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

  1. 114
  2. 55
  3. 45
  4. 39
  5. 32
  6. 32
  7. 30
  8. 28
  9. 27
  10. 21
  11. 21
  12. 20
  13. 17
  14. 15
  15. 14
  16. 13
  17. 12
  18. 12
  19. 12
  20. This is the fundamental problem with a top down approach to running peoples lives. The EU is well suited to function as a supercharged arena for diplomacy and to lay guiding principles that the individual countries then can find a specific rule for themselves. But when they try to detail manage the laws you end up with situations where there just isn't enough seats in a goverment body meant to cover the whole of the continent (and never could be) for people with every possible experience needed to predict where a law proposal might go wrong. Smaller goverments are more grounded in local conditions and may adapt to its needs. This is part of why Norway is not a EU member, because it's aiming for a federal model. But unless you go for the confederal one where local governments retain the power to overrule the EU you're going to end up with situations like this or the postal service mess left by the EUs directives here in Norway, or farming laws intended for countries with more than 3% of the land suited for agriculture and that doesn't essentially have winter half the year etc... Or privatization of other services like trains in areas where there's just not enough population to support private services meaning that private companies completing is actually a inefficiency, not a savings... And so one and so forth... Fundamental ideas like that different nations shouldn't have unfair artificial advantages makes sense and free movement of goods and services is great. And so many other great ideas. I want closer integration with the EU. But never joining if that means giving up that sovereignty, that right to have the final word made by people that actually know the local conditions...
    11
  21. 11
  22. 10
  23. 9
  24. ​​​​ @atm9862 pparently not, since they're not given citizenship without knowing the language. And sure, learning the language is one thing. You can enforce that by requiring companies to offer services in your language etc. Giving people incentives to learn your language as it'll create job opportunities for them. But banning people from education in their own native language or suppressing their culture just doesn't fly. NATO is funded on a principle that their members are democratic. If you don't give your minority rights, then that's essentially violating the terms under which we are required to offer you military aid in case of a attack on you. Yes, Russia is our enemy, but Russians are not. And I say that as someone from a country *bordering * them. If this behavior continues I will call the representatives of the party I vote for and ask for them to request a Norwegian call for the expulsion of the Baltic countries from NATO. I doubt that anything will come from it. But still, that's my position. I get that it's scary. And you're well within your rights to require companies within your borders to know your language to operate. If you want to offer scholarships abroad for Russian speakers and just in general encourage them to move to other European countries using the carrot that's definitely within your rights. Indeed someone in my village of 1 200 people here in Norway are from Latvia I think, but from a Russian speaking family (one of her parents a ethnic Russian, the other a ethnic Ukrainian, both where invited to the country by the local government during the USSR because of their skills being useful to the local economy), she has now migrated here where she is *welcome*. There are ways of encouraging changes that's kosher and that doesn't involve coercion. Your current treatment of them is creating hostility and is actively discouraging integration in your society.
    9
  25.  @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
  26. 9
  27. 9
  28. 9
  29. 8
  30. 8
  31. 8
  32. 8
  33. 8
  34. 7
  35. ​​ @gameofender4463 ctually this is a symptom of you guys not having enough coalition governments. Parties are too uses to getti their way and not having to make compromises, and so are the electorate. If you guys switch to a electoral system that is less likely to unfairly favour bigger parties and you get more political parties with real political power you'll see that it's actually healthy. Here in the Nordic countries we all have coalition governments every single time. And because we're used to it that works great. Indeed here in Norway our 169 seat parliament has 10 political parties represented right now for our 5,4 million population. While your parliament that currently has 736 seats only have 5 political parties represented for a population of freaking 83,2 million people. Only a single one of our 10 parties are down to a single seat. Two have 3 seats, two have 8 seats, one has 13 seats, one 21, one 28, one 36 and finally the biggest has 48 seats in this term. The current goverment is a minority coalition, but they could have formed a majority if they wished with one of the other parties. But said party refused to join as long as companies are given new areas to search for oil (drilling in existing areas where fine, and we're not talking a permanent ban, just no searching during the term). Since that concession wasn't made they choose to support the formation of the current government coalition but not take part in it as a member, so they're not obligated to support them in everything. Meaning that they'll have to get a shifting majority on a case by case basis in the parliament. We're used to that, so it's not a big deal. We've even had cases of governments having to run a budget created by the opposition in the parliament since that had a larger share of the votes. They'd of course still decide the details themselves, but that way we avoid a lot of problems. If a coalition can't work something out then just leave it to the parliament to come to a solution. Or use the coalition agreement as a starting point.
    7
  36. 7
  37. 6
  38. 6
  39. 6
  40. @F Youtube "still stands more efficient than any other" that's demonstratedly false. The US is the worst lead of all the western nations by pretty much every metric there is out there. Even compared to other FTFP nations the US has a poor showing... The US economy and companies are staying competitive despite the US goverment and its extremely poor governing capability not because of it. Proportional systems avoids the hard turns that FTFP nations tend to have, instead ensuring more stability for companies to work with. They have more points of view represented ensuring that problems doesn't end up festering and destroying whole industries and ruining peoples lives. Why should christian conservatives be forced to be in the same party as nationalists and liberitarian right? And why should liberitarian right be forced to work with conservatives and nationalists? And likewise why should nationalists have to vote for liberitarian right people and christian conservatives? Just to name a few... If you want lower taxes to avoid being crushed by the tax burden on your company but don't want to destroy international agreements that your company depends on for profit wouldn't it be better to have a pro-business company to vote for instead of the current republican party? And what about people in the countryside that are actually in favor of wellfare or other issues like that but don't want all power to be concentrated in Washington, prefering a local solution at a state or lower level? Not to mention how the demographic shift is likely to cause the Republican party to lose every election in the long run down the road because of its anti-immigration stance and reputation for racism... A socially conservative latino voter that would want to ban abortion and in general stick to Christian values ends up being forced to choose between Republicans with members having some rather... colourfull... language with regards to the latino population or Democrats that's fundamentally at odds with their core values.... Not to mention just people who want a party to vote for that is not run by conspiracy theorists but does support fundamental republican values... People who end up being forced to vote Democrats in order to support the democracy despite dissagreeing with everything the Democrats stands for... If you guys switched to a proportional system then both the Republicans and the Democrats would be split into multiple different smaller parties that each would represent certain values and overlap eachother to some degree. Centrists both among the democrats and republicans would be in smaller parties that actually could work together if they wanted to and got the right consessions from the other party. But also extremists would be able to raise their issues to a national level and have them addressed fairly without having to deal with people who don't really believe in said issues but just pay lipservice to them to not lose voters... FTFP has been a catastrophy for right wing voters in the US. And no, proportionality doesn't mean that every vote needs to be equal. That's one thing I actually agree about with the Republicans in the US. It's in everyones interest including the city dwellers that rural areas are well represented. Right now with the current system Republicans at the more urban coast and Democrats in rural red state areas are not properly represented. Take the whole roads vs railway debate. More investment in railway is unlikely to benefit people in rural areas who experience that their road infrastructure is falling apart by the day. And while it might not be accurate that international agreements is the cause behind the death of American farms there's definitively many American farmers that's struggling out there and need better conditions and leaders who understand how it's like to live in the countryside. A proportional system can be tweaked to give rural communities more power and representation pr vote then urban ones. The main difference between a proportional and a FTFP system is really just that there's more then one representative from each electoral circle and that said representatives are not all awarded to the party with at least 1 more vote then anyone else in said electoral circle, but that they're avarded proportionally within said electoral circle. So votes are not "wasted" due to the spoiler effect. And you'll avoid most of the issues with things like gerrymandering. So you'll avoid cases where suddenly a Democrat win and all of a sudden all the red counties are split up and their areas divided between the nearby blue counties etc... Each electoral circle in rural counties could still have way more representatives pr voter then the urban ones though despite being proportional. But the votes would better reflect what people actually believe. And you could have a situation where say the Republicans could enter a coalition with say a Latino Conservatives/Christian Democrats etc, picking up voters that right now are overwhelmingly favoring the democrats... And sure, the majority of voters in left wing areas where the Republicans are accused of voter supression might vote democrats, but with a proportional system you could pick up right wing voters from those areas too and get rid of that stigma to begin with, and other right wing parties that voters in those areas might be less reluctant to vote for might emerge allowing the right to pick up more voters in total. I designed the above reply based on a assumtion that you're right wing by the way. If you're left wing let me know and I'll make you an appropriate response. ;-) And yes, in my country the far right and far left frequently will come to agreements on a individual case by case basis. All the parties will ally with all the other ones on individual legislations.
    6
  41. 6
  42. 6
  43. 6
  44. 6
  45. 5
  46. 5
  47. 5
  48. 5
  49. 5
  50. 5