4 ms·

Who says if and how many "we" need? No one seems to be asking the actual people living there (e.g European), it's all arbitrary decisions made by Germany or som

Who says if and how many "we" need? No one seems to be asking the actual people living there (e.g European), it's all arbitrary decisions made by Germany or some E.U council. Last time we actually asked the people in a referendum what they want (Brexit) we were all surprised. Let's not assume we know what the majority wants.

tluyben2 5y ago
But why would one ask the people this directly? This is more complex. Asking the people will get you populist reactions and that was not surprising. More surprising how close it was to people who were not just 'against everything' but lost. The majority does not to die in a ditch (let's assume) so the chosen gov is supposed to prevent that. I do not know of other ways, currently in the EU, than work per hour and that needs people and our workforce is declining without immigration.
- joelbluminator 5y ago
  Why not ask the people this directly? It's a major decision with real impact on the region. Also, there is a growing resentment among people that the EU leaders don't really pay any attention to the problems the average joe is facing on his daily life. You know stuff like job security, house prices, gasoline prices and all that has really deteriorated in most places. Instead they see their bills go up because of green energy transition. Many people no longer feel like the system is working for them (see this great article https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-how-capitalism-needs-reformed-parts-1-2-ray-dalio/ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-how-capitalism-needs-refo...) If the EU continues "not to ask" them because it is "complex" the resentment will only grow.
  - tluyben2 5y ago
    Well, in most countries here so far the democracy works through elected parties. So sure you can have your vote but what follows is determined by the parties which you voted for. We can only try and see what happens but direct people voting in referenda has a strong immediate feedback response which does not take into account anything that is actually happening as most people only hear what they read only on their favorite channels online (which can be 100% fake). It is a snapshot of the now: as has been shown after that many Brits would have not voted brexit if they were fully aware of all the (mis)information. This has nothing to do with calling people stupid or ignorant; it has to do with some powers that be being very clever getting information out people act on and the EU rulers, so far as incredibly bad at this. They seem to be incapable of explaining long term benefits or what is happening at all to all the populous. This is a big problem. But even if it would be solved; the channels to reach are vast and diversified so if you just ask people to respond immediately, they will and you will get a very skewed look. And yes, agreed, there is a lot wrong but a lot of it is also miscommunication or actually no communication from the German and Brussels towers. That is wrong but asking 'Joe on the street' about immigration, I can predict their answers based on who you ask, even if this is not in their best interest. I cannot see how this will win anything; it will surely break up the EU, which could be good in some universe, but yeah, it was not great before the EU (to say it mildly) for many member states, so what data do we have things would improve? People have never experienced this prosperity: I cannot see, unless directly asked in a moment of angry 'took ma jubbbbs', how anyone besides Germany or France would benefit from leaving and they do not want to.
    - joelbluminator 5y ago
      > as has been shown after that many Brits would have not voted brexit if they were fully aware of all the (mis)information. The misinformation was abundant on both sides; I kept reading on and on about how poor Brexit will make the UK, how tech will collapse in London and tons of jobs will move away. It has been blown out of proportion. Politicians and technocrats on both sides lie or exaggerate to get what they want.
- bequanna 5y ago
  > But why would one ask the people this directly? This is more complex. Asking the people will get you populist reactions and that was not surprising. “Don’t worry simple villagers, me and my intellectual friends in the city went to University. We learned that multiculturalism is always better and anything else is ignorant racism. We know what is best for you.” Edit: cute that this is being downvoted. This comment must hit a little too close for some of you, eh?
  - tluyben2 5y ago
    No, we (and it is easier now to do remotely even) vote to elect parties and party representatives to take decisions on our behalf. But that is not a direct 'how about letting 10000 immigrants in vote yes/no on this link' : that is something very different.
    - bequanna 5y ago
      No. You don’t have the right to tell people who have lived in the same way for 100s of years in small, rural communities how to live and force them to take in incompatible, ward of the state refugees. You do not have the right to destroy their culture and way of life because you “know what is best”. This is a local issue. If you’re so certain your political party is “doing the right thing”, then allow those migrants to live where they are accepted and by people who want them. You are not special, smarter, or more morally superior than your rural countrymen because you parrot party indoctrination about forced multiculturalism. Put your money where YOUR mouth is, not mine. Stop forcing others to pay for your virtue signaling.
    - luckylion 5y ago
      > No, we vote to elect parties and party representatives to take decisions on our behalf. Kind of, but only to a limited degree. We vote for administrations that should deal "in our interest", but there's e.g. no legal mandate for them to decide to give up democracy and choose a King. Many EU-states recognized that and went for referendums on large items, e.g. on the European Constitution. A large-scale change of the nation is certainly not within the mandate given to them in any normal election. I understand the hesitance regarding direct democracy, because it's inconvenient. You have to actually convince people, and not broker a deal behind closed doors where you bribe people and they say yes "on behalf of everyone who voted for them". It works great in Switzerland though, they're peaceful and happy and free, and have been doing it successfully for quite a substantial amount of time.
- coldtea 5y ago
  >But why would one ask the people this directly? It's a little thing called democracy and the population having their say in decisions that affect them. It's not very popular these days, because experts with private interests and corporate agendas know better.
  - rnd0 5y ago
    >It's a little thing called democracy Two wolfs and a sheep voting on what's for dinner, you mean.
    - coldtea 5y ago
      Yes. Way better than 10 rich wolves and their 200 expert advisor pet-wolfs deciding for 350 million sheep, which is the "solution" to the "big problem" of majority rule.

