EU Referendum

Showing posts with label Sweden. Show all posts

Iceland2[i-Iceland2]I don't mean Yorkshire. I leave that county to the Boss. Further north, where the Vikings dwell to this day.

It seems that the Icelanders are determined to prove their political masters wrong. For some reason they seem very reluctant to accept their destiny in the European Union. Could it be because they can see what happens to those who have accepted it? Surely not.

EU News from Iceland tells us that opinion about EU membership is becoming more and more negative. A new poll was produced by Capacent Gallup for the Federation of Icelandic Industries, whose leadership, naturally enough, favours membership. What is it with leaderships of trade organizations? OK, maybe I do know the answer.

However, the results are not such as to gladden the heart of the average industrial leader.

According to the poll 43.2 percent of Icelanders are unhappy with the EU application the Icelandic government delivered in July after it was being accepted narrowly by the Althing, the Icelandic parliament. 39.6 percent are happy with the application.

More than half of Icelanders, or 50.2 percent, are opposed to joining the EU while 32.7 percent favour the step. In another poll by Capacent Gallup published in August where the same question was asked 48.5 percent were against EU membership and 34.7 percent were in favour.

Finally 61.5 percent said they would vote against EU membership if a referendum was held now, 38.5 percent said they would vote in favour. Of those 38.6 percent said they would definitely vote against but only 16.1% said they would definitely vote in favour.

It looks a little as if we shall not have the Icelanders joining us in our insane attempt to destroy all the fish in the Atlantic.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the political spectrum and a little closer to home, geographically speaking, the Swedish Secretary of State for European Affairs, Maria Asenius, told EurActiv something many of us have known all along: the Lisbon Treaty is important but not that important to the EU. (Here is the link but for some reason the article appeared only on the German version of EurActiv.)

It is, however, easy enough to work out what she is saying: the EU can function quite well without that treaty (there seems to be some worry about it being ratified in the few countries left and that does not include Britain) and can, should it wish to do so, continue with its amoeba-like endless enlargement.

Open Europe's blog has a little more on the subject. One wonders how they can square these blatant pronouncements with their own notion that all will be well if the EU simply followed their ideas on reform.

COMMENT THREAD

alg_speech[i-alg_speech]
I think I ought to clarify a couple of points in my previous posting on Britain, Durban II and other countries.

In the first place, we ought to give credit where it is due. Canada did not simply join other countries in boycotting this farcical hate-fest - she led the way, as we wrote back in January 2008. Apologies to all our Canadian readers who felt their country was under-appreciated.

Secondly, it was unwise of me to rely completely on Charles Johnson's postings, especially about Sweden. Being in a hurry is no excuse for not following up a story. However, one of our readers explained the situation and, gratefully, I am posting his comment directly:

Charles Johnson is wrong, as he so often is when it concerns Sweden. This time, though, one may forgive him. The press release and the statement by our Integration Minister Nyanko Sabuni (liberal) was somewhat misleading. Maybe one could forgive her too.

Apparently there has been a rift within our government wrt to the question of participation in the Durban II meeting. (Not that we would know that from our newspapers or from the bloggers either. However, reading between the lines of her statement and the statements put out by our Dept of Foreign Affairs, it is quite evident that feathers have been ruffled.)

It is true that no Swedish minister will be present, but just as Britain is sending a delegation of top diplomats so is Sweden. Obviously our "tranzient" FM Carl Bildt was keen for Sweden to take part. However, the Liberal party was against it, and since Mr Bildt couldn't attend himself (three party meetings in Prague (the French, Czechs and the Swedes) and then onto Cyprus ... one wonders about those carbon footprints!) in the end he must have agreed on a compromise. Or as he writes on his blog today: "It will be necessary to carefully follow what happens at the follow-up meeting to the Durban conference ... and to keep close contact with the other EU countries regarding how to act. It will be difficult to calibrate our presence."

Anyway, Bildt has probably lost. President Ahmedinjahd just did what every sane person knew he would do, and most western diplomats including the Swedish delegation left the conference hall.

I shall write later on about the fun and games in Geneva. Because I was in the BBC Russian Service studio I actually saw the footage of the delegates walking out. Very entertaining it was, too.

COMMENT THREAD

Carl+Bildt[i-Carl+Bildt]I don’t mean literally interpret, since one of our kind readers has already done so but the meaning of what the egregious Carl Bildt said would be quite useful.

The egregious Mr Bildt is the Swedish Foreign Minister, described by our reader as the flying foreign minister. We all accept that foreign ministers in this day and age have to do a certain amount of travelling (though why we continue to keep excessively large diplomatic corps as well is beyond my understanding) but Carl Bildt has surpassed most of them.

The trouble is that he also sees himself as a transnational statesman and feels the need to pop up in various places where the international media might be in search of a story. What, I ask myself, of his carbon footprint?

His latest trip was not very far from his home, merely to Oslo to the meeting of the Nordic Council – a delightful idea and one rather wishes it had more power than it, presumably, does.

On the way in to the House of Literature, where the Council was meeting, Mr Bildt was accosted by the people as represented by demonstrators, who demanded that Sweden have a referendum on the Constitutional Referendum Lisbon Treaty. There is a sequence of pictures of Mr Bildt’s trip here.

The second one shows him arguing with some demonstrators and, according to this account [in Swedish], translated by our reader, the exchange went something like this:

The demonstrators shouted some of what is on their posters and demanded to know why Swedes cannot have a vote on the Constitutional Reform Lisbon Treaty. (It is events like this that make one realize that certain historical and geographical loyalties cannot be destroyed by the blessed European Union. Not that there are no wars in Scandinavian history. Far from it. Plenty of wars and plenty of conquests but also a great deal of fellow-feeling.)

Mr Bildt turned round, as the picture shows quite clearly, and said: “Why don't you enter the EU, then you will see if you yourselves will get to vote on the treaty.”

Mr Bildt refers to the episode on his blog with a link to the article but no mention of being misquoted or taken out of context. He clearly agrees with the account. Whatever could he have meant by those words?

COMMENT THREAD

modog[i-modog]

sabuni2[i-sabuni2]Thanks to the excellent blog, Booker Rising, I came across this story.

Nyanko Sabuni is Burundi born centre right politician in Sweden and is the Minister for Integration and Gender Equality. She seems to be taking her job very seriously and has launched a fight against honour killings in Sweden. (When is someone going to do that in Britain, I should like to know.)

Her speech on the subject is well worth reading. Here are the crucial paragraphs:

Violence against women is not limited to specific countries and regions, but is a world-wide problem. Nevertheless, violence against women is sometimes rooted in local cultural habits and beliefs, such as the notion that girls and women are the bearer of men's or families' honour. It is sometimes also related to religious doctrines, including doctrines about the position of women in society. And it is often the case that a clash between on the one hand a traditional way of life and on the other hand urbanisation and migration worsens the problem.

This does not, however, mean that culture or religion is responsible for the violence. The perpetrator is always responsible. Cultural mores and religious teachings can be interpreted and applied in different ways.

All forms of violence against girls and women, including violence in the name of honor, constitute criminal offences. States have an obligation to exercise due diligence to prevent and to investigate such crimes, and to ensure that the perpetrators do not enjoy impunity. States also have an obligation to provide protection for the victims. Not doing so is a violation of human rights.

All people regardless of sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, disability or cultural and religious traditions are of equal value, and must be able to enjoy human rights. All people should have equal opportunities in all areas of society.

When girls and women live in the fear of violence, are restricted from setting the standards of their own lives and prevented from developing into free and independent adults, it is impossible for them to fully enjoy human rights.

As it happens, the UN at whose event she made the speech, is unlikely to do anything much about the problem, being far more concerned with lambasting the United States and Israel.

She is a courageous lady. The Muslim "community" or, to be quite precise, its self-appointed spokesmen, have already gone into an attack, accusing her of racism and, no doubt, Islamophobia. Whenever people say that one wonders whether they are listening to themselves. If you oppose a campaign against honour killings because it is racist and anti-Muslim, you are, in effect, admitting that only certain groups indulge in it. Is that really sensible?

Ayyan Hirsi Ali said very similar things and was, for her pains, run out of Netherlands. Even in Washington DC she has to have constant protection. These people have real courage.

link[i-link]And yes, it does involve the Fragrant Commissar, of whom we have not written much in recent months, largely because the wretched woman and her blog are so utterly boring.

It seems, however, that the ineffable Margot is thinking of a spot of moonlighting as a Swedish politician. As a Commissar sorry, European Commissioner she is supposed to serve the European Union and leave matters of national politics behind. Indeed, each and every member of the Commission promises to act entirely in the European Union’s interests, notwithstanding previous political and present national allegiances.

Mona+Sahlin[i-Mona+Sahlin]But what’s this? According to “The Local”, Sweden’s news in English, the new leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, speaking for a whole hour on Sunday morning has announced, among other matters,

that she would create a working group to develop the party's foreign and EU policies before the European election in 2009 and the next Swedish election in 2010. EU commissioner Margot Wallström and former foreign minister Jan Eliasson would be on the committee.

She then welcomed Margot Wallstöm back into Swedish politics. Unfortunately, the Fragrant Commissar is not back in Swedish politics. She is still a Commissar and, as such, should not be getting involved in national party politics.

When asked about this, the Fragrant Commissar replied [translation provided by one of our readers and we are very grateful]:

Yes, it is [says Wallström]. But I cannot take on a formal position and sit on a board. But everyone in the Commission is politically active and I think that only enriches our work. This is not a full time task, Margot Wallström points out, and in a response to a question she answers that of course she will inform the Commission about her new task.

I will continue to perform my work as Commissioner with full impartiality she ensured the questioner.

Well, well, so everyone in the Commission is politically active? That would be active in national party politics, I take it. This is not what we are told when questions are asked about the clash between the role of the Commissioner and the oath of the Privy Councillor.

Some things will seem very familiar to la Wallström is going. Mona Sahlin spoke of the lost election of 2005.

She went on to promise a renewal of the party's organisation and leadership:

"We will listen. We will find new ways to communicate," she told the audience.

There is one thing that Ms Sahlin might not be too anxious to communicate and that is the Swedish trade unions going over the heads of the elected Swedish government to the European Commission and the ECJ to prevent the implementation of unemployment benefit reform that had been part of the platform on which it was elected.

COMMENT THREAD