The fee to the European Union

Charlotte Quensel (SD)

Mr. Speaker! On this year's darkest day, we are debating the fee to the EU. The EU's annual budget is a complicated story that stems from the so-called MFF, that is, the long-term budget which is currently running from 2021 up to and including 2027.

We Sweden Democrats voted no to MFF. The reasons for this were many, but one decisive fact was that the EU did not take into account that the United Kingdom chose to leave the union. For us, it was obvious that the EU needed to fully adjust down its budget when one of the union's largest net contributors left the EU. That did not happen, and instead, Sweden's fee has increased significantly, despite the "discounts".

In connection with the current MFF, a decision was also made regarding a huge recovery fund of 8,000 billion kronor to be redistributed primarily to member states with mismanaged public finances. Italy and Spain are large recipients through this fund. Sweden receives a portion back, but the net cost will still be clearly noticeable.

In 2021, Sweden's EU fee amounted to a total of 52.3 billion kronor. This year, the government has budgeted 46 billion kronor for the 2023 fee. This should be put into relation to the fact that in 2018 we paid just over 35 billion kronor.

The purpose of the member states' annual fees is to redistribute funds from economically responsible countries to those that do not manage their public finances and – it can be added – which have very high public debts. Sweden therefore pays quite a lot to gain access to the internal market. The countries that are large contributors today want to see an even greater redistribution of money from well-managed countries to the opposite. At the same time, there are few member states today that safeguard sound public finances and respect for the EU's budget.

Furthermore, several poor countries with high corruption are in line to enter the EU - the so-called candidate countries. The development in the union is moving from strong industrial countries that support poorer countries in southern Europe to expanding to include more and more even poorer countries to the east. When it comes to how this is to be financed in the future, knowledge is completely non-existent. No one knows. Probably, it will increase Sweden's EU costs significantly.

The Sweden Democrats want to see reduced costs. We want to tighten the EU's budget to focus on what is absolutely most important. Unfortunately, the EU is going in the exact opposite direction, with increased costs year after year.

Mr. Speaker! In addition to the annual fee, Sweden will from and onwards 2028 begin to pay into the recovery fund. It will increase our costs by approximately 5 billion kronor per year for 30 years forward.

Not even a war in Europe has influenced the member states' views on how we should use the EU budget. It should have been obvious that within the existing economic resources, funds should be redistributed to support Ukraine - if the will had existed. But instead, the member states have agreed to undertake a joint borrowing of 18 billion euros to help Ukraine during the next year. Here, Sweden's costs increase beyond the MFF and the recovery fund.

Unfortunately, it does not look like it stops here, and that is exactly what we in the Sverigedemokraterna are concerned about. Once you have given in to the EU, there is a great risk that new support packages will be established.

Two weeks ago, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, declared that additional financial support is required to match the US investments. She is certainly right that we need to review our rules for state aid, but obviously, each member state must take its own responsibility for financing this. It cannot be that Sweden and a few other member states are to foot the bill as soon as problems arise.

Crises will succeed one another, and we cannot have a situation in the EU where Sweden and a few member states are constantly exploited. We risk ending up in a situation where it is as if Sweden hands over its Visacard to the countries in the south and east. They shop, and we struggle to pay the bills.

In addition to a battery of several common funds, the EU Commission is pushing for three types of new own resources, that is, new taxes at the EU level. This came up already during the negotiations on the ongoing long-term budget, MFF. The Sweden Democrats said no, but with the exception of the Left, the other parties dropped the issue. Now a decision is approaching, and Sweden has ended up in a worse negotiating position than we had during the negotiations on the long-term budget.

The right of taxation is each member state's competence; anything else cannot be accepted by the Sweden Democrats.

It is clearly evident overall that the EU is developing in the wrong direction when it comes to the member states' view on the budget and the distribution of costs. If Sweden does not stand its ground - no, both feet - our fees will increase extremely much, and this regardless of whether it is called an annual fee, new own resources, crisis funds or joint borrowing.

Mr. Speaker! The more the EU costs, the less we have to invest in Sweden. The question we should ask ourselves is how we can best use our tax revenues.

In conclusion, I would like to take the opportunity to wish the Speaker, all the spectators in the gallery, the civil servants and my colleagues in the Committee on Finance a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

(Applause)

In this speech, Mattias Eriksson Falk and David Perez (both SD) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Björn Wiechel (S)

Mr. Speaker! The matter now being discussed concerns Sweden's membership fee to the EU. The fee itself is not a major area of debate, as it depends on how the EU's seven-year long-term budgets turn out. There are therefore no party-dividing opinions here.

