Comments by "Luredreier" (@Luredreier) on "Norway's Upcoming Election: Will They Abandon Europe? - TLDR News" video.

@darthlazurus4382 Depends on the region. The cities that tend to lean left are positive towards immigration and refugees. The right wing ones more sceptical. In rural areas immigration is seen as positive in some areas that's being depopulated, but European immigrants, especially from other Germanic nations are preferred. So Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland and Austria. Some areas also where positive to refugees, but got burned earlier when they invested in infrastructure to handle more refugees but didn't get the money promised from the central government and they also didn't get the long term refugee influx they planned for when investing in them. So the companies set up to deal with refugees went bankrupt, the municipalities ended up footing the bills and people got less... Keen... On refugees in general... It was just handled poorly by the central government... But on the whole the country isn't bad for either refugees or immigrants. The main problem is that the culture isn't too conductive towards integration. It's hard to get friends here. And the laws can make it hard for refugees to interact with natives. Also you need local work permits, tax cards and a education that's considered valid in this country. That means that you'll get surgeons and engineers from some other countries with education that's frankly better then anything we got that's still working in jobs like cleaning toilets and floors. And they sometimes end up being better paid for those cleaning jobs then they would be for the jobs they're actually educated for at home... It's a system that's quite frankly unfair. But both sides of the political debate have reasons for keeping it. It's mostly the political center (except the center party) and far left that genuinely wants more refugees and immigration.
9
@darthlazurus4382 Our government care about the country but they're extremely pragmatic. Too many immigrants would mean more competition on the labour market if they're skilled and more burden on our welfare system if they're not. So our government wants to strike a balance, getting some immigrants and refugees but not too many. Different parties disagree about how many and of what kind. FrP is probably our most anti-immigration political party, followed by H, SP and then AP. KrF wants a more humane and principle guided refugee treatment. V and SV wants more immigrants and refugees both and are against the strict rules we have preferring more free movement for people. The rest of the parties are somewhere in the middle. At least that's my understanding of the different party positions.
7
@Captain-Axeman Center party isn't opposed to "big government" as such from what I can understand. They just want more rural power and growth. And trust me, the labor party wouldn't have lead 2/3rd of all the cabinets since the war if people didn't like big government in Norway.
6
@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
@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
While you're right about us not moving away from the EU and our EEA agreement anytime soon you're kind of wrong about the whole promises thing. In the UK parties don't publish clear plans for how they want to achieve their goals in the same way that the party programs in Norway does. The UK programs seem to just state the goals. Here we have actual plans stated then using the different plans in the different party programs as a starting point the parties negotiate some kind of compromise that tries to maintain the essence. With a anti-EU majority in the coalition it's possible that we'll refuse one or two EU directives that's hard camels to swallow for us and we might be harder to negotiate with when negotiating for the payments we make to the EU. But that's about it. The fundamentals won't be changed. Labour won't accept that and would enter a coalition with the conservatives rather than completely abandon the EEA.
2
@lamebubblesflysohigh While I share the sentiment that statement isn't really true. Ever had a look at the Roman Republics democracy before it became a empire for instance? It left quite a bit to be desired...
2
@hokton8555 You're right. H has friendly relations with FrP. H thinks of FrP as irresponsible but they share some values and get along okey. But honestly everyone can work with FrP on a case by case basis, but only H actually wants to enter a coalition with them. V, KrF and/or SP can probably be convinced to do so after a coalition if they are offered huge concessions though. MDG is open to H, SP, V and KrF but not FrP (the only climate change sceptics in our parliament). FrP is similarly sceptical towards the smaller parties in our parliament and might be open to electoral reforms that harm them if other parties wants that, and we're probably going to have a review of our electoral system soon due to the centralisation steps taken by H in the last two terms that kind of messes with the electoral circles we have and therefore indirectly with the electoral circles we have.
