Democracy means government by discussion, but it is only effective if you can stop people talking.
A bit late, but finally coming. Here, the second part of the debate about Bukovsky’ video, this guy who seems to be so in love with the European Union (EU).
Why did I post this video? Quite simple. This video represents all the fears that you could imagine about European Union. It’s a condensed. You can find almost everything: problem of identity, representation, democracy, the eurocracy, this elite project, etc…
For sure that Bukovsky is using wrong statistics, simple comparisons, and fake examples. I have never said that I believe in its speech. However his argues are easy to understand, chocking and well explained. Show it to many people who do not know that much about the EU, I am sure that Bukovsky will get some support.
Do you think that it is not very “objective” (according to Georgi comment on the first post: “it is not very objective to post as an eurosceptic view such a radical opinion”) to post a video like that? A second comment by Andrei says to me: “ignore him”. Do we have to write only good things about the EU? Or give only opportunity to talk to pro-EU people?
Could you tell why it is not objective to talk about this guy and other people who disagree with the EU project? My point of view and my journalistic experience tell me that: the objectivity can only exist when you talk about everything and provoke the debate. Even if you think that those people are wrong.
I’m not here to promote my idea about the EU. I do not think that it is so interesting. However, the thing I like is the debate. I remember one of my best interviews in my life: an activist from the Front National, the French extreme right wing party. I completely disagreed with his speech, but it was amazingly interesting. All his argues, his own logic mixing perfectly together. Only one question was in my mind at this time: how could I show him a failure in his theory?
And what I wanted to say with this video, is quite simple: ignoring people who disagree with us, is the best way to crash the EU project. In my country, three years ago, ours main politicians thought that it would be easy to make people voting yes for the European Constitution. Come on, EU is a great thing and this text is just amazing.
So, they didn’t do anything to promote their ideas. The only problem is this easy plan was the side: people against this new step forward more integration started to promote their ideas in the public sphere. Ours good politicians did not even know that it was possible to be against. Result? A big NO in theirs faces. And the same thing happened in Ireland last year. Always the same problem. THE DEBATE! Where is this debate? We want to create an European democracy? So, we have to debate, especially with those who hate the EU, do not agree, want something else. It will be good for the democracy, for the EU and for us too: the debate can only improve the project.
I know that I took the worst example with this Bukovsky. You are right Andrei, “this old fart can only define himself by being anti-Soviet; now that the Soviet Union is no more, he still spends all his time finding ways to tilt at windmills”. However, it does not mean that will not listen to him. Or any other strange guys. Because people do it as Tom wrote it: “that would actually be funny if not so many EU citizens believed that bullshit…”
It is just easier to destroy than to promote and build. And ours national leaders are lazy in this job: why should I take any risk for my national position by promoting the EU where I have to share my power with 26 other countries? If I’m right, the others European can not vote for me…
According to me, it would be great to have real Euroseptics here. Hey, where are you?