European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 575
Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
| ||
lord_nibbler
Germany591 Posts
From what I gathered he does some few symbolic acts, that could be made functional in theory. Like for example if a chancellor comes to him, declaring he does not have the backing of his own coalition anymore and therefore re-elections are needed. The president could theoretically deny this (adding oil to the fire so to speak) and forcing the Bundestag to come up with a solution themselves. Another symbolic thing he does, is sign new laws before they are officially 'printed'. There have been a couple of times, where this would have come in handy, because there is no mechanism to prevent the German parliament from passing unconstitutional laws! Sure, everybody can quickly file a suit with the Constitutional Court and get these law annulled later. But it would be so much better, if things like 'constitutionality', 'bureaucratic expenditure' and 'effectiveness' would play a part in creating laws in the first place. It would be really cool, if one day a Bundespresident had the balls to say "This new law you guys are making me sign in this ceremony looks fishy to me, so I will take two weeks to get some expertise on this and sign it then or give parliament time to make corrections". But he will then most likely not get to be president after his term again, because that stunt won't be forgotten by parliament... | ||
MyLovelyLurker
France730 Posts
On October 27 2016 06:22 lord_nibbler wrote: I am no expert, but I am pretty sure, that the Bundespresident can not overrule or dismiss either the chancellor or the parliament. Also, unlike in Austria, he is not voted in by the public but from among 'his peers'. He is therefore not 'supposed' to go against parliament. From what I gathered he does some few symbolic acts, that could be made functional in theory. Like for example if a chancellor comes to him, declaring he does not have the backing of his own coalition anymore and therefore re-elections are needed. The president could theoretically deny this (adding oil to the fire so to speak) and forcing the Bundestag to come up with a solution themselves. Another symbolic thing he does, is sign new laws before they are officially 'printed'. There have been a couple of times, where this would have come in handy, because there is no mechanism to prevent the German parliament from passing unconstitutional laws! Sure, everybody can quickly file a suit with the Constitutional Court and get these law annulled later. But it would be so much better, if things like 'constitutionality', 'bureaucratic expenditure' and 'effectiveness' would play a part in creating laws in the first place. It would be really cool, if one day a Bundespresident had the balls to say "This new law you guys are making me sign in this ceremony looks fishy to me, so I will take two weeks to get some expertise on this and sign it then or give parliament time to make corrections". But he will then most likely not get the be president after his term again, because that stunt won't be forgotten by parliament... Awesome post, thanks. I'd apply for the job but I guess you have to be German on top of being over 40... | ||
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
It would be really cool, if one day a Bundespresident had the balls to say "This new law you guys are making me sign in this ceremony looks fishy to me, so I will take two weeks to get some expertise on this and sign it then or give parliament time to make corrections". But he will then most likely not get the be president after his term again, because that stunt won't be forgotten by parliament... This happened in Austria last year for the first time ever. The former Bundespresident denied signing a law that his constitutional advisor, the former chairman of the constitutional court, considered not to hold if it would have been challenged. | ||
schaf
Germany1325 Posts
| ||
RvB
Netherlands6079 Posts
On October 26 2016 06:00 lord_nibbler wrote: That is such a misinterpretation of what actually happens. Members of parliament (EU and local) were first completely shut out of the process. They could not get even one look at the EU negotiation position or already agreed parts or even the names of the negotiators! After month of struggle they were finally able to read part of the contracts but only in a special room and they could not make any notes or copies. And after they had entered that room, they were not allowed to speak about what they had read in public anymore. We are talking about elected officials (remember 'our representatives') here. That was TTIP and that problem got addressed a while ago. The texts are publicly available now and there are updates after every negotiating round. Go take a look. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1230 CETA I'm not sure if that was the case as well but there were at least 2 times when progress was reported to stakeholders. THe text has also been available for more than a year. The answer was always "but they will see the written contracts at the end anyway". Sure, but afterwards they can only say "yes or no" to the whole thing. And the amount of pressure to quickly accept is so enormous just look at how they treat Wallonia now (and this is only because they did not want to sign today but study the consequences of the treaty for 2 weeks longer). And here comes the kicker, while all this "you can not have public influence during the negotiations or it would never get to an end" was going on, hundreds of lobbying and interest groups had access to the papers and could directly draft phrasing all this time! While people complained about the lack of transparency of the process, for a select few it was positively lucent. Not sure why you're telling me this since I agreed that there should be some parliamentary debates on this. Preferrably one when giving the mandate and then 1 or 2 when they're negotiating if necessary of course. "Got addressed". That's funny. Yea, while it used to be that 3 lawyers in a room (!!!) could impose fines in the billions circumventing laws of any country. They now want to polish up this farce by making it a semi-official court. Still ignoring local law and annulling the very core of democracy but hey "they addressed the problem". Oh, and because is point gets mentioned too little, I would like to emphasize that the goal of the treaty is to set the minimum standards of service and production in place forever! Countries will never get to raise these standards ever again without heavy backlash (fines in the billions). Consumer rights, health concerns, environment issues and so much more will be set in stone from here on out! So in conclusion, obviously it is all just a little 'free trade agreement' and big-headed Wallonia is embarrassing the EU in the world because of pig farmer votes... THis is plain false information. There's a specific article in CETA which makes sure that the right to regulate for such policies is preserved. Imported goods will have to comply to local regulation before they're allowed to come in. It also looks at EU / member state law instead of international law. The permanent members of the tribunal will also be named by Canada and the EU instead of how it used to go. | ||
Velr
Switzerland10417 Posts
| ||
Dan HH
Romania8853 Posts
Belgian PM: And here's an interview with Magnette about the changes: http://www.lavenir.net/cnt/dmf20161027_00906374 My French is fairly shoddy so please correct this if I'm getting anything wrong, from what I understand Magnette was unhappy that some of the rules for the investor-state dispute settlement tribunal were unclear but they were rewritten and now it states that countries don't have to pay compensation even if foreign companies don't achieve their expected profit because of new legislation that a country passes [this is about laws that affect all companies, not foreign ones specifically, I presume countries will still have to pay compensation for intentionally targeting foreign companies with legislation]. He says that previously the deal only (clearly) offered countries this protection for certain types of laws, such as environmental ones. He also says that this new CETA is the death of TTIP because the US will never accept these conditions, which according to him will become the standard. | ||
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4255 Posts
http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21709508-fran-ois-hollandes-approval-falls-4-abyss François Hollande’s approval falls to 4% THE French have an expression, l’appel du vide (“the call of the void”), to refer to the compulsive urge to do something self-destructive, such as leap off a cliff. It captures the frisson felt in contemplating the act, but resisting it. President François Hollande, however, seems to have surrendered. In a 662-page book published last month by two journalists, based on recorded interviews with the Socialist president, Mr Hollande insults all and sundry: judges, footballers, his own ministers and more. That a leader seeking re-election could engage in such a politically suicidal exercise, six months before France’s presidential election, has left his allies dumbstruck and his political future in freefall. Yet even if Mr Hollande were to stand aside, polls suggest that the Socialists would perform disastrously in the presidential election’s first round, failing to make it to the run-off ballot. The party’s best alternative, Mr Valls, would not beat either the centre-right candidate or the nationalist Marine Le Pen. The prime minister’s mistake, says a friend, was not resigning earlier this year to preserve his own political future. Mr Valls has begun to warn that the party could “exit” history. Faced with the prospect of annihilation, Mr Hollande would appear to have little choice but to give up. Unless, as the book suggests, he really is unafraid of the void. | ||
RvB
Netherlands6079 Posts
After success in Britain and the U.S., populists are setting their sights on the next five dominoes at risk. .... Italy referendum The first test is less than a month off. Italians vote on Dec. 4 in a constitutional referendum that Prime Minister Matteo Renzi says will make governments more stable and streamline legislation. Renzi’s promise to resign if he loses has helped turn the plebiscite into a vote on his premiership. Opinion polls, if they are to be believed, predict a narrow defeat for Renzi, which would boost the anti-establishment Five Star Movement. It could also trigger early elections next year -- meaning that governments accounting for more than 75 percent of the euro area would be in play in just one year. Comic-turned-politician Beppe Grillo, co-founder of Five Star, said that the Trump win was “incredible” in his online blog. “This is the deflagration of an epoch. It’s the apocalypse of this information system, of the