Only 43% voted: Europe needs a puzzle board

by screenpunk | June 8, 2009 at 08:30 am

322 views | 48 Recommendations | 19 comments

At the European Elections 2009 only 43% of the Europeans voted. Parties to the right got more parliamental chairs, left wing socialist parties lost. But the big loser of the elections seems to be the European Union itself. More than half of the population does not believe in Europe so much as to make a statement for it.

So Europe has to become more important in Europe. Thats maybe why on de Albert Cuypmarkt in Amsterdam they are selling these puzzleboards today .. children can fit in all the countries to obtain a better understanding of Europe .. an attachment that may deliver votes when the little people become big people.

The market salesman must have an allround perspective .. he also put up a board with the Dutch provinces on it .. the Dutch provincial elections being an election where usually also only about half of the population shows up.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | Digg | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

jordan

at 10:10 on June 8th, 2009

I like this post, but it would benefit from a more subject-specific headline. (i.e. 43% of what?)

screenpunk

at 10:18 on June 8th, 2009

thanks jordan, this is my first textpost and i am fiddling .. i had your thought but now i am thinking .. people will look to find out ;-) .. let me consider

screenpunk

at 10:49 on June 8th, 2009

took your advise

Paschen

at 12:07 on June 8th, 2009

Nice.

screenpunk

at 12:21 on June 8th, 2009

hi paschen .. i am new here .. concepts & things fly around over my mailbox .. not quite understanding what all means .. thanks for the recommendation and comment

Roy C

at 13:14 on June 8th, 2009

I don't see any need for a "Europe" outside of trade and some kind of security arrangements that NATO has well provided.

Euro-skeptics are skeptical because "Europe" has turned out to be quite a power grab by Brussels and the bureaucrats who live there, outlawing cheese that the French have eaten for centuries and such.

Europeans can't even buy the vitamins and supplements that we can buy at any health food store.

So, it is over, and it died when the Irish voted the European constitution down.

That is the problem, not geography lessons for kids.

Paschen

at 13:53 on June 8th, 2009

Saying that Roy is like saying "I do not see a need for a USA..." Why did it grow be on the original 13 States?!

It is the normal evolution of things to come, 10,000 year ago we where a bush of clans becoming Kingdoms and Empires and slowly evolving towards Democratic unions.

In another 1000 years we may have reach a Global Union. Nothing has died, it is just Democracy at work and that can be a slow process. Still it beat dictator ship.

Interdependence and Federal Union under a Democratic system is the best way to maintain peace, justice and equality for all as much as possible. Europe has never know peace for such a long period ever. The EU is the best way for the present and the future of all.

Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Greece and Italy would be in the poor house today with out the EU. They benefited greatly from the EU and it help them avoid many catastrophes. Same could be said for the UK and France that dependant on their colonies and had a hard time making the transition.

Like any system, their is always some negative and room for improvement, however, overall, the EU has been of great benefit for all members and why it is so successful and why so many still want to join the Union.

The only and biggest mistake it made was not to have though of establishing a working constitution before growing be on the 5 funding members, now, this is more complicated with so many more voices, however it is also more democratic and once established may very well be the best worked out constitution Humanity has been able to put together so far, it may just take a little longer and a few more returns to the drawing board for all involved.

It is worth it though and the US may want to follow the lead here for its own sake.

Roy C

at 16:55 on June 8th, 2009

No, it isn't, Paschen. German, France, the UK are all nations. You can't compare Pennsylvania, Texas, Maine and California with them.

The Europeans are not stupid. If they wanted a "Europe", it would get voted in. "Europe" lost and it lost because the Irish don't need Brussels telling them what to do.

And it won't win in the future because there is no need for a "Europe", and while we are at it, the same trend, STATES RIGHTS, is re-asserting itself in the US as we discover how unconstitutional the use of power by the federal government has been since the days of FDR.

So, we are moving toward DECENTRALIZATION as well, as Alvin Toffler pointed out in The Third Wave:

Industrial society was based on:

1) Standardization; 2) specialization; 3) synchronization; 4) concentration; 5) maximization.

Post-industrial society moves back to de-centralization. Local goverments reassume their ancient powers. Maximization is unnecessary and expensive, not efficient, and this applies to government in an age of informatics, not just industry.

