European travel has expanded my interests into history and, now, politics. (In the past, I could care less about the former and only cared about domestic politics). I have been reading a couple books that include observations about the political/government structures of certain European countries. The book is dated (early 80s perhaps), and I'll probably find a more recent book when I am finished. In my novice opinion, the governments are less extreme today than in previous years. This seems obvious (Hitler, Mussolini), but maybe there are still governments that are still considered fascist, etc., in power. I know we have some scholars here. Please share your observations about or summaries of European governments, or recommend books along these lines. This is NOT an attempt to debate US politics.

Try Davies, Norman. Any of his books. I like, Microcosm.

Hi, Bitter!

What a marvellous topic! Thanks for starting it!

Like you, I have found my horizons and interests expanded by travel. One of the most interesting things to me currently is how the Europeans are able to set aside their centuries old enmities and come together, voluntarily, as the European Union. I haven't read any books on the subject as yet and would be very interested in any recommendations from Fodorites.

A book that I am reading right at the moment and which I find fascinating is Margaret McMillan's "Paris 1919, Six Months that Changed the World"

The New York Times Book Review saidquot;The history of the 1919 Paris peace talks following World War I is a blueprint of the political and social upheavals bedeviling the planet now...A wealth of colorful detail and a concentration on the strange characters many of these statesmen were keep (her) narrative lively."

The Chicago Tribune said,"For anyone interested in knowing how historic mistakes can morph into later historic problems, this brilliant book is a must-read."

Other praise: "beautifully written" "superb writer who can bring history to life".

It is very clearly written and explains - at least to me - not just how Europe developed in the 20th century, but also what happened to the rest of the world, particularly the current mess in the Middle East, which the Europeans shaped in the 20th century.

I find this book an eye-opener in more ways than one. It is helping me understand why we are where we are today. It is a brilliant book and I recommend it highly.

Hope you might find it interesting as well.
Jason

Bitter, please post all discussion guidelines so we don't run afoul of your intent. If this is travel related, please so indicate. Like, could we say that if Bush travelled to Europe more, he wouldn't be such a dunder head. Would that be permissible?

Travelsmiles: Although I like to respond to comments like those you have made, that is not my intent with this thread. Hijack the thread if you will (I'm certainly guilty of that), but I'm hoping for some better input, like that from Jason and Gsteed.

The problem with European politics today is that the Franco Germanic alliance are hell bent on sanitising the area into the United States of Europe. Only last weekend Giscard d'Estang called for more movement towards the fedaralist (the dreaded F-word to the UK) ideal. This means harmony on tax, foreign policy and other laws. Under this climate, the UK would not have been allowed to support the US in the war in Iraq. The fact that France is now thought to be right in that the war should not have been started has placed Tony Blair under such immense pressure that he is seriously in trouble and his tenure as PM may be at an end this autumn.
How on earth is the US of Europe going to happen when fractions in Northern Ireland don't want to be British and the Basques (is that spelled right?) don't want to be Spanish or French? There are many people that don't wish to belong to their own percieved country (look at Yugoslavia 10 years ago) without wanting to be governed by an German hating Italian based in Brussells and Luxembourg.
That said, every so often a country in Europe elects a lunatic (usually the Austrians) and the rest close ranks. The British Nationalist Party is gaining a few council seats in the UK on a policy of near fascism. This is being fuelled with anti asylum stories appearing daily in the 2 main reactionary newspapers (thankfully the Daily Sport still shows photos of Kylie's arse).

Bitter, I was fascinated by "The Seven Ages of Paris" which covered the history of Paris thru Degaulle. A good insight into the French physche written with humor by an English historian.

Thank you Jason for your recommendation. I'll head for the library this afternoon to request it.

AR: I noted your reference to the Basque region and people. That seems like an intriguing conflict. Pathetically, I know??? more about the region and people through works of fiction. The Basque people are either demonized (such as (kind of) in Ludlum's Matarese Circle) or romanticized (such as in Trevanian's Shibumi).

Ok here we go... I'm afraid this is already turning into the discussion that Bitter didn't want it to but mention of the EU can do that.
AR, I believe that your examples of the Basque and N.I issues are in fact an extremely strong argument FOR a federalised Europe (leaving aside, in a vain hope that this thread can avoid heavy handed partisanship and subsequent name calling!, other arguments for or aginst such a step). The reason being is that in a Federal Europe, Europe becomes an aglomeration of Regions each with more-or-less equal weight. This would pacify the Basques, the Scots Nats, Corsicans, even the Irish Nationalists. When Yugoslavia was a federal state under Tito it held together because the Croats, Bosnians, Slovenes and Serbs all felt equal (ish). Whereas once Tito had died and Serbia tried to lead the republic everyone else soon wanted out.
In my view a Federal Europe would, if nothing else, put an end to centuries of European tribal nationalism.