TVs, of the big newspapers, of the intellectuals, of the journalists.” Five Star, which already runs cities including Rome and Turin, calls for a referendum on Italy’s membership of the euro area. Austria presidency The same day, Dec. 4, Austrians return to the polls to elect a new president after an earlier attempt was annulled. While in Austria as in neighboring Germany the real power is held by the chancellor, the contest for the mostly ceremonial post of president will be closely watched since it could bring to power the first far-right leader of a western European country since World War II. In May, Green Party candidate Alexander Van der Bellen eked out a victory over the anti-immigration Freedom Party’s Norbert Hofer of about 30,000 votes from the more than 4.5 million cast. Polls suggest the outcome this time around is still too close to call. For Chancellor Christian Kern, the U.S. vote holds lessons for Europe. “I’m convinced that electoral battles will become fierce battles for the middle classes, and that’s a fight we’ll take on,” he told journalists in Vienna. Netherlands elections The Dutch kick off Europe’s unprecedented 2017 voting season with parliamentary elections on March 15. The Netherlands is something of a laboratory for European politics, with unstable, multi-party coalitions the norm and some 13 parties poised to enter parliament next year. Geert Wilders, who leads the anti-Islam Freedom Party -- allied with but no relation to the Austrian party of the same name --- is running neck-and-neck with Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s Liberals (VVD) in some polls. “The people are taking their country back,” tweeted Wilders, who wants to emulate Britain with a “Nexit” vote on European Union membership. “So will we.” And yet the Netherlands, with more than a decade of experience of populists stretching back to Pim Fortuyn, may use the time to help thwart a Wilders surge. Rutte has ruled out a coalition with the Freedom Party, and it’s hard to see how Wilders could cobble together a working majority if he won the election. “On the one hand, the victory of Trump makes populist politics more accepted,” said Kees Aarts, professor of political science at Groningen University. “But on the other, all parties and politicians that might have still been a little asleep regarding the March elections, are now wide awake.’’ French presidency French voters have twice backed the National Front to the runoff stage of elections, under two separate generations of Le Pens, only to back away from the anti-immigration party at the last moment. Brexit and Trump’s victory show nothing can be taken for granted in the presidential election second round on May 7. With Hollande the most unpopular president in French history and his deeply disliked predecessor Nicolas Sarkozy vying to ride the Republican nomination to a comeback, Marine Le Pen may have an opening. The only head of a major French political party to have backed Trump, she congratulated him in a post on Twitter referring to “the American people, free!” Le Pen later said she trusted the French, “who cherish their liberty,” would break with the system which was “shackling them.” “Up to now everybody in France has said, just as all kind of informed opinion so-called in America has said, ‘Oh well, Trump cannot win, Marine le Pen cannot win,”’ Howard Davies, Chairman of the Royal Bank of Scotland, told Bloomberg TV’s Tom Keene. “Well, I think there’ll be a lot of people asking themselves if that really is quite so certain, and so I think the French will be very nervous.” Germany elections Germany, with its constitutional checks and balances intended to prevent dictatorial bents, is also the European country most resistant to populism. Federal elections in the fall of 2017 will show if that postwar assumption still holds. Frauke Petry, co-leader of the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany party, sees Trump’s victory as a lesson for Germany. “Just as Americans didn’t believe the pollsters of the mainstream media, Germans also must have the courage to make their mark at the ballot box themselves,” Petry said. Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has yet to reveal whether she will run again, has already suffered a series of regional election defeats on the back of an open-door refugee policy denounced by AfD and described as “insane” by Trump. The Republican’s surprise victory might just tip her in favor of seeking a fourth term. www.bloomberg.com | ||
xM(Z
Romania5257 Posts
good fucking job men, that's how you make more of them. | ||
Deleuze
United Kingdom2102 Posts
On November 10 2016 18:46 xM(Z wrote: that looks like the media is using Trump's win as a negative and is playing the fearmongering card to doubledown on those poor people that only want to matter, to be listened. good fucking job men, that's how you make more of them. I appreciate the irony in asking, but are you being sarcastic? If anything these events should be a wake up call to mainstream politicians to take the concerns of people who consider their view under represented seriously. | ||
xM(Z
Romania5257 Posts
On November 10 2016 20:14 Deleuze wrote: one could argue that it's to late for that because now, even if they were to take people seriously, there would be no people left to (genuinely)believe them; so what do you do?. I appreciate the irony in asking, but are you being sarcastic? If anything these events should be a wake up call to mainstream politicians to take the concerns of people who consider their view under represented seriously. | ||
