[ad_1]
Published:
Updated:
Lena Hallengren is pathetic when she blames the opposition for the law that gave the government the right to close shopping malls and prevent trains from ever being used.
The truth is on YouTube.
The idea that Sweden’s constitutions ended the introduction of draconian regulations similar to what we’ve seen in a Europe ravaged by a pandemic has taken hold in many people.
Earlier this week, I quietly recalled that this spring the Riksdag introduced sections that were valid for three months, giving the government a chance to limit crowds and extinguish everything from restaurants and shops to ports and buses.
An amendment to the Communicable Diseases Act turned out to be all that was needed, and even the normally strict Legislative Council did not consider the novelty to be in conflict with the Constitution.
Photo: Magnus Sandberg
Minister of Social Affairs Lena Hallengren.
My column led to certain reactions and the next day TT published an interview with Lena Hallengren on the subject.
The Minister of Social Affairs explained, among other things, why the law was never used or renewed. The Riksdag had fought back and demanded that it be allowed to approve government decisions based on the section in retrospect.
-It was a big problem, because then it was a big job that had to be done, he said.
– We wanted a mandate from the Riksdag so that we could make decisions quickly. We did not get that mandate.
Hallengren claimed that the restriction rendered the law ineffective and, as a policy that it is, failed to kick the rival parties in the shin.
– When we obtained the no from the Riksdag and especially from the opposition with the moderates in the lead, we had to use other tools.
Let me wait A moment to examine how the minister’s rhetoric is tested against reality and first return to a hectic few weeks in the spring and winter of 2020.
Sports tourists had taken the virus home with them, and the spread had begun to show in Stockholm and Södermanland.
The government wanted to temporarily extend the legal mandate. Which is perfectly fine. A pandemic is not a game.
But the Riksdag wanted to have a voice on the team. Later, the Parliament would approve the decisions of Rosenbad.
Even that is a reasonable attitude, if not necessary. There must be some control function when the government receives exceptional powers. After all, Sweden is a democracy.
Let’s go then on Youtube and see what the government representative said when the temporary law was presented at a press conference on April 7.
Present were Prime Minister Stefan Löfven, Deputy Prime Minister Isabella Lövin and Hallengren.
Not long ago, it’s been almost eight months, but it seems like another happier time.
Boris Johnson, the UK prime minister, was in intensive care, banning more than 50 people from public gatherings, the week before the club, but speculation about new restrictions was in the nature that secondary schools would “possibly” close. .
In turn, the three ministers attested to the excellent work done on the new law. This was during the time when bourgeois peace still prevailed in crown politics and the politicians on the podium could not praise the opposition enough for the seriousness and sensitivity in the process.
Then it was time for questions. Dagens Nyheter, whose pandemic journalism has not been short of weird elements, distinguished himself by accusing the prime minister of asking why he shook hands with a reporter a month earlier. But most were interested in the next law.
Hallengren presented the text in a clearly satisfied voice. I wonder, showing initiative is a politician’s favorite occupation.
– Together with the parliamentary parties, we were able to further improve this product. I think we completely agree that this has become a good balance between being able to be fast but at the same time having a good foothold in the Riksdag, he replied.
Another reporter stuck to the issue of the Riksdag’s control function.
– We came up with this proposal. It is reasonable handling that has taken place since then, the Prime Minister replied.
– Perhaps we must also add that it is extremely important that we have broad support from political parties because this is an exceptional measure proposed by the government, added Löfvin.
– The members of the Social Affairs Committee are absolutely central. They will continue to be, Hallengren concluded in an exemplary pedagogical account of the interaction between the executive and the legislature.
Apparently a completely different tone than when the Minister of Social Affairs a few days ago complained about the stupid opposition.
In this ambitious The historical revisionism that is happening now also includes S-tagged officials on social media and in contact with reporters telling a story that the work of subsequently anchoring decisions in parliament had become so extensive that the law was virtually impossible to use.
That’s probably not true either. Finding examples of when the so-called subordination mechanism is used is not easy for obvious reasons, but not impossible either.
A similar requirement existed for some time regarding electronic communications law. The provision was used once.
How heavy was the work then? A glance at the 2012 letter suggests that the preparation of the case is covered in one page and the reasons for the change in the arrangement in little more than one page.
The other nine pages are mostly cut out and pasted on what the team is like. A legal marathon probably didn’t run to touch that little bill.
What conclusions are there to throw?
One is that only a representative of a party with such authoritarian reflexes as the Social Democrats can reveal that it is difficult for the Riksdag to have a say about when extreme powers are given to the government.
Another reflection that an editorial writer for a right-wing newspaper is not obliged to make:
Hallengren is dedicated to post-construction construction beyond the ordinary.
Published:
