Tag: Sweden Democrats

idle threats?

Looking rather peaceful at the moment.
image source: viator.com viator.com https://tinyurl.com/yc6vcwum

Edited to add – I was wrong. The government today announced it is going along with the Sweden Democrats and reducing the amount of biofuel that is mixed in with regular fuel. This is just the beginning – there are still questions. The question of what happens if/when Sweden doesn’t meet its climate goals, how this announcement is met by the general population, and where Sweden might have to try and make up for increasing CO2 elsewhere, remains to be seen.

The Sweden Democrats threatened the government with pulling their support and causing a governing crisis twice this week. There’s nowhere else they can go on these particular subjects, so the response has been a collective ho hum. But the fossil fuel reduction obligation and immigration are two issues that are not going to go away.

The price at the pump

The Sweden Democrats garnered a lot of votes with their promise to cut gas prices. A large part of the cut was to come from drastically reducing the percentage of biofuel mixed in with regular fossil fuel.

In 2018, Sweden passed legislation to successively reduce the percentage of fossil fuel at the pump – hence the name “reduction obligation” (reduktionsplikten) – in favor of a larger percentage of biofuel. However, biofuel is almost entirely imported (di.se) and expensive to make, which raises the pump price. 

Define “minimum”

The Sweden Democrats want to lower the amount of biofuel to the lowest level possible under EU rules and by that, decrease the cost of gas. The EU hasn’t set a fixed percentage, but instead has a general carbon emissions goal in the transport sector that nations can reach the way they want. Therefore, the Sweden Democrats think the required percentage might be zero.

No one else is going along with zero. Finding other ways to cut carbon emissions to meet EU rules and avoid paying a fine is a huge headache that might lose voters. That SD loses some votes isn’t keeping anyone other than SD up at night.

immigration shwimmigration

Reducing immigration, however, is more than a one-off election promise for SD. It’s their reason for existence. After three years of negotiations, the European Parliament passed a proposal this week on how the EU will manage asylum and immigration. One passage has every single hair on SD’s head standing straight up. The proposal allows the EU to require member states to take in a certain number of third country nationals should a crisis arise.

SD’s Mattias Karlsson demanded that the government stop the EU agreement. Otherwise, he tweeted, it would be “hard to see how their cooperation with the government could continue.“

As it is quite a long road between a parliament decision to EU law, the government doesn’t seem to be sweating the threat. The negotiations between the parliament and the council of ministers over a final wording are likely to take time. It’s not until next year a binding vote might be taken. By that time, Sweden’s presidency will be long over, and with it its responsibility for shepherding the law through the system.

You do you!

say the courts (sort of)

People will do what they want to do. What can you do.
source: https://tinyurl.com/dy8ky79b Myrtle Beach vacations

It has been a busy week for Swedish courts, with many cases being covered in the news. Rulings this week on Cementa, hijab, and union membership have (believe it or not) something in common, namely rulings on behalf of the beleaguered part.

Cementa – the movie

Cementa has been covered in this blog earlier (here). But hang on to your hats, here’s a refresher: Cementa has been mining limestone on Gotland for a hundred years. Limestone is needed to make cement, and Cementa produces most of the cement Sweden uses for building. When Cementa applied to extend its mining license, the first court said “Sure.” Several environmental organizations appealed the decision, and the appeals court then ruled against Cementa.

At this point, the then-Social Democratic government stepped in. Without Cementa, it was argued, construction in Sweden would stop and mass lay-offs would result. With unanimous support from parliament, they passed a law that essentially granted just Cementa a temporary license to continue mining. This caused an uproar immediately – could the government even do that? Environmental organizations protested the government circumventing the court in that way. On Thursday this week, the highest administrative court in Sweden came back and said what the government did was legal. 

For some, the special law that was passed to extend Cementa’s license was welcome, necessary and even commonsensical. The administrative high court’s decision has now upheld the government’s ability to do what it did. For others, both the government’s action then, and the high court’s decision now, is a weakening of the power of the courts.

If this isn’t fascinating enough (if you’re nerdy), though, wait a few days when the temporary license extension runs out. On December 13th, Cementa’s new application to continue mining will be accepted or denied. Cementa part V: the New Application.

Go ahead, express yourself

Meanwhile in Skåne, another case of acceptance was on the docket. Staffanstorp municipality voted to forbid girls in elementary school from wearing a hijab or other head covering while in school. Parliament took up and rejected such a prohibition years ago, but Staffanstorp persisted in the administrative court. The prohibition was rejected in the first instance, and has now been rejected also at the highest instance, although not for the same reason.

