The governmental and other characters pushing for a legal change to allow for the bridge closure have lost out on that idea and removed it from the table (for now) because they don't want to torpedo the rest of the stuff with which it was to be bundled. A victory, for now at least, but don't be surprised if this pops its ugly head back again. It will be interesting to see what this will mean for the tunnel proposal between Helsingor and Helsingborg.
The Oresundsbro/bridge is critical infrastructure to the economic growth prospects of the region, and yet some characters wanted (and want) to cut off their own nose to spite their own face by pushing for additional governmental bridge closure authority that would just increase uncertainty in the region.
Originally Posted by
nacho
I don't know about asylum centres but I found Swedish dagis/schools are very sensitive about what they serve for lunch. There is always a vegetarian option daily (unless the meal is vegetarian already), of course no pork is ever on the menu, beef is like once in a while. I have no idea if the meat they serve is halal or not.
Schools and daycares in Malmo and elsewhere in Skane do buy and serve pork. They certainly pay for it.
So of course some of the meat they serve is neither kosher nor halal; even as some is. They do provide substitute meals, if needed, for medical or religious needs purposes.
Originally Posted by nacho
It doesn't matter how long you have to hang on with bread, but if you step out from that centre you are breaking the law because they don't have a valid visa to enter Sweden - they should never do something illegal. What makes the matter worse is that the police is not doing anything about it - they watched them walk out.
Let me guess: the above claim about what is legal and not in Sweden is not based on knowing the laws applicable to the Swedish government when it comes to refugees. It's illegal for Sweden to make it illegal for refugees' presence to be considered illegal in Sweden when the refugee has a bonafide claim to be a refugee. First Sweden would have to prove that the refugee claimant is not a bonafide refugee; and then the government would have to prosecute and convict for a legal determination of illegality. So they generally need no visa to be in Sweden. It's easier for the Swedish government to render illegal a 100-day-staying, visa-less American visitor (without dual citizenship or EU/EEA mobility rights) for not having a visa than it is for the government to render illegal a 100-day-staying, visa-less Syrian whose domiciled residence was Syria. Swedish legal practices for detention, arrest and criminal prosecution, juries, and convictions are rather different than what goes on in places with different legal traditions. Police and prosecutorial discretion is still part of the picture.
Whether or not governments follow their own laws, let's just say I've seen some very creative legal work done by government lawyers and outside legal advisors in various countries when there is a supposed security angle in play.