Difficult to get SD’s demands through – three questions about the migration pact

The EU Parliament voted through the so-called Asylum and Migration Pact on Thursday. When the proposal is now to be taken forward to the Council of Ministers, SD demands that the Swedish government stop the proposal.

– The question is whether the EU should have a more balanced system where asylum seekers should be distributed to a greater extent. Now we have a situation where Sweden accepts fewer asylum seekers per capita than other EU countries, which would mean that Sweden needs to accept more if we get a mandatory redistribution in the EU, says Bernd Parusel.

“Need to get together”

Migration Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard (M) says that the government has the same initial position as SD and that they will not stand behind a pact that means increased immigration to Sweden. But to become a reality, you need to get more countries on board.

– We know that there are more countries in the EU that do not want mandatory redistribution. In that case, you would have to get together and jointly vote against. It becomes part of the negotiations if a country changes its attitude, but there are 27 members who negotiate, normally an individual country does not decide what the final product will be, says Bernd Parusel.

Primarily, it is the countries around the Mediterranean that are most positive about the pact.

– The Mediterranean countries have said for several years that they want more relief for the people who get there. They demand more help from the EU and want as binding a division of responsibility as possible. It is not an easy process to agree on.

Could be a compromise

It is likely that what the parliament has voted through will not be the final law, as the parliament is usually more ambitious than the Council of Ministers according to Parusel.

– It is very difficult to see what the final compromise will be. There is a lot of pressure for the EU to find some kind of solution, but it can be rather watered down. Maybe there will be a little more shared responsibility, but probably not a big new revolutionary system, says Parusel.

sv-general-01