I personally cannot understand how the public sector can be reduced and the private sector grown with the current demographics. The share of the elderly just continues to grow, and even if they were to consume services or buy goods, it doesn’t come close to what a single retiree costs public finances. Pensions + care. It is simply a must to be able to cut pensions. The current pension system was built under different conditions, and it does not work with the current population structure. This way, taxes could be raised to cover deficits, but the overall tax rate brought down to grow demand and boost the economy. Retirees also take their money abroad more than anyone else to increase service demand on the sunny shores of Spain, compared to those living busy family lives who only have a few weeks of annual leave a year.
You have some really good comments! Many detailed questions come to mind, but I’ll approach this from a high level first. It is now clear, in light of the latest information and without sugarcoating it, that the Finnish state has run out of money. As investments must simultaneously be made in national defense, the pressure to cut other expenditures is now very high. All budget sectors will take a “hit” during the next parliamentary term, and a heavy one at that. A couple of questions:
-
In your opinion, which government combination would be best able to carry out the necessary austerity measures in the agricultural sector so that the damage is as minimal as possible and the end result, after the inevitable restructuring, is an agricultural and food sector that is as viable (and ideally, of course, flourishing) as possible? My own opinion has always been that this can only be achieved with a government based on the National Coalition Party (Kokoomus) and the Social Democratic Party (SDP), but the problem with this is that the Centre Party (Keskusta) arguably has the most relevant expertise, even if there may be disagreement regarding the need for cuts.
-
Broadly speaking, what do you think of the Liberal Party’s “leikattavaa löytyy” (there is room to cut) list regarding agriculture?
This matter of government composition is an interesting question. Let’s approach it through the subsidy regions. I’m not a total expert on the subject, but I know the main principles. In our agricultural subsidy system, we have a certain imbalance where the southern AB regions and the northern C regions (these C regions are also divided into maybe three or four parts) are in an unequal position in the market specifically regarding subsidy euros. Subsidies for the C region were negotiated as permanent in the EU accession treaty, while the 141 support for the AB region was for a transitional period, i.e., a fixed term. After the 141 support ended, livestock production decreased in the south and partially shifted to the C region. This happened even though it wasn’t supposed to. In practice, a “fodder rally” from south to north.
But to the government question. If we are to start cutting significantly from agriculture, there shouldn’t be any MPs from the Centre Party (Keskusta) in the government. Centrists are mainly from the C region, and for them, these subsidies are sacred. Centrists try to please everyone, which is why the cuts are cosmetic. The problem with the Social Democrats (SDP) is that they don’t dare to cut if it means job losses. When cutting from agriculture, jobs will inevitably be lost in the processing industry, the transport sector, and administration. Personally, I would trust a National Coalition (Kokoomus) led government. The National Coalition has agricultural expertise; they don’t need the Centre Party as a partner. I believe a National Coalition-led government with a strong election victory, partnered with the Social Democrats, could be good. Preferably with the Swedish People’s Party (RKP) and the Greens in opposition.
I looked at the Liberal Party’s (Liberaalipuolue) cut list for the first time and examined the agricultural sector, and I must say it had some good points. Politically perhaps impossible, but for example, supporting equestrian sports is not the state’s task. Could it be put any better?
If agricultural subsidies are cut properly, it’s not good to do it all at once. There should be, say, a five-year transition period to allow for adaptation to the changed situation. As I understand it, New Zealand carried out a major agricultural subsidy reform where subsidies were practically eliminated. I believe they have competitive milk production there.
Instead of direct handouts, agricultural support could also consist of government guarantees and tax breaks. These instruments do not distort the market and would enable investment and encourage profitability.
This brings a lot of things to mind. I agree about the Centre Party for roughly the same reasons. RKP and the Greens: It might be that from the perspective of the National Coalition and the Social Democrats, it’s good to take both as “accomplices” in addition to the SDP and the National Coalition, because otherwise these parties will swell in opposition like dough. In any case, the next government will finally have to perform a genuine restructuring of the entire public economy, because the debt spiral must be broken.
This is a very important point. A tough list of cuts is ahead and with this in mind, it is *erittäin tärkeää* (extremely important) to provide long-term visibility and transition periods. In other words, a well-planned list of cuts right at the beginning, which in itself will not be pleasant reading and from which the future opposition will take all the “joy” they can, but that is when it must be done.
Then to the pain points. The Liberal Party’s list contains a number of line items and the total sum at the end. At the same time, a futures-based system is proposed, which I don’t fully understand, and as a reform, this might not be entirely politically realistic (no matter how good it is). But this list contains many points, from which I’ll throw out a few “test balloons”:
1) “30.10.40. Startup and investment grants for agriculture (deferrable appropriation 3 years)
−139,500,000 Business support directed at young agricultural entrepreneurs, which worsens the sector’s subsidy dependency. An entrepreneur must be able to finance their business’s starting costs with self-acquired financing, and the state should not offer separate startup grants to operators in any industry.”
2) 30.10.43. Animal welfare compensations (deferrable appropriation 3 years)
−74,000,000 A cost shifted onto the shoulders of taxpayers, which should be transferred directly to the consumer to be paid in the price of the end product. The state should not artificially lower the consumer prices of meat products.
3) 30.10.64. EU and state funding share for regional and local rural development (deferrable appropriation 3 years) −139,016,000
It is not the state’s task to direct national tax funds or EU subsidy euros toward rural development. The movement of people and businesses to cities and growth centers can at most be slowed down with massive regional subsidies, which ultimately impoverish society as a whole, as the funds used for regional subsidies have a high opportunity cost.
These are from the beginning of the list and taken out of context, but they represent the list’s consistent line, where subsidies are dismantled piece by piece. This is harsh reading (though less harsh for me than for the farmer whom these savings affect).
For example, regarding point 1): I am of the opinion that the benefit of this subsidy to the entire agricultural sector is questionable at best. Generally speaking, I don’t think it’s the task of the state and taxpayers to participate in business startups and generational handovers. Then there are separate startup grants, Finnvera, export guarantees, etc., which have their own purposes, and one could similarly think of a different guarantee instrument for this, I don’t know. But since the money has now truly run out and we have perhaps the last chance in Finland to restructure the Finnish public finances by our own strength, it’s hard to find any “sacred” line items besides national defense.
The intention isn’t to grill you on this list point by point, because that’s not the setup here. Firstly, that Liberal Party list is as long as a year of famine, and secondly, no one on this forum has the energy to read such a back-and-forth grilling.
Personally, I see the list compiled by the Liberal Party as a valuable tool for healthy public finances. The Social Democrats’ election opening started to follow this list regarding agriculture, but in a far too diluted way.
Finally, the most important thing. In my opinion, the goal must be agriculture on a healthy economic basis, which must nevertheless have its own share in our country’s security of supply, implemented reasonably and cost-effectively. Easier said than done, but for the end result to be as good as possible for all parties, it’s good to discuss even difficult topics openly. There’s a challenge for the Inderes political corner.
Farmers have oddly drifted into a system they never wanted in the first place, and now they find themselves having to defend a system they hate. In my opinion, the Liberal Party’s list and its justifications are worth reading for politicians.
Agricultural subsidies are often perceived as direct income transfers to wealthy landowners who already have sufficient assets. The matter isn’t quite that black and white. The purpose (one of the purposes) of agricultural subsidies is to maintain agricultural production. Cuts to farmer subsidies also have consequences that come with a price tag. Take sugar as an example. Sugar is produced in Finland on an area of about 15,000 hectares, and Finland’s only factory is located in Säkylä. The sugar industry itself is German-owned, and seeds and pesticides are imported. The machinery is also mostly foreign. Finland supports sugar beet production by approximately (this is an order of magnitude) €6 million/year; meaning €350/ha is paid for each cultivated sugar beet hectare, so the field subsidy for sugar beet is (this subsidy is paid regardless of the beet) €450 + €350 + transport subsidy. Transport support is paid at approximately €4/ton for actual clean sugar beet tons. The beet yield per hectare is about 35–45 t/ha, meaning the transport support is €160/ha. This transport support is a bit vague, but it’s probably not far off in terms of magnitude. However, these state-paid subsidies are targeted at beet farmers, and a condition for the support is a cultivation agreement with the factory. Finland is 80% self-sufficient in sugar, and AI told me that a Finn consumes 30 kg of added sugar per year. This results in a volume of 120 million kg of domestic sugar used in Finland. And if we calculate the industrial sugar price at 50 cents/kg, the value of domestically produced sugar would be €60 million. So, when the state supports the farmer with €6 million, it enables €60 million worth of domestically produced sugar for industrial use. If the subsidy is cut, the producer will no longer cultivate it, because after that, farming it becomes unprofitable. If anyone wants me to break down the beet calculation, I can do so. If the sugar beet cultivation area drops to, say, half of those 15,000 hectares, the German owner will close the factory because it’s not worth running a factory at such a low utilization rate, as they aren’t exactly gold mines. Factory closed, and all cultivation ends there. 15,000 hectares of field will be freed up for other uses, essentially adding more grain to cultivation. For farmers, this isn’t a matter of life and death, but after this, all the buzz around beets will stop, and €120 million worth of imported sugar will be shipped from the harbor. Our skewed trade balance will go even further into the red.
