EU policy party leadership debate

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! On November 11, Ukraine liberated Kherson. In the square, Ukraine's flag now flies next to the European flag. Ukrainian men and women have reclaimed their land and parts of their freedom meter by meter.

Yesterday, two people were killed in Poland, very close to the Ukrainian border. An investigation is underway, and Nato and Sweden are following the developments very closely. We are not drawing any hasty conclusions, but it is a serious situation. In times of crisis, a government must keep a cool head but a warm heart.

EU policy party debate

The EU was born in the ruins of the horrors of World War II. Crises have shaped the EU and continue to shape the EU. It is the financial crisis, the euro crisis, the migration crisis, the covid-19 pandemic and now a new bloody war in Europe and a European energy crisis in the wake of the war. Crisis management is a necessary core competence, but the long view is just as important now as it was before the Russian invasion. We must therefore manage to hold not just two but several thoughts in our heads at the same time.

On 1 January, Sweden takes over the presidency of the Council of the EU. I and the new government will then lead the work to deepen the EU's many strengths but also to strengthen Europe where the EU is currently too weak. In December, I will return here with the Swedish priorities, but let me today take up four contemporary European issues of destiny.

The first is Europe's security - internal security and external security. Russia's invasion of Ukraine reminds us that freedom and democracy must never be taken for granted. Power does not precede justice. The Russian invasion is an attack against Ukraine but also against all the values that Europe and the EU stand for. The Ukrainian soldiers in Kherson, Kharkiv and Sloviansk are not only defending their country and their freedom, they are also defending Europe's freedom.

At the European Council last week, I and my 26 fellow heads of government listened to Ukraine's President Zelenskyy. He spoke about how the Russian terror continues now as Russia turns energy into a deadly weapon. Power systems are being destroyed in a warfare that is explicitly aimed at the Ukrainian civilian population.

Last night, I spoke by telephone with President Zelenskyy and informed him of the content of Sweden's new support package to Ukraine, which we have just presented. It will be the most extensive military support so far, larger than all the previous military supports combined and in accordance with both what Ukraine has explicitly expressed a need for and what Sweden can temporarily forgo. It will also be the largest humanitarian aid from Sweden to Ukraine so far.

The EU has, as we know, shown strong unity after the invasion. Those who said that the EU would get nothing done were wrong. Sweden shall do everything we can to preserve this unity and continue to increase the pressure of sanctions against Putin's regime. The EU shall continue to support Ukraine to win the war politically, economically, militarily and humanitarily.

What is needed now is nothing less than a new Marshall Plan. Just as it lifted Germany out of the ruins of World War II, we shall now, together with Ukraine, lift their country out of the rubble, brick by brick. Sweden welcomes Ukraine's status as a candidate country, and we take note of the progress that Ukraine has made in its clear rapprochement towards the European Union.

The war unfortunately leads to greater geopolitical realism. The government wants to increase Sweden's role within the EU's defense and security policy. The EU's role is to complement Nato, not to compete with Nato. It is my and the government's very firm opinion that Europe must take a greater responsibility for both European and transatlantic security.

Even to increase Europe's internal security, cooperation must be improved and deepened. Without a robust external border, internal mobility is threatened. Therefore, better border surveillance as well as increased police cooperation are needed. Free mobility within the EU presupposes that the external border is respected.

The second question, Mr. Speaker, is the climate transition. The new government sees the EU as Sweden's most important climate policy platform and the EU as one of the world's most important climate actors. We are reminded daily of the seriousness through extreme weather, floods, and temperature rises. Recently, the UN's meteorological body showed that the temperature is rising faster in Europe than on any other continent in the world. Since 1991, it has risen twice as much as the global average. The goal to make the EU the world's first carbon-neutral continent by 2050 remains firm. In that case, it is a matter of seeing the threat but also seeing the hope.

When I was at the climate summit COP 27 in Egypt last week, I heard the same message from climate researchers as from Swedish companies. The transition is absolutely necessary, but it is not an obstacle but a great opportunity. Therefore, the new government says yes to high climate goals for the business sector but no to policies that stifle the business sector's capacity for innovation.

Careful balancing must, of course, be made when legitimate interests conflict. One example is the forest, where the new government demands that the EU must fully take into account the role that the forest plays as an energy source, as a base for sustainable products and as an economic engine, not least for countries like Sweden and Finland, but also as a carbon sink and as soil for biodiversity. Then green new jobs can emerge in Europe, and Sweden can lead the way.

LKAB, SSAB, Boliden and Northvolt are not only old and new Swedish pioneers, but they are also European giants in the green transition. And new companies are added all the time. In six years, electric aviation between Stockholm and Visby could become a reality through the Gothenburg-based Heart Aerospace. Meeting the business community at the climate summit was genuinely inspiring. My government will cooperate with this new environmental movement.

If the transition is to be possible, a new European energy policy for the climate is required. It begins and ends with the energy issue. Fossil energy with coal, oil, and gas must go into, or rather out of, the history books. We say no to it for climate reasons, but now also for purely security policy reasons.

Significantly expanded energy production with nuclear power, wind, solar, and hydrogen can, together with Swedish hydropower, make us completely fossil-free. Sweden respects that every country chooses its own energy policy. But Sweden will now become a strong voice for developing European nuclear power. Together with, among others, France and Finland, we can thus contribute to more fossil-free electricity and to a robust energy union.

Mr. Speaker! The third fateful issue concerns Europe's competitiveness, the very prerequisite for growth and prosperity but actually also for the climate transition. It is worrying that the EU is now falling behind Asia and the USA in completely central economic areas. The global tech industry is today driven forward on the American West Coast and on the Chinese East Coast. Therefore, the internal market must be deepened and the digital internal market realized, and new free trade agreements must be concluded.

Openness is the foundation of the growth policy. But the EU's capacity must simultaneously increase in strategic areas where there are obvious vulnerabilities in the supply chains. This can occur through increased own production or increased trade opportunities. Openness must not mean unilateral dependence, much less naivety. Here there are also opportunities for Swedish companies, from unique minerals to sustainable forest products.

Innovation and research are the economy's long-term engine. Some of the world's most important inventions are European. Astonishingly many are actually Swedish. But today, the EU spends significantly less on research and development than the USA, Japan, and South Korea. Increasing these investments is crucial for European companies to assert themselves in the global competition. Europe should import talents to future industries, not export them. A first step is for the EU's member states to reach the EU's own goal of investing in research and development equivalent to 3 percent of GDP.

The EU is not only a political union, it is also a community of values based on the rule of law and on respect for the individual's civil liberties and rights. The EU thus manages a part of our European heritage, from the Enlightenment to our own days. To nurture this heritage is the fourth major task.

The EU cannot and must not tolerate individual states violating the fundamental principles of freedom. Member states that restrict media freedom, the independence of courts, or the rights of LGBTQ persons shall face strong Swedish opposition. Sweden shall continue to prioritize the EU's right to condition payments of common funds on requirements to respect the principles of the rule of law. Sweden shall be a strong voice for all LGBTQ persons' right to live as registered partners throughout the EU and a strong voice against antisemitism.

It is not only in the EU that fundamental freedoms and rights are being questioned. On a global level, the power and influence of authoritarian states are increasing. Within international organizations, they are pushing forward their positions. Accepted definitions of human rights are being redefined to suit dictatorships. And on the African continent, a cynical game of chess is being played to slow down democratization.

The EU must therefore become a stronger global actor. This will be marked by a much greater focus on the EU in Swedish foreign policy. It is often through the EU that we can safeguard Swedish core interests and Swedish values and act collectively, for example, against the causes of migration.

A common European voice is necessary in the relationship with China. Each individual country's voice is weak. But China listens when the EU speaks with a common voice. Therefore, the common China strategy is needed, tools to limit Chinese influence in sensitive technology, and a common action when China violates human rights. In the relationship with China, Sweden shall work for increased consensus between Europe and the USA. At the same time, dialogue with China is needed, not least for the sake of the climate. The climate issue begins and ends, as I said, with the energy issue. But the climate also begins and ends in China.

The EU proves time and again its ability to manage crises. But the task is now greater than permanent crisis management. It is political values and political will that define our successes in the long term. The EU is peace. The EU is reconciliation on a continent marked by war. The EU is trade, free movement, and economic cooperation. The EU is human encounters, students on international exchanges, and tourists traveling freely. The EU is mobile phones without roaming charges. The EU is cultural community and diversity, from ancient myths to Gothic cathedrals and Nordic folk tales. The EU is an organization but also a continent. Sweden has a special task to safeguard cooperation with the United Kingdom after Brexit.

In my government, we see all the opportunities with a stronger EU that does the right things. We want to meet the inadequacy, the division, and the inability with unity and decisiveness. Sweden has all too often been on the fringes of the negotiating table in Brussels, arrived a little too late and with a little too little commitment. The result is far too many legislative proposals that are poorly adapted to Swedish conditions. The issue of wage formation is one example. The misjudgment regarding the EU's social pillar is another. The new government will look at EU policy from top to bottom, not to make all policy EU policy, but to make the EU good where the EU is needed and leave national and local policy alone. We will build strong alliances with countries that share that vision. The Nordics and the Baltics are a natural platform.

Mr. Speaker! Europe is in a dark time. History casts its shadow over us. Russian shells rain down over Ukrainian cities. But Europe has overcome this before. Our journey from trenches to economic and political cooperation is an example in the world. In liberated Kherson, the EU flag now flies next to the blue and yellow Ukrainian flag. Therefore, the European journey must continue for the sake of peace, for the sake of freedom, and for the sake of Ukraine.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Yesterday, the people of Ukraine were once again forced to seek shelter in bomb shelters. Once again, bombs have fallen. Infrastructure has again been knocked out, and millions of Ukrainians not only lost electricity and heating to their homes but faced further death and destruction. Yesterday's extensive bombings across Ukraine demonstrate Russia's ruthlessness.

Yesterday, the war also came closer to the EU's border. Two people in Poland died from what appears to have been rockets. It is a worrying incident even though the situation is unclear regarding exactly what lies behind it, and we need to follow the development closely. But I and the Social Democrats are, of course, ready to assist the government and support in every way we can.

Mr. Speaker! Russia's invasion of Ukraine has enormous consequences for the EU work. A war in violation of international law right at the EU's border redraws the EU's security policy role for the foreseeable future. Therefore, we must strengthen our cooperation, and we must continue with the support for the Ukrainian resistance. The sanctions need to be expanded and the Russian regime held accountable for its war crimes.

I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the announcement that the new government has made regarding continuing to support Ukraine militarily - the major realignment that we made this spring with additional support to Ukraine. The people of Ukraine should know that there is a very broad consensus in the Swedish Riksdag about continuing to provide military, financial, and humanitarian support.

Mr. Speaker! We live in a time of crises - a pandemic crisis, a crisis in Europe and war in Europe with inflation and high energy prices in its wake. The pessimism and uncertainty are greater than they have been in a long time.

All over Sweden, people are worried about how much the rent will be raised, how expensive the loan will become, and if they will be able to afford the electricity bill this winter. In our country, mothers and fathers are sitting around kitchen tables wondering what awaits around the corner. How will the war affect the family? In what world will the children grow up?

The anxiety that people feel here in Sweden is shared by citizens all around Europe. Our economies are interconnected and dependent on one another. The security situation and climate change affect us all.

Today's challenges are boundless, and we who sit here in the chamber need to have answers on both a national and an international level. It concerns the pandemic, it concerns the climate crisis, and it concerns the war in Ukraine and its consequences.

European cooperation has faced many trials in recent years, but we have shown that we both can and want to act together and that we become stronger when we do. The vaccine procurement during the pandemic, the military, financial and humanitarian support for Ukraine, as well as the EU countries' isolation and unanimous condemnation of Russia are examples that our countries are stronger together than individually.

Sweden's membership in the EU has strong support among the Swedish people. I believe it is because we see that European cooperation gives us opportunities, together with other EU countries, to meet our time's challenges.

Mr. Speaker! What is important for us Social Democrats here at home is also what is important for us in Brussels. It is about breaking down segregation and combating crime, increasing the pace of the climate transition, and safeguarding the Swedish welfare model.

Mr. Speaker! The first point is that EU cooperation gives us better opportunities to combat the criminal gangs. Organized crime is cross-border by its nature, and therefore cross-border solutions are also required. Through cooperation at the EU level, the criminal gangs can be combated with greater force.

During our government's tenure, important steps were taken to deepen police cooperation and make it easier to work across borders. This is work that needs to continue.

Mr. Speaker! The second point concerns the climate transition. We in Sweden will soon take over the presidency in the EU, and expectations are high that during our presidency we will conclude several important negotiations, not least in the area of climate and environment.

It is clear to everyone that the EU needs to reduce its emissions. We Social Democrats have long championed the demand that emission reductions should be a priority measure to reach the climate goals. The emissions trading system is important for achieving a faster phasing out of fossil fuels. This needs to be expanded and tightened.

Sweden's role as a pioneer has been important and should not be underestimated. It is by Sweden being at the forefront of development that thousands of new jobs are now being created in the green industrial transition here in Sweden. It gives us credibility.

But with what credibility will the new government now be able to lead the negotiations to reduce emissions in the EU when, nationally, it pursues a policy that will increase Swedish emissions? "If we don't do it, we don't do it," was the Finance Minister's answer to the question of what happens if we do not reach our climate goals.

"If we don't do it, we don't do it" – is that how the government views the climate law and the decision made by seven out of eight parties in our Riksdag? How is Kristersson supposed to get governments in other countries to live up to their goals when one completely lets go of our own goal? What credibility will we have?

Here, the right-conservative government has shown the direction in its budget: Climate policy is not important. They have neglected the goals we have set, and I am sincerely concerned that they are also neglecting the climate issue in the EU.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We have, as has been stated many times in this speaker's chair, a new government in place. It is a government that the Sweden Democrats cooperate closely with. We are four parties who agree that Sweden needs a new start and a paradigm shift within a large number of society-critical areas. The Sweden Democrats are part of the government base. We have a broad cooperation within a number of important, decisive areas - not least within the budget.

We are four parties that are determined to break and reverse the development. The crime policy shifts focus. There will be a major overhaul regarding the immigration issue. The integration policy becomes requirement-based. Nuclear power gets back its self-evident role as the base in the Swedish energy system. Fuel prices are lowered successively. Welfare is secured and developed. More state responsibility is taken for the school and healthcare. Dental care becomes cheaper. The economic conditions for the elderly are strengthened.

Mr. Speaker! All this and much more that is contained within the Tidö Agreement are such things as are very important measures for Sweden.

The Sweden Democrats' cooperation with the government does not include EU issues other than in areas concerning our various cooperation projects. It is no news that we are four parties who have different views on the EU, Sweden's relationship with the EU, and the European cooperation.

It is also no news, Mr. Speaker, that the Sweden Democrats are the Riksdag's most EU-critical party. We have long pursued the issue of renegotiating the Swedish terms for membership. We have pursued the issue of a referendum on EU membership but have recently adopted a more constructive stance towards Swedish EU membership.

I still want to emphasize one thing: the EU is an organization, but Europe is a continent. This is a very important distinction for the Sweden Democrats.

We believe in Europe. We believe in cooperation. We embrace cooperation. Cooperation is absolutely necessary for Sweden as a small, open and export-dependent economy. But that, Mr. Speaker, is not the same as us wanting to see further transfer of power to Brussels. Power over Swedish conditions and power over Swedish legislation shall not be transferred to the bureaucrats and politicians of other countries - bureaucrats and politicians whom we cannot elect and cannot dismiss.

European cooperation must instead return in the long term to being about solving common problems and common commitments together. Alongside trade and such as have already been mentioned, this applies to the environment and energy, cross-border crime, internal and external security and so on.

The EU needs a strong conservative voice that can drive cooperation in that direction. We must move away from the meddlesomeness. We must move away from the almost manic idea of interfering more and more in the individual member states' policies. And we must move away from the Swedish naivety. Even though the Swedish governments of recent decades have made self-flagellation and self-effacement something that almost resembles a national sport, this self-harming behavior is something unique to us in Sweden. Other EU countries look after their own house. Other EU countries act based on their own interests, work for their own interests and pick the raisins out of the cake. We in Sweden must also become better at that.

We see, area by area, Mr. Speaker, how the EU wants to take command in issues over which we here in Sweden ourselves hold decision-making power and reasonably should hold decision-making power over even in the future.

I mean that these federalist superpower ambitions are the single greatest threat to a stable and long-term European cooperation. There must be an awareness that the nation-states' self-determination is the core of a future flourishing European cooperation. It is the own countries - the individual member states - who best know what is most suitable for their specific citizens. Every nation and every people, also in Europe, has the right to be masters in their own house, Mr. Speaker.

(Applause)

In this speech, Rashid Farivar (SD) agreed.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! Europe faces great challenges. We have a war in our vicinity, an electricity market that has ceased to function, a looming climate crisis, and a common labor market where criminal actors have been allowed to roam free.

On January 1st next year, Sweden takes over the presidency of the EU. Sweden must now take leadership in these issues. A Swedish presidency must hold Europe together in the defense of Ukraine. It is our moral duty to stand against the Russian occupier, who poses a threat to the entire international rule of law. Ukraine's freedom is our freedom.

Then it is not acceptable in the EU, that the governing parties and the Sweden Democrats vote to favor more investments in Russian gas by labeling it as green. It is a security-politically life-threatening stance that feeds Putin's war chest. The government must instead back away from that position and push for sustainable and fossil-free energy production that increases our electricity production and contributes to our climate transition.

Germany's and other countries' gas dependency has caused the deregulated European electricity market to collapse completely. This has led to skyrocketing electricity prices even in Sweden, despite the fact that we are not dependent on Russian gas. The big winners in this have been the electricity companies that make sky-high profits when prices soar. The losers are all citizens who have to go into debt to afford to pay the electricity bill. The losers are the climate when the price increases lead to an increase in the use of coal and oil across the EU. This cannot continue.

Soaring electricity prices in Sweden are an effect of Germany's failed energy policy and the EU's integrated electricity market. For over eleven years, Sweden has had a surplus of cheap electricity, which costs only a few öre to produce per kilowatt-hour. But now we are paying 20-30 times that price for our own electricity, simply because the prices on the continent are rubbing off.

When we pointed out that a common EU market for electricity led to excessively high electricity prices in Sweden, we were called the cable cutters by Minister for Employment Johan Pehrson. But now the government is pausing all plans to build new power cables for export to other countries. This is, of course, welcome, but it is insufficient. The skyrocketing electricity prices are here and now.

Minister for Enterprise Ebba Busch has presented what one must assume is also the government's view on how the Swedes should withstand the electricity price shock this winter, and it is not Swedish prices. Instead, she recommends that the country's citizens adopt a new dress code, to put on wool underwear. As a politician, one should implement the changes that are required and perhaps not provide general style tips, is my firm opinion. The Minister for Enterprise seems to believe that her responsibility is to launch this year's Christmas gift rather than to protect households and the Swedish economy from the price shocks of market experiments. I regret that.

Introducing Swedish prices on electricity would make a real difference for the citizens and for Swedish companies. By decoupling the Swedish electricity price areas from exports, we could still contribute our electricity surplus to other countries, but Swedish families and households would not go under in the process. It is not international solidarity to pay overprices to European electricity companies.

It is not possible, as Ebba Busch, to claim that it is good that electricity has become expensive, because then we use less of it. Does she mean that we should change strategy and no longer encourage electricity-intensive industry to invest in Sweden? Should we not invest in electric cars? Should SSAB not phase out its fossil energy? Should we not build the battery factory in Mariestad? A Minister for Enterprise with that attitude will cause companies and jobs to decrease in Sweden and in Europe. That families and pensioners would need to lower the indoor temperature to 16 degrees so that Swedish electricity companies can sell cheap Swedish electricity expensively in other countries is an incredibly stupid idea.

Several European countries are now introducing powerful regulations on the domestic market. A heavy responsibility now rests on the government to gain control over electricity prices at home, to protect people's wallets, to protect our welfare, and to guarantee cheap electricity that will lead to jobs and development.

(Applause)

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

Annie Lööf (C)

Mr. Speaker! Europe is under severe pressure. In Eastern Europe, Putin's bloody, unprovoked war of aggression continues. With brutal intensity from the Russian regime's side, children, hospitals, and residential buildings are being bombed.

We also see how climate change affects our continent as well as the rest of the world. Downpours and floods sweep away entire villages in the Alps, fires rage for weeks in the Greek islands and destroy everything in their path, and every new fire ignited in the wake of extreme weather extinguishes the faith in the future for many people.

We all notice the effects of the energy crisis, how Putin's war causes prices to skyrocket and how the insecurity this entails fuels anti-liberal, populist, and authoritarian forces that move like a ghost through Europe on streets and squares, in social media and in elected parliaments.

It is easy to look out over Europe today and get stuck in the darkness. But the reality is also another, for it is in these moments that we must carry with us the EU's own motto, united in diversity, for that is exactly what we are. Our union may be built on 27 different countries, on the wills and visions of nearly 450 million inhabitants, but the strength lies in our community. We united and met Putin's vile war in Ukraine with one voice through sanctions, condemnations, and support. We see how that unity persists and what strength it gives us and Ukraine.

In the climate work, we have together created a system for trading emission allowances. We have made joint decisions on everything from the phasing out of harmful chemicals, on air pollution, and on rules regarding antibiotic use for our animals. We see how exchange, trade, and openness towards one another move us forward every day. All of this we must build upon, strengthen, and improve.

It has long been the Center Party's driving force. We have been involved in making the EU greener, freer, and more entrepreneurial. We have fought for a sharper climate policy, for a freer and more efficient internal market, for stronger animal welfare, and for better business conditions. Every day, we have also fought for liberal democracy. We have done what has been for the best of the EU, but also for Sweden's best.

Furthermore, Sweden has led at home and shown how our country can and should be an example for others. But if we are to achieve success, more must follow suit. That is why it is worrying to see how the Swedish government is now faltering in a number of areas. When one travels to the global climate summit with the message to other countries that it is urgent, but oneself puts the brakes on climate work and increases our emissions by millions and millions of tons of carbon dioxide, one is not a green example in the world. And when one gives a populist, climate-denying, and xenophobic party a veto over every political decision, one protects neither openness, tolerance, nor cooperation, which are fundamental pillars for both Sweden and the European Union.

When Sweden takes over the presidency of the EU at the turn of the year, a heavy responsibility rests on the government. If one is to lead the EU towards a faster green transition and towards strengthened European competitiveness and stand guard over the EU's fundamental values, one must move away from the deeply worrying strong influence that SD now has over politics. We have just heard Jimmie Åkesson's speech.

The Swedish presidency must instead proceed from political consensus and from liberal and freedom-oriented values that move us forward as a union in climate work and in the management of the energy crisis and its effects on the economy. We must make companies and people feel confidence in the future again and push for even stronger support for Ukraine, both economically and militarily, and turn the proposed Marshall Plan into reality.

Sweden must provide a leadership that never yields an inch in the defense of liberal democracy and human freedoms and rights and stand firmly against those who attempt to steer the EU in another direction. All decent political forces need to be a crystal-clear voice for this together during the Swedish presidency and onwards.

We need to continue to fight every day, in Brussels, in Strasbourg and in this chamber, for a green, free and democratic Europe.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We live in a restless time with Putin's war against Ukraine, an energy war against Europe, skyrocketing interest rates and inflation, and a climate crisis that is becoming increasingly acute. The list can be long of threats that require rapid action.

On January 1, Sweden takes over the presidency of the Council of the European Union. We do so with high ambitions. We want to strengthen the EU's role as a foreign policy actor and create security in our part of the world. We want to accelerate the green transition and create good conditions for companies to both hire and grow. We want to stand guard over European industry and a forestry policy that prioritizes sustainability and production. We want to stop organized crime and stand guard over the EU's fundamental values.

Anxious times require clear leadership. This government takes responsibility. This government builds for the future. Or as one of the founders of the EU, the Italian Prime Minister Alcide De Gasperi, expressed it: A politician looks toward the next election; a statesman looks toward the next generation.

Mr. Speaker! Gasperi was not only a statesman; he was also a Christian Democrat. Together with two other Christian Democrats, Konrad Adenauer and Robert Schuman, he helped lay the foundation for today's EU. The EU is, from the beginning, a Christian Democratic creation.

The Europe that lay in ruins after the end of the Second World War received a new start. The work was led by statesmen who knew their history and believed in their future and who emphasized human dignity in contrast to Nazism, fascism, and communism - the evil trinity that tormented and still torments Europe. These leaders struck a new tone. The old enemy countries rose from the ruins and said: Never again! Never again world war, never again death camps, never again totalitarian thoughts of thousand-year empires to be built on top of overcrowded mass graves and blood-soaked battlefields.

Mr. Speaker! The EU came as a response to the great crises of that time. In our time, the world faces new difficult challenges, and as heirs to the founders of the EU, we in the Christian Democrats take responsibility for shaping tomorrow's Europe. All too often, a living discussion is lacking in Sweden regarding what role the EU should play in the future. Therefore, I welcome that we can meet for debate in the chamber today.

The Swedish debate tends to swing a bit between two extreme positions. Either we end up in one ditch, where EU cooperation is reduced to being about the length of cucumbers, veggie sausages, and licorice pipes. Or we hear cries for an EU that takes larger and larger steps towards a European superstate that is to replace Europe's nations.

Mr. Speaker! The EU is too important to be reduced to a caricature of itself. We must find a middle way forward. The EU shall do what the EU is best at. The EU must become "lagom," as we expressed it.

The Christian Democrats' role in the government is crystal clear. We will be a watchdog against unjustified supranationalism, against attempts to move power from Sweden's kitchen table to Brussels' desks. The EU shall not regulate the forest, snus, and healthcare in detail. The EU shall focus on its core tasks: to work for peace through trade and to be a strong voice in a difficult time.

Mr. Speaker! The EU must speak plainly regarding Iran. For 43 years, women in Iran have been forced to live under the worst kind of tyranny. Now is not the time for business as usual; there is no turning back. Our message is clear. We hear you, we see you, and we will do what we can to support your struggle. The new sanctions that have been added at the EU level will be followed up by more measures from the Swedish side. Zan, zendegi, azadi! Woman, life, freedom!

Mr. Speaker! Sweden will speak with a powerful and constructive voice so that the EU can reach its best potential in the areas where cooperation should be deepened: the internal market, free trade, research, the external border, foreign policy, the energy supply, and the green transition. So we build a stronger Europe, so we build a stronger Sweden, and so we build an EU for the future.

(Applause)

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Putin's war of invasion in Ukraine shows some of the worst that humanity has to offer: suffering, death, and misery. At the same time, it is important to remember what Ukraine's representative in the UN's climate panel said: The war in Ukraine has the same basis as the climate crisis we are in, that is, our dependence on fossil fuels.

Right now, the climate summit COP 27 is taking place in Egypt, and the world's countries have gathered to try to meet our time's fateful issue: to try to get rid of just that dependence on fossil fuels that causes the climate crisis and so much uncertainty in our world.

Much is at stake. A third of Pakistan is underwater, the West Antarctic ice sheet risks collapsing and raising the world's oceans, and we have had the worst drought in Europe in 500 years. It has never been clearer that we can face a dark future built on passivity and unwillingness to act. It is the future shown in the climate researchers' increasingly alarming warnings: deadly heatwaves and floods that go from being extreme weather today to becoming everyday occurrences in the future.

At the same time as the climate summit is ongoing, the new Swedish government has hit the ground running. Here I emphasize the word "hit," for that is what is being done, not least when it comes to climate policy and the transition. The government has shut down the Ministry of the Environment. They have stopped the new travel deduction that was intended to favor public transport over fossil cars. They are on track to significantly increase emissions in the transport sector through increased fossil subsidies – a third of the fiscal space in the government's budget goes toward making fossil fuels cheaper.

The Prime Minister said in his speech that it is important to listen to the business community. But instead of doing just that, the government does the opposite. They slaughter the reduction obligation when the business community is practically screaming: Don't do it! We need long-term perspective. But the government goes in the opposite direction. They increase emissions by roughly 10 percent, 5 million tons, just through this reform. Furthermore, the government makes offshore wind power more expensive and harder to build, precisely the opposite of what the business community says is necessary.

All efforts should now be focused on reducing our fossil dependency and reducing emissions, but the government seems instead to be doing the opposite. They seem to be doing everything to increase them.

Unfortunately, there is only one winner of the new government's policy, and that is Vladimir Putin, who is now allowed to continue to determine the price of Swedish fuels.

Mr. Speaker! When the government fails every climate promise and breaks every climate goal, our hope lies with the EU. At the same time as Sweden lowers its climate ambitions, the EU strengthens its own. This is not thanks to the Swedish government's actions. Sweden's role internationally and in the EU has shifted from being a driver in the climate issue and a country that shows the way to being a laggard and a brake. There are also reports of this from the climate summit in Egypt.

Where Sweden has been proactive in reforming the EU's trading system and tightening prices so that we actually reduced emissions by more than the equivalent of all of Sweden's emissions every year, the government is now moving in the opposite direction. Our credibility on the climate issue is lost between the lines of the Tidö Agreement and in the budget, in empty words about climate goals that are not followed up by climate policy, and in the talk about a green transition that is to be made but where no political decisions that are to form the basis for this are taken.

The question is whether it is enough for the government to only destroy Swedish environmental policy or if they will achieve the same thing in the EU as well. As the next presiding country, Sweden has a great responsibility to lead the EU in the right direction. It is expected to gather the European will and act responsibly to bring Europe's countries together rather than representing national special interests that can lead to fragmentation. Even here, the government has acted in precisely the opposite direction, including when it comes to the EU's forest policy and the policy for biodiversity. Instead of seeking a responsible, unifying position, the Sverigedemokraterna, Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna and others have repeatedly pursued a line where they position themselves on the fringes of the EU and vote with the EU's environmental outlaws Hungary and Poland to weaken the EU's environmental work instead of the opposite.

Mr. Speaker! There is a lot of talk about efficiency in the government's climate policy, but what the government effectively succeeds in doing is increasing emissions, worsening the nature crisis, and delaying the Swedish transition. It is incredibly unfortunate that we now hear from both the Minister for the Environment and other government representatives, such as the Minister for Finance, that it is uncertain whether the Swedish climate goals will be reached.

Mr. Speaker! We are heading towards a dark future. We have the opportunity to instead turn it into a bright future, but it requires decisiveness and will. Sweden has the opportunity, as the EU's chair, to lead the EU in the right direction. Right now, that opportunity is being played away.

(Applause)

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! There has been war in Europe for some time now. Ukrainians are fighting for their lives, their democracy, and their freedom against the Russian killing machine. All of Europe is being drawn in. Yesterday, Poland was hit directly, but we must not jump to any hasty conclusions.

It is going to be a long and tough winter. The despot Putin believes he has the right to redraw Europe's map with military violence and subdue those who do not follow Moscow's orders. Brave Ukrainians are not only defending their country but the entire European community against Putin's insane imperialist ambitions. Ukraine's cause is therefore also our cause.

I am proud that today, from the government, we can announce a historic decision regarding a substantial and extensive support package to Ukraine. It amounts to 3 billion kronor, which represents an increase in ambition compared to the packages that have previously been delivered from Sweden. This involves, among other things, protective equipment, advanced artillery ammunition, air defense systems, and humanitarian aid.

