The fee to the European Union
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the fee to the EU and how it should be financed and affect Sweden. S argues that the government has caused poor growth by prioritizing tax cuts over welfare 1 and wants to strengthen EU cooperation for crime fighting 1. SD wants to lower costs and increase self-determination as Sweden is used as an ATM for other member states 2. M argues that the government has succeeded in protecting taxpayers by keeping the fee increase manageable 3 and that support for Ukraine is a necessary security investment 3. V wants less money for the military and border policy as well as a faster green transition 4. KD wants the fee to be financed through reprioritizations 5 and that member states should handle what they can best handle themselves 5.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Björn Wiechel (S)
Mr. Speaker! Sweden's contribution to the European Union depends on Sweden's gross national income. The size therefore varies with the growth that we have. Now the situation is that Sweden under the SD government has the worst growth in the EU. We are at the bottom. It has of course been important to fight inflation. It is the wage earners who have taken the great responsibility there through restraint in the wage negotiations, even though ten years of real wage increases have disappeared. It is an impressive responsibility.
The SD government, on the other hand, has not taken responsibility. Instead, it is throwing Sweden into a healthcare crisis completely without justification, where the regions across the country are falling to their knees. All experts agree that providing welfare with the financial support that would have been needed now would not drive up inflation. Nevertheless, the SD government is putting welfare on a starvation diet.
Housing construction, which is so fundamental for the economy and the country to function, has ground to a halt. But the SD government is doing nothing and is neglecting it totally.
Households in Sweden have an incredibly tough economic situation today. A large part need help with money from relatives. It is worst for the single-person households. People need to borrow money for food, and the aid organizations are alarming about how many who turn to them. But the SD government does minimally to help.
What has been done instead is to lower the tax by 13 billion for those with the highest incomes in the country, i.e., the SD government's core voters. What the SD government also does is protect the banks and their excess profits, which they have acquired by enriching themselves at the expense of households in these difficult times. The SD government takes the side of the banks and blocks our proposals to return a portion of the excess profits to the households.
With such a policy, which forces cuts in welfare, which does not keep the economy running, and which redistributes from poor to rich, it is not strange that one has the worst growth in the EU. In that case, it is hardly any consolation that Sweden might get a somewhat lower fee, because in total, Sweden becomes poorer.
Sweden is also becoming more dangerous. The development regarding gang shootings and mafia violence is not going in the right direction, but in the wrong direction. The SD government has proceeded with certain increased penalties and reinforcements of the justice system that Magdalena Andersson initiated but is completely blind to breaking the new recruitment. All the preventive measures that would be needed are not only missing but are being cut back across the country as a result of the SD government's anti-welfare policy.
The criminal gangs and gangs often operate not just in one country but often in two or three countries simultaneously. This means that even crime fighting needs to be coordinated within the EU if we are to be successful. European cooperation is a key if we are to succeed in tackling crime.
The EU is also central in another completely decisive struggle. A war is ongoing in our immediate vicinity. Ukraine is fighting a battle for all of us. The need for a united Europe that stands up against the aggressor Russia has never been greater.
In this situation, the Sweden Democrats - the party that governs the government - are pushing for Sweden to evaluate its membership and initiate a svexit debate. Obviously, they do not care about crime fighting any more than that. Obviously, in this security policy situation, they choose to undermine and split the European Union and its cohesion. That is what we get with a Hungary-inspired party like SD. The one who thanks and accepts is Putin. Sweden and the EU become more dangerous.
Mr. Speaker! Sweden has long been known, not least within the EU, for being at the forefront of showing how we combine increased prosperity and welfare with also making a transition. We have been an example and a driver for development. We are also well-equipped and positioned for this. The new industrialization is Sweden's hope for the future. But this is now being jeopardized by the SD government.
What would be needed is a government that clearly shows where we are headed and that sends clear signals that we believe in the development, a government that meets the demand for housing construction and electricity production here and now. But all of that – the forward momentum, the housing construction and the electricity production here and now – is now being undermined by the SD government. We have an SD government that undermines the growth of the new jobs. It makes Sweden poorer.
From being a country where GDP increased and emissions decreased, the SD government has led Sweden to the EU's worst growth and increasing emissions. It is even to the extent that Sweden risks not receiving all the money from the EU's recovery fund due to the SD government's policy.
Madam Speaker! That Sweden is led by a party that incites against entire groups of people and divides societies is not only humanly and morally wrong. It also causes Swedes to have problems all around the EU and the world. The uncertainty and the threat level increase. And Swedish companies face problems with relations and contacts. We lose in reputation, in business. It makes it both poorer and more dangerous to be Swedish.
