Uranium Debate Continues in Greenland

Sermitsiaq.AG (Friday, 28th Oct. 2022)
Interesting read.
Broberg calls for answers: Why don't parties want a uranium referendum?
Naleraq's Pele Broberg lacks answers from Siumut in particular as to why they will not consider his proposal to hold a referendum on uranium mining.Siumut chairman Erik Jensen rejects the criticism: - We do not pursue zigzag politics, he says.
A new ban on uranium mining was passed by a narrow majority last autumn. Naleraq voted through the ban together with the then coalition partner IA. However, Naleraq chairman Pele Broberg has brought up the issue again when, over the summer, he had a bill sent for consultation on a referendum on the extraction of uranium.
The proposal was made clear, but Inatsisartut's Presidency decided that the proposal should not be considered at this meeting.
This annoys Pele Broberg, and he tells Sermitsiaq.AG that he continues to work to get the proposal dealt with, and he misses an answer from the coalition party Siumut in particular as to why they will not help deal with his proposal in the hall.
Will avoid it becoming a theme in the election campaign, Pele Broberg points out that according to Siumut's party programme, the party is in favor of uranium extraction, and now the party has the chance to hold a referendum on the subject. According to Broberg, a proposal must be taken up if a majority of the members want it:
- If there is a majority for a proposal to be included as an item, then it must be taken up. That is why I have approached Siumut, because it is stated in their party program that they would like to have uranium extraction, says Pele Broberg.
According to the Naleraq chairman, the overall aim is to avoid uranium again becoming a major theme in the next election campaign:
- Naleraq wants the uranium issue not to be made an election campaign theme, but for the people's voice to be heard. Unfortunately, Siumut has now publicly indicated that it does not want to explore the possibilities of the raw materials industry in the future, and listen to the voice of the people, says Pele Broberg.
Jensen: Referendum could have been adopted last year
At Siumut, chairman Erik Jensen flatly rejects the criticism from Naleraq:
- Firstly, I would like to point out that it is Naleraq himself who, in his own way, rejected a referendum on uranium last autumn under item 23 in Inatsisartut, says Erik Jensen.
He refers to the fact that during the processing of the uranium ban last autumn, a proposal to send the ban to a referendum was up for grabs. Still, the ban was passed without a referendum by Naleraq and IA in Inatsisartut.
- We tried to compromise, and our party was willing to talk about different options. Naleraq itself rejected the referendum, and that half a year later they blame us for not wanting one or the other, it must be at Naleraq's own expense, says Erik Jensen.
- Will be frivolous governance
The Siumut chairman also refers to the fact that, in connection with Siumut entering into a coalition with IA, he stated that the uranium issue will not be taken up again in this election period:
- We do not pursue a zigzag policy. We respect decisions taken by a majority in Inatsisartut.
- Our starting point is now that the uranium issue must be put to the people, and not put between the parties, which is also evident from the coalition agreement. I must also refer to the rules of procedure for Inatsisartut which Siumut respects and follows - subjects that have already been discussed and decided in Inatsisartut cannot be included again on the agenda during the election period cf. Formal requirements.
With regard to the form requirements for Pele Broberg's bill, Sermitsiaq.AG has seen the rejection of the proposal. Here, the Bureau for Inatsisartut writes that the proposal is "right on the border of what is formally acceptable", and that it depends on whether the Presidency wants it taken up at the meeting. The chairmanship could choose to either reject or record the point.
Erik Jensen emphasizes that Siumut basically sees raw material extraction as an opportunity to make the social pie bigger and get more income for the country, but that it would be frivolous governance and untrustworthy for investors to change legislation at short intervals.