When the Russian troops have finally been driven out of Donetsk, Luhansk, Crimea and other occupied areas, Europe shall participate in the reconstruction of Ukraine, which shall be able to rise up with pride. But it will take time. Now is the time for Europe to hold on and endure. We must have the strength to stand up for Ukraine's freedom and self-determination.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden cannot solve the difficult challenges we face globally alone. We need more cooperation in Europe and not less. But it must be the right cooperation. It is about jobs and how we are to strengthen our competitiveness in a global economy. With specialized expertise and new green technology, we increase growth in Europe and carry out the transition that the EU countries strive for. Here, the union's common recovery fund Next Generation EU can come to play an important role.

We must tackle the skills shortage. The level of education in the EU's member states must be raised. Necessary reforms for a well-functioning labor market within the entire EU must be implemented and intensified. If the EU is to become a spearhead in the world economy, it is also not sufficient that many of its member countries have the world's best-educated housewives at home.

More cooperation is needed to solve the energy crisis. To break Europe's dependence on Russian gas and oil, we must connect Europe. We shall save energy and invest in fossil-free energy sources. Expanded nuclear power in Sweden will play an important role in the transition. At the same time, the EU must seek access to the metals needed in the manufacture of sustainable batteries, so that Europe does not become dependent on Chinese battery metals.

More cooperation is also needed in the field of climate and environment. It is only through cooperation with other member states that we can carry out a green transition in the EU and across Europe and safeguard Europe as the most important environmental organization on our planet. An important step in this work is to establish a carbon border adjustment mechanism, so that imported products truly pay for their own emissions. The Union shall also jointly be responsible for stopping global deforestation in a reasonable way, even in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! The European community is threatened not only from the outside but also from within. Our tradition of democracy, strong rule of law, and human rights is constantly challenged also in the EU. In some countries in the EU, the principles of the rule of law, freedom of speech, and the independence of the media are being restricted. Step by step, some EU countries also want to abolish human rights, such as the right for women to decide over their own bodies, or undermine the protection of hbtqi people's rights. We Liberals have for over a decade warned about anti-European forces in the cooperation. It took some time, but now the EU finally has a tool in place to be able to take a stand against those states that over time or temporarily violate fundamental values. It shall now be shown that the EU shall not be able to be an ATM for these countries.

Mr. Speaker! Soon Sweden will be the chair of the EU. This occurs at a difficult and turbulent time for all of Europe and for the world. We will lead these negotiations in numerous committees, commissions, and councils. We shall ensure that we strengthen democracy and the rule of law in Europe during our presidency. We shall work for a stable energy production throughout the union and ensure that investments in new technology are made, for climate and prosperity are interconnected. But not least, Sweden as the chair country shall continue to be a strong voice for free trade. That is how we build our prosperity, and that is how we build freedom. That is how we have built freedom in Europe, and that is also how we build a stronger Europe.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The climate issue is ultimately about the next generation inheriting a planet that is better than the one we ourselves inherited. Our decisions today matter for the future.

The primary legacy in climate policy from the previous government is that they decommissioned four of Europe's best dispatchable power plants. In this way, the green transition was delayed in Sweden and, by extension, in the entire EU. But to become fossil-free, more energy is required for industry and transport, not less. The new government takes responsibility for all of Europe's energy security by building new European nuclear power. And it is not only Sweden that realizes this. Finland, France, Czechia, Slovakia, Poland, and the United Kingdom are all now participating in a green European offensive for new nuclear power. There is a brutal lesson in this.

That 10 million Swedes transition and become more climate-smart is good. That 450 million Europeans do the same is even better. Sweden can contribute and is already contributing now with new technology to phase out the fossil, but it is only when such technology is adopted broadly across the entire EU that we see emissions decrease on a broad front. Therefore, it was important that the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers agreed in October to ban new petrol and diesel cars from 2035. That is real and effective climate policy.

We can, as an individual EU country, contribute to a green transition, and we can, through tough but fair rules, lead the green transition in the entire EU. We are an example for the rest of the world. Continents shall be tied together with common climate policy.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Being an example for the rest of the world sounds good. But I believe many of us raised our eyebrows when we read the interview with Finance Minister Ulf Kristersson last week. What happens if we do not reach the climate goals is that we do not do it, she said.

If I am kind, I can say that the government displays a humble attitude towards its own ability. Alternatively, I can say that you completely lack ambition for the climate, the jobs, and the new green industry. If I am kind, I can say that you have a flexible attitude. Alternatively, I can say that you ignore the goals. But I want to remind Ulf Kristersson that our climate goals are law that Ulf Kristersson has voted for.

The question is: Does Ulf Kristersson distance himself from Elisabeth Svantesson's statement, or is this another election dodge?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The goals are fixed. The party that accuses other parties of betraying the climate goals is the party that, in a state of total lack of principle, laid down functional Swedish nuclear power so that Miljöpartiet would have a veto over energy policy.

How do you even have the nerve to come and bring criticism against other parties that have systematically stood up for fossil-free energy when you yourselves have so systematically jeopardized energy supply that other countries today would be proud of if they had it?

It will take time to repair the damage that you have caused to the Swedish energy system. We will do it step by step, decision by decision. We do that for our own sake, for the sake of competitiveness, and for the sake of the climate.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is provocative that we have a Prime Minister who engages in historical revisionism. The truth is that we made an energy agreement where both Miljöpartiet and Moderaterna were involved. That is how history looks.

However, it is good that the Prime Minister takes a clear distance from his Finance Minister, even though I feel sorry for Elisabeth Svantesson. But fair words are not enough, Ulf Kristersson.

If you now stand behind the Swedish climate goals, there must also be measures to be able to reach them if you are to have credibility in the EU. It is clear in the budget bill that there are not enough measures to reach the goals.

Then you must, naturally, present them before January 1st when we take over the gavel. What measures will the government take to reach the Swedish goals, and when will you present them?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I certainly do not distance myself from a Finance Minister who presents a budget that attempts to repair the damage that you have caused. Nor do I distance myself from the climate goals, of course not.

Empty words do not save the climate. They may save a government that has resigned, but nothing else. We entered into the agreement for a single reason, to save nuclear power from immediate shutdown.

Folkpartiet, as it was called then, was more suspicious than we were. It made the wise decision to abstain from the agreement. It was right. Everything resulted in that you systematically dismantled the nuclear power that we already knew then that we would need.

The honest question would have been this. You suggested during the election campaign that you were about to overhaul your energy policy, now that you are free from the influence of Miljöpartiet: Is that the case, or is it not?

Can we agree to now rebuild nuclear power, or are you going to stand there and pretend that nuclear power was not needed, that energy was not needed, and that one can save the climate without nuclear power?

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! The President of the European Commission, von der Leyen, has said that the way we price electricity no longer works in Europe. In Spain, Portugal and Germany, politicians have very clearly stated that they now intend to introduce domestic regulations to push down the price of electricity. The way we set the price in the EU has caused electricity prices to skyrocket.

It is very striking to me that the Swedish government is not more engaged in the issue that could lead to Sweden losing its most important competitive advantage, a low electricity price. On the contrary, the government now promises to make all of Sweden into one and the same electricity zone.

All experts say that the high continental prices will then cover all of Sweden. Even the people in Norrland will have to pay much higher electricity prices. Is it the Prime Minister's opinion that our companies in northern Sweden will like that policy?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Firstly: We really will not do that. It is a total misunderstanding.

Secondly: I sat for half a night with Ursula von der Leyen and spoke about this. The chairman of the Left Party was, as far as I know, not present at that meeting. We discussed exactly these questions. It is a total misunderstanding of what they are trying to do right now.

What everyone now realizes is that the Russian gas has been harmful to the climate, harmful to security policy, and harmful to energy prices. What everyone is now trying to do is to get away with the Russian gas setting the marginal price on electricity that is produced from gas. That is what they are trying to do.

It is just very difficult, because different countries have different perceptions on that issue. It is something completely different. Sweden is not gas-dependent. But Sweden is also affected by those prices, not least southern Sweden.

The only way out of this is a stable Swedish electricity production. You, together with the other left-wing parties, have dismantled it in Sweden.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! Now Ulf Kristersson is not answering the question. It is very clear that you have bowed to Johan Pehrson. You are to have one and the same electricity area in all of Sweden.

That means that LKAB, Northvolt and all these companies that you listed will not be able to make their calculations work when they have to pay high continental prices.

I thank you for the invitation. I would gladly accompany you to von der Leyen next time. I notice that this government does not stand up for Swedish industry and for the low Swedish electricity prices.

The whole point of the energy union in the EU has been to create a uniform price across Europe. Now we notice that it is not working because there are countries that make bad energy decisions, such as Germany in this situation. We cannot handle such an important competitive advantage as electricity in that way.

I would gladly join Ulf Kristersson next time to stand up for the Swedish people and the low electricity prices. Why, Ulf Kristersson, do you want to create one and the same electricity area in all of Sweden that causes us to have high electricity prices even in Norrland?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First and foremost, one stands up for Swedish companies and Swedish consumers by ensuring that Sweden has an electricity production that works. We had that. You have contributed to dismantling it. That is the first thing. We want to rebuild the fossil-free production of Swedish electricity.

The second thing is that it is possible that Vänsterpartiet believes that one can cut the cords and believe that on days when we need power and do not have it, one can solve it in some other way. No one else believes that at all.

If Sweden could contribute to providing northern Europe with massive amounts of fossil-free electricity, it would be good for Swedish electricity consumers and Swedish companies, but also for other European countries and for the sake of the climate.

All of this is connected. You have never contributed to this. You have stood behind an energy policy that has worsened for Sweden and thereby worsened for other countries as well. You cannot talk your way out of that.

Of course, no one will abolish electricity price zones until there is a stable production that does not create large price differences between different parts of the country.

(Applause)

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

Annie Lööf (C)

Mr. Speaker! I just want to add that the Moderaterna have been part of all energy agreements over the last 20 years.

Now to my question. In Ulf Kristersson's government statement, it was established that Sweden shall be a driving member of the EU. The government's message to the rest of the world at the climate summit the other day was that it was urgent.

At the same time, climate ambitions are being scaled back at home. One is settling for the EU's absolute minimum level when it comes to green blending in diesel and gasoline. It increases our Swedish emissions by 55 million tons. That is as much as Sweden's total emissions during one year.

The Minister for Finance seems completely uninterested in Sweden reaching its climate goals. How does the Prime Minister think the message that it is urgent will be received in the EU and the rest of the world from a country that itself is shock-increasing its emissions?

How can Sweden, as a chairing country, be a credible driving force in the EU's climate transition when it completely turns its back on the climate at home?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is true that the Moderaterna have long been in favor of agreements on energy policy for the simple reason that we believe that long-term rules of the game have value. This applies to energy policy, security policy, and a number of other areas. We have been equally consistent in being for nuclear power.

You may have had too broad agreements. But you have been almost equally consistently against nuclear power. Agreements without content, we have now learned, have zero significance. Agreements with content have enormous significance. What the business community wants are agreements with content.

Then it is a matter of trade-offs. I do not believe that the climate, Swedish companies, Swedish motorists, and Swedish consumers are served by us unilaterally undermining Swedish competitiveness and the ability to both commute to work and drive the children to practice.

I do not believe the climate benefits from us unilaterally abstaining from such things. We need good companies that can handle this. We safeguard those companies' competitiveness in Sweden.

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

Annie Lööf (C)

Mr. Speaker! Now, both the Moderates and the Centre Party have been involved in the energy agreements concluded over the last barely twenty years, and since I have been party leader with many previous Moderate party leader colleagues, I can say with certainty that people have been satisfied with both the content and the long-term perspective.

Ambition is good, but politics is judged by results, priorities, and actions. The fact is that the budget that Ulf Kristersson's government has now presented is to be regarded as a climate catastrophe. If the Prime Minister does not believe my word, it can be read directly in the government's budget. The government's own assessments are that the policy the government pursues leads to increased emissions. It stands in the budget bill in black and white. One should invest more in renewables, increase electrification, and make it easier for more people to transition in their everyday lives. Instead, the government does the opposite! And then you shrug your shoulders when you do not reach the common climate goals.

So I want to ask again: How is the Prime Minister going to convince other EU countries of the importance of doing more for the climate when he himself is pursuing a policy at home that shock-increases our Swedish emissions?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The question of nuclear power has now paralyzed Swedish politics since 1980. Swedish energy policy has balanced on an attempt to pretend that the conflicts do not exist. Agreement after agreement is supposed to redraw and mask that one does not want to take a stand on nuclear power.

This government has taken a stand. We will build new nuclear power. We will retain the nuclear power we have. If you want to be part of that journey, you are welcome. If you do not want to, you can opt out. But this government has decided. There is enough of this nagging about sham agreements that do not solve the problem.

Why don't you say what you mean? "Raise the petrol tax so that it becomes even more expensive to drive a car! Increase the reduction obligation so that the petrol price rises by 5, 6, 8, 9 kronor! Make it so expensive that no one can afford to drive a car anywhere!" That would at least reduce emissions for car travel specifically. It would admittedly be catastrophic for many other things. But say what you mean instead!

(Applause)

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is quite provocative to have a Prime Minister standing and spreading falsehoods in the speaker's chair in an attempt to hide how naked he and the government are on the environmental issue. Ulf Kristersson knows just as well as everyone else that the reactors he speaks of were decommissioned by the owners because they were old, unprofitable, and unsafe. And the energy policy that prevailed was also supported by the Moderaterna.

It is also very slippery when it comes to the environmental goals from the government's side. It is very unclear to find out what actually applies. The Finance Minister is at least honest that no environmental goals will be reached with the government's policy. This also stands very clearly - as Annie Lööf pointed out - in the government's budget. With the policy that has been conducted, the goals would be reached. With the new policy that the government is conducting, they will not be reached.

This is also worrying as Sweden is the future presiding country in the EU. How can Sweden be proactive when we are dismantling our own climate policy? The Swedish environmental goals do not seem to be reached, despite the Prime Minister's statements. But the EU has also set environmental goals and placed requirements on Sweden. Therefore, I want to ask: How can Sweden reach the EU's higher set environmental goals and climate goals?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is somewhat laughable when the Miljöpartiet spokespeople say that the reactors were shut down by the owners - as a purely neutral consequence of a simple market analysis. Imagine if we had told all the country's wind power companies that you are welcome to exist, but we are against everything you do. We will do everything we can to worsen the conditions for you, and we want to get rid of you, preferably as quickly as possible! Would anyone then have wanted to invest in wind power? Would anyone then have thought that the politics are doing nothing to interfere in the market? Of course not.

What you are angry about is that for eight years you had a veto over Swedish energy policy. You have lost it. With the new government, you completely lack influence over Swedish energy policy. I meet company after company that applaud exactly that point – that among the best things we have done is to free Swedish energy policy from Miljöpartiet.

(Applause)

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The Prime Minister is a bit hot-headed. This is unfortunately not true; it was actually the owners who decommissioned nuclear power plants because they thought the reactors were too old. On the other hand, investments were made in power increases in other nuclear power plants. It is obvious that the Prime Minister is dodging the words significantly in the debate, which I find very worrying.

What is even more worrying is that the Prime Minister is completely helpless when it comes to how one is to have any possibility of even reaching the higher climate ambitions and requirements set by the EU, for example for Sweden. It is stated in black and white in the government's own budget that with the policy the government now pursues, it will not be able to meet the EU requirements that are set.

When you now abdicate from climate policy and from taking responsibility and being the adults in the room, who actually listen to the children's concerns, you will reach neither the Swedish climate goals nor the EU's requirements. The question then is: What is the alternative for the government? Is it to pay hefty EU fines, or are you instead going to buy emission rights from other EU countries? Those are the alternatives that remain.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I am not one to get worked up over nothing. However, I do become engaged, because I believe that climate policy and energy policy are important. I do not live in some imaginary plane where one can decouple energy policy from the climate. I live in a reality where one cannot wish for things that do not exist, but where one must work purposefully to create what must exist, and that is about fossil-free energy production. That is where climate policy begins and ends.

You have never wanted to realize that, instead you hope that it is enough when it blows when it blows - and then it is done. You hope that Germany will be an example, where they shut down their own nuclear power - more and more Germans regret this right now - and become dependent on Russia to an even greater extent.

We will not take that path. We will take another path, and we have planned that for a very long time. You have stood in the way of that path, and you no longer do. I think that is good. One may think differently about this, but I am convinced that Sweden can be an international example through clean, Swedish fossil-free energy.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by pointing out to Ulf Kristersson that he is now Prime Minister. In that case, it is particularly important how one expresses oneself and that one sticks to the truth. I also want to point out that all the fake agreements on energy policy that he talks about, the Moderaterna have not only stood behind but have been involved in concluding.

It is soon time for Sweden to take over the presidency in the EU. It is six months that is a unique opportunity for a small country like Sweden to set the agenda for European cooperation. During our government's time, we received strong support for the direction of the program: to create security for the EU's citizens and strengthen the EU's role in the world, to stop organized crime, to accelerate the climate transition and to strengthen the EU's competitiveness for the jobs of the future, but also to stand guard over the union's fundamental values and the principles of the rule of law.

When Ulf Kristersson read out his government statement, several of these directions were included. However, the principles of the rule of law were not specifically mentioned. This is about legitimacy for the European cooperation. If we are to use our Swedish tax money to finance the common EU budget, we need to be able to trust that the EU's countries are functioning rule-of-law states that combat corruption and enable accountability in democratic elections.

Sweden is one of the countries that has championed this issue for a long time, so it would be very noticeable in EU circles if we suddenly did not prioritize it. Therefore, it would be good if Ulf Kristersson in today's debate could clarify how the government views the importance of guarding the fundamental values and whether it will be one of the five main priorities during the Swedish presidency.

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is quite common in the Swedish EU debate that, because the Swedish people are fundamentally a rather EU-critical people, one says one thing here at home in Stockholm and then something completely different down in Brussels. That may well happen in certain issues of less importance, but there are also issues that have very great importance.

A question that I assert is of great importance is the expansion of the Schengen area. Here in the Riksdag, the Sweden Democrats and the Social Democrats agree that we should not see any further expansion of Schengen when it comes to Romania, Bulgaria, and Croatia. On the other hand, the Social Democrats in the European Parliament have voted for this expansion. I therefore wonder, Mr. Speaker, if Magdalena Andersson can answer how this is to be. Is it to be one way or the other?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! During our time in government, we did not propose any such expansion. When the new government now came with a proposal for a new position, we asked a number of questions about how the consequences for Sweden of such an expansion had been analyzed. We received no answers from the government. It had not managed to carry out such an analysis.

Now we await the government's answers to our questions regarding what this would mean for our work against organized crime. Before we have received reassuring answers to those questions, we see no reason for Sweden to change its position.

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I now interpret what Magdalena Andersson says as an opening for the possibility that one might change one's mind on this issue, which I, in that case, regret. But my question concerned why one votes differently here in the Riksdag and in the European Parliament.

On October 18, the Social Democratic members in parliament voted for the resolution on the expansion of Schengen to include Bulgaria and Romania. As recently as November 10, not even a week ago, the vote was cast for the expansion of Schengen to also include Croatia. Therefore, the question remains, Mr. Speaker: How is it actually supposed to be? Why are the votes different?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I was clear that when we were in government, this was nothing that we proposed Sweden should pursue or accept. It was also nothing that was required from the parties that now sit in government. Here we must naturally get information: What has happened that has caused the Moderates, Christian Democrats, and Liberals to now have changed their opinion on the issue? If the government can now manage to conduct an analysis, we will of course listen to why it is thought that Sweden should change its line. Until then, however, we see no reason to accept these countries within Schengen.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Many EU citizens risk freezing due to gas dependency this winter. Here at home, under Social Democratic rule, four reactors have been decommissioned over eight years - Oskarshamn 2 years in 2015, Oskarshamn 1 year in 2017, Ringhals 2 years in 2019, and Ringhals 1 year in 2020. Furthermore, the long-advanced plans to build two new reactors were stopped. Last year, the Social Democratic government went against the majority in the EU Committee who argued that nuclear power in the EU should be classified as a sustainable investment.

So that is what social democratic energy policy looks like. It is not green, it is not climate-smart, and it has made Europe more vulnerable. My question to the Social Democrats' party leader is this: Will you overhaul your energy policy now that you are no longer dependent on the Green Party?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I want to remind Ulf Kristersson once again that the decisions that individual companies have made regarding which nuclear power plants they want to continue operating are not the result of energy agreements that the Moderaterna have stood behind. Let us clarify this once and for all.

We Social Democrats see a need for all types of power. We need more cheap electricity in Sweden. There, nuclear power will be an important part.