tluyben2 5y ago

But why would one ask the people this directly? This is more complex. Asking the people will get you populist reactions and that was not surprising. More surprising how close it was to people who were not just 'against everything' but lost. The majority does not to die in a ditch (let's assume) so the chosen gov is supposed to prevent that. I do not know of other ways, currently in the EU, than work per hour and that needs people and our workforce is declining without immigration.

joelbluminator 5y ago
Why not ask the people this directly? It's a major decision with real impact on the region. Also, there is a growing resentment among people that the EU leaders don't really pay any attention to the problems the average joe is facing on his daily life. You know stuff like job security, house prices, gasoline prices and all that has really deteriorated in most places. Instead they see their bills go up because of green energy transition. Many people no longer feel like the system is working for them (see this great article https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-how-capitalism-needs-reformed-parts-1-2-ray-dalio/ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-how-capitalism-needs-refo...) If the EU continues "not to ask" them because it is "complex" the resentment will only grow.
- tluyben2 5y ago
  Well, in most countries here so far the democracy works through elected parties. So sure you can have your vote but what follows is determined by the parties which you voted for. We can only try and see what happens but direct people voting in referenda has a strong immediate feedback response which does not take into account anything that is actually happening as most people only hear what they read only on their favorite channels online (which can be 100% fake). It is a snapshot of the now: as has been shown after that many Brits would have not voted brexit if they were fully aware of all the (mis)information. This has nothing to do with calling people stupid or ignorant; it has to do with some powers that be being very clever getting information out people act on and the EU rulers, so far as incredibly bad at this. They seem to be incapable of explaining long term benefits or what is happening at all to all the populous. This is a big problem. But even if it would be solved; the channels to reach are vast and diversified so if you just ask people to respond immediately, they will and you will get a very skewed look. And yes, agreed, there is a lot wrong but a lot of it is also miscommunication or actually no communication from the German and Brussels towers. That is wrong but asking 'Joe on the street' about immigration, I can predict their answers based on who you ask, even if this is not in their best interest. I cannot see how this will win anything; it will surely break up the EU, which could be good in some universe, but yeah, it was not great before the EU (to say it mildly) for many member states, so what data do we have things would improve? People have never experienced this prosperity: I cannot see, unless directly asked in a moment of angry 'took ma jubbbbs', how anyone besides Germany or France would benefit from leaving and they do not want to.
  - joelbluminator 5y ago
    > as has been shown after that many Brits would have not voted brexit if they were fully aware of all the (mis)information. The misinformation was abundant on both sides; I kept reading on and on about how poor Brexit will make the UK, how tech will collapse in London and tons of jobs will move away. It has been blown out of proportion. Politicians and technocrats on both sides lie or exaggerate to get what they want.
bequanna 5y ago
> But why would one ask the people this directly? This is more complex. Asking the people will get you populist reactions and that was not surprising. “Don’t worry simple villagers, me and my intellectual friends in the city went to University. We learned that multiculturalism is always better and anything else is ignorant racism. We know what is best for you.” Edit: cute that this is being downvoted. This comment must hit a little too close for some of you, eh?
- tluyben2 5y ago
  No, we (and it is easier now to do remotely even) vote to elect parties and party representatives to take decisions on our behalf. But that is not a direct 'how about letting 10000 immigrants in vote yes/no on this link' : that is something very different.
  - bequanna 5y ago
    No. You don’t have the right to tell people who have lived in the same way for 100s of years in small, rural communities how to live and force them to take in incompatible, ward of the state refugees. You do not have the right to destroy their culture and way of life because you “know what is best”. This is a local issue. If you’re so certain your political party is “doing the right thing”, then allow those migrants to live where they are accepted and by people who want them. You are not special, smarter, or more morally superior than your rural countrymen because you parrot party indoctrination about forced multiculturalism. Put your money where YOUR mouth is, not mine. Stop forcing others to pay for your virtue signaling.
  - luckylion 5y ago
    > No, we vote to elect parties and party representatives to take decisions on our behalf. Kind of, but only to a limited degree. We vote for administrations that should deal "in our interest", but there's e.g. no legal mandate for them to decide to give up democracy and choose a King. Many EU-states recognized that and went for referendums on large items, e.g. on the European Constitution. A large-scale change of the nation is certainly not within the mandate given to them in any normal election. I understand the hesitance regarding direct democracy, because it's inconvenient. You have to actually convince people, and not broker a deal behind closed doors where you bribe people and they say yes "on behalf of everyone who voted for them". It works great in Switzerland though, they're peaceful and happy and free, and have been doing it successfully for quite a substantial amount of time.
coldtea 5y ago
>But why would one ask the people this directly? It's a little thing called democracy and the population having their say in decisions that affect them. It's not very popular these days, because experts with private interests and corporate agendas know better.
- rnd0 5y ago
  >It's a little thing called democracy Two wolfs and a sheep voting on what's for dinner, you mean.
  - coldtea 5y ago
    Yes. Way better than 10 rich wolves and their 200 expert advisor pet-wolfs deciding for 350 million sheep, which is the "solution" to the "big problem" of majority rule.