Following the Riksdag is very convoluted and I can’t figure out what the recent vote means.

​

If you look here on point #6 ( Utvinning av uran)

[https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/arende/betankande/mineralpolitik\_HA01NU13#stepBeslut](https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/arende/betankande/mineralpolitik_HA01NU13#stepBeslut)

​

You see they rejected the motion, but there is a ”reservation”, that seems to allow to uranium mining. But then it seems to be contradicted by the following vote which was overwhelmingly ”yes” :

**Omröstning i sakfrågan**
Utskottets förslag mot reservation 6

​

I can’t figure this out.

9 comments

  3. Also confused by this. The stock of one Canadian company with land rights to uranium projects (District Metals) is absolutely tanking today, but that could be because the positive news was so expected (“buy the rumour, sell the news”)

  4. Before the Swedish parliament votes on whatever propositions and motions that have been filed they are processed in committees called “utskott”, composed of different MPs. When they have been processed the committee presents them to be voted on in parliament – when they do this they also leave a recommendation of whether or not parliament should approve of the proposition/motion.

    In this case (and in the vast majority of motions like these) the committee suggests that parliament reject the proposal. It’s a bit convoluted but the vote in parliament is whether or not to approve the committees recommendation, ie in this case everyone but SD voted yes to *rejecting* a legalisation of uranium mining.

    That’s basically as far as my recollection of constitutional law takes me, I’m happy to be corrected if anyone knows more than I do. Most of motions like these are essentially symbolic afaik, this motion was never filed with the serious intent of actually getting a legalisation through today, but it’s a way of playing politics.

    E: saw that you were wondering what the “reservations” refer to. Since the committees are made up of MPs they obviously have their own party allegiances and policies to adhere to, the reservations in this case are SD MPs who are part of the committee and disagree with the recommendation (they want it to be legalised). As such the vote is essentially the committes recommendation (“utskottets förslag”, I realize now that proposal may be a more accurate translation) vs. the reservation. That’s the gist of it at least, the details might be inaccurate

  5. Ok so what happened is, every single motion got denied, as was suggested by the utskott.

    This means that it won’t get easier (as motioned by SD and M), but it won’t get outright forbidden (as motioned by MP).

    The foreign mining companies stocks are probably tanking because it will continue to take decades to get all the permits needed to actually mine anything.

    Which I personally think is excellent. You only need to look at photo maps to see that our “vast wilderness” in the north is completely hacked to bits already, you’ll struggle to find any larger patch of untouched forest outside the nature reserves. We have more money to earn by ecotourism if we protect the little that’s left.

    And if anyone is ever gonna mine uranium, it sure as fuck shouldn’t be a foreign company. If there’s ever a need for it, that needs to be done by the state mining company.

  7. Så sjukt idiotiskt att vi inte tillåter det pga miljöskäl antar jag? Istället köper vi det säkert från länder med mycket lägre standard i utvinning än vad vi hade haft.

  8. > Did Sweden just vote to legalize uranium mining?”

    No.

    *Näringsutskottet* (translates to The Commitee on Trade, sort of) suggested that the motions should be denied in Riksdagen.

    The chamber voted in accordance with the suggestion.

    It gets mildly complicated when the Vote matter is “should we deny this? Yes/No.”

Leave a Reply