welsh
Junkmaster
We have heard these results. What's up? Why are the Europeans so pissed off with the vote? Does this have to do with employment?
What does this say about satisfaction with governments? How do you folks see this turning out?
What does this say about satisfaction with governments? How do you folks see this turning out?
Unhappy voters send a message
Jun 14th 2004
From The Economist Global Agenda
In the European Parliament’s elections, turnout was low, governing parties generally suffered and a clutch of anti-EU parties did notably well. This may make it harder to reach agreement on the proposed EU constitution
ANOTHER set of European Parliament elections, another depressing outcome. In the four days to Sunday June 13th, the 25 member countries of the newly enlarged European Union (EU) held elections for the 732-member legislative body, which helps to make laws binding on all of the Union’s 450m citizens. The parliament has steadily gained power over the course of the EU’s history but, sadly, its image has only suffered over time. It is perceived as being distant from voters, despite being the only EU institution with a direct democratic connection to them. Recent media exposés mean that the parliament is probably now best known for its members’ abuse of their perks.
It was therefore no surprise that just over 45% of the EU electorate turned out to vote; and that those who did so mainly used the chance to deliver an angry message to their national governments over domestic issues. The governing parties in Britain, France, Germany, and Poland were the most notable losers. British voters punished Tony Blair, mainly over Iraq, by giving his Labour Party just over 20% of the vote, down from 41% at the last general election in 2001. France’s Union for a Popular Movement, the Gaullist party of President Jacques Chirac, was similarly caned, getting just 17%, against 30% for the Socialist opposition. And Chancellor Gerhard Schröder’s Social Democratic Party in Germany finished with 22%, less than half the vote for the opposition Christian Democrats, who took 45%.
In the biggest of the new member states, Poland’s governing Democratic Left Alliance—which has been imploding for months over scandals, a weak economy and internal rifts—took a meagre 9%. The Czech Republic’s ruling Social Democrats also managed just 9%. And turnout in the new members was even lower than in the old member states—just 26%. Having turned out enthusiastically to vote in referendums on joining the EU last year, the central Europeans have not shown much interest in deciding who will be their representatives there. Not even a bevy of headline-grabbing candidates, including a Czech porn star and an Estonian supermodel, could lift turnout.
If ruling parties were the big losers, Eurosceptics plainly had a field day. Newish parties wholeheartedly opposed to EU membership did well in two of the Union’s biggest countries. In Britain, the UK Independence Party (UKIP) drew Eurosceptic voters from the main opposition Conservative Party to take 17% of the vote, entitling it to 12 seats in the parliament. In Poland, a traditionalist and ruralist party, Samoobrona (Selfdefence), came third, nabbing seven seats. (Two other right-wing parties, the crime-bashing Law and Justice and the Catholic-nationalist League of Polish Families, also did well.) Two parties in Austria and the Netherlands, though not strictly Eurosceptic, campaigned successfully against corruption and mismanagement in Brussels. In short, EU business-as-usual was a big loser at last week’s polls.
The parliament’s new members will mostly sit in vaguely like-minded groupings, like the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP), the Party of European Socialists (centre-left) and the European Liberal Democrats (socially, and sometimes economically, liberal). The EPP did well, thanks to strong centre-right showings in some of the new members, including Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia. But overall results for these groupings should be taken with a grain of salt, since they are far from homogeneous or coherent. For example, Britain’s Conservatives, broadly pro-market and mildly Eurosceptic, sit in the EPP with continental Christian Democrats and Gaullists who are both more federalist (ie, favouring strong EU centre) and more comfortable with intervening in the economy.
What will it all mean for the overall future of the EU? The anti-establishment vote for Eurosceptics, nationalists and anti-corruption campaigners, as well as the low turnout, should serve as a wake-up call for Europe’s leaders. Much post-poll commentary has said that now, finally, Europe’s leaders must make voters feel connected to the EU. But will they? Much the same has been said in the past, as turnout has continued to fall and scepticism about the whole enterprise has continued to grow. In 2003, for the first time, more than half of Europe’s citizens told pollsters that their country’s membership of the EU was not a good thing. Clearly EU leaders have not yet found a way to reverse what seems like an inexorable decline in affection for the European project.
The result of the election will also cast a shadow over the summit between EU leaders that will begin this Thursday in Brussels. The 25 national leaders are hoping to agree a final text for the proposed EU constitution. Among other things, this document is meant to simplify the EU’s workings and make its institutions more open. But finalising the draft will be far from easy. The intervention of lawyers and lobbyists has already contributed to its swelling to more than 200 pages, to include such clearly non-constitutional matters as the “right” to job counselling.
The backlash against the EU in the parliamentary elections may make it harder for the 25 leaders to reach an accord. The success of the UKIP in Britain, and the dismal showing by Mr Blair’s own party, just a year before an expected national election, may oblige him to harden his stance on Britain’s so-called “red lines”. These include taxation, defence and foreign policy. The more federalist members, including France and Germany, would like these to be subject to majority votes under the new constitution, while Mr Blair will insist on keeping the national veto over such sensitive areas.
Mr Blair will not be the only one fighting his country’s corner with a hint of desperation. The success of Eurosceptics in Poland could make that country’s government work harder to maintain its generous voting powers in the Council of Ministers, the body in which national governments’ ministers meet as a second legislative body (alongside the parliament) to approve all new laws. The draft constitution proposes to reduce the disproportionately high number of votes, compared with its population, that Poland won at the Nice summit in 2001. Poland’s ministers, with their backs against the electoral wall, will do whatever they can to stop this.
The Netherlands wants the constitution to give the European Commission—the EU’s executive—more scope to deal with euro-zone member countries whose budget deficits break the limits laid down in EU rules. France and Germany, two notable budget-busters, are against. The Dutch insist they will fight to the last. In all, with such a dismaying election behind them, Europe’s leaders will be in a gloomy mood as they gather in Brussels this week. And whatever forced grins they put on for the end-of-summit photos, they seem unlikely to end it any happier
