Connor, you are so American. Not saying this in a depreciative way, just that you see the world with a lenses that is so off. The EU isn't a zero sum game, it's bigger than the sum of its parts, Sweden by being "well off" doesn't mean it can't be even better inside (and in that regard, even Norway knows that, they didn't renege on the European project entirely, as Switzerland hasn't either). The reason why Sweden has an all time high EU sentiment (they had already reached a record EU sentiment when Brexit came about) is because being within the EU provides several assurances, least of them is mutual protection assurance. Being more integrated with the EU and being in NATO aren't mutually exclusive, but NATO only answers the question regarding a military attack to its allies, while EU answers everything else: geopolitical, economical, human development, etc. The EU - institution - measures itself as one of the 3 great powers (China, EU, US), and being in the EU allows its members to punch above their weight (individually but most of all when speaking in unison as THE EU). Also, being net positive contributor doesn't mean they are getting less than what they should be getting (again, this isn't a zero sum game). The most obvious example I can give is the UK, they were a net positive contributor as well (and complained about it all the time), but what they were provided in benefits and added value to their economy by being part of the Union way way way way surpassed what they didn't get in funds back, as we are seeing now with them outside the EU.
Interesting. Can you share some more of these benefits? I'm piqued. You sound like YOU should be chairing the EU meetings tbh. I think it's worth contributing that there are a lot of countries who are essentially being subsidised in the EU, of course not just by the UK. Let's ke it or not people did have the right to moan about these things and vote to leave if they so wished. Just so happens that many who did were sold a bill of goods (like me. But I was younger then and naive little me should even then have realised that we can't rely on these worthless MP's to get a single thing right ever lmao. I've never had less faith in or contempt for government in my life) OR it's the big business types who want to eradicate the additional riches afforded by EU legislature. So in a nutshell if I'd have known just how tits up this would go, my voting would have been different. Imo they have tanked it not just through incompetence but intent on the part of some of them.
the benefit is trading and the single market. If you build and sell alot, that is a massive benefit. And Sweden VERY much does that. What the UK is currently (not) doing is actually kinda proving the point. And the UK isn't really producing and selling all that much anymore, thanks to You-know-who. Oh yes, those who do produce stuff, like Famers are FUCKED since all the promises to keep up the support the EU gave, are nuked. They COULD have used all the saved money to keep their promises.... I guess (ironically) stability is another benefit of the EU over some populist clowns doing, what they want. As with Norway, that's very simple: Oil. They don't have to.
@@ButWhatIfItIs The most obvious one is clearly the unlimited trade access to other EU countries. But there is also the fact that the EU foreign trade policy protects the entire EU market from chinese dumping prices (which specifically benefits the swedish industry more then let's say Romania). There is also the free travel which a lot of swedes enjoy personally. And the educational benefits, EU funded programmes (like Erasmus) allow students from all over Europe to go on paid student exchanges, thereby allowing people to create international networks and fostering the necessary skillset to succeed in a globalized economy. These are just the ones I can think of the top of my head.
Every country that joins any large union has to weigh the pros and cons of doing so. Sweden chose to lose some control of its laws to gain access to a larger market and to be part of the decision making in the EU. Having to pay more than it receives is not as bad as losing the larger amount of trade within the EU, and avoiding having to pay tariffs and do more paper work. It is a net gain. Joining NATO was only done because Finland wanted to join. Had Finland not opted to join Sweden would not have. But both have a very long history of wars with Russia - something every Finn and Swede learn at school. Russia has also been aggressive many times since WWII which has only reinforced the sentiment.
18:57 They are the opposite of left side. What you see in that graph/rainbow is the political parties Left to right. Left side is red and right side is blue. Left and right in sweden is not like left and right in the US.
I think you didn't get that Sweden has been in the European Union since 1995. They entered together with Finland and Austria I believe. The reason for this probably had nothing to do with the threat from Russia. Only the access to the single market could have been enough of a reason, but I do not know the details.
Also, we joined the EU in 1995 and it’s just the euro we skipped the time being. EU is about economics and trade essentially and that is largely beneficial to Sweden.
Now it has evolved into a superstate, taking more and more power from the member states. The EU is becoming a socialist EUSSR and the American "caricature" of Europe as a socialist nightmare is becoming more and more real.
You're thoughts at the end are strange - did you misunderstand the video? It's not about Sweden attempting to join the EU. They are already a member of the EU since 1995. The original video is just a summary of Swedens relations with the EU and their participation in the EU. This channel will propably release more videos like this, covering other EU member countries in the future. Or did your thoughts jump around roller-coaster-style back on the NATO membership topic?
One of the main reasons Swedens economy is doing great is the EU with it’s “single market” that’s why the British economy is tanking after brexit they lost access to the market and there for also the investments that comes with it. Trade is the fundamentals for a economy Norway and the Swiss have both access to the market through special deals and are also bound too follow almost all of EU’s rules and regulations but they are defacto partners in the EU project but without representation in the parliament. So no west European country is really “independent” as you think except maybe the UK and they regret it deeply.
"Northern Coast" is a NATO naval exercise that has been held in the Baltic Sea every year since 2007, and Sweden took part as a partner even before they decided to join NATO.
Also many army and airforce exercises hosted by Sweden many times over the years, I think it'd be hard to find a more NATO friendly country that wasn't an actual member (well, maybe Finland too :)
EU is also a defensive pact. But the EU opens up the free European Market, it removes a hell of a lot of bureaucracy and adds economic security and diplomacy between members.
At the end of the video it sounds like you think Sweden are contemplating about applying to EU. But in fact its already in the EU since 1995. And sadly it hasnt been able to the join the military alliance of Nato yet, beacuse of Turkey and hungary. Thanks for this video btw. Its interesting to see an americans view of european affairs.
It was an entire carrier strike group, including destroyers, helicopters, and planes hunting for it. The HSMS Gotland, on loan to the US, managed to sneak by the anti-submarine defensive net around the USS Ronald Reagan and score several simulated torpedo “hits.” It was also able to replicate its achievement several times over the two year loan-period.
The first thing to learn is that 'Republican' and 'Democrat' don't really mean anything in a European context, except that maybe you prefer a democratic system to an autocratic one. Or you prefer that the state be a republic rather than a constitutional monarchy. It's very literal. Left-wing parties typically have 'social' or 'workers' in their name in some form: They will be called The Social Democrats or The Worker's Party and right-wing parties typically have the name of the country they are in. For example, The Sweden Democrats and The Danish People's Party. The second thing to learn is that you don't just have two opposites. 'Liberal' means classically liberal: So pro-business, anti-taxes, and against strict laws. They are sometimes progressive and sometimes conservative. You can think of them as 'libertarian'. The true left is the socialists, who are typically both progressive and pro-taxes and pro-redistribution and might be for or against strict laws. The more revolutionary socialists will typically be more for stricter laws. The conservatives are primarily for strict laws and are typically also pro-business and anti-taxes, but the religiously affiliated ones (have 'Christian' in their names) are pro-redistribution and sometimes immigration but are conservative on points such as abortion and gender rights. Yes, I imagine it would be confusing.
To get 1 euro, we used to always have to exchange like 10 crowns Like forever Recently it's been going bad Now we need like 12 crowns for 1 euro Scale this up and to get 500 euros we used to have to exchange 5000 crowns. Now it's 6000. Its bad
Why Swedes are more pro EU today than at the EU referendum ? One reason: the car crash in slow motion that is Brexit. Why Sweden is applying for Nato membership ? Finland. Sweden stayed out of Nato because to alleviate Soviet pressure on Finland. Now, with Finland joining Nato, Sweden has no reason to stay out.
