Germany’s General Election:

Gerhard Schroder “Clings on“

(Article #7)

Jeff Brunell

In one of the tightest German elections for half a century, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder’s coalition of Social Democrats and Greens managed to cling on to power by its fingertips. Together the pair have 306 seats, a majority of nine in the Bundestag, the lower house of parliament. Mr. Schroder’s slim majority will not only make it harder for his government to push through painful reforms but also puts a question-mark over its longevity.

Discipline within the left-wing parties is often loose, particularly among the idiosyncratic Greens. The conservative opposition has gained ground. It already controls the Bundesrat, Germany’s upper house, where about half of the federal legislation has to be passed. And the economy is stagnating. Edmund Stoiber, the defeated conservative challenger, says he expects the new government’s life to be “very, very short.”

Stoiber, who had earlier prematurely declared victory after early returns, told his supporters: "Should the result not allow us to form a government, then I predict before you that this Schroeder government will rule for only a very short time.

"Perhaps there is a piece of universal justice there that Mr. Schroeder will be able to live through the results of what he has brought upon us. Just give him a few months to go through that."

He added: "We will continue to state: This (Social Democratic-Greens) coalition will not heal our country's economy and further there will be no release from the isolation from Europe and the United States."

It was estimated that about 80 percent of Germany's 61 million voters turned out to cast their votes -- one for a local candidate and one for a party. Some reports said the final difference between the Schroeder and Stoiber results may be less than 9,000 votes.

Official results showed the ruling Social Democrat-Green coalition parties squeezed through with a combined 47.1 percent of the vote, giving them 306 seats in the new 603-seat parliament. The Christian Democrats and Free Democrats polled 45.9 percent of the vote, giving them 295 seats.

With the Social Democrats losing ground since the previous election, in 1998. It was the Greens who kept the ruling coalition afloat. They emerged as the elections only real winners, with 8.6% of the vote, their highest score since they first won seats in parliament in 1983. They are now clearly the country’s third force.

Table #1

ELECTION RESULTS
PARTIES / VOTE
Social Democrats / 38.5%
CDU-CSU / 38.5%
Greens / 8.6%
Free Democrats / 7.4%
PDS / 4.0%
Others / 2.6%
Source: Federal Electoral Commission

Mike Becker

European Politics

“The German Question”

by Richard Bernstein

The article the “German Question” was written by Richard Bernstein. The opening point to this piece is the discussion of Germany’s stance on the war in Iraq. Germany sided against the United States in it decision not to go to war or support America in this effort. They provided several excuses in their defense such as their efforts in Kosovo with NATO and in Afghanistan as well with the war of terrorism. Bernstein goes on to discuss one of Germany’s point of view in fighting terrorism as somewhat different that the American one. Germans felt it was better to fight the root causes as they saw them of terrorism, poverty. The German official that is in the spotlight for this is Joschka Fischer, the German foreign minister. He is a Green that was given his seat through a coalition government with the Social Democrats. Bernstein goes on to tell of the chilled relations between the two countries over this issue, but more a trend that has been brewing since the end of the cold war and German re-unification. Because of Germany’s history with the Nazi’s, division, and position in the cold war it has tended to be more pacifistic in dealing with issues. They tended to care more about the concerns of other as opposed to those of just Germany argues Bernstein. When the Schröder government came to power, especially after September 11th, it criticized the Kohl government for not helping the Americans and for taking “only secondary measures” to assist. At this point they wanted to help and be more engaged in the world more. German foreign policy became more active. As time progressed however, the Germans and the Americans were loosing their footing on some of the same issues. So of these issues included the death penalty, the Kyoto Protocol on global warming and the International Criminal Court in The Hague. The point of the article was to show the re-emergence of Germany on the international scene as a power player. In the past it had been pro-American (in general) and the counter-weight to the French response. However, since the fall of the wall, Germany has slowly been re-asserting itself into the world and began speaking out against American policy, especially on the Iraq war. Though they are helping now, they still feel that the reasons for going were wrong, as well as how it was done. The fact is though, is that their interests are now with America coming through in Iraq.

Article 22

A Difficult Birth

By Kate Dory

Article 22 on the European Union, titled “A difficult birth”, covers the problems the EU has encountered while trying to develop their constitution. The anonymous author insists that the root of these problems is based on arm-twisting, obfuscation, and opt-outs. The article does not provide a solution to this situation, instead predicting the EU to split into two groups, a core that accepts the constitution, and a wide group that will opt-out on participating in a lot of the political activities.

Arm-twisting is dealt with the example of Poland and Spain reluctantly accepting a “double majority” voting system that lessens their power in the EU. However, obfuscation comes into play in the latest plan, which gives Poland and Spain more power to block laws they don’t like. Arm-twisting could also come into play when dealing with the internal laws of other countries. France’s ban on veils in schools could be challenged by someone from another EU country under the EU constitution.

The author puts considerable blame on the United Kingdom’s government for the changes that undermine the charter. Prime Minister Tony Blair insisted on Britain’s retention of a veto power and opt-outs. These opt-outs, under a new provision, state that a country feeling their own criminal laws threatened by the EU laws can opt-out of the application of those laws. This also applies to perceived threats to a nation’s social security. One of Britain’s main concerns was the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is alien to the British legal system and could be used to overturn laws created in the Thatcher era. The United Kingdom’s government fought hard to claim that it creates no new rights that don’t already exist in the state. By making sure the charter does not contradict with current laws, this action would make its existence worthless and ineffective.

Ten countries were planning to hold referendums on the constitution at the time the article was written. If one country says no to the constitution and its laws, the article says, it will be legally impossible to even implement the constitution. The two groups will make each other ineffective by their existence, hindering any process the EU could possibly make.

Adam Paczkowski

Gov’t and Politics of Europe

31 March 2006

Summary: The Voters Take Their Revenge.

The article “The Voters Take Their Revenge” was written for the June 2004 issue of The Economist. The article deals with the European elections to select a new European Parliament and how the voters cast a protest vote against their governments and the EU in general. In 23 of the 25 EU member countries, the largest party in the national governments saw a huge decrease in their number of votes with the main trend across Europe being that of anti-incumbency.

In the election, most votes were cast on national lines; however, they hold European consequences with center-right parties continuing to be the largest group in the European Parliament, followed by Socialists. The four biggest political parties in parliament will be the European People’s Party, the Socialists, a new Liberal Party, a centrist group and the Greens, three out of the four are expected to be lead by Germans and all by committed federalists. Also, after reallocation of seats, the Germans will now make up the largest national block in parliament controlling 99 out of 732 Members of European Parliament (MEPS).

Although parties that are committed to European integration are still the largest block in parliament across Europe there was a rise in vote for Eurosceptic parties. The biggest breakthrough of this was in Britain where the UK Independence Party took 12 seats and 16% of the vote. Also in Sweden, the Junelist, a new Eurosceptic party, took 14.4% and three seats. However, some Eurosceptic parties did poorly, like Jens-Peter Bonde, a Danish MEP who is the leader of the main Eurosceptic party and ended up loosing three seats leaving just one. Also, the souverainistes of France saw their vote percentage drop.

While some would see the Eurosceptic holding just 10% of all MEPS another group called the Euro-awkward hold as many as 200 seats in parliament. These Euro-awkward are defined as those who oppose the new EU constitution or who hold their main rallying point as being a fight against corruption in the EU. Political parties that fit into this Euro-awkward group include the British Tories, Swedish Greens, far-rightists, unreconstructed Communists, as well as nationalists and populists of all political persuasions, all of which will make parliament much harder to manage.

The article also addresses the issue of how people are more likely to vote in national elections rather than in European elections, called the “Euro-gap,” and the general lack of interest in EU elections. This gap stands at an average of 21.9% in the 15 old EU countries and 29.1% in the ten new members. The average voter turnout in the EU fell in this election to just 45%. In France just over 7.6 million people watched the election returns on television, while 13.5 million tuned in for the England-France football match in the European championships.

Kevin Tober 3/30/06

What the EU Constitution Says

The article on "What the EU Constitution Says," explains the provisions what the European Union constitution says and means. The article only explains specific provisions of what the European constitution says and means like "leaving the EU, role and powers of the President, etc..." There were some key developments leading up to the ratification of the constitution. Members of the European Union had a convention in Brussels to start work of a constitution in February 2002. In June 2003, drafts were submitted to EU-Thessaloniki summit. That December, Brussels summit fails to agree final text. In May 2004, the European Union enlarges to 25. The final draft of the constitution was agreed on June 18th, 2004 in Brussels. The article points out many things about the EU constitution that the EU can have "the objectives of the intended action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the member states but can rather ... be better achieved at Union level." This means that this clause is trying to stop the Union from encroaching on the rights of member states other than in areas where the members have given them away. Many EU has responsibilities. According to its constitution, the EU has a right to legislate over external trade and customs policy, the internal market, the monetary policy of countries in the eurozone, agriculture and fisheries and many. This means that the EU will have more aspects on life.

How do the members of the EU vote? According to the article, members of the EU can vote and there can be vetoes for members in foreign policy, defense, and taxation, especially for voting where there can be "a majority 55% of the members Council, comprising at least 15 of them and representing Member states comprising at least 65%

of the population of the Union." What this means is that this system replaces an old voting system where countries got specific number of votes and was made to have some balance between small and large countries.

Another point that the article made was that if a member of the EU wants to leave that member "has to notify the Council of is intention ... The Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that state..." According to EU's constitution, a member state could leave by simply repealing its legislation but this clause is presumably designed never to be used. One part of the article, I thought was interesting was the European Union having "legal supremacy," where the EU's laws "trump those of national parliament. The European Union has the right to legislate any law over any country's national law in an area of policy but where the EU does not legislate national law. The constitution does state that by having a "legal personality" or "legal supremacy," the European Union will be able as an organization, to enter into international agreement.

How is a President selected for the European Union? According to the European Union Constitution, the President is elected by a qualified majority for a two and half year term but not anyone just can run, the candidate must be approved by the European Parliament. Once elected, the President will chair the council and work for "the external representation of the Union." As of right now, the Council presidency rotates through the member states every six months, so continuity is lost.

In many aspects, this is a new post because the European Council only consists of heads of state or government of member states. Also, the European Union has a foreign minister. The Foreign minister is selected by a qualified majority of the Juropean Council with the agreement of the president of the Commission. Once picked, the Foreign Minister will only be able to speak on the EU's behalf when there is an agreed or common policy. The Roadmap to Peace would be a good example, which members have accepted.