If I can stop laughing long enough I would like to offer Swedes who read this an apology on behalf of us Belgians for an item of junk mail that likely appeared in their mailboxes this past week disguised as electoral information for the Sverigedemokraterna, the country’s minuscule anti-immigrant party.

Update 2004-06-06: Here is the PDF of the pamphlet.I opened it, of course, eager to see what they thought of a foreigner like myself, only to find a Belgian staring back at me, above the fold of the leaflet, bemoaning “how Sweden’s political leaders are subjecting Swedes to racism and discrimination [by foreigners, apparently].”

What a bizarre thing to say, I thought, and what a bizarre person to be saying it. For what possible reason could he be on that pamphlet? My curiosity irked, I googled his name, Bernard Mengal, suspecting he was some Vlaams Blok party member being loaned out in the cause of pan-European xenophobia.

The truth is a lot weirder. Bernard Mengal is a rich property scion from Brussels and a militant pagan. He actually bankrolled this pamphlet, money which the Sverigedemokraterna accepted without asking too many difficult questions (or doing a google search, apparently) late last year. The only condition: His face had to appear on the publication. This obviously provided an interesting challenge to the pamphlet designers: How does one make the mug of an incongruous Belgian look like a perfectly reasonable thing to put on Swedish nationalist propaganda? (He looks just like that infamous pagan bard Cacofonix, don’t you think?)

Soon enough, it was brought to the party’s attention that they were aligning themselves with a nutcase. One party luminary, Tommy Funebo, quit after making the eminently reasonable point that a party defending solid Swedish Lutheran principles should not find a friend in someone still siding with the Vikings against the Christianization of ScandinaviaHere is Mengal’s historical treatise, The Christian offensive against the Scandinavians, alas only in French.. Seeing Christians as freeloading newcomers in Europe takes xenophobia to a whole new level, though at least you can’t fault Mengal’s impeccable internal logic.

Mengal’s name, not surprisingly, shows up in this antisemitism watch, practically by default:

[Neo-pagan Groups:] … The Association des Successeurs des Ases (ASA), known as the Fils des Ases, for example, has been active since 1992. Based in Brussels this small group which seeks to defend the “Nordic race,” evolved from neo-Nazi groups of the New Right. Recently, publications ascribed to the ASA or to its spokesman, Bernard Mengal, have unmistakably endorsed a shift toward armed combat against the establishment. Mengal was also the initiator of works based on biological racism and an obsessive antisemitism. The main contributor to Mengal’s publications is the Frenchman Pierre Chassard. Together, from June 1998 onwards, they issued the journal Contre-Thèses.

Sverigedemokraterna’s leadership says [PDF] it took a good look at the available evidence, two issues of Contre-Thèses provided by Mangel himself, and that while he may be weird, he is not anti-democratic or anti-semitic. (Funebo, who saw those same issues, came to the exact opposite conclusion.) But the most hilarious defence of their actions is this paragraph:

Even the Vlaams Blok leadership was consulted, and they had never heard of Bernard Mengal and could not give us any more detailed information. From this one can conclude that Bernard Mengal is not a well-known person in Belgian politics, and cannot therefore be a renowned antisemite or extremist.Även ledningen i Vlaams Blok har konsulterats, men de hade knappt hört talas om Bernard Mengal och kunde inte ge oss något mer detaljerat omdöme. Av det kan man dock sluta sig till att Bernard Mengal inte är någon känd person i belgisk politik, och kan därför omöjligt vara en känd antisemit eller extremist.

The inevitable conclusion being that the Sverigedemokraterna think it perfectly reasonable to take money from antisemites or extremists as long that they are not well known. Which, in the end, is what they did.

But the Sverigedemokraterna might now be feeling a bit embarrassed by the whole affair. Mengal’s name is impossible hard to find on their EU election site (except for in the above PDF press release), nor does he feature on the newest version of the pamphlet. Or maybe they just used up all his money.

I’m not going to vote in the EU parliamentary elections on June 13 because I cannot. I found out too late I am supposed to first tell Swedish authorities which Belgian commune I am registered in so that Sweden can warn Belgium in case I am tempted to vote twice. (Isn’t this why we have an EU bureaucracy? To take care of such things?) It hadn’t occured to me that I might want to vote twice, but now that I think about it, it would have made for a good blog post. Of course, I had no idea I am registered in a Belgian commune, nor which commune that might be. That’s because I’m a bad Belgian. Why do people have to belong to nation-states again? Can’t I just be vaguely mid-Atlantic?
 
A concise summary of Sweden’s political parties can be found here.
 
Cheat sheet:
S: ruling social democrat Socialdemokratiska arbetarpartiet
M: conservative Moderata samlingspartiet
FP: liberal Folkpartiet liberalerna
KD: Christian democrat Kristdemokraterna
C: ruralist Centerpartiet
V: left of left Vänsterpartiet
MP: green Miljöpartiet de grönaI’m fascinated by the election posters that are currently knotted to posts and railings around central Stockholm. I’m sure that political parties have surmised this election will not involve much homework on the part of the electorate, and hence that their poster slogans will have to bear the brunt of voter scrutiny. As a result, some of these posters have transcended their traditional branding role and are declaiming specific policy positions. But how have the parties gone about distilling their entire party platform into a couple of pithy sentences? I took my camera on a jog around Stockholm and snapped all the posters. I’ve broken down the parties’ efforts by topic:

Terrorism:

FP: We can only combat terrorism together.

The liberal Folkpartiet (FP) are the only party mentioning terrorism, perhaps the biggest single new issue since the last EU parliamentary elections. That said, cooperation as a means of combating terrorism isn’t exactly a counterintuitive stroke of genius — who could possibly disagree with that statement?

Energy:

FP: Emissions in Europe do not respect borders. Combat the greenhouse effect and continue with nuclear energy.

Last I checked, nuclear fallout is nothing if not an emission. The Danes tend to point that out when discussing the nuclear reactors in Southern Sweden. While Folkpartiet has been in favor of building new reactors to replace aging ones, I think this policy is best pursued at a national level, not a European one, where it stands no chance. And I happen to think it is a bad policy in an age of terrorism.

Trafficking of women:

FP: Human trafficking of women from eastern Europe can only be stopped with more EU cooperation.

S: Stop the trafficking of women

Somebody please tell Folkpartiet that most of Eastern Europe is now in the EU. Unlike the Social democrats’ (S) slogan, however, Folkpartiet actually offers a proposal: EU cooperation.

Why is it this issue that is on campaign posters, instead of an injustice committed in our name that is causing far more suffering — the Common Agricultural Policy? This skewed prioritizing happened because well-intentioned feminists made the fight against the trafficking of women their rallying cry, and now they have to be pandered to. Clever feminists like myself meanwhile realize that CAP is ruining the lives of far more women — it’s just that the victims are farther away. Clearly, both injustices should be addressed, but let’s not pretend that human trafficking of women is the biggest crime against women that EU policy can remedy.

Crime:

FP: Organized crime knows no borders. Create a “European FBI”.

M: “For security against crime and drugs”

M: Right: A better grip on criminals. Wrong: Going soft on violence and drugs.

Ah, the crime and drug issue — always a crowd pleaser. The conservative Moderaterna (M) typically “own” the law and order plank, but it’s Folkpartiet once again that proposes a specific policy. (And what’s with that third poster? I feel like I’m in kindergarten.) As a rule, I am always suspicious of parties running on law and order platforms. It suggests a lack of new ideas. In any case, Sweden’s murder rate (1 per 100,000 inhabitants per year) is already extremely low compared to other European countries and especially compared to its suicide rate (16 per 100,000 inhabitants per year). In comparison to the US (murder: 6/100k/yr, suicide: 14/100k/yr), Sweden has clearly tackled crime, but is lagging on the suicide front. Would it be too much to ask to put the following slogan up: “16 out of 17 violent deaths in Sweden are suicide, not murder. More money for mental health facilities.”? I suppose neither the recently mugged nor suicide victims would vote for that.

Welfare:

S: Welfare is not merchandise/something you bargain over

S: Safe/secure jobs for everyone

For everyone? Like in the USSR? Brilliant! But first, let’s tackle the mysterious epidemic that causes Swedes who already have secure jobs to take long paid sick leave in far larger numbers than in other countries. Then, let’s lower structural unemployment by making it easier to fire people. With the economy in better shape, perhaps we could then afford all this welfare, in part because we’d need less of it. Would the Social democrats have a problem with that?

Globalization:

S: People are more important than the market

M: “A free and open Europe”

MP: The world is greater than the EU. Not the other way round.

MP: Why is it easier for drugs to get into the EU than political refugees?

I don’t understand the Social democrats’ poster. Aren’t markets just people, consumers and producers, making choices? The Modernaterna at least seem to get that. The Greens (MP) make some very good points, though the second poster is perhaps a bit hard to fathom: Are they against drugs coming into Europe, in favor political refugees coming to Europe, or both? Although they don’t make specific policy proposals, Swedes know the Greens favor leaving the EU.

Blatant votemongering:

M: The EU secures the peace

M: You decide what is right for Sweden

M: “Stop the bureaucracy”

The Moderaterna try to cover all bases with this trio. The first is aimed at the older generation, the second at patriots, and the third at everybody else. Just don’t place the anti-bureaucracy poster too close to the anti-crime posters, lest the electorate start wondering how the Moderaterna plan to solve more crimes with less bureaucracy.

Suggestions welcome:

C: An EU with equal conditions for all citizens.

C: Slim, sharp and democratic.

Despite my best efforts, I have no idea what these rural Centerpartiet (C) slogans mean. The first slogan, interpreted blandly, is impossible to disagree with, and aren’t EU citizens already equal before EU law? Perhaps rural areas, where Centerpartiet is strong, will interpret this along city/country lines, and see it as code for supporting farmers against pressures from city folks like myself. As for “Slim, sharp and democratic”: Slim is a meaningful word in the context of the EU, but sharp and democratic? Is anyone in favor of a a dull-witted undemocratic Europe?

I jogged all over Stockholm to snap these posters, but despite my best efforts was unable to find offerings by the Christian democrats or the left-of-left Vänsterpartiet. I suspect they are sitting out this election.

Update 2004-06-02: I found two more posters. They’re pretty self-explanatory.

FP: More bridges – fewer cows. Abolish agricultural subsidies.

V: Stop the EU state. No power to Brussels.

The British and Irish are censoring this film on account of the nipple. Ranting about their prudishness is something the Brits and Hibernians excel at all by themselves, which lessens the incentive for the rest of us, so I will refrain from doing so in this post.The opening montage of an EU-sponsored film advertisement encouraging voter participation in the upcoming European elections depicts an infant trying to decide whether to suckle from the mother’s left breast or right breast. The message: “You’ve been voting since you were born: don’t stop now – European parliament elections, 10th of June.”

If I understand the metaphor correctly, we the European electorate are a helpless hungry infant. The EU is a plentiful bosom. Election day is feeding time. We’re allowed to choose between a lunge to the left or a lurch the right. Either way, the result is the exact same pap.

Shouldn’t the advertising geniuses behind such campaigns run their work by even just some mild cynics? Are these admirably high levels of truth in advertising really a good idea for get-out-the-vote campaigns?

What really matters in this EU election — nay, the only issue worth casting one’s vote for — is how and when we get that evil monstrosity of a Common Agricultural Policy to stop monopolizing an entire teat. It should be shot with a silver bullet and impaled with a wooden spike and forever be prevented from sucking the livelihood out of developing countries with whom we pretend to trade fairly.

Almost half of the EU’s total budget is wasted on CAP; this is far more important an issue than bickering about which political philosophy should dictate the allocation of the remainderI’ve ranted about CAP before so I will spare you the details this time round..

