3 ms·

What you are saying is of course true. However, I believe we also are getting the worst of both worlds right now. The state of the EU is a good example of this.

What you are saying is of course true. However, I believe we also are getting the worst of both worlds right now. The state of the EU is a good example of this. On one hand more and more things are regulated on an international level. In the case of the EU these decisions are being made by representatives who were in many cases indirectly elected. If we had something like a European president people would have a much better, direct way choosing what and whom they want. It also would give a platform for previous representatives to point out what good they actually accomplished. During the Brexit I heard that large parts of the nature conservation program Natural England is funded by the EU. Yet no one knows, because it's in nobody's interest to point these things out. Local politicians will either not talk about it or pretend they did it. EU politicians have almost no media platform. A direct election would change that. We might benefit from similar institutions on a UN level or similar as well as more and more decisions are being made at those levels.

TeMPOraL 10y ago
Funny thing, your comment reminds me of a reflection I had some time ago - that EU should IMO invest much more into propaganda. Not to paper over its deficiencies, but because people invent anti-EU messages on their own accord, and it dominates the conversation. Similarly with Natural England program you mentioned, EU is doing good work in many other places too - but people don't know it, because nobody cares to highlight it. So it feels EU is all about bureaucracy and creating another USSR - because that's the only thing people are talking about. (It pisses me off in my country in particular, because a lot of people complain about paying to EU not realizing that we're still a net beneficiary, and just how much infrastructure around them was built or upgraded by EU money. The playgrounds they take their kids to. The roads and bridges they drive over. I mean, given how much money our local "entrepreneurs" steal from EU grants all the time, people should be at least a little bit grateful.)
- ajmurmann 10y ago
  I think investing in "propaganda" would be a good start. However, we don't need to do that for any other part of the government which really is a smell.

TeMPOraL 10y ago

Funny thing, your comment reminds me of a reflection I had some time ago - that EU should IMO invest much more into propaganda. Not to paper over its deficiencies, but because people invent anti-EU messages on their own accord, and it dominates the conversation. Similarly with Natural England program you mentioned, EU is doing good work in many other places too - but people don't know it, because nobody cares to highlight it. So it feels EU is all about bureaucracy and creating another USSR - because that's the only thing people are talking about. (It pisses me off in my country in particular, because a lot of people complain about paying to EU not realizing that we're still a net beneficiary, and just how much infrastructure around them was built or upgraded by EU money. The playgrounds they take their kids to. The roads and bridges they drive over. I mean, given how much money our local "entrepreneurs" steal from EU grants all the time, people should be at least a little bit grateful.)

ajmurmann 10y ago
I think investing in "propaganda" would be a good start. However, we don't need to do that for any other part of the government which really is a smell.