Another example of agricultural subsidies. For instance, Hungary supports (with EU money) agricultural machinery investments by what seems to be more than 50%. Agricultural machinery is exported from Finland to there because trade is booming precisely due to this generous subsidizing. It’s great that Finland has machinery exports to Hungary, but in practice (to simplify things a bit), Hungary is buying Finnish agricultural machinery with the EU membership fees paid by Finland.
Personally, I would hope to see the day when the current agricultural policy based on the subsidy system is buried. In the same pit, one could throw all the regulation that has been managed to be slipped into the subsidy conditions over the years.
There may be crude false assumptions in the calculations the further away we get from the farm level. The calculations are more examples to reinforce what I’m trying to say.
In my own opinion, the worst problem is that part of the money goes to those who do not need it (are already super-rich) and part to those who lack the expertise and/or ability to develop their own farm. Now that subsidy funds are scarce, I believe that the best possible conditions must be given to those farms and value creation chains that have skilled owners and farmers. I agree that things are not as simple as they seem at first glance. Certain production chains and clusters are good for this country as part of a larger whole, even if it continues to require state subsidies; you gave one good example of this above.
Maybe someday, though it is likely realistic that subsidies will be scaled back, but in certain sensible respects, they will continue in ways that then create their own frustrating bureaucracy. It is important that, especially in the future, the voice of the owners of viable farms is heard in national politics. At least on this political forum, you have made a strong contribution to this discussion. Hopefully, your expert message reaches politicians through other arenas and ways as well—you provide high-quality stuff.
A convoluted scheme created during the good times, which used to guarantee that after a political career, one never had to go to a real job again. The support used to go by the name of adjustment pension. Fortunately, this has now been fixed, even though Suvi gets to mooch until the actual retirement age.
Lindén, who served as an MP for the National Coalition Party from 1995 to 2011, began drawing the benefit after losing her seat in Parliament and has received money in her account uninterrupted for 5,366 days.
Until March 2019, the benefit was paid to Lindén under the name of adjustment pension, and from April 2019 onwards, under the name of adjustment allowance. Adjustment pensions were abolished in the spring of 2019. They were replaced by the adjustment allowance, which can be received for 1–3 years. The pension had no such time limit, and it was possible to receive it until age 65—regardless of when one had started drawing it.
However, a three-year transition period was included in the 2019 legislative change, and when it ended, Lindén was already over 59 years old. The law states that the adjustment allowance can be received until age 65 if the recipient has turned 59 by the time the adjustment allowance ends.
Thank you. I could continue further and take an environmental perspective on farming and subsidy policy. Environmental protection is one of those sacred cows used to justify all sorts of extra costs and superficial measures. If you criticize environmental support or opt out of it, you are automatically labeled an environmental polluter. Environmental support (ympäristötuki), the main purpose of which used to be protecting waters both inland and in the Baltic Sea. In addition to water protection, climate issues are now also taken into account. Nowadays, environmental support has been renamed “environmental compensation” (ympäristökorvaus). This name change is an attempt to fade out the negative associations of the word “support” with the word “compensation,” as compensation somehow sounds more noble. I will now use the term “ymppi,” as it is the established name “in the circles.” So, the “ymppi” includes measures that are mandatory and some that are optional. These measures relate to wintertime plant cover, crop rotation, catch crops, etc., but it’s better I don’t go into more detail since I don’t remember exactly how they work. For me personally, these are relatively painless to implement. These subsidies run in programming periods, and the conditions usually tighten every time a new period begins. During the previous “ymppi,” the conditions tightened so much and the subsidy levels dropped so low that many farms (profitable ones) did not sign the environmental support commitment. Those farms felt that fulfilling the subsidy conditions would have restricted production so much that it wasn’t worth it. This likely came as a surprise to the environmental folks, so in the next programming period, the “ymppi” conditions were moved into cross-compliance (täydentävät ehdot). Cross-compliance is an interesting separate set of rules that is a condition for all subsidies. Nowadays, cross-compliance is called “conditionality” (ehdollisuus). Conditionality is like a slop bucket thrown in farmers’ faces at the start of every new programming period. Now, “social conditionality” was added there, meaning in practice, clauses from labor legislation were thrown in as well. In practice, all of a farm’s subsidies can be sanctioned by 5% if, for example, a worker’s occupational well-being plan is missing during an inspection. In my opinion, occupational health and safety matters belong to the occupational safety authorities, but agriculture is apparently such suspicious activity that we need supervision from two directions. So yes, there is plenty of activity in Finland that can and should be cut.