At the district court level, the court disallowed Staffanstorp’s prohibition on a freedom of religion basis. The highest administrative court, however, rejected the prohibition on a freedom of expression basis instead. Clothing is an expression of religious belonging, the court said: Restricting the clothing that someone wants to wear affects the individual and their freedom to express themselves. A restriction is therefore not allowed.

Free time and work time

Neither is the Transport Workers’ Union allowed a restriction; in this case to its membership. This case began in 2018, when a regular member of the union was elected to represent the Sweden Democrats party at the municipal level. He was swiftly kicked out of the union for being an active member of a party that, according to the union, was not compatible with their organization’s statutes stipulating people’s equal value. Mats Fredlund sued the union, arguing that the union existed for its members and their work environment, and not for judging what its members did in their free time. The district court agreed, but the Transport Workers’ Union appealed. Now it has lost again. The court of appeals ruled that booting out Fredlund was abridging his right to freedom of association.

In each of these cases, the higher court ruled on behalf of the part that wanted to do what it wanted to do, and not for the part that wanted to restrict that action. This, for a country whose smallest party in parliament is the Liberal party.

What’s a government?

You won. Now have fun.
Source: shutterstock https://tinyurl.com/5xw4r9d7

As we wait for the newly elected right block in Sweden to “get its government together,” many non-Swedish born people are wondering and worried about how this process works.

What is a government?

The government is the Prime Minister and the Ministers he/she/they appoint to the various departments. It’s not the members of parliament.
This is how it goes: The parliament is elected by the people; the block that commands the biggest percentage in the parliament gets to try to form a government; within that block it is decided who gets to be Prime Minister and who will sit in the government.

Didn’t he come in third?

Because the Moderate party leader Ulf Kristersson has the support of the majority in parliament – even though “he came in third” – he will be Prime Minister. He’s now figuring out who he wants to be Minister of Defense, Minister of Infrastructure, Minister of Justice, Minister of Energy, etc. It is this group of people who will be “the government.” It is here that the Sweden Democrats will not be sitting – they won’t be in the government. At least I don’t think so.

When this government proposes something, they can expect that their block members in parliament support them. When they need the support of SD to get something passed, the government will be dependent on them. If they don’t need the support from SD – if, by chance, an equally large number of parliamentarians agree with what the government is proposing – they won’t be dependent on SD. If, say, the government proposes something that the Social Democrats agree with and will vote for, they won’t need SD.

Can SD change the law so that – oh, for example, foreign nationals can get kicked out of the country for jaywalking? The answer to that is no, not alone. SD, like any other party sitting in parliament, would need to convince the majority of parliament to vote for its motion. Being a member of the ruling block gives access and know-how: These are advantageous tools but they don’t change the procedure.

The worry is that SD, having access and know-how and leverage, can influence the government and the laws it proposes (called propositions). This is a real peril: Self-censure is real. The lust for continued power is real. And compromise is necessary for any government.

Who is the “talman” and why do we care?

Currently, the different parties are in a twist over the position of talman (speaker). The talman is a non-political position and does not even vote. On the other hand, the talman is the highest position a person can be elected to and is officially only subordinate to the king. The talman is the face of the parliament, and leads its daily work. As a sop for not being in the government, SD thinks this would be a nice position to hold. It’s very public, and is a huge step from SD’s past pariah status.

That kind of recognition is simply too much for many members of parliament. Ergo, some parties of the left block have come out to say that they would accept, and vote in favor of, another Moderate party member to have that role. For the moment though, SD is not letting go.

For Kristersson, he’s not even actually Prime Minister yet but he has to deal with the realities of having accepted SD into the block. The fact is that the position of talman is not an important vote-bearing or proposition-making position. In that sense it would be an easy give to SD. But if the Social Democrats say they’ll accept a Moderate party member, then votes-wise Kristersson doesn’t need to give it to SD. He isn’t dependent on SD for this vote. This would be a good way of standing up to SD and not allowing it to dictate anything – while also alienating SD and jeopardizing future cooperation.

Harbinger, anyone?

5 Dec. – saving Unemployment and face

future uncertain
pic: Per Gudmundson, SvD

Remember back in November, when Jonas Sjöstedt threatened to bring a no confidence vote to the floor to protest the government’s plan to completely reform the Swedish Public Employment Service (better known as Arbetsförmedlingen)? If you forgot, there’s a post to read about it here. And if you didn’t, well, time is almost up. If nothing happens, the vote of no confidence on Eva Nordmark, Minister for Employment, will happen on Tuesday.

When Sjöstedt, leader of the Left party, first made this threat, he was not just protesting the disassembly and privatisation of the Employment Service, but also the provision of the January Agreement that said that under no circumstances was the Left party to have any influence over government policy. The provision was stipulated by the Center and Liberal parties specifically as a requirement for their support for the formation of the Löfven government.

