3 ms·

> I'm under the illusion it's easier to influence a Swedish politician than it is to influence an order of magnitude more foreign politicians Yes. And that inc

> I'm under the illusion it's easier to influence a Swedish politician than it is to influence an order of magnitude more foreign politicians Yes. And that includes the fact that the dumbfucks who think pi should equal three because bible says so also have more influence to the politicians at the level of Sweden than EU. I asked a question, why you think Sweden would be more optimal than EU and you basically replied "because I think so". Count me unconvinced by your arguments. (Personally, I think that instead of discussing what is the right geographical scope of independent country, we should discuss which are issues that need to be decided on city level, which on state level, which on country level, which on EU-like entity level and which are issues that would actually need global democratic process to back them up. But unfortunately this discussion is way too complicated to the people that like to discuss with arguments like "Let's fund NHS with the EU membership fee instead")

lawn 8y ago
> Yes. And that includes the fact that the dumbfucks who think pi should equal three because bible says so also have more influence to the politicians at the level of Sweden than EU. With that line of thinking democracy is a failed concept and we should just abolish voting anyway. Because then dumbfucks don't get any influence. > I asked a question, why you think Sweden would be more optimal than EU and you basically replied "because I think so". No, I said it's because it's easier to influence Swedish politicians to which you cite religious dumbfucks as a counter-argument. Even if I convince all Swedish politicians that won't do. Now I need to convince many politicians of other countries, many who don't speak my language and none who care about my vote. > But unfortunately this discussion is way too complicated to the people that like to discuss with arguments like "Let's fund NHS with the EU membership fee instead" Yes that would be a nice discussion to have. None of this should be decided by the European Commission because we as ordinary citizens are powerless to replace or influence them in any way.
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  So, you cannot vote for your MEP? As far as I know they're chosen from current parties by proportional representation. With a few exceptions. (Country dependent.) You (as Swedes, for instance) voted for those people. They are local national level politicians in an international setting, no different from any minister except for the stakes and reach. That other countries can exert some influence on yours? That is a fact of life and nothing will change it. Everything is an agreement, including EU, with relatively specific scope, agreed to because it is beneficial (or politically convenient) even if limiting at times. They're about as easy to influence as any minister, but more numerous and more diverse most of the time. Essentially just think you're writing to a minister of european affairs in your country. Minister of foreign affairs. It is a better model than everyone keeping laws dictated by the US, Russia, Germany or France, or WIPO, Google or MPAA lobbyists, which it was before. (National standards get copied or are intentionally very similar.) You get to vote at least on the common choice, instead of the strongest one winning.
  - lawn 8y ago
    > That other countries can exert some influence on yours? That is a fact of life and nothing will change it. So we'll just accept anything? It's about limiting outside influence as much as possible. Not throwing your hands in the air and give up. > Everything is an agreement, including EU, with relatively specific scope, agreed to because it is beneficial (or politically convenient) even if limiting at times. It's always a trade-off. There are good parts and there are bad parts. EU has morphed into something entirely different than what it was at the start. > It is a better model than everyone keeping laws dictated by the US, Russia, Germany or France, or WIPO, Google or MPAA lobbyists, which it was before. (National standards get copied or are intentionally very similar.) You get to vote at least on the common choice, instead of the strongest one winning. You don't solve the issue that laws are influenced by other forces by eroding your voting power. Then you only worsen the problem.

lawn 8y ago

> Yes. And that includes the fact that the dumbfucks who think pi should equal three because bible says so also have more influence to the politicians at the level of Sweden than EU. With that line of thinking democracy is a failed concept and we should just abolish voting anyway. Because then dumbfucks don't get any influence. > I asked a question, why you think Sweden would be more optimal than EU and you basically replied "because I think so". No, I said it's because it's easier to influence Swedish politicians to which you cite religious dumbfucks as a counter-argument. Even if I convince all Swedish politicians that won't do. Now I need to convince many politicians of other countries, many who don't speak my language and none who care about my vote. > But unfortunately this discussion is way too complicated to the people that like to discuss with arguments like "Let's fund NHS with the EU membership fee instead" Yes that would be a nice discussion to have. None of this should be decided by the European Commission because we as ordinary citizens are powerless to replace or influence them in any way.

AstralStorm 8y ago
So, you cannot vote for your MEP? As far as I know they're chosen from current parties by proportional representation. With a few exceptions. (Country dependent.) You (as Swedes, for instance) voted for those people. They are local national level politicians in an international setting, no different from any minister except for the stakes and reach. That other countries can exert some influence on yours? That is a fact of life and nothing will change it. Everything is an agreement, including EU, with relatively specific scope, agreed to because it is beneficial (or politically convenient) even if limiting at times. They're about as easy to influence as any minister, but more numerous and more diverse most of the time. Essentially just think you're writing to a minister of european affairs in your country. Minister of foreign affairs. It is a better model than everyone keeping laws dictated by the US, Russia, Germany or France, or WIPO, Google or MPAA lobbyists, which it was before. (National standards get copied or are intentionally very similar.) You get to vote at least on the common choice, instead of the strongest one winning.
- lawn 8y ago
  > That other countries can exert some influence on yours? That is a fact of life and nothing will change it. So we'll just accept anything? It's about limiting outside influence as much as possible. Not throwing your hands in the air and give up. > Everything is an agreement, including EU, with relatively specific scope, agreed to because it is beneficial (or politically convenient) even if limiting at times. It's always a trade-off. There are good parts and there are bad parts. EU has morphed into something entirely different than what it was at the start. > It is a better model than everyone keeping laws dictated by the US, Russia, Germany or France, or WIPO, Google or MPAA lobbyists, which it was before. (National standards get copied or are intentionally very similar.) You get to vote at least on the common choice, instead of the strongest one winning. You don't solve the issue that laws are influenced by other forces by eroding your voting power. Then you only worsen the problem.