statists of finding reasons to increase state power than consider other ways and approaches to tackle enviromental problems.

 

I guess I can't be too harsh, they wouldn't be politicians if they didn't want to run other people's lives. The biggest incentive problem of all is that it would never truly be in their interest to solve problems, only to milk them for all their worth.

 

I think a lot of ideas can be good in principle, but they are inherently flawed because they fail to account for human incentive problems, and laws of human action that cannot be removed. I think it's common, and an ad nauseum reflected result that when these grand plans of utopian social organisation fall flat on their ass for the interventionists to find scapegoats and cite a moral failure.

 

It happened in the Soviet union with the plant managers and kulaks. It's happening today with the bankers and other financial services(not that they didn't play a vital role in exacerbating what's happenning).

 

And with your comment about capitalists: If you have a state that can and does interfere in a market system it's only rational for capitalists to try and use it for their own benefit. What's more, the ones who do this would survive. Blaming our current problems on greed is like blaming an airplane crash on gravity.

Edited May 6, 2009 by abskebabs

[bombus]

I'm also very skeptical of Green parties as they just seem to be cloaked socialists, and are more concerned like other statists of finding reasons to increase state power than consider other ways and approaches to tackle enviromental problems.

 

This is a common accusation and IMHO an excuse by some to reject green principles. The truth is that capitalism and green issues can rarely live side by side. The pursuit of profit whatever the cost to society or the environment is what unregulated capitalism ends up being, so the idea that (god forbid) some things are more important than profit and need protecting by regulation appear to be 'socialist' - and I suppose in a way they are. Traditional socialism is not really any greener than capitalism but green and red seem to be coming together these days, which is good news for the environment.

 

I think a lot of ideas can be good in principle, but they are inherently flawed because they fail to account for human incentive problems.

I agree with that, but it doesn't mean there can't be any regulation and limits to private profit. It's not an all or nothing situation.

 

And with your comment about capitalists: If you have a state that can and does interfere in a market system it's only rational for capitalists to try and use it for their own benefit. What's more, the ones who do this would survive. Blaming our current problems on greed is like blaming an airplane crash on gravity.

 

Agreed, but that doesn't mean we should be complacent and let them get away with it if its damaging to society and the environment!

[abskebabs]

This is a common accusation and IMHO an excuse by some to reject green principles. The truth is that capitalism and green issues can rarely live side by side. The pursuit of profit whatever the cost to society or the environment is what unregulated capitalism ends up being, so the idea that (god forbid) some things are more important than profit and need protecting by regulation appear to be 'socialist' - and I suppose in a way they are. Traditional socialism is not really any greener than capitalism but green and red seem to be coming together these days, which is good news for the environment.

 

 

I agree with that, but it doesn't mean there can't be any regulation and limits to private profit. It's not an all or nothing situation.

 

 

 

Agreed, but that doesn't mean we should be complacent and let them get away with it if its damaging to society and the environment!

 

Interesting, I am increasingly under the impression that the first enviromental abuses were caused as a result of a violation, not an upholding of private property rights. For example when heavy industry first started to appear in the US during the industrial revolution, initially it was quite common for local landholders to take these companies to court about the damage or defocation to their property caused by soot, water pollution or whatever...

 

This imposed a price on the activities these early industrialists and provided a disincentive to engage in highly polluting activities. History might have been different had this been upheld, yet the courts and the governments of the time decided to rule over the complaints of private citizens over these activities with the claim of justifying the "common good."

 

I want to remind you that this has nothing to do with capitalism, which does not mean preferential treatment for any group, or bailouts for the rich. This much more closely resembles corporate facism, which is a system I feel does not do us any good. Unfortuantely, I feel in our current political climate we have a strong alliance between these corporate facists and well meaning but naive middle of the road socialists and enviromentalists.

 

This history is well accounted by Walter Block, an economist currently at Loyola State University in his book: Economics and the Environment: A Reconciliation. Unfortunately it seems to be quite expensive at the moment, and in short supply, hopefully perhaps the Ludwig Von Mises institute can republish it at some point.

 

Anyway basically my first point is that I essentially agree with you, statism has not always been aligned with "green concerns", yet "capitalism", the pejorative term used to describe a system governed by the principles of private property, voluntary exchange and no forceful compulsion has not always been against these concerns either, at least, not before it became hampered to compromise on its principles.

 

What you are essentially talking about is Arthur Pigou's fallacy of certain things being left out as common goods to which there is a market failure. My rebuttal would be that if you remove the market and private property rights in the domain of areas like problems of pollution to the public sector, entailing a tragedy of the commons, you can barely attribute this failure to the system which you rejected.

 

This is a common pattern I think that is inherent in the criticisms of the free market. Take business cycles for example. We essentially have a central bank setting an interest rate(essentially dictating a price on the rate of investment), lending money it creates to banks distorting the rate at which banks lend causing misallocations of capital and labour that would not have ordinarily occured under an enviroment under which consumers, lenders and entrepreneurs would have been left to produce an interest rate matching the investment required by the economy according to the collective time preferences of the participants in the economy.

 

The distortion creates a business cycle and an artificially generated boom, until the prices offset by the central bank's lending policy are corrected and the scarcity of misallocated factors of production is realised. This ends the boom, following with the bust. This centrally planned agency and bureacracy known as the central bank effectively serves its purpose therefore, portending to be the "free market", and creating a giant strawman for all kinds of statists, interventionists middle of the road socialists and marxists to yell abuse about the failure of capitalism.

[CaptainPanic]

Got my voting card in today!

Other friends (including foreigners from the EU) got theirs as well - which means that surprisingly the bureaucracy is working