I do not accept that the world is so complicated or so specialised within complexities that it is incomprehensible.
People working in many organisations have to be careful not to get into that mindset - one that I think comes from failing to have the argument to convince people of why a particular course of action benefits them, or deosn't.
I used to be very active in trade unions at the beginning of the 90s and saw the "they just don't understand what is good for them" mentality first hand. It's bad news
I attribute estrangement, with all the fear etc, that comes in tow to the lack of democratic accountibility and a contempt for voters.
I'll grant you that the EU still has accountability issues (although much improved in this regard now that the EP has some actual authority) but I don't see any indication of "contempt". Where is that coming from?
Bruno Waterfield:
Certainly not - we could all be investment bankers, mathematicians or scholars of international law (as I think someone remarked at our most recent meet-up, "Rocket science isn't even rocket science."). But we need to put in the time and effort to learn the concepts and vocabulary. And none of us will be able to master all the disciplines needed to understand all the complexities in this world. My own experience tells me that it is dangerous to discount the importance of specialist knowledge just because one doesn't know it is there.
active in trade unions
My works council experience was different: in Germany, works council members are elected by their fellow wage slaves, and I never ceased being a wage slave. My experience with communication is that it is difficult to answer questions like, "Why are you negotiating 'pay factors' and not pay raises?" when the asker does not have the context. Sometimes is no 2-minute answer that the asker will understand. The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman
I am guessing he means the reaction to the failed referendums on the Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty. On this subject, my own conclusion, also reflecting several debates on ET, is that no one is willing to truly confront what those votes 'meant', because they pick and chose.
What I mean is that No voters had wide-ranging motivations: sovereignist nationalism, a concern about codifying neoliberalism, general unease about how the public debate was conducted, and buying into outright propaganda lies persistently spread from some quarters. The No campaigners themselves (and Eurosceptics cheering them on from other countries) tend to ignore that each wing of them was a minority in itself. Yes campaigners, but especially top EU bureaucrats and national governemnt heads, vindictive assholes included (Sarko), tend to pick the least savoury No campaigners to explain what happened (e.g. say Libertas in Ireland). *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
