General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Luredreier
TLDR News EU
comments

Comments by "Luredreier" (@Luredreier) on "TLDR News EU" channel.

Previous
2
Next
...
All

@faultier1158 Maybe, but for referrence, here in Norway it's common for parties to be at 4% of the votes or lower and still be in our parliament. Making the German system seem a bit...
5
@karliskokorevics6902 Languages don't belong in constitutions, except for to protect peoples right to speak their own. A constitution should be about the fundamental principles of democracy and human rights only.
5
@MantasJurkuvenas Danes and Friseans where replaced by Germans in Schleswig-Holstein, Karelians by Russians. You're not alone in having experienced that kind of thing. That doesn't mean that people don't have rights to their own language and culture. Especially when it's such a large percentage of your population.
5
@mattbenz99 Actually, no, FTFP is neutral towards extremism, just look at the Republican party in the US. Or indeed the conservatives in the UK. The republicans have steadily gone further and further right. And the conservatives have done plenty of flirting with the far right too, although they've yet to go as extemist as the Republicans have... FTFP tends to cause voters on the side of a extremist party to have no other choice but to vote for the extremists or risk a even "worse" party in power since they of course think of the other side as even more extremist even if they in reality are not... With proportional systems both sides have multiple choices but since the balance of power generally is in the middle you end up with more centrist goverments on average then in FTFP systems and smaller adjustments of political direction since you need more consensus to get anything done. Furthermore, if a party tries to go with a "big tent" approach you end up with a lot of issues just not being dealt with at all in a FTFP system because parties end up only symbolically supporting certain issues for the most part with only a few members genuinly caring about said issues while most representatives are more then happy to sacrificing said issues for something they consider "more important"...
5
@Jonas_M_M In a proportional parliamentarian system large parties like that ends up split up, so people on the left in the far right block who would be able to work with the center right would probably be their own party, the center right would probably be multiple parties etc, etc. And people would negotiate to find solutions. Don't make calling a new election a easy way out where a party may hope to win because they hate the other guys more like in a first past the post system, instead other parties will gain on those new elections. Allow laws to be passed and cabinets to come to power if there's no majority voting against them Instead of requiring a majority in favour, that way a party can still negotiate for favours in order to abstain from voting against a cabinet being formed but still flight them down the line on other issues allowing for lots of dynamic alliances where all political parties are potential allies etc. After all, if the far right and far left wants the same thing for a change on something they don't have to vote for the others suggestions (something that voters might not like if they don't know the details) but they can refrain from voting against the other, likewise with the extremes vs the center etc. It's a pretty decent system that we've used here in the nordic countries for a long time now. About 2/3 of all cabinets in Norway since the war has involved the labour party, often because parties in the center has started out on the left then switched side, or at least refrained from voting against labour when the right didn't behave, in the middle of a term. No new elections, just a change of prime minister midterm to that of the biggest political party, the labour party (they've been the biggest since the war) and no majority impact on your average citizen. Honestly it's a good system giving all the parties power and a incentive towards cooperation as anyone may be a potential ally. Even the extreme opposite side of the political spectrum could be a ally do you don't want to antagonize them too much.
5
Well, here in Norway we're not having any issues with the immigrant community that resides in Norway. Our issue is with the immigrant to Sweden that they failed to integrate coming here and committing crimes. Likewise with other people not living here like residents in Romania and other European countries... When people don't feel included in society and are disadvantaged they're easier to recruite to criminal gangs then if they feel included. Be they locals or not...
5
Good. While the EU with its federalilst trajectory isn't a good fit for countries like Norway or Switzerland who as mountain nations value local autonomy quite highly and therefore would only ever be compatible with a confederal model it's also true that the EU has brought peace and prosperity to Europe. I hope that we can have more integration in Europe, but it should be opt-in options rather then a whole package that everyone has to follow without fail I feel... Perhaps the greens can help reform the EU into something that is more compatible with regionalist values? With regards, a green voter in Norway (but also someone who handed out "no to the EU" pins during our last EU referendum, being too young to vote).
5
There's a lot more categories of course. But personally I find the 5 category division the most usefull. Northern, Southern, Central, Eastern and Western. It doesn't cover everything but it's still simple enough that you can explain it all to a non-European in a few min without going into details about the Roman Empire being split up, the east-west religious divide, the Ottoman Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and so one and so forth...
4
@crosstraffic187 Well, economically a stable consensusbased centrist rule with compromises tends to be easier to deal with for companies since it leads to small changes that are easy to adjust for. Votes ends up being about long term trends instead of making a country take a hard turn left and right all the time like a drunk driver, you end up just staying in the middle of the road. And if you genuinly have a issue that requires a hard turn there are other alternative combinations of powers that can give the parties a way to turn if needed. And voters can vote for those if they want.
4
@mokied The alternative to the pension reform is to keep that government expense, meaning that either will other expenses have to be lowered (healthcare, police, army, whatever), income has to be increased somehow (either increase taxes directly or somehow increase the output of the economy in order to indirectly increase taxes) or the government has to spend money they don't have leading to inflation. Non of those options are ideal. Or where you talking about the electoral reforms I was asking about?
4
 @lorenzovalsesia3721 We don't really have much corruption here in the nordic countries.
4
@gnrseanra9070 Higher growth as a percentage of a economy that was lower to begin with after all the setbacks...
4
1:28 The majority of the remainder... Not all of it. Sweden sells many weapons and we here in Norway have our ship building and anti-ship missiles as well as various components for various weapons. And I know that the Polish infantery weapons have been growing in market share. And Germany has the best anti-tank guns and arguably the best tanks in the world, so they're also selling quite a bit.
4
@lattenoisette So that somehow give you the right to punish people living in the Baltics for actions taken by people in a different country? When did collective punishment suddenly become acceptable there?
4
@@kawinfinityMost of them never did. Indeed Volodymyr Oleksandrovych Zelenskyy, their president is a native Russian language speaker. Ukrainian is his second language. Russian speakers are just as much victims of those extremists as Ukrainian speakers are. And honestly a part of the reason for their behavior is likely the same kind of discrimination that you guys are practicing.
4
@numerodue1309 As individuals they're fully within their rights to ask you to use a shared language to speak with them. You're after all not under any obligation to speak with them. It's only unreasonable if they have a job servicing you, as you have a right to services in your own language. Be that from government organizations or from companies.
4
@karliskokorevics6902 The coming from another country is debatable. Remember that you capitulated. As far as USSR citizens where concerned they had just as much right to move there as you have to any EU country. If it was a illegal occupation or not depends on what country you ask. You did not have any government in excil anywhere. And while the diplomatic service in exile continued to exist its legitimacy in various countries varied over the years. Like it or not, the territory was de facto USSR, not territory occupied during a war. It sucks, but they moved into the country legally by following the laws of the government at the time. It wasn't democratic. But at that point it was pretty much legitimate however we may have felt about it. As a result it's wrong to treat the civilians following those laws as criminals. They where moving around within the same political entity, the USSR, just like you can now move here to Norway through the EU laws. If we ever leave the EEC we'll of course have to deal with what rights any Latcian, Lithuanian or Estonian within our borders should have. But they came in legally regardless. And as far as the USSR citizens in question where concerned they loved around legally. Just like Latvians, Lithuanians and Estonians migrating elsewhere in the USSR did, including Latvians in Ukraine or east Germany. Should they somehow be denied citizenship or their own language and heritage just because east Germany was under USSR control at the time? Don't get me wrong. I agree that the territory being under Society rule was wrong. But that was never the citizens fault.
4
@RoninTF2011 ctually EU laws require classes in minority languages. And Norway offer classes in Sami, Kven, Romani and Romanés (although the later two are a bit problematic as we still aren't offering remote classes for when they're traveling) And there's a shortage of teachers for most of these languages.
4
@bufordhighwater9872 Yep. But the huge spending on the military is also part of why Americans are less keen on taxation to begin with. It's a bit of a chicken vs the egg problem. People are more willing to be taxed if they see a tangible benefit from it. Americans don't really feel like they do.
4
@Interitus1 It is definitely not "needlessly" complicated. Indeed that kind of differentiation of relationships is what we should have more of, not less. Different countries have different *needs*.
4
I don't think the nordic region should be a part of the EU unless the EU is reformed into a more confederate form with long term confederate rather then federate ambitions. (I don't mind tighter integration like shared armies, taxation etc pr say but the power needs to come from a national level rather then a "federal" level with states having the option to join and leave individual parts of the integration as needed based on the elective process within each country) And there's issues where the policies clearly are not made by anyone with any idea about how things actually work on the ground... Fishing being one such case, the laws in this regard needs a major rework...
4
@marekj1100 So does Iceland where things are also fairly free with few restrictions but more testing and tracking of cases.
4
It's more complicated then that. I'm not French. But this isn't about raising the retirement age, doing that might eventually be needed, but this is about elitism. France has a first past the post electoral system like the UK. One area where I'd say the South African system is actually better then the French system. And the French system also gives the president the power to force through decisions despite the parliament being against something. The French people is upset that instead of letting the parliament vote on laws or having a proper national discussion where everyone has the opportunity to have a input (something France has done in the past) Macron just forced through legislation despite there being alternatives. Higher taxes is possible. Incentives for working longer is possible. Increased immigration is possible. All of these would help reduce the issue that the pension reform was intended to solve, more people getting older in France and not enough being born to grow up and pay for them. In a proportional parliamentarian system a compromise would likely have been formed. Perhaps a slight reduction in red tape in migrating into the country, perhaps offering free education for foreigners and allowing them to settle after the education like Germanic countries have practiced (despite most leaving for home helping out there this process still leads to enough bright minds staying to justify the expense in terms of tax income while also increasing the productivity of other citizens allowing them to pay more taxes) Perhaps incentives to work longer with a increased pension if you stay longer etc? Perhaps more funding for childcare etc to increase the birth rates? And there's definitely people who can afford to pay higher taxes too... In my own country it was actually the labour party lead government that implemented the pension reforms in 2001. So the left isn't incapable of making reforms when needed. But this kind of decisions shouldn't be made by one side of society alone, it should involve all of it as it impacts everyone. The existing budgets could afford the pension system as it was for a few more years. Yet Macron decided to reform it, not because someone twisted his arm, but to afford tax reductions for him and his allies in the elite... So it already looked bad before he started bypassing the parliament...
4
@inserisciunnome Climate change is heating up the planet overall, especially the sea. That's why the gulf stream is weakening, but there's a lot of inertia in the stream. As for the *why*... My best guess is the jet streams (think river of air). Basically when the temperature differences between the north pole and further south is big enough that stream of air is strong and fairly straight, think a rapid fairly straight river. While a low heat difference leads to the jet streams taking a long curving route. That in turn leads to cold air going far south and warm air far north... Causing heat waves and cold spells. Mind you, that's a guess from someone who hasn't been watching the latest weather trends nor is educated in metrology... But you get the idea.
4
Mountain people, be they Swizz or Norwegian or on another continent entirely has never been keen on external control in local matters. And trying to "tighten the thumbscrews" is a bad idea. Perhaps Norway should "tighten the thumbscrews" and add further taxes on gas companies selling natural gas to the EU. Actual export taxes is probably covered by the EEA agreements, but we're free to set whatever tax levels on total income that we please. And we wish to transition towards a greener future anyway. The EEA members outside the EU does not want to join, don't try to force us.
4
@Meddlmoe Sounds like a myth to me...
3
@Zeno the Filipino Good grief no, two party systems are not bad for democracy and leads to a polarized society where people don't really talk all that well with each other.
3
@리주민 Okey, you see how Peter Lund is talking... Now look up the parties he's talking about... See why some parties might find it a bit... difficult... to cooperate at times? The political right has been growing a bit in recent times in Europe, while the major parties has started losing some of the power they used to enjoy. This kind of tension will eventually work itself out in a proportional system. But it can be frustrating to deal with. If voters keep voting for extremist parties then the rest of the political community eventually ends up being forced to address at least some of the issues that these extremists are fighting for. Not necessarily exactly the way these estremist parties want. But their concerns are usually at least at some level founded on genuine issues in society. Even if the analysis made by these extremist parties about the cause of said issues might be a bit... off...
