Analysis: The political contradictions became too great

The collapse of the negotiations did not come as a big surprise. The signals from the negotiating table have in recent days been increasingly about contradictions and difficulties to come to an agreement.

Thus, it can be stated that the broad political settlement that has long been identified as so important by several parties was obviously not sufficiently important, after all.

Neither the Moderates nor the Social Democrats are today prepared for the concessions and compromises required for a broad political settlement. The political contradictions are too great. Instead, they now accuse each other of carrying the main responsibility for the collapse.

The Social Democrats and the Center Party accuse the Moderates of being too fixated on the volume target, the Moderates and the Christian Democrats accuse the Social Democrats of giving in to the Environmental Party.

No matter what, it can be stated that in the end both the Social Democrats and the Moderates had strong reasons not to enter into a settlement.

For the Social Democrats, it was all about avoiding a government crisis. The environmental party had threatened to leave the government if the Social Democrats agreed with the Moderates on a volume target. Now the risk of a government crisis is eliminated, at least for the moment.

The environmental party also makes no secret of seeing the breakdown in the negotiations as a major political success. And of course it is. With the Moderates out of play in the committee, there is little reason for the remaining parties to submit a sharp proposal for a volume target.

At the same time, today's collapse poses political risks for the Social Democrats. If the permanent image becomes that the party bowed to the Environment Party, it could damage the party in broad electoral groups. Not least if this is followed by political proposals on migration policy that voters do not perceive as sufficiently restrictive.

According to the research firm Novus, a large majority, 63 percent, want Sweden to receive fewer asylum seekers. At the same time, voters believe that the issue of integration and immigration is the second most important political issue in Sweden today. Only healthcare is considered to be more important.

Against this background, the issue of migration will continue to be a major political conflict issue for the foreseeable future. Not only the Swedish Democrats, but also the Moderates, hope to win this in the upcoming election movement.

Perhaps it was also what became crucial when the Moderates did not want to compromise anymore to reach a settlement. The party eventually pushed its claim for a volume target for the asylum reception. But this volume target, which would mean that the Swedish asylum reception was reduced to 6,000–8000 individuals a year, became too difficult to digest not only for the Social Democrats but also for the Center Party.

When the Moderates were not prepared to compromise on this, negotiations broke out.

For the Moderates, today's collapse means that the party can continue to profile itself on a strict migration policy. Equally important is that one can accuse the Social Democrats of sitting on their knees at the Environment Party.

The Swedish Democrats are also not the only party to stand outside a negotiating result, but are joined by both the Moderates and the Christian Democrats. Thus, today's message also becomes a reminder of the new political landscape in Parliament.

However, what happens with migration policy is unclear. A new law must be in place next summer, when the temporary law expires. What this new team should look like, however, is obscured after the collapse of today.

The Migration Policy Committee will continue its work, but will probably not be able to present a majority proposal. One possibility is that the Social Democrats, the Center Party and the Liberals make a proposal with the accompanying legislative text. Then either the government can put in place a bill, or the proposals can be put directly in parliament in the form of committee initiatives.

Several of the proposals within the Committee, for example on temporary residence permits, can gather a majority in Parliament.

Should the political contradictions on this issue become too great, so that new legislation is impossible, the parties also have the opportunity to extend the temporary law for a few more years. But at the same time, it would be a failure of the political system's ability to deal with difficult political issues.