The European Parliament has voted through a new pact for the Union's migration policy - which has been met with both criticism and praise during the past week. Photo: European Parliament. Source: Flickr.

Current debate

Week 15: The EU's new migration pact arouses reactions among debaters

The European Parliament's new migration pact arouses emotions. Several debaters see the pact as necessary for a more stable EU. Others are doubtful about the pact's long-term consequences in relation to both the right to asylum and human rights. 

Ahead of the final vote on the EU's new migration reform, Tomas Tobé (M) – one of the main figures behind the pact – and Maria Malmer Stenergard (M) explained why it is necessary.

- The purpose of the pact is sustainable migration with better control at the EU's external border, they write in a debate article in Svenska Dagbladet.

The migration pact does not only mean increased control, according to Tobé and Stenergard. It also helps migrants through faster decisions on who is entitled to asylum, and works against people smugglers and authoritarian countries that use migrants as a hybrid warfare strategy.

Tobé and Stenergard get approval in, among other things Sydsvenskan's main leader, where the agreement is described as a "victory for the whole Union", even if it is not perfect.

- The EU did the difficult, together, writes the newspaper, and believes that other topics on the EU's agenda can now be prioritized.

Also Ylva Nilsson, independent columnist at the express, sees the migration pact as proof of the EU's capacity for responsibility and stability.

- The far-right's hope of getting votes for migration in the EU elections was just made more difficult, she writes.

Like Sydsvenskan's editorial staff and Nilsson, several debaters are cautious about drawing hasty conclusions about the migration pact's long-term results. DN's editorial staff criticizes Stenergard's perspective that the migration pact should "reduce the pressure". The editors believe instead that wars and disasters will continue to lead many asylum seekers to the EU's borders.

- Order and order are good. But the big question is what happens next, writes the newspaper, and calls for greater responsibility from all EU countries – including Sweden – for a brighter future for asylum seekers, with opportunities for labor immigration.

Also Chadi Toprak, intern at Aftonbladet's editorial board, criticizes the handling of asylum seekers and the override of migrants' rights. On the other hand, Toprak believes that the pact can be a step forward.

- No matter what, it gives us an opportunity to continue negotiating. That's better than the stalemate in 2015.

Most critical of the pact is MEP Alice Bah Kunke (MP). IN Today's ETC she explains her decision to vote against the migration reform, which was not least based on a concern for the curtailment of human rights. She believes that responsibility in the migration issue remains unbalanced between EU member states, that inhumane refugee camps remain and that the right to asylum is weakened.

- Instead of ensuring that 27 member states take responsibility and share the burden, the migration policy that social democrats and moderates are proud of is based on rogue states like Libya, Tunisia, Turkey and Egypt receiving our taxpayers' money to act in illegal, vile ways border guards.

The EU's migration pact

M: What is S doing to reduce immigration? 

Maria Malmer Stenergard and Tomas Tobé (M), Svenska Dagbladet

Now the EU's pact must also hold. 

Editorial board, Sydsvenskan 

The pact is a setback for the extremists 

Ylva Nilsson, independent columnist, Expressen 

If the migration pact is to work, not everyone can sound like Maria Malmer Stenergard 

The editorial staff, Dagens Nyheter 

The EU's promise of a fast asylum process is frivolous 

Chadi Toprak, editorial writer, Aftonbladet  

That is why I vote no to the migration pact 

Alice Bah Kunke (MP), Dagens ETC

Is there something in the text that is not correct? Contact us at

Share this: