16th August
Devvy
Donor
Hi all, taking a little break from rail writing, and in to my other favourite area of the Nordics. I wanted to write something about a unified Nordics state, which then narrowed in to Sweden-Finland and taking Norway, and what that could like in the modern day. I should say a big thank you to @von Adler after I stumbled on to his "Different Finnish War" TL during the early research as that gave some great information on bits (as well as some arguments for why our roughly common PoD is legit). Written from the point of view of a Sweden-based news outlet covering the run up to a Finnish independence referendum, so expect inspiration from Finland & Sweden, UK devolution, Scottish Referendum, Canadian federalism, Quebecois Referendum, etc etc!
A range of subjects, something different every "day" (chapter), and eventually the referendum results itself.
---------------------
Nordic Broadcasting Corporation
16th August: Finnish Independence: The Constitutional Question
Given the Finnish referendum in 4 weeks time, the Finnish government wants a clearly written and defined constitution post-independence and it asked the people of Finland what their views were last summer. But what is this constitution all about and why should it be different to the current one? In short, the Finnic Nationals want a new constitution, in contrast to the current Nordic Compact, which will clearly define the rights of citizens, the role of government, and outline what the duties and privileges are of both. This would contrast with the current Compact, which outlines roughly how government operates, but leaves pretty much everything else uncodified and open for the Nordic Parliament to rule on.
The Nordic political system is therefore closer to the smaller group of countries who have no written constitutions - only two other states don't have one: the United Kingdom and New Zealand. Every other country on earth has a written constitution of some sort; in the last 25 years, more than 20 countries have become independent sovereign territories, each passing a constitution to set out the framework. India has the world's longest, containing 117,369 words in its English translation. The Nordic Compact is a balance closer to the British example who have their own cases of "fundamental law" made up from both written and unwritten rules. The Compact was inherited from the former Swedish political system, which was expanded to encompass Norway in the early 1800s, which had resisted becoming annexed by Sweden. The resultant compromise saw the Norwegians retain their separate legal system, later defined to encompass those laws about the person, in contrast to the Swedish legal system which would act supreme in any conflicts. The Compact was the first fundamental law (or treaty depending on the reader) which set out Norway's position within the Swedish, later Nordic, realm. The Compact was later expanded to cover the position of Finland and other territories within Sweden, and would later see many Swedish institutions renamed to Nordic ones, whilst also laying out how the political system would function.
The Nordic Compact is therefore closest thing the Nordic realm has to a written constitution, albeit with no mention of individual rights. Some would say this is a dangerous position; there is nothing holding back political overreach and the abuse of power by the government. Defenders point out that not having a constitution makes the realm extremely flexible in adapting to change and reforming things as needed. They point to the situation in the United States of America, and the inability of elected officials to effect real change even if it was desired in the elected chambers.
So what would a Finnish Constitution actually look like? The Finnish government published proposals for a constitutional convention after the referendum if it so wins, with people from every branch of society, and a fair balance of both of the major groups - both Swedes and Finns. The outline proposals suggest entrenching a swathe of personal rights (ie. freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to travel), as well as a number of other rights around equality of opportunity, public services, healthcare and welfare, education, employment, rights for children and the military. A complete ban on nuclear weapons being based in Finland is also proposed, as is an obligation to work for the transformation of the energy market away from nuclear power. Writing a new constitution might sound rather 19th Century again, but in reality it is a key document outlining what a potential Finnish state would look like in future. The Nordic political system has centuries of Nordic, and previously Swedish, precedent to fall back on for guidance; in looking for a clean break the Finnish state would need a document to guide it's way forward.
------------------
The British Foreign Secretary has also waded in to the Finnish independence debate, saying it's "difficult to see how Europe would be aided by an independent Finland". He was speaking on a morning television show, but his comments were immediately rebuffed by the Finnish Premier who said the comments were "foolish, hypocritical and offensive". The Foreign Minister later clarified "What the Finns do is a matter for the Finns, and I will not tell them how to vote. I merely point out the international situation as a trading partner of the Nordics, that Britain will struggle to see the benefit of an independent Finland."
The Finnish Premier later spoke to media "I think his comments are hypocritical and unjust, given Britains role in the world and historical efforts in spreading the rule of law and establishment of human rights. Europe would be aided by a European nation being allowed to choose it's own destiny, it's own political system by it's own people. It is the very epitome of democracy, to allow people to choose their own future, and not told instructed by a government across the Gulf." However, the Brit is far from the first international official to indicate unease or even opposition to Finnish independence.
A range of subjects, something different every "day" (chapter), and eventually the referendum results itself.
---------------------
Nordic Broadcasting Corporation
16th August: Finnish Independence: The Constitutional Question
Given the Finnish referendum in 4 weeks time, the Finnish government wants a clearly written and defined constitution post-independence and it asked the people of Finland what their views were last summer. But what is this constitution all about and why should it be different to the current one? In short, the Finnic Nationals want a new constitution, in contrast to the current Nordic Compact, which will clearly define the rights of citizens, the role of government, and outline what the duties and privileges are of both. This would contrast with the current Compact, which outlines roughly how government operates, but leaves pretty much everything else uncodified and open for the Nordic Parliament to rule on.
The Nordic political system is therefore closer to the smaller group of countries who have no written constitutions - only two other states don't have one: the United Kingdom and New Zealand. Every other country on earth has a written constitution of some sort; in the last 25 years, more than 20 countries have become independent sovereign territories, each passing a constitution to set out the framework. India has the world's longest, containing 117,369 words in its English translation. The Nordic Compact is a balance closer to the British example who have their own cases of "fundamental law" made up from both written and unwritten rules. The Compact was inherited from the former Swedish political system, which was expanded to encompass Norway in the early 1800s, which had resisted becoming annexed by Sweden. The resultant compromise saw the Norwegians retain their separate legal system, later defined to encompass those laws about the person, in contrast to the Swedish legal system which would act supreme in any conflicts. The Compact was the first fundamental law (or treaty depending on the reader) which set out Norway's position within the Swedish, later Nordic, realm. The Compact was later expanded to cover the position of Finland and other territories within Sweden, and would later see many Swedish institutions renamed to Nordic ones, whilst also laying out how the political system would function.
The Nordic Compact is therefore closest thing the Nordic realm has to a written constitution, albeit with no mention of individual rights. Some would say this is a dangerous position; there is nothing holding back political overreach and the abuse of power by the government. Defenders point out that not having a constitution makes the realm extremely flexible in adapting to change and reforming things as needed. They point to the situation in the United States of America, and the inability of elected officials to effect real change even if it was desired in the elected chambers.
So what would a Finnish Constitution actually look like? The Finnish government published proposals for a constitutional convention after the referendum if it so wins, with people from every branch of society, and a fair balance of both of the major groups - both Swedes and Finns. The outline proposals suggest entrenching a swathe of personal rights (ie. freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to travel), as well as a number of other rights around equality of opportunity, public services, healthcare and welfare, education, employment, rights for children and the military. A complete ban on nuclear weapons being based in Finland is also proposed, as is an obligation to work for the transformation of the energy market away from nuclear power. Writing a new constitution might sound rather 19th Century again, but in reality it is a key document outlining what a potential Finnish state would look like in future. The Nordic political system has centuries of Nordic, and previously Swedish, precedent to fall back on for guidance; in looking for a clean break the Finnish state would need a document to guide it's way forward.
------------------
The British Foreign Secretary has also waded in to the Finnish independence debate, saying it's "difficult to see how Europe would be aided by an independent Finland". He was speaking on a morning television show, but his comments were immediately rebuffed by the Finnish Premier who said the comments were "foolish, hypocritical and offensive". The Foreign Minister later clarified "What the Finns do is a matter for the Finns, and I will not tell them how to vote. I merely point out the international situation as a trading partner of the Nordics, that Britain will struggle to see the benefit of an independent Finland."
The Finnish Premier later spoke to media "I think his comments are hypocritical and unjust, given Britains role in the world and historical efforts in spreading the rule of law and establishment of human rights. Europe would be aided by a European nation being allowed to choose it's own destiny, it's own political system by it's own people. It is the very epitome of democracy, to allow people to choose their own future, and not told instructed by a government across the Gulf." However, the Brit is far from the first international official to indicate unease or even opposition to Finnish independence.
Last edited:
