International Politics Thread

[raedor 8]

but he's right.

ok, i'm not informed about how much you pay/get back.

but your other "points":

alcohol: it's correct. we aren't playing monopoly here (i'm sure you know that game). so why should your country have a "monopoly system"?

tobacco: that's not true. i.e. adverts for alcohol are (more or less) forbidden now in all eu states.

refugees: no comment.

[iNeo 0]

ok, i'm not informed about how much you pay/get back.

We're one of the few nations that pay more than we get back.

alcohol: it's correct. we aren't playing monopoly here (i'm sure you know that game). so why should your country have a "monopoly system"?

Why not? They (the Swedish government) want to be able to regulate the consumption. Either way it should be up to the people and/or the politicians in the country to decide about the system, not up to some outsiders.

tobacco: that's not true. i.e. adverts for alcohol are (more or less) forbidden now in all eu states.

What? I'm not talking about adverts, I'm talking about economic support for the tobacco farms/farmers.

refugees: no comment.  

Alrighty. It feels like you're trying to tell me something with that crazy face though. Evolve please.

[Acro 0]

"United States of Europe" seems somewhat utopic for me. I think the European nations have too strong national identities that sooner or later the "European federation" would break apart. But I'm not a EU hater or anything, just trying to be realistic.

[denoir 0]

ok, i'm not informed about how much you pay/get back.

We're one of the few nations that pay more than we get back.

In addition the the Swedish exports are 47% of our GDP while our imports are 42% of our GDP. Because of the EU we don't have to pay about 30% in customs and vice versa. The Swedish GDP is 210 billion euro.

Import: 42% = 88,2 bn = [30% customs] = -26 bn

Export: 47% = 98.7 bn = [30% customs] = +29 bn

------------------------------------------------

+3 bn euro

Now take the 3-0.8 (from hte chart) which puts us at a nice +2.2 bn euros. Which means that we get 2.2 billion euros per year more than if we would be outside the EU.

Quote[/b] ]

alcohol: it's correct. we aren't playing monopoly here (i'm sure you know that game). so why should your country have a "monopoly system"?

Why not? They (the Swedish government) want to be able to regulate the consumption. Either way it should be up to the people and/or the politicians in the country to decide about the system, not up to some outsiders.

Because it against open market rules. It's like Germany deciding that Germans must buy German cars and are not allowed to buy Swedish ones.

Quote[/b] ]

tobacco: that's not true. i.e. adverts for alcohol are (more or less) forbidden now in all eu states.

What? I'm not talking about adverts, I'm talking about economic support for the tobacco farms/farmers.

Tobacco farmers are getting subsidies like other farmers. Why do you think Swedish snus still exists? While the agricultural subsidies are questionable in general, in this case if it weren't for the subsidies there would be no snus. There's more money in making cigarettes etc in a third world country.

As for the 'refugees', you have over and over repeated your anti-immigrant stances that border on racism. So your opinion there is not much worth in the eyes of civilized men.

[iNeo 0]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/europe/04/money/img/eu_whopayswhat_gra300.gif

Yeah. What?

Because it against open market rules. It's like Germany deciding that Germans must buy German cars and are not allowed to buy Swedish ones.

Bullshit, alcohol is a potentional threat to the common health just like tobacco. Swedish snuff may only be sold in Sweden and maybe a few other European countries that I don't know of, because the EU has outlawed it somehow. So why can't Sweden regulate alcohol selling just like the other European countries outlaw Swedish snuff imports?

Tobacco farmers are getting subsidies like other farmers. Why do you think Swedish snus still exists? While the agricultural subsidies are questionable in general, in this case if it weren't for the subsidies there would be no snus. There's more money in making cigarettes etc in a third world country.

Has snuff got EU subsidies or Swedish subsidies? Cause I dont know. Either way snuff is selling very well and Swedish Match makes a hell of a lot of money, so..

As for the 'refugees', you have over and over repeated your anti-immigrant stances that border on racism. So your opinion there is not much worth in the eyes of civilized men.