It is a dark time. Sweden is declining in the economy, in our relationship with the EU and the rest of the world, and in our security. But it did not have to be so dark.
We Social Democrats will work for a policy that sees the households and how they struggle with the economy, shows them respect and gives them economic support. We will continue to fight the relentless gang violence, both with a firm hand and by pushing for a policy to break the new recruitment. And we will not only do it in Sweden but also in the cross-border EU cooperation that it requires.
We Social Democrats will push to ensure that Sweden is a strong voice for an EU that holds together in uncertain times. We will continue to pursue a policy for Sweden to be built correctly, which takes advantage of the new industry and meets the challenge with a social construction where we are once again an example in the EU.
Here lies the dividing line between the Social Democrats and the SD government. We stand for a policy that takes a collective responsibility in Sweden and in the EU for stability, security, and strength in a way that is to the benefit of Sweden and Swedish citizens.
Charlotte Quensel (SD)
Madam Speaker! This year, the EU fee is budgeted at over 46 billion kronor for 2024. The fee is based on the so-called MFF, that is, the long-term budget running from 2021 up to and including 2027.
In addition to budgeted costs, a mid-term review of the MFF is underway. Unfortunately, the Commission and several Member States consider the mid-term to be equivalent to requesting more money. It is an unsustainable attitude. We need to strengthen certain areas, but this must occur through redistribution within the existing budget and not by increasing Sweden's costs outside the framework that has been decided upon.
The Sweden Democrats voted no to the MFF. The reasons for that were many. Among others, we did not see how the budget and the enormous recovery fund, Next Generation EU, which together amount to approximately 20,000 billion kronor, would lead to the promised growth within the union. Unfortunately, it looks like we are being proven right. Economists more and more frequently describe the growth in the EU as dying, despite the grotesquely large fund. The EU audit has also issued ice-cold criticism regarding how Next Generation EU was created and managed and that the member states are not in agreement on how the repayment should take place.
The support for Ukraine is the only cost that the Sweden Democrats want to see regarding the long-term budget. And it is very worrying that Hungary voted no to the support package on Thursday. But I am convinced that the EU will resolve the support for Ukraine at the beginning of next year. No other alternative exists for us.
Madam Speaker! The EU was born in the wake of a ravaged Europe through the will to cooperate to secure peace on the continent. The insight was that peace must be built on free nations and free peoples. It was free movement for the union's inhabitants, goods, services, and money that was to pave the way for a favorable future within the union.
Today, the pressure on the EU is increasing more and more. If we are to manage the planned expansion to the east at all, all members must begin to take responsibility for their own country's public finances, for their country's climate, for their country's growth, and so on.
We see several problems in our vicinity but also within the union. Ukraine, a poor neighboring country, is at war with no peace in sight. One of the union's founders, the United Kingdom, has chosen to leave the EU community as problems and costs were considered to exceed the benefits. Certain member states use pure blackmail and bargaining to push through their demands, which hardly belongs in an organization like the EU. At the same time, the EU's supranationalism is increasing, which directly counteracts the purpose of the free nations. In the wake of the shift of power to Brussels, it is increasingly about moving economic resources from countries with high tax pressure on their citizens to countries with poor economic governance.
The EU will not be able to continue on the current track where a few well-off member states shall bear the burden for the others. The Sweden Democrats want to lower costs and increase self-determination. We want to tighten the EU's budget by jointly focusing on what is absolutely most important for the union.
What are the EU's strengths are increasingly being pushed aside by mandatory laws at the EU level, as well as by the fact that economically mismanaged member states are to be kept running through new enormous funds, financed by countries like Sweden taking a larger cost or through an increased fee for countries like Sweden, or by completely letting go of control and letting the EU continue to collect its own taxes, so-called new own resources, while the fee still increases for Sweden.
This development is not sustainable. Using member states like Sweden as free ATMs to keep poorly managed countries afloat will not make the EU competitive – on the contrary. The more the EU costs, the fewer economic resources we have to invest in Sweden.
In half a year, there will be elections to the European Parliament. Questions we should ask ourselves are: How are our Swedish tax dollars best used? What should the EU focus on? And how do we want the EU to develop in the future?
With these questions, I conclude by moving for the approval of the proposal in the committee report and wish the Deputy Speaker, the Chancellery, observers, officials, and colleagues in the Finance Committee a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Jan Ericson (M)
Madam Speaker! Three years ago, I stood in this rostrum and debated that year's budget decision regarding the EU fee. I have looked at my old notes. I note that I then expressed my and the Moderates' great concern regarding a sharply rising EU fee.
Unfortunately, it became a reality. We received both a sharp Swedish fee increase in 2021 and an extensive so-called recovery fund where, with borrowed funds, we put future generations into debt to provide grants to European countries that mismanaged their economies for many years.
Now comes the bill. Rising interest costs entail a great need for new money for the EU's budget to finance the fund. Many of us warned against exactly this. But the Social Democrats did not listen, and they did not negotiate particularly well, but instead put us in a completely impossible situation.
Unfortunately, the previous S-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 saw it in many other areas where the Green Party-led S-government in some cases almost gave walkover. It damaged important Swedish interests.
Point by point, it turned out that Sweden's previous government could not withstand strong forces in the EU that pushed for decisions that disadvantage Sweden. They did not prioritize EU issues, and the ministers often did not enter the discussions early enough in the processes but let the negotiations be handled by civil servants. The new Moderate-led government has a completely different approach to EU issues.
Madam Speaker! The goal of Swedish budget policy in the EU was actually established by the Riksdag as early as 1994 and means that Sweden shall prioritize common problems that are managed more effectively at the EU level than by the individual member states individually.
Sweden shall also, according to the goal that was established, 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.
Sweden is a large net payer to the EU. It obligates us to closely monitor how EU funds are used, to work to ensure that EU budget frameworks are respected, and to be restrictive towards new large unfunded expenditures. The Moderate-led government has a significantly greater commitment to these issues than the previous government.
We now also have clear support in the Committee on Finance and the EU Committee to pursue the line that the EU shall respect the financial frameworks in the EU's multiannual budget, counter fraud and negligence with EU funds, and work for realistic forecasts.
If more money is needed, priority should first be given to the existing budget. The Swedish government is pushing with full force in this direction together with other budget-restrictive member states.
This report is part of the processing of the government's budget bill. This means that the Riksdag formally decides on an appropriation of just under 41 billion as a fee to the European Union next year and additionally authorizes the government to enter into the commitments that follow from the EU budget for the 2024 budget year. I would like to take this opportunity to move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.
Madam Speaker! The question of the EU fee is not only about how much money we put into the EU, but also about what benefit we get from the EU and what we get back.
At the end of last week, the EU Committee had a meeting in the middle of the night between Thursday and Friday, for the sake of variety. At a quarter past two in the morning, we logged on for a meeting with the Prime Minister, who announced both happy and less happy news.
The first positive news was that the EU had agreed to initiate membership negotiations with Ukraine and Moldova. It is extremely welcome. It shows the people in those countries that we want to see them as part of a democratic and peaceful Europe.
It was also clearly stated that Sweden had succeeded in influencing the negotiations on the EU budget surprisingly well. As the most persistent of all member states, Sweden finally succeeded in gaining support for that redistribution within the existing EU budget must take precedence over increased fees when expenditures in the EU increase as a result of inflation and rising interest rates.
The fee increase for Sweden after the negotiations was previously estimated to be 5 billion in the autumn, and now we were down to 400 million per year. It is thus one-tenth of what was said from the beginning. It is a highly manageable level in relation to our EU fee, which will be somewhere around 45-50 billion per year in the coming years.
It is a very great success for the Swedish government. It also shows that we are fighting for Swedish interests in the EU and have succeeded in protecting Swedish taxpayers' money.
The final announcement from the Prime Minister was, however, very regrettable. The EU's large long-term support package for Ukraine with grants and loans received support from 26 of the 27 member states. Hungary unfortunately cast its veto against supporting Ukraine.
Negotiations in that part continue after the turn of the year. Much suggests that the 26 EU countries will likely resolve the issue of support for Ukraine in another way, outside the EU budget and without Hungary. The support needs to be in place during the first quarter of next year, and work is currently underway to find solutions to this.
But that 26 of the EU's 27 countries stand firmly on Ukraine's side is, after all, an important signal, not least to the USA where the same issue is being discussed domestically. For Sweden, the agreed and promised long-term support to Ukraine corresponds to a cost of approximately 1.6 billion per year. These are funds that, in that case, are expected to be taken from the somewhat trimmed Swedish aid budget, where priorities have been shifted to make Ukraine the largest aid country.
Madam Speaker! Helping Ukraine defend itself against Russian aggression is an investment for Sweden and in Sweden's and Europe's security. It will definitely not become cheaper to defend Europe in the future if we let Putin continue his ravages. The risk is obvious that the Russian appetite will grow if we do not stop them now. Sweden's assistance to Ukraine today can save large sums of money in the future. It is also ethically, morally, and under international law self-evident.
