M: "There are profound differences between us and MP"

The Migration Committee will present its conclusions in August. But few today believe that the parties should be able to reach a broad agreement.

After S submitted its bid in the hearing last week, where they, among other things, open for a so-called volume target of how many asylum seekers are received, the MP has reportedly been sitting in crisis meeting. The party should have discussed possibly leaving the government if that is the case.

At the same time, the Moderates are pushing from the other side. They now demand that S guarantee to enforce the agreement, regardless of what MP thinks.

- We have demanded that if it is so that we reach an agreement but the government cannot put it into a bill, then we want guarantees from S and the other parties that conclude the agreement that we will jointly take it through the risk day.

Thus, if S agrees, it would mean that if MP tries to stop the agreement within the government, S is still expected to push through it in Parliament.

- For us, it is important that we get clear guarantees that an agreement that we may enter into is true. That it will not be a paper product that is then negotiated in the government between S and MP.

How far from MP are you in the migration policy?

- There are profound differences between our immigration policy and the Environmental Party. Ours is firmly rooted in the reality and the situation we have in the exclusion areas. And the Environmental Party seems to be set to open up to a more extensive immigration at every point we have on our table.

Should it be interpreted as seeing that it is excluded that you reach a broad agreement?

- I find it very difficult to believe that we could sign for the same product. There is a clear majority in the Committee and at risk of a very tight immigration policy and that must of course reflect what we come to.