SHARE
COPY LINK

BREXIT

Sweden may miss EU summit due to ongoing government crisis

When EU leaders gather in Brussels next weekend to discuss Brexit, migration and several other key issues, Sweden might be absent from the talks.

Sweden may miss EU summit due to ongoing government crisis
If Stefan Löfven is to represent Sweden at the December 13-14 EU summit, things would have to move very quickly. Photo: Peter Wallberg/TT
With Sweden still without a new government nearly three months after the September 9th parliamentary elections, there is a good chance that the nation will be represented by an empty chair at the key summit. 
 
Only heads of state and governments can have a seat at the talks and with Sweden lacking a prime minister only King Carl XVI Gustaf could fill Sweden's seat in Brussels, an option that is not on the table. 
 
Instead, it is likely that another country’s leader will be asked to express Sweden’s wishes at the summit, which will be held just days after the British House of Commons votes on the UK government's Brexit deal.
 
The unusual situation arises as Sweden enters what is sure to be one of the most intense political weeks in recent history. Social Democrat leader Stefan Löfven is currently trying to form a new government. There was originally supposed to be a formal vote on installing Löfven back in the PM post this week, but that timeline has been extended due to “productive” talks that are underway. 
 
On Monday, Löfven is expected to inform parliamentary speaker Andreas Norlén on the progress of scheduled weekend discussions with representatives of the Green Party, the Liberal Party and the Centre Party. The latter two parties have both expressed conditional support for Löfven as prime minister, but only if he is willing to move his Social Democrats “to the right” on a number of issues. 
 
Depending on how these talks progress over the weekend, Löfven is expected to either announce a result on Monday or request additional time to negotiate. 
 
In theory, Löfven could be installed as prime minister by the middle of next week, which would allow for him to form a new government and present his cabinet just in time to make it to Brussels for the key EU talks. 
 
There is no set deadline by which Sweden must form a government, but the number of prime ministerial votes that can be held before a snap election is automatically called is capped at four.
 
The vote on Löfven will be the second chance after parliament voted down Moderates leader Ulf Kristersson. This happened after the Centre Party and Liberals refused to back a government that relied on support from the far-right Sweden Democrats. This means the country is now in untested waters — previously, parliament had always accepted the first candidate to be proposed.
 
Under Sweden’s system of negative parliamentarism, a government proposal does not need a single vote in its favour in order to pass, but it will fail if a majority votes against it. This means that a government can be “tolerated” by abstentions, sometimes called “passive support”.

Member comments

Log in here to leave a comment.
Become a Member to leave a comment.
For members

BREXIT

Commission official: ‘Up to Sweden how strict it is on Brexit applications’

An official from the European Commission has defended its decision not to take action on Sweden's strict treatment of late applications for post-Brexit residency, arguing that it is up to member states how to apply the Withdrawal Agreement.

Commission official: 'Up to Sweden how strict it is on Brexit applications'

In an email sent to The Local, the official confirmed the latest data, published at the end of last year, which showed that 22 percent of residence applications from UK nationals under the Withdrawal Agreement had not been successful in Sweden. The official said this was similar to the rejection rate for Swedish citizens’ applications in the UK. 

“Through its regular monitoring in Annual reports under Article 159(2) of the Withdrawal Agreement, the European Commission is aware of the fact that Sweden has a high rate of refusal of residence applications under Article 18(1) of the Withdrawal Agreement,” the official said. 

But they said that this in itself did not indicate that Sweden was failing to apply the UK Withdrawal Agreement correctly. 

“As long as there is no indication that a Member State in question is incorrectly applying the Withdrawal Agreement rules, it is not for the Commission to tell Member States how strict or lenient they should be when processing late applications,” the Commission official said.

READ ALSO: Brits in Sweden still in limbo years after Brexit deadline

Two EU lawyers The Local spoke to earlier this summer said that they believed that the Swedish Migration Agency had not been correctly applying the proportionality test to late applications, and had been too narrow in its interpretation of what constitutes “reasonable grounds” for a late application.

They also said that they believed the Migration Agency had been overly strict on what level of employment or savings UK citizens were required to have to qualify as resident in Sweden under EU law, and to therefore be qualified for post-Brexit residency.

SEE MORE: Why did Sweden reject Brits for post-Brexit residency

But the Commission official said that when it came to the late applications at least, Sweden was entitled to take the position it had done. 

“If the host State authorities reach the conclusion that a late applicant did not have reasonable grounds for missing the application deadline, they do not have to deal with the application on substance,” the official said.

“This means that someone who would have qualified for the residence rights under the Withdrawal Agreement might not be granted those rights if they missed the application deadline and did not have a valid reason for doing so.” 

READ ALSO: Is Sweden getting EU law wrong on Brexit cases? 

An unusual high rejection rate, the official continued, did not mean that Sweden was breaking the terms of the EU Withdrawal agreement. 

“The fact that there are negative decisions being taken by Member States under Article 18 of the Withdrawal Agreement (WA) does not, in itself, indicate that those Member States apply the Withdrawal Agreement incorrectly,” they said.

The Migration Agency had carried out a review of refusals, they said, checking a selection for “legal quality”, something The Local has previously reported on.

The Commission had received the Migration Agency’s review, they said, but had yet to complete its analysis of the findings. 

SHOW COMMENTS