I take back what I said starting at 18:47 ; The same thing applies to US states and their individual elections. Thanks for all the help in the comments guys👍
Do you can react to sabaton "the first soldier"? There's a animated video (12 minutes) and his history is increadible, he was probably the greatest french soldier and like chick norris but IRL please
THE LEFT are your basic far letf marxist leninist comunists all the way, THE GREENS are left marxists focused on enviroment and animal treatment and woke mindset, and don't really have much to give on other topics, the ID group is somewhat far right wing conservative nationalists with a eurosceptic eye, they care a lot about identity and democracy and religion, ECR are somewhat far right wing conservative reformists, also eurosceptic but want to change the EU from within, democratic in mind, the RENEW EUROPE are center right liberal to social liberal conservatives, pro-europeanists, the S&D are the marxist socialists and social democrats, so letf center, pro democratic, and EPP are centre right, centrist Democrat to international democrat pro-europeanists.
to an american, Trump, in europe would be your right wing to far right wing ID or ECR, RENEW EUROPE and EPP; and Biden would be your let to far left S&D to GREEN and THE LEFT
Green parties are not actually single-issue parties. Yes, their priority is the environment, but they also tend to be more socially progressive than the traditional centre-left parties on many issues, such as feminism, LGBTQ issues, etc. They also differ in the fact that they tend to be much more vocally pro-Palestine than the centre-left. In the case of the EU Greens/EFA group, it's also worth mentioning that it also contains the EFA (European Free Alliance) which is comprised of regionalist/separatist parties, so this is another ideological characteristic of the Greens/EFA group as a whole.
The Green party, like many others, is not a one-issue party, but they include the environment in everything (where applicable). For example, when it comes to mobility, they not only consider the financial aspect, but also include environmental aspects in their point of view.
People often forget what a titanic enterprise these elections are. Just a 100 years ago, this would have been impossible. Either because many of the countries weren't yet democratic, they were actively engaged in war (or about to), or they couldn't stand each other in general. The first idea for a first general election only came about 50 years ago, and in 1979 just the first election was held. At that time for only 9 member states. Today, this election represents one of the biggest democratic elections in the world.
With regards to partisanship and new groups, when people vote in the EU they are not thinking "I will vote for whomever is in the EPP", they will just vote for whatever party in their country is closest to their view. If that party happens to join the EPP then that is up to the party, it isn't directly related to voters.
Except of course, that hypothetical party and all others are not entirely making an uncoerced choice. Joining an EP group is the precondition for a significant level of support, financial and other, that the they'd otherwise forego. The whole aim is to dragoon national political parties into a wholly confected pan-EUropean structure. One consequence being this can often leave smaller ones tied to merely nominal equivalents from large states and preclude their simply and easily withdrawing from the relevant bloc.
The difference with most green and left parties is that green parties are usually more progressive (they are NOT single issue parties) and left parties are more conservative and isolationist.
To a certain degree, the word Green is just a historical remnant. There are parties with the name ‘social democratic’ that are now center-right parties. There are communist parties that don’t advocate communism anymore. Yes, the Green parties are the parties which care most about the environment. But while they had started out as an environmental (and peace) movement in the 1970s, they today might be just a center left party. Much like Social Democrats don’t just care only about social issues.
@@NightBlado The issue is that these terms get conflated. Originally, all right means no redistribution and all left means full redistribution. Conservative vs. progressive and authoritarian vs liberal are terms that often correspond to one side of that left-right dichotomy but overall, it isn't really that simple. The radical left (at least speaking for my country) is just as anti war and pro Russia as the radical right. And look at the newest party that got seats in this election (probably), BSW. Founded by the former leader of The Left bc she (and apparently many voters) didn't like the progressive style economic left politics, so now this new conservative left wing party got twice as many votes as the party their leader just left. It's not always cookie-cutter.
well most of the greens in europe did not yet understand that ecology without class war is just gardening. still trying to cope with ultra rich behaviours that are absolutely imcompatible to ecology.
Belgium's prime minister resigning is a bit of a misunderstanding we had federal elections at the same time of the EU ones. It is normal for him to resign and continue as a caretaker government while the new government forms and in Belgium that can take a while.
3:08 "So, these three are the parties in the EU that have the most people?" No, let's take for example "France Insoumise". It has 9 seats out of the 81 seats allocated to France. That means 9/81 = 11.1% of french voters voted for "France Insoumise" The Greens are not a single-issue party: they're also explicitely feminist. But apart from that, you can't simply equate a single anti-immigration issue party to a green economy issue party, because the latter is having such a huge impact on the whole society.
Yes. Going with the political spectrum of the EU, the US has no left party. The Democrats have small progressive and liberal camps within the party, but the mainstream of the party would fit in the center right epp. The Republicans are quite right, on some topics like abortion, church and state and social support systems even far right.