Another important part will be that which can be expanded quickly, namely wind power. The great potential lies in offshore wind power, and there the question to Ulf Kristersson is: Why does one now want to worsen the economic opportunities to expand offshore wind power in the way the new government has proposed? Why does one say no to new, cheap electricity that can be expanded quickly?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! No normal country believes that a government can abdicate from the country's collective energy policy. Those who have tried have now been forced to reconsider this due to the war, Russia, and gas. To hope that just Sweden would be a country where it works, that the market solves this in some incomprehensible way without the government caring about it, does not work. This government will not conduct an energy policy that jeopardizes Swedish energy supply.

Then I would like to take the opportunity to answer that question about the rule of law that I almost received from Magdalena Andersson. I had four identified areas in my speech: it was security and war, it was competitiveness, it was the climate, and it was the principles of the rule of law – a very clear message.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I welcome the announcement that the principles of the rule of law will be one of the government's most important priorities during the chairmanship. I believe this will reassure many people who are worried that the new government would not prioritize this in the same way.

Let me also point out again that what Ulf Kristersson is pointing to is the result of agreements that the Moderaterna have one hundred percent stood behind.

I can state that Ulf Kristersson does not answer the question of why the government is worsening the conditions for a power source, offshore wind power, which can be expanded quickly and which can quickly provide Sweden with very cheap electricity. Why does the government say no to cheap electricity quickly?

(Applause)

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

Annie Lööf (C)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden and Europe are facing a shortage of skills in a number of different professions. We hear it from companies, and we hear it from trade unions. Despite this, the Social Democrats have been clear that they not only support the new government's restrictions on labor immigration but also say they want to go further.

This would have devastating consequences for jobs. Trade unions such as Unionen have expressed how Sweden cannot afford to make it harder for needed labor to come here. The employers' organization Almega shows how higher income requirements would hit the hotel and restaurant industry hard and how three out of four labor migrants in healthcare and elderly care would need to leave it. Within the craft and construction industries, almost two out of three labor migrants would lose their work permits, many employed in shortage occupations.

How does the Social Democrats' party leader mean that struggling industries, Swedish healthcare, the green sectors, and the industry are strengthened when she joins forces with the new government and undermines everyone who is now crying out for competent labor?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, that would be foolish to do. However, that is not at all what is the Social Democrats' proposal. In industries where we need labor, where there is a labor shortage and where the competence cannot be found in Sweden, it should be easy to get staff here who can carry out important work tasks in our country. But we do not want a labor immigration that leads to wage dumping, to people being exploited and having to live on low wages or perhaps even pay back a part of the wage they were told they would receive to the employer, to people having to live on mattresses on the floor in the basement and to people being ruthlessly exploited by organized crime.

We want to stop that. We need an assessment of whether the people were actually needed on the Swedish labor market. We do not want wage dumping and exploitation.

(Applause)

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

Annie Lööf (C)

Mr. Speaker! Everyone is against cheating, and everyone is against exploitation on the Swedish labor market. It must go - period! But this is about the income requirement of over 30,000 for a person to receive a work permit being introduced, and the Social Democrats support it. Here we see that the Social Democrats, together with the new government, are going against companies, large as well as small, and turning a deaf ear toward both trade unions and industry organizations.

The income requirement would force nearly half of the labor migrants in Sweden today to go home, in a situation where more than half of our service companies have a labor shortage. It is doing an enormous disservice to both the Swedish economy and the Swedish labor market. When we enter tougher times, we must make it easier, not harder, to hire and to create more white-collar jobs. We must make it easier for companies to grow and safeguard the jobs.

It is possible to strike hard against the cheating and at the same time not strike hard against the jobs.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats want a labor market assessment at the bottom. We do not just want a wage requirement. We also want it to be clear that the staff is needed in Sweden and that it does not already exist in Sweden.

But it is clear that the advantage of a wage requirement is that it increases the opportunities for people who are in Sweden to enter the labor market. There are very many work tasks in Sweden that are now performed by persons who have come here via labor migration but could be performed by persons who are in Sweden.

I think it is better that people who are in Sweden get the jobs than that we bring people here from other continents, especially as we see how this is used by organized crime to make money and that people are exploited and end up caught in the middle.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to ask Magdalena Andersson how she views what is often called Sweden's green gold, the forest.

10 percent of Swedish export revenues can be traced back to the Swedish forest. The forestry sector employs around 115,000 people and generates direct tax revenues equivalent to 25 billion per year. In addition, the forest binds approximately as much carbon dioxide each year as Sweden's total emissions.

In 2021, the EU's new forest strategy was presented. It contained passages that can be classified as problematic for Sweden. My question is how Magdalena Andersson views the previous government's efforts regarding standing up for Swedish forests in the EU. Is there room for self-criticism regarding how the government handled the issue then?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Now Ebba Busch is going to try to blame her policy on the previous government. This is the first part. The next part will come in the next question.

This is about how the government's policy to lower the reduction obligation will lead to demands from the EU that we will not be able to harvest as much forest as before. Ebba Busch needs to answer how she will ensure that we do not need to reduce the Swedish harvesting of forest. Has she calculated how much less forest we will be able to harvest with the new government's policy?

I can safely tell Ebba Busch that I have raised the issue of forests in every meeting I have had with the commission and with representatives from other countries.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We will be a strong voice for a Swedish and European forestry that creates more jobs and contributes to the green transition. It is a difficult task at the EU level. Here, we are happy to join forces with all good forces to safeguard a sustainable forestry, both in Sweden and within the EU.

The question concerned whether there was room for self-criticism. In the strategy presented by the EU Commission, there were formulations stating that clear-cutting, the dominant forestry method in Sweden, would primarily be avoided. The Director General of the Swedish Forest Agency warned that the strategy would have extremely large consequences for Swedish forestry.

What did the responsible minister do then? He did not show up. He missed four council of ministers meetings. That is not acceptable. This government will not leave the Swedish forest to the mercy of the waves.

My question is again: Is there room for self-criticism? And can we cooperate more closely moving forward?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Of course, we Social Democrats are ready to cooperate. We always act for the best of Sweden and the Swedish people.

Ebba Busch did not answer whether she has calculated how much less forest we will be able to harvest in Sweden due to the new government's policy regarding the reduction obligation. How many fewer jobs will there be at the sawmills and at the pulp mills in the Swedish forest industry? Have you thought through the consequences of your policy, not just for Swedish forestry but for the entire forest industry, not least in the northern parts of Sweden?

We see how the government, in proposal after proposal, completely ignores the needs and the specific living conditions that apply in northern Sweden. One explanation might be that there is not a single minister who lives north of the Dalälven.

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I intend to enter the tug-of-war between the Social Democrats and Jimmie Åkesson and talk about this issue of Europe's openness and Europe's cooperation for security and mobility. It concerns Schengen.

We Liberals believe in that idea. This relates almost to the previous question about labor immigration. It is very important that we in Europe can work in different places within the EU. That is good labor immigration. The whole idea is that Swedish citizens should be able to go to another European country and work completely uncomplicatedly and vice versa. That exchange is very good. Then one should be cautious with other things.

Will Magdalena Andersson support an expansion of Schengen and thereby increase security? With Schengen comes also much more control mechanisms to ensure that crime decreases.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! We do not do that as long as the government does not have the strength to carry out and present a proper analysis of what it means for Sweden regarding the illegal arms smuggling, the narcotics smuggling, and the possibility of cross-border crime.

It is fantastic that people can travel in Europe without passports. But for us, Sweden's security and crime fighting in our country is more important.

(Applause)

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answer. We await with great interest.

It is not that the issue has not been discussed. It has been raised in the European Parliament. We heard that a vote has been taken on this. The Commission has also been on the issue for ten years and has said that the countries that are currently relevant are qualified.

This does not only mean that one can travel freely across the borders. People still cross the borders, but one cannot control them. With Schengen, a stronger cooperation and wanted systems also follow. The Swedish National Operational Department for International Cooperation has a direct line into the Schengen system. One can control people, one can control passports, and one can control weapons, products, and other things that can be used in criminal contexts.

Schengen is intended to facilitate but also to streamline crime fighting. That is the idea. One should support Europol, Eurojust and Eppo to combat crime and increase safety.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! From Johan Pehrson, it sounds as if the whole world should be part of Schengen. That is interesting. I believe, for my part, that it is a bit of a way off.

Johan Pehrson can stand here in the speaker's chair and talk about it. But if one wants to convince the Social Democrats that this is the right policy, I think it is better to go back to the Government Offices and work enough to be able to present an analysis of what consequences it will have for Sweden and for our crime fighting.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I got a bit heated - I went off a bit regarding this issue of labor immigration, because I find it remarkable when the former Prime Minister, who was also Finance Minister for a number of years, expresses an opinion that one has had the opportunity to push through during eight years in a government position. Nothing has been done to push it through, but now one stands here and pretends as if these are self-evident truths. It is remarkable, and it is also perhaps a bit typical of the Social Democrats.

Ulf Kristersson began this debate by talking about the crises we face together in Europe. I agree that it is important that we seek common solutions to manage these common crises, problems, and events.

But another thing that is at least equally important is that this type of crisis must never be used as a pretext to further strengthen the EU's power at the expense of the individual member states. And that is precisely what is constantly being attempted. Constantly, the answer from Brussels to these crises is more power to Brussels, more centralization of power, more transfer of power from the individual member states.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats do not buy that. The answer to solving common problems is, of course, cooperation – but cooperation built on reciprocity, equal conditions, and respect for each individual member country's right to secure and work for its own development as an independent nation.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! That the EU should not distribute money to countries that do not follow basic democratic principles was an important requirement from the S-led government that we got through in the negotiations on the EU's long-term budget. The requirement has now also had the effect that the Commission is withholding money from the EU's corona fund to Hungary because Hungary does not live up to the definition of a functioning rule of law.

Recently, the EU Parliament also established in a report that Hungary should no longer be seen as a free democracy. They point out, among other things, the deterioration of the Hungarian electoral law and that the independence of the courts has diminished.

All Swedish parties stood behind the report - except for the Sweden Democrats' members, who are therefore the only ones who voted against conditions for respect for human rights and democracy in order to receive EU funds.

The question is why countries that do not live up to the EU's basic requirements should receive money from Europe's taxpayers.

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The fundamental question is why we should at all be involved in this billion-dollar rolling between countries in Europe. The money is needed here at home in Sweden, not in Hungary, Romania, or Bulgaria. We have people dying in care queues here in Sweden. People are shot dead in the streets, and elderly people are forced from their homes because they cannot afford to pay the electricity bill. In that case, I think it is completely unreasonable. But now we have that situation, even though the Sverigedemokraterna at every given opportunity advocate for a smaller EU budget.

