Comments by "Luredreier" (@Luredreier) on "Macron's NEW EUROPE includes the UK u0026 Ukraine" video.

@jeromeh7985 We're already paying huge contributions to the EU. Money is kind of irrelevant in this context to be honest. I'd be fine with Norway paying you guys more right now. The problem is that the EU is aiming for a federated model instead of a confederated one. And a law that works in the Rhine valley doesn't necessarily work in Finnmark or Nordland... Population density and geography plays a huge part in what laws works or not, as well as a whole host of other issues that makes unified laws problematic in many situations. I absolutely want Europe to influence our laws, and I support most of the integration to be honest, but the principle that at the end of the day people have to decide over their own lives even if they're heavily outnumbered by others in a political entity is nonnegotiable to me and most here.
6
@yvesgysel9834 It's not even about money for most of us. Essentially we're on board with contributing as much as any EU country economically, taking part in pretty much any EU law, agreement or integration or regulation. The only sticker is we're never going to accept another people making the decision again. We're fine with following the EUs lead as long as it's our choice to do so. Essentially, it's about the difference in principles between a confederation and a federation. We want a bottom up power structure, not a top down. So a states give power to the EU situation rather than a the EU grants power to the states situation. As long as federation is on the table or a goal the EU project is dead as a option for Norway. A multi-tier EU where a confederate model is guaranteed would actually allow us to join as it would swing that balance in our population for a referendum. But as is... Yeah, just not going to happen, and we'd prefer worse economy to giving up that freedom.
5
@cricetomannaro000 No, quite the opposite. We'd rather pay more then be ruled by others. Norway pays 391 million euro pr year through the EEA agreement, but we also pay 447 million euro pr year through a whole host of EU programs we've joined through the EEA agreement. And we pay 6 million pr year for justice related commitments. And 25 million through the European territorial cooperation. Basically we're already paying as much as a percentage of our GDP as any member state does despite not being a member. So your idea that we're not joining because we don't want to spend money is just a myth. It's a question of values, not money.
4
@saltymonke3682 We pay as much as any EU state, and we have free movement of people, one of the objections to membership that the UK had, despite the UK never joining shengen. And we implement a majority of EU laws. The difference is just that we have veto power and can choose not to follow some if needed, and that we have a couple of areas exempted. That sovereignty is important to us. But we're not saving money here, and if we had UK sized population we'd be better of within the EU as we'd have the weight to throw around to make changes, something we don't as is.
3
@jeromeh7985 One country one vote is still less self determination then independence. Influence is fine, but the decision has to ultimately be made locally. Anything else is a non option for us.
3
@hurmur9528 Pretty much. In Norways case we're also both a mountain people (and mountain peoples throughout history has been rather independent minded all over the world) Basically you end up with people living isolated in separate villages for the most part ruling themselves and having to rely on ourselves and those in our community for survival, with the influence from the outside generally being from people who doesn't have the faintest idea about how life here actually is, so each valley is its own nation pretty much and loath to give up freedoms and self governance to outsiders. As a result our electoral system places a huge amount of emphasis on ensuring representation even from rural areas. Much more so then in Sweden, or even Denmark. I'm pretty sure that rural Swedes are less than thrilled by the activities of Stockholm but they're essentially powerless to change them.
3
@nicoxxl26 What us this thing you speak of? Hum-ore?
1
@jeromeh7985 Also, I promise you, we won't join when the oil is gone, even if we lose the single market access we'll still stay out despite the pain that entails.
1
@MichaelTavares What do you mean?
1
@nikiindzhiev5369 No, trust me, we won't join even without the oil. It's deep in our psyche. We've already spent 400 years in a union with Denmark and close to a century one with Sweden, it's going to take several centuries before those scars weaken enough for another union to be a option, no matter the costs. As for "playing our cards well", did you notice the part where I talked about us spending less money then EU members actually being a myth and that we pay just as much to the EU?
1
@hurmur9528 Kind of... You guys joined though... Unions with you and Denmark kind of put us off unions for a few centuries...
1
@SelectedNarcissist Um, perhaps we should agree to disagree on that one?
1
@andrewmichaels5725 I think that he's a football player? Not my sport I'm afraid.
1
@jeromeh7985 The EU is literally in the process of removing that veto right just right now.. And you don't seem to get that a union is a problem for both the people living in it and outside it. In both a union and a federation the ultimate power goes from the top down. That's a democratic problem because democracy scales poorly with size. Europe has a population of about 746 millions and a land area of about 10,5 millions. So how many people per representative should there be? How many km between the home of each representative? How do you guarantee that the representatives actually have lived a life where they know how those they represent actually live? If you end up with a political class that grow up and live as politicians from birth without ever living as farmers or bus drivers or social benefits recievers or single mums, how do you expect them to be able to represent anyone at all? Being voted in means jack squat if they don't know what problems those they represent actually have. On the other hand if you actually have enough representatives to represent all of that for a whole continent then the 3 000 large parliament of China will be dwarfed... Especially because equal number of voters per representative under such a system would leave huge areas of land unrepresented. In Norway we have 19 constituencies to our parliament, one of them have 5 seats and just 39 299 voters that voted in our last parliamentarian election. Their third biggest party had 4 908 voters in total throughout the country, but got a seat in our parliament. Why? Because that constituency is huge, our biggest, and it had 3 hospitals, serving people separated into three groups divided by mountains, one of those hospitals where closed, leaving the people between them, including the biggest city in that whole constituency without a hospital whenever the weather is to bad for mountain crossing or air ambulances to pass. Meaning that pregnant women and people with a heart attack literally can't get to a hospital if the weather is bad. How can people in our capital, let alone down in the Hague possibly know how it is to live somewhere where a equal distribution of hospitals in distance per square km and between people means people will go without due to terrain and climate? People can only know that if they're from that area. A area that's really that hostile to human life, where there's no sun for literally months each winter, where you get storms down from the literal north pole hitting our coasts. Yet if we had 3 000 representatives like China does the whole constituency wouldn't have a single seat, let alone the 5 we have given them. A constituency that's already so big that there's two parties other then the one created as a protest against closing that hospital to come first, because people the hospital side of those mountains are unaffected, and some people think other issues are more important, like jobs, or lack of infrastructure or local democracy. So with 3 000 seats and a population of 745 millions on the continent you'd have 248 000 people per representative, and that would be far from enough, especially for the low population density areas of the continent. Then imagine just how hard it would be to get 3 000 people to agree on *anything*. The more people who have to agree, the harder it is to get anything done. No, the only way to have a democracy where everyone has a say in their own day to day life is if you have more sovereign entities representing a smaller subsection of the population. Norway with our 5 million people is already on the bigger side of ideal here. By having these smaller entities having the final say about every topic within their own territory or whatever you di ide them by people can actually get things done and also be fairly representative. But I'm a green voter in my country. And pollution doesn't end at the borders. So I do naturally recognize that there's many problems that can't be solved by individual states alone. It requires cooperation. But I believe that it's wrong to try to achieve that cooperation by taking power away from those affected. Instead it should be achieved through sovereign states cooperating, perhaps through a larger body, but one empowered from the bottom up, not granting power from the top down. So a confederacy instead of a federacy. Like what Switzerland had between 1291 and 1798 as a example. Multiple countries being sovereign does not mean that they can't work together. There's whole people who make up less then those 248 000 people per representative I mentioned. The Sami people is a minority in Norway. They have their own language and culture that's not even Indo-European. And their population in Norway is less then sixty thousand people. Europe has 11 countries with a population under 400 000. And even with that we have many ethnic groups not even represented with their own countries. A Europe wide democracy would therefore leave many whole ethnic groups, many lifestyles, many cultures, many languages, and many unique situations completely and utterly unrepresented. And the will of the majority would therefore be a tyranny of the majority. And any majority decisions on a continent wide level will therefore always be undemocratic the way I see it.
1
As long as one of the levels is confederate we'll be good. (Someone living in Norway)
1