Let’s get back to the “ymppi,” where the subsidy money per hectare of field is roughly €50–100, depending on choices. This amount is thus included in the €450 I mentioned earlier. The “ymppi” also includes organic subsidies. This means a farm makes a special environmental commitment for five years when switching to organic farming. An organic agreement can be for a crop farm or have livestock status. A crop farm gets about €100 and a livestock farm gets €300/ha. I want to emphasize immediately that some organic farmers are truly skilled professionals, but unfortunately, there are also “growers of shitty weeds” who exploit the subsidy system.
Organic (luomu) is a somewhat contradictory thing. In a way, it’s a form of specialization that suits Finland, but market-driven activity just doesn’t seem to gain momentum. At worst, the subsidy euros pushed into organic farming don’t increase organic products at all. Take, for example, an organic suckler cow farm that sells calves through an intermediary to a finisher. There are hardly any organic finishers because organic terms require that slaughter bulls must be grazed. I can tell you that grazing a herd of bulls is not a good idea. The end result is that the calves move to a conventional farm to be raised. What did these subsidy euros invested in organic farming bring to the organic market? Nothing.
Let’s take another example of wasting “special ymppi” money from the past. Buffer zone (suojavyöhyke) agreements were made to protect water bodies. The compensation for these areas was good, to say the least. I don’t remember exactly, but I think it was somewhere around €400/ha. I wasn’t personally excited about these. A feature here was that the areas were not targeted along watercourses. In practice, almost all fields qualified for this. MTK warned the ministry that this might become a problem. They weren’t believed because environmental people are so wise. Well, the end result was that plenty of agreements were made, and more money had to be requested for the measure. Did the state of the Baltic Sea improve with this money?
These posts inevitably turn out long. Hopefully, these give some idea of the operational environment farmers are trying to navigate. And we haven’t even touched on matters related to the actual farming itself. That’s not politics, after all. Current agriculture with its subsidy systems could be compared to a moldy old residential building where various failed renovations have been made over decades by gluing things over the old. It’s time to carry all the junk out and start repairing the foundations and the log frame if the house is still to be saved.
This is an important topic of discussion, because it’s sad that with this kind of support and its implementation, the original goal—which is good in itself—is not achieved. I now understand better why there isn’t much enthusiasm for having the Greens in the next government.
This couldn’t be put any better; at the same time, in this new subsidy system (to the extent it’s needed), we could probably get more with less.
By the way, have you happened to consider a career in politics, as you seem to have an unusually good grasp of the facts?
Tere Sammallahti is seeking the vice chairmanship of the National Coalition Party (Kokoomus).
If Tere Sammallahti succeeds in his intentions, it means that challenges will certainly arise for a potential future blue-red government (sinipunahallitus). It is certainly worth it for the National Coalition Party to try to attract those voters who are wavering between the Finns Party and the National Coalition; this is a logical move from the National Coalition Party. At the same time, they can try to boost support by highlighting immigration-related issues even more. It remains to be seen whether this is a winning strategy even if Sammallahti reaches the leadership.
As a right-leaning liberal Democrat, I would like to see a blue-red government, because I see it as the only possibility for a genuine reform of our country’s economy. On the other hand, if a right-wing government were to continue for the next four years with the same composition and an EK-driven (Confederation of Finnish Industries) government program, we would have a track record spanning eight years and two consecutive terms. After that, results must be achieved, at least in curbing the national debt and regarding unemployment.
