The fee to the European Union

Gunilla Carlsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! We will now debate Sweden's contribution to the European Union for 2025. The proposal is that just over 47 billion from the state budget shall go to the EU contribution and that the government may enter into the financial commitments that follow from the 2025 EU budget.

The recent years have brought major economic and political challenges in the EU. In 2021, the long-term budget for the EU, which shall apply until 2027, was decided. The agreement on the long-term budget also included a so-called recovery instrument, Next Generation EU, and the EU's corona fund. This instrument was developed for the purpose of counteracting the negative economic effects of the covid-19 pandemic.

During the year, an agreement has also been reached in the EU regarding multi-year financial support for Ukraine, which is very important. Parallel to this, a number of sanction packages have also been decided upon due to Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, with the fifteenth package just the other day.

Ukraine is fighting for its freedom, its self-determination and its democracy. But they are also fighting for Sweden and all of Europe's security, our freedom and our way of life. Therefore, we and all of Europe must stand by Ukraine's side until the last Russian soldier has left the country.

Mr. Speaker! A couple of weeks ago, the European Parliament voted on the EU's annual budget for 2025. It was a long and protracted negotiation where the Council and the Parliament landed on a compromise proposal that cannot be seen as anything other than a major failure for the Swedish government.

A question in this year's budget process has concerned how to handle the interest costs from the recovery facility that was established to help member states recover economically after the pandemic and contribute to the EU's green and digital transition.

To finance the recovery facility, the EU Commission has borrowed money, which means that the increased interest costs have also significantly affected the EU's budget. In the Commission's initial forecasts, it was estimated that the costs from interest would be 5 billion euros in 2027. Now they are at nearly 5 billion euros already next year. It is almost a doubling. For 2027, the interest costs could rise to nearly 9 or 10 billion euros.

Mr. Speaker! Instead of adjusting the suit to the economic situation, the Council and the European Parliament stood behind a proposal where no reprioritizations are made within the budget to pay for the interest rates. Instead, they use crisis instruments and unused commitments that have a direct impact on Sweden's membership fee to the EU.

This is unsustainable. In a situation where many Swedish and European households are struggling with high interest rates, rising food prices, and increased housing costs, the parliament therefore chooses to send the bill for the increased interest costs to the member countries and their citizens.

The goal of Swedish budget policy in the EU is to prioritize common challenges within a number of areas that are managed more effectively at the EU level than by the individual member states. Sweden shall also work for an effective and restrained budget policy within the EU.

It is a tough economic situation, but it is not sustainable that the EU is now heading down a path where we use crisis money and buffers to pay off debts. The EU faces major challenges in the coming years, not least climate crises and our security. Then we need to ensure that we have buffers to be able to invest in strengthening the EU's resilience. That the EU wants to use these buffers to pay interest is irresponsible.

Before the handling of the EU's budget negotiations, a united EU Committee had given a mandate to the Swedish government to position itself as a restrained EU country. But the Swedish government failed to push through Sweden's position in the negotiations. They didn't even manage to hold their own, that is, the Tidö parties, at the vote. There was a major split in votes. It was, as someone expressed it, frankly messy on the Swedish EU front. This sends a divided signal from the Swedish government, and it makes it more difficult for Sweden's Finance Minister Elisabeth Svantesson in continued negotiations.

The Social Democrats in parliament voted no, precisely because they want to see a more responsible management of the increased interest costs. They do not want to see the bill sent to the Swedish taxpayers.

The SD-led government takes no responsibility either in the EU or in Sweden. Sweden faces great trials. Even though the inflation rate has now slowed down, we are pressured by high prices, record-high unemployment, and a growth at the bottom of Europe. From having been a country where GDP has increased and emissions have decreased, we are now a country at the bottom of the ranking both in terms of growth and in terms of reaching set climate goals.

Sweden has previously been known, not least within the EU, for having been far ahead in terms of combining increased prosperity and increased welfare with the ability to transition. We have been an example and a driver, not least within the green transition. We must transition to manage the climate crisis. It is not possible to wait or put climate policy on pause.

Mr. Speaker! We are currently in the most serious security policy situation since the Second World War. We have war in our immediate vicinity but also all around the world. We have political turbulence in Europe, and at the beginning of next year we will see Trump take over the presidency in the USA. It is easy to feel despondent, Mr. Speaker.

We Social Democrats stand firm that Sweden shall be a strong voice for an EU that holds together, not least in uncertain times. We will continue to pursue a policy so that Sweden shall be built correctly, take advantage of the green transition and meet the challenge with a social construction where the country is once again an example in the EU.

With this, Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish everyone a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

(Applause)

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! This debate is about the EU fee. But the Center Party's reservation on a specific point concerns the Swedish government's climate policy within the EU, its starting points for the discussions on this and the EU budget. You will therefore have to excuse me if what I am going to stick to is climate policy within the framework of this discussion. I also move, for the sake of the matter, for approval of the Center Party's reservation.

In a month, Donald Trump will take office. He has clearly signaled that the USA will not take any leadership or responsibility whatsoever in the climate issue. In the Western world, which we belong to anyway, it therefore now falls upon the EU, our own union, to take on the leadership role, and upon Sweden to take on the leadership role in the EU.

We have seen how the violent natural disasters have hit us in the world during the year, most recently the terrible disaster that hit the French island of Mayotte. There, my French parliamentary colleague from just Mayotte, Estelle Youssouffa, has had to worry about the physical safety and survival of her family and the thousands of people who have had their homes completely destroyed.

This underscores once again what enormous consequences it has for people but also for our economy if we are unable to manage the climate crisis, even though we actually have all the technological and economic instruments to act now.

From that perspective, it is tragic how this government, in an ever-thickening fog of rhetoric, excuses, and acronyms, has not only made fossil fuels so much cheaper but deliberately made the fossil-free options so much more expensive, so expensive that ordinary people cannot afford to choose them. It is to such a mild degree that the tax is now higher per kilowatt-hour on green electricity than on fossil oil, to such a mild degree that the share of electric cars, Mr. Speaker, is decreasing in Sweden because people simply cannot afford them, to such a mild degree that the expansion of offshore wind power has almost completely stalled, and to such a mild degree that it is precisely the electrification that the government claims it wants that is being put into a full brake. According to the realistic forecasts made by independent assessors, we have thus completely shot our chances in the lurch to reach the ESR goals that we have committed to within the EU by 2030. We miss them by 7-11 million tons of carbon dioxide.

Parallel to the fact that these ambitions in Sweden have diminished towards the EU, Sweden's ambitions for the EU's climate policy are also threatened. At the EU level, the government has chosen a strategy for energy supply and for our electricity prices that has consistently put Sweden at a disadvantage and which has now transformed Skåne into some kind of buffer for the price differences between Sweden and Germany. Instead, Sweden, as this reservation highlights, should push for the funds for the EU's energy cooperation and the European power grid to be doubled in upcoming EU budgets, so that the European continent is able to supply itself with fossil-free electricity and transmit it between the countries on the continent without the bill constantly falling on Skåne and southern Swedish households.

Talk instead of leadership will neither solve the climate crisis nor the energy prices in Sweden or the EU. Either the government must change its climate and energy strategy, or Sweden must change its government, Mr. Speaker.

(Applause)

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

Charlotte Quensel (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The budget for the EU fee 2025 stands at just under 48 billion kronor. The fee is based on the so-called MFF, that is, the long-term budget which is currently running from the year 2021 through to the year 2027.

Sweden has, as the only member state, voted no to this year's EU budget. When new expenditures arise, we want to see reprioritizations, not increased costs. Unfortunately, Sweden is more or less alone in truly demanding budget discipline. It is something that many member states have difficulty managing even when it comes to their own budgets at home. Large economies such as Germany, Italy, and France have immense problems, partly due to poorly managed public finances, which they carry forward into the EU. The result is an annual budget that does not stay within the framework. Sweden will face increased fees, but by how much is unclear today.

The Sweden Democrats voted no regarding the MFF. There were many reasons for that. 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 other than temporarily. Unfortunately, it looks like we are right. Growth in the EU is meager. Compared to, for example, the USA, the union has long lagged behind when it comes to competitiveness.

The Sweden Democrats also warned that if we once allow a jointly borrowed fund through, several member states will see it as a convenient way to continue moving economic assets from well-managed member states to mismanaged ones. Now, the threat of a new common fund has appeared as a not-too-distant nightmare.

In the so-called Draghi Report, one can read that the solution to the union's problems is a new fund. Translated into Swedish kronor, this amounts to over 9,000 billion every year. This is to be pumped in for investments in the union. The EU will become a new Klondike for fortune seekers in areas such as digitalization and the green transition. Coming generations of taxpayers will have to pick up the bill, while the union for all time will be heavily indebted.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats want to see an EU budget based on what we voted for in 1994. We shall focus on the absolute most important things that are best solved jointly. We want to see reduced costs and increased self-determination for the member states, not, as is the case today, the opposite.

The support for Ukraine's defense against Russia is the only cost that we want to see and actually should have to take outside of the budget.