What, however, is the subject of more debate is what Sweden wants from EU membership, especially since Sweden will be chair of the EU during the spring. It is important for Sweden.

The European Union does not mean that Sweden relinquishes power, but on the contrary, better opportunities for us to determine our own destiny. With common democratic institutions, we get a voice that is just as much worth as other states'. With common rules, we get fair competition. And with organized cooperation, we build trust and reciprocity and can better solve common problems and manage conflicts.

With the presidency, there are great opportunities for Sweden: the opportunity to show that we are far ahead in terms of combining transition with jobs, the opportunity to show how we want to strengthen the common values in the EU, and not least the opportunity to move forward Sweden's positions in the EU.

In June, the Social Democratic government presented the preparatory work they had done ahead of the presidency and the priorities they had then established. And last week, the Prime Minister presented the current government's priorities. These were, in all important respects, good. They are close to the direction initiated by the previous S-government, but with the new government's perspectives and nuances, which is in order.

But - here comes a major objection, Mr. Speaker - despite fine words and perhaps good intentions, we unfortunately do not know how it will turn out. For here we have the elephant in the EU-political room, namely that when Sweden's government is to lead the country and the EU presidency falls under the Sweden Democrats, who are the most EU-critical party. The party is the largest in the government base, dictates the terms for the government's policy and the government's budget, and also steers via specific documents the government's EU policy.

That a government takes its governing base into account may be so. But that also includes taking responsibility for it, standing for the consequences, and being able to answer questions. Preferably, one should be able to show that it is not just a power game but can also be to the benefit of Sweden. But here, the government owes an answer. When the Prime Minister was met with questions about the Sverigedemokraternas role and influence, he disregarded them instead of taking them seriously. It is alarming. It obviously does not work in the long run to avoid important topics of conversation.

Mr. Speaker! What makes the issue important is that it is not just a domestic political debate. The fact that Sweden now has a government that is subject to the Sweden Democrats is a matter for the entire EU. And it has already affected Sweden's reputation and position in Europe. The rest of Europe has reacted to this with astonishment and with concern. People are shaken. Sweden? What has happened?

The Prime Minister cannot wave this away. The Prime Minister has placed Sweden in a precarious situation. Instead of a positive boost into the presidency, we begin with a steep uphill climb. Sweden is a country that until now has been characterized by a defense of the EU, which has wanted to move forward in important issues, and where one knew where one stood. But what is Sweden now?

In Europe, it is noted that Sweden's government is led by a party with representatives who praise Hungary. But it is more than that. The presidency could become an opportunity to showcase the fantastic work taking place in Sweden in combining emission reduction and growth - carbon-free steel, electric car manufacturing, battery factories and renewable forest as the basis for all kinds of products instead of fossil.

But it is based on us also showing that innovation and new technology that contribute to emission reductions is something we embrace and that it gives us competitiveness. It is also based on us in Sweden highlighting research and new knowledge, that we emphasize that Sweden's strength is founded on the fact that we are at the forefront. But the government has shown moderate interest in helping that development.

Furthermore, there are Sweden Democrats who do not even believe in science and Sweden Democrats who want that Sweden should not even take our responsibility for and our share of the emission reductions without us having to pay our way out of the commitments. It is something that hardly inspires respect internationally.

It is not that image of Sweden we need, especially not when there are really important issues that will be addressed during the presidency, such as forestry. In that regard, Sweden would need great influence and a strong position.

Mr. Speaker! The Prime Minister has spoken about broad cooperation. That is, of course, welcome. But the already established documents with the Sweden Democrats regarding EU policy show that the government has, to a large extent, already chosen its path and that the inclusion of the Riksdag in the EU work unfortunately seems to be reduced to, at best, seeking anchoring in the final stages. It remains to be seen whether the Prime Minister's words about cooperation are something he himself will show leadership and good example in, and whether he means business with what he himself said about brokering and mediating a bit more.

Mr. Speaker! I have, despite everything, good hopes for the presidency and Sweden's EU policy. For quite regardless of the government's actions, Sweden as a country does not need to be delayed. There are several reasons why the outcome can be positive.

Firstly, Sweden has a good reputation that has been built up over time, and the fall is very high.

Secondly, Sweden consists of more than the government and the Sweden Democrats. Many good forces will drive forward the positive. We have strong parties in the labor market that are committed to structural transformation for modern new jobs and that take the climate technology shift seriously. We also have a civil society that will fight.

Thirdly, which should not be underestimated, we have extremely competent officials who will work hard to safeguard the image of Sweden and maximize the outcome in negotiations and in corridor talk. We shall be very grateful for that.

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats will also contribute, in the Riksdag and outside the Riksdag building. We will be constructive, take every opportunity to highlight Sweden and work for a better EU and a stronger Sweden in the EU.

I also want to wish a Merry Christmas.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jan Ericson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Almost exactly two years ago, I stood in this rostrum and debated that year's budget decision regarding the EU fee. I then expressed my and the Moderaternas great concern regarding a sharply rising EU fee in the coming years. At that time, we did not know that it would not only result in a sharp Swedish fee increase in 2021. We would also be forced to participate in an extensive so-called recovery fund where, with borrowed funds, we would put future generations into debt to provide grants to European countries that have mismanaged their economies for many years.

Unfortunately, the negotiations did not go Sweden's way. The previous government had obvious problems taking into account Sweden's interests in the EU. This does not only concern the EU fee and the failure with the recovery fund. We also saw it in other areas, for example regarding decisions on minimum wages, taxonomy, the ban on lead in ammunition, the protection of our forestry industry, and other issues. The previous government left in some cases almost walkover, which has damaged important Swedish interests.

Point by point, it turned out that Sweden's previous government could not withstand strong forces in the EU that push for decisions that disadvantage Sweden. For us Moderates, who are positive towards Sweden's EU membership, it was unfortunate that Sweden's S-led government did not fare better. EU issues were not prioritized, and the ministers often did not enter the discussions early in the processes but let the negotiations be handled entirely by civil servants.

Now we see other threats ahead, new proposals for joint loan financing of gigantic EU funds for various purposes, new proposals for an expanded EU budget, unrealistic climate proposals with restrictions for Swedish forestry, and strong voices for the introduction of EU taxes and the transfer of more power from national parliaments to the EU. This is a worrying development that risks undermining confidence in the EU at a time when a restless world makes a united and focused EU more important than ever.

Mr. Speaker! This report is part of the government's budget bill, and it means that the Riksdag decides on an appropriation of 45.9 billion kronor as a fee to the European Union next year. It is an enormous amount of money, and Sweden is committed to carefully monitoring how the EU's funds are used and to work to ensure that budget frameworks are respected.

The goal for Swedish budget policy in the EU was actually established by the Riksdag as early as 1994, and it means that Sweden shall prioritize common issues that are handled more effectively at the EU level than by the individual member states individually. Sweden shall also work for an effective and restrained budget policy within the EU, where expenditures with a clear European added value shall be prioritized. Sweden shall also work for a more cost-effective use of the EU's budget funds. These goals entail, as stated, obligations in the ongoing work with EU issues in the Riksdag.

The newly appointed center-right government emphasizes in the budget bill in particular that it is of great importance to respect the financial frameworks in the EU's multiannual financial framework and to work for realistic forecasts, and the government, together with other budget-restrictive member states, is pushing in that direction. These are very important and welcome signals.

I would like to take this opportunity to call for approval of the committee's proposal in the report and for the rejection of the motions.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the EU, there are often many discussions about budget, money, and how the balance of power between the EU and the national parliaments should look. Unfortunately, there is much to criticize, and for my part, I think that the development in the EU unfortunately often goes in the wrong direction towards more supranationalism, a swelling budget, and a lack of understanding for different circumstances in different member states. Too little focus is also placed on fundamental issues regarding the EU's competitiveness and business climate. But at the same time, it is easy for criticism of the EU to take over and for one to forget the fundamental values and ideas that were the basis for the EU being formed. These values are at least as relevant today.

It is about the defense of the open democratic society, freedom of speech, free elections, a free press, civil liberties and rights, and politics' respect for the citizens. But it is also about cooperation instead of protectionism and excessive nationalism. The EU is an important actor for solving common cross-border issues, such as right now when it comes to being a strong and united voice regarding the support for Ukraine in the defense against the Russian aggression and common sanctions against Russia.

Other cross-border issues concern common European security, management of refugee flows to the EU, and countering cross-border crime. The EU's competitiveness and economic development is another, now all too neglected, issue that should be raised on the EU's agenda. Also, energy issues must obviously be addressed in the long term. With a common energy market, every country that pursues an irresponsible energy policy will cause problems for other member states, of which we see clear examples today.