It’s understandable that this was part of the Left party’s anger, as the government is absolutely dependent on the Left party to stay in power (otherwise they don’t have the votes to pass their budget). Still, it was likely the government thought that they were safe because the Left party would never vote with the Sweden Democrats, and the two right block parties, to topple them…

Until today, it turned out, when the Left party became willing to do just that. Apparently, the meetings held between the Social Democrats and the Left party have not been assuaging enough. The Left party is determined to change the course of the government in respect to the current privatisation of the Employment Service.

Despite the appearance of a wrench being thrown into the disassembly work, threats being tossed about, and very serious looks on all party leader’s faces, it’s likely most of them are glad for Sjöstedt’s moves. The Unemployment Services’ quick and dirty disassembly was causing a lot of worry and problems at the municipal level: When workers are getting unemployment help they do it through the Employment Service. Without an Employment Service office nearby, the sooner the unemployed would turn to the local municipality for help – and that would be expensive, as well as more than the municipalities thought they could handle.

With the way things were going, it looked like a disaster was shaping up. Despite having previously been very much in favor of dismantling the Employment Service, the Moderate party and the Christian Democrats are now saying that they have always thought the deconstruction was going too quickly, and that’s why they are backing Sjöstedt. They are also happy when their former Alliance parties, the Center and Liberal parties, don’t get what they said they were going to get by leaving the Alliance and throwing their support behind the Social Democrats: If they can make the Center and Liberal parties look bad, the Moderate and Christian Democrats won’t be fussy about how.

Even Löfven is secretly happy because he has definitely not been a fan of this process, but was forced into moving quickly by the Center and Liberal parties and the agreement they signed back in January. The Left, Moderate, and Christian Democratic parties are actually doing him a favour if he can get out of it.

What remains to be done is for Löfven to spend the next few days finding ways to pacify the Center and Liberal party leaders and help them find ways to save face when the Unemployment Service is now not going to be disassembled as rapidly as first imagined. The Center and Liberal parties know that if the no confidence vote goes through, the government will be significantly weakened and they could find themselves on their own. A way to avoid this is most likely going to be found.

Meanwhile, Minister Eva Nordmark must be feeling a bit like a punching bag. A no confidence vote is supposed to mark no confidence in the Minister. The Left, Moderate, and Christian Democratic parties, plus the Sweden Democrats, though, are not actually protesting her, or the way she is doing her job: They’re using a no confidence vote against her to not just protest a current political course of action, but to get back at the government and its supporting parties. It’s going to be hard to see any impressed faces on the voters anytime soon.

19 Oct. – counting the weeks

counting the weeks
pic: courtnewsohio.gov

Abortion and the Sweden Democrats – in the same post. Read on.

Here are the basics for Sweden: abortions are free, it’s the woman who decides, and up to and including the 18th week of pregnancy, a woman doesn’t have to say why or who or what or anything at all about her reasons for asking for an abortion. After that, there have to be reasons for not carrying to term, which have to be articulated to, or by, the National Board of Health and Welfare (socialstyrelsen). After 21 weeks and 6 days, the window for abortion is closed: After this date, a foetus is considered viable outside the womb. In very very few and drastic cases, there are abortions after this date. For those who don’t know, a pregnancy is about 40 weeks long.

Up until just now, the Sweden Democrats party has had a party platform advocating a 12 week limit for free and unquestioned abortions, instead of the current 18 week restriction. 12 weeks is, frankly, barely long enough to even think one might be pregnant, and to take a test to find out at home in one’s bathroom – let alone schedule a clinic visit.

After a slew of letters sent in to the party’s headquarters making a motion for a change, Jimmie Åkesson, Sweden Democrats’ party leader, announced that they will no longer have the 12-week limit in their party program. In his words: “We put together a group to look at this question, and they’ve come to the same conclusion: If the goal is to reduce the number of abortions, even down to the Nordic levels, it’s not laws there are going to get us there and definitely not discussions on when it’s legal to terminate a pregnancy.” “Not even with the current reach of medicine is a foetus viable outside the womb before 18 weeks, Åkesson said, so there’s no reason to change the 18 week ceiling” (DN.se/pregnancy). It is not a coincidence that Åkesson announced this at a meeting of female SD party members in Norrköping.

Is it the influx of women in their ranks that have made them go up a grade on the enlightenment scale? Or is it just a measure to increase their popularity outside of their faithful rank and file – making themselves more palatable, perhaps, to the greater Swedish population? It isn’t a bad position to have come to, by any means, and welcome. But with all political ideas that change quite drastically, it’s wise to question how deep the conviction goes before trusting it with one’s own body.