2
@hokton8555 H and FrP where in a coalition from 2013 to 2020. V was a part of the coalition from 2018. KrF from 2019, and FrP left the coalition last year. The two centrist parties doesn't want to be in a coalition with FrP at all, H want all four of them. FrP wants just H. On the left wing side SP doesn't want R, SV or MDG, just Ap. Ap wants SV and SP but not R or MDG. SV wants AP, R and MDG but not SP. MDG definitely does not want FrP, but the younger members also managed to push through a preference for the left wing in the party congress, so they want the same SV, R, Ap and MDG option that SV does. V and KrF wants a H, V, KrF cabinet, but I think they're open for including MDG, not that it matters much. SV, SP and AP looks like they're going to have enough seats themselves to get the cabinet. But SV still would like to get MDG and R included to weaken the bargaining power of SP. And both SV and SP knows that they'll need each other if they want a left wing cabinet. Theoretically AP or SP could of course enter a coalition with H. But a large part of the reason why SP has been growing is the centralization policies carried out by H. So I doubt that SP would go that way, their voters wouldn't like that this election. And AP would like to have the prime minister and to have the most power in a coalition as the biggest party in the country, and they're used to opposing H, so I doubt that they would accept a coalition with H.
2
@yarpen26 Also within Norway we generally respect each other even if we disagree politically. We have a relatively good political climate even if it most certainly has deteriorated compared to the nineties.
2
@irthamepali "Senterpartiet" means the center party. They where formally named "Bondepartiet" (the peasant/farmer party). They're a ruralist party. And a extremely pragmatic one at that having ruled in coalitions with pretty much everyone at some point or other in their history. Up to and including the local equivalent of the Nazis. They want more industry and public spending in rural areas as well as better conditions for farmers and fishermen. They're somewhat environmentally friendly (farmers need predictable weather), but want to drive our wolves to extinction within our borders and since railways and electric cars are more useful in urban areas then rural ones they tend to be more positive towards cars, ferries, small local passenger planes and other types of infrastructure that works in rural areas. They're somewhat sceptical towards immigration. They don't mind government spending though, especially in rural areas, like small local hospitals etc.
1
@paul1979uk2000 You don't understand mountain peoples... Neither Switzerland nor Norway will join the EU in the coming twohoundred years at least... It's a myth in the EU that the oil has anything to do with us not being a member. Mountain peoples in the world world in all times have been reluctant towards being ruled by outsiders (people outside their owe valley), and only grudgingly enter confederations with other mountain dwellers against outsiders. Local self rule is extremely important to mountain dwellers, and the idea of being ruled by others in either a centralized or federal government is 100% unacceptable. A confederation where power comes from the bottom and up rather then from the top down is the only viable option. And Norway being a centralized state only works because of the large amount of power that rural areas have in our country and the focus on serving those areas justifying the membership in the country daily.
1
@paul1979uk2000 The difference is that in Norway and Switzerland those EU directives are implement by our own laws and legal agreements and we have the right to end change or refrain from adopt them at will. Yes, there would be consequences. But the important thing to note here is that when it comes to the desire for freedom Norwegians and Switz people have more in common with the Afghans then the Germans despite being similar to Germans and Dutch people culturally. Afganistan has been under many empires through the ages and would presumably have had a chance to get more infrastructure in those times, but self determination was more important. The same is true for us. We would prefer poverty to being ruled by outsiders. We're also pragmatic and both can and will work with and cooperate with them, but only as independent entities. I'm saying 200 years because that's 3-4 generations, and that should presumably be enough to change our culture. But as long as our young people has a memory of our current culture, even if that's just as stories from grandparents, a federal or unitary union just won't work. A confederal one would. Our cooperation with the EU right now works well in part because it's relatively confederate at the moment, for instance with a lot of laws being goals that needs to be achieved with the local governments deciding on the details. But a federal model is a stated goal for the union, and that's a big part of why we voted against joining *twice*. We don't mind open borders, free trade, free movement of people, shared financial responsibility or any number of other values that the union wants us to adopt, most of these are shared values with us. After all, Germanic speaking people with similar values are a big block within the union. The problem is more one of principle of where the power originates. And of how there's details about life in regions that central governments just never gets right. Central governments are dominated by people from population centers, people from good farmlands, big cities, areas that's flat and "cultured". These areas simple has a different history from us and different living conditions. Privatized mail services or public transportation works well in areas with high population density allowing lowlanders to play with fancy theories about market economics and the principles of free markeds. It's a bit harder to make that work in areas that has too low a population to make those things economically viable based on the realistic price of sale of these services. There's no incentives left for quality of service, only for cost cuts at the expense of quality and finding loopholes in the various government schemes to finance the whole thing. Fewer trains post delivered on fewer days etc. But for the nation as a whole these services while not used enough to justify their cost as companies does make sense for a nation as a whole due to enabling extraction of resources that would otherwise be unavailable, and also services that would otherwise be unavailable. Nordic countries work under the assumption that everyone should have certain services and quality of life that would not be see as making sense commercially. Just look at what kind of service that's available in Nuuk, Tórshavn, Kautokeino/Guovdageaidnu and so one and so forth. We value our rural areas, and we will intentionally run at a loss at times that wouldn't make sense in a EU context. These things are a big part of why we despite our intense individualism and regionalism still have functional nations of the sizes that you see. Norway, Sweden, Denmark and so one, even Iceland would otherwise have been split up into many different nations a long time ago. Switzerland has similar issues but solve those in part through their Canton system. In these regions the natural country size is basically equal to a Swizz Canton. Or in Norways case one or a few valleys joining together into a nation, or possibly a fjord. And the long fjords might even be split up since people at the coast near the mouth of the fjord probably live very different lives from those further inland and have different needs. The oil money helps, but honestly that plays a minor role in everything. It all only works because we have electoral systems where people in rural areas are about as common as people from more urban areas in our government and legislative body. We're more likely to have a civil war over the topic then to join the EU. We've already had several governments that has fallen because of the union. And our elite has learned that you don't try to join the EU if you want to stay in power. The EEA is a compromise solution that works for us No one is happy with it of course like with all good compromises. But it's preferable to total chaos. Honestly we'd probably be better "EU citizens" outside the union then we'd ever be within. Many of us want a shared army with the union (in addition to the separate ones), to counter threats like the Russians. Many of us want free movement of goods, services, money and people, but it needs to be on our terms, with the local possible compromises. Giving our urban population the goods and services while the rural people gets the protectionism needed for our farms that can't compete with the lowlands due to a shorter season and worse farmlands, our fishermen wants to sell to the union and are more open to it then our farmers but it's still easier to get a sustainable compromise within the country or in bilateral deals with the union then when it's done at a union wide basis where countries far away that wouldn't be severely affected by overfishing and where people are more desperate for a income are the voter wants higher quotas then the fish actually can sustain. And where the laws only relatively recently closed loopholes that lead to the dumping of tons of fish into the sea with no consequences to the quota despite huge numbers of fish dying. We still have lands radiated after Chernobyl. Temperatures that doesn't exist in the mainland continent. And mountains and fjords that makes infrastructure difficult and cultures distinct. We'll join the EU in many projects out of our own free will, from outside the union. But the only way we'll actually join the union itself permanently is either if the union changes and either become more confereralized or tiered with optional tiers of involvement for members. Or if there's a huge shift in our culture, a type of cultural shift that just takes generations to happen. If we somehow by a miracle managed to join the EU right now it would be a disaster making Brexit seem like peanuts. Long term, as in 7-8 generations down the line I can absolutely see us as a EU member. But not now...
1
@paul1979uk2000 The cost is high, no doubt. But lower then it would have been as an actual EU member, as scrapping them as a member would entail leaving the whole of the EU just like the UK just did, while scrapping laws currently can be done without breaking any agreements with Europe and has even been conceded as permittable by the EU. The EU might not like it but they're required to accept our veto by the terms of the agreement. And yes, there's a implied and unofficial agreement about us not using it. But even the fact that it is our choice not to scrap said EU laws is more important then any involvement in making said laws ever can be. It's all about self determination. And yes, if we ever gets to a point where we scrap so many laws that the EU find themselves wanting to end the EEA agreements or if they want to punish us for our actions that's of course within their rights and would be a problem for us. But still, us having that fundamental power to veto them and making our own laws is important to us. More important then forming those EU laws in the first place. And furthermore the EU laws we follow are still formally made legally valid through the power of our parliament not by the EU. So a bottom up power structure. We need to be a separate legal entity. That's not going to change in many generations. The actual laws we follow is less important then who sign them into law. Yes, we're currently following EU law practically to the letter, but it is we who are choosing to do so, not Brussel, and that matters to us. As long as the EU laws in question are not unreasonable that's a arrangement we can live with. But there's a growing number of EU laws that has worked poorly for us and that is causing frustration here. At some point things will have to change. And that change will most likely come in the form of some new renegotiated deal with the EU where we'll give up something else and get something in return. That's also going to be a compromise of some kind. The Brexiters are unrealistic. There is an unequal power balance at play. And even if there wasn't there's always some given and take in interantional agreements, compromises. Where neither side are entierly happy. The same applies to us. We're not going to get our freedom for free. We'll have to make some sacrifices or other in order to get them. But we also have some cards up our sleeves too that the EU wants. So it won't be entierly one way either. Like I said, it'll be some give and take. And honestly I have faith in Norwegian negotiators. We're not in a rush with changing the EEA. I think we probably should start negotiations with the EU about a future deal to replace it together with Iceland, Liechtenstein, Switzerland and the UK, although I don't know if including the EU in the final deal is a good idea or not as they want different things then us. We'll have plenty of time. We've had negotiations that took 50+ years with the Russians. Negotiating with the EU for 50-60 years is perfectly fine, and we'll be happy with having the EEA agreements in the meantime. And we'll integrate further with the EU too in other areas. Our voluntary integration with the EU in a number of other areas is helping foster good will, that might help during those negotiations. As for the current EEA agreement. While we don't have voting rights in the EU we do have a right to be consulted with regards to EU laws that impact us if I don't remember wrong. So it's not like we have zero impact on the laws. The EU can of course still pass said laws after we express that a law is undesired by us, but at least the EU lawmakers have to be aware of our point of view when making said laws. That's more then a lot of areas in Europe that's within the EU can say.
1
Dislike, not hate. The only party in the parliament that's hated by anyone is probably FRP.
1
@lamebubblesflysohigh Hum, maybe... We had some bad ones over the years. When they wrote their constitution they actually had one of the better democracies out there... But while others have learned from mistakes and improved their constitution the Americans have kept their now obsolete and generally outdated one that was a compromise to begin with...
1
@Benjaminimal They're not going to change any of the fundamentals. There's regular negotiations about how much we'll pay to the EU and they might weight in a bit on that, and if there's any particularly hard pills to swallow in terms of EU directives they might demand that we'll veto those. But they're not going to block EU directives willy nilly or change the fundamental deal. The labour party would enter a coalition with the conservatives first before that would happen. Norwegian political parties are pragmatic in general. Also, although they want out it's not a first priority for either party, not even the SP considers leaving the EEA as a primary issue. And they where the main "No" party during both of the two EU referendums. Norway can afford the status quo, and SP and SV both have bigger fish to fry.
1
@haakonts Fingers crossed. Last election I was hoping for a H, MDG, V, KrF cabinet (possibly with SV as a support party), but two terms under Erna is enough. She handled the pandemic well, but more than two terms in a row isn't good with either side at the helm. Now I'm sharing your hope, perhaps with R and V or KrF joining in, although I doubt that they would...
1
@hokton8555 Who where in a coalition with H? If you're asking me if MDG was, no, not at a national level. MDG has been in coalitions with H and others on the right in the individual municipalities.
1
@hokton8555 I'm voting for MDG myself, the greenest party in the parliament while FRP, one of the coalition partners of H is the grayest.
1
@lamebubblesflysohigh They can also achieve quite a lot. Wealth and bloodline plays a smaller role in the US then people seem to think. Yes, what party wins is heavily influenced by dirty tricks like gerrymandering and voter supression among other things. But apart from the FTFP system the US is still democratic even if it's a highly flawed one at that. Other countries like Iran (today) or the Roman Republic (in ancient times) truly are less democratic. Yes, the two major parties has a unfair advantage, and play dirty against eachother. But it's still possible to run as a independent and/or replace the party leaderships favored candidate to the Senate or Congress through achieving sufficient popularity. And it's still possible to achieve goals of your own and present laws of your own as a third party candidate or a "back bencher" (to use a British term). The US has a lot of flaws, no doubt about it. But saying that it's equal or worse then the Roman Republic is unfair. Likewise it's unfair to call it the worst electoral system of any democracy even if it's definitively low on the list...
