European Elections are a Total Waste of Time

Today sees the biggest trans-national election in history - during which almost 500 million Europeans will have the chance to elect the 736 members of the European Parliament who will go and represent them in the European Union.

One tricky aspect of the European elections is that they're a TOTAL load of bunk.

The European Parliament is one of the most pathetic, powerless organizations in Democratic history. All major decisions - proposing legislation, implementing decisions, upholding the Union's treaties and generally running the EU - are made by the European Commission, the 'executive' of Europe itself, not the European Parliament.

The European Commission runs the EU. There are 27 European Commissioners, one for each country, and none of them are elected. They're selected by their nation's government (removing the voter from the equation entirely.)

The only body to whom the European Commission is accountable is the European Council - made up of the heads of state of all 27 member nations (effectively, the people who selected the European Commission in the first place.)

The European Commission can MAKE laws. They can EXECUTE laws. They can ENFORCE laws. In contrast, the European Parliament - the only body us Euro-plebs are permitted to elect, can do none of these things.

The European Parliament, in contrast to just about every Democratic parliament currently in existence, does not have the power of 'legislative initiative.' They can't make laws - only vote for laws proposed by the European Commission.

The EU Parliamentary Complex in Strasbourg

(...and history has shown that only 15% of such laws failed to pass the Parliamentary process - effectively making them little more than a rubber stamp for the unelected, unaccountable European Commission.)

In fact, the European Parliament's only real power is in being what's described as a 'pan-European soapbox.' They have the ear of the European Union's journalists and that's about it.

As far as actual power goes, the European Parliament is limited to issuing non-binding resolutions and forming committees. They are the ultimate demonstration of bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake.

They don't even have any real power over the European budget: The (unelected, unaccountable) European Commission controls the 'compulsory spending' and the European Parliament is thrown the 'non compulsory spending' as scraps, which they can bicker over while the real powers in Europe go about their business.

So while it is important for people in Europe to go out and vote today, nobody should kid themselves that it's going to make any difference.

The European Union is run by an unaccountable elite, who make decisions affecting everybody in the EU with a sort of detached, disdainful attitude. They're not subject to the voter's whims because, well, the voters can't be trusted with making decisions of this magnitude!

Just look at Ireland's referendum in 2008; in which normal, everyday voters were allowed to decide on adopting the 'European Constitution.' What happened? The voters rejected the Treaty of Lisbon.

The European Commissioners were quivering with anger. "Why couldn't the bloody Paddies just rubber stamp the damn Constitution like every other country in Europe had?"

The European Union is ridiculously undemocratic - which means, sadly, that just about every vote cast in the 2009 European Parliamentary Elections will be an entirely wasted one.

The Mazda malcontents - Alike in all but name...

My 1989 Lincoln Town Car is a pretty impressive chunk of car. It's not just eighteen feet long, with a five-liter engine and enough luggage space to stash a snowmobile in - it's also a museum.

Because the gubbins of my Lincoln - the engine, chassis and other automotive accessories - were practically antiques before they'd even rolled off the assembly line.

My Lincoln Town Car shared it's underpinnings with rear-wheel-drive Lincolns as far back as 1970.

In fact, the Hayne's manual for my car covers ALL rear-wheel drive Lincolns from 1970 to 2002 - basically meaning that the cars hadn't evolved mechanically at all in the course of 32 years.

That's even more remarkable when you think that the same mechanics were used for the long-running Ford Crown Victoria (most commonly recognized as the standard American 'Police Cruiser') and the identical, re-badged Mercury Grand Marquis. Funny to think that Ford owned three companies, marketing three different vehicles that were all, essentially, the same.

And this attitude hasn't changed. Just look at Ford's current lineup of vehicles. Their Ford Fusion sedan is built on Mazda's CD3 'platform.' The Ford Fusion, it turns out, is essentially the same car as the Mazda 6, just with a different face. And while the 2009 Mazda 6 is the only Japanese car to use this platform, Ford are up to their old tricks, using the same design for their other brands. The Mercury Milan, for example, is built on the same underpinnings as the Ford Fusion, along with both the Lincoln Zephyr MKZ and the Lincoln MKX.

The new and original Mazda 6

The Lincoln Zephyr / MKZ - basically, a Mazda 6 by any name...

The Mercury Milan - are we noticing a pattern here?

The Ford Fusion. Definitely a resemblance here, too!

You've got to wonder if all this redundancy is one of the reasons why Ford's sales are being hit so hard by the current recession. It's been bad for almost all motor manufacturers (Toyota's reported it's first loss in almost four decades.) Ford has weathered the storm comparatively well, but you do end up having to wondering about their marketing strategy.

What's crippled the American automotive industry is a total lack of understanding of the market. Consumer want smaller cars, with more reliability and better fuel economy. That's why Hyundai, for example, have actually increased sales during the economic crisis.

Ford, in common with GM and Chrysler, have just continued doing what they've always done - churned out the same cars (and, after the fact, wondered why nobody's buying them.)

This is especially relevant when it comes to their range of vehicles built on Mazda's CD3 platform. On offer are five similar vehicles - all with comparable engines and options. When a customer walks into a Ford or Mercury showroom, they want choice. Instead, they're offered five identical options, just with different badges.

It you look at the Mazda 6 reviews you'll see that they're generally better than the reviews of the Ford-family of cars. Perhaps this is because the Mazda 6 is one car, trying to do one thing (with a wide range of options, from different engines to manual or automatic transmissions.)

The Ford family, on the other hand, have one car trying to be five different cars. The Fusion, Marina and both Lincolns all have fairly restrictive options, with gearbox and engine combinations that are unique to each 'brand.' This means they waste a huge amount of effort in redundant marketing.

Whereas Mazda only need to market one car, Ford need to market five. If both Mazda and Ford had the same advertising budget overall, the Mazda 6 would end up five times more 'visible' because their message isn't diluted across three different brands.

Advertising is cumulative - like a snowball, the more of it there is, the more effective it becomes. Ford, on the other hand, is already shooting itself in the foot by dividing it's marketing assets before it's even hit the marketplace.

In the current climate, it's no way to sell cars. Ford need to pare down their range of vehicles and concentrate on single cars from single brands. If they could successfully manage to do that, perhaps they'd manage to weather the economic storm. History, however, suggests otherwise.