Regarding the individual issue, it was also included in the agreement reached in connection with the long-term budget that this should first be examined by the Court of Justice of the EU. No such examination has taken place. I mean that it is important, Mr. Speaker, that the rule of law principle is not politicized. It must be examined legally, and before it has been examined legally, we must not politically contribute to implementing the type of mechanisms that this is about.

That is the question here, Mr. Speaker.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Åkesson's logic is therefore that since one does not like the corona funds, they should also be distributed to countries that do not live up to the principles of the rule of law. Do I understand that correctly?

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We were against these funds from the beginning and would have preferred that they were not distributed at all.

The point is that the EU as a system does have a political function, for example the European Parliament which Magdalena Andersson mentions and which has voted on this. But in the agreement that was concluded in connection with the long-term budget, it was also stated that these mechanisms should not be implemented until they have been reviewed by the Court of Justice of the EU. However, they have not been reviewed by the Court of Justice of the EU, and therefore we have not been prepared to stand behind it. We want to see a legal review of this before we stand behind it.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson just said that it is only the Left Party that thinks the internal electricity market should be regulated. That is, of course, completely wrong. A number of European countries are now stepping in and making major regulations of their internal market in order to bring down the electricity price.

72-year-old Judit Bengtsson receives just over 10,000 kronor a month in pension. She is terrified of the upcoming winter and what it will mean for her electricity bills.

It is the case that during the same hours that Sweden pays very high electricity prices, especially in Skåne, we export enormous amounts of electricity. There is therefore no shortage of electricity, rather it is the market that is wrong.

What is it that makes the Sweden Democrats think this is a good system? We can, with simple interventions, bring down the Swedish electricity price. We have a surplus of electricity. Why don't the Sweden Democrats drive Swedish prices?

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! One can say a lot about this system, but now it is the reality we have to deal with.

The Left Party's solution to that is to cut the cable. That can be done. It would certainly be favorable in some situations. But when we have a shortage of electricity in Sweden, it would not be so favorable, because then I don't know what we would do. Then we suddenly have no electricity.

There is an interdependence today. That is how the system looks, and that is what we have to contend with. One may think it is good or bad, but that is a completely different matter. It will take a very long time before we can rectify the system as it is built today. Therefore, we in Sweden shall do what we can to secure a stable electricity supply throughout the country in both the short and long term.

Not least the Left Party has contributed to dismantling the world's perhaps best planned energy system, which is the reason why we today have a power shortage, not least in Skåne and in southern Sweden. It is a long-term problem that the new government, together with the Sweden Democrats, intends to do what can be done to remedy.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! Jimmie Åkesson keeps returning to this with nuclear power. I repeat: We have a surplus of electricity at the same time as Judit Bengtsson has to pay enormous sums of her pension money towards the electricity bill. It must still be a system failure.

It is not that Spain, Portugal, Germany and France, all of whom are now regulating their domestic markets, have cut any cables. They regulate the market with legislation. It is Jimmie Åkesson's party that supports this government. Why does Jimmie Åkesson not react more to the fact that Judit Bengtsson has to pay such high electricity prices when we have a surplus of electricity at the exact same hours as she is paying far too much?

Is there not something wrong with such a system? Why does Åkesson do nothing other than say that we should have one and the same electricity price area in all of Sweden, which means that even northern Sweden will have to pay very high electricity prices? It is catastrophic!

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Earlier we heard the Prime Minister explain that we will not get a common electricity price area in Sweden until we also have electricity production throughout the country, and the Left Party has contributed to dismantling that in large parts of the country.

That is why we find ourselves in today's situation where, instead of running fossil-free nuclear power, we burn oil to compensate for the power shortage that arises in parts of the country. It is a gigantic problem.

Now the government has presented a way to compensate households for the high electricity prices. I do not think it is optimal, and it is probably not the best way - but it is a way to do something now. Hopefully, even more can be done later.

The energy system is something long-term. It took a long time to build up the Swedish energy system that Vänsterpartiet, Miljöpartiet, Centerpartiet, and Socialdemokraterna chose to dismantle. Now we have an opportunity to rebuild it again long-term, and we must, of course, do so. I then hope that the others in the chamber will stand behind the long-term ambition to restore a well-functioning, stable energy system.

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

Annie Lööf (C)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden shall do less and others shall do more. That is the Sweden Democrats' mantra in many issues, but perhaps most common and most devastating in the climate issue.

The strange thing is that when it really matters, when there is a chance to get others to do more, the Sweden Democrats say no to exactly this. They vote no to stricter climate goals in the EU, which would get others to do just more. They vote no to climate tariffs that force emission culprits like China and India to raise their climate ambitions. They say no to broadening the system for trading emission allowances. They also act in the same way at home regarding the climate. On issue after issue that would have meant that more than Sweden would take responsibility for the climate, the Sweden Democrats say no.

Why does SD persist in pursuing a policy that disadvantages Sweden and the climate and implies that both Sweden and other countries should do less?

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Annie Lööf is, of course, absolutely right. The Sweden Democrats think that Sweden should do less - yes - when it concerns things that are harmful to Sweden, when it concerns things that are harmful to the population in Sweden, as well as when it concerns things that are harmful to the climate in Sweden and, since it is a global issue, also globally.

A large part of the climate policy that the previous government has pursued, with not least Annie Lööf's good memory, has been harmful to our country. It has consisted of us dismantling perhaps the world's best planned energy system, that we should have the world's highest diesel prices, and that we should torment the Swedish population at the expense of Swedish households, Swedish citizens, Swedish competitiveness, and Swedish business. It is poor policy. Naturally, I and the Sverigedemokraterna think that we should do less of it.

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

Annie Lööf (C)

Mr. Speaker! Now this is a party leader debate on EU policy. So far, the debate has been characterized by one word, namely nuclear power. I would like to bring the debate back to being about just the EU and my question was why other countries, according to the Sweden Democrats, should do less.

Now we hear Jimmie Åkesson continue to fabulate about the Sweden Democrats' non-existent climate policy. Just this past week, we have heard him and his party comrades claim that there is no scientific support for the fact that we are in a climate crisis. It is time to wake up and get into the game.

We need to do more in Sweden, but we must also persuade other countries to do more. We do that at the EU level. I find that SD's climate policy is as absent as Alfons Åberg's mother.

I ask again: When will Jimmie Åkesson and the Sverigedemokraterna stop pretending and say it as it is, that is to say that they have no climate policy, that they do not care one bit about one of our time's most important issues? Why is the climate issue so uninteresting for the Sverigedemokraterna?

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The climate issue is not of no interest to the Sweden Democrats. On the contrary, it is highly interesting. What is of no interest to the Sweden Democrats is poor climate policy, pure symbolic politics, which does not help the climate even marginally but which costs Swedish and many times European taxpayers many billions completely unnecessarily and completely without any benefit for the climate. This we must move away from and instead get an effective, functioning climate policy.

Annie Lööf complains that we are returning to nuclear power in the debate. It is not so strange. Nuclear power is perhaps the single most important thing we have to resort to in order to address the climate globally in Sweden, in Europe, and in the rest of the world. Then it is well clear when we discuss climate policy, when we discuss how we are to save the climate internationally, that nuclear power must be given a central role in the debate, completely regardless of whether it is about Swedish nuclear power or European nuclear power. It is clear.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is appropriate in an EU policy debate to remind that Sweden is a member of the EU. The decisions that we jointly make in the EU also bind Sweden. We must deliver on what we have agreed upon.

It will be interesting to see how EU requirements to live up to fundamental human rights match up against deportation due to lack of integrity, which is included in the Tidö Agreement.

I want to return to the 2030 EU targets, regarding the climate, which are also binding for all EU countries, including Sweden. Here, the government says straight out in its budget that the targets will not be met with current policies. Now I want to give Jimmie Åkesson the chance with four alternatives.

Are you prepared to do what is required to reach the goals? What are those measures? Now I ask Jimmie Åkesson not to look backward because it is uninteresting. Look forward. What are we going to do? Do not say nuclear power. Everyone can agree that no new nuclear power plants will be built until 2030 - it is only seven years away. If one does not want to take any measures, one can instead pay billion-euro fines to the EU, buy emission rights, or leave the EU because one does not want to fulfill the climate requirements.

I am sorry, but you have not provided a text from the Swedish Riksdag for me to translate. Please provide the text you would like me to translate.

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I understand that Per Bolund thinks it is uninteresting to look back given what he and his party have caused during almost eight years in government. It is fully understandable.

It is true that Sweden is a member of the EU. It even stands in our constitution. I can regret that it stands in our constitution, but that is the way it is. And the Sweden Democrats have decided that we shall be constructive towards the Swedish membership, that is to say that we shall do what we can to safeguard Swedish interests also within the EU sphere. That is obvious.

Per Bolund began by saying one thing, and then he moved on to a completely different issue. I will start by pinning down what Per Bolund said first of all, namely regarding deportations due to lack of conduct.

The migration policy that we have agreed upon with the government is based on the EU's minimum level, that is, the minimum level that is possible according to EU law when it comes to asylum legislation. Reasonably, it is also possible to implement it within the framework of the EU's minimum level.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It was not my question, but rather how Jimmie Åkesson thinks we should manage regarding EU requirements. I hope that I can get an answer in the next contribution.

It is obvious that the Sweden Democrats have now moved their culture war to not only be about migration policy but also about climate policy. That is where the next fight is to be taken. It is also telling when Jimmie Åkesson himself says that he has not seen any evidence that there is a climate crisis. It is unfortunately characteristic of the entire cooperation where the Sweden Democrats are the guarantor of the government's policy.

What is new in the government's climate policy is the Sweden Democrats and that they have gained traction for their non-policy on the climate area.

Today I want to add another question, which Jimmie Åkesson also has a chance to answer. Now that the scientific support is powerful, for example in the UN's climate panel, that we are in a climate crisis that will only get worse, when will Jimmie Åkesson consider that we are in a climate crisis? Is it when the Riksdagshuset is under water and we are forced to wade in here? Will he then consider it to be a climate crisis?

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Culture war! I agree that today's climate debate reminds me very much of how the migration debate sounded a few years ago. One must not question it. It is always about the children and what the children think. It is a lot of emotional arguments but little fact.

The concept of crisis is one of those typical concepts that is not clearly defined. There is a clear definition, but that is not how it is used in the debate. I think we politicians should refrain from creating anxiety among the population and using those types of strong expressions of values when there is no reason to do so. It is better to use those types of strong expressions when there is actually a reason to do so, when it is a real crisis, when there is nothing left to do.

Unlike Per Bolund, Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful. I believe that we will manage this perfectly well.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! Our Europe is a fair Europe. Here, different European countries shall not compete with each other with worse working conditions, because then we dump our wages and worsen our welfare. This also applies on Swedish roads and on Swedish construction projects.

Powerless European rules mean that there are trucks registered in low-wage countries that continue to drive on Swedish roads for low wages and with poor conditions. Serious transport companies that follow laws and collective agreements find it increasingly difficult to manage the competition. The Swedish presidency must address this.

The Construction Market Commission stated that eight out of ten companies registered in Estonia, Latvia, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Poland have violated laws and regulations when working in Sweden. The construction companies violate everything from tax legislation and posting laws to collective agreements. Extensive labor crime is currently occurring when housing and arenas are being built. The Swedish presidency must address this life-threatening situation which puts people in danger, lowers wages, and withholds tax revenue from the Swedish state.

Sweden gets the opportunity to lead the European work in a time of transition. Great values are at stake for the Swedish people. The Western world must stand united against Putin's imperialist dreams of a Great Russia and drive the climate transition forward through new investments and an electricity supply that puts the climate and electricity consumers first instead of clinging to an outdated electricity market model. We need to secure the welfare, secure our wages, safeguard the Swedish collective agreement model, stop the wage dumping occurring on roads and on construction sites, and stop the crime in the working life.

Do not disappoint the Swedish people now! This government cannot afford to break any more promises.

(Applause)

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I think Nooshi Dadgostar is raising something that is very important. The regulatory framework we have and are trying to strengthen in different ways for citizens and not least workers all around Europe when they work in other countries is central. It is important that we have a union that stands on the side of the citizens and the workers. I have also highlighted this in various conversations with the parties at the European level, and the interest in what Sweden can contribute as chair is great. We have a completely unique model here, which we also have to defend somewhat regarding the role of the parties.

My point in this is that I want to thank you for the approach. But there is a lack of electricity. There are expensive electricity prices. Does Nooshi Dadgostar want to regulate cement, iron ore, steel, forest products, and agricultural products in the same way as she wants to regulate electricity?

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Madam Speaker! I do not consider electricity to be just any product. That is why we have the state-owned Vattenfall. That is why we have public transmission grids that enable us to build. We have very extensive regulations regarding our electricity supply. It is a security policy issue. It is an important climate policy issue.

Electricity is something we must have in order to survive. I am not prepared to put it on a market and let the one who pays the most get the electricity, because then the Swedish pensioners will not survive. Then we will not have what has always been the Swedish competitive advantage – a low, stable electricity price.

Johan Pehrson wants one and the same electricity area in all of Sweden. What will SSAB say about this? What will Northvolt say about this? Are we not to have electricity-intensive industry in Sweden? Then everyone will have to pay the high continental price. That would be a catastrophe, a nightmare, Madam Speaker. We cannot agree to that.

(Applause)

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! I just want to emphasize that it is VPK's dream. The Left Party Cable-Cutters - I feel that it has become a generic definition here in the chamber, and I am glad for this. It is your dream to regulate everything that moves.

The idea of a common European electricity market is that when it is windy in one part of Europe, you can move the electricity to the part where it is not windy. Then the wind moves, and then you can send the electricity the other way. That is what efficiency is. That is what a market is. That is what Vänsterpartiet hates.

We have state steel from state mines. Why shouldn't you regulate that price as well? It is expensive to build. Forest products - timber for modern house construction, for schools to be built of wood - are also expensive depending on the market, and the demand for the Swedish forest is great. Why don't you want to regulate this? You hate the market anyway.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Madam Speaker! Johan Pehrson has misunderstood the market economy. I regret this. It is not where the wind blows that it comes, but the one who pays the most in Europe shall get the electricity. That is how a market works. We cannot have a market on electricity because all people, regardless of whether they have money or not, are dependent on electricity. Therefore, we must regulate electricity. Therefore, electricity production has always been very heavily regulated.

The problem today is that we have a pricing model that von der Leyen is critical of, which German politicians are now in sharp contrast to. Spain, Portugal, and many European countries are now distancing themselves from that pricing model – that market-economic pricing model – which Johan Pehrson is passionate about and which has led to 5 kronor per kilowatt-hour for companies and households in Skåne.

Will we support this? No. Will it lead to corporate flight when Johan Pehrson gets what he wants, gets the high prices in northern Sweden? Yes. We will never support that.

(Applause)

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

Annie Lööf (C)

Madam Speaker! In an uncertain world, an even stronger EU is needed. It is a challenging time as Sweden now takes over the presidency of the EU at the turn of the year.

For the Centre Party, it is clear that our chairmanship must be about deepening those parts of the EU cooperation that make the EU's member states stronger together. We see a number of issues that must be given highest priority if we are to achieve success.

We need to change today's EU legislation so that we can expand fossil-free energy, not least bioenergy, faster and more simply. That is the only way we can break the dependence on Russian energy and phase out the fossil. Simpler laws and regulations can make green investments easier and benefit both the climate, security, and jobs.

We must continue to sharpen the EU's climate goals and do everything we can to live up to our commitments and goals regarding the Paris Agreement. The energy crisis and war are both reasons to accelerate the climate transition, not to lower the ambitions.

We need to establish a common sustainable migration and labor immigration policy where we safeguard free movement and skills within the EU and ensure that all countries participate and take responsibility for migration.

We must also give the EU more tools to be able to manage democracy, rights, and the rule of law. These must be guaranteed for the union's inhabitants. At the same time, it makes the EU an even stronger international actor for democracy and human civil and political rights. When the world is moving in an increasingly authoritarian direction, the EU's role as a counterweight to this is absolutely crucial.

In an uncertain world, a stronger EU is truly needed. Sweden must contribute to this during the upcoming presidency. By moving forward on the areas I have just mentioned, we do not only make the EU stronger. We also make the EU's member states, entrepreneurs, and citizens stronger.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! This government will stand up for the Swedish model. It has served Sweden well in times of crisis and in times of prosperity. That the previous government championed the social pillar is, we have learned, a textbook example of the wrong path to take for a stronger EU moving forward. The social pillar has been used as a gateway for various EU proposals within primary labor market policy. Here are directives that, according to the parties on the Swedish labor market, threaten our wage formation model.

The next EU offensive seems to concern social issues. The EU has recently adopted a healthcare strategy. The European Parliament's position is clear: that strategy shall consist of binding legislation. This is a slippery slope towards more supranationalism in the wrong area.

Already in 2017, KD warned of the risks of moving labor market and social policy to the EU level. This was dismissed at the time as scaremongering.

Madam Speaker! The general lesson in these matters is that what begins as loose recommendations in the EU sometimes ends as binding legislation. This is the lesson when it comes to labor market issues and wage formation. I hope that all Swedish parties act based on this lesson when questions about childcare and long-term care suddenly arise in the negotiating rooms in Brussels.

Madam Speaker! There are certainly questions in this area where the EU can and should cooperate more: life science, research, best practices. The Government will, of course, work on these issues during the presidency and the time that follows. Our starting point is to safeguard the whole of the EU, and that can be done without it coming at the expense of Swedish welfare.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Madam Speaker! Russia's war in Ukraine is having repercussions for households in Europe and also for Swedish households. Work is being done hard at the EU level to try to decouple gas prices from electricity prices and in this way ease the situation for European and Swedish households.

Before the election, the Christian Democrats, the Moderates, the Liberals, and the Sweden Democrats promised that a high-cost protection for Swedish households would be in place by November 1 at the latest. Now it is November 16, but no high-cost protection is in place. Ebba Busch, when will we see a high-cost protection? And will it have the design that Ebba Busch promised before the election, namely that one takes 90 percent of the costs at an electricity price over 70 öre? Will Ebba Busch stand up for that election promise, when the promise of November 1 has already been broken?

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! I perceive that the government here has received a purely domestic political issue in an EU policy debate. I am happy to account for this and have also done so in many contexts on behalf of the government. We have delivered what, and we will return with exactly how and when this reaches Swedish households during the coming difficult time.

But for once, we have a purely EU-political debate. For once, much space is given, with all party leaders present, for questions concerning the European Union as a whole. I regret that the party chairman for the Social Democrats shows such poor and low interest in this.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Madam Speaker! This is criticism that Ebba Busch also directs towards her Prime Minister. He has also talked very much about domestic policy in this debate. But you seem to have the ability to criticize each other in the government, in an interesting way.

I can above all state that Ebba Busch does not answer the question. Will the promise of 90 percent of the costs over 70 öre be fulfilled, or will Ebba Busch betray that election promise in the same blatant way as she betrayed the election promise that a high-cost protection would be in place on November 1? What is the answer to Swedish households and all disappointed voters who see how the government betrays promise after promise after promise?

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! I still think it is very remarkable that the party leader of the largest party in the Swedish Riksdag treats the EU-common issues so lightly in this exchange of remarks. There are ways to talk about what is of importance for both Sweden and the EU as a whole. There could have been other ways to incorporate that even in this issue. I think it is remarkable, given the important work we have to complete the climate transition, strengthen the internal market, which turns 30 years old next year, and ensure that the EU is better equipped in the fight against the external threats that are now noticeable, not least in our neighboring area, in Ukraine.

We will deliver on our election promises to the Swedish people, to the households struggling with the economy and the skyrocketing electricity prices in the long term. We have delivered the what, and we will return with the how and when.

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: I want to remind that this is a party leadership debate, and such debates generally have a very broad scope for debate, in contrast to issue debates.)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Madam Speaker! Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson mentioned that it is only Vänsterpartiet that wants to regulate the internal electricity market in the EU. That is not quite right. It is not only SSAB and a number of other companies in Sweden that are demanding that the government now introduce Sweden prices. It is also Ebba Busch's own state secretary, who was the social policy chief for Villaägarna and who just a few weeks ago sent a letter to all Swedish villa owners. He proposed there that the price based on supply and demand for electricity in Sweden should be set separately, and then the surplus of electricity should be priced in the usual way to the rest of Europe. This means the introduction of Sweden prices.

I am very pleased that Villaägarna also supports this proposal, and now I wonder if Daniel Liljeberg's election promise will become the minister's election promise? Will the State Secretary get what he wants, or was there talk in that direction as well?

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! This government represents neither any single organization nor any single person in Sweden. Our line is very clear: We need to get Sweden's deeply dysfunctional energy system in order, where there are vastly different conditions depending on where in the country one lives. It is not that electricity is too cheap in the northern part of Sweden - it is that electricity is too expensive in the southern part. This is something we need to get in order.

To some extent, we have met in that we have now paused the project with Hansa Powerbridge because we need to ensure that we significantly increase our energy and electricity production in Sweden. We do this by paving the way for all types of power in Sweden, