[Tiste Simeon]

So, Ozzies, this Scott Morrison, what's he like? You've had that many PM's in the party few years it must be weird to have someone return?


Judging from the very little I know he's not that decent a person

[Illuyankas]

He's a shit, but Shorten was Aussie Hillary so please light a candle for our poor Oz members.

[Tiste Simeon]

Oh just seen he has refused admiration for Trump. Well that tells me all I need to know about him.

[D'rek]

(from the UK/Brexit thread, but I figured would fit better here)

Grief, on 16 May 2019 - 11:13 PM, said:

Having said that, there's a very fair argument to be made that the EU is severely lacking in the democracy department.

This is news to me. I don't know very much about how the EU actually works, but I thought all member nations got a seat in the Council and all citizens of member nations got to vote on their representatives in the Parliament? What's the "lacking democracy" argument, and how is it impacting European politics?

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

'As immigration minister in 2013, he proudly embraced a "stop the boats" policy that denied asylum seekers arriving by sea the right to apply for settlement in Australia.

Under his predecessor, Mr. Turnbull, he served as treasurer, appearing in Parliament at one point with a lump of coal to deliver a message to those demanding stronger action on climate change.

"Don't be afraid," he told lawmakers, without mentioning that the coal had been shellacked to keep his hands from getting dirty"Don't be scared."'

https://www.nytimes....pgtype=Homepage

Earlier this year he campaigned to prevent asylum seekers from receiving medical care.

He's referring to his election as a 'miracle'....

Polls indicated he would lose, but he used fearmongering tactics to turn out the rural, elderly, and/or bigoted whites.

WTF Australia. After Brexit and Trump, how did voters not know that this was a very real possibility?...

Is this the way to show the world that the white supremacist Australian who perpetrated the massacre in New Zealand is not representative?... Oh right, you decided it was climate change he was wrong about, not the killing brown people part.

'"We have lost Australia for now," warns climate scientist in wake of election upset
The unexpected victory of conservatives in Australia's election is bad news for the future of global climate action.'

https://thinkprogres...t-92008fabb597/

So deny asylum seekers entry, while promoting the destructive pollution that is going to result in even more refugees.

New Zealand may be the favored location of the world's superrich for escaping climate catastrophes, but Australia will become a burning desert. I'm imagining him and his followers trying to escape on a boat over to New Zealand... and being turned away.

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 19 May 2019 - 09:56 PM

[Maark Abbott]

D, on 19 May 2019 - 08:34 PM, said:

(from the UK/Brexit thread, but I figured would fit better here)

Grief, on 16 May 2019 - 11:13 PM, said:

Having said that, there's a very fair argument to be made that the EU is severely lacking in the democracy department.

This is news to me. I don't know very much about how the EU actually works, but I thought all member nations got a seat in the Council and all citizens of member nations got to vote on their representatives in the Parliament? What's the "lacking democracy" argument, and how is it impacting European politics?

From memory, there are instances over the years where a country's voter base goes against what the EU wanted, so the EU sanctioned said nation until they got what they wanted.

I'd not hold me to that because my above statement is based on secondary information and not reliably sourced; I can't get into the research bit just now so I'll defer to Gorefest's assessment of the same.

I'd still trust the EU more than the Tories, mind.

[Morgoth]

Maark Abbott, on 20 May 2019 - 07:46 AM, said:

D, on 19 May 2019 - 08:34 PM, said:

(from the UK/Brexit thread, but I figured would fit better here)

Grief, on 16 May 2019 - 11:13 PM, said:

Having said that, there's a very fair argument to be made that the EU is severely lacking in the democracy department.

This is news to me. I don't know very much about how the EU actually works, but I thought all member nations got a seat in the Council and all citizens of member nations got to vote on their representatives in the Parliament? What's the "lacking democracy" argument, and how is it impacting European politics?

From memory, there are instances over the years where a country's voter base goes against what the EU wanted, so the EU sanctioned said nation until they got what they wanted.

I'd not hold me to that because my above statement is based on secondary information and not reliably sourced; I can't get into the research bit just now so I'll defer to Gorefest's assessment of the same.

I'd still trust the EU more than the Tories, mind.

I'd be curious to hear actual examples of that. I can't think of any.

[Macros]

The EU didn't sell off the nations assets, the tories did.
The EU hasnt fucked the NHS, the tories have

This post has been edited by Macros: 20 May 2019 - 03:31 PM

[Illuyankas]

The EU is allowing the mass allowing of refugees in the Med, though. Also their reaction to Greece was extremely misguided.

[D'rek]

Illuyankas, on 20 May 2019 - 06:56 PM, said:

The EU is allowing the mass allowing of refugees in the Med, though. Also their reaction to Greece was extremely misguided.

Un-democratically, though?

[Illuyankas]

Aw man I can't believe I wrote allowing twice instead of mass drowning

Also I'm pretty sure I missed that referendum

[Grief]

Morgoth, on 20 May 2019 - 07:55 AM, said:

Grief, on 16 May 2019 - 11:13 PM, said:

Having said that, there's a very fair argument to be made that the EU is severely lacking in the democracy department. It's one of the reasons that I'd consider more legitimate in terms of opposing the EU when it's made in good faith.

In what way is the EU severely lacking in democracy?

The lack a truly European political sphere and weak democratic institutions ultimately culminates in a very low level of public-sphere political contest in a manner very removed from citizens.

1. Lack of a European political sphere

Election participation is persistently low. 2014 saw an EU average of 43% voter turnout, with national turnout dropping as low as 13% (Slovakia).¹ Basic knowledge about the EU is similarly lacking. To quote the Eurobarometer "the number of Member States making up the euro area remains largely unknown". Barely over half of survey respondents correctly identified that MEPs are directly elected by the citizens of each member state.²

European politics is very low salience for citizens. Even the people who vote tend to do so on national factors rather than on European personalities or politics. European elections are not defined by European issues,³ nor does Europe generally have a strong presence in national politics.⁴

2. Weakly democratic institutions

The European Parliament is the only directly elected part of the EU's four chief institutions and although it has been gradually gaining ground it nonetheless remains arguably the weakest. While some have argued that this isn't a problem for EU legitimacy because each Member State is democratic⁵ - in a similar way that people argue that the UK retained complete sovereignty because at some point down the line it signed the treaties that passed powers to the EU - this is a rather indirect conception of democracy when we consider the everyday functioning of a powerful governance structure. Vital positions such as Commissioners hold very little direct accountability to citizens and opaque trialogue negotiations play a key role in the legislative process. Over the 2009-2014 term, 85% of legislative proposals were simply adopted at first reading⁶ and this term looks to have been the same. As of December there has yet to be any legislation going to third reading or conciliation.⁷

3. Lack of political contestation⁸

The above points both contribute to a lack of democratic contest over EU policy. Rather than being contested in the public sphere, the political process is more a question of internal manoeuvre followed by rubber-stamping. Around three quarters of parliament decisions over the last term were agreed between all of the biggest parties, and only one in ten issues had a margin of less than 50 votes.⁹ It is entirely typical for decisions to be adopted with 600+ votes on first-reading because of consensus being reached before the issue even reaches the floor.¹⁰

To sum-up, European politics has little salience for voters and is defined by national rather than European issues, the institutional setup remains indirectly democratic at best, and there's a lack of political competition at the European level. While I've separated these points out they shouldn't be seen in isolation; rather, they feed into one another. How are voters meant to vote (or care to vote) on European issues when the major European parties just vote the same way the vast majority of the time? How is a European political sphere meant to develop when the political actors negotiate behind closed doors rather than contesting the issues in front of the public - and when the (few) recognizable political actors aren't directly accountable to the citizenry anyway?

---

¹DG COMM post-election survey (2014).
²Standard Eurobarometer 88 (2017).
³Hix & Marsh (2007, 2011), Schmitt & Toygur (2016).
⁴Green-Pedersen (2011), Miklin (2014).
⁵See Moravcsik (2002) for a prominent example of this line of argument.
⁶Europarl.
⁷European Parliament, Facts and Figures for the 2014-2019 term.
⁸See particularly Follesdal & Hix (2006) which responds to Moravcsik.
⁹Votewatch.
¹⁰See Bowler and McElroy (2015) for analysis using roll-call data.

[Tsundoku]

That video Maccy posted about preferential voting pretty much sums it up.
Just assume the blue Shit Party won, read AVD's post upthread and you'll be up to speed.

[Grief]

Regarding Greece:

The Greek people made their opposition to austerity clear with the election of Syriza and the referendum on the bailout. Nonetheless it was pushed very strongly by the EU through the troika of the Commission, European Central Bank, and IMF (none of whom are elected officials).

This also sidestepped the treaties, in spirit at the very least. Article 123 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union explicitly prohibits the ECB from monetary financing of national governments. Article 125 states that neither the EU nor Member States will be responsible for the commitments of other Member States. This is generally referred to as the "No Bailout" clause. The ECJ later ruled it was OK though, so hey.



You did it! Congratulations to Greece and its people on ending the programme of financial assistance. With huge efforts and European solidarity you seized the day. - Donald Tusk, President of the European Council (August, 2018).

On Brussels 'over-ruling' national voter bases

One concern raised by the Council of the EU shifting towards qualified majority voting (rather than unanimity) has been that countries could have decisions imposed upon them by the rest of the union that their own voter base strongly opposes. Exactly how undemocratic this is can be debated, since after all it is still requires a vote at EU level.

The first example that comes to mind here would relate to migrant relocation. The controversial relocation plan was passed in 2015 by qualified majority at EU level despite strong opposition from certain Eastern European states (and the majority of their populations) which tend to be close to the relevant external borders. Relevant articles here, here and here.

[Grief]

Lastly, a few quick thoughts on D'rek's question of how Europe's democratic deficit impacts European politics.