What's up with the quotation marks? What are the refugees if not refugees? I have not "repeated over and over." We had one other discussion in another EU thread. You know, where you called me a nazi and so on. I think you need to look up racism too. There's something called nationalism, even though I don't even support all that that stands for.

[denoir 0]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/europe/04/money/img/eu_whopayswhat_gra300.gif

Yeah. What?

Read the text below

Quote[/b] ]In addition the the Swedish exports are 47% of our GDP while our imports are 42% of our GDP. Because of the EU we don't have to pay about 30% in customs and vice versa. The Swedish GDP is 210 billion euro.

Import: 42% = 88,2 bn = [30% customs] = -26 bn

Export: 47% = 98.7 bn = [30% customs] = +29 bn

------------------------------------------------

+3 bn euro

Now take the 3-0.8 (from hte chart) which puts us at a nice +2.2 bn euros. Which means that we get 2.2 billion euros per year more than if we would be outside the EU.

In absolute numbers, we get more than we give.

Quote[/b] ]

Because it against open market rules. It's like Germany deciding that Germans must buy German cars and are not allowed to buy Swedish ones.

Bullshit, alcohol is a potentional threat to the common health just like tobacco. Swedish snuff may only be sold in Sweden and maybe a few other European countries that I don't know of, because the EU has outlawed it somehow. So why can't Sweden regulate alcohol selling just like the other European countries outlaw Swedish snuff imports?

It's not the regulation that is illegal, it is the monopoly. It's Vin & Sprit having a total monopoly on which brands of alcohol should be bought.

Quote[/b] ]Has snuff got EU subsidies or Swedish subsidies? Cause I dont know. Either way snuff is selling very well and Swedish Match makes a hell of a lot of money, so..

Both.

Quote[/b] ]I have not "repeated over and over." We had one other discussion in another EU thread. You know, where you called me a nazi and so on. I think you need to look up racism too. There's something called nationalism, even though I don't even support all that that stands for.

No we've had several rounds on this, even through PMs. You've stated several time stuff like that the immigrants are responsible for more or less all crimes in Sweden, that Sweden should be kept for the Swedes etc and your latest part:

Quote[/b] ]Leave the EU and close the borders

Now while you have the right to your own opinion, you are honestly in my opinion a disgrace for Sweden - our openess and our liberal humanitarian values. So please don't give me the nationalism crap, or pretending that you represent Sweden's best interest. If anything, you are hurting the image of Sweden.

For the other people reading this: iNeo's position are not mainstream opinions. He does not in anyway represent what the majority thinks.

[iNeo 0]

It's not the regulation that is illegal, it is the monopoly. It's Vin & Sprit having a total monopoly on which brands of alcohol should be bought.

Monopoly is a way of regulation and this is not worse than the EU snuff outlaw. It's the other way around, that's much worse since they can still sell to a million countries, while the one small country Sweden has regulations but still imports alcohol.

Anyway like I said, it should be up to us, not up to the EU.

No we've had several rounds on this, even through PMs.

uhm it was one thread, the one about the euro or was it about the new member states. Which we then carried on to PMs yes.

Quote[/b] ]You've stated several time stuff like that the immigrants are responsible for more or less all crimes in Sweden, that Sweden should be kept for the Swedes etc and your latest part:

Quote[/b] ]Leave the EU and close the borders

Why do you keep lying. I didn't say that and I don't want to bring that back up. I said they are over-represented, which they are. EOD.

Quote[/b] ]Now while you have the right to your own opinion, you are honestly in my opinion a disgrace for Sweden - our openess and our liberal humanitarian values. So please don't give me the nationalism crap, or pretending that you represent Sweden's best interest. If anything, you are hurting the image of Sweden.

Am I "pretending to represent Sweden's best interest?" I think you are the one who is. Unlike you I just want to vent my opinions while you act like, I don't know, a diplomat?...

Quote[/b] ]For the other people reading this: iNeo's position are not mainstream opinions. He does not in anyway represent what the majority thinks.

...which sounds incredibly ridiculous.