In order for the union to have a chance to compete with the rest of the world, the member states need to take greater responsibility at home.

We see today member states that want the union to take a collective responsibility for defense. In this way, they want to minimize their own costs for defense. At the same time, it is only this year that the majority of NATO countries are investing sufficiently in their defenses, but they carry years of defense deficits in their baggage.

The Member States must also take responsibility for providing their inhabitants and companies with predictable baseload energy. In the EU, there is no technical or economic excuse for countries not having enough of their own predictable baseload energy. Today's energy poverty is the result of catastrophic policy. This, if anything, lowers competitiveness and growth.

The public debts in most member states must come down. The common gross debt for the euro countries stands at 88.6 percent of GDP. There is an important explanation for why several of the euro countries want the costs for new loans to be shifted onto all member states. It is expensive to pay interest on debts – everyone who has large mortgages knows that.

For countries such as Italy, France and Spain, which have debts of over 100 percent of GDP, a large part of the state budgets goes towards paying interest. Sweden has a different view on indebtedness. Our state debt is 31.5 percent of GDP.

Mr. Speaker! The more the EU costs Swedish taxpayers, the fewer economic resources we have to invest in Sweden. With this annual grim view of the EU, I conclude by moving for the approval of the bill and wish the Speaker with the presidium, the officials, the observers - there are few of them today - and the colleagues in the Committee on Finance a wonderful Christmas weekend and a very happy New Year.

(Applause)

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

Jan Ericson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The goal of Swedish budget policy in the EU was established, as Charlotte Quensel mentioned, by the Riksdag as early as 1994 and implies that Sweden shall prioritize common problems that are managed more effectively at the EU level than by the individual member states alone. 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. This we have decided in the Riksdag.

The report we are now debating is part of the government's budget bill. The proposal means, in brief, that the Riksdag decides on an appropriation of just under 48 billion kronor as a fee to the European Union next year and 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.

The meeting in the European Council a little over a month ago had competitiveness as its main theme. I want to begin by offering the Prime Minister and the government a compliment for the Swedish presidency of the EU last year. Sweden tried with energy and persistence to raise the issues of the EU's competitiveness, and it succeeded.

If Sweden had not succeeded in getting these issues on the EU's agenda during its presidency, the European Council would hardly have had any competitiveness on the agenda at all. This shows that a successful presidency leaves clear marks in the EU for quite a long time and that the hard Swedish work now continues to drive development forward in the union. It is truly crucial that the EU takes these issues seriously, because the EU is lagging significantly behind when it comes to competitiveness.

Hopefully, the EU member states realize that concrete measures are needed if EU's competitiveness is to be strengthened. The EU has 450 million inhabitants and 30 million companies, and it is time to seize the potential that this entails. The extensive report from Mario Draghi on EU's competitiveness is a good basis to build upon. It deserves to be pointed out and it is very pleasing that Sweden is presented as an example within the EU in the report.

At the same time, there is a risk that one will again imagine that one can solve all problems with more EU bureaucracy and more borrowed EU funds. But competitiveness cannot be bought with borrowed money. It is also not usually politicians, whether at the EU level or nationally, who are best at deciding which new companies, industries, or innovations it is worth investing in for the future. The politicians' most important role is to create good conditions for entrepreneurship, productivity, and growth in the EU as a whole and in each individual member state.

If the EU is to succeed, the EU member states must, above all, carry out national reforms and not expect the EU to solve everything that is difficult to reform nationally. The membership fees for Sweden and other net payers must simultaneously be kept at a reasonable level in order to achieve popular acceptance among the inhabitants in the countries that are net payers to the EU, including Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! Another reason to keep down the EU's budget and not create new common loan-financed funds is the lack of economic control in the EU. The economic errors in the EU's budget are increasing and reached, according to the EU's auditors last year, the highest level in ten years. A full 5.6 percent of the EU's payments were incorrect. These are enormous sums we are talking about.

The EU's right of audit considers that the accounts contain material errors, and the criticism from the auditors is at the harshest level possible. 20 cases have been forwarded to the EU's anti-fraud office, and 17 cases have been handed over to the European Public Prosecutor's Office.

One can only observe that the more money the EU is to manage, the worse the control becomes. This is a strong argument against expanding the EU's budget and against creating a mass of new funds and undertaking further joint borrowing.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is a large net payer to the EU, and it is Swedish taxpayers who provide the money. It obliges us to closely monitor how EU funds are used, to work to ensure that the EU's 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, and we also have clear support in the Finance Committee and the EU Committee to drive the line that the EU must respect the financial frameworks in the multiannual budget, counteract fraud and negligence with EU funds, and work for realistic forecasts. If more money is needed, priority should first be given within the existing budget. The Swedish government is pushing hard in this direction together with other budget-restrictive member states. But unfortunately, as Charlotte Quensel just mentioned, it was only Sweden that was willing to go all the way when it came to the latest budget decision.

Mr. Speaker! I am now in my 19th year as a member of the Swedish Parliament and have for a number of years had the honor of being a regular member of both the Committee on Finance and the EU Committee. I would therefore like to conclude by wishing both the members and not least our fantastic and knowledgeable officials in the Committee on Finance and the EU Committee a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. This also applies, of course, to the Speaker and the officials in the Chamber.

(Applause)

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! At the turn of the year, Sweden has been a member of the European Union for 30 years. During these years, the EU has developed and gained new members, and more and more power has been shifted over to Brussels. At the same time, the EU's administration and budget have swollen and become enormous.

Europe has never been so wealthy and at the same time so unequal. The inequality between those who have and those who do not is spreading both within countries and between countries in Europe. The EU's response to the financial crisis that began in 2007 was even more of the right-wing politics that had created the crisis. Banks were saved, while the costs were borne by all of us others.

The growing inequality has created a breeding ground for nationalists and racists who are now restricting democracy. With the help of the right, they are seizing power in Europe through a rhetoric and a policy that kicks downwards. The newly appointed EU Commission has, for the first time, a right-wing nationalist vice-president.

For Vänsterpartiet, democracy, human rights and the principles of the rule of law are non-negotiable. We defend the UN Declaration of Human Rights, where freedom of assembly, freedom of association, the right to strike, freedom of expression and universal, free and secret elections are emphasized as necessary components in a democratic society. Equal importance is placed on social progress and improved living conditions. This means that the right to work, education, housing, healthcare, care and culture is necessary for a life of human dignity and a democratic society. Respect for the principles of the rule of law is central to every democratic society and to respect for human rights.

Around the world, we are now seeing a worrying development with shrinking space for democracy. A repressive development is underway in a third of Europe's countries. Vänsterpartiet believes that Sweden must work actively within Europe, not least in the EU but also in the Council of Europe and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE, to reverse this negative and worrying development where democracy is shrinking.

Mr. Speaker! In the new Commission, we can also see clear signs of the right-wing policy's deprioritization of climate work. Instead of an EU that has taken the lead in climate work, we now see an EU that is backing down. The commissioners who are responsible for environmental and climate work have also had words such as "competitive" and "growth" included in their job descriptions.

The climate crisis is acute, and we only have a few years to transition. Quickly adapting our societies so that we live better and develop welfare within planetary boundaries is a matter of destiny for us as a planet.

The EU's central climate policy tool has become emissions trading with a price on carbon, but this system is not sufficient to meet the climate crisis we find ourselves in. For the climate transition to become possible, Sweden and other EU countries must implement a left-wing policy with large green investments that de facto reduce the demand for carbon in the economy.

The investments that are required have long been hindered by centralism, detailed regulation, and requirements for market adaptation from Brussels. High prices for pure electricity, expensive and privatized railways, and obstacles to a broad and modern housing policy mean that we are not transitioning from fossil to renewable effectively enough. The EU rules that slow down or counteract the necessary transition, such as the energy market rules, railway liberalization, and rigid state aid rules, must be abandoned or reformed. If the EU's market-liberal straitjacket continues to prevent Sweden from implementing the climate transition, we will not reach the climate goals. Here we welcome, unlike the other parties, the proposals that exist regarding the reform of the state aid rules.

The attacks on welfare and labor rights in many EU countries constitute a serious threat to equality. The EU's imposed austerity policy has hit women particularly hard. Women are hit hardest when welfare is cut and working conditions are worsened.

Vänsterpartiet drives by demands for economic justice for women. Our tax money should go towards increasing equality within and between countries and towards solving environmental and climate challenges. We oppose militarization, bailout packages for speculation-hungry banks, and an inhuman asylum policy with border police and camps for asylum seekers in the EU's neighboring countries.

The Swedish Riksdag cannot influence the expenditure within the EU budget any more than through the negotiations that the government has with other member states. With the support of a unanimous EU committee, Sweden however reserved itself as the only country against the budget for 2025. It is to take responsibility for the taxpayers' money and be a proud core member of the group called the frugal four.

In the EU Parliament, however, the Swedish consensus cracked when the Liberals, together with the Center Party and the Green Party, voted for an increased EU budget and thus an increased Swedish EU fee. The Moderates abstained, and the Christian Democrats held the Swedish position. The three government parties thus managed to vote in three different ways, out of three possible, in the European Parliament. One must nevertheless say that this split is impressive. It does not bode well for future budget negotiations, if the government manages to hold together.

Mr. Speaker! I have no other proposal today than the proposal for a decision that the committee has. Therefore, I would just like to take the opportunity to wish the Speaker, all our dear civil servants, and my colleagues a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We are undeniably living in restless times. I am thinking, in particular, of the heinous war of aggression that Russia is waging against and in Ukraine.

It was also in restless and difficult times that the foundations for today's EU were laid by the three Christian Democrats, Adenauer, Schuman and De Gasperi. It was in a Europe that still lay in ruins after the Second World War and was characterized by both fear and hopelessness. Then, a new course was set for Europe. But it was not a course that concerned whether Swedish snus should be allowed, the introduction of common requirements for daily rest, or the bending coefficient of cucumbers. The Christian Democratic statesmen wanted to bind the European countries closer together, this so that we could handle times of unrest and crisis. Here they have been right, so far, and Vladimir Putin has been wrong.

Sweden needs the EU, and the EU needs Sweden. Even though I see that the EU is much more than money and fees, I want to emphasize that the Christian Democrats are and remain a guarantee that the EU is not given unjustified power. There must be a political red line: That which can be decided at home at the kitchen tables in Sweden should not be meddled with by meddlesome bureaucrats in Brussels. Sweden is also not, and shall not be, a cash cow for an ever more expensive superstructure driven by politicians with federalist dreams of a United States of Europe or to keep countries with poor economic management under their wings.

The Christian Democrats are pro-Europe. This means that we shall also cherish her spirit and her legacy. Of course, we shall have a single market – but also diversity, respect for the member states' specific characteristics, and freedom in solidarity. It was this basic view that lay behind our slogan in connection with the European Parliament election in June this year: "Borders and freedom." We do not believe, for instance, that an EU that tries to do everything will succeed. Therefore, it was and is important to set boundaries for what the EU should focus on.

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish fee is based on the long-term budget that applies until 2027. For next year, the fee is almost 48 billion kronor.

The fact that Sweden pays more in membership fees to the EU than what we receive back in pure grants is not the same as membership being a bad deal economically. Through membership, we now have the opportunity to be part of the internal market but also to be a part of the international trade agreements that the EU strikes. It gives us, both private individuals and companies, the opportunity to trade freely within the EU.

A number of estimates have been made regarding the added value of this. They are not particularly accurate and vary greatly, but it is argued that this added value of the membership can be valued at up to 300 billion kronor.

Mr. Speaker! Those listening to this speech will however hear that there is a concern and a criticism between the lines. Even though we for 30 years have had as our goal to work for an efficient and restrained budget policy within the EU, one cannot turn a blind eye to the development that has occurred and the problems that exist.

Even though EU rules allow a state debt of 60 percent of GDP, we can observe that France's state debt for the current year will be just over 110 percent of GDP and is expected to be even slightly higher next year, 112-113 percent. Last week, the French government fell in a vote of no confidence, for the first time since 1962, as a consequence of its attempt to force through a budget with savings in order to be able to meet the EU's stability pact rules. In Germany, the social democratic Federal Chancellor Scholz fell in a vote of confidence as recently as Monday, and a new election is said to await in February. The reason was that the government disagreed on how to achieve the business policy to accelerate growth in Germany, which during practically the entire year has been negative.

Mr. Speaker! The list can naturally be made much longer than these examples with France and Germany, but I believe everyone understands why I choose just these two. There is, after all, every reason for us Swedes to feel concern but also to be critical. I am thinking in particular of what the President of the European Court of Auditors writes in the foreword to the Court's report for 2023:

"Our work in the area of cohesion" - my comment: a little over 550 billion kronor - "has shown serious deficiencies regarding non-compliance with these rules, with a sharp increase in the error rate over the last three years."

This is, therefore, not the first time this type of serious criticism has been directed.

Mr. Speaker! I want to underline with this the importance of us having a government and a coalition partner that works for an efficient and restrained budget policy within the EU. I believe that the importance of us having such a clear Swedish voice, which draws clear political lines for what is okay and what is not, will become even greater in the future.

The fee to the European Union

With this, Mr. Speaker, I wish you, the Speaker's Presidium, the Chancellery, and my colleagues in the Committee on Finance a blessed and peaceful Christmas holiday as well as a Happy New Year.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 11.)

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