Mr. Speaker! At the turn of the year, in just over two weeks, Sweden will take over the presidency of the EU for a half-year forward. Last week, Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson reported here in the Riksdag on the Swedish priorities during the presidency. He stated that Sweden's presidency risks being overshadowed by Russia's war against Ukraine and the European energy crisis. At the same time, Sweden will work to ensure that the EU also has the strength to handle other more long-term issues. Sweden will be a constructive force that tries to unite the EU countries in important issues, and the Prime Minister has stated that he wants the EU to be a little better when Sweden hands over the presidency than when we took it over.

Politically, Sweden will have a focus on several different issues.

Firstly, it is about the EU's external and internal security when it comes to both support for Ukraine and sanctions against Russia, joint management of migration, better border surveillance and expanded police cooperation and the fight against cross-border organized crime.

Secondly, it is about environmental and energy issues, with reduced dependence on Russian gas and a focus on secure electricity production and a stable European energy market.

For the third, it is about a long-term focus on European competitiveness, so that we get more companies to invest and grow in Europe. The EU has lagged behind in these issues in recent years. USA and China are investing more and more in research and development, more than the EU. The EU must catch up.

For the fourth, it is about the defense of democratic values, fundamental rule of law principles, that agreements are upheld, as well as a focus on a responsible management of EU funds.

For the fifth - that was what I started with - it is about the EU doing the right things and being good at them, but not interfering in matters that each country best decides for itself.

I believe and hope that everyone in the Riksdag looks forward to the Swedish presidency and wants to try to contribute to making something good of it, which is for the benefit of both Sweden and the EU.

Mr. Speaker! I am now in my 17th year as a member of the Swedish Riksdag and can state that every parliamentary year is unique. But in a turbulent political everyday life, the chanceries of the Committee on Finance and the EU Committee always stand for stability and professional competence. I would especially like to thank colleagues and officials in the Committee on Finance and the EU Committee for a pleasant atmosphere, good humor, and great creativity when it comes to handling practical problems. It does not seem that there are any problems or any workload that make our chanceries lose their temper. You all deserve a lovely Christmas holiday. I wish you all, and also the Speaker and the officials in the chamber, a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Mr. Speaker! Russia's aggressive warfare against Ukraine will, for natural reasons, be in focus for the EU during 2023. Even if this deplorable and brutal war ends, the EU will be an important part in supporting the reconstruction of a democratic and free Ukraine, with both economic and humanitarian aid. But the Swedish government has decided that support to Ukraine shall be deducted from the aid budget, which will affect the countries that have been indirectly affected by the war. It is poor countries that are dependent on imports of grain and that have been affected by higher costs for energy and food. It is aid organizations that cannot afford to help as many. Vänsterpartiet will do everything to change this direction. We shall support Ukraine, but the resources cannot be taken from the aid – neither the Swedish nor the EU's.

Hungary has for some time blocked the EU's support for Ukraine in order to push through its recovery plan. This type of blocking has been used by countries in the past to get their will through, but now it is the EU's democratic values that are at stake. When both Poland's and Hungary's recovery plans have passed, it is important that the EU, and not least Sweden during the Swedish presidency, does not yield and pay out support to avoid blockages. The principles of the rule of law must apply to all countries within the EU, not only when applying for membership but also when one is a member.

Vänsterpartiet is fundamentally critical of the multiannual financial framework, MFF, that the EU has adopted. We are also critical of the recovery fund. We want to see less money for the military and border policy and for agriculture that is harmful to the climate. Instead, we want to see a recovery policy with social investments, green transition, and modern infrastructure. We are also critical of the ongoing discussion about introducing more fees and taxes at the EU level, something that Sweden must say no to when such sharp proposals arise.

The recently decided Fit for 55 package is good but not enough. More is required for the EU's member states to reach climate neutrality. The transition to renewables has gone far too slowly. We would prefer to see a Fit for 70 package instead, i.e., that the goal should be to reduce emissions by 70 percent instead of 55.

Part of the new agreement on Fit for 55 is that waste incineration shall be included in the trading of emission allowances. But here in the Riksdag, the majority has decided to abolish the tax on waste incineration. I, who believe that the EU is not doing enough for the climate, can nevertheless state that it is now, somewhat surprisingly, the EU that is putting the brakes on Sweden's environmental and climate work, not the other way around, as I think it should be.