1
@hokton8555 No, I wasn't suggesting that you where. I was wondering what you meant with this: "Hakon Hofrichter Hakon Hofrichter for 18 timer siden @Luredreier they were in a coalition with H? " And in case you where referring to my comment about hoping for a MDG + center-right goverment last election I tried to elaborate on that a bit more.
1
@lamebubblesflysohigh The difference is that rich people had more votes in the Roman republic, and only rich people could present new laws. In the US someone poor can enter the Senate or Congress. I agree that the US system is horrible and both the NZ MMP and Norwegian party lists proportional systems are by far preferable and much more democratic. But my point is that for all it's faults the US electoral system is better than some systems out there.
1
@lamebubblesflysohigh Lasting a long time isn't really a qualifier on this context. Absolute monarchies and oliarchies has lasted for a long time too. Longer than democracy. And rich families had way too much power in Rome.
1
@tessjuel FrP is more like Boris Johnson then Theresa May, but I agree that they're no Brexit party or worse. So moderate as far as far right extremists are concerned. Also, MDG is a centrist party, last election they where open to coalitions in both directions. This election young former socialists seem to have forced through a left wing focus and they prefer to cooperate with the labour party this time. Next time they plan to vote on what direction to take I'll vote for MDG to be open to both directions again though. We'll see what'll happen.
1
@sucram1018 They're not really having problems with getting things done. They just make compromises all the time... Most of the time that's a good solution. But in cases where a more firm principled solution might be desired it can be... Frustrating...
1
@bobsmith5441 People generally don't mind those nations either... Finland and Estonia has a language from a completely different language family from ours. People from Ireland and Scotland are of course welcome just like French or British or American people. You're right about Iceland missing from my list of Germanic nations. We have more in common with Germans and Dutch people then Brits and Irish people or Americans. In my own region I'd say that most people are welcome though. We're a left leaning region.
1
@bobsmith5441 We do have a Finnish speaking minority that we've had for generations, since we where under Sweden last time. Finns tend to go to Sweden rather than Norway though. They learn Swedish in school. A lot of Icelandic people do come to study and work in Norway. Norwegians think of them as long lost brothers of sort. The island was mainly populated from Norway, at least when it comes to men. And Norwegians kind of see their own past when they look at Iceland. Only people from some of our dialects understand Icelandic without learning it or a lot of exposure. People from Iceland learn at least one other Nordic language in school though, so we tend to have no problems with communicating. Although in recent years Nordic people have switched to using English when talking with each other instead of using our own language or kind of a mix like we used to do. (I kind of miss the mix that developed on Norrøna, a ship that sails between the countries)
1
I think it's more a matter of them alienating rural areas with their merging of our regions and generally a policy of centralization, while they're alienating urban voters with their attitude towards the environment. Hence why the center party and the environmental party the green ones had so much success in the local elections earlier. Combine that with us in general not liking too much change and after two conservative terms a lot of things have changed towards the right, so people generally want to adjust things a bit again, to keep things in the center with minor changes only, some left wing rule then perhaps a turn to the right again later. shrugs As for our relationship with the EU I wouldn't worry too much. SV and SP might want to move us away from the EU but the math isn't limited to within the coalitions in Norway. Høyre (the conservatives) also want us to stay close to the EU and just because a party is in a government doesn't mean that they can't seek help from outside the coalition on a case by case basis. I wish you had covered the electoral system a little bit as it's a interesting one. Ap wants a minority government together with SP (and maybe SV) I think. They don't really want MDG included. We'll see if they'll include us or not. As a green voter I obviously hope that we'll end up with the swing vote, but it doesn't look that way in the pools.
1
What do you mean? Got any sources?
1
@illegitimateotaku794 Yeah, I'd love a overview of the various European political parties. But not just limited to a few like that. While I vote Green they're a small party here in Norway and in several other European nations even though they're big in some now. And there's other parties that's interesting. Some unique to individual nations.
1