Read the text below

Quote[/b] ]In addition the the Swedish exports are 47% of our GDP while our imports are 42% of our GDP. Because of the EU we don't have to pay about 30% in customs and vice versa. The Swedish GDP is 210 billion euro.

Import: 42% = 88,2 bn = [30% customs] = -26 bn

Export: 47% = 98.7 bn = [30% customs] = +29 bn

------------------------------------------------

+3 bn euro

Now take the 3-0.8 (from hte chart) which puts us at a nice +2.2 bn euros. Which means that we get 2.2 billion euros per year more than if we would be outside the EU.

In absolute numbers, we get more than we give.

Of course there are pros and cons with the EU; no custom fees is great. It's just that now it feels like I've had enough. EU is often ridiculous in its decision making, although it may make other things more practical.

Oh, and you claimed we didn't pay more than we got:

""Much more"? Sweden is basically balanced in regards to membership fee/subsidies."

And then you post an image of a graph proving my point. Even though it wasn't near the German situation it's not at all "balanced." Your weird countings doesn't help proving your point, I know money is saved through skipping the customs, but we still give unfairly more than we get.

-----

Who wants strictly mainstream opinions on a discussion forum anyway.

[denoir 0]

Monopoly is a way of regulation and this is not worse than the EU snuff outlaw. It's the other way around, that's much worse since they can still sell to a million countries, while the one small country Sweden has regulations but still imports alcohol.

Anyway like I said, it should be up to us, not up to the EU.

You're not listening. The problem with the monopoly is that instead through free competition, one state owned company is deciding which brand of wine etc should be purchased. It is just like I said, the equivalent of the German state dictating which car-brands the Germans are allowed to buy. It is a blatant violation of all trading rules.

It is up to the EU because it is not an internal matter. It affects foreign companies.

We can't have it both ways. Either we want an open market where there is free competition for the sale of the goods or we must be ready to face equal mirrored consequences for our exports. Saying that the monopoly is a Swedish internal matter is like saying that the customs are an internal Swedish matter. If we slap on customs on foreign goods, how long do you think our export goods will be custom-free?

Quote[/b] ]Your weird countings doesn't help proving your point, I know money is saved through skipping the customs, but we still give unfairly more than we get.

It's not weird countings, it's a very simple demonstration of how we get more than we give. It's quite simple - we export more stuff than we import. Hence custom-free borders are better for us because we save more money then countries that have larger imports than exports. In membership fees, we pay netto 0.8 bn of Euros, but we get back 3 bn for just the skipped customs. I won't even go into how much investments we get because of the common EU corporate law.

Bottom line, the EU is a good economic affair for Sweden.

[iNeo 0]

You're not listening. The problem with the monopoly is that instead through free competition, one state owned company is deciding which brand of wine etc should be purchased. It is just like I said, the equivalent of the German state dictating which car-brands the Germans are allowed to buy. It is a blatant violation of all trading rules.

Then why is the snuff outlawed? Read my post once more, §1.

Quote[/b] ]It's not weird countings, it's a very simple demonstration of how we get more than we give. It's quite simple - we export more stuff than we import. Hence custom-free borders are better for us because we save more money then countries that have larger imports than exports. In membership fees, we pay netto 0.8 bn of Euros, but we get back 3 bn for just the skipped customs. I won't even go into how much investments we get because of the common EU corporate law.

We still pay more than we get.

[denoir 0]

You're not listening. The problem with the monopoly is that instead through free competition, one state owned company is deciding which brand of wine etc should be purchased. It is just like I said, the equivalent of the German state dictating which car-brands the Germans are allowed to buy. It is a blatant violation of all trading rules.

Then why is the snuff outlawed? Read my post once more, §1.

Again, it's not the regulation that is a problem, but the monopoly. If Sweden chose to ban all alcohol, the EU would not have a say.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]It's not weird countings, it's a very simple demonstration of how we get more than we give. It's quite simple - we export more stuff than we import. Hence custom-free borders are better for us because we save more money then countries that have larger imports than exports. In membership fees, we pay netto 0.8 bn of Euros, but we get back 3 bn for just the skipped customs. I won't even go into how much investments we get because of the common EU corporate law.