Today, the EU provides our neighbors with financial support so that they will keep refugees away. Instead of having their own rescue ships in the Mediterranean, this is entrusted to the Libyan coast guard. The Libyan coast guard receives training, equipment, and support from the EU. But there are many reports that the Libyan coast guard conducts an inhuman hunt on vulnerable people. Reports have also emerged regarding extortion and slave trading. Yet the EU continues with this cooperation and develops it, and EU countries refuse to rescue ships with migrants. They let people die in the Mediterranean. If there is ever a time when one can use the phrase "with full knowledge of the consequences," it is here.

The cooperation with Turkey also continues unabated. At the EU's external border, refugees are forced back via so-called pushbacks, and their right to seek asylum is taken away from them. Vänsterpartiet wants to see a different policy that guarantees people asylum rights and human rights. Here, we particularly look forward to the quota refugee system that our MEP Malin Björk has negotiated. Sweden must, of course, accept quota refugees and not, as the government does, say that we should accept as few as possible.

Finally, I want to advocate for Sweden prices, where Sweden should be exempted from the EU's electricity market so that we can set prices according to our own production costs. It is time for the government to start driving this.

Since Sweden's budget for the EU is determined by the EU's long-term budget and the budget decisions that have been made outside of the Riksdag, we have no other proposal within the expenditure area.

I would now like to take the opportunity to wish a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to the members of the Finance Committee and the secretariat, but also to my colleagues in the Committee on Taxation, as well as to the Speaker and the Chancellery.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The European Union has on repeated occasions demonstrated its ability to handle crises. Pressure has been progressively increased on Russia to cease its illegal and unprovoked invasion, and there is a continued important unity regarding supporting Ukraine. Quite recently, an agreement was reached on a ninth sanctions package against Russia, and the support packages continue to help the Ukrainian population ahead of the war winter that has already begun.

It feels important to begin with these observations now that we are discussing the fee to the European Union. There are those who say that there is no point in being part of the EU. In the uneasy times we live in, they have now received an answer.

It is not only Putin's aggressive and unjust war against Ukraine that is shaking things, but it is also the energy problems that we have to deal with, as well as climate issues and higher inflation. There are a number of different examples where we should seek common solutions to our advantage.

The three Christian Democrats, Adenauer, De Gasperi, and Schumann, who laid the foundation for today's EU, had a vision of connecting people and nations. Instead of estrangement, a "us" and "them," we would all see the value of and in one another. They wanted to create a Europe that stood up for freedom, democracy, and equality, and that embraced respect for human dignity, human rights, and the rule of law, for solidarity and protection for all.

It was this that was created from the ruins of World War II, which is today's EU. Just as then, EU today can be an answer to the crises and challenges of the present time.

Mr. Speaker! For us Christian Democrats, it is therefore important that the EU focuses on the right things. It is, for example, not Swedish snus that should be dealt with. The EU shall work for peace, not least through trade, and be a clear and strong voice for the values that have built and are building Europe.

I remember how during my time as chairman of the youth organization KDU in the 90s, we learned that tongue-twisting word and expression "the subsidiarity principle", i.e., that decisions should be made at the lowest possible effective level. A bit jokingly, we said that if you could say "the subsidiarity principle" without stumbling, well, then you would have become a real politician.

We Christian Democrats will also continue to be a guarantee that the EU is not given unjustified power. The member states themselves can best decide what the member states should continue to decide on. This leads me to some comments regarding the Swedish fee to the European Union.

Mr. Speaker! We have continued a broad consensus here in the Riksdag that the EU needs to prioritize instead of proposing large spending increases. In light of the United Kingdom's Brexit, this should have been a conclusion that all member states drew and continue to draw. But we who follow the discussion hear and see that the EU rather continues as if nothing had happened.

Even though the pandemic justified the EU and its member states taking a number of measures to mitigate the effects, there is reason to take to heart what the European Court of Auditors has stated in its annual report for the 2021 budget year. It is in many ways an interesting but also somewhat frightening read.

We Christian Democrats have therefore, based on this report, expressed our concern regarding the sharp increase in outstanding commitments that has occurred during the recent period. The EU audit shows that the EU budget's exposure to contingent liabilities more than doubled during 2021.

One example is the SURE instrument. It is intended to be temporary support to reduce the risk of unemployment in a crisis situation resulting from the covid-19 pandemic. Last week, the Commission announced that it had now made its final payment in connection with SURE. At the same time, we know that there are discussions, and not just discussions but people want to put forward proposals, in both the European Parliament and among some member states in southern Europe, to convert this instrument into something permanent – or at least to invent a new instrument that can take over.

We mean that the EU's continued work with financing should take place through reprioritizations, not new loans. Our government shall therefore be a clear voice for this. Liability obligations must, as is known, be honored sooner or later, and the exposure that is now being built up can come to affect the member states' fees significantly in the future.