You were talking about a union between all the nations around the Baltic Sea, right? There is already the Nordic Council and they cooperate with countries outside of the Nordic’s.
So sad to see the poor american completly overchallanged with the complexities of a multi party democarcy, I think it even caused a memory leak because he completly forgot that Sweden is an EU country halfway through the video. :D
The parties M (Moderaterna) together with SD (Sverigedemokraterna) could be considered like Republicans, except that a former SS nazi officer started SD and they still is very xenophobic. While V (vänsterpartiet) is more like communists, they are a former communist party and their closest ally party is S (socialdemokraterna) but this last party is just social democratic.
Sweden benefits hugely from the EU. It's not zero-sum. We get easier access to markets which boosts our economy, and we get more culturally close to the rest of Europe. It's easier to travel abroad, to trade, to study and work abroad etc. Also, the world is facing global problems. Those need global solutions. Small countries can't solve them by themselves.
That public referendum in 1994 was not legally binding. That said, yes, in Swedish politics a simple majority is almost always enough. Never understood why the US is so scared of the "tyranny of the majority" that they instead opt for the tyranny of the minority (a.k.a. classical tyranny). In the EU, on the other hand, you sometimes have certain votes that require more than simple majorities.
In our parliament yes lmao. SD is extremely left when compared to the American political spectrum. Just Look at SD’s economic policies and compare them to the democrats. Extremely left leaning then lol.
..but the loathsome EU no doubt lies that they're "far right" as it does about ANY party in ANY EU member state that's genuinely democratic conservative (the governments in Poland and Italy, for eg, which are both continually smeared in this way by the repugnant 'EUro- media propaganda machine and the biased EUrocracy)😁
Their economic positions being left wing makes sense since their base is old and nostalgic people, thus they take elderly care(social welfare) and a Swedish idea called "folkhemmet" translated '(the) people's home' where Sweden leaned more socialist before privaticing core parts of that program in economic reforms over time. The reason they are called right wing are their polices of excluding people they claim to be in the way of or parasitizing the social institutions that made people nostalgic. Thus turning them against an "external other". So basically they are the "Make Sweden great again" party but Sweden's "again" is more left leaning than now.
Its easy: you can see by where the sits are in which political spectrum a party is. Left side is left partys, right side right partys. As more you look at the left or right side as more this partys into left or right politics. So the Partys go from extreme left to extreme right
4:22 WRONG!! All Nordic countries (5 in total) are members of the OECD and therefore liberal democracies with free market economies, that a requirement of the OECD.
The Swedish monarch has less influence than the British monarch in basically every way. He has no technical power at all (and they were stripped earlier), less cultural influence, fewer assets, receives less money from the state, etc. That said, they're not talking about the monarchy AT ALL. Freedom House ranks democracy and civil liberties. Sweden scores 100/100, which is the highest possible rating (Finland and Norway also score 100/100).
22:40 conundrum could be simplified if you only look the placement of seats on the screen for each party, that shows how left or right they are. You do not need to focus on the names at all.
Just for Connor and other US citicens, explaining the colors and multi party/proportional election system! First the colors, the darker blue, the more conservative, the darker red the more leftist! Then to the green color, in the begining it stand for "farmers and countryside people", dependent on agriculur bussines and jobs! The new Green party is typical city dwellers, that is concerned about environment/carfree citys/public transportation.. all that things that inpact there life! Soo, the darker blue = more conservative, the darker red = more leftist, the darker Green, small farmers and small private forest owners, light Green, city dwellers that like to live in a clean environment.. in there city! The yellow, stands for nationalistic populistic all ower the place, both right and left, but moste.. it was better befor! And then, proportional election system, we divide our country in different election regions, soo every region can elect and send there regional elected by proportional election, to our parlament! Every region have a fixed number of seats to compete for! Its like if USA hade an proportional election system, every State would have a fixed number of seats in the "House of representatives"! Thats not that different.. exept that ours are proportional elected! Whait.. its more, we have a constitution, that says that our King is the head of state.. but our constitution altso say.. he dont have any sort of power, he have only duties, he is a historical relict, that supose to be cermonial in our contry and used as an ambasador/diplomat, a door opener for bussines in other countrys! Second to our king, is the Speaker of our parlament, he/she hold the moste importante power, becuse he/she propose the new Prime minister, that supose to form a new goverment! After that, he/she dont have any more power.. but in anyway and as "the speaker", to regulate all the debates in our parlament! Then to EU.. its kind of US 50 states, (27 EU countrys) but proportional election and multi party system.. so one form in EU parlament in EU parties, one join the political EU group that is closest to ones own!
10:55 perhaps, but what about a country like Haiti with a Lower suicide rate doesn’t seem to be much happier than the US, having had a 200k fatality earthquake in 2011, more earthquakes and hurricanes since then, and now massive gang violence? Btw, we (the US) rank higher than every non Balkan/Baltic/eastern European country, so even going by suicide metrics we’re pretty unhappy.
The two extremes in Swedish politics are The Left Party (which has communist roots) and the Sweden Democrats (which have far right neo-nazi roots). The two historically biggest parties are The Social Democrats which ruled Sweden for most of its modern history and The Moderates which is a right winged party but not a far right. Atm the prime minister is from The Moderates and he formed a coalition with SD and two smaller parties: The Liberals (the only party atm that is for changing to Euro and they have also been for expanding the nuclear energy in Sweden, they are placed in the middle between left and right but are usually more to the right side) and the Christian Democrats (conservative party to the right, traditional family values and so on). The opposition is formed by the Social democrats together with the Left, The Green Party and The Center Party (traditionally a party for the farmers and countryside but now they are quite green). But what you as an American must realise is that the Swedish Right Winged parties like The Moderates and the Christian Democrates would be considered quite left seen through the eyes of US politics.
Hi Connor, Why would you want to be part of a union, where your country gets less money than it puts in? I think that's more or less the question you asked. In the US not all states derive the same financial benefits. For instance for instance New Mexico and West Virginia get more than $3 of federal funding for Each $1 of Federal tax they pay, whilst Illinois, Washington and New Jersey are all net contributors getting about 60 cents funding on the Dollar federal tax.
Yes, but West Virginia and New Mexico are in the same country as Illinois et al. They all have some democratic say over fiscal policy. In the EU, a supranational Organisation, any pretence of democracy goes out of the window.
@@marieparker3822 Each state in the US have their own laws, their own parliament (legislature), their own armed state law enforcement (army), their own education system. They seem to have similar freedoms to those of countries. I'm not sure what pretence of democracy you are suggesting. In US each state decides by popular vote on representatives to send to a central parliament, how does that differ from EU?
If a government wants to join or to leave the EU is primarily an issue of that government. If they want to or have to ask their people in a special referendum is up to the local laws, as it is, how many have to vote for or against or how many have to participte in the election. They dominate the Baltic sea, as if they don't want, there will be no Russian ship passing the Baltic sea, even without a major navy, just be having the possibilty for hundreds of kilometers of coast line to the baltic sea and possible anti-ship-rockets. Most members that came to the EU where not net-payer, but get money from the EU. But it is not the main point of the EU to become more wealthy, but to improve trade, freedom and safety. And it worked, that after 1870, 1914 and 1939 (just the wars with Germany involved) there is peace in Western Europe for more than 70 Years. Oh, your face, when seeing the European political spectrum. I think Democrats would be "renew Europe" and "EPP", and all to the right would be "Republicans". And only those in the "Left" are true socialists, may by some of the S&D as well, but more of them are social democratic, than socialist. This is an important difference! EU also defends it members together. There is just no USA or Canada, but others like Sweden or Austria. And usually we don't have to defend the members on another continent.
