[Clansman]

Sweden's ruling party in battle over EU poll
03.05.2005 - 17:45 CET | By Lisbeth Kirk

Individual members of Sweden’s ruling Social Democrats have launched a new initiative to force the party to call for a referendum on the EU constitution.

Headed by Social Democrat MP Sören Wibe, the new initiative has spotted a rarely used paragraph in the party statutes, which has not been employed since 1922.

It allows for just five per cent of party members to call for a referendum, meaning that 7,000 party members must sign the current petition to secure the vote.

The majority of the Swedish parliament is opposed to holding a referendum on the draft treaty.

"The decision on a new Constitution for the EU is of such importance that it must be rooted in the people", Mr Wibe said when launching the initiative today (3 May) in Stockholm.

He is preparing for a battle in three stages.

"First we must gather the names. Second we must win the vote among party members. Third we must win the referendum", he said, according to Dagens Nyheter.

A majority of the Swedes voted against the euro in a referendum in September 2003.

http://www.euobserver.com/?sid=9&aid=18994

Now this really could cause problems for the EU constitution. Even though the referendum would be non-binding I could see the Swedes voting against, which would then make things very difficult for the presently not very popular social democrat led government in ratifying the constitution. But then maybe I am just jaded after the last referendum here on a European matter.

[goupillon]

I'm amazed that this completely innocuous document is causing so much trouble, when in actual fact it brings very little change to the way the EU is run apart from some measures designed to improve efficiency.

It seems the eurosceptic hysteria emanating from the UK has spread to other countries

[venatoris]

Well, we have a very specific attitude towards EU integration. Practically it seems that we are against

Just take a look at our parliament

We have the 'Social Democrats' which in actual fact have nothing to do with socialism nowadays - it is rather a centrist-liberal party than left leaning.

We have no conservative (the moderats, Peoples Party, Christian Democrats cannot be considered today to be conservatives...) parties, and then we have a bunch of radical left parties (The leftist party, FI etc.). So practically we have no options whatsoever.

It seems that Swedish society is convinced that whatever party will be chosen, - nothing will really change. Thus this anti EU stance could be a reaction to this 'unfortunate' situation...

[Lokakyy]

Social Democratic parties going right seems to be rather common in Nordic countries, the same thing has happened to our social democrats. In Finland the strong centrist force within the party is trumped up with the support of the trade unions. Even though there IS a left wing element within the Finnish Social democratic party and I'm pretty sure there is one also in the swedish one.

Personally I'm against the new constitution as it transfers power to the EU parliament. And the parliament that is seemingly always dominated by the conservatives is far too hostile towards the Scandinavian social programs. I wish there would be a referundum here in Finland too.

[Clansman]

Compared to Maastricht this constitution transfers hardly any new powers to Brussels at all. It tidies things up, creates a common foreign and defence policy, a charter of fundamental rights, and a much fairer and progressive voting system and that is just about it. Though the conservatives are the largest group in the parliament they do not have a majority and are regularly outvoted by the socialists and liberals voting together as a block. Socialist parties are moving to the right all over the EU as they know that in a global market with the WTO in it one can no longer protect oneself from out sourcing of jobs and so either one competes or one suffers high unemployment. The only other feasible option is to form a socialist autarky, but that isn't the way the EU is headed.

[Schrödinger's Kitty]

We have no conservative (the moderats, Peoples Party, Christian Democrats cannot be considered today to be conservatives...) parties, and then we have a bunch of radical left parties (The leftist party, FI etc.). So practically we have no options whatsoever.

True, but the National Democrats are conservatives...

It seems that Swedish society is convinced that whatever party will be chosen, - nothing will really change. Thus this anti EU stance could be a reaction to this 'unfortunate' situation...

Maybe it is the fact they don't want change.

[galactus]

Schrödinger's Kitty-Cat

True, but the National Democrats are conservatives...

They are reactionary if that's what you mean.

----

Clansman

Compared to Maastricht this constitution transfers hardly any new powers to Brussels at all.

I think most people thought that the EU would be a strictly economical union when they voted for entrance in 95. That's why these questions are triggering such negative reactions now, even though a political union(to an extent) was included in Maastricht.

[Clansman]

I just noticed that not only does this guy need to get 7000 SD members names on a petition but he also needs to win a straight majority of such members in a vote on the issue as well. How likely is it that over 50% of SD members are up for another referendum on a european issue?

Also

I think most people thought that the EU would be a strictly economical union when they voted for entrance in 95. That's why these questions are triggering such negative reactions now, even though a political union(to an extent) was included in Maastricht.

Then why did they vote against the Euro, as that is all about economic union. Secondly how do they think turning down the EU con is going to serve the Swedish national interest in the EU. Sweden is a part of the EU now for good or ill, you voted to join and I have to say your influence on the EU has been pretty considerable (Freedom of information, environment, the budget, etc) considering your size. The EU con does very little and what it does do is entrench the EU as a confederation rather than a federation, and it is the confederal EU that the Swedes want. So why the hell do the Swedes have a beef about the EU con? The services directive I can understand, but the Con is almost entirely procedural matters and a restatement of what has already been agreed to before (and remember you signed up to Maastricht through the referendum you had on joining the union).

[galactus]

Then why did they vote against the Euro, as that is all about economic union.

Out of spite? Swedes are more nationalistic then they want to confess, and I don't think the general population thinks of themselves as Europeans, rather I think they think about themselves as Scandinavians(and the crowns are a Scandinavian monetary union, originally). However, I can only speak for myself, I really dunno why the rest of the population voted no... come to think of it, I was to young to vote at that time;).

My main reason would be that I do not want the power of monetary regulations to be in the hands of anyone else then our own Riksbank, and that even though we currently have a policy of lowering inflation rather then keeping unemployment low, I would want us to be able to change that if we saw that it would be beneficial.

Hrm. I guess you could say that I don't trust the European Union to see to our interests.

Secondly how do they think turning down the EU con is going to serve the Swedish national interest in the EU. Sweden is a part of the EU now for good or ill, you voted to join and I have to say your influence on the EU has been pretty considerable (Freedom of information, environment, the budget, etc) considering your size. The EU con does very little and what it does do is entrench the EU as a confederation rather than a federation, and it is the confederal EU that the Swedes want.

I completely agree. I don't want a referendum on this either. However, I don't want Sweden to be full fledged members of the EU. I think that the EU-hostile forces are trying to use this referendum as a tool against further Swedish EU participation, don't think it would be that effective though.

So why the hell do the Swedes have a beef about the EU con?

Frankly, I don't think the majority cares and that S will have no trouble in hindering a referendum.

The services directive I can understand, but the Con is almost entirely procedural matters and a restatement of what has already been agreed to before (and remember you signed up to Maastricht through the referendum you had on joining the union).

Jupp, but Maastricht was never fully discussed in the public(as I recall). I had no idea about it's implications before I read it myself. I think quite a large part of the population will look at you queerly if you mention it, even tough it was a big change for the EG(EU).

The EU has never had any overwhelming support in Sweden, we entered the union with only 52% being pro-EU. If that vote had been taken today, I don't think we would have joined, however if a vote would be taken today on leaving the EU, I don't think we would leave either. This puts us in an awkward position, we are sceptic members even though it is against our interest to be sceptic(we are members, we should opt for as much influence as possible).

Hopefully these kinda of questions will be solved in the next election(or whenever the socialdemocrats will step down).

[Schrödinger's Kitty]

They are reactionary if that's what you mean.

Conservative and Reactionary lines often cross.

[Andres]

Personally I'm against the new constitution as it transfers power to the EU parliament. And the parliament that is seemingly always dominated by the conservatives is far too hostile towards the Scandinavian social programs. I wish there would be a referundum here in Finland too.

What new powers? Although there is a new vehicle for common foreign policy and defense, all countries still get veto power, and so if in something they all not agree, then it is not foreign policy of the EU.