Dr D.

Well said, Bitter. I shall read, and retire from Bush bashing on this occasion, but just this one. Have a good day, and this is indeed an interesting thread.

Dr DoGood - Actually, I have often thought the same as you with regard to separatists, and that fedaralism would put an end to their independance claims. I wonder, though, how long it would be before we had these groups seeking independence from the US of E (regardless of how long they would last as a trully independent state)?
Federalism or even harmonisation is feared by many due to the inherent differences in culture from places as far apart as Ireland to Greece to Finland to Portugal. The agenda is being set by the French and the Germans for things to be done the French and German way. The UK will never fully be a part of Europe as it always looks across the Atlantic, and the recent split has only served to underline that division.
I also agree with regard to Tito. What will happen to the UK with a Scotland being led by the SNP, if it ever happens? Also, Dafydd Iwan - the new leader of Plaid Cymru has stated his intention of seeking independence for Wales. As a proud Welshman (but not a nationalist I may add), I hear the arguments from Wales like the scene from Monty Python's Life of Brian. "What have the English ever done for us?"

If Euoropean states coalesce further it will mean another big army in the world - the RRF will actually mean something.It will be interesting to see the change in US views - those who complain about having to step in to help every time Europe has a problem will have to reassess.Will having no bases in Europe mean they have to court North Africa?
Concerning small countries, AR's point about the Romans is correct for those looking into the past, but most look to the future.Note that the Italians no longet run Israel!

Do the Italians even run Italy?

Rufus; Italy is run by Mr Berlusconi purely for the benefit of himself and his companies. But the Italians did vote for him; maybe it is true that people get the government they deserve?

The European Union is a scheme that the New Class has constructed in which Brussels bureaucrats get the blame for the politically unpopular decisions that will have to be made by Europe's demographic decline. The bureaucrats are the cover for the New Class (Blair, Fischer etc., etc.) to enjoy the high life, fiegned political power, Tuscan country homes, Caribbean winter vacations. The New Class hopes that the EU bureaucrats can insulate them from the coming budgetary turmoil due to having so many pensioners (who expect to retire at 55) and so few productive people to pay into the pension system. Don't laugh, America. When it comes to unfunded pensions and medical care for the aged, we're not far behind the Europeans. The result may be soime sort of cataclysm.(sp)

European politics tends to be less extreme these days than the second world war! However, that has not meant that there hasn't been an attempt in countries such as Netherlands (Pimm Fontein), France (Le Penn), the Italian Triumvirate for populist politics. In Britain here the mainstream parties are alarmed at people's disinterest in politics and the British National Party taking some seats. The reunification of Germany has also led to a rise of populist politics especially in the East but with their history they tend to guard against this. These modern-day populist trends are covered in 'Preachers of Hate' by Andy Roxburgh.

Now since you specifically mentioned extreme governments and didn't really indicate the true extent of your question european politics may prove quite interesting with the EU's planned enlargement to 25 member states esp. as these will include the poorer countries towards the east.

Recently Tony Blair mentioned that he wanted US flexibility in labour patterns combined with European Social Standards. Although, I have a very low opinion of TB I would have to agree that this might address problems with the economy in mainland europe and the inequalities of the US social system. Utopia if it can happen!

Sorry author is Angus Roxburgh. If Angus is following this thread very sorry to him.

Mr. Quirk, much of the "inequalities" of the American economy is caused by the fact that America has a far larger Third World population percentage than any European country. Of course, Europe has also allowed millions of the Third World into their countries which has given rise to party's like LePen's, the BNP and Vlad Bloc in Belgium. On immigration, in American and in Europe, the Elite refuses to listen to what the natives want, thus many people vote for parties they normally wouldn't want to vote for.

An inequality is still an inequality; giving valid reasons for the existence of inequality does not refute that fact. It should be noted that europeans were colonialists and have provided a net positive immigration for hundreds of years. But I digress can anybody actually identify what was the intent of the original poster? Did he just want european political books *perhaps* with a populist bent?