To get away from a political party duopoly - which can morph into a uniparty - you need proportional representation in voting (not first-past-the-post no matter how narrow the winning margin).
um - regarding Sweden being part of the EU vs NATO. Did you miss the bit where he said Sweden's GDP has doubled since joining the EU? The EU isn't first and foremost a security/military organisation. It's a trading arrangement primarily. It's meant to benefit member's economies and it does for the most part. Besides most EU countries are part of both organisations - for different reasons.
Sweden democrats are is not really right wing. They are very left wing on economic questions and very right wing on social questions. I would say that the Moderates/Social Democrats are what Republicans/Democrats is in US, although I feel like the Republicans are trending towards becoming like the Sweden Democrats on social questions. That being said, the Republicans and Democrats are more similar to each other than any of the Swedish parties and vice versa.
Have to disagree with you on the suicide rate. Imagine a country, A, where 99 990 out of 100 000 people are extremely happy, but where 10 people commit suicide. Now imagine a country B where 99 991 are quite miserable, and 9 people commit suicide. No one would seriously say that country B is "happier" than A? Suicides are uncommon, people who commit them are outliers. Seems weird to only focus on an extreme subset of people when trying to gauge the general happiness of millions of people.
In Sweden, referendums as in most countries are non-binding and only guiding. Joining the EU required a change in basic law (constitution). Changing our 'constitution' requires 2 separate majority 'yes'-votes in parliament with a regularly scheduled election in between as well as some amount of time in order to take effect. So there is always a chance to change your opinion and vote in another government into power in parliament if the previous one tried to change the constitution in a way the people didn't want. There is of course no simple way to do the opposite if the will of the people is to change the constitution and the parliament and government they had already voted in disagree. Of course you can protest and ultimately vote in a parliament and government that will follow the will of the people, but it's not as direct as in the case where a change is trying to be made.
The closest comparison to the american republican party would have to be a mix of the Moderate party (M) (for its fiscal policies and views in regards to the privatization of the social welfare state) and the Swedish Democrat party (SD) (for its views and policies in regards to immigration and resistance to Sweden's participation in the EU), both would however be considered to be far to left leaning for the current iteration of the american republican party.
The reason why a member nation would be paying in more then it would necessarily receive is because of all the different types of funds set up by the EU for the continents future stability by providing support where it's deemed to be needed the most. For example, if the Netherlands needed support for a housing project, some of the EU fund money could be diverted to help with that because the future implications of lack of housing might negatively effect the Netherlands ability to continue its export of food to other EU members.
We’ve been in the EU since 1995, for mainly economic reasons, we want to join Nato for security reasons. Finland and Sweden already have a significant military cooperation and coordination, which would be hard to continue with Sweden outside of Nato. Sweden democrats is probably the closest to republicans, but the Swedish parties on the left are way more left than US democrats, more like Bernie Sanders.
Referendums in Sweden are just suggestive and not legally binding. In other words, the government can act against the result of the referendum. This has only ever happened once though, in 1955, when there was a vote on whether to switch from left hand to right hand traffic. 82.9% voted not to change it but the change was still implemented 12 years later in 1967. Not all referendums have resulted in absolute majority either, because they contained more than two alternatives.
No, only Americans confuse social welfare policies with communism, every other country knows what the difference is, Social Welfare is NOT communism. Social welfare is about the welfare of the whole of society, which is why it is called Social Welfare. And it isn't socialism, although there are characteristics of socialism in a policy of social welfare. But most importantly, Communism and socialism are 2 totally different things, the only people who don't know the differences between them are Americans, sadly.
I believe Russia should join the EU. It may sound crazy but think about it. The French and the German settled their differences with the EU. Nowadays, The German and the French are so dependant on each other that military conflict is unthinkable. Too many French in Germany and too many Germans in France. If Russia would join the EU both Russia and the EU would see an unprecedented economic growth that would make conflict unecessary and obsolete. There is conflict because we don't depend on each other. Russia doesn't care if the EU burns and the EU doesn't care what happens to Russia because they barely affect each other. I also think Israel and Palestine should join the EU for the same reason. I know they are not in Europe but does it really matter? We can rename it to European + Mediterranean Union and it would be the same.
Switzerland is quite different, basically, for a country to try and invade them, they would have to go through the EU to get to them, that alone offers Switzerland a lot of protection and puts them in a position that they feel they can afford to stay out of the EU and NATO. That isn't the case with Sweden, also, joining the EU offers far more benefits than NATO offers, NATO is a military alliance, which the EU is as well, the difference is that the EU offers a lot of political and economic benefits for any country that's in it, especially when dealing with other countries on the world stage, they can basically use their voice as being an EU members as clout around the world stage, whiles also being able to shape European and in many ways, world policies in many areas.
the freedom index is based on a lot of different criterias, so for instance England is known to have some pretty severe libeling laws that pretty much makes it impossible for people in the media to say what they really feel about a certain person or company without having hard facts to back their opinions with. So if, let's say, a morning talkshow host on the radio said that a politician was lying when they stated a certain thing in parliament they would have to have proof of that claim unless they wanted to potentially loose their job and get sued by said politician.
22:22 to answer your question. In terms of political idioogy, The republican party is further to the right (autocratic) than the Sweden Democrats (SD) the Democratic party as a whole is comparable to the Christian Democrats (KD), though some vocal members can be compared to centrists or greens. Unfortunately the creator of this video can't keep his personal political opinion to himself. Which isn't helpful to someone new to the subject wanting to learn.
Switzerland doesnt need to join the EU, which is, if Im not mistaken included in Article 5 of the NATO treaties, because its so far away from enemy threats. If it comes to financial issues, till the last chaotic crisis of switz banks xD, the financial situation of the regular switz citzen was/is way above the average european citizen.
@@knowledgeisgood9645 That's unfortunate, if true. But people wanted to remain in the Sovjet Union too. Propaganda and imposed conformity can do wonders.
the republicans would be the conservative block mixed with epp and some renew Europe in the EU parliament, the democrats would be a mix of the epp/renew Europe/greens with some singular members such as Bernie Sanders being the social democratic block. European politics usually boils down to 2 alliances of parties forming, one left and one right leaning. Before the Sweden democrats more gained power it kind of looked like the political infighting inside the democratic party except the more left leaning part were winning most of the time. But when the Sweden democrats busted onto the scene the right wing alliance shifted to be more like the republican party than before.
Hello! You asked which of the parties were similar to the Democrats and Republicans in Swedish politics. You can say that the Social Democrats are Sweden's Democrats and the Moderates are Sweden's Republicans. The Sweden Democrats are an anti-Muslim, Xenophobic and populist party (which has refined its values to be able to cooperate with the remaining right-wing parties) which is far to the right on social issues but more left-wing on ecological issues than the rest of the right-wing phalanx is in Swedish politics. Many dissatisfied workers have gone from Social Democrats to the Sweden Democrats, as well as many dissatisfied Moderates.
Comparing EU political party alignments to US, keep in mind that democrats and republicans are in comparison to EU scale all right or essentially at most centrist on the left. Of course, on that right half of the political scale, most democrats would take up the spectrum from closer to centre to halfway along the right axis slightly overlapping the center right with republicans taking up the remaining spectrum to the far-right. You basically have no one except for a couple of house representatives that are even slightly left of center.
