Question regarding referral of motion to committee
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
MP considers that the Sweden Democrats' manipulation of a vote affects fundamental rights and damages trust in democracy 1, and calls for a referral to the Committee on the Constitution 1. V considers that the Sweden Democrats cheated and that the decision is illegitimate 2, but shares the Speaker's assessment that the motion is not an event of greater importance 2. C considers that the motion does not meet the requirements in the parliamentary rules and should be filed 3. S considers that the Sweden Democrats cheated and that Ulf Kristersson must take responsibility 4. S wants transitional rules for Swedish citizenship 4 and considers that the motion does not meet the requirements in the parliamentary rules 4.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN
Annika Hirvonen with several others, Miljöpartiet, has submitted a motion invoking Chapter 9, Section 15 of the parliamentary rules. According to this provision, motions on the occasion of an event of greater importance may be submitted jointly by at least ten members if the event could not be foreseen or considered during the general motion period or any other motion period in Chapter 9 of the parliamentary rules. The motion was tabled at the meeting on 1 June.
The motion contains a request that the Riksdag shall adopt proposals for entry into force and transitional provisions, which mean that notifications and applications for citizenship and appeals of such decisions are assessed based on currently applicable rules.
A prerequisite for a motion to be raised according to Chapter 9, Section 15 of the parliamentary rules is that it has a clear connection to an event of greater importance within the meaning of the paragraph. The motion states that the Sweden Democrats' actions in connection with the vote in the chamber on April 29 regarding the report SfU28 Stricter requirements for Swedish citizenship is an event of greater importance that can constitute grounds for a motion according to Chapter 9, Section 15 of the parliamentary rules.
A basic prerequisite for a motion to be introduced is that an event of greater significance has occurred and that there is a clear connection between the event and the political proposals presented in the motion. Examples of events in Swedish society or in the world that have been accepted as events of greater significance are the Iraq War in 2003, the bribery affair within Systembolaget in 2003, the storm catastrophe in Southern Sweden in 2005, and the EC Court's ruling regarding the Swedish pharmacy monopoly in 2005. In May 2022, Miljöpartiet was able to introduce a motion on Nato and the work against nuclear weapons on the grounds of Sweden's upcoming membership in Nato.
Regarding the question of whether the Sweden Democrats' actions in connection with the vote on 29 April can be considered an event of greater significance, it can be stated that the nature of the event clearly deviates from the events that have previously been accepted as grounds for motions of occurrence according to the Rules of Procedure. Votes can have an unexpected outcome depending on attendance and individual members' views on an issue. It also occurs that members, after a vote, report that they voted incorrectly, which then appears later in the chamber's minutes but does not change the decision that was made. If the result of a vote in the chamber could serve as a basis for a motion of occurrence, this would mean a clear change of a restrictive practice and, furthermore, a change that is not supported by the Rules of Procedure or its preparatory works.
Against this background, it cannot be considered that the Chamber's decision on 29 April is such an event of greater importance that can constitute grounds for a motion.
The Speaker's assessment is therefore that the motion cannot be raised with the support of Chapter 9, Section 15 of the parliamentary procedure. According to Chapter 11, Section 7 of the parliamentary procedure, there are therefore obstacles to referring the motion to a committee.
The Speaker therefore proposes that the Chamber refers the motion to the committee.
I want to remind that the issue is whether the motion meets the requirements in Chapter 9, Section 15 of the parliamentary rules and should therefore be referred to a committee, not the underlying matter.
Annika Hirvonen (MP)
Madam Speaker! I and my party colleagues in Miljöpartiet have submitted an event motion, an urgent motion as it has come to be called in everyday speech, titled Transitional Rules for Citizenship – a new vote. This has occurred against the background that when the Riksdag had a vote on transitional rules for citizenship on 29 April, the result of this vote was manipulated by Charlotte Quensel, member of Sverigedemokraterna, and Michael Rubbestad, who was then a member of Sverigedemokraterna, who entered and voted despite the fact that their names were written on the list that the parties' reconciliation persons compile of members of Parliament who are to refrain from participating in the vote.
The offsetting system is a voluntary agreement entered into in writing between all parliamentary parties. It has developed in the Riksdag over a period of more than a hundred years, and the purpose of the offsetting system has been to prevent random events, such as a Member of Parliament falling ill or getting stuck on an airplane that is forced to turn back and therefore cannot arrive at the vote, from deciding the outcome when the Riksdag makes decisions on legislation or the state budget.
No one has ever deliberately manipulated a vote in the Riksdag by promising that some would be gone in exchange for the other side also removing members of Parliament and then still sending them in. It has never happened.
Mistakes have occurred – yes, they have! It also happens that members of parliament press the wrong button in votes, and it happens that members of parliament in a party vote differently than their colleagues in the same party, because one simply has a strong conviction that goes against the party line.
I mean, unlike the Speaker, that it cannot be equated to someone voting incorrectly by mistake or that a Member of Parliament has a different opinion than their party in a vote with that kind of deliberate manipulation of a parliamentary vote. It is indisputable that the Sverigedemokraterna have made a decision in their leadership to act in that way because they knew in advance that there was a parliamentary majority that required transitional rules for citizenship.
If this had been a vote on a matter of marginal importance, we would not be standing here today, but the question of transitional rules for citizenship affects the rights of over 100,000 people in Sweden. There are currently just over 104,000 people waiting for a decision on citizenship. Among them are those who applied many years ago, and they have planned their lives based on the regulatory framework that applied when they applied for citizenship.
Some have completed long studies in Sweden to be able to work in professions that are only open to Swedish citizens. Some are married to Swedes and have had plans that the family might be able to go abroad so that one can study or work for some years. But now it must be cancelled.
For all these people, the lack of transitional rules will mean that fundamental rights, such as voting in parliamentary elections, will be delayed not just a little bit, but very much. Most recently today, we heard that in the worst-case scenario, it will take ten years before one can arrange so that everyone who would need to take the citizenship tests being introduced will be given the opportunity to do so. We are therefore talking about an enormous delay of the waiting time.
Madam Speaker! I mean that this must be seen as an event of just greater significance. It affects, in any case, nearly 1 percent of Sweden's population and their fundamental rights in a democracy. It also affects the trust for democracy in the Riksdag. This has been incredibly shocking. People now realize that it has practically been possible to cheat to vote through legislation for which there was no majority in the chamber. It is of greater significance.
We in Miljöpartiet have first tried to raise the issue in other ways. We took up the issue directly with colleagues in the group leadership circle in order to be able to agree that the vote should be retaken, as part of renewing confidence in the voting system. We simply wanted to agree that we shall have a voting system – chance shall not decide votes – and that if someone cheats, that vote is retaken.
We also submitted a proposal for a committee initiative, which is another way to bring a matter up for a new vote. The Tidö parties voted no to it.
The only way remaining for the question to be able to be examined again by all members of the chamber is, therefore, to submit just such an incident- or urgent motion. The connection between the manipulation of the voting and the proposal in the incident motion is, of course, clear.
The events that previously have motivated such motions have been about completely different things, for example wars in the rest of the world or that Sweden joined Nato. But I mean that just the fact that no one has ever acted in this way in the chamber of the Riksdag before and that nothing similar has ever led to an event motion cannot mean that one considers the criterion not to be met. It is, in fact, an event of greater weight.
I also mean that, given that for over a hundred years it has never been cheated in this way, it was not possible to expect or foresee that it would happen.
Madam Speaker! I therefore move that this matter be referred to the Committee on the Constitution for review. We in Miljöpartiet believe that it should be a matter of course that votes should be taken again when a parliamentary party deliberately manipulates the results of the decisions made by us, the elected representatives in the Riksdag.
Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)
Madam Speaker! To begin with, I want to be clear about what the Riksdag will be dealing with in and with the fact that the Miljöpartiet requests that the Chamber should examine this matter. It is therefore not the issue itself, but whether one supports the Speaker's assessment of whether this motion should be raised from the perspective that it falls within the scope of a special event.
It is indisputable that the Sweden Democrats cheated in connection with the vote that is the basis for the Green Party's motion. Two members, one of whom was the Sweden Democrats' deputy group leader Michael Rubbestad, who resigned during the week following suspicions of child pornography crimes, voted despite not being expected to do so.
Neither the Sweden Democrats nor the other government parties have wanted to redo the vote. Ulf Kristersson is ultimately responsible here. The morality of Ulf Kristersson, the entire government, and the Sweden Democrats must be defined based on people like Rubbestad.
What the Riksdag will be dealing with is, therefore, not the issue itself, which concerns transitional rules for the new citizenship rules, but whether the Speaker's assessment is correct in that it should not be considered a special event that the Riksdag has voted on a matter. Today's vote concerns whether the Chamber intends to delegate to the Committee on the Constitution to review the Speaker's assessment.
It is not the issue of transitional rules that we will examine today. But had that been the case, it would have been simple for us in Vänsterpartiet. Our position is crystal clear: The reasonable thing would be for Ulf Kristersson to take responsibility for what his coalition partner, Sverigedemokraterna, has done and ensure that the decision is made. But Ulf Kristersson is hiding in the shadows. He does not want to take responsibility, and the Riksdag is left without a balancing system.
The Sverigedemokraterna's and the government's immoral actions, personified by Michael Rubbestad, are reprehensible. The decision that was made then is illegitimate. The crime has been committed against the Swedish people and a hundred-year tradition of honoring the agreement between the parties.
When the entire Tidö coalition is permeated by a morality personified by people like Michael Rubbestad, all rules have been set aside. Therefore, the Left Party will, after the election, in a position of government, introduce the transition rules retroactively in order to restore order. Everyone affected by the injustice that takes effect in just a couple of days will receive redress.
To all those affected, I want to say clearly and distinctly: We in Vänsterpartiet stand on your side. This injustice shall not be long-lived. People who have submitted their application on time shall, of course, not be affected by Ulf Kristersson's and Michael Rubbestad's cheating. You simply do not cheat people away.
With that said, the Left Party shares the Speaker's assessment that the motion does not fall within the framework of a specific incident. It is a question concerning moral decay, not a formal error. The Left Party also believes that the Committee on the Constitution will make the same assessment, and we understand that the other parties will probably also land there.
Miljöpartiet, however, seems to have a different opinion. And we in Vänsterpartiet are prepared to turn over every stone to ensure that what is right becomes right. When the entire Tidö government is permeated by a morality personified by people like Michael Rubbestad, they have set all rules out of play. For that reason, Vänsterpartiet will vote to let the Committee on the Constitution examine whether the Speaker's assessment is correct.
Daniel Bäckström (C)
Madam Speaker! At the end of April, the Sweden Democrats submitted two abstained members in a vote on stricter citizenship requirements. Thus, the Tidö parties won the vote by a one-vote majority and stopped the transitional rules for Swedish citizenship.
The Sweden Democrats also broke the reciprocity agreement which was based on trust between the parties in the Riksdag. It shows that there is no respect for the democratic orders and agreements that have been established to maintain the balance of power in the Riksdag.
We Center Party members have not changed our opinion on the issue itself. We continue to want transitional rules for Swedish citizenship. As the second deputy speaker began by saying today's consideration does not concern the issue itself. It is in fact a consideration of whether the motion shall be raised with reference to Chapter 9, Section 15 of the parliamentary rules on the grounds of an event of greater importance.
During the 1970s, when the constitutional bill was submitted, it was underlined that the provision is of an exceptional nature and therefore should be applied restrictively. The purpose of introducing the possibility of raising motions of events has not been to correct unexpected decisions in the chamber.
Madam Speaker! The Centre Party shares the Speaker's and the Riksdag Administration's assessment that the motion submitted does not meet the requirements in the Rules of Procedure or its preparatory works. If the event motion were to be allowed, it would also entail a clear change in practice in the Riksdag's work.
Madam Speaker! Therefore, we are of the opinion that the motion should be tabled without reference.
Hans Ekström (S)
Madam Speaker! The Swedish people remember how the Sweden Democrats a few weeks ago cheated in a vote in the chamber to stop transitional rules for Swedish citizenship despite there being a majority for the proposal. The Sweden Democrats are unreliable, and it is Ulf Kristersson's responsibility to put in order the mess that his government base has caused.
The Social Democrats have not changed their opinion on the substantive issue. We still want transitional rules for Swedish citizenship, but that is not what this matter is about. It is about whether a motion on the grounds of an event of greater importance shall be raised according to Chapter 9, Section 15 of the parliamentary rules.
After a thorough review by the Parliamentary Administration, the Speaker's assessment is that the motion is not judged to meet the requirements in the Rules of Procedure, and that is also our assessment. If the motion were to be allowed, it would mean a clear change of restrictive practice that is not supported by the Rules of Procedure and its preparatory works.
We will therefore vote yes to approve the Speaker's proposal.
In this speech, Peter Hedberg (S) concurred.
ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN
Annika Hirvonen, Miljöpartiet, has requested that the question of whether the motion shall be raised be examined by the Chamber. The Chamber must then decide whether the motion shall be added to the records or whether the question shall be referred to the Committee on the Constitution for examination. If the Chamber decides that the question shall be referred to the Committee on the Constitution, it means that the Committee on the Constitution shall then finally decide whether the motion may be raised or not.
The decision on whether the motion on events shall be added to the records or whether the matter shall be referred to the Committee on the Constitution for a ruling will be made at the vote later today, at 15:20.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.