I humbly disagree: Trump would likely be "too Nazi" and kicked out of ID group like the German AfD was three weeks ago because they're true fascists and neo Nazis. Marine Le Pen (French far right) met with co-AfD chairperson Alice Weidel in Paris and after that, she even insisted on not leaving the restaurant together and told media people later on that the AfD was "too right for her". That speaks volumes. AfD is in fact a nationalist party - the only question is: For what nation? The Czech secret service accuse them for getting money from Moscow and at least one AfD assistant in the EP is accused of being a Chinese spy and in custody right now … Pretty weird stuff going on with that party.
also, the WOKE party are Liberals, push transgender groups and openly push LGBT The greens are the other extreme, they want to kill cows because they fart and electrify all cars the right wing and the right want to disband the EU (Trump support) because a strong Europe does not suit them
The us left wing seems to be RIGHT of many European parties that call themselves center or even right-center - but that will very widely on a topic by topic basis
The whole thing about Europe being centered more left wing is entirely false. The political landscape is indeed different, and there are different issues, but in no way is let's say Marco Rubio or any republican more right wing than Georgia Meloni. Fidesz is literally promoting national revisionism against other European countries - you don't see republicans or democrats arguing for wars against Canada. The Renew group is actually more left wing on social issues than center, and a bit to the right on economic stuff - but it is certainly not a centrist group in the way you think of it. Also, there are different elections for the individual country's parliaments and for the European parliament. They usually take place on different dates and are separate elections.
I don't agree. Trump is very much like Orban, Meloni, Le Pen or the PIS party. Immigration, abortion, religion, lgbtqia+, more authoritarian pov, EU/NATO-scepticism (except Meloni on NATO), national populism etc... While Biden/Democrats are close to EPP in Europe in Economical and social issues : liberalism, free exchange market... Democrats are not socialists, even this word is banned from american political spectrum (except maybe Bernie Sanders). + They did not create a real and free health/social security (probably because it's against the rules of the private market) unlike the rights wing parties throughout Europe.
The European Parliament has a fixed number of seats in total (720). Each member country also has a fixe number of those seat for representation available. How many each country is getting, is based on the total population numbers of that country. So for example, Germany with the highest population gets the most number of seats = 96, France has 81. People in all countries vote for their representative parties in each individual country and fill those available seats with politicians from their parties accoring to the vote result. These guys then form a larger group with political ideological matching parties from other countries.
The seats allotted to member states are based on *degressive proportionality* in terms of population with a chosen minimum of 6 seats and a chosen maximum of 96 seats. Hence, the more populous a member state, the more citizens are represented per MEP (decreasing seats-to-votes ratio). As a result, Maltese and Luxembourgish voters have roughly 10x more influence per voter than citizens of the six largest countries. In true proportionality, already the difference in seats between Germany (~85M) and France (~65M) would be immense.
19:00 No, the European Union elections are completely separate from the national elections of the individual member states. The voting constituencies for the EU elections may also be different from those for national elections because they are regional. Different countries may have parties forming coalitions for the EU elections that don't exist at their national election level. The voting is proportional. So the results of national elections have no direct bearing on the results in the EU elections.
I usually look at it as supernational votes, then national votes and then regional votes. But currently, we don't have pan-European politics where we vote for a single party or leader yet, that could change if the EU Commission is electable or if it's merged with the EU President and again, electable by the people, which I think in the long run, that's how it will go.
19:58 ID is openly Pro Putin, ECR is moderately more Atlantist and somewhat skittishly Pro-Ukraine. While still having neo fascists, some parties inside ECR are more moderate than others, while ID is completely filled with nutcases, and even neo fascists sometime want plausible deniability. The most important aspect is National Politics imo. More often than not they completely agree in EU politics, but their disagreements at the National level matter more for Euroskeptic groups (Example, Italy had in its national government a party from ECR and a party from ID, they want to be seen as different entities internally and having different EU affiliations helps). Other times they deliberately divide extremist policies between one another to cast the widest net possible.
In a multiparty parliamentary system (like the EU uses), one issue parties make sense for wide-impact issues like environmental protection. They can advocate on those matters while other parties advocate on other issues. It’s more problematic in a strict two party and presidential system like the US as the party with the presidency has either unchecked power or no power (depending on the other branches) with little in between.
In a 100 party system that relies on coalitions, a one issue party is drowned out. Especially a system where the parliament can't put forward or amend proposals. Any where else in the world a system like that would be seen to be only a front for democracy, something to fool the voting public into thinking it was democratic and whomever they sent could make any change.
@@Gambit771 it’s almost exactly the same system as any parliament: the executive chooses which laws are put forward and the legislature supplies confidence in the executive by voting to approve them. In this case though the executive is nominated by the member states’ governments rather than being members of the legislature providing member state oversight to the process. This is why these results matter: the executive (EU Commission) may change if the hard and far right decides to work together to push their choices. You might not like the particular system chosen (I don’t myself, because I feel it needs more apolitical expert oversight rather than more direct elections), but it isn’t especially weird for a parliamentary system or a representative democracy (and presidential systems have their own problems that make them very unstable and corruptible).