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On November 10 2016 17:12 RvB wrote: Quite on the contrary, the governing pseudo-left and the right love nothing more than crying wolf and overestimating the weight of the Front National to coerce voters. Marine Le Pen has no chance of winning in 2017, you need ~18 millions votes to win the second round and the Front National never had more than 7. They should improve that in 2017 (again thanks to this disgusting pseudo-left), but you don't gain 11 millions votes like that. Marine Le Pen's only chance would be to meet Hollande in the second round, and there's no chance of that since his score would be divided by 2 or 3 compared with 2012; assuming this living disgrace dares to run for his reelection, that is. Plus you still need 289 députés to govern after that, and the Front National has literally zero major ally. Our institutions are designed to prevent extreme parties from conquering the power alone, and they're working as intended. And don't give us “but Brexit! but Trump!”, everyone who followed those events without being blinded by wishful thinking knew it would be close. The fact that the establishment seceded from reality doesn't mean everyone did. | ||
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On November 10 2016 21:34 TheDwf wrote: Quite on the contrary, the governing pseudo-left and the right love nothing more than crying wolf and overestimating the weight of the Front National to coerce voters. Marine Le Pen has no chance of winning in 2017, you need ~18 millions votes to win the second round and the Front National never had more than 7. They should improve that in 2017 (again thanks to this disgusting pseudo-left), but you don't gain 11 millions votes like that. Marine Le Pen's only chance would be to meet Hollande in the second round, and there's no chance of that since his score would be divided by 2 or 3 compared with 2012; assuming this living disgrace dares to run for his reelection, that is. Plus you still need 289 députés to govern after that, and the Front National has literally zero major ally. Our institutions are designed to prevent extreme parties from conquering the power alone, and they're working as intended. And don't give us “but Brexit! but Trump!”, everyone who followed those events without being blinded by wishful thinking knew it would be close. The fact that the establishment seceded from reality doesn't mean everyone did. I agree in that neither the France nor Germany populist outcomes seem feasible right now. The other three seem very possible though. | ||
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On November 10 2016 23:03 IgnE wrote: Couldn't coerce enough Hillary votes and now we've got Trump. People will not be coerced. Yeah, the failure of that strategy is obvious: + Show Spoiler + It's the same in France; after Trump's election, the PS' supreme apparatchik said: “The left is warned! Should our irresponsible childishness keep going, it will be Le Pen.” By “irresponsible childishness,” he means “the left not standing behind the PS candidate as one man”. His very innovative project is, once again, to blackmail left-wing voters by saying: “look how ugly the right and the far right are! Vote for us or it will be utter disaster!” They even “theorized” that after the spectacular failure of the 21 avril 2002, when Le Pen 1.0 qualified for the second round (a huge trauma for the PS): they call that the vote utile [useful vote]. It worked well in 2007 and 2012, with the PS candidate scoring 26 to 28% in the first round. Alas for them, they were actually elected the last time, showed their true face—a new right-wing party—and are now between 9 and 13% in polls after failing almost everything, and betraying the left to extents never seen before. My only glimpse of joy the next 23 April will be to savor their harsh beating, watch them all stone-faced after their worst score since 1969, and see their 40 years of total domination over the left brutally collapse. | ||
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the basic mistake was not understanding the revolutionary nature of the leftwing. they are not responding to the smooth preference set we see in e.g. arrow's theorem. expressive politics of the revolutionary kind is on both sides, and there is no short term solution for the underlying anxieties. between the far left and the populist right, the latter is the safer choice. the left alone won't win anything, so get ready for your rulers. | ||
Kipsate
Netherlands45349 Posts
For the Netherlands, Denk scares me more then Wilders these days. | ||
Acrofales
Spain17191 Posts
On November 11 2016 01:43 Kipsate wrote: For the Netherlands, Denk scares me more then Wilders these days. I took a look at their party program and it seems fine. I don't like the bit about Islamic schools (imho religion has absolutely no place in education, and religious education should be taken care of by churches. Instead, a bit of (impartial) world religion education should be taught in civics and history classes, with civics focusing more on the religions themselves, and history on what happened in the name of religions (both good and bad). Other than that specific policy, I mostly agree with them. Their program doesn't seem to have enough policy, and too much platitudes, but at least I agree with their general direction. | ||
| ||