this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2024
472 points (98.8% liked)

Europe

8509 readers
12 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
poVoq@slrpnk.net
472
Exclusive: Majority Of Voters Want Next Government To Take UK Back Into European Union (www.huffingtonpost.co.uk)
submitted 1 week ago by CAVOK@lemmy.world to c/europe@feddit.de
157 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Again, fair enough. They can think that it is a made up problem. But what should be the correct answer ? Because if I say “look, there is too many illegal immigrants around in this area of Milano (Stazione Centrale) and it is not safe because of the petty crimes”, the answer could not be “you are too ignorant to understand why it is not a problem”, you should explain to my how having thousands of illegal immigrant around living by petty crimes is not a problem, if you can (just an example btw).

"The left" aren't pro illegal migration, never have been and never will be. Thats a right wing trope and anyone who falls for it is a moron, sorry. Not allowing in vast amounts of cheap labour, to bring down wages, benefits the people funding the right wing parties, not anyone remotely left leaning. I'm also willing to bet that the bigger problem is the legal migration system the right wing allowed business interests to fuck into the ground, to stop wages from rising.

Or if I ask for more kindergartens so I can have children you cannot answer to me that we are already too many and the next week say that we need to welcome more immigrants because the population is declining.

How do you think tax cuts for the rich are paid for? All the money that should be going towards those things are going into the wealthy pockets of the people who then convince you the problem is anything but them.

Ok, assuming you are right, where is the benefit of a housing crisis where young people could not buy an house

The housing crisis for you and me is the record profit boon for landlords and property developers. Very few groups support the right wing more than they do. They'll have to switch to topping it up with public money going into their pockets soon enough, for a longer term solution, like they do in the UK.

Given that the left was in power (in one way or another) for more than 20 years of the last 30 years,

Youre saying they haven't been in power for 6 years but its still all their fault? That seems a stretch.

Continuing to call me “part of the problem”

I never said that once let alone continued. Please drop the victim complex and some people do stupid things. I do stupid things too. However, believing the right wing will save people from themselves is a stupid thing i don't do. But sure, keep acting the victim and blaming everyone else. See if that makes me vote for you.

I can do that too you know. I just choose not to.

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

“The left” aren’t pro illegal migration, never have been and never will be. Thats a right wing trope and anyone who falls for it is a moron, sorry. Not allowing in vast amounts of cheap labour, to bring down wages, benefits the people funding the right wing parties, not anyone remotely left leaning. I’m also willing to bet that the bigger problem is the legal migration system the right wing allowed business interests to fuck into the ground, to stop wages from rising.

Ok, then a brutal question: why are they opposing the mass deportation of illegal immigrants ?

How do you think tax cuts for the rich are paid for? All the money that should be going towards those things are going into the wealthy pockets of the people who then convince you the problem is anything but them.

Ok, that's true but overall I don't think that not cutting the taxes to the rich could put a dent in the total amount (btw, how much one need to earn to be defined rich ?). I mean, I fully support the idea that everyone should pay the taxes based on how much they earns but I don't understand this idea that the rich are the source of all the problems. Yeah, they may not pay that much taxes but they are also a really small number.

The housing crisis for you and me is the record profit boon for landlords and property developers.

That's true if you and me can buy (or rent) an house. If you and me need to stay in our parent's house, the landords and property developers end with empty houses (landlords) or bankrupt. And there are other factors to contribute to the house crisis other than the price.

Youre saying they haven’t been in power for 6 years but its still all their fault? That seems a stretch.

In the UK ? I am not saying it is all their fault but for example in Italy we will pay the damages done by the left (and an idiot on the right) for years to come, whatever the left or the right will be in power.

I never said that once let alone continued. Please drop the victim complex and some people do stupid things. I do stupid things too. However, believing the right wing will save people from themselves is a stupid thing i don’t do.

Look, it is not to play the victim card. The point is that when people vote you need to convince them to vote for you. It is not always a rationale reasoning, I agree, but in general people tends to vote for who say will handle the problems people have (or think to have) in the day by day.
Now, in UK the right were voted, they did not well so now people will presumably vote for the left. Good. In Italy we have the opposite situation: the left was voted, they did not do well and now people vote the right. BTW, in Italy the right wing won because at the last elections people who vote for the left wing did not showed up to vote, now they cannot cry "the right win", they should have moved their ass that day.

The question is: can we really blame someone that have (or think to have) a problem when he vote for the side that at least acknowledge the problem ? Yeah, most of the time he would not belive in what that side promise but what's the alternative ?

But sure, keep acting the victim and blaming everyone else. See if that makes me vote for you.

Probably not.

I can do that too you know. I just choose not to.

I know. But even choosing to continue to vote for someone that not solve the problems does not seems a good idea.

[–] undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Ok, then a brutal question: why are they opposing the mass deportation of illegal immigrants ?

Theres probably a lot more to it than that. I certain you could even answer your own question. It might be along the lines of "not deported there or not like that etc."

Where are all these empty houses? Even then, they appreciate in value, even empty and propery price appreciation is the best place for a trust fund based in the caymans to obscure ownership of earnings. There isn't a bigger effect from a few empty properties than house prices exploding 2 of 300% in a couple of decades.

I don’t understand this idea that the rich are the source of all the problems. Yeah, they may not pay that much taxes but they are also a really small number.

There dont need to be many of them. Their source of power is their wealth, not their number. If it was about numbers, you and I would have that power.

The question is: can we really blame someone that have (or think to have) a problem when he vote for the side that at least acknowledge the problem ? Yeah, most of the time he would not belive in what that side promise but what’s the alternative ?

Thats a fair point. To me, one is clearly the lesser evil. I can agree that lesser evil arguments suck but its the best I can find, personally. I choose the one I see as the side who won't deliberately make it worse for us and better for the people they represent. Personally, I'm a post structuralist and I don't think anyone can be trusted enough to allow mechanisms of power and hierarchy to exist.

Probably not.

I'm just saying, I think you and I are past rhetoric, by now.

However, short of a utopian, philosophers revolution, the best I have to offer is a lesser evil argument. Thats where I'm at. The way I see it, maybe wrongly, is that people on the right share my same frustration but that's been captured by the very powers that force it on them in the first place. They have our neighbours looking down to find the solution and not up, where the problem has always been.

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 1 points 3 hours ago

Where are all these empty houses? Even then, they appreciate in value, even empty and propery price appreciation is the best place for a trust fund based in the caymans to obscure ownership of earnings. There isn’t a bigger effect from a few empty properties than house prices exploding 2 of 300% in a couple of decades.

Here I can speak for Italy: everywhere, since there are too many risks to rent them, even for the a trust fund based in the Caymans

  • No easy way to get the house back at the end of the contract if the tenant decide to not leave. The eviction process can last years, assuming there is not some laws to block all the eviction processes (a quite common thing)
  • No easy way to get the house back if the tenants do not pay the rent: you cannot simply evict them
  • The landlord often still need to pay for some expense of the rented home which would be way lower if the home is empty (some consumption-based expenses)
  • In case of damages from the tenant, you need years to recover them (if you are lucky), and most often than not what are paid is way less of what you need to repair them
  • If you register the contract to have done it lawfully, you need then to pay taxes bases on the rent income (correctly) even if the tenant is not paying you. Basically the state say "you have x income from the rent, pay me y even if you are not getting paid and I (the State) do not want help you to be paid"
  • if you use some kind of agent to find the tenants, they obviously are not responsible (should they?) for what the tenant do after, and you need to pay them a share of the rent.
  • last but not least, you can decide to sell a rented house but assuming you can, the price would be way lower given the points above (obviously there are exceptions to this).

So people prefer to keep the houses empty and take the cost, knowing where renting it lawfully could led.
Milano has a lot of empty houses (some research say at least 1/3 of the total) but they are not property of some big fund based in the Caymans (right, maybe the very expensive ones in the historic center of the city, but are not that many). They are property of people who get as inheritance or who bought them years back when they were less expensive.

Thats a fair point. To me, one is clearly the lesser evil. I can agree that lesser evil arguments suck but its the best I can find, personally. I choose the one I see as the side who won’t deliberately make it worse for us and better for the people they represent. Personally, I’m a post structuralist and I don’t think anyone can be trusted enough to allow mechanisms of power and hierarchy to exist.

The only problem with your approach (that I respect) is that this way you are rewarding anyway the same people that are creating the (supposed) problem you have. While you are thinking that you are voting for the lesser evil, they interpret it as an approval of what they are saying/doing, so they have no reasons to change.
Honestly I prefer to vote for someone else because it is the only way of saying "you are doing it wrong" and have the message delivered.

But what really I am having trouble with is that now everything need to be black or white, there could not be some middle ground point we can agree. People think that if you do not agree with a side then you are obviously be against that side: problem is that both side say intelligent things and both side tell stupid things, so I can agree with a side on an argument and with the other on another but for some reason that is lost.

However, short of a utopian, philosophers revolution, the best I have to offer is a lesser evil argument. Thats where I’m at. The way I see it, maybe wrongly, is that people on the right share my same frustration but that’s been captured by the very powers that force it on them in the first place. They have our neighbours looking down to find the solution and not up, where the problem has always been.

Maybe we should start to vote for who say intelligent thing irregardless of the side he is. I think that both your lesser evil approach and mine "vote for someone else just because" approach are not good enough to offer a stable solution.