22:17 If ECR and ID merge together they will become the second largest party and if that happens they will be able to break the established Center right, Center, Center Left coalition that has been governing the EU for a very very long time. They could do this by offering to work with EPP the largest group that is center right which would mean all right leaning groups could govern together without having to work with the center and center left. Hope you understand me here and ECR and ID aren’t at all copies there are many things that make them different. EU made simple as he said in the vid many times has made videos on each of the 7 individual EU groups which you totally should react to. You’ll even see me and Light mention in one of them. ;)
Actually, even with Fidesz and AfD joining an EPP, ID, ECR group would be slightly short of a majority I think (like a by dozen seats, but still, it's not enough). They'd need some additional seats and i'm not seeing any of the other groups accepting to work with ID.
But just what can any of these groups do? It is a watered down 'parliament' with very little power other than to vote in (but not amend) what the European commission presents.
@@Gambit771Yeah, but they also vote for the European Commission (and they can hold a no-confidence vote). It doesn't have as much power as national parliaments, but it is still important
The thing is that the ECR and ID don't really go well that much. For the ECR the ID group is too much radical and they tend to support countries that the ECR see as "enemies of their own countries".
Green Parties generally aren't just focused on the single issue of environmentalism, although that is their primary concern. They have policies on all sorts of other issues and you can have left-leaning greens and right-leaning greens. The Greens/EFA grouping in the EU Parliament also includes separatist/regional parties that similarly can straddle the left/right divide.
They started as a one issue party. When the other parties were tut tuting the issue away and couldn’t care less. So they built the party that was needed to address the environment. Now they have their standpoints towards all the other political talking points, too and became a mainstream party in Germany. And _The Environment_ is not that easy to handle. Sometimes nature protection and climate protection are sadly not done the same way.
What would change if ECR + ID align and form one grouping? They get more money. The European Parliament system basically allocates funding to groups for things like staff, promotion of political activities (not campaigning, but 'informational') etc. The bigger the group, the more money it gets. The group then decides how to allocate that money internally - e.g. to each delegation a certain percentage and the group as a whole a certain percentage - e.g. 30% for the group and 70% for national delegations, or 45% for the group and 55% for the national delegations. So money is one benefit. Positions of influence on committees is also another thing - so the larger the group, the more chairmanships of committees, key decision-making positions, they can potentially negotiate, giving them more overall influence. Just some examples of the benefits of bigger groups.
Each country has a number of seats and that is based on the population of the country (up to a point). For example Germany has more seats than say Portugal (a lot more). Smaller countries do have slightly more seats in proportion though. Now, depending on the obtained votes in their country, each party gets a number of seats and then joins, usually, a cohalition in the EP. Note: there are quite a few centre right parties withing the EPP group: They can position themselves as Social Democrats, Social Christians, Conservatives (not reactionaries), maybe some Classical Liberals. Green parties have been around for quite some time and in my country they are known as the "watermelon" parties - red inside with a green coating :)))
@@Gambit771 There are several issues with the system. The composition of the EP is far from being the problem. But I don't really know what you mean by "fair" and "progressive". Personally I would like to see some changes in the construction of the EU, but overall the EU has proven to be an advantage to just about every member-state. Most European countries have no chance if they become isolated in this new world that is forming, as it seems to be moving once again toward the rule of regional powers. Certainly the small ones.
@@dinismantas7265 I was a bit vague, I mean that depending on the size of the country means to can have more or fewer mep's. That goes against the eu and their cousins to be progressive and fair and the point of pr voting. The problem with European countries being left behind cannot be solved with the eu. The eu is one of the main reasons they are being left behind. South Korea doesn't need to be within the eu to survive, nor Japan. The eu isolates European countries from the world by imposing tariffs and restrictions when trading outside the eu. The eec was a much better system.
@@Gambit771 I radically and completely disagree. I wouldn't have the time to explain why South Korea and Japan are not comparable to the EU. In fact, they are facing huge challenges with collapsing demographics. As I said, I would prefer changes in the rate of development of the EU, some limits to the central bureaucratic intervention and more respect for national (even local) autonomy in the social-cultural aspects. There are also mistakes than can be corrected in time. The fact is, Europe has been aflictted by constant conflict throughout the history of the continent. The EU has been a good way of controlling conflict. Mere economic arrangements and trade are not enough, as Mr Putin has demonstrated. There is also the question of a challenging demography in Europe, which will be better tackled with scale. Scale is also a better way to maintain a level of prosperity. Countries with a few less than 10 million people will struggle in the the new global reality, especially when we see the end of the "Pax Americana" that was maintaining the commercial routes around the world. Even the immigration issue will only be dealt with a collective policy in both border control and in the creation of incentives for the people inside their countries of origin. The recent history of the EU has shown a marked increase of prosperity for countries that have joined the Union. This is just undisputable when you analyze the data from the last decades. A level of economic protectionism can be necessary under certain circumstances, although used only when necessary. See for example the dumping of prices practiced by China. Protectionist measures are very much necessary.
