Why are Europeans more effective at passing big legislation than the US?
Why are Europeans more effective at passing big legislation than the US?
EU has done really well on passing big laws such as GDPR in the recent years, while the US can't even seem to decide whether to fund their own government. Why do you think Europe is doing better than the US? One would think that since EU is more diverse it would be harder to find common ground. And there were examples of that during the Greece debt crisis. But not anymore, it seems.
USA government is just a puppet of lobbying groups IE: private companies. Thankfully Europe doesn't reach that level yet
“yet”.
I feel like we’re just one or two decades behind on … everything bad in the US.
I think it is much harder to lobby the EU due to it's structure. The EU is composed of many countries with distinct culture and objectives. The only way for everyone to agree on policies is compromise. This makes it much harder to successfully lobby..
If you lobby one political party in the EU successfully, you will only have about 2% of the votes Whereas in the US you have about 50% of the votes and of course you would focus on the party best placed to make the change.
Europe does still have issues with lobbies. In many of the individual countries the effectiveness of lobbying is comparable, and in some cases worse.
The best solution are anti-lobbying regulation, increased political engagement of the electorate, better journalism and proportionate representarion.
Oh yeah. We sure love to criticize and make fun of muricans, but we do the same, just a few years later.
What web of corporations wanted the House to lose its Speaker? The prospect of a shutdown deadline in forty days with a paralyzed House isn't exactly good for business.
Lobbying is a problem, but there are many other much deeper issues that cripple American democracy.
Because they have multi-party elections, this is probably the single biggest root cause that impacts all levels of government activity and accountability.
Yeah, they don't really have any sense of collaboration/compromise with people of other political opinions. To get something passed at the federal level, you need to have the president, senate, and house all on board, and if any of those are not politically aligned, any motion will fail. The periods in recent history where these have all been in alignment are simply a very small fraction of the time. And considering how long it takes to get something to pass, you end up with very little getting done during these precious few periods in time.
And on top of that, it is far more common that you see American politicians breaking from their own party to torpedo a large bill than it is to work with another party to get it passed.
It wasn't always this way by the way - a lot of people attribute this to extreme right-wing figures during the 90s like Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, etc. who promoted hyper-polarisation and a total demonisation of anything that didn't align with their anti-progress counter-culture. And this phenomenon has continued to evolve over the past 30-40 years both in far-right media and political representation that you see today.
With an actual, working multi party system there is less polarisation, and most parties don't actively hate each other to the point of opposing anything the other supports.
Also the political system behind the passing of law is different, although I don't know enough to explain it.
I would agree. To the extend that OP's thesis is true (which I don't think is fully true, but also not fully wrong either), I also find that the readiness to compromise both at the EU level and in most member-state parliaments that eventually need to transpose the directives into national laws, is a difference that stands out.
A multi-party system helps too, because there can be situational alliances that do not divide the parties internally. E.g. in one topic the Social Democrats, the Moderate Right and the Liberals can be on the same side and pass something (probably a free-trade deal) and on another topic the Social Democrats, the Greens, and the Left can pass something else (probably an environmental regulation). When there are only two parties in the legislature, such alliances break party lines, so it's a higher hurdle to overcome.
This is an extremely complex topic with lots of factors. You could write books about it and not enconpass everything.
Just one point among lots others:
Because Europe (with exceptions) in general works with a proportional system, not a majority system.
The parties that get into parliament are proportional to the votes, not the one who got the most votes gets to decide.
This results in European lawmakers being forced to work together with their opponents to do shit, which creates a culture of cooperation and civility. For example, you can't accuse your opponent of being a baby eating communist reptile during campaign because then they won't work with you afterwards.
To add to that last point, due to the multiparty system, there isn't one monolithic opponent, so it barely makes any sense to accuse all of them as being baby slurping commies. This also reduces the opportunity for the crazy polarization that's seen in the US
There are a lot of reasons for that. Most of them start with FPTP voting, which ultimately leads to less parties being present in a parliament and less democratic representation ofthe actual will of the people, which in turn leads to radicalisation, which in turn leads to the inability to compromise because this would look "weak" for the more radicalized people in the party.
Another problem is the disparity between population and representation in US politics This is based on the founding fathers' dislike of people living in cities due to their experience with London back in the time. They got it wrong for the wrong reasons, but US politics still considers even the most outdated notions of the founding fathers as gospel and won't fix the most glaring issues that plague US politics.
Aside from the multi party systems, i'd say another important reason is that EU countries tend to have a political spectrum.
The US has a far right party with LGBT rights and weed and a reactionary fascist party. But actually progressive or even a lot of conservative positions are not represented in politics at all. Even Obama was against general health insurance, which is a system most conservatives in the EU value.
So the space of political positions even on the table is much smaller and there is no need to compromise, as for instance neither US party opposes total surveillance of the citizens and the idea that doing any form of business with a company does not grant it the total ownership of that persons privacy just doesnt exist in the political debate.
I guess multi party systems and having a political spectrum go well hand in hand. A party in a multi party environment cannot entrench against "the other", at least not all of them. It must stay open for negotiations if they want to be part of a coalition forming a government. Since these compositions may change based on how the people vote, parties need principally be able to talk and govern with all other parties, to get anything of their own agenda done.
On paper this sounds like a recipe for "nothing gets done", since power is fractured so much. So I'm still wondering. It's a great question. Also a loaded question, which isn't that easy to quantify.
Something like GDPR and Digital Markets Act is easier to pass in Europe because it hurts big US tech companies most. In more controversial areas the EU is much less effective.
Easy: it's not first pass the post or "winner takes all". You have more variety in your parties and thus voters can identify more accurately with one. Of course there is still the problem of counting votes that isn't solved, as people can still vote more strategically instead of ideologically ("I'll vote for that party, because it's more likely to win against the big party I dislike").
Money cannot control every ideology.
To expand on this as an American: our constitution is like a beta version of democracy. We have two legislative chambers, the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Senate awards two senators per state, which means a sparsely populated state like Wyoming (which has less people than my city) gets the same input as massive states like California, and can hold legislation hostage. Our house of representative seats are assigned by population (good), but the way the districts are drawn is left up to each state, which means the lines can be drawn in such a way to favor the party currently in power. (Gerrymandering) If you look at polls about big issues like universal healthcare or abortion or environmental action the majority of Americans often support the opposite of what gets passed. And it's because our system is flawed.
The US system was functional when the two parties worked together and compromised on policy issues. it has unfortunately evolved into “ Red team good, Blue team bad” bickering as a result of the various culture war and social issues that have been overhyped by various vocal minorities. That and the indoctrination of the masses by far-right christo-fascist nationalists.
The rural areas command far more power due to the way the founding fathers wrote everything. This means the least equipped areas have nearly as much power as cities or states with millions of people, where most of the commerce flows. Rural areas then decide policies for the country, while also having worse education on the whole.
Corruption has also weakened votes in the form of gerrymandering, essentially splitting up the power of cities by slicing them up like a pizza and attaching them to much larger rural areas to dilute their power as much as possible. It's difficult to undo once done.
To unfuck everything, we have to rebalance power that weights voting heavily in favor of areas with large populations- who coincidentally also vote yes on programs like SNAP (foodstamps) and vote yes for social safety nets like medicaid and public schools- all things rural areas benefit the most from.
They didn't have a civil war, welcome the attackers back without punishment, then have them form an opposition party dedicated to rotting the system from the inside so they can retroactively win the war they lost.
Instead Europe had a more recent and a more devastating Great War, and then another so called "World War". The former belligerents went on to form the nucleus of the later European Union, and are still the most powerful parties. Except for the UK, sadly.
I would also say, if a war from 150 years ago explains why your current day politics fail, there are most likely bigger flaws with that system than that war.
It helps if you look at scale. The whole of the European Union has 448.4 million people living in it. The USA has 331.9 million people living in it. You'd think that this would make them similar given that the EU is made up of a confederation of sorts of 27 different countries and that could be compared to the US being a confederation of 50 states.
The problem with comparing them this way is that, for the most part each Country in the EU is still a sovereign nation. They have their own armies, their own GDP, their own trade deals, their own governing bodies. Their strength in being a union comes from the fact that they are sovereign nations who have banded together.
The states aren't sovereign nations. They'd like to pretend they are. But all their laws, all their provisions for public health, public safety, home land security, border control etc are beholden to the federal government and its two party system. Meaning their laws can be struck down as unconstitutional. They get funding from the federal government. Aid from the federal government. Social programs from the federal government. The federal government has a say in education, housing, the environment, natural disaster relief.
The EU isn't really set up with way. When Switzerland wants to pass a law, they're free and clear to do that no harm no foul. When the EU sets a goal (like GDPR) it's up to the countries involved to decide how to implement laws and policies that would allow for that goal to become reality. In the US it happens the opposite way. The federal government makes a law. Then the states create legislation within the bounds of it.
And the main answer is that it's harder to buy a bunch of different countries than it is a couple of senators.
We're talking about Economic Committee vs a whole Federal Government.
Sure, World War 2 ended much more recently than the Civil War in the USA. But I don't think the recency matters all that much. More importantly, I think Europe did a much better job of "healing" after the war was over than the US. Even after the Civil War ended, the bitterness of the slave states ensued, and continues to exist even today. You could probably argue that this continues to happen to some extent with WW2 in Germany/other parts of Europe today, but nowhere near at the same scale as the analogue in the US.
To me, the USA still looks like it's a country that's still at war with itself. It just happened to go from a cold war to a hot one in the 1800s, but there has always been a divide between slave state and non-slave states and it feels like it has never ended (and probably never will).
So yeah, I would argue that your last point is spot on. The USA looks like an inherently flawed country to me - it's too big and too non-unified. It just looks like it would make so much more sense if it were split up into a few smaller countries that would be much more unified and cohesive.
They didn't have a civil war,
The entirety of Europe has historically been one big civil war for as long as the individual states have existed. Let's say the Roman empire started it and NATO ended it.
Me here in Finland... Yeah Europe has no civil war tradition.... USA hey waiting for like half century is rookie numbers. We had ours going less than month after our independence and managed to kill a whole percent of our own population in it.
That's a very optimistic look at the "NATO ended it". There are conflicts within the EU / NATO. Greece vs Turkey, Cyprus, etc
Yup, no war here sir
Radical conservatives who are not interested in a compromise gained a lot of power in the USA. Because as long as enough people are interested in finding a compromise, you can always find one.
They are fascists. They don't want to work within the system, they want to destroy it, so they can get absolute power in a dictatorship. Fascism. First step is to blockade it so people lose trust in the democratic system of law and are more open to them, because they propose easy solutions to complex problems.
Climate change? Shoot all foreigners.
Low wages? Also shoot all foreigners.
Crime? Shoot all.... wait for it.... people who look like foreigners.
Anything else? It's the foreigners!
*insert favourite racist term for "foreigner" to make this country specific. Mexican or blacks for USA, gipsy for Romania, Turks or muslims for Germany, and so on.
I might be totally wrong, but I suspect that it's linked to Napoleon spreading civil law over (continental) Europe. To my understanding (IANAL) the key innovation in the concept of civil law is something like Everything which isn't forbidden by the law is allowed which created a culture of precise and detailed laws While, still to my understanding US style common law let more room to the judge to interpret laws and make decision even if there isn't a law yet (which is why their judges are elected officials and that in the US abortion law comes from the Supreme court not from lawmakers)
The fact that we expect detailed and precised law is also why lawmaker will spend time to write them.
That said, I wouldn't mock too much the political mess in the US, most of Europe isn't doing that well. Belgium stays 1-2 years without government after every election, Spain has a region which unilaterally tried to secede, Hungary/Poland have serious authoritarians tendencies, the European council still decides who leads the commission rather than the European Parliament, and let's not speak about the Brexit fiasco, these are definitely symptoms that our system(s) don't work that well.
To be fair the Brexit fiasco is mostly the UK system being totally broken and dysfunctional (also common law), not the EU systems.
Indeed Europe makes a lot more progress from the point of view of human beings (as opposed to the point of view of corps). But it’s worth noting that Europe can’t actually make effective use of their legislation. No teeth.
Take the #GDPR for example. EU courts are weak, so when your GDPR rights are violated in Europe you have no recourse. You can file a complaint with the DPA under article 77, but the DPA just sits on these complaints because there is no law that forces DPAs to act on article 77 complaints. The GDPR says you can take direct action in court, but the Austrians have neutered that option. Someone sued a GDPR offender, an Austrian court sided with the victim, but then the victim was still forced to eat his own legal costs! That precedent-setting decision killed the only means for remedy.
A courtroom victory in Europe is purely symbolic. The winner still loses from a cost standpoint.
The US is much better w.r.t court actions. Court cases are cheap & easy to open. When you win, the loser pays the legal costs. it works really well. But the problem is there are no decent laws in the US to empower people to take legal action.
What we need is EU legislation with a US court system.
the DPA just sits on these complaints
That's an interesting claim, can you support it somehow?
https://www.enforcementtracker.com/ currently lists over 2000 cases of GDPR penaltiesthe Austrians have neutered that option. Someone sued a GDPR offender, an Austrian court sided with the victim, but then the victim was still forced to eat his own legal costs! That precedent-setting decision killed the only means for remedy.
I'm not sure what your reasoning here is. How do Austrian court proceedings affect what is happening in other countries?
Afaik the only court that would directly affect the legal situation of other countries ist the ECJ.I’m aware of enforcementtracker.com which is used to show that some cases are cherry picked for enforcement. 2000 cases is an embarrassment. I would love to see an “unenforcement·com” service where we can all publish our reports that get irrationally dismissed or mothballed. I’ve filed reports on dozens of #GDPR violations over the years and not a single act of enforcement resulted. One report was dismissed instantly by a 1st tier office worker on bogus rationale.
To worsen matters and exacerbate the problem, some member state’s DPAs operate in a non-transparent fashion so your report is concealed even from yourself and you get zero progress information or interaction. You only get notified in the end if an enforcement action was taken. They’ve never contacted me to provide more info on any of my reports either, which suggests no slight amount progress either.
How do Austrian court proceedings affect what is happening in other countries?
Afaik the only court that would directly affect the legal situation of other countries ist the ECJ.That’s beyond me. I recall reading about that decision that came out of some high court in Austria and the report said that it set a precedence for the whole EU.
What I’ve seen in the US is that any lawyer can use any other case as a precedent for the court to consider even if the case happened in a different state, but there are varying degrees of utility. The lower the court, the less weight the result carries. And when a result from a different jurisdiction is used, it still has merit but less so than cases in the same jurisdiction.
I know in Europe it’s the same as far as highness of a court & proportional weight. The lowest of court decisions are used in aggregate. But I’m a bit fuzzy on crossing jurisdictional boundaries on EU-wide law.
Note that the GDPR has a specific consistency clause. Outcomes in different member states must be consistent for similar violations. Perhaps the Austrian decision is relevant EU-wide because of this consistency requirement.
The US is much better w.r.t court actions. Court cases are cheap & easy to open. When you win, the loser pays the legal costs.
Not generally, no.
Nonsense. Of course it is. I’ve sued several corporations in the US. It’s trivially easy. Fill out a form, submit with $50—90 in fees, get those fees back when you win (and you win by default if the other party does not show up). I even sued a major bank for under $70 once. Won, got awarded court fees, and got paid. It was simple. It’s even standard on the court complaint form to ask for interest compensation for the duration of the dispute & that’s typically awarded as well. No case is too small or too big to get a remedy in the US. I’ve tested this in two different states.
Getting remedies like this is impossible in Europe. European courts are useless for any case under €10k. I’ve been ripped off by rogue contractors & others in amounts of ~€3k-7k. Had solid evidence but the court system is designed to penalize everyone involved. If you have a case worth less than €10k in Europe, your best move is to eat the loss and forget about court. Take it on the chin because you’ll lose even more if you chase it. Under €10k you can get what Europeans call a “cerimonial win”, where the judge says your right, but your costs still match or exceed the amount of the dispute.
There’s also an upper limit in Europe. Class action lawsuits→ non-existent.
I’ve been ripped off in both continents several times. In the US I always get a remedy via various different channels, some of which work before things even get to court. In Europe I always have to eat the loss. Exceptionally I had one court case in Europe, won, but still had to pay for my own registered letter expenses despite the fact that the wrongdoing by the other party was what forced me to send reg’d letters. Legal advisors told me even though the judge agreed with me in the verbal judgement, I would likely have to pay all the court costs when the written judgement arrives (as a winning defendant!). I got lucky and the plaintiff had to cover the court costs in my case. This is somewhat exceptional.
EU is more defensive and protectionist because our companies are a lot smaller due to a more fragmented internal market, more regulation, and getting damaged/destroyed in WW2. Notice that this all hits big tech and that the EU has nothing similar on this front. I don't think the EU capital owners would push for this otherwise and that is basically all the EU listens to. A nice side effect is that it usually is actually good regulation to protect their citizens.
In terms of the EU what works are laws, which do not require complete consensus of all countries. As soon as somebody can veto, that is nearly guranteed to happen, in many cases for reason with only partial relation to law past. That happend for example with Hungary and sanctions on Russia.
Other then that diversity. There are 7 large groups in the EU parliament for example, but they are then made up of individual canidates from different parties. So basicly no group can push throu laws by themself and the individual canidates often vote against the groups intrest as well. Not most of the time, but it is relativly common. But everybody knows compromise is needed and so they work together in per law alliances to pass laws. A similar thing happens with countries as well for votes which do not require everybody to agree. You basicly just need a few of the big members to agree on something and then form a temporary alliance with other members. That is were this France and Germany run the EU stuff comes from. Both sites politicans meet each other a lot and when they agree on something, it tends to be well enough thought out and a good enough idea to get other smaller members to agree on it, to pass it.
That being said as soon as vetos are involved nothing works anymore, which is why some things have to be moved to non veto as soon as possible. Mainly foreign policy.
The constitution is outdated and causes congress to get jammed up while the executive grabs more power because congress can't govern.
Cuz we were the alpha tester and refuse to update it
I think its the advatge of having different countries, which means parties within the countries arent unified. You just have a bunch ofncountries who collectively vote for what's better in their country rather than political party
I'm not American (or European) so my opinion is purely an outsider's impression, but it seems like the multiple tiers of gatekeeping that laws must pass before coming into effect (the house, the senate, as well as the president themselves) seem like a recipe for Beurocracy and thus ineffective government.
add to that the unlimited terms and lack of age limiting on elected officials, and it makes it seem like the system is just designed to make accomplishing anything as difficult as possible.