Mr. Speaker! The fact that such a large part of the EU is financed by the member states' contributions is a counterweight to the constant proposals that the EU must increase its expenditures. One simply cannot bypass the member states. Furthermore, in the Council of Ministers, every member state has a veto in the budget issue. We must guard against this, because both at the Commission and in Parliament there are strong desires to create an EU tax, which would make it possible to not have to take the detour through the member countries to meet their desires for a more generous view on the union's tasks.

Mr. Speaker! I began this speech by focusing on the added value that the EU has created and creates, not least in times of uncertainty and crisis. The EU is, in fact, so much more than money and fees. At the same time, as a Christian Democrat, I want to emphasize how important it is that Sweden, and not least the government in which we Christian Democrats are now included, remains crystal clear that the EU shall not be given direct or indirect taxing rights over the union's citizens.

With this, I wish the Speaker and the Speaker's Presidium, the Secretariat, and my friends in the Finance Committee a blessed and peaceful Christmas holiday as well as a Happy New Year.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! As Sweden now begins its presidency in the EU, there are also a number of challenges concerning the union's financing and indebtedness. I nevertheless want to start with the absolute need to increase support for Ukraine in the near term, which, under the pressure of Putin's human rights-violating invasion, is experiencing an acute humanitarian and economic crisis. Ukraine currently needs financing equivalent to 40 billion kronor per month to avoid state bankruptcy and hyperinflation, according to both the International Monetary Fund and a number of other assessors. Ukraine needs direct support and also EU-common loans on long-term, favorable terms to survive and win the war.

It is therefore very welcome that the EU has now agreed on a joint borrowing of 18 billion euros, approximately 180 billion kronor, on favorable long-term terms, guaranteed via the EU budget, for Ukraine. This is something the Center Party was the first in the Riksdag to demand that Sweden should drive within the EU.

Now these loans must be paid out promptly. This is however not enough. In relation to the existential threat that the war in Ukraine poses, this type of admittedly unconventional and unique financing is both necessary and right and should be expanded during the coming years, Mr. Speaker, until Ukraine has made it through the extreme economic distress and defeated Putin's brutal invasion army.

This instrument must be delimited to just this unique situation and not become a general instrument for EU financing. On the contrary, the EU risks, as a result of these repeated crises—the financial crisis, the pandemic, the war, and the energy crisis—adopting joint financing and borrowing as a solution to problems where the natural course is domestic financing, even solidarity-based financing between countries, without putting the EU's common budget at risk. Ukraine is unique in our time, and must remain so.

It is now two and a half years since the EU in 2020 agreed on a new long-term budget and the recovery fund which is a direct result of the corona pandemic. The result was not what the Center Party desired, nor was it what Sweden, the Riksdag, desired. But it was nevertheless an agreement between 27 member countries with different starting points and conditions.

It is now completely crucial that the funds are closely linked to countries' respect for the principles of the rule of law, that is to say, accompanied by a strict conditionality under which a country can lose its EU funds if the principles are not followed.

Mr. Speaker! This is being tested now in the case of Hungary, where Sweden must not waver or hesitate in backing the demands for democracy, anti-corruption, and accountability that Hungary must fulfill - especially not when the government has unfortunately made itself dependent on a party that has many times not only excused but also praised the authoritarian and corrupt regime in Hungary. The demands must be complied with and be effective.

Centerpartiet abstains, as is customary, from taking a position regarding appropriations within expenditure area 27 because the parliamentary majority in the first step of the budget process has chosen a different direction than the one we desire. We consider it to be unchanged that a budget option is seen as a whole where parts are not broken out and treated in isolation.

But I want to move for approval of the Center Party's reservation, which is of a principled nature. The reservation highlights the problems we see with the budget and the recovery fund. This applies in particular to the expansion of the EU's ability to generate its own revenue, for example through an expanded taxing right through a digital tax on tech companies. Such a tech tax paradoxically counteracts its purpose by weakening the European home market for European tech companies against their competitors, especially American competitors. It is wrong, primarily for principled reasons. There is neither a popular mandate nor an economic need to expand the EU's taxing right in this way at the expense of the member states.

The European Union shall now and forever stand for freedom and openness.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank the Speaker for this fine year, my colleagues in the committee and in the Riksdag, and not least the fantastic, irreplaceable staff in the Finance Committee who save us time and again and make us better than we would have been otherwise. To all of you, I also wish a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 17.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)