Thread by @OliverBOfficial

As we now might be the first to observe closer than ever how it might look when one of the founding countries of the European Union throughout its development, I guess that it should be clear to everyone that plebiscites are too dangerous to adapt even further, as many leftists

promote. The greater mass of the people who don't regularly read the news (watching them is only a compilation of superficial information to barely understand what is going on in daily politics), let alone in-depth analyses or essays on how to do it better/differently, so that

they are hardly capable of deciding on anything beyond which party should preferably hold the reins throughout the next four to six years. People in general are moody, they might change their opinions as often as the latest breaking news popping up on their phone. How the hell

would you let them make any decision in regards to politics affecting everyone, even beyond the national borders?

Of course the Hellenic idea of having your say in terms of government and decision-making sounds fair, it sounds like something to be expected since one is going to

be affected by it as well. At least one should have the chance of having expressed one's two cents about the issue. The problem is that by these days, there can hardly ever be a decision made that is not going to be limited to one straight topic, such as blue is blue. Today's

issues are manifold, almost impossible to be grasped by anyone who is not a professional politician, employee at a think tank or published scientists in the realms of sociology or political science (or economics). Even civic knowledge might provide the knowledge to comprehend

what is going on. Thus, it might be more beneficent in the end to redeem people of the burden of civic participation in regards to constituency. Civic participation in itself has changed tremendously throughout the past few centuries: While following the news might still be

considered to be the prime duty of every responsible citizen, it cannot any longer be the sole duty. Yet, as for the Brexit, to many people inside and outside the British Isles, it was too much, Brexit has become a tiresome issue one seriously wanted to see registered as done.

(One reason why Boris Johnson finally one the Dec. 1 vote) Nowadays, further duties had to be added: Reading profound analyses on consequences of certain decisions such as Brexit, tracing back a politician's CV (e.g. Johnson's work at The Spectator UK, or Corbyn's positions on

the ISL-PAL conflict and the Hezbollah) or—in regards to the US—reading the Mueller and the IG Report (and the phone call summary between Trump and Zelenskiy).

—
EDIT: Dec. 12 election*
—

Those are duties not everyone would like to fulfill even though one wanted to be a

responsible voter. In the end, those documents all include information vital to fell an informed decision.
What does that mean, in the end? It meant that people consciously preferred to fell an uninformed decision because they disliked the idea of spending hours of research to

inform themselves on issues en vogue at the moment, or reading thousands of pages on investigations undertaken on a politician's allegedly criminal deeds in order to win an election. They rather chose to listen to journalists and pundits breaking down acknowledged intel, at worst

erroneously, because bias prevailed over neutrality. Such pundits may be Faith Goldy, Katie Hopkins or Tucker Carlson, to drop a few names. Nota bene: No-one can be barred from voting in elections (unless one lives in the US and was arrested for having committed a crime). As for

one's media consumption, this is not a matter of contemplation on whether one should be allowed to vote. One could be a staunch racist, or even a white supremacist—as long as one was a legal citizen of the country old enough to vote, nothing could stop one. The fact that this

could become a decisive factor in a decision as fundamental as Brexit should worry nevertheless.

By now, we see nationalism returning on the international stage should worry us as well. Democracy paved the way to this, while pundits and populists called upon the simple-minded

barely politically interested to take it to the paved way to overwhelm the hollowed centre of society with their sheer anger and short-sightedness. In the end, we all know that they were successful, yet no-one dared to ask whether Democracy was “a God that failed” ( didn't read

HHH though). In my opinion, it did, since it was unable to defend itself against its greatest enemies. Thus, I suppose that it's time for something new. Before that, though, I would like to recommend you a text on Brexit and plebiscites, then my own text.

Brexit: ukconstitutionallaw.org/2019/01/10/phi…

My own text: politique-rationale.blogspot.com/2019/12/free-w…

Additional information on my text: threadreaderapp.com/thread/1208846…

Please don't consider me to be an anti-Democrat, for I am not one. I appreciate the idea of Democracies, but to be, they are no fully substantial groundwork to build a society upon. On a small scale, they function well, but when it comes to larger nations, Democracy experiences

the limits of its abilities. It's like bloating a balloon until it explodes. We have bloated this balloon—Democracy—, and with Brexit, it splashed fantastically. Staunch nationalism replaced it, more or less, and so, it's time for us to push the needle into nationalism's

balloon before it can be bloated further, thus depressing the weak and the needy. It's time for Anarchism.

THREAD END

@threadreaderapp Please unroll.