Firstly it undermines the EU's legitimacy as an actor within and outside of Europe. It's telling that during the financial crisis a lot of the momentum towards a Eurozone consensus had to come from the leaders of national governments, particularly Angela Merkel. The EU played an important role but EU institutions don't really have the same level of legitimacy to act when push comes to shove (possible exceptions being the ECB and ECJ, somewhat ironically).

Secondly it may foster populism in various ways. Firstly it crystallises the narratives around mainstream elite neo-liberalism (or, depending on your viewpoint, genuinely epitomises it). The fact that EU institutions feel distant to voters and don't have great pressure to respond quickly to their opinions does not help. It provides a convenient scapegoat on just about any issue and ironically gives such frequently Euroskeptic parties a platform; EU elections are generally less important to voters, and they're unlikely to have a strong affinity for most regular candidates, so they suit protest-voting. Lastly it limits the policy tools that national governments might use to respond to populist (or popular) pressures.

Similar to the point above, it may limit the scope of political competition within European countries. If key policy decisions are removed to the EU-level then national politicians have less to compete upon. If the EU's institutions are then less representative and more distant from citizens, this in turn reduces the options citizens have (or flattens issues down to "do we stay in the EU or not?"). I've seen people argue that this partly underlies voters becoming more disillusioned with politics in general.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

'Europe Is Now a Bigger Trade Villain Than China'

https://www.barrons....kls9hfsHtHlMua0

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

'Australia plans coalfield the size of Britain in climate change U-turn'

'Climate change was supposed to have won the Labor Party the Australian election. But yesterday, after having been routed by voters, its panicked leaders backed the mining of a coalfield bigger than the UK.

Fearing a wipeout in state elections next year amid a rise in pro-coal workers and a rebellion against its plans to halve Australia’s carbon emissions, the Labor state government in Queensland accelerated its decision on 105,000 square miles of coal-rich outback land known as the Galilee Basin.'

https://www.thetimes...quZhxVYQFrdsCKg

[Aptorian]

Danish National Elections were today. Still waiting for the first exit polls.

I ended up voting for Klaus Riskjær despite his party being expected to not get any seats. I thought I might as well show some support, even if it's probably a wasted vote in the game of thrones shuffling of seats in parliament. The left are relatively certain to win this one so I didn't feel worried about voting funny.

Thought some of you guys might be curious about what a ballot looks like when you've got 13 parties so I took a couple pictures.

First picture is just a basic instruction about how to fill out the ballot. You're allowed to put a cross in the box besides the party and also besides a specific politician if you want to. The rules are very specific, no doodles, no x's outside the boxes, no circles or any other funny business. If the ballot appears to be identifiable or your vote is unclear, the ballot is discarded.

Second picture is the list of parties and politicians who represent the different regions of Denmark. First person listed is usually the most popular candidate from the party. The letters in alphabetical order is the party letter. Each party has a letter that represents them in short form, it makes advertisement, especially on the signature election posters, simpler. I assume it also helps dyslexic or illiterate people.

The Americans might find it interesting how simple out voting process is. You automatically get an election letter with the mail that includes a slip. You take that letter to the voting place. They take your slip and ask your birth date, no identification needed, and hand you the ballot, you go put your x on the ballot put it in a box and that's it. No real hurdles. No hassle.

Spoiler

 valg1.jpg (55.6K)
Number of downloads: 0

Spoiler

 valg2.jpg (106.34K)
Number of downloads: 0

This post has been edited by Aptorian: 05 June 2019 - 06:02 PM

[Aptorian]

First exit poll:

 exitpoll1.jpg (24.89K)
Number of downloads: 0

Prelimenary predictions look great.

Riskjær unfortunately isn't even close. But thankfully Stram Kurs (Nazi Clowns) are probably not going to get a seat. Ny Borgerlige (Super Racists) might get one unfortunately. Dansk Folkeparti (Moderate racists) are going to lose over half their voters and be significantly weakened, thank fuck.

As always Social Demokratiet and Venstre, the big left wing and right wing parties, remain big and mostly equal. They're basically the same party anyway, they just have their favorites.

Basically the left had a great election, the center parties are also boosted and the right got slapped. All is right in the world.

Now it's going to be interesting to see what kind of government we get. Social Demokraterne might just make their own minority government and selectively make allegiances. Hopefully that doesn't make some of the other parties do anything crazy.

EDIT: Forgot to add. Liberal Alliance, basically the Danish equivalent of Americas Libertarians, also had a big set back which is awesome. They're the exact opposite of everything that makes Denmark work.

And the damn Christian Democrats are actually getting a seat. They massively fucked up their campaign this year so it's sort of weird to see that this year, of any election, they actually get in. Probably has something to do with them hiring a new hot female party leader as a replacement for their old, white, male conservative party leader halfway though the election month.

Now lets see them try to make anti-abortion sexy again by suggesting Danish women are confused and just need a good talk.

This post has been edited by Aptorian: 05 June 2019 - 06:28 PM

[Tiste Simeon]

I might move to Denmark.