with Per Molander) was a dedicated activist in the debate in the fall of 2013, and reiterates in this context its case. He seems to still ignore the fact that the constitutional counter-argument, which, inter alia, were raised at the public hearing.
I am invoking neither the Riksdagsutredningen or in the budget law. I went back to the Ekonomikommissionen, which is also known as the Lindbeckkommissionen (SOU 1993:16).
Ekonomikommissionen wanted to reform the political system, in order to ”achieve a stable, rules, and institutions” (p. 5).
the minority governments had weakened the executive power: ”the government shall, in accordance with the constitution, be responsible for the management of the empire, but in practice it is often lacking in power to carry out the necessary activities” (p. 44).
Ekonomikommissionen would strengthen the government. ”In order to bring the political system closer to the basic principles, the government’s position is enhanced” (p. 154).
This was particularly true of the decisions of the central government. We have proposed to parliament the establishment of the state budget by means of a single decision, a single packet, and referred to a similar model in France, ”the Government may ask for a paketomröstning, so that it has the choice of either totally accepting or totally rejecting the government’s proposals” (p. 155).
Unfortunately, the Ekonomikommissionens the proposal has not been implemented in full. The rules of the budget process, has its flaws.
Link to a graphic