Imagine my delight then, when my favorite Swedish politician, the liberal FolkPartiet’s Mauricio RojasI’ve blogged Rojas here., this week published a workable, concrete proposal for eliminating CAP over a three-year period. Unfortunately, it is in Swedish. Fortunately, I speak bad Swedish, and need all the practice I can get, so I have decided to translate into English the nine main points that outline the plan, both as my homework and as my contribution to humanity for today.

1. EU:s gemensamma jordbrukspolitik avskaffas omedelbart i alla dess delar. Full frihandel med jordbruksprodukter införs, tulltariffer och kvotrestriktioner avskaffas, priserna avregleras, direkta producentsubsidier tas bort och alla exportsubsidier upphör.

CAP is abolished immediately in its entirety. Completely free trade in agricultural goods is introduced; tariffs and quotas are eliminated, prices are deregulated, and direct producer- and export subsidies are abolished.

2. Enda undantaget till tullfriheten är de jordbruksprodukter som framställs i eller exporteras från andra länder med hjälp av subsidier. I sådana fall kan EU ta en kompensatorisk tullavgift.

The only exception to this free trade regime is for those agricultural goods produced in or exported from other countries with the help of subsidies. In such cases, the EU can impose compensatory customs tariffs.

3. Under en treårsperiod får jordbrukarna och agroindustrin i de gamla EU-länderna årliga omställningssubsidier motsvarande subsidienivån för 2001-2002.

During a three-year period, farmers and agribusinesses in the old EU are eligible to receive annual transition subsidies commensurate with their level of subsidies during 2001-2002.

4. För de nya EU-länderna omvandlas nuvarande infasningsprogram till ett treårigt omställningsprogram. Subsidierna i detta program ska vara likvärdiga med de i övriga unionen. Utgångspunkten för subsidierna blir de faktiska produktionsnivåerna 2001-2002.

For new EU countries, the current phase-in program is converted into a three-year transition program. Subsidies for this program are made equivalent to those for the rest of the EU. Subsidy levels are set according to 2001-2002 production levels.

5. Jordbrukare som helt och hållet vill lämna jordbruksnäringen får under tre år kompensation för förlorade inkomster.

Farmers who want to stop farming completely are eligible to receive compensation for lost income during a three-year period.

6. Ett skuldsaneringsprogram inrättas för att med offentligt finansierade medel kunna hantera de eventuella skuldproblem som en förväntad värdeminskning på mark och fastigheter kan ge upphov till.

A debt-restructuring (relief?) program is established using public finances to handle eventual debt problems that an expected reduction in the value of farmland and real estate may cause.

7. Tredje världens producenter som eventuellt drabbas av förlorade importpreferenser kompenseras fullt ut under en period av tre år.

Producers from developing countries who are affected by lost import preferences are compensated in full for a period of three years.

8. En tillfällig omställnings-, kompensations- och skuldsaneringsfond inrättas på EU-nivå för att hantera eventuella krav på kompensation och omställningsstöd enligt punkterna ovan. Fonden ska huvudsakligen finansieras med EU-medel motsvarande GJP:s nuvarande kostnader.

A temporary transition-, compensation- and debt-restructuring (relief?) fund is established to handle the need for compensation and transition support as outlined in the preceding points. This fund will primarily be financed with EU monies corresponding to the CAPs current cost.

9. Jordbruksrelaterade forskningsinsatser, utbildning och annan service samt allt stöd till jordbrukarna relaterat till mark- och landskapsvård blir en nationellt beslutad och finansierad angelägenhet.

Agriculture-oriented research, education and other services, as well as all subsidies to farmers for farm- and land management, are decided and financed at the national level, France and Poland are you listening?

Well, maybe Rojas didn’t quite put the last point that way.