We still pay more than we get.

Why, just because it is so in your mind? Get a grip on it. I gave you the numbers we get more in return than we pay.

[EiZei 0]

I wouldnt mind sweden staying out of euro, my friends buy cheap stuff there due to the currency.

[iNeo 0]

Quote[/b] ]We still pay more than we get.

Why, just because it is so in your mind? Get a grip on it. I gave you the numbers we get more in return than we pay.

Because it is so. And because your graph showed it.

Your numbers made it that we get more because we're winning on not having the custom fees etc. But that's not the point.

Quote[/b] ]Again, it's not the regulation that is a problem, but the monopoly. If Sweden chose to ban all alcohol, the EU would not have a say.

There's no motivation for banning the snuff, it's less dangerous than cigarettes and it's proven to be an exit to smoking, not an entrance which is what the EU guys claim without any scientific base.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]We still pay more than we get.

Why, just because it is so in your mind? Get a grip on it. I gave you the numbers we get more in return than we pay.

Because it is so. And because your graph showed it.

Your numbers made it that we get more because we're winning on not having the custom fees etc. But that's not the point.

The point is that we get more money by being in the EU than we would get by staying out. Of course a majority of countries will pay more from the budget to the EU then they will get directly back. You can't create money from nothing. And the Swedish government pays a net of 0.8 billion net (out of a 70 billion budget) to the EU.

We get much more than that back through for example the export-import differential for customs. Which then the gov't gets back in forms of taxes.

Bottom line is that we make more money by being part of the EU than it costs us.

Quote[/b] ]

There's no motivation for banning the snuff, it's less dangerous than cigarettes and it's proven to be an exit to smoking, not an entrance which is what the EU guys claim without any scientific base.

Actually it's the other way around. Snus is banned world wide after numerous scientific studies. It's only Sweden that claims otherwise. And this ain't an EU thing, plenty of other countries have banned it.

And it pretty much makes sense, given how much more liberal continental Europe is to drugs of all sorts. It would be very out of character to go after snus.

No, it's a Swedish traditional thing, so we're turning a blind eye to the health effects of it. And we've got our exception from the EU ban.

[iNeo 0]

Are you saying (that they claim) snuff is more dangerous than cigarettes?

[denoir 0]

Are you saying (that they claim) snuff is more dangerous than cigarettes?

I'm not an expert at the subject but they are saying that it is dangerous.

Here's a US government report on the subject:

http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/3_63.htm

[Acro 0]

Shouldn't this thread be renamed as Swedish politics thread?

[iNeo 0]

Are you saying (that they claim) snuff is more dangerous than cigarettes?

I'm not an expert at the subject but they are saying that it is dangerous.

Here's a US government report on the subject:

http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/3_63.htm

Yes of course it's dangerous, it's still tobacco. But it's less dangerous than smoking, which that reports totally avoids to mention.

With snuff that's what you get, when smoking you're inhaling a lot of other weird stuff too. Making it more dangerous than snuff. And gone is the motivation for banning snuff. Ban smoking instead

[denoir 0]

Yes of course it's dangerous, it's still tobacco. But it's less dangerous than smoking, which that reports totally avoids to mention.

That is unclear. There are conflicting opinions on that.

Quote[/b] ]With snuff that's what you get, when smoking you're inhaling a lot of other weird stuff too. Making it more dangerous than snuff. And gone is the motivation for banning snuff. Ban smoking instead

The difference is that there is a tradition of smoking in Europe while there is no tradition of snus. It was first imported in the 90's. So the ban is to prevent yet another tobacco product becoming a habit. The same way banning smoking would be impossible in whole of Europe (including Sweden), banning snus in Sweden would be impossible - so we got an exception. It has to do with usage and traditions. Alcohol does more damage than some of the lighter drugs, but nobody sane would suggest an alcohol ban.

My personal position is that the government should stay out of it all together and the decision to take drugs, be it alcohol, tobacco or weed should be the decision of the individual.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]My personal position is that the government should stay out of it all together and the decision to take drugs, be it alcohol, tobacco or weed should be the decision of the individual.

As long as the individual we are talking about is older than 18 or 21, depending on the country you live in, I totally agree.

Llauma wanted to send me some snus, but then we found out that it was prohibited in germany.

[denoir 0]

As long as the individual we are talking about is older than 18 or 21, depending on the country you live in, I totally agree.

Yepp, adults of course.

Quote[/b] ]Llauma wanted to send me some snus, but then we found out that it was prohibited in germany.

I think the ban is on sales, not on personal use.

Quote[/b] ]gulation of smokeless tobacco in the EU.  Smokeless tobacco in the European Union is now regulated under directive 2001/37/EC[12].  This retains provisions originally introduced in directive 92/41/EEC.  Under its treaty of accession, Sweden is exempted from this ban and this exemption is reflected in the directive as below.   The 2001 directive states:

Article 2.4. "tobacco for oral use" means all products for oral use, except those intended to be smoked or chewed, made wholly or partly of tobacco, in powder or in particulate form or in any combination of those forms, particularly those presented in sachet portions or porous sachets, or in a form resembling a food product.

Article 8. Member States shall prohibit the placing on the market of tobacco for oral use, without prejudice to [the exemption granted for Sweden].

So getting it from Sweden shouldn't be illegal.

Speaking of the devil, I've read that they'll take up the snus case again in the EU parliament fairly soon and that they expect the ban to be lifted.

[iNeo 0]

From the report.

Quote[/b] ]In 1986, the Surgeon General concluded that the use of smokeless tobacco “is not a safe substitute for smoking cigarettes.

Tobacco is never safe. But is "smokeless" safer than cigaretts or more dangerous? They avoid to say.

Quote[/b] ]It can cause cancer and a number of noncancerous conditions and can lead to nicotine addiction and dependence.â€

Can't cigarettes?

Quote[/b] ]What about using smokeless tobacco to quit cigarettes?

Because all tobacco use causes disease and addiction, NCI recommends that tobacco use be avoided and discontinued.

Of course not using tobacco at all is the best choice. But again they don't say if (that) snuff is at least better than cigarettes.

[iNeo 0]

My personal position is that the government should stay out of it all together and the decision to take drugs, be it alcohol, tobacco or weed should be the decision of the individual.

I think that would be really bad. Then youths wouldn't mind trying it, just like no one minds trying alochol. "If it's legal, how could it be dangerous?" Would be pretty bad for the common health and for the national economy.

[raedor 8]

My personal position is that the government should stay out of it all together and the decision to take drugs, be it alcohol, tobacco or weed should be the decision of the individual.

I think that would be really bad. Then youths wouldn't mind trying it, just like no one minds trying alochol. "If it's legal, how could it be dangerous?" Would be pretty bad for the common health and for the national economy.

bah, if you want to get weed or more dangerous stuff, you'll get it. it does noz matter if it is forbidden or not. here in germany you can get weed on every playground. and it is not forbidden to carry 20g (?). i don't know why it is forbidden...

and the problem with forbidden drugs is that youths just wanna test it cos it is forbidden...

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

I think that would be really bad. Then youths wouldn't mind trying it, just like no one minds trying alochol. "If it's legal, how could it be dangerous?" Would be pretty bad for the common health and for the national economy.

As opposed to now, when they try weed, figure out that its less harmful than some legal drugs, and think "the government just makes this shit up"

[denoir 0]

I think that would be really bad. Then youths wouldn't mind trying it, just like no one minds trying alochol. "If it's legal, how could it be dangerous?" Would be pretty bad for the common health and for the national economy.

As opposed to now, when they try weed, figure out that its less harmful than some legal drugs, and think "the government just makes this shit up"

Exactly. What kids get these days is scare propaganda. And it's indiscriminate. Instead of telling horror stories, real information should be provided about the effects of drugs, positive and negative and the associated health risks. Information that they can trust.

And beyond that it should be the responsibility of the individual. The biggest killed is fat, but you don't see a ban on hamburgers, do you?