Party color are the opposite in Europe (and the rest of the world) Blue means right wing and red means left wing (think the red of communist country flags). This confuses a lot of Americans. SD the Sweden Democrats is defined as right wing populist party (closest ties to the MAGA or TEA-party movement within the GOP in the US) So when they are depicted in the graphics they are portrayed as furthest to the right. (But just like the MAGA or TEA-party movement most of it’s support comes from working lower middle class, so support for classic social responsibility of government is quite strong, this being Sweden after all)
I guess a lot of confusion re our politics is the lack of ideology today, but in the 80's it was strong. Many Sweden Democrats are ideologically founded, so is some far left party members in Vänsterpartiet. Ideologies are on the rise again and that makes for an interesting political landscape.
Connor, the swedish far right till conservative parties would be considered the american republicans as the american democrats would be considered conservative till conservative liberal.
To end the american debate about nordic countries and socialism, nordic countries are very capitalist but with a very developed welfare system. In no way are they socialist. Social democratic≠socialist. A free market is essential for the nordic model and socialism cant have a free market.
You cant even do a comparison between our far right wing party Sweden Democrats (that party that wants to stop immigration) and the US republicans, they stand united with the rest of the government when it comes to for example Ukraine support and the Ukraine refugees was welcomed. The benefits with many parties is that every one of them have a strong core of what they believe in and works for that issue, this means that the Swedish people can vote on the party that are in line for the problems in society, i have voted for several different parties in my life depending on how our problems looked like.
I agree with you that the European Union does not provide protection. Nato does. I think the real reason people doesn’t want to leave the EU is it’s too difficult. We've seen how messy Brexit got and no one wants to go through that, so it's easier to stay than to leave. Speaking of Sweden, please react to ”Why didn’t the nazis invade Sweden” by Kings and Generals. I Know you have reacted to videos on this topic before, but this is a very good one. Great reaction by the way!
You cant find a party that is like the Republicans in Sweden and the democrats would be far right, Closest would be Moderaterna or Kristdemokraterna. American politics is far right compared to the rest of the world. Then US also switch the colors Red is left in the world and blue is right. Think Russia, China, Vietnam or the North Korean flag. They are all red as main color.
Connor, you're such a (childish) warmonger! You should understand that the EU is working at maintaining PEACE and not big boom-booms! In many subjects that you've commented on, underlies your admiration - or not - for the "military might" of countries. WE ARE NOT THE USA! We believe in diplomacy, negotiation, soft power, etc. Our armies are generally defensive powers rather than offensive ones!
Wait a minute now - you're being utterly rude AND getting on your high horses. To call Connor a childish warmonger is an insult and, to borrow your word, childish. I've followed him for quite a while and I admire is ambitions to learn about the outside world (outside the US that is). We all see the world through the culture we know. Yes, also (or particularly?) you.
Touché 😄 ...maybe a bit. But you gotta agree you were rather rude towards a person who is really willing to learn about other countries and actively seek information.
The highest is the best - not necessarily. The Norwegian krone is lower than the Danish krone, but I would say the Norwegian is stronger. About the party names: in the 1970's there were loads of left wing parties in Denmark, all fractions of some sort of socialism/communism. They had loads of letters attached to their names - now those were something to complain about 🤭🤣 Why Switzerland is not joining EU - the Swiss have way too much common sense 😊
I believe the real reason why Sweden is joining NATO isn't for the defence but rather the ability to sell weapons to NATO countries. Also, Sweden is already part of EU and has been for many years and is now trying to join NATO. EU isn't a military alliance but a trade union.
On the question of voting margins,yes, Sweden joined the EU with not much over 50% of the votes cast snd we escaped from it by much the same margin. The key difference was that our respective establishment elites both tried desperately to propagandise for the loathsome EU institution.... but huge numbers of voters saw through them. Not quite enough in Sweden, but in Britain, though EVERY establishment party tried to secure a pro-EU vote, they still failed. ...PS; the vid you're reacting to is hopelessly pro-EU as well, so no surprise it failed to make the same point. Namely, that despite the Swedish establishment ALL promoting EU membership too, nearly half the public still wisely took no notice.
It is very annoying to me, as a Brit, to see that members of the EU persist in their view of Brexit as a 'slow car crash'!!! NO IT ISN'T!!!! And if the EU upholds democracy, maybe we should say again that we voted for Brexit, because we believed in it, even though by a small margin. And now, seven years on, we are getting on with it. Time to stop making snidey comments about it!!! It simply suits us better. 😕🇬🇧
@@CorinneDunbar-ls3ej Quite! As the actual hard data on UK growth since Brexit confirms, as UK growth actually exceeds that of all three other major European economies. Try quoting the actual GDP figures to a Remain fanatic, though, and it's like trying to explain Wittgenstein to a chimpanzee. 🤣😂🤣
SD, the Sweden Democrats are our most RIGHT wing party. They loved Donald Trump..... The scale showed in the picture also show how the parties leans right to left. If you compared to Democrats and Republicans, M The Moderates would be Democrats and SD The Sweden Democrats would be Republicans (KD the Christian Democrates are more like the traditional Republicans). All the others are way left of US politics.
I'm not intimately familiar with the Swedish political parties, but is I look at the highlights of their programs I'd almost say both the democrats and the republicans would be Swedish Democrats.
@@herrbonk3635 I lean much more towards this. Even then none of our parties are even close to the democrats but all of them are at least closer to the democrats than the republicans.
Connor, Blue is only left-wing in USA. Everywhere else in the world RED means left. Just think of the Soviet Union...
Americans just have to be different don't they? 😆
or China, North Korea or Vietnams flags. all have red as main colour.
i didn't even know they usted blue in usa
3:36 yes it did it took through Ronald ragan react
to that
Connor, you are so American. Not saying this in a depreciative way, just that you see the world with a lenses that is so off. The EU isn't a zero sum game, it's bigger than the sum of its parts, Sweden by being "well off" doesn't mean it can't be even better inside (and in that regard, even Norway knows that, they didn't renege on the European project entirely, as Switzerland hasn't either).
The reason why Sweden has an all time high EU sentiment (they had already reached a record EU sentiment when Brexit came about) is because being within the EU provides several assurances, least of them is mutual protection assurance. Being more integrated with the EU and being in NATO aren't mutually exclusive, but NATO only answers the question regarding a military attack to its allies, while EU answers everything else: geopolitical, economical, human development, etc. The EU - institution - measures itself as one of the 3 great powers (China, EU, US), and being in the EU allows its members to punch above their weight (individually but most of all when speaking in unison as THE EU).
Also, being net positive contributor doesn't mean they are getting less than what they should be getting (again, this isn't a zero sum game). The most obvious example I can give is the UK, they were a net positive contributor as well (and complained about it all the time), but what they were provided in benefits and added value to their economy by being part of the Union way way way way surpassed what they didn't get in funds back, as we are seeing now with them outside the EU.
Interesting. Can you share some more of these benefits? I'm piqued. You sound like YOU should be chairing the EU meetings tbh.
I think it's worth contributing that there are a lot of countries who are essentially being subsidised in the EU, of course not just by the UK. Let's ke it or not people did have the right to moan about these things and vote to leave if they so wished. Just so happens that many who did were sold a bill of goods (like me. But I was younger then and naive little me should even then have realised that we can't rely on these worthless MP's to get a single thing right ever lmao. I've never had less faith in or contempt for government in my life) OR it's the big business types who want to eradicate the additional riches afforded by EU legislature. So in a nutshell if I'd have known just how tits up this would go, my voting would have been different. Imo they have tanked it not just through incompetence but intent on the part of some of them.
the benefit is trading and the single market. If you build and sell alot, that is a massive benefit. And Sweden VERY much does that.
What the UK is currently (not) doing is actually kinda proving the point. And the UK isn't really producing and selling all that much anymore, thanks to You-know-who.
Oh yes, those who do produce stuff, like Famers are FUCKED since all the promises to keep up the support the EU gave, are nuked.
They COULD have used all the saved money to keep their promises.... I guess (ironically) stability is another benefit of the EU over some populist clowns doing, what they want.
As with Norway, that's very simple: Oil. They don't have to.
Excellent explanation!
I think the EU needs Sweden more than the other way round.
@@ButWhatIfItIs The most obvious one is clearly the unlimited trade access to other EU countries. But there is also the fact that the EU foreign trade policy protects the entire EU market from chinese dumping prices (which specifically benefits the swedish industry more then let's say Romania). There is also the free travel which a lot of swedes enjoy personally. And the educational benefits, EU funded programmes (like Erasmus) allow students from all over Europe to go on paid student exchanges, thereby allowing people to create international networks and fostering the necessary skillset to succeed in a globalized economy. These are just the ones I can think of the top of my head.
The Swedish Gotland class submarine snuck past the full strike group several times to fire "hits" on the Ronald Reagan carrier. It was never detected.
This resulted in the US renting a Gotland class submarine for more than 2 years to be able to counter its attacks. Friends helping friends! 🇸🇪❤️🇺🇸
Every country that joins any large union has to weigh the pros and cons of doing so.
Sweden chose to lose some control of its laws to gain access to a larger market and to be part of the decision making in the EU. Having to pay more than it receives is not as bad as losing the larger amount of trade within the EU, and avoiding having to pay tariffs and do more paper work. It is a net gain.
Joining NATO was only done because Finland wanted to join. Had Finland not opted to join Sweden would not have. But both have a very long history of wars with Russia - something every Finn and Swede learn at school. Russia has also been aggressive many times since WWII which has only reinforced the sentiment.
Okay, misconception here. Sweden is already in the EU. They are not trying to join.
18:57 They are the opposite of left side. What you see in that graph/rainbow is the political parties Left to right. Left side is red and right side is blue. Left and right in sweden is not like left and right in the US.
All of them are marxist thinking leftist though, only more or less extreme.
I think you didn't get that Sweden has been in the European Union since 1995. They entered together with Finland and Austria I believe. The reason for this probably had nothing to do with the threat from Russia. Only the access to the single market could have been enough of a reason, but I do not know the details.
Also, we joined the EU in 1995 and it’s just the euro we skipped the time being. EU is about economics and trade essentially and that is largely beneficial to Sweden.
Now it has evolved into a superstate, taking more and more power from the member states. The EU is becoming a socialist EUSSR and the American "caricature" of Europe as a socialist nightmare is becoming more and more real.
You're thoughts at the end are strange - did you misunderstand the video? It's not about Sweden attempting to join the EU. They are already a member of the EU since 1995. The original video is just a summary of Swedens relations with the EU and their participation in the EU. This channel will propably release more videos like this, covering other EU member countries in the future. Or did your thoughts jump around roller-coaster-style back on the NATO membership topic?
One of the main reasons Swedens economy is doing great is the EU with it’s “single market” that’s why the British economy is tanking after brexit they lost access to the market and there for also the investments that comes with it. Trade is the fundamentals for a economy Norway and the Swiss have both access to the market through special deals and are also bound too follow almost all of EU’s rules and regulations but they are defacto partners in the EU project but without representation in the parliament. So no west European country is really “independent” as you think except maybe the UK and they regret it deeply.
"Northern Coast" is a NATO naval exercise that has been held in the Baltic Sea every year since 2007, and Sweden took part as a partner even before they decided to join NATO.
Also many army and airforce exercises hosted by Sweden many times over the years, I think it'd be hard to find a more NATO friendly country that wasn't an actual member (well, maybe Finland too :)
EU is also a defensive pact. But the EU opens up the free European Market, it removes a hell of a lot of bureaucracy and adds economic security and diplomacy between members.
At the end of the video it sounds like you think Sweden are contemplating about applying to EU. But in fact its already in the EU since 1995. And sadly it hasnt been able to the join the military alliance of Nato yet, beacuse of Turkey and hungary.
Thanks for this video btw. Its interesting to see an americans view of european affairs.
Agreed, but EU whilst not a military alliance, not all attacks on a country are military, withholding certain types of goods, for instance.
It was an entire carrier strike group, including destroyers, helicopters, and planes hunting for it. The HSMS Gotland, on loan to the US, managed to sneak by the anti-submarine defensive net around the USS Ronald Reagan and score several simulated torpedo “hits.” It was also able to replicate its achievement several times over the two year loan-period.
It was not on loan until after they "sank" the US carrier. The US asked to borrow it for one year to learn how to survive encountering it.
@@knowledgeisgood9645 It was on loan for one year and then when it sank the carrier, they extended the loan-period to one more year.
@@Gamleman On loan or not, it was Swedish-manned.
@@currentoflinden Yes ofc.
@@Gamleman That loan was AFTER they sank it, using Swedish crew, not during the loan period.
The first thing to learn is that 'Republican' and 'Democrat' don't really mean anything in a European context, except that maybe you prefer a democratic system to an autocratic one. Or you prefer that the state be a republic rather than a constitutional monarchy. It's very literal.
Left-wing parties typically have 'social' or 'workers' in their name in some form: They will be called The Social Democrats or The Worker's Party and right-wing parties typically have the name of the country they are in. For example, The Sweden Democrats and The Danish People's Party.
The second thing to learn is that you don't just have two opposites.
'Liberal' means classically liberal: So pro-business, anti-taxes, and against strict laws. They are sometimes progressive and sometimes conservative. You can think of them as 'libertarian'.
The true left is the socialists, who are typically both progressive and pro-taxes and pro-redistribution and might be for or against strict laws. The more revolutionary socialists will typically be more for stricter laws.
The conservatives are primarily for strict laws and are typically also pro-business and anti-taxes, but the religiously affiliated ones (have 'Christian' in their names) are pro-redistribution and sometimes immigration but are conservative on points such as abortion and gender rights.
Yes, I imagine it would be confusing.
To get 1 euro, we used to always have to exchange like 10 crowns
Like forever
Recently it's been going bad
Now we need like 12 crowns for 1 euro
Scale this up and to get 500 euros we used to have to exchange 5000 crowns. Now it's 6000.
Its bad
Why Swedes are more pro EU today than at the EU referendum ? One reason: the car crash in slow motion that is Brexit. Why Sweden is applying for Nato membership ? Finland. Sweden stayed out of Nato because to alleviate Soviet pressure on Finland. Now, with Finland joining Nato, Sweden has no reason to stay out.
You were talking about a union between all the nations around the Baltic Sea, right? There is already the Nordic Council and they cooperate with countries outside of the Nordic’s.
So sad to see the poor american completly overchallanged with the complexities of a multi party democarcy, I think it even caused a memory leak because he completly forgot that Sweden is an EU country halfway through the video. :D
The parties M (Moderaterna) together with SD (Sverigedemokraterna) could be considered like Republicans, except that a former SS nazi officer started SD and they still is very xenophobic. While V (vänsterpartiet) is more like communists, they are a former communist party and their closest ally party is S (socialdemokraterna) but this last party is just social democratic.