3
@lobaxx Joy... The center party in Sweden sounds horrible... Ours here in Norway on the other hand is probably the most pragmatist party in our whole parliament. They'll work with anyone to get their politics through. They've even worked with the local Nazies back in the day, prior to the war. Our center party has worked with the left several times in the last few years, although their nationalistic, immigration-sceptic and anti-predator (and other anti-enviromentalist) policies doesn't go to well with left wing ideology. But like I said before, they're masters at working out ways to work with other political parties and adapting their values to match with theirs.
3
The only crises here is the EUs failure to cooperate on integrating these people in a fair manner... Instead we here in the north are failing those further south by not taking in enough refugees and offloading their expenses and other challenges while the few that does act responsibly ends up being overly burdened by the challenges involved.
3
@EmperorZelos Goverments might have to use "Turkiye" but English thankfully don't have a language authority controlling it, so what we actually use is democratically decided through use, and not determined by Erdogan. Personally I have no intention of changing that till a non-autocrat leader is in charge and requests it as I suspect that it was at least in part a change made to distract the local population from real politics that might make him fall. And the name also needs to work for a international community.
3
@overtonpendulum2071 Actually it's the exact opposite... More migrants would most likely help reduce the problem making this a requirement, namely the low birth rate... A problem we're causing just fine ourselves here in Europe... Migrants who often have more children help reduce that problem.
3
@rizkyadiyanto7922 There's a lot of other ideologies to the left of capitalism. While I can't speak for his views I can tell you that pure capitalism does a really bad job at dealing with most of the worlds problems. That doesn't mean that there's no ideas worth salvaging from capitalism. But both the basic worldview and belief in human selfishness and how it works to just everything... There's so many flawed assumptions and systems in capitalism. I do think that there's elements that can be salvaged however. And a 180⁰ turn away from capitalism won't work. Changes in direction has to be slow, gradual and measured. Learning from the good parts of capitalism while discarding as much of the bad as we can.
3
@bachelor3846 They might not be outright targeting civilians, but they're not exactly showing much care in avoiding civilian causalities either... Using weapons with increased likely hood of civilian causalities... And there are some indications of civilians being targeted...
3
@LiviuGelea Kind of. The heat increase isn't so much caused by a increase in radiation usable by solar panels from the sun as the heat energy being radiated out from the earth being bounced back to the ground from the clumate changing gasses. The light might indeed be blocked for instance by a cloud cover, but the heat may still bounce up and down multiple times making conditions hot and humid, shutting down our bodys natural cooling mechanism. Leading to increased ac use without power production necessarily increasing.
3
 @crystallogic2543 There's a difference between conservative and right leaning. They're economically right wing, but socially libertarian.
3
@yarpen26 "Good" and "evil" what the heck are you talking about? There's no such thing as a "evil" political party in Norways parliament. Even FRP genuinely are trying to make the country better, they just have some weird ideas about what "better" entails. But they're genuinely trying to serve the country. The only "evil" parties we have only occasionally have local power in some places. We haven't had any "evil" parties in the parliament since "national gathering" during the war...
3
As long as the system of caretaker governments works and as long as the parliament is capable of passing laws on its own I don't really see much of a problem. That said, the Norwegian approach to proportionality with proportionality within the electoral circles with no lower limit for a seat being responsible for 150 of our 169 seats and then 19 leveling seats that does have a voting threshold of 4% might be worth looking at. 19 seats out of the 169 total isn't so much that it punishes smaller parties that much. But having those 19 seats up for grabs gives a bit more incentive for parties to stay together instead of splitting up into similar ones, or even in some cases merging to increase influence. While splitting up over genuine issues still doesn't cause political irrelevancy. Our system also makes it possible to benefit certain areas more than others if need be to ensure that everyone, including low population areas are heard. Every step of the way is proportional. But having just a few extra seats available just above the 4% threshold sure helps motivate people. Obviously our exact system probably wouldn't work. But it might be a good system to take inspiration from next time they look at possible electoral reforms.
3
@mindob766 It's more complicated then that. The current Russian population is a mix of migrants and indigenous Russian speakers. Remember that people have traveled and traded and funded cities for a long time. Many cities have had a mixed ethnicity for a long, long time.
3
 @atm9862 You can't force anyone to speak a language. You can only encourage it. Make the language useful. But punishing people who don't use it won't work. It has to be a choice.
3
@aghileshemdani3144 Belgium has 3 main ethnicities. The Flemish speakers in the north (close to Dutch) The Wallonians in the south (essentially French) and the German (and a tiny bit of Luxembourgish speakers) in the east. The capital is mixed language.
3
@CountScarlioni The Balkans is our (NATOs) backyard. In other parts of the world it's hard for us Europeans to actually intervene, we don't really have the capacity, unlike the US. But here we don't really have any other excuse then us being afraid of getting involved in that mess... The Balkans has been complicated since Roman times (honestly before that too, but the pre-roman complications isn't really relevant for us now in our current time), and I guess Europeans have learned to be a bit afraid of touching the region with a ten foot pole... Last time we did didn't exactly go all that well...
3
4:02 I'm not German, but if you where to make a literal translation rather than a actual one, wouldn't that roughly be a "turningtime"? Of course with the opposite word order.
3
@MagiconIce Pretty much. The greens in my own country (Norway) isn't opposed to defending ourselves, our allies, civilians or human rights, nor of opposing Russia or China, but use of military might is and has always been a last resort for the party.
3
Move north to where? Here in Norway the Greens are growing too. Likewise in Sweden. I haven't paid as close attention to Danish politics, but I'd be surprised if they're not growing there too. The greens are simply popular in Germanic nations and north European nations. Scotland, Nordic countries, Germany, the low counries, etc... The only area where they don't seem to grow is in eastern Europe.
3
Also EU policies on the area sucks.
3
@carlcramer9269 You guys can still fix it, although it'll probably take a generation or two. I think a part of the issue is that Sweden is so focused on the big cities and have left their rural community to decay compared to Norway. While we spread our immigrants around the whole country allowing us to spread out the integration task. And how well that has functioned has varied from place to place, but having immigrants in more places also means that we can learn what works or not as more things are tried out.
3
8:30 Ok, that one I'll grant you, although it's still a truth with modifications. Basically parties just declare their intentions up front. Then negotiate afterwards based on the overall balance of power in the parliament. So you'll have a pretty good idea about what will happen depending on what parties gets how much power. For instance, votes for the two biggest parties usually leads to a increased chance that they'll try to form a government. Votes for parties closely aligned with them also increase the likelihood that they'll get into power but is slightly less certain as your party may get offered a better deal. That might be seen as a negative, but it could also be seen as one of the bigger advantages of that approach. If you vote for a unaligned party you don't know who'll be in power, but you increase the likelihood that your views are represented. So me I used to vote for a far left party, but switched to one in the center despite not changing values because I wanted to ensure that my values are represented regardless of what cabinet is in power. In fact, despite disagreeing with pretty much everything they stand for, I think our conservative prime minister here in Norway is probably a better option for a government taking care of the values I care for (the environment etc) then a labor party lead government right now, but only if they're forced into some serious compromises and consessions. A slightly left leaning nonaligned environmental party willing to cooperate with them is therefore preferable to me over a far left one that's only willing to support the labor party and who will otherwise stay out of it... They're also preferable for me over the slightly right leaning party also fighting for the environment and libertarian values. All of those parties where genuine options for me. But I intentionally picked the nonaligned option in order to further my values and partially to punish the labor party for not taking enough care of their coalition partners. I wasn't alone. Hence why they lost their election to the conservatives. Now something similar is happening due to the conservatives upsetting the urban/rural balance by making major reforms in how the country is dividend. Upsetting many who have switched over to a center left option with a clear rural centric and anti-immigration profile appealing to many on the right who might otherwise object to voting for left wing parties...
3
Often it's not so much that the greens are a single party issue, it's just that they don't get attention about their other issues or that they have to little attention at all that the only issue they're actually able to raise awareness of and claim ownership of is enviromental policies. Part of the reason for this on the british islands is the first past the post electoral system that is very hostile towards smaller poltical parties.
3
@KrappiTheClown Hum, not how we do it here in Norway. And if I'm reading that correct the speaker of the parliament can take on the role of the king if and only if the king is unable to attend a council approving the ministers.
3

Previous
2
Next
...
All