The media in Sweden is infiltrated by kommunists, and in the knee of the sitting government, they gave this immoral party a mediapush so that the dissatefied voters in this country could burn their votes on them, instead of the "Sverigedemokraterna" who they think is the real threat..

Sverigedemokraterna is against the mass-immigration this country suffers from, and want Sweden to leave the EU.....The only party in Sweden having such an agenda..

The media in Sweden is infiltrated by kommunists, and in the knee of the sitting government, they gave this immoral party a mediapush so that the dissatefied voters in this country could burn their votes on them, instead of the "Sverigedemokraterna" who they think is the real threat..

Sverigedemokraterna is against the mass-immigration this country suffers from, and want Sweden to leave the EU.....The only party in Sweden having such an agenda..

cst50 Jun 9, 2009 - 9:59 AM

"With the economic crisis more entrenched in the EU than here by most measurements"

Where do you guys get this from?

It is in fact the Anglo-US economy most hit by the recent economic problems as it was 'liberal market economics' with it's mania for deregulation and cutting 'red tape' that had the financial sector go crazy.

Continental EU Europe by contrast never did go in for any of that.

You'll also find that even by continental EU European standards Sweden's economy is very different.

"the far right and other fringe groups did the best".

I would hardly describe Merkel in Germany, Sarkozy in France, Berlusconi in Italy, Tusk in Poland as the fringe or far right.
They are examples of the current ruling party doing very well in these elections.
Merkel and Sarkozy won by taking more radical social democratic action such as nationalising the banks, with higher social protection for the unemployed and more state intervention, squeezing parties on their left by turning leftwards. Sarko in fact railed against the "dictatorship of the market".

"Keep in mind history and the fact that the Fascists came to power in Germany during a severe economic crisis and low voter turn-out".

Whilst it's true that fringe parties had a few gains it can hardly be described as anything even remotely close to pre-1933 Germany.
There is no parallel whatsoever.

Despite the low turnout, the majority voted (by far) for moderate and 'normal' democratic parties and candidates.

"So, in the minds of many analyses, the copyright issue takes a backseat to the growing fracture of Europe and the radicalization in some parts of Europe".

What analyses?
What "radicalisation of some parts of Europe?

It seems to me that you are trying to shoe-horn this current result to appear as something it is not.

It is not about a general European drift to far right parties.

It has been about a Europe which (as is perfectly natural and normal) takes a firm 2nd place to national affairs.

Despite the confusion some Americans seem to experience with the EU it is nothing 'like' the USA and the federal Gov.

I know it doesn't fit the usual glib and simplistic descriptions but we have genuinely free sovereign nation states picking and choosing when and where to collaborate.
The EU is not 'weak' because 'we' retain our sovereign nation states and neither is it dictatorial if our elected Govs and the nominees of our elected Govs decide to pool our sovereignty.

"It is in fact the Anglo-US economy most hit by the recent economic problems as it was 'liberal market economics' with it's mania for deregulation and cutting 'red tape' that had the financial sector go crazy."

*LAUGHING*

Um, it was the Clinton administration that forced Fannie May and Freddie Mac to offer loans to people who otherwise would never have been able to buy a house. These loans, the majority of which were bad/unpayable, were then used in place of *real* money/good loans and traded off as investments, thus infiltrating the financial sector. Once these loans turned sour and the money behind them dried up, the housing market crashed, the financial backing of the securities dried up, and the blame game began.

It wasn't deregulation. It was good intentions and the inability of those in power to think ahead more than 2 years. Fannie May and Freddie Mac, given the choice, would *never* have made those loans (the reason they were made was to allow people who, under normal circumstances, would *not* be able to get them....a sure sign it was a bad idea to begin with. There was a reason they couldn't get loans...). Financial institutions would never have traded on them, and while we (the US) would have suffered a minor housing crash in the late 90's, it would have been *nothing* compared to what we face now...globally.

I am curious as to what "deregulation" specifically you think caused all of this...

Laugh away tool.

Like a lot of people you're buying into the disinformation and distraction.

The housing market and level of private debt were not the cause of the recent problems.

The real cause were the various interleaved financial 'instruments' the markets (primarily in the UK & USA) totaling an admitted so far almost $700 trillion in losses.
Things like Credit Default Swaps and Collateralized Debt Obligations, in otherwords a load of those clever wheezes the derivatives markets dreamed up.

(It is these very 'financial instruments' and the lack of suitable regulation whoich allowed their spread to dangerous levels that are the root problem.
It was things like the reckless (and criminal?) insanity of allowing accountancy firms to involve themselves far too closely & financially with the very companies and corporations they were supposed to be auditing.
Is this news to you?
What have you been reading?)

You carry on with the delusion if you like, the truth is there for those who wish to see it.

Had sub-prime in the US & an over-heated housing market in the UK been the true extent of our problems we could have easily gotten over them (albeit with a bad headache and a period of lowered growth and activity).

It is in fact the astronomic level of debt the markets saddled us all with that has given rise to the previously never seen before phenomenon of Govs all over the world (where they can) throwing hundreds of billions of $ at the looming catastrophe.