Sweden benefits hugely from the EU. It's not zero-sum. We get easier access to markets which boosts our economy, and we get more culturally close to the rest of Europe. It's easier to travel abroad, to trade, to study and work abroad etc. Also, the world is facing global problems. Those need global solutions. Small countries can't solve them by themselves.
That public referendum in 1994 was not legally binding. That said, yes, in Swedish politics a simple majority is almost always enough. Never understood why the US is so scared of the "tyranny of the majority" that they instead opt for the tyranny of the minority (a.k.a. classical tyranny). In the EU, on the other hand, you sometimes have certain votes that require more than simple majorities.
Our most right-wing party would be considered as communists in the US 😂
In our parliament yes lmao.
SD is extremely left when compared to the American political spectrum. Just Look at SD’s economic policies and compare them to the democrats. Extremely left leaning then lol.
@@melkor3496sd's economy politics is left even in swedish standards.
..but the loathsome EU no doubt lies that they're "far right" as it does about ANY party in ANY EU member state that's genuinely democratic conservative (the governments in Poland and Italy, for eg, which are both continually smeared in this way by the repugnant 'EUro- media propaganda machine and the biased EUrocracy)😁
Their economic positions being left wing makes sense since their base is old and nostalgic people, thus they take elderly care(social welfare) and a Swedish idea called "folkhemmet" translated '(the) people's home' where Sweden leaned more socialist before privaticing core parts of that program in economic reforms over time. The reason they are called right wing are their polices of excluding people they claim to be in the way of or parasitizing the social institutions that made people nostalgic. Thus turning them against an "external other". So basically they are the "Make Sweden great again" party but Sweden's "again" is more left leaning than now.
@@OMGwtfSTFUbrb Or more briefly, the repulsive EU institution and its tame media are, as I said, just lying through their teeth as usual.
Its easy: you can see by where the sits are in which political spectrum a party is. Left side is left partys, right side right partys. As more you look at the left or right side as more this partys into left or right politics. So the Partys go from extreme left to extreme right
4:22 WRONG!! All Nordic countries (5 in total) are members of the OECD and therefore liberal democracies with free market economies, that a requirement of the OECD.
Sweden is NOT in NATO and EU is more of an economic powerhouse.
It has now applied for nato status due to war in russia with ukraine.
Yes, at the same time as Finland but Turkey is against it. So, Finland is in and Sweden is not.
The Swedish monarch has less influence than the British monarch in basically every way. He has no technical power at all (and they were stripped earlier), less cultural influence, fewer assets, receives less money from the state, etc. That said, they're not talking about the monarchy AT ALL. Freedom House ranks democracy and civil liberties. Sweden scores 100/100, which is the highest possible rating (Finland and Norway also score 100/100).
On the topic of Sweden, I would recommend the recent video by Kings and generals, called "Why didn'd the nazis invade Sweden".
22:40 conundrum could be simplified if you only look the placement of seats on the screen for each party, that shows how left or right they are. You do not need to focus on the names at all.
About colors for parties, its the oposit then in USA, Red is left, Blue is right! Green is ofcourse green parties.
Just for Connor and other US citicens, explaining the colors and multi party/proportional election system!
First the colors, the darker blue, the more conservative, the darker red the more leftist!
Then to the green color, in the begining it stand for "farmers and countryside people", dependent on agriculur bussines and jobs! The new Green party is typical city dwellers, that is concerned about environment/carfree citys/public transportation.. all that things that inpact there life!
Soo, the darker blue = more conservative, the darker red = more leftist, the darker Green, small farmers and small private forest owners, light Green, city dwellers that like to live in a clean environment.. in there city!
The yellow, stands for nationalistic populistic all ower the place, both right and left, but moste.. it was better befor!
And then, proportional election system, we divide our country in different election regions, soo every region can elect and send there regional elected by proportional election, to our parlament! Every region have a fixed number of seats to compete for! Its like if USA hade an proportional election system, every State would have a fixed number of seats in the "House of representatives"! Thats not that different.. exept that ours are proportional elected!
Whait.. its more, we have a constitution, that says that our King is the head of state.. but our constitution altso say.. he dont have any sort of power, he have only duties, he is a historical relict, that supose to be cermonial in our contry and used as an ambasador/diplomat, a door opener for bussines in other countrys!
Second to our king, is the Speaker of our parlament, he/she hold the moste importante power, becuse he/she propose the new Prime minister, that supose to form a new goverment! After that, he/she dont have any more power.. but in anyway and as "the speaker", to regulate all the debates in our parlament!
Then to EU.. its kind of US 50 states, (27 EU countrys) but proportional election and multi party system.. so one form in EU parlament in EU parties, one join the political EU group that is closest to ones own!
10:55 perhaps, but what about a country like Haiti with a Lower suicide rate doesn’t seem to be much happier than the US, having had a 200k fatality earthquake in 2011, more earthquakes and hurricanes since then, and now massive gang violence?
Btw, we (the US) rank higher than every non Balkan/Baltic/eastern European country, so even going by suicide metrics we’re pretty unhappy.
The two extremes in Swedish politics are The Left Party (which has communist roots) and the Sweden Democrats (which have far right neo-nazi roots). The two historically biggest parties are The Social Democrats which ruled Sweden for most of its modern history and The Moderates which is a right winged party but not a far right. Atm the prime minister is from The Moderates and he formed a coalition with SD and two smaller parties: The Liberals (the only party atm that is for changing to Euro and they have also been for expanding the nuclear energy in Sweden, they are placed in the middle between left and right but are usually more to the right side) and the Christian Democrats (conservative party to the right, traditional family values and so on).
The opposition is formed by the Social democrats together with the Left, The Green Party and The Center Party (traditionally a party for the farmers and countryside but now they are quite green).
But what you as an American must realise is that the Swedish Right Winged parties like The Moderates and the Christian Democrates would be considered quite left seen through the eyes of US politics.
Yes, in many votes that people votes of in sweden you must have 50.5% to 51% of the votes
Hi Connor, Why would you want to be part of a union, where your country gets less money than it puts in? I think that's more or less the question you asked.
In the US not all states derive the same financial benefits. For instance for instance New Mexico and West Virginia get more than $3 of federal funding for Each $1 of Federal tax they pay, whilst Illinois, Washington and New Jersey are all net contributors getting about 60 cents funding on the Dollar federal tax.
Yes, but West Virginia and New Mexico are in the same country as Illinois et al. They all have some democratic say over fiscal policy. In the EU, a supranational Organisation, any pretence of democracy goes out of the window.
@@marieparker3822 Each state in the US have their own laws, their own parliament (legislature), their own armed state law enforcement (army), their own education system.
They seem to have similar freedoms to those of countries.
I'm not sure what pretence of democracy you are suggesting. In US each state decides by popular vote on representatives to send to a central parliament, how does that differ from EU?
If a government wants to join or to leave the EU is primarily an issue of that government.
If they want to or have to ask their people in a special referendum is up to the local laws, as it is, how many have to vote for or against or how many have to participte in the election.
They dominate the Baltic sea, as if they don't want, there will be no Russian ship passing the Baltic sea, even without a major navy, just be having the possibilty for hundreds of kilometers of coast line to the baltic sea and possible anti-ship-rockets.
Most members that came to the EU where not net-payer, but get money from the EU. But it is not the main point of the EU to become more wealthy, but to improve trade, freedom and safety.