Loudmouths like Tere can certainly bring other kinds of challenges to the party. On the other hand, the roles of 2nd or 3rd vice chairpersons are no longer very significant, and all sorts of crackpots have been elected to those positions in various parties.
I’m writing down some more thoughts on the agricultural subsidy system. I’ll take a look at LFA (natural handicap payment), young farmer start-up grants, investment aids, and paying subsidies to wealthy individuals. Field subsidies (€450) consist of three parts: CAP, Agri-environment (ymppi), and LFA. Of these, CAP is paid from the EU budget (as a membership fee refund). Ymppi and LFA are paid directly from Finnish tax revenues. I’ll stick to field-side subsidies for now, otherwise this post will become even more convoluted.
Finland’s agricultural subsidy budget is about €2 billion, and the share of national subsidies is approximately €1.1 billion. If agricultural subsidies were cut entirely, the EU membership fee refund would be lost. I’ve heard rumors that at the EU level, there are plans for every member state to handle agricultural support from national funds in the future. Time will tell. There might be some truth to the rumor, as it would prepare for Ukraine’s potential EU membership. Ukraine, as a major agricultural country, presents “slight challenges” for CAP policy.
LFA and ymppi are the subsidy types that the Center Party and the Greens bicker over domestically. To put it bluntly and provocatively: the Greens want to distribute the whole pot for superficial environmental protection measures, and the Center Party wants to distribute it as regional aid to areas where their support is strongest. The RKP (Swedish People’s Party) watches from the sidelines to ensure Swedish-speaking areas get their share of regional aid. It is a consequence of LFA distribution that livestock farming in Finland has moved further north.
Now our Minister of Agriculture, Essayah, has come up with a brilliant idea and already pushed it through: cleared fields in Eastern Finland will also gain eligibility for Agri-environment and LFA payments. Here in the south, we are, to put it mildly, “stunned” by this, because until now it has been clear—even at the EU level—that cleared land is not eligible for compensation. So, in practice, this €1.1 billion national pot is now shared over a larger area, which lowers the total amount per hectare across the whole country. This means the subsidy amount for farmers in the AB region (and the C region as well) decreases so that a crisis-stricken Eastern Finland gets some support somewhere.
Let’s look at start-up grants for farming. It’s been over 20 years since I started, so I don’t know the current regulations. I suppose the start-up grant is intended to encourage farm successions. Would I have started without the start-up grant? Yes. Did I take the grant? Yes. Was it necessary? You can always find a way to spend money. The start-up grant is also something that should be viewed critically. If the operation isn’t viable without the grant, it’s not even worth starting. The same goes for all other start-up grants on the business side. There’s an unfortunate phenomenon in agriculture, both in Finland and Europe generally, where entrepreneurs are elderly. Young people aren’t entering the field, and this problem is coming to a head—no start-up grant will help with that.
Investment aids. This form of support has distributed quite a bit of money, especially for cattle-related investments, over the past few decades. It has certainly helped raise Finnish “wheelbarrow-scale” milk production to a European level. So, by this metric, we can say the money hasn’t gone to waste. The problem with this type of aid is that lobbyists lobby, and there are always supposedly important investments like solar panels included. Investment aids also tend to be reflected in prices; sellers know that investment money is available. There’s also the side effect that the value of used equipment (I mean, for example, old stall structures etc.) is basically scrap metal. In my opinion, an interest-rate subsidy loan would be sufficient investment support.
Paying subsidies to wealthy individuals. The subsidy system is built to support or compensate for agricultural production. Subsidies are not “poor relief,” so there are no mechanisms to differentiate recipients based on wealth. To the subsidy system, industry, environment, or consumer, it’s irrelevant whether the oats in a bag of oat bread were produced by an employee of Björn Wahlroos’s manor or a smallholder from Pielavesi. Take Björn Wahlroos as an example. He owns the Joensuu manor in Salo, in Southwest…
I got cut off a bit. Björn Wahlroos owns the Joensuu estate in Salo, Southwest Finland. I can’t speak for him, of course, but I assume he didn’t buy his manor for the agricultural subsidies. Estates hold a somewhat different position in the Finnish agricultural landscape. They have cultural-historical value and represent the grandeur of times gone by. They are perhaps a hobby for their owners in a way, but also something of a status symbol. Quite a few people who have built wealth in the Finnish business world own an estate. I consider this a good thing. They have the means to keep the places in good condition. I would venture to say that despite agricultural subsidies, the agricultural production of these estates is loss-making. This is due to the costs of hired labor alone, not to mention what it costs to maintain the manor itself.
