Im feeling much more comfortable with Haggan after reading...

Im feeling much more comfortable with Haggan after reading through the legislative notes. Theres much more work to do in Sweden's legislature and I can now see where they are coming from. Like the rest of the world they are trying to transition to a world of green energy and theres no appropriate legislative code to protect minerals required for the good of the EU in the coming decades. They are essentially saying that Uranium plays no part in theie energy security policy, so why keep treating it as a concession mineral. No, instead we should be legislating for the exploitation of green energy minerals.

So I have not altered any wording from these extractions - they are all google translated and poorly at that. However you can get a gist of what was discussed and what some of the points have been.

2017/18: NU13
B ILAGA 1
List of processed proposals
bill
Proposition 2017/18: 212 Prohibition of uranium extraction:
1st
The Riksdag adopts the government's proposal for a law amending the Environmental Code.
2nd
The Riksdag adopts the government's proposal for a law amending the Mineral Act
(1991: 45).
Follow-motions
2017/18: 4096 by Mattias Bäckström Johansson et al. (SD):
The Riksdag rejects proposition 2017/18: 212 Prohibition of uranium extraction.
2017/18: 4110 by Lars Hjälmered et al. (M, L, KD):
1st
The Riksdag rejects the bill.
2nd
The Riksdag stands behind what is stated in the motion that
The government should come back with a new bill that protects
the possibility of extracting important and innovation-critical minerals and
protects the competitiveness of the Swedish mining industry, and this
announces the Riksdag for the government

I will follow with a second post containing some of the translations