And it worked, that after 1870, 1914 and 1939 (just the wars with Germany involved) there is peace in Western Europe for more than 70 Years.
Oh, your face, when seeing the European political spectrum.
I think Democrats would be "renew Europe" and "EPP", and all to the right would be "Republicans".
And only those in the "Left" are true socialists, may by some of the S&D as well, but more of them are social democratic, than socialist. This is an important difference!
EU also defends it members together. There is just no USA or Canada, but others like Sweden or Austria. And usually we don't have to defend the members on another continent.
To get away from a political party duopoly - which can morph into a uniparty - you need proportional representation in voting (not first-past-the-post no matter how narrow the winning margin).
There's setbacks to that system too but it beats the alternative.
um - regarding Sweden being part of the EU vs NATO. Did you miss the bit where he said Sweden's GDP has doubled since joining the EU? The EU isn't first and foremost a security/military organisation. It's a trading arrangement primarily. It's meant to benefit member's economies and it does for the most part. Besides most EU countries are part of both organisations - for different reasons.
Sweden democrats are is not really right wing. They are very left wing on economic questions and very right wing on social questions.
I would say that the Moderates/Social Democrats are what Republicans/Democrats is in US, although I feel like the Republicans are trending towards becoming like the Sweden Democrats on social questions. That being said, the Republicans and Democrats are more similar to each other than any of the Swedish parties and vice versa.
This 100%.
Have to disagree with you on the suicide rate. Imagine a country, A, where 99 990 out of 100 000 people are extremely happy, but where 10 people commit suicide. Now imagine a country B where 99 991 are quite miserable, and 9 people commit suicide. No one would seriously say that country B is "happier" than A? Suicides are uncommon, people who commit them are outliers. Seems weird to only focus on an extreme subset of people when trying to gauge the general happiness of millions of people.
In Sweden, referendums as in most countries are non-binding and only guiding. Joining the EU required a change in basic law (constitution). Changing our 'constitution' requires 2 separate majority 'yes'-votes in parliament with a regularly scheduled election in between as well as some amount of time in order to take effect. So there is always a chance to change your opinion and vote in another government into power in parliament if the previous one tried to change the constitution in a way the people didn't want. There is of course no simple way to do the opposite if the will of the people is to change the constitution and the parliament and government they had already voted in disagree. Of course you can protest and ultimately vote in a parliament and government that will follow the will of the people, but it's not as direct as in the case where a change is trying to be made.
The closest comparison to the american republican party would have to be a mix of the Moderate party (M) (for its fiscal policies and views in regards to the privatization of the social welfare state) and the Swedish Democrat party (SD) (for its views and policies in regards to immigration and resistance to Sweden's participation in the EU), both would however be considered to be far to left leaning for the current iteration of the american republican party.
The reason why a member nation would be paying in more then it would necessarily receive is because of all the different types of funds set up by the EU for the continents future stability by providing support where it's deemed to be needed the most. For example, if the Netherlands needed support for a housing project, some of the EU fund money could be diverted to help with that because the future implications of lack of housing might negatively effect the Netherlands ability to continue its export of food to other EU members.
We’ve been in the EU since 1995, for mainly economic reasons, we want to join Nato for security reasons. Finland and Sweden already have a significant military cooperation and coordination, which would be hard to continue with Sweden outside of Nato. Sweden democrats is probably the closest to republicans, but the Swedish parties on the left are way more left than US democrats, more like Bernie Sanders.
Referendums in Sweden are just suggestive and not legally binding. In other words, the government can act against the result of the referendum. This has only ever happened once though, in 1955, when there was a vote on whether to switch from left hand to right hand traffic. 82.9% voted not to change it but the change was still implemented 12 years later in 1967. Not all referendums have resulted in absolute majority either, because they contained more than two alternatives.
Our Economy went 2x, we got more trade etc. They even say that in the video ^^
No, only Americans confuse social welfare policies with communism, every other country knows what the difference is, Social Welfare is NOT communism. Social welfare is about the welfare of the whole of society, which is why it is called Social Welfare. And it isn't socialism, although there are characteristics of socialism in a policy of social welfare. But most importantly, Communism and socialism are 2 totally different things, the only people who don't know the differences between them are Americans, sadly.
I believe Russia should join the EU. It may sound crazy but think about it. The French and the German settled their differences with the EU. Nowadays, The German and the French are so dependant on each other that military conflict is unthinkable. Too many French in Germany and too many Germans in France. If Russia would join the EU both Russia and the EU would see an unprecedented economic growth that would make conflict unecessary and obsolete. There is conflict because we don't depend on each other. Russia doesn't care if the EU burns and the EU doesn't care what happens to Russia because they barely affect each other. I also think Israel and Palestine should join the EU for the same reason. I know they are not in Europe but does it really matter? We can rename it to European + Mediterranean Union and it would be the same.
Switzerland is quite different, basically, for a country to try and invade them, they would have to go through the EU to get to them, that alone offers Switzerland a lot of protection and puts them in a position that they feel they can afford to stay out of the EU and NATO.
That isn't the case with Sweden, also, joining the EU offers far more benefits than NATO offers, NATO is a military alliance, which the EU is as well, the difference is that the EU offers a lot of political and economic benefits for any country that's in it, especially when dealing with other countries on the world stage, they can basically use their voice as being an EU members as clout around the world stage, whiles also being able to shape European and in many ways, world policies in many areas.
the freedom index is based on a lot of different criterias, so for instance England is known to have some pretty severe libeling laws that pretty much makes it impossible for people in the media to say what they really feel about a certain person or company without having hard facts to back their opinions with. So if, let's say, a morning talkshow host on the radio said that a politician was lying when they stated a certain thing in parliament they would have to have proof of that claim unless they wanted to potentially loose their job and get sued by said politician.
22:22 to answer your question. In terms of political idioogy, The republican party is further to the right (autocratic) than the Sweden Democrats (SD)
the Democratic party as a whole is comparable to the Christian Democrats (KD), though some vocal members can be compared to centrists or greens.
Unfortunately the creator of this video can't keep his personal political opinion to himself. Which isn't helpful to someone new to the subject wanting to learn.
The UK's Brexit vote was indeed around 50/50.
Brexit Referendum vote in 2016: 52 per cent LEAVE, 48 per cent REMAIN.
Switzerland doesnt need to join the EU, which is, if Im not mistaken included in Article 5 of the NATO treaties, because its so far away from enemy threats. If it comes to financial issues, till the last chaotic crisis of switz banks xD, the financial situation of the regular switz citzen was/is way above the average european citizen.
SWEDEN HAS BEEN AN EU MEMBER SINCE 1995!
you are looking thicker bro.. I know its becouse everything in america contains too much sugar but take care bro,.. :o Maybe move to canada or europe?
Yes the Brexit referndum also was extremely close. About 52% of brits voted to leave while 48% wanted to remain.
Good they left though, so the EU dictature can collaps a little faster.
@@herrbonk3635 Not at all, by leaving they have strengthened people's willingness to remain in the union. That trend is all over Europe.
@@knowledgeisgood9645 That's unfortunate, if true. But people wanted to remain in the Sovjet Union too. Propaganda and imposed conformity can do wonders.
@@herrbonk3635 You really have no idea what you're talking about
@@JenMaxon Really? So what did I miss, exactly?
the republicans would be the conservative block mixed with epp and some renew Europe in the EU parliament, the democrats would be a mix of the epp/renew Europe/greens with some singular members such as Bernie Sanders being the social democratic block.
European politics usually boils down to 2 alliances of parties forming, one left and one right leaning. Before the Sweden democrats more gained power it kind of looked like the political infighting inside the democratic party except the more left leaning part were winning most of the time. But when the Sweden democrats busted onto the scene the right wing alliance shifted to be more like the republican party than before.
American soldiers traine in sweden.. US airforce landed in sweden recently.. Did you know that there sre places in The US named after swedish cities
Free, as in freedom of expression and freedom to vote etc.
We joined EU 1995. What do you mean by why do we join EU? Sounds like you think we join now.
Hello! You asked which of the parties were similar to the Democrats and Republicans in Swedish politics. You can say that the Social Democrats are Sweden's Democrats and the Moderates are Sweden's Republicans. The Sweden Democrats are an anti-Muslim, Xenophobic and populist party (which has refined its values to be able to cooperate with the remaining right-wing parties) which is far to the right on social issues but more left-wing on ecological issues than the rest of the right-wing phalanx is in Swedish politics. Many dissatisfied workers have gone from Social Democrats to the Sweden Democrats, as well as many dissatisfied Moderates.
Comparing EU political party alignments to US, keep in mind that democrats and republicans are in comparison to EU scale all right or essentially at most centrist on the left. Of course, on that right half of the political scale, most democrats would take up the spectrum from closer to centre to halfway along the right axis slightly overlapping the center right with republicans taking up the remaining spectrum to the far-right. You basically have no one except for a couple of house representatives that are even slightly left of center.
Party color are the opposite in Europe (and the rest of the world) Blue means right wing and red means left wing (think the red of communist country flags). This confuses a lot of Americans. SD the Sweden Democrats is defined as right wing populist party (closest ties to the MAGA or TEA-party movement within the GOP in the US) So when they are depicted in the graphics they are portrayed as furthest to the right. (But just like the MAGA or TEA-party movement most of it’s support comes from working lower middle class, so support for classic social responsibility of government is quite strong, this being Sweden after all)
I guess a lot of confusion re our politics is the lack of ideology today, but in the 80's it was strong. Many Sweden Democrats are ideologically founded, so is some far left party members in Vänsterpartiet. Ideologies are on the rise again and that makes for an interesting political landscape.
We have been in the Eu since 95 @McJibbin :)
Connor, the swedish far right till conservative parties would be considered the american republicans as the american democrats would be considered conservative till conservative liberal.
To end the american debate about nordic countries and socialism, nordic countries are very capitalist but with a very developed welfare system. In no way are they socialist. Social democratic≠socialist. A free market is essential for the nordic model and socialism cant have a free market.
You cant even do a comparison between our far right wing party Sweden Democrats (that party that wants to stop immigration) and the US republicans, they stand united with the rest of the government when it comes to for example Ukraine support and the Ukraine refugees was welcomed.
The benefits with many parties is that every one of them have a strong core of what they believe in and works for that issue, this means that the Swedish people can vote on the party that are in line for the problems in society, i have voted for several different parties in my life depending on how our problems looked like.
I agree with you that the European Union does not provide protection. Nato does. I think the real reason people doesn’t want to leave the EU is it’s too difficult. We've seen how messy Brexit got and no one wants to go through that, so it's easier to stay than to leave.
Speaking of Sweden, please react to ”Why didn’t the nazis invade Sweden” by Kings and Generals. I Know you have reacted to videos on this topic before, but this is a very good one. Great reaction by the way!
I think you should watch the movie one more time.
we got through it all.
You cant find a party that is like the Republicans in Sweden and the democrats would be far right, Closest would be Moderaterna or Kristdemokraterna. American politics is far right compared to the rest of the world. Then US also switch the colors Red is left in the world and blue is right. Think Russia, China, Vietnam or the North Korean flag. They are all red as main color.
Connor, you're such a (childish) warmonger! You should understand that the EU is working at maintaining PEACE and not big boom-booms!
In many subjects that you've commented on, underlies your admiration - or not - for the "military might" of countries. WE ARE NOT THE USA! We believe in diplomacy, negotiation, soft power, etc. Our armies are generally defensive powers rather than offensive ones!
Wait a minute now - you're being utterly rude AND getting on your high horses. To call Connor a childish warmonger is an insult and, to borrow your word, childish. I've followed him for quite a while and I admire is ambitions to learn about the outside world (outside the US that is). We all see the world through the culture we know. Yes, also (or particularly?) you.
@@currentoflinden Now, who's getting on one's high horses here?😄
Touché 😄 ...maybe a bit. But you gotta agree you were rather rude towards a person who is really willing to learn about other countries and actively seek information.
@@currentoflindenWe don't have the same concept of what is "rude"...
The highest is the best - not necessarily. The Norwegian krone is lower than the Danish krone, but I would say the Norwegian is stronger.
About the party names: in the 1970's there were loads of left wing parties in Denmark, all fractions of some sort of socialism/communism. They had loads of letters attached to their names - now those were something to complain about 🤭🤣
Why Switzerland is not joining EU - the Swiss have way too much common sense 😊
like any other people in this f world you don't see Romania as a major country in this area
Both the Republican and The Democrats are very very right wing if you compare them to Swedish politics.
You are to short in your vision .
I believe the real reason why Sweden is joining NATO isn't for the defence but rather the ability to sell weapons to NATO countries.
Also, Sweden is already part of EU and has been for many years and is now trying to join NATO. EU isn't a military alliance but a trade union.
On the question of voting margins,yes, Sweden joined the EU with not much over 50% of the votes cast snd we escaped from it by much the same margin. The key difference was that our respective establishment elites both tried desperately to propagandise for the loathsome EU institution.... but huge numbers of voters saw through them. Not quite enough in Sweden, but in Britain, though EVERY establishment party tried to secure a pro-EU vote, they still failed.
...PS; the vid you're reacting to is hopelessly pro-EU as well, so no surprise it failed to make the same point. Namely, that despite the Swedish establishment ALL promoting EU membership too, nearly half the public still wisely took no notice.
It is very annoying to me, as a Brit, to see that members of the EU persist in their view of Brexit as a 'slow car crash'!!!
NO IT ISN'T!!!!
And if the EU upholds democracy, maybe we should say again that we voted for Brexit, because we believed in it, even though by a small margin. And now, seven years on, we are getting on with it.
Time to stop making snidey comments about it!!!
It simply suits us better. 😕🇬🇧
@@CorinneDunbar-ls3ej Quite! As the actual hard data on UK growth since Brexit confirms, as UK growth actually exceeds that of all three other major European economies.
Try quoting the actual GDP figures to a Remain fanatic, though, and it's like trying to explain Wittgenstein to a chimpanzee. 🤣😂🤣
Germany needed all Sweden's minerals in 1938 and still today.
Denmark >>> Sweden
Every time.
SD, the Sweden Democrats are our most RIGHT wing party. They loved Donald Trump..... The scale showed in the picture also show how the parties leans right to left. If you compared to Democrats and Republicans, M The Moderates would be Democrats and SD The Sweden Democrats would be Republicans (KD the Christian Democrates are more like the traditional Republicans). All the others are way left of US politics.
I'm not intimately familiar with the Swedish political parties, but is I look at the highlights of their programs I'd almost say both the democrats and the republicans would be Swedish Democrats.
In some ways perhaps. But it's more like all the Swedish parties would be "Democrats".
@@herrbonk3635 I lean much more towards this. Even then none of our parties are even close to the democrats but all of them are at least closer to the democrats than the republicans.