Fair enough. I suppose it is your decision to donate 1%.
But would you like your president to make that decision for you? Would it be okay with it you if they asked you to sacrifice like 60% of your pay towards this cause, that too indefinitely?
"HN discovers the concept of taxes, gets mad about it."
With that kind of argument sewers are also clearly unconscionable, after all they cost money you didn't donate. In that hyperbolic case where the EU throws 60% of it's productivity for the war effort, Ukraine would win in 6 months. That's an absurd amount of equipment, and more importantly with that kind of money you can set up a foreign legion that would vacuum every half-decent soldier without better prospects from Ethiopia to Perú. This will not happen of course, a wartime economy is not necessary to retake the invaded territories. The "WW3 totally gonna happen guys!!!11" is also exasperating, no, nothing is gonna be nuked unless someone attacks Moscow, which also will not happen.
It's a donation towards the greater good of Europe, so up to a certain amount I am absolutely for it. I have no say in taxation in the first place (well, indirectly through voting, but you know what I mean).
60% is excessive though, and would make it impossible for people to pay bills. That's detrimental for the future of Europe :)
Russia won't ever use a nuke, because then India and China are not going to support them again ever. I am not scared a single bit of any nuclear saber rattling. The biggest threat is an uncontested russia.
Half of the sons, daughters, and mistresses of Russian leadership and their plutocratic friends enjoy vacationing or living in western Europe, so they will probably replace Putin with somebody else or let Russia lose and run away with their pockets full of money before letting any nuke fly.
> But would you like your president to make that decision for you?
Not without a discussion, of course, and I may disagree with the decision after the discussion, but on the whole I have been happy enough with the parliamentary systems where I have lived within Europe that I can say yes to this.
What would upset me and concern me to no end would be if the premiere went rogue and made these decisions unilaterally while ignoring all other branches of the government.
So basically, I think at this point if you support this to go on, then you are really willing to face an all out war that possibly involves your country. So there is a real chance that you won't be able to limit how your pay will be affected. But things could get much worse if some country goes nuclear.
So what I am trying to say is that may be some people are acting from this point of view (which makes a lot of sense to me, if you are realistic), and is actually not unsympathetic to Ukraine.
I'm not able to make sense of what you're saying in this context, I apologise. There's a lot of "this" and "it" with very little clarity regarding what those actually refer to.
There will never be a perfect direct democracy but a lot of Europe is pretty good on the democracy index. Of course things could always be better and there are always worries of regression but it's been my experience that I've felt decently represented; I've spoken with my representatives, I've felt heard and I've felt that my views were reflected in debates at the highest levels.
Why not? I've had direct contact with not only my own representatives on the local, national and European level, but also with members who didn't represent me directly but who nonetheless provided open ears to my issues. I have been able to vote for all three since I turned 18, as well as in various other referenda. Where are you, and what is different about your situation that you are denied this?
Because the parties I support are not left wing or far-left wing. So it gets called Nazis and ignored even though it gets a lot of support, but because it doesn't align with the mainstream narrative of mass media and governments and challenges the existing status quo.