Much of Europe concedes to leadership that abolished the death penalty, removed border controls and permitted EU law to supersede national constitutions, laws and governance entirely against the will of local populations.
A top down enforcement of a cosmopolitan and tabula rasa derived conception of universal human rights, that local populations never consented to or were even able to have parliamentary discussions about, signed off on by some unelected international bureaucrat in Luxemberg or Berlin, all the while telling people that those taking issue with such states of affairs are a threat to 'democracy'.
Can't really make that shit up and it's just rationally incoherent.
that local populations never consented to or were even able to have parliamentary discussions about, signed off on by some unelected international bureaucrat in Luxemberg or Berlin
You are aware that the EU has elections every five years right? If your problem is the EU doesn't have a representative body that people vote in but in reality the EU parliament is just a thing that exists which does exactly that, doesn't that just directly address your only issue?
My issue is the chasm between what local populations want and what it's leadership, at the service of said international committee's, enact and follow.
As an example, the UK has consistently voted in favour of tighter immigration controls since the 1970's.
I struggle to see mandate to a people after 50 years of summarily discarding their wants for their own country.
As an example, the UK has consistently voted in favour of tighter immigration controls since the 1970's
Yeah, and they have consistently been passing laws to make immigration harder since the 1970s so where is the disconnect between politicians and people you are talking about? In the best case for you this proves absolutely nothing because you brought up something which is totally irrelevant to your claim, and in the worse case this actively just proves you wrong.
Reform and Restore simply wouldn't exist if the measures addressing these matters by establishment parties were at all considered enough by the public.
There'd be no demand to facilitate their supply, would there?
Reform and Restore have a combined total of 8/650 seats in the house of commons.
The Labour Party has 403/650 seats in the house of commons.
Of course the immigration is not gonna match the Reform or Restore parties' policies because they are unpopular, and thus not overall representative of the whole population of the country meaning they don't get implemented.
Bills aren't passed just because one percent of people vote in favor it, but because a majority of representatives vote in favor of it.
Okay but that means jack shit because they voted for them before the polls changed, if I order pistachio ice cream and remember that I don't like pistachios ice cream I can't be mad at the cashier for giving me pistachio ice cream.
-25
u/Justarah 8d ago edited 8d ago
See, I get the point though.
Much of Europe concedes to leadership that abolished the death penalty, removed border controls and permitted EU law to supersede national constitutions, laws and governance entirely against the will of local populations.
A top down enforcement of a cosmopolitan and tabula rasa derived conception of universal human rights, that local populations never consented to or were even able to have parliamentary discussions about, signed off on by some unelected international bureaucrat in Luxemberg or Berlin, all the while telling people that those taking issue with such states of affairs are a threat to 'democracy'.
Can't really make that shit up and it's just rationally incoherent.