Recently my question Is modernization agenda considered as the consensus reaching device in 2020 Covid19 EU budget talks? has been closed down. Again - I thought that my thinking about the EU is more farsighted than the actual political process is. I let this thing to be forgotten. But now I am reading https://www.politico.eu/article/hey-big-spender-eu-prepares-to-splash-the-cash-budget-france-germany-coronavirus-recovery-fund/ and it cofirms fully the topicality and the breadth of my question.
In my question I asked whether the development arguments has been used in EU Covid19 budget talks. And now I read in the Politico-EU that this has been exactly the case:
Denmark and Sweden point out that they spend more of their GDP on development than their bigger EU partners... “Austria will be extremely flexible in the end. But [Chancellor Sebastian] Kurz’s rude rhetoric has toxified the whole climate,” the official said. “Conditionality will be key for the Netherlands and also Denmark ... making sure the money is invested in forward-looking projects aligned with digitalization, innovation and climate change.”... The exact terms of those conditions, and their supervision, will be central to finding a compromise.
So - at the end I was completely right - the conditionality on the social and digital development was almost the utmost argument used in the talks.
So - my reasoning in stating the question was completely right, completely on-the-point and completely in the agreement with the spirit of the talks. What I did in my question - I in several large paragraphs explained deeply what I meant by the words "development", "investment".
So - my topic, my question was quite large, but it was completely on the point, it gave explanations in every paragraph, it was consistent in itself and with the politics of EU talks.
I just don't know how should I perceive this. I feel that I am sane, that I understand what happens in politics. But when I ask the question in Politics then it is downvoted and closed.
Can anyone say which part of my question should I have avoided my question to be perceived as focused according to the stackexchange rules? I am reading a lot, especially about math and it is always very annoying if someone makes some statements, some theorems, some proofs without detailed explanation of the terms, of the assumptions, or the intermediate steps. In math, physics, computer science such missings are disturbing and hurt people very much. Then why should we allow such missings in the political questions? Misunderstanding of the terms, concepts, events are the source much of the failures. I think that it is better to have questions with as much explanations as possible. Especially when the matter concerns investment and developments - very many people in EU are not aware about problems in these fields.