Has anybody heard of real criticisms being directed at the EU constitution (that would not apply to the whole EU in general)? I mean most of the problems the referendums are having is people wanting to vote no for the wrong reasons (because they mistrust their current government, or they want to punish them, not voting on the merits of the constitution).

I would like to hear some real arguments against the constitution.

[Adrien]

Just a few in passing:

#A Charter of Rights that is technically useless at it creates no competence and no obligation for the European Union, plus the fact that the right granted by that Charter are quite light,

#A Commission that has much more power than the Parliament, and a Parliament that is anyway way too small and unorganized for a Union of 450+ million of inhabitants,

#The fact that a Constitution, a document supposedly made to coordinate political powers and institutional mechanisms, bears a cohercitive economic part that forces countries to adopt and apply a savage form of economic liberalism,

#The fact that this Constitution will have a legislative and juridical priority over the national rights of the member-states, with possibilities for the EU to sanction countries going against the said economic policies for instance,

And the list goes on, and on.

[Clansman]

#A Charter of Rights that is technically useless at it creates no competence and no obligation for the European Union, plus the fact that the right granted by that Charter are quite light,

And which can be added to, strengthened and amended later. Surely it is better to have A charter of fundamental rights, including among them the rather important ones about right to life and such, than none at all. The incorporation of the UN's charter on humanrights into the EU's and the declaration that they are UNIVERSAL, is hugely historically significant and something the EU should be immensely proud of as it is the first polity to declare that the rights of its citizens are universal for all of humanity.

#A Commission that has much more power than the Parliament,

But is much weaker than the COM, which is made up of nationally elected representatives of the memberstates and so sticks up for the national interests of the memberstates rather than the EU's interests. National parliaments still hold almost absolute power in the EU, Adrien. The COM is almost all powerful, it does not initiate legislation but it does have an absolute perogative over what legislation is passed into EU law. The commission is like an advisor to a king, it can make suggestions but what the king says goes, and the king in the EU is the COM.

and a Parliament that is anyway way too small and unorganized for a Union of 450+ million of inhabitants,

The Parliament is a revising chamber with the power to monitor the commision, nothing more and I for one am happy for it to stay that way as I beleive the COM, the national parliaments, should be in firm control over the EU and not the other way around. The EU con strengthens the hand of the national governments, I would have thought you would welcome that.

#The fact that a Constitution, a document supposedly made to coordinate political powers and institutional mechanisms, bears a cohercitive economic part that forces countries to adopt and apply a savage form of economic liberalism,

I've read the thing almost cover to cover and I just can't see this, could you point it out to me?

#The fact that this Constitution will have a legislative and juridical priority over the national rights of the member-states, with possibilities for the EU to sanction countries going against the said economic policies for instance,

THis has always, always been the case and needs to be the case. What is the point in a club having rules that everyone is completely at liberty to ignore. The EU could not function at all if its law was not primary. Hell even eurosceptic Brits accept this, ( it being one of the reasons why they think the EU cannot be redeemed). Wanting national law and rights to trump EU law and rights is a recipe for the disintegration of the EU, and the loss of everything people have been working for for over two generations.

[Ombrageux]

The EU's so-called 'savage-liberalism' through the dropping of border-controls is no worse than say... the savage-liberalism within the French state.

[Adrien]

And which can be added to, strengthened and amended later. Surely it is better to have A charter of fundamental rights, including among them the rather important ones about right to life and such, than none at all. The incorporation of the UN's charter on humanrights into the EU's and the declaration that they are UNIVERSAL, is hugely historically significant and something the EU should be immensely proud of as it is the first polity to declare that the rights of its citizens are universal for all of humanity.

The problem is much deeper: it is written in the Constitution that "the present Charter does not create any competence or any obligation for the institutions of the present Constitution". So there was a will not to make this Charter too powerful to counter the rest of the Constitution, whose process goes against what is sketched in the Charter of the Part II.