Is there a role for civil disobedience in a democracy? Tough question, especially when you have to answer in Swedish. In short, I think there is. Most improvements to functioning democracies have come to us via civil disobedience campaigns: universal suffrage, civil rights, the end of apartheid…
 
That said, the difference between civil disobedience and criminality is that the former has to have a moral aim and use non-violent means. And that’s hard to pull off, actually.Så många fel förra gången! Jag är förvånad att ni förstådd vad jag ville säger. Men den här veckan kan jag mycket bättre svenska så det kommer at bli mycket lättare för oss alla.

Vad viktiga frågor vi har denna gång på fredagsfyran… Det är inte så lätt vara ironisk omkring sån filosofisk debatt.

Behövs civil olydnad/utomparlamentariska aktioner som ett komplement till demokratin? Vet du några exempel på “bra” aktioner?

Egentligen, ja. De flesta förbättringar i våra demokratier kom efter en fas av civil olydnad: rösträtt för kvinnor, rösträtt för svarta (i USA), oberoende för Indien, motstånd till apartheid i Sydafrika…

Problemet är hur vi ska skilja mellan civil olydnad och ren kriminalitet. Civil olydnad bör ha en moralisk bas, och bör vara ovåldsam (? Non-violent). Det är fortfarande möjligt att jag inte kommer överens med idéer, till exempel de av anti-globalister (som inte förstår att de kämpar för fattighet i tredje världen) men om de protesterar fredligt — avspärrar en G7 möte genom att sitta på vägen, till exempel — är det helt okej med mig. Vad jag håller inte med, självklart, är “reclaim the streets”-stil vandalismen som vi hade på Stureplan förre år.

Är vandalism mot privat egendom våld? Javisst, det är ekonomisk våld mot människor. Även om du anser att egendom är orättvis, kan du inte förneka att förstöra saker skadar människor. Personligen anser jag att egendom är en social tankeskapelse, men vilket är ett nödvändigt begrepp till en stabil modern civilisation.

Är vandalismen mot reklamer civil olydnad? Nej, det är bara intolerant. Reklam är också en form av yttrandefrihet. Om du håller inte med, får du protestera, eller köpa ditt eget reklam.

Vid vilket (om något) tillfälle skulle du själv kunna tänkas delta i en dylik aktion?

Mot officiella diskriminering mot invandrare, mot länkar mellan staten och kyrka, mot protektionism.

Har du själv varit civilt olydig?

Nej, bara kriminell. Det är svårt att vara civilt olydig.

The Swedish alcohol monopoly system is once again the topic of debate, this time precipitated by the news that hard liquor is being sold in Germany in bag-in-a-boxes (like they do with cheap wine). Should these be allowed to be sold in Sweden, as they would defeat the policy of making alcohol too expensive to get drunk on? Of course, EU trade rules should make that question moot.
 
Frågor kommer från här.1. Bör Systembolaget finnas kvar?

Javisst bör det. Att dricka för mycket alkohol inte är hälsosamt. Röker för mycket inte ännu är hälsosamt, så därför tycker jag att vi bör också har ett systembolag för tobak och snuss, som är öppet bara måndags tills fredags, 9-17. Inga cigaretter bör säljas på helger! Att äta för mycket också är jätte daligt för hälsan, men mat är nu så billig och det köps så mycket, och vi har så många feta människor på gator, att jag skulle gärna se ett systembolag för mataffärer och naturligtviss högre skatt på mat. Vi bör fasta på helgen.

Vad jag tycker helt inte om är att det fortfarande finns platsar var man kan äta, röka och dricka samtidigt på helger: Restauranger! Vi bör stänga dem i helger, annars skulle rika människor fortsätta att göra saker som fattige människor har inte råd med.

2. Leder vin- och spritboxar till ökat supande?

Ja. Liten, men det leder framförallt till sämre bakrus. Bättre att ha mindre skatt på sprit så att vi kan ha råd med bättre alkohol och alltså inte är tvungen att vara sjukskriven nästa dag.

3. Vilka konsekvenser (om några) tror du det skulle bli om Systembolaget avskaffades?

Jag tror inte att Svenskar skulle dricka mycket mer, utan bättre alkohol. Men dem bör dricka mer. Just nu dricker dem mycket mindre än EUs genomsnitt.

4. Nämn en riktigt schysst drink?

Hembryggt palinka av Adriana’s bror.

It now seems likely that Sweden will be the only EU member not to have immigration controls [Swedish] in place when 10 new members join the union May 1Yes, May 1, day of international labor solidarity, when workers of the world, er, unite.. This excellent outcome is not due to enlightened government action, however: the Social Democrats and Folkpartiet did not want to budge on their respective versions of restrictions, while the remaining parties were against either proposal. No proposal has a parliamentary majority, so nothing happens.

Prime Minister Persson says he will consider tabling other measures later this summer or fall. Of course, by then, we will see two things happening: 1) There will be no “social tourists” (though the few that do make it will be amply covered by the press); 2) Those immigrants that do come will be a wave of the most-motivated and hardest-working Eastern Europeans there are, and Sweden will have them all to itself. It is a brilliant policy, and nobody can even take credit for it.

The Swedish government on Friday announced it intends to restrict immigration from the new EU member states for at least two yearsThe proposal [PDF] is outlined in English here. Quotes for this post taken from this article.. It held a press conference, available online, which I watched, and didn’t quite follow, but I got the impression reporters’ questions were being incredibly softball. Did one guy really ask, “what are you going to do to prevent Eastern European Gypsies from moving here”?

So here is my list of questions I wish somebody had asked at the press conference todayIf somebody did ask them, my apologies.:

ONE: Migration Minister Barbro Holmberg, you say that these immigration restrictions on EU citizens from eastern Europe are temporary, to be lifted in 2 (or 5 or 7) years, in order to make the transition to a common EU labor market more gradual. Can you explain what exactly you expect will change between now and then that will make the challenges you say exist now go away in 2 (or 5 or 7) years? Are you planning on gradually diminishing social security for everyone in the meantime? Are you planning on loosening labor laws in the meantime? Do you need more time to convice the electorate that cheap immigrant labor benefits immigrants as producers and Swedes as consumers? Or are you waiting for Eastern Europe to become rich? Or are you are just postponing politically difficult decisions, even if economically it is clear which is the best policy?

TWO: All other EU countries are intent on applying immigration restrictions on new members. If Sweden were not to do so, it would have the pick of the crop, the best and the brightest, the most motivated and the most mobile of Eastern Europe’s talent all to itself. Why are you forgoing this wonderful opportunity for economic growth? Aren’t these the kind of immigrants you want? Do you want the economy to stagnate?

THREE: Minister Holmberg, earlier you said,

“We welcome workers from the new member states, but we say that when one comes to Sweden to work it must be real work and for a wage one can live off.”Vi välkomnar arbetstagare från de nya medlemsstaterna, men vi säger att när man kommer till Sverige och arbetar så ska det vara till ett riktigt arbete och det ska vara med en lön som går att leva på.

Has it occurred to the government that if immigrants were able to ask competitive wages, perhaps it wouldn’t cost so much to live in Sweden?

FOUR: One effect of your policy would be to protect Swedish jobs vulnerable to cheap immigrant labor, such as those in the construction industry. Given that your restrictions must eventually expire, it is inevitable that immigrants will largely take over these industries the moment they are allowed to compete on price. Are you actively lobbying LO (the umbrella trade union) to spend its considerable resources retraining these at-risk Swedish workers in the meantime, or do you instead expect LO to spend its considerable resources lobbying you to prolong these restrictions for as long as possible?

FIVE: Folkpartiet is expected to come out with a counterproposal soon, and an eventual compromise is not out of the question, DN reports.
 
“I don’t understand how anyone can be against this proposal.” Labor Minister Hans Karlsson, when you said,

Jag förstår inte hur någon kan vara emot det här förslaget.

You were kidding, right?

On Thursday I set out to blog a panel discussion at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs on a topic dear to my heart: “Is integration still possible?“. It was sponsored by The Economist, and one of their writers, Joel Budd, was on the panel. The government’s representative was Lise Bergh, the number two in charge of “democracy an integration issues” under minister Mona Sahlin. A further two panelists were late replacements: Mahin Alipour, an immigrant from Iran, a left-leaning (even for Sweden) activist for women’s rights; and Mauricio Rojas, once a far-left political refugee from Chile in 1973, now a professor in economic history at Lund University and a solidly liberal member of parliament, in league with the FolkPartiet.

What, if anything, new did I take away from the proceedings? By far the strongest impression made on me was by RojasIn researching Rojas I came across this interesting read: A paper by him entitled The Historical Roots of the Swedish Socialist Experiment [PDF]. Definitely worth it if you have a spare 20 minutes — it answers, to a large extent, some questions I posed here.. I had quite simply no idea that there are in fact Swedish politicians who can be strident and articulate and even combative in a debate, and it was an absolute pleasure to watch. It helps that he was stating basic economic truths, some of which I’ve harped on before: If immigrants in Sweden are not allowed to compete on price, they are not going to find official employment. As a result, the unemployment rate for immigrants is far higher than that for native Swedes, which produces an underclass of immigrants excluded from formal participation in the economy. These immigrants do work, of course, on the black market; but they also become long-term recipients of social allowances, which irritates native Swedes. According to Rojas, we have racism through exclusion, but with this exclusion being a direct result of political choices made by the government.

Joel Budd added, for good measure, that it would be a “foolish source of national pride that everybody who is working legally is making a lot of money.” Budd also underlined some other observations made recently in The Economist and elsewhere: In ethnically diverse societies, people stop supporting welfare, because one is less inclined to give neighbors social security if they are from a different backgroundThis is not a reason to stop welfare preëmptively, of course. That would be committing a naturalistic fallacy. Nor should it be a reason to stop immigration.. And welfare states don’t just have a hard time adapting to immigration, they have a hard time adapting to all kinds of social, economic and technological change.

By the time they were done, the question being debated was no longer “Is integration still possible?” but “Is the welfare state still possible?” Is cultural homogeneity a precondition for the welfare state? Will Sweden have to choose between immigration and a generous safety net? Bergh looked somewhat taken aback at the notion there might have to be a choice; she could have answered — or at least, I would have answered — that crucial elements of the welfare state could be salvaged if only Sweden were to make wages more flexible and loosen labor laws. A vibrant job-creating economy would depend less on welfare to help citizens and recent immigrants get by; welfare would become just a means to a more useful placement in the job market, and hence would take up fewer resources.

But she didn’t say this. If I heard her correctly, she actually said that wage flexibility was not necessary, and that other resources (which ones?) would be put to work to prevent this choice — immigration or welfare — from becoming pressing. She could also have told Rojas that Sweden’s liberals were looking a bit too gleeful at the prospect of this choice, given their objective to dismantle welfareAren’t there better reasons to dismantle the welfare state?; could Sweden not perhaps buck the trend where immigration leads to less social solidarity, and hence a diminishing of support for welfare? The country is among the most welcoming of any immigrant nation, together with the US and UK, and especially when compared with Denmark, the Netherlands and France. Tension surrounding immigrants in Belgium stems from prejudices that were in place in the native population from the very first day that gastarbeiders arrived in the 60s. This does not strike me as having been the case in Sweden; Sweden began its immigrant experience with a positive attitude, and as a result many have thrived, integrated, and given back to the community that took them in — look at Rojas. Also to Sweden’s credit, there is no anti-immigrant Vlaams Blok here — there simply is no popular support for it.

One question which did not come up in the discussion was restrictions to access to welfare for immigrants from the new EU countries. I asked Rojas about it after the debate, and his answer was a little curious: He thought that while of course it was an important political matter, in the long run the issue was not so important, and in any case, on Friday the government would submit its proposal for dealing with this so we should wait and see. It sounded a little like there was some kind of compromise in the air.