This holds for the #1, #2 and #3 as well. This is why we have "Web 2.0" and NowPublic.

albertacowpoke

at 13:48 on June 8th, 2009

I think people are fed up with politicians all over the world. The latest voter turn out was also the lowest it has ever been in Alberta and the recent BC election. I think it has less to do with whether or not people believe in Europe.

I grant that nationalism is still strong among the baby boomers, but I feel that the younger set is more mobile and likes what Europe has to offer. That is at least the read I get from my relatives still living in Europe.

Roy C

at 17:09 on June 8th, 2009

Here is how the French saw it just a few years ago, one of a number of rejections of ultimate union that was followed by the Dutch, the Irish, and others.

French voters have overwhelmingly rejected the European Union's proposed constitution in a key referendum.

Almost 55% of people voted "No", with 45% in favour. Turnout was high, at about 70%. The vote could deal a fatal blow to the EU constitution, which needs to be ratified by all 25 member states.

President Jacques Chirac accepted the voters' "sovereign decision", but said it created "a difficult context for the defence of our interests in Europe".

The French leader had campaigned hard for a "Yes" vote.

Late on Sunday jubilant "No" supporters gathered at the Place de la Bastille in Paris - where the French Revolution began - chanting "we won" and sounding horns.

Those who rejected the treaty came from across the political spectrum, including Communists, dissident socialists and right-wing parties.

One of the leading right-wing opponents of the treaty, Philippe de Villiers, said: "Europe has to be rebuilt. The constitution is no more."

Then there was the Dutch, the most lib of all the lib societies of Europe.

Voters in the Netherlands have overwhelmingly rejected the proposed European Union constitution.

Provisional final results indicated that 61.6% of voters said "No" to the charter and 38.4% approved it.Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, who campaigned for a "Yes" vote, said he would respect the result.

The vote deals what could be a decisive blow to the constitution, which was also rejected by French voters in a referendum at the weekend.

I won't bother with the Irish and the rest of them who rejected, but it should be apparent that the trend is toward local control and de-centralization, a trend that mirrors our work life as well.

When I lived in Europe, the Italians liked the freedom of moving anywhere in the EU that they could, but they didn't want too much control of Italy from Brussels, which had proven itself tin-eared about local control and already well on its way to being a center of autocratic rule.

Paschen

at 17:26 on June 8th, 2009

Roy, you do forget that the Baby boomers are dying out soon and that the youth will take over with in a decade or two. ACP is right they do want a united Europe, the old guard that still holds on to Nationalistic Ideas will soon be gone, unfortunately because of the demographic discrepancy of the Baby boom they do make up a Majority today, that however will change rather fast. Considering that a decade is not very long nor is a generation.

The cultural differences between Louisiana and Texas or New York State and California are the same then between Italy and France or Germany and Spain.

You are looking at it from a US perspective and the US never liked the Idea of a united and strong Europe, why they counter it with every thing they got.

It would put the US in fourth place and that is hard to stomach for the US. As hard as it was for the UK to lose its Empire.

Roy C

at 17:49 on June 8th, 2009

I lived in Europe and I am well aware of what went on then and what goes now. I still read the Italian newspapers.

Boomers has nothing to do with it. And nationalism has only a little to do with it. Basically, no one wants to sign off on giving power away. They want freedom and they are less nationalistic, but they don't care about making a "Super-State", a "Europa Uber Alles" out of the confederation.

This is not about national identity as much as it is about what the trends are in the world. Nation-states only began a few centuries ago. People needed larger trading areas and wanted to belong to more powerful groups, so culturally affiliated peoples such as the Germans and the Italians founded nation-states on the model of the French and the English, but that trend is being reversed.

The Scots want their own nation on equal terms with England, got back that old throne and now want to control their own destiny.

The Slovenians left Yugoslavia, but they don't want to give power to Brussels that they stole back from Belgrade.

I am not looking at it from a US perspective. I am looking at it from the historic trends that we see in a new Scotland, a new Slovenia, and the demand for local powers that is going on all around Europe.

Other examples: In Italy, the Northern League wants more autonomy from Rome. Slovakia split from the Czech Republic. Russia is alone now. All the ex-members of the Soviet Union want their autonomy.

That is the unmistakable trend. And it is happening here as well, and even in Mexico, the Zapatistas want more autonomy from Mexico City.

"Europe" is just a regurgitation of nationalism on a scale that would have helped them in the Cold War, but is no longer necessary.

I don't give a crap about "fourth place", and I don't even follow the Olympics or other such nationalistic crap anymore, either.

You don't know much about the differences between Louisiana and New York. We have the same language. We have the same myths and identification as being Americans. Europeans don't have that.

In any case, trying to tie on a super-national identity that would transcend the national identity is no longer necessary because, as you said, the national identity is dying away.

So, then, there is even less need for a super-national identity. And Brussels is very umpopular and not seen as part of the identity that is emerging, that will be something like the ancient Greek identity, with strong local associations and a loose-knit confederation.

Paschen

at 18:00 on June 8th, 2009

I know you lived in Europe Roy. I respect you point of view, yet can not agree with it.

Sorry, Europe will grow together, slowly but certainly will. It is not giving up powers, it is gaining powers and it will evolve and eventually include North Africa and the Middle east as well in a new Federation. Give time and by the end of this century you wont even recognize Europe any longer and still have Italian and Greek values and cultures.

60 years ago most would have talked as you do now and said they will never ever be a EU.

Well, fortunately most where wrong. I am all for it and so are my Cousins and especially their children and friends. Ireland is still a young member and yet benefited greatly from the EU and they to will grow and their Children will help change Europe for the better.

Unless our pollution kills us first of course.

Roy C

at 18:10 on June 8th, 2009

When Yugoslavia went into pieces, did the "European Super-Nation" go in and stop the genocide?

NO.

Why not? Because they don't care, don't want to exercise the power, don't want to take risks, and don't have a "Super-Nation" mentality or culture.

Until the "Super-Nation" of Europe takes over for the US in Serbia and especially in Kosovo, it is just a loose confederation of trading states protected by the US.

Paschen

at 18:31 on June 8th, 2009

Roy, now you are mixing apples with oranges. That is not even debatable any longer.

It was not the US but NATO and the UN that went into Serbia and the US is part of that alliance.

Further you conveniently forget the facts, Russia was involved in this madness as well. The EU did what could be done under the circumstance at the time.

The break up of the Soviet Union broth a whole lot of troubles and extremes with it that took some time to sort out and Serbia was the most extreme of them all.

Using the exception to make a point is not constructive nor does it reflect reality.

If you want to be right that is fine by me, it still does not change reality.

You seem to view the short term and panic with every hick up, I look at the long term and the hick ups are part of the evolution.

Paranoia is what causes conflicts as well as fear and False perceptions, the next Generation has already overcome that what the baby boomer are still struggling with.

Roy C

at 18:41 on June 8th, 2009

You make me laugh with that. When the French and the Dutch were in Sarajevo, the "UN" soldiers marched around without bullets in their guns and got killed everyday while hundreds of thousands of women got raped and hundreds of thousands were starved to death.

The US, with NATO's "approval", went in, but there were very, very few non-Americans in that fight, and we provided all the means to the Croatians to win that war and end the camps.

Meanwhile, the Europeans criticized the operation because the Croatians were fighting dirty.

If what you say is true, then there would be no American troops in Kosovo. We have an agreement to be there for fifty years or something like that. It is just nuts. European governments are by and large worthless when it comes to even their own defense.

That is why "Super-Europe" doesn't exist and can't come to your rescue. It can't find a phone booth to put on its "Super-Europe" costume. Sorry. That is the way it is, and my three grandparents are all from Vienna and a small town in Serbia.

I know just how they think.

Paschen

at 18:56 on June 8th, 2009

:-) When we start believing that we know how people think, that is usually when we have stopped being objective.

screenpunk

at 22:13 on June 8th, 2009

Wow guys you have been busy when i was on one ear dreaming of a strong and unified europe ;)

I think we (Europeans) need a better transnational organisation not to be small in relation to other powers that are big and growing in the world (economic tiger Asia, the Muslim world, as always the US that considers the world its backyard, Africa that is jumping) .. fragmentation (as in the case with the former Soviet Union and Jugoslavia) only means the uprise of nationalistic sentiments and bloodshet.

It is not so much if there is a historical movement towards a unified Europe or not .. we néed history to move in that direction .. and how? that is maybe the puzzle the puzzle board is expressing.