Of course, one could say: "Oh, well, that's another point of the Constitution that is not perfect, but it's better than nothing." To that I answer that precisely, there are too many things, way too many things in this text that are "not perfect", "dodgy", "not too good compromises", and that accepting them in the name of "it's better than nothing" is not the right idea. We are discussing a Constitution, a vital text, which will be, according to its very own creators, in place under this form for fifty to sixty years. Given that we are not against the wall, that we are not in front of a gulf, we can give ourselves the time and need to say no to this poorly designed text in order to get a new one, clearer, cleaner, and which will act like a proper constitution.

It's by accepting bad things with the idea of modifying them later (knowing that the modification process is utterly disastrous) that will then create discontent, crisis and contestation.

National parliaments still hold almost absolute power in the EU, Adrien.

Not with this Constitution, I refer you to Article I-6 and all those who say that countries who pass laws working against the 'Objectives' of the Constitution will get sanctions, and will see their laws be considered unconstitutional and cancelled no matter what they say (if you need them I have the references somewhere).

The commission is like an advisor to a king, it can make suggestions but what the king says goes, and the king in the EU is the COM.

The Commission is the government of the Union with all the competences and fields over which it has a total power and control, and the problem is that this government is parachuted from the obscure spheres of power and not subjected to the Parliament, which is at best consulted. The Commission has the priority in every field, and is the only one to propose laws.

If we want to make the European Union legitimate and democratic, we must build it like a national institution: two chambers, a government coming from the chambers and responsible before them, and a power that lie in the chambers' hands.

I've read the thing almost cover to cover and I just can't see this, could you point it out to me?

From the top of my head I'd say most of these articles are in Part III, but I'll get you the references, I've noted them down somewhere too.

THis has always, always been the case and needs to be the case. What is the point in a club having rules that everyone is completely at liberty to ignore.

Of course, in essence, such a principle is in essence normal. And I wouldn't oppose it if we were in the situation of a simply institutional Constitution. The problem is that this text also enforces social and economic dispositions, and not just any social or economic dispositions...

EDIT:

The EU's so-called 'savage-liberalism' through the dropping of border-controls is no worse than say... the savage-liberalism within the French state.

Oh please for God's sake stop with that stupid argument. You know just like every one of us that free trade at the scale of a continent or at the scale of the world has nothing to do with what happens to be one coherent economic space within one nation-state. And a fortiori when the social and tax standards differ from one country to another.

[Ombrageux]

Not with this Constitution, I refer you to Article I-6 and all those who say that countries who pass laws working against the 'Objectives' of the Constitution will get sanctions, and will see their laws be considered unconstitutional and cancelled no matter what they say (if you need them I have the references somewhere).

Number 1: any objectives have been agreed to by all member states
Number 2: these objectives cannot be changed except if all states agree
Number 3: if you don't like the EU a country can leave unilaterally within 2 years of declaring its intention of leaving

What more do you want?

The Commission is the government of the Union with all the competences and fields over which it has a total power and control, and the problem is that this government is parachuted from the obscure spheres of power and not subjected to the Parliament, which is at best consulted. The Commission has the priority in every field, and is the only one to propose laws.

The Commission like all national unelected bureaucracies executes EU policies (actually that's an overstatement as it's mostly national bureaucracies who do it).

Proposal of laws means nothing if they are not approved by the democratically elected CoM. Secondly, it's no secret that the CoM (being composed of national govs appoints most of the Commission) has plenty of informal and formal influence in the Commission.

The EU is dominated by the CoM, not parliament (sadly) and not the Commission. To say otherwise is, with no exageration, ignorance.

Oh please for God's sake stop with that stupid argument. You know just like every one of us that free trade at the scale of a continent or at the scale of the world has nothing to do with what happens to be one coherent economic space within one nation-state.

You are so interwar-period Adrien.

Even before WW1 there was a true world economy. That's why the West prospered. The time for small stagnating autarkic national economies is over. You want autarkic nations with so-called 'coherent economic space', then you will end up like Albania or North Korea. They have/had autarky and because of it, they failed miserably.

As a consumer, I see no reason why the government should discriminate against German/British/Polish goods and force me to buy overpriced French goods. Economic nationalism died first with Hitler and Mussolini, again with the dismantling of the European empires and one last time with the economic failure of social democracy.

And you want to try again?