Bitter, you have started an interesting thread and were right in specifying that it shouldn't be hijacked by domestic (ie American) political rantings. Unfortunately, we Europeans have our own obsessions, namely about the EU, and I hope words/cliches meant to be insults, such as "federalist", "Brussels bureaucrats", "French-German axis", won't pollute the thread. I will try to sum up the EU debate for our American friends as coolly as possible: it is true that our big European dream (or nightmare, depending on the side you are taking) is in the doldrums at the moment, because when you say "European Union", it can mean different things. For the UK, Scandinavian countries, and most of the future 10 members (joining next year, mostly ex-Soviet block countries), it is just a free-exchange zone, a European NAFTA; political integration in frowned upon, and these countries are not in the Euro zone or the Schengen agreements. For countries such as Germany or the Benelux states, it should be a super-Switzerland, neutral and federal. For countries such as France and, er... France, it should be, to use the scarecrow expression of the right-wing press in the UK, a Superstate, ie one single state with big powers, a unified army and a big, single voice, capable of balancing the so far sole super power in the world, the US. The problem with the latter solution is that France is the only one who really advocates it, whilst, on the other hand, playing the card of national sovereignty and sanctifying the notion of "Nation State". As for the first vision, the protestant one to simplify, it's their right, but in this case there is no need for them to join the EU, they should join Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and the like in the European Economic Area, a purely free-exchange agreement. Personally, I would be in favour of a mix of the German and French vision (which are at the moment quite antagonistic, whatever our British friends might say, it's not because they are too big continental nations that they think the same ! ): a federalist state all right, but a real state. To close this EU chapter, may I be a bit provoking: if the current trend goes on (nationalistic demagogy, and building on xenophobia to find a scapegoat), we will never get anywhere and Tony Blair's confession, which, for once, had the benefit of honesty, will be true: yes, we Europeans will just go on trailing behind the US, and should accept it. If we organize a referendum every time there is a move for European integration, of course people will always say no, there is no shortage of demagogues to play the nationalistic/fear chord, be it in politics or in the press. In a democracy, people elect representatives to negotiate on their behalf, and if they are not happy, next time they don't re-elect them. I know it's easy to talk of the "Elite", but by doing so, you are just playing for the Le Pens, Berlusconis, Haiders and Murdochs of our continent. Let elected leaders be bold for a change: they were, when they invented the Common Market, the single market, the Euro, the Common Agriculture Policy (yes ! ), the European Parliament, Schengen, Erasmus, etc. None of these reforms would have been accepted by referendums, and on the whole they have contributed in making European citizens more prosperous, living in a safe and stable continent (OK, sorry, so much for not ranting ! )

Now back to the original query: the political colour of European goverments seems to follow trends. Five years ago, nearly all 15 EU member states were governed by social democratic (left of center) coalitions: Germany, France, UK, Italy, Sweden, Belgium, Portugal, etc. Now the balance is more towards the right, which has inbetween won office in France, Portugal, the Netherlands, Italy, Denmark (and, one might also say, the UK... ). Schroeder was only reelected by a small margin. Nearly all European countries now have a sizeable extreme-right/populist/xenophobic party: Front National in France, Vlaamse Blok in Belgium, anti-European party in Denmark, Liga Nord in Italy, FPO in Austria, The Sun-Daily Mail (combined daily readership of 7 million) in Britain, etc. These forces are either kept out of the political game thanks to the electoral system (FN
in France, BNP in the UK) or "diluted" within a conventional right-wing coalition (Italy, Denmark, formally Austria). In neither cases are the fears/frustrations - whether justified or imaginary - expressed by such electorate really tackled: the dust is just pushed under the carpet... May I add that most of the views expressed by these parties are considered extreme-right and populist in Europe, but in Washington they would be mainstream and actually part of the current administration's agenda.

In our little European political zoo, we also have environmentalists, usually junior partners in left-wing coalitions. They are a force to be reckoned with in Northern Europe. Communist parties are just a shadow of their former self (3 % in France in the latest elections, they even changed names in Italy), but there is a growing radical left electorate (about 10-15 % in France or Spain).

To sum it up, if you are interested in knowing more on a day-to-day basis, you can buy The Economist, a serious and opinionated British weekly available in the States, or read the 4 "quality" British papers on the Net: left leaning and relatively pro-European: The Guardian, The Independent; right-leaning and ferociously anti-European: The Times, The Daily Telegraph.

Have fun !