”the constitutional all-time low in Sweden's modern history,” as Olof Petersson translated from the German social democratic initiative to amend the government's budget in the fall of 2013. It is a strong word. There is a need to remind you of what the parliament decided in its reform in the 90's.
the Riksdagsutredningen in 1993, a change in the process for budgetary decisions, there are four options on the table.
(advanced by, among others, Birgitta Hambraeus (C)).
in the parliament (which was recommended by mr Daniel Tarschys (FP))
with a framework, followed by detailed decisions about individual grants (a model developed by the office of the minister, with the inspiration of the signed report of the national Debt, and budget process)
for , that is to say, it must be accepted or rejected in its entirety (which was recommended by Carl B Hamilton (FP)).
these are the 3 that won in the parliamentary connection. Option 4, which is a system that is to be applied, for example, in the united kingdom, were considered but were rejected as too far-reaching.
This option was considered and rejected. The riksdag act also allows for the post-reform changes in the budget, provided that, with respect to the overall objective, the balance is not impaired.
It should be borne in mind that parliament has made an amendment to the budget in the fall of 2010, and lowered the förvaltningsanslaget to the Government. This was, of course, the irritation of the regeringssidan but for some reason you have not received the same amount of space in the debate.
this is What the discussion was in the autumn of 2013, even if the changes on the revenue side of the budget, shall be permitted, provided that they increase the account balance. This is the giant of the budgetregelverket, unlike most of the changes on the expenditure side. One of the arguments for it are that the regulatory framework should be neutral and do not contain any concealed fiscal policy – an approach which, incidentally, is also a lawyer, Fredrik Sterzel, joined in the debate. If it is allowed to reduce the expenditure, however, is not to raise revenue, will the regulations have an unintended bias towards a decrease in government spending.
What we have now is something completely different. Outside of the annual budget cycle to take a temporary political majority, an initiative designed to change both the expenditure and the revenue side of the budget. This requires, first, a beredningskompetens, which is not available in the diet. Nothing guarantees that the riksdag should in the future hold on to the actual investment, if the initiative is allowed.
what is Worse is that this initiative is a clear breach of the regulations. The government may, subject to the act, the parliament act (chapter 9 of the. Section 6) to propose changes to the approved budget by not more than two occasions during the year, which naturally takes place in the spring and höstpropositionen. Only in exceptional circumstances – as in the normalspråk ”means " almost never” provides that the government shall not depart from this general rule. It is then contradictory to that of the parliament itself, use something like the one in the act, the parliament act has been outlawed. Is that a temporary majority, in addition, on totally different grounds, makes a different assessment of particular spending needs but the government does not have a specific reason, in the legal sense of the word.
Link to a graphic