Madam Speaker! We will soon enter a campaign period ahead of the election to the European Parliament. When it comes to the debate on the EU, there are often many discussions about the budget, money, and how the balance of power between the EU and the national parliaments should look.
Unfortunately, there is far too much to criticize. For my part, I think that the development in the EU often goes in the wrong direction towards more supranationalism, a swelling budget and, not least, unreasonable and ill-considered proposals.
We can only mention forced renovations of housing or forced scrapping of cars. It is such things that create concern in the member states and concern among the inhabitants in our member states before the proposals are often stopped during the process precisely because they are so unreasonable. There is also a lack of understanding for different circumstances in different member states.
In the long run, EU's confidence is seriously undermined if people perceive that different EU institutions forget who they are there for and lose respect for the citizens in the member states.
A constantly swelling EU budget also threatens confidence in the EU. Things are not best achieved because it is the EU that distributes the money. It is rather the opposite. For the EU's net recipients, there are also reasons to show more respect for the taxpayers in the countries that are net contributors, including Sweden.
Madam Speaker! At the same time, it is easy for criticism of the EU to take overhand and for one to forget the values that were the basis for the EU being formed. These values are at least as relevant today. It is about the defense of peace and of the open democratic society, freedom of expression, free elections, free press and civil liberties and rights.
But it is also about cooperation instead of protectionism and excessive nationalism. The EU is also an important actor for solving common cross-border issues, such as 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 migration flows to Europe, and countering cross-border crime. The EU's competitiveness and economic development is another issue, which was raised in a productive manner by Sweden during our presidency.
In this context, there is also reason to point out that even energy issues must be handled more wisely than today. With a common energy market, every country that pursues an irresponsible energy policy will cause problems for other member states.
Madam Speaker! I am now in my 18th year as a member of the Swedish Parliament and have the honor of being a regular member of both the Committee on Finance and the EU Committee. In a turbulent political everyday life, the chanceries of the Committee on Finance and the EU Committee always stand for stability and competence. I would especially like to thank colleagues and officials in these two committees for the pleasant atmosphere and good humor.
It does not seem that there are any problems or any workload that cause our chanceries to lose their composure. We saw it during the pandemic, and we saw it during the night between Thursday and Friday when we had an extra meeting with the Prime Minister at a quarter past three in the morning. It worked then too.
We can well hope that the Committee on Finance and the Committee on EU Affairs will not need to be called in extra during the days between Christmas and New Year to handle urgent EU matters. But should that happen, we will handle that as well.
In conclusion, I would like to wish all our civil servants at the offices, and of course also the Speaker and the officials in the chamber, a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)
Madam Speaker! Russia's full-scale war against Ukraine will, for natural reasons, be in focus for the EU even during 2024. Even when the war is over, 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 the support to Ukraine shall be deducted from the aid budget, which will affect the countries that are indirectly affected by the war. It is the poor countries, which are dependent on imports of grain and which have been affected by higher costs for energy and food. It is also about 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 aid nor the EU's collective aid.
When Hungary last week refused to accept the budget for 2024 and with it the support for Ukraine, the country showed that it continues on the path it has taken. Hungary already tried last year to stop the support for Ukraine. Now it is important that the EU does not give in but finds other ways to support Ukraine, which Hungary cannot stop. It is the EU's democratic values that are at stake. 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 long-term budget, MFF, that the EU has adopted. 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. It is a success that Sweden has now managed to remove that issue from the agenda for 2024. Here I must give praise to the government. It is not so often that one has reason to do so, so I must take the opportunity when it is given.
The budget for 2024 that the EU is now discussing involves increased commitments and a higher fee for Sweden if it is approved. Sweden has negotiated well to keep the increase down and to ensure that redistributions are made within the budget instead. Vänsterpartiet can agree with the budget proposal that is now on the table as far as the overall frameworks are concerned, but not with the expansion of the budget for migration policy and that it shall mainly consist of closing Europe's borders, opening more camps, and preventing people from seeking asylum by, among other things, having more "partnerships with third countries," which often are dictatorships.
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 money, training, equipment, and other 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 trade. The EU continues with this cooperation nonetheless and develops it, and EU countries avoid helping sinking ships with migrants.
The cooperation with Turkey also continues unabated, and there are proposals for expansions in the budget. At the EU's external border, refugees are forced back via so-called pushbacks, that is, with violence, and their right to seek asylum is taken away from them. Vänsterpartiet wants to see a different EU policy that guarantees people the right to asylum and human rights.
Madam Speaker! The EU needs to transition to renewable energy. The Fit for 55 package is good, but it is not enough. More is required for the EU's member states to reach climate neutrality. The transition to renewable energy is going 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.