(and I'd advise people not to get too carried away with the thought that the worst is past, several respected commentators are warning of a 'double dip' slump/recession)

......and as I said the derivatives excesses were symptoms largely of the US/UK approach to economics
(something 'we' used to lambast the EU and their not quite as 'free' market style of capitalism the Europeans insisted upon employing and for not copying us).
I guess we don't look so clever now.

*sigh*

"Things like Credit Default Swaps and Collateralized Debt Obligations,"

...are the very "tricks" that the financial institutions came up with to try and turn those bad securities (traded mortgages) into "good money" (...at least on the books). That's the reason they exist; in a futile attempt to make all that debt (non-backed, non-guaranteed, but bought and paid-for mortgage securities) look like "good money".

The financial institutions treated these like they were real money, and traded them at nearly full value. Once things began to fall apart, they created these new methods of trying to hide that tremendous debt. I don't think you realize the full amount of "money" these bad mortgages represented. (We're way over 4 trillion...and we're not even close to done counting yet...and that's the cost to recover them, not the actual traded, often inflated value given them in the financial markets.)

Point being: The root cause was an attempt to stop a coming housing crash. It was aggravated *severely* by the way the financial institutions handled them and the tremendous debt they generated i the process. Of course, F&F had to sell them, and the financial institutions had to buy them or the "fix" would never have "worked"....again, piss-poor prior planning.

Er tool,
I don't need a lesson on the rationalisation behind these deals thanks.

Actually you undermine your own initial point.

Housing is (as you have just said) responsible for around $4 trillion of the bad debt.

The deriviatives markets are admitting losses of (so far) almost $700 trillion.

Housing was not the problem, merely the spark that lit up the Emperor in his new clothes.

I tend to agree with Paul but national interests in Europe have always been a problem in trying to form a more unified approach to issues. With the economic crisis more entrenched in the EU than here by most measurements and add low voter turn-out (43-44%), this not only fuels increasing asserting of National versus European interests but also opens the door to fringe groups to make more headway.
Even in copyright issues, which I would think everyone would agree needs to be revised; one sees this growing tension of National versus European-wide cooperation.
In a time of economic crisis and low voter turn-out, the far right and other fringe groups did the best.
In England, the problems that Brown and the Labor party are having just add fuel to the fire.

I would also add that the expansion of EU and NATO into Eastern bloc countries has also added to the problem. Keep in mind history and the fact that the Fascists came to power in Germany during a severe economic crisis and low voter turn-out.
For more information on the election, here is a link to a NYTimes article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2.../09union.html?ref=world

For many of us that had argued for a slowing down of both the U.S. push and European push towards an EU concept, our concern was based on the problem of submerging National interests to the greater good of a more unified Europe and that this would open the door to dangerous groups coming to power. Going back a few years before the meltdown, one began seeing the underlying bias exhibited by some countries coming to the forefront in countries like Germany and France.
So, in the minds of many analyses, the copyright issue takes a backseat to the growing fracture of Europe and the radicalization in some parts of Europe.

These issues also have an impact here and that is why many follow these events very closely.

I'll vote for that XD

The thing to take away is not that some party fired up by hell given to The Pirate Bay has succeeded in infiltrated the Swedish Parliament. The thing to take away is that with the proper grassroots and netroots efforts, AND the proper motivation, a third party can be created and can be successful in elections.

We might be stuck with Republicans and Democrats here in America, but there is nothing to say that we can't have a successful third party at the same time (yes, I know there are 2 independents in the Senate, but the term "independent" refers to not being affiliated with a party). I guarantee that with the proper efforts we could have a "Conservative Party" (or something similarly named) in the deep south while up in New England we could have a "Socialist Party"...or "Progressive Party". Its all about motivation.

they won a seat in the EU parliament, not the Swedish.

thank god we dont have a North American parliament...**** if we dont have enough government already. plus it'd go against our Consitution. man our founders were smart...

If it gets copyright reform actually talked about in the EU I'm all for it.
They can't get anything done on their own, so at this stage it's win-win.
If they become bigger then there is likely to be a problem later down the line.
Telecommunications is a sensitive area in the UK at the moment, what with the Government trying to get ISPs to store ****ing everything you look at online.

What's FAR more concerning is the north of England voting in the fascist BNP who don't allow non-whites in to their party. That's just not cricket.

Paul, I've been meaning to check in on that situation; how many did they pick up? Chilling, just chilling.

As for the Pirate Party, if its representatives will counterbalance some of the crazy we hear coming out of France etc., fantastic. As for the name, it's an attention-getter. Would the Fair Use Party have done as well, even with an identical platform? Alas no.

Excellent point, except they have a seat, and with 7 percent of the vote as a starting point, where do you think it will go from there? Hell, Obama is prez on a platform of "change", and he doesn't have a clue about how the free market economy works. s***, he just sold GM to the Union and everyone with pension money in that company just took it up their arse. They are the people that should get a piece of the company, not the Unions, which are part of the problem........

@Angela: 2 MEPs. Yorkshire/Humber region and North West.
From the results it's apparent that they in fact made no change in the number of votes, but because there was such low voter turn out because everyone's become disolusioned with the big 3 political parties they've made enormous percentage gains.

In happier news, the BNP leader got egged today.

Actually, I think the Fair Use Party might work ... I mean, we could all call it the F. U. Party :)