Grain farming in the AB region has unfortunately become an elite sport. Agrarian-minded individuals who have become wealthy (by whatever means) farm because many of them find it to be an enjoyable activity. Generally, wealthy and successful people are also hard workers, so farming suits them. And what could be better than doing the work with high-quality equipment. Of course, it is sad that agriculture has developed this trait where the wealthy come and buy up domains for themselves, but it is a good thing that the buyer isn’t, for example, the Chinese state. I am genuinely concerned about whether foreign capital will start buying up land in Finland. Given current profitability and the challenges in obtaining financing, ordinary farmers are finding it difficult to buy land. I have already heard rumors that foreign money is coming in to produce beef in Finland—apparently halal meat for Muslim countries. In this case, it would be best to withhold LFA support (Less Favoured Area support). It is sad if people abroad see value and potential in our countryside that we don’t see ourselves.
I personally support all subsidies that facilitate generational handovers in agriculture. A farm differs from other businesses in that it involves a large amount of fixed assets, and the profitability of the business is directly dependent on the amount of those assets. Having grown up in the countryside, I have often witnessed how brutal it is to, for example, buy out three siblings from an inherited farm and then try to make the operation profitable. Ultimately, these farming families are the ones whose children fundamentally know how to and want to run these farms—as there are practically no newcomers moving from the city to the countryside to become farmers.
Or does it? This is not “de facto” in everyone’s opinion either. After all, the Pride community doesn’t want to, for example, play with everyone unconditionally. Does it still represent equality and equity?
Helsinki Pride does not accept the National Coalition Party as a partner | MTV News
It should be clear enough to those familiar with the matter that Pride, rainbow flags, Seta, etc., represent fairly leftist politics in other respects as well, and are not just a community purely promoting the beautiful ideal of equality.
Regardless of one’s own view, it is simply unacceptable and intolerant if others are not allowed to have a different opinion. In my view, tolerance includes respecting opposing views. When that is missing, it increases polarization and bickering, and ultimately puts everyone in a bad mood.
While gay people, trans people, people of different races, and other minority groups are entitled to the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else, for most people, these aren’t the kind of things that should be preached about all the time. That constant preaching about a topic important to oneself easily backfires.
Kirsi Mikkonen, chairperson of Turku region Seta, pondered in a Seta publication whether the club could have avoided playing Savinainen. She later corrected the publication, stating that according to legislation, TPS as a club and employer could not have acted otherwise in this situation.
”If they had forbidden Savinainen from playing, they would have discriminated against him. The question then arises whether the legislation is wrong,” Mikkonen writes.
Wonderfully fresh woke, straight out of the North Korea playbook. So, if you don’t proclaim a certain deeply-loaded minority ideology, legislation should now be changed so that these thought criminals could be legally discriminated against with full permission. I haven’t read such dense “do-gooders™” thinking in a while. One would think that this kind of statement, which tramples over all equality, freedom of opinion, and human rights in working life, would have been completely condemned by all sane parties — both in and out of politics. From the political side, many (such as Minister Poutala) did take a principled stand, but tell me, where are all the statements from the green-left politicians? Oh right, Sofia Virta (who was even a member of the TPS board at the time) attacked the player on social media. And from elsewhere, silence echoes. It seems that on that side of the political spectrum, those famous human rights don’t carry much weight if you hold the wrong opinion, or if you simply don’t want to actively fly the flag for it for other reasons. This, if anything, is scary.
The way things are going in Finland is quite a lot of coddling of foreigners, so I support cutting pensions.
Very many low-income earners have worked their whole working lives in Finland and get hardly any more pension; I suppose it’s quite right, if only one could understand it. A slight difference compared to the practice in Sweden—well, some stick up for their own more and others less. This is a comment on the way things are done in Finland and nothing else, and it’s unlikely to improve after the elections…
If you read the article you linked all the way to the end, you’ll notice that the chairperson of Seta invited the player to discuss “what it is in the pride flag that represents values he cannot accept.” I think that’s a decent way to advance this discussion. I might as well ask the same question on this forum, as the topic clearly stirs up emotions: what is it about Pride that is so damn annoying?