The campaign, started by residents in Sweden affected by the lack of transition provisions in the new citizenship law, has raised the profile of the issue in the media (including in The Local, here and here).
Campaigners have also bombarded MPs with emails, and sought to lobby ministers and opposition politicians.
All four opposition parties have now submitted motions to the Swedish parliament calling for changes to the upcoming citizenship bill, and though they differ on other points, they all agree that transitional rules should be added.
This in itself is an achievement.
While the Green Party, Left Party and Centre Party might have done this anyway, the Social Democrats probably would not have, as they have tended to be wary of supporting any measure that will make them look weak on migration.
The Local spoke to Niels Paarup-Petersen, the Centre Party MP who has been actively helping the campaigners, to get a detailed breakdown of what needs to happen for transitional rules to be added to the upcoming citizenship bill.
What's the problem?
When the government in February announced its decision to push ahead with its new "stricter rules for citizenship bill", it ignored the recommendation of the government inquiry that prepared the law, that it should contain so-called transitional rules.
Transitional rules would mean that the over 100,000 people who will have already applied for citizenship and be waiting for a decision when the law comes into force on June 6th, will only have to meet pre-June 6th requirements when the Migration Agency decides on their case.
This means they will, in most cases, only have to have lived in Sweden for five years (rather than eight, as the default, under the new rules), and will not have to show knowledge of Swedish language and society or meet the incoming 20,000 kronor self-sufficiency requirement.
By opting not to include transitional rules, the government is condemning many of these 100,000 people to a rejection, simply because the Migration Agency has not managed to process their application in time.
"It's just poor legislation. It's not reasonable," Paarup-Petersen says, adding that not even the most populist parties in his native Denmark enact laws without transitional rules.
"Even the Danish People's Party include transitional rules when they suggest changes. This isn't even something the most far-right party in Denmark goes without, and now it's a government in Sweden with 'liberal' parties doing it."
What happens next?
The parliament's Social Insurance Committee, which is responsible for the bill, meets on April 14th to make final preparations on the legislation.
The committee will prepare a final text of the bill to be put before parliament. This will include both the government's proposals and one or more "minority reservations", containing alternative proposals.
In this case, one of the reservations will consist of text enacting the transitional rules recommended by the inquiry.
Even though the government and the Sweden Democrats have a one MP majority on the committee, they cannot block a minority reservation.
So the only thing that matters to the campaign at this stage is that the four opposition parties agree on the language they want to use so that parliament has a clear, unified joint motion to vote on later.
"What we're hoping for is that there will be a joint reservation put forward by the entire opposition," Paarup-Petersen says.
What happens when the bill goes before parliament?
On April 29th, when the bill goes before parliament, MPs will vote on all of the main parts of the bill and then on any proposals in reservations.
If a majority of MPs vote for the opposition reservation enacting transitional rules, transitional rules will be included in the law as passed and will apply when it comes into force on June 6th. If the reservation does not get a majority, however, it will not be enacted and the bill will apply on June 6th without transitional rules.
Is it possible for the reservation adding transitional rules to pass?
It will be difficult but not impossible.
The reality is complicated by illness and absences, but if all MPs are present, the three government parties, together with their support party the Sweden Democrats, have 176 MPs, while the four opposition parties have 173.
As the Social Democrats – the party with the most MPs (106) – supports every aspect apart from the lack of transitional rules, the bill itself is certain to pass.
For it to pass in an amended version which includes the reservation on transitional rules, at least two MPs from a government party will need to break with their party and vote alongside the four opposition parties.
What are the chances of government MPs rebelling on transitional rules?
It is very rare in Sweden for MPs to vote against their party line on an issue, but the split in the Liberal Party over allowing MPs from the far-right Sweden Democrats into government means in this case, it could conceivably happen.
"This is a very special situation, because MPs don't normally hate the way their party is going and want to leave it," Paarup-Petersen says. "We're hoping that it will be possible and that the great work that's been done by Fair Transition and you at The Local will have an effect. If there's ever going to be a chance, this is it."
Three Liberal Party MPs – Cecilia Rönn, Jakob Olofsgård and Helene Odenjung – have all said they will not stand for reelection in this September's election because they cannot represent a party that is willing to share government with the far-right party.
They have very little to lose.
Are there any indications that these MPs will rebel?
Niels Paarup-Petersen says he has no idea how any of the Liberal MPs, including the three most likely rebels, are planning to vote.
The Swedish parliament, he points out, has a system where MPs from different parties are paired off against one another to take into account illness, or ministers and party leaders being absent.
This system can be exploited by parties' group secretaries to prevent rebellions, by informing potential rebels that they should not vote on a particular proposal.
"The party can't really prohibit you, but they can say 'we would like you not to come this time'," Paarup-Petersen explains, arguing that this raises the threshold for a rebellion.
Any Liberal MPs who are planning to rebel, he adds, are unlikely to broadcast this in advance as this will increase the chance that they are asked not to vote.
"It's very easy for them to vote for something else but it's best if they don't tell them in advance."
What happens if the government loses the election?
Even if the opposition reservation on transitional rules fails, all is not lost. If the government loses power in September, a new Social Democrat-led government could potentially pass a bill belated adding transitional rules to the new citizenship regulations.
As the legal text required to bring in transitional rules has already been drawn up, both by the inquiry and in the oppositions' reservation, Paarup-Petersen believes this could be done "in a couple of months" if the new government gave it priority.
The question would be how a new government would weigh up the risk of disruption to the Migration Agency's case processing, with rules changing on June 6th and then again in November or December.
"You'd go from five years to eight years and then back to five again," he says. "What would that mean for the Migration Agency?"
Comments (2)