M.E.P's (Members of European Parliament) there's no elections regarding who is the E.U president. That's a selection rather than an election, and just one reason the British voted to leave the European Union.
Well said. When i say to people that i voted for Brexit they think i am far right, but i voted for democracy. I do not trust the E.U. I could not even vote for the E.U. Presidential candidate that i wanted, only an M.E.P. who then had my vote to do what he wants. It is a mess.
@@Michael.Talbot You also did not vote for the British prime minister. Did you? You voted for a political party. The political party or political party collision that gets the most seats makes the government and selects a prime minister. That is also how the EU election works. If you don't like the EU system, you should also not like the British one.
You are absolutely right, if you would plot the American Democrats and Republicans on a euro left right divide, both parties would be on the right, since neither have specifically left wing ideology on a European scale.
You're completely right that the centrists are moving to the right. There's a lot of radicalization going on rn, firstly with the uncontrolled immigration from the muslim countries, secondly with the war and threat from Russia. This kind of environment always causes a raise in conservative and nationalist sentiments. Sadly though a lot of the right/far right parties have ties with Russia, which they're less or more open about- French RN, Hungarian Fidesz, German AFD...
Just to clarify a mistake in the video. The belgian prime minister did not resign due to the European elections. We had coinciding national, regional and European elections so a new government was going to be formed anyway. Their haevy losses in the three elections however made them announce pending changes in party leadership and policy focus.
The Overton window is an approach to identifying the ideas that define the spectrum of acceptability of governmental policies. It says politicians can act only within the acceptable range. Shifting the Overton window involves proponents of policies outside the window persuading the public to expand the window.
It doesn’t take much to move the window either, which is why the 2016 social media intelligence operations were so effective in the US and UK. Our brains have a cognitive bias towards centring ourselves in whatever community we find ourselves. One of the most effective ways to deal with racism is to spend time with people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds. One of the main tactics of fascism is othering. It’s a technique used in stakeholder management at large companies too: you get support for a process change by seeding supporters throughout the organisation. They shift an equivalent of the Overton window for ‘how we do things’.
Yes, parties gain seats from national elections and percentage of votes in theirs election, but every country have diffrent amount of total number of seats dependent on population.
Size of your parliamentary group determines microphone time, as well as seats on various subcommittees of the European Parliament. Essentially, the bigger the group, the higher the exposure and clout it has. An ID + ECR group might grant the parties involved more collective clout, but on the other hand, some of the individual parties that compose it may not see eye to eye on various issues, and their agenda might get squandered in case of such merger, plus some of the smaller members might leave. Already there is talk about FIDESZ and the AFD, together with a few other parties, making their own group. Others might follow them there, such as Poland's Konfederacia, Romania's SOS, and a bunch of others.
Well, no major change would happen. These groups are ideological aligned, but the individuals still vote based on their countries representative role and according to their ideology. But these groups do cooperate and support within each other. Politicians that might be neutral on a topic will vote in favor of their alignment and support their buddies and vice-versa. So these groups do make them stronger, in a way.
While it's still technically being updated, right will have about ~200 members, but them uniting into one block seems unrealistic. Anyways, in another 5 years it might shift to right even more...
First of all, I respect and support anyone trying to expand their knowledge. Secondly if you wish to understand what each group stands for, you can access the links in the video you've reacted to. The channel has created pretty good overviews of each party's manifesto. Third and final, I agree that the right surge is visible globaly, it is up to us to take a stand and encourage people to understand their choices and their consequences.
"If this party just called themselves the anti-immigration party" If they did that, half of the parties would have to change their name to that, as well.
If you want to know what each EU group stands for, that channel has a short video explaining each group! Youcould do a sequel to this video reacting to those.
The thing about single-issue parties is that it is extremely rare for one party to rule in a proportional electoral system. Coalitions are the norm. So, in practice, they will rule together with other parties (this is of course even more true in the EU parliament). Also, they're not really single-issue parties anymore. Often parties will form around an issue they feel is neglected by others (e.g. the environment, immigration) and then broaden over time as they gain influence.
if ecr and id combine into one party they will be in a verry strong position to make a coalition and govern the eu. if you are not chosen in the coaltion you are in the oppostion and cant do much. The vote for eu is also seperate then for country, this year i had to vote 3 times on the same day
If you gather the right wing from the NI then the numbers might be there, just about. It's that they wont agree on any shit atm, need another 5 years before talking about that. AfD is gonna form a new right wing group with new/NI parties so there will be 3 right wing groups, one led by germans, one led by french and one led by italians and polish.
The single-axis 'Left Wing-Right Wing' analysis is obsolete and over-simplistic. There are various 2-axis analyses which are more informative, but there's little agreement on which of them is the most useful. I suspect we need at least a 3-axis model.
You can't really compare the various policies between American politics or even among the European countries. For example, in France we consider the RN to be fascists yet a lot of them have nothing against abortion rights, same sex marriage or most other civil liberties while being obsessed by immigration, Islam and drugs.
European elections are organized by each country, and people from each country elect their representatives to the EU parliament. It is a proportional vote. For example, Marine le Pen and her party (RN) got 31% of the French votes, so they will get 31% of the French seats at the EU parliament. But a party needs a minimum of votes to have seats (5% in France) so the RN will get more than 31% of the seats. Around 30 for the 81 French seats. Rules are slightly different in each country, for example in Germany there is no minimum threshold to be elected and thus the elections are 100% proportional. And as the number of seats is proportional to the country population, they get the most representatives, 96 seats in the parliament. For the political compass and comparison with the US, it is very hard to make. Each European country has a different political landscape and the issues aren't the same. And there are also dynamics, things change. On economic issues, I would still say that you are right but you also had a socialist shift within the Democrat party and the popularity of socialism in the US among the youth so...the gap is closing
gotta remember that parties from the diffrent countries also have their own intresstes for their home country and not just for EU, and more like protectiong or stopping the eu from enforcing some laws on the country or something and might cause them to vote against their own group from time to time
The election showed a relatively clear division. Most of the EU moved to the right, while we in the north (Denmark, Sweden and Finland) moved to the left. But if there are no new groups, the situation is more or less status quo. Having said that, the parliament obviously needs to deal with the new developments without arrogance
Francis Wright what they say it's these foreigners coming in all on the boats it's the same in England and every European country is the same the second looking at them
13:30 i would say thats a good observation i play close attention to these things mainly from a uk politics standpoint tho 16:05 here it sounds like your trying to describe something called the Overton window, you should look it up
In my experience over here, the Greens tend to also be socially liberal. The German Greens are also hawkish on Russia. In some countries the Greens were anti NATO e.g. Sweden. But the war in Ukraine has created unanimity on NATO in the Swedish parliament almost. The Irish Greens oppose us joining NATO - we are one of a handful of European countries not in NATO.
I love when you dissociate. At 4:23 it basically says that that specific coalition (LEFT) got 35 seats across Europe, but this coalition is represented by a different party in each country. So, in France it got 9 seats with the candidacy of La France Insoumise, while in Germany the candidacy Die Linke got 2 seats, and so on. But European institutions are confusing to foreigners at first, it's okay I promise.
It's because of rampant immigration people are moving right. Here in 🇸🇪 I can not go to the town square and preach the gospel without risking my life by another tolerant and peaceful religion.
well you should know better than trying to force your will upon those poor traumatized people. just give them a little time and eventually they will magically integrate and become the most valuable people of your country. they just have to get used to Europe. s/ at least that's what the leftist parties try to make us believe. and this is exactly why more and more people vote right, if left doesn't listen to our concerns we will vote for parties that do listen.
That has mothing to do with immigration though. I am completely Swedish and I don't want to hear your religious crap. Please keep it to yourself. I can't really understand why people have to try to force their beliefs onto others all the time. And are you actually calling yourself tolerant and peaceful while doing that? Also I don't think you're risking your life. I haven't seen anyone stoned to death here yet.
It’s funny how the progressive left welcomes all those jihadists into the country, while the most progressive Islamist would throw gay people off rooftops. Thanks to the “religion of peace”, Africans and what not, the Europeans now turned against immigration, and as an HK Christian man my hopes of working in Europe in stem field is now crushed. Who do I blame? The migrants themselves who ruined the collective prestige of non-whites.
Whats happening isnt good, its amazing. People are rejecting the mainstream parties that have both switched to the centre. Peoples concerns aren't being addressed.
Voting in eu is different For example Country 1 Party A get 100k votes that might get 6 seats Party B get 75k get 2 seats Party C get 50k g Party D might get 25k might get 0 point In USA Party A will be winer say in new York because you have a 1st past the post, please can people help me with spelling please
Greens in Europe tend to be cenenter left, often making coalitions with social democrats, but being somewhat okay with working with the center right. They are not single issue parties, as those types of parties only really gain support in very local elections.
Every country has a number of seats. At the election the seats of the country are distributed according to the votes each party gets. And then the parties of the countries decide which group in the EU parliament they want to be part of. Please remember that Liberal is not the same in USA as in Europe 😊
What happened was the media and politicians have been ignoring the people and slandering anyone that dares to not follow them. So the people sought out an alternative and the media and politicians don't like that so have doubled down on behaving in the way that has caused these results.
Greece's SYRIZA left wing party is actually the official opposition in the country but with just 14% of the vote, so they elect three MEP's from the 21 overall MEP's allocated for Greece. The number of the MEP's a country elects is proportional to its population (Greece, Czechia, Hungary, Portugal, Sweden have similar populations and elect 21 MEP's each)
if 2groups merge they gain more seats from diferrent parties from EU countries because voters vote for there national party inside the group and not the group itself
As Spaniard, the blue colour in Europe are the right, the same as red in USA are the republicans. However, in Europe, they are separate in three political groups. I imagine that at republican party has differences inside, from more moderate to more conservative. The democrats in USA has the same difference inside. From more moderate to more leftists. While in Europe different groups are represented, in USA, the Two main parties concentrated all the politics.
Yeah, it becomes very obvious that most centrists actually lean right-wing when you realise they only talk about the left being too much & trying to justify why they had to vote right-wing; but in times of right-wing dominance they never talk about balancing the situation by voting left. The left is always too left to vote for, but the right never too right to ignore. You can swallow your values to vote right to prevent the left-wing, but never vice-versa.
In Europe if you say left you think about communism, if you say right you think about fascism, of course it's extreme position but it's what it comes to mind...So center-left and center-right it's like a method to said that "we have left/right ideals but we are not extremists"😅
There is no point in comparing the EU to the US. The European Union is still an international organization, not a state. However, it has institutions (European Parliament, European Commission) resembling the legislative and executive authorities in ordinary countries. EU citizens vote in European Parliament elections in the constituencies of their home countries, and each country has a treaty-defined number of seats to fill. There is no point in comparing the political spectrum in EU member states to that in the US (due to historical and political differences). The competences of the legislative and executive authorities are also different (smaller in the EU). Either way, the coalition of political groups in the European Parliament influences the election of the head and members of the European Commission (which, to put it simply, is responsible for managing EU affairs). In fact, however, the European Parliament has opinion-forming powers, not legislative ones. I know that it sounds complicated for people from outside Europe, but take my word for it that many Europeans do not fully understand all the dependencies and connections within this complicated system (e.g. we do not have an EU president - only 3 people who perform similar functions together - the president the European Council, the head of the presidency of a member state and the head of the European Commission).
the party names are just what the party stands for, for example the greens are focused on the environment but they are also leftist liberals. in a goverment you have loads of different actions you have to take and not all are focused on climate, when this is the case they go back to their liberal roots to make their decision.
The pendulum swings from left to right etc ... The west has been pretty far left in recent decades so its not surprising that we see a swing to the right. But remember, this is the EU - undemocratic leaders of the EU that are put in place and not elected - needs to collapse completely.
The west certainly hasn't been "pretty far left" in recent decades. The big european left parties of the late 20th century either collapsed or moved to the center. Wealth inequality is steadily increasing to a level now as high as we haven't seen since monarchic times. What is far left about that, huh? If you reduce left wing politics to culture war stuff (as right wingers like to do) then you completely miss how and why the political left even came to be.
@@pinotpinotpinot I apologise for having such an opinion ...open borders for illegal migration, lockdowns, big government interfering in our lives, stifling of free speech, closing down open debate on Islam and trans / gender ideology, anti human Net Zero, attacking traditional farming, globalisation of everything .... I don't recall when I was asked if I agreed with all this nonsense that has been forced upon us all in the West - these actions are 'extreme' in my eyes and extremely far left, so apologies again for begging to differ with you.
I’d say that European (and to a lesser extent British) politics is more left-leaning by nature, so that a lot of British Conservative Party politicians would be considered leftists or “socialists” in America. Against that, most Republicans in the US would be considered pretty close to being called far-right in Europe.
Have a look at the NYTimes article that places North American and Western European parties on a left-right axis, based on data from the Manifesto Project. It is called: What Happened to America’s Political Center of Gravity?
In practice single-issue parties typically do have a stance on other topics, but they use immigration or the environment as their key selling point. I find it much more problematic how most people oversimplify the political spectrum into left wing versus right wing. It's kind of ironic that you justly mention the move to the extremes (due to the migration crisis and the impact of social media), but at the same time reinforce this black & white thinking. An often used alternative (although still a simplification) involves a spectrum with 2 axes : economical and socio-cultural. A good example would be the Belgian party Vlaams Belang, who are extreme right on the socio-cultural axis but lean more to the left on the economic axis.
The Belgian prime minister resigning had nothing to do with european elections! We held federal elections on the same they, which he and his party lost badly... It's like him saying "you can't fire me, I quit!"
I find new national elections bc of a bad international election result kinda silly. Maybe I'm alone in this but domestic politics and international politics face different issues, so I vote different parties. Like I said in the other comment, I technically voted green (and that party did gain seats) but I didn't vote THE Greens and that party I did vote is not (yet) part of that green party group.
Its dumb to categorize partys in a 1 dimensional scale, especially since traditional left and right ideologies are not opposite, but focus on different things.
Which I feel is more democratic because people's views are all over the place on the political map, in much of Europe, there are a lot of options when voting, whereas in the US, there's only really two options, and both are right wing parties, that limits choice whiles also more likely meaning that either party is less likely to listen to the citizens, because there's less need too because there's less of a threat to there power, it's a two party system that has a seesaw from one party to the next every 4 to 8 years with limited to almost impossible odds of a third party braking that because of how the system is set up, another country that isn't too far behind that is the UK, which is more or less a two party system, at least credible options, it's also a first past the post system like the US, it's democracy but done in such a way to dismiss a lot of the public voice.
@@c_n_bI’m going to assume you didn’t hear that they haven’t withdrawn party support from a candidate who thought as recently as 1-2 years ago that we should have cut a deal with the Axis powers during the Second World War. Combined with their use of barely disguised dogwhistles and othering of their political opponents they’re not really hiding their ultranationalism right now. (Side note: why is it that fascists/ultranationalists are so uncreative? They’ve reheated the same ridiculous tropes, attack lines and bonkers conspiracy theories for a 150 years. I shouldn’t complain as it makes it much easier to debunk, but it’s rather dull too)
Fortunately the center parties are still the largest in the new EU parliament. Yes the right gained more seats however in absolute numbers the middle held 😊😊
3:38 --> 4:15 you got it, sorry makes no sense what you are asking😅 those parties have the most seats in the left union (its like the european communist parties)and in france, there is like 65 million citizens so france has more seats in overall and so the left part of france has more seats than like de greek or others
Yeah, politics between the US and Europe are quite different. But the thing is, that the US has no left wing. What you consider "left wing" in the US would still be center-right in Europe. You guys hate communists, socialists and really don't have any of them, even if you sometimes use those terms to insult some politician.
"The Green party should be a part of a broader party". They sometimes are. And even if the Green party is not a single-issue party (as others have mentioned), a lot of left-wing parties have included environmental stuff on their program, so there's plenty of parties not called Greens, that do pass environmental laws. Just think of the Green party as a cooler version of the Social Democrats. Like, more on the left side of the political spectrum, *usually* less corrupt, and sometimes more anti-capitalist (even if not enough). And btw, the party I vote for on the municipal / local elections, is a pro-independence, left-wing party, but it's included in the Greens on the European Parliament, because politically it's the party it's closest to (feminist, socialist, also focuses on environmental issues).
It's not the same in America, but very much in Europe, the so called 'centre right' are really centre or centre left in actual policy and rhetoric. The conservatives and Labour agree on basically everything, from green energy, immigration, spending, taxation etc., only disagreeing on which does it better. All major centre-right European parties have mostly left wing economic and social positions.
1:00 S&D not the LEFT they are extreme left painted dark red. 5:36 Green has their manifesto for all the issues but they focus on green issue as the main problem. I linked you all manifestos in form of 10insh min videos on discord, if you are interested. 15:41 Go in EU made simple - playlist - EU elections explained - thank me later 19:57 ID and ECR are both nationalistic right wing parties difference is in the nuances. For example ID wants to arm national armies and they do not want to help Ukraine while ECR still wants to help Ukraine. 22:10 If ECR and ID merged and overcame their differences they would have more votes together and maybe force EPP in coalition with them.
You need to do 5% in France at least to have 5 seats at EU Over that it is 1 seat approximately for 1% The green care about everything but the environment They can be counted as far left and open boarders activists
Right and left doesn't mean the same thing in Europe and in the US. The US is definitely weighted towards the right from the get-go, so much so that our right wing parties in Sweden are probably more aligned with the US Democrats than they are with US Republicans.
American and European politicians do not match up easily. If I was to generalize, I would place 50% of the Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives in the S&D and the other 50% in Renew. Most of the Republicans would be divided between the ECR and ID, with possibly a handful in the EPP. Maybe Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would opt for the Green Party, but most likely she would be in the S&D. The Left would have no American politicians.
The Party with the most seats gets to choose who the President of the EU Comission will be. That would change. Now, with the EPP having the majority, Ursula vor der Leyen will be the President for a second term.
That is not the case. The candidate for Commission President is nominated by the European Council and voted on by the entire European Parliament. The European Council is the heads of government of all the 27 member states. Last time around the first candidate proposed was rejected by the EP. UvdL was actually second choice. All 720 MEPs vote on this.
I strongle disagree with you on thesis that center in EU is more left then in US, center is center, far right are nationalists, far left are komunists/socialists, we have even more diversity and have lot of wider spectrum then the parties in US
5:50 No large party is a single issue party, except maybe UKIP back when that was a thing. The Greens in Germany, for example, are just slightly more economic left, slightly more authoritarian and slightly more progressive than the SPD but otherwise a very similar party. And they're neither very green nor very economic left wing, which is why they had such an utterly terrible result in Germany, at least. Btw, we also have a more conservative green party (ÖDP) and a bunch of other animal rights, environmental protection and other parties. But except the party that came out of the Last Generation movement, not one of them is single issue. It's actually kinda nice, you get to vote for what you actually like in these European elections (no 5% clause or other). Quite a few people who would have voted the Greens for lack of better options in national elections (like me) now voted for parties like Volt! and the Tierschutzpartei. It's sometimes hard to find but data on voter migration (as in where did individual parties' losses go) is always interesting. That said, I feel like this election was so much more convoluted to follow in terms of results and despite all the smaller parties all having seats in parliament now, they didn't even list them with the fkn election results *on the official website*. That pissed me off it did. Tried to Google the overarching EU results but only found details for individual countries... 11:50 I absolutely can only speak for the FDP but at least they are absolutely not centrist. Being the furthest to the right economically and somewhat progressive socially doesn't make you centrist, it makes you double extreme at worst, haha. They're just libertarians. Ok, last edit: if I heard that correctly, we had a grand/great coalition (no, not the Napoleonic kind ^^) of S&D and EPP for the past period and it looks like we'll have the same again, with those numbers of votes. The opposition will look a little different and maybe there'll be some implications for national parties going forward but we're still gonna have the same government, probably. Btw, highest voter turnout in recent years and almost a record (1% lower than the first ever EU elections almost half a century ago). That is a good thing, at least. 17:40 Yes but also thinking about it in terms of just right and left is simplistic. Maybe the political compass has sth on this election? Even adding authoritarianism vs libertarianism is still simplistic but maybe that helps. They always use the same compass (I think), so you can compare it to past US elections.
In the EU basically center left is like Bernie Sanders, centrist liberals are like progressive liberal democrats, and center right is more like conservative democrats. All republicans would be considered at least firmly right wing, while most of the would be considered far right. Trump would be unpalatable even to a lot of far right parties here in Europe.
European and American political positions are difficult to compare. The Europeans who wrote the American Constitution rejected European monarchical state regimes and created a state always constrained by respect for the freedom of individuals. In Europe, despite the reforms or revolutions which affected the old monarchical regimes, individual freedoms are still conditioned on the superior collective interests represented by the states. This is reflected in particular by the question of right of bear arms: in the USA, it is the responsibility of each individual to use their gun wisely and the state never calls into question the freedom of each individual to possess a gun. In Europe, we consider that allowing individuals the freedom to own a weapon represents too great a danger for the community and states are asked to prohibit individuals from owning a weapon. Same thing for religions, in the USA, we give individuals the freedom to adhere to the “religion” of their choice, even the most “strange” ones. In Europe, we collectively prohibit the existence of religions that we consider dangerous because they exercise mental manipulation, what we call “cults”. Paradoxically, this allows individuals in the USA to impose, in the name of their "religion", if they are in the majority, restrictions on certain individual freedoms such as abortion, whereas in Europe, we collectively prohibit religions from imposing their views on this kind of freedom. From there, political positioning in the USA is above all an individual positioning of "values", often linked to religious or philosophical convictions, which authorize or prohibit certain things. In Europe, political positioning is generally a positioning of "social groups" which share both "values", but also collective socio-economic interests (more or less taxes, more or less public services, more or less less redistribution of wealth and today more or fewer advantages reserved for nationals compared to immigrants). The far-right groups (ID and ECR) are rather "nationalist" (favoring the interests of nationals over immigrants, which is why these groups are in difficulty with the very idea of European union, because the EU is a grouping of different "nationals". For example, in France, the parties of these groups denounce the immigration to France of populations which are nevertheless Europeans such as the Romanians). The right-wing EPP group is above all a group which favors the capitalist economy, with the least taxes and the least redistribution of wealth possible, by favoring "the invisible hand of the market" through competition rather than public services. It is also a rather conservative group in terms of “values”. The centrist “renew” group has the same economic ideas as the PPE group, but is more liberal in terms of “values”. The social-democratic S&D group considers that the State must "regulate" the capitalist market by organizing a form of redistribution of wealth. He is also rather liberal in terms of “values”. the "Green" group defends ecological issues and considers that the state must constrain the capitalist market by imposing rules to prohibit activities that contribute to climate change. It is also often the most liberal group in terms of “values”. The "Left" group is rather in favor of total state control over the economy by nationalizing strategic sectors of activity, both in relation to ecological issues and social justice. He is also very liberal in terms of “values”.
I think you are mistaken. In murica the states do call into question the rights for people to own guns. They do ask to prohibit people from owning guns. You are free in Europe to practice what religion you want. Where are you getting this nonsense from? Yanks? You do know Europe isn't one country?
This is just wrong. There are numerous countries in Europe where you can own a firearm, in Czechia f.ex. you can defend yourself with any weapon, including a gun. I'd hazard a guess that you can own a firearm in most European countries but only a few of them for self defense. The EU also has no say in the laws of a given member country, it's not a political union. It's an economic union with a political organisation attached. It is totally incomparable to the US, the US is a country like Germany is a country - a federation.