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 acting as a brake on Sweden's environmental and climate work and not the other way around, which is how I think it should be. The agreement at the climate summit COP 28 is good, but it is not good enough. Sweden and the EU need to lead the way in climate work and go further than what the agreement says. Fossil energy must be phased out quickly.
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, Vänsterpartiet has no other proposal for expenditures within this area.
I would like to conclude by taking the opportunity to wish a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to those following the debate, to the members and offices of the Committee on Finance and the Committee on Taxation, as well as to the Speaker and the Chancellery, and not least to my colleague in the Committee on Finance, Ali Esbati, who is leaving the Riksdag after New Year.
Hans Eklind (KD)
Madam Speaker! Ever since October 7, when we have progressively learned more and more about the heinous and indiscriminate killing of innocent children, women, and men that the terrorist organization Hamas has committed, I – and I believe many others in Sweden – have reflected and pondered on the question of how we can bring an end to this evil.
The question became even more pressing when we saw how people in Sweden celebrated this murder. Is it possible to reverse such a development?
One who did not lose hope and who pointed to a solution was the Israeli author Amos Oz, who died in 2018. I believe he was on to something when, in his book How to Cure a Fanatic, he suggested that peace between Jews and Palestinians can be achieved when people meet and share each other's life stories.
It was also this faith that made it possible for three Christian Democrats, Adenauer, De Gasperi and Schuman, to lay the foundation for what we today call the EU. They nurtured a vision of connecting people and nations from the ruins of the Second World War. Instead of estrangement, a we and they, we would be bound together where the unknown becomes known and the foreign something that we nevertheless understand. We would be able to see each other and the value in each other.
Madam Speaker! The EU has decided and plays an important role that individual member states cannot play on their own. I am thinking, of course, of Ukraine as a clear example. Quite recently, the EU agreed on a twelfth sanctions package in response to Russia's war of invasion. There is also a consensus here in Sweden's Riksdag and a government that in words and actions truly says that this is the most prioritized issue.
What we are all waiting for now is for this also to become a reality. When 26 of 27 member states say that one should intervene substantially to help Ukraine, this must not be hindered by a member state. We hope to see this being launched for real at the beginning of next year.
Madam Speaker! Another thing that an individual member state cannot best manage alone is what we call emissions that occur, for example, via air and waterways. It is a problem in the individual country, but it can also be something that affects surrounding countries. Therefore, international solutions are also required in the environmental and climate fields.
After many, long and difficult negotiations, we now have the EU's major climate package Fit for 55 which has been finalized. This is not least about my own party leader, Minister for Energy and Business Ebba Busch, who has to the highest degree contributed to making this happen. It was and is a great success, because the package means not only a lot for the climate but also for the EU's future competitiveness.
Madam Speaker! These were two short examples where I mean that we can, to our advantage, seek solutions with other countries.
Madam Speaker! When it comes to the EU fee, the EU's continued work should primarily be financed through reprioritizations, not new loans or tax bases. Our government shall therefore be, and is, a clear voice for this. Even here in this Riksdag, there is a very broad common understanding. Financial obligations must, as is known, be settled sooner or later, and here the EU has built up an exposure that in any case fills us with concern regarding how this will be able to affect the member states' fees in the future.
That we today have the opportunity here in the Swedish Riksdag to discuss the fee - even though I feel there is still a little time left - is an arrangement that we Christian Democrats like very much. It is a counterweight to the constant proposals that the EU must be allowed to increase its expenditures and that one wants to bypass the member states. What we are doing today is speaking about the fact that it is not possible to bypass Swedish parliamentarians. Here, we decide the EU fee.
In the Council of Ministers, furthermore, every member state has a veto right on the budget issue. We must guard that - there I agree with the Left Party's representative. There are, in fact, very strong federalist currents down in Brussels, and there have been for the last decades, which want to create an EU taxation so that one can avoid the troublesome member states that have opinions on the EU's budget.
Madam Speaker! It felt important to begin by pointing out the added value that the EU has created and continues to create. Schumann's, De Gasperi's, and Adenauer's thoughts on binding us together to be able to handle times of anxiety and crisis have proven to be effective. Even though I see that the EU is much more than money and fees, I want to conclude by stating that the Christian Democrats are a guarantee that the EU is not given unjustified power. What the member states can best manage themselves, the EU should not concern itself with either.
With this, I would like to wish Madam Speaker, the Speaker's Bureau, my friends in the Finance Committee, and our wonderful secretariat a blessed and peaceful Christmas holiday and a Happy New Year.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.