-2

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.

| |
3

The comment Machavity posted on the question summarizes the main problem of the question pretty well:

I voted to close as Needs Focus. Your question rambles all over the place and then asks a raft of questions at the end. If you can narrow it down to one, it should be on-topic

The main problem seems to be that this question isn't asking one question, it is asking 6 questions:

  1. is large scale green and digital modernisation (and structural reforms for some countries that are failing) considered as the consensus device in budget and recovery package talks among EU leaders and governments in May-July 2020 negotiations?
  2. do Frugal Four countries have invoked the modernisation and investment as the conditionality factors in the EU budgeting and recovery negotiations?
  3. If such arguments were invoked, what was the response from other countries?
  4. Are there some leaks about bilateral negotiations among countries about such arguments?
  5. Any other diplomatic clues about such arguments?
  6. Can such modernisation and investment conditionalities (that are pressed upon the less developed/less developing EU countries) be the device for reaching consensus in EU May-July 2020 negotiations?

(numbers added by me for illustration)

If you can not sumarize your question in form of a single interrogative sentence, then it's a good sign that it isn't focused enough.

If you want an answer to multiple questions, then you also have the option to split your question into multiple separate ones or to ask followup questions later.

| |
  • Well, the title is such single question "... agenda... considered as consensus reaching device". And this single question boils down to: 1) if agenda has been invoked at all; 2-3) how this agenda was perceived multilaterally and bilaterally (by forming coalitions and interest groups among countries); 4-5) are there some sources of information, because PoliticoEU article is very short - i.e. if there are references then putting them into answer is very fine, I can read further myself, no need to waste time for repeating them; 6) is agenda really device, e.g. based on diplomacy tools? – TomR Jun 28 at 14:14
  • I don't know. I feel that my question is still sane and valid - it is one big question and I explain it what subquestions are contained in it. My biggest concern is about whether I am sane? Politics has consistently downvoted and closed my questions, so, my reasoning, my thought processes are not normal as defined by the group standards. So, maybe I am not sane and I need to see some specialist? Some years ago I had psychotherapy course, maybe I should resume it and put this thing with stack-politics as the case? Are there Stackexchange group for solving problems with psyche and sane mind? – TomR Jun 28 at 14:18
  • I am not mounting pressure here. I just wanted to check whether I have some mental problems? It is fine that I am not fit into some group, it is fine, but maybe I have to see therapist? My life isn't good and maybe downvotes and closevotes are red flags to seek help? – TomR Jun 28 at 14:20
  • Well, you should be ready and able to write n-thousand words essay about "courage" or "virtues" to get into Oxford. It is the skill to dig deep into matter and this skill is valued by the leading universities. – TomR Jun 28 at 14:23
  • 5
    I'm sorry, but we are not qualified to diagnose any mental problems you might or might not have via the Internet. We can give you advise for how to write better questions. That's it. If you take that advise or not is up to you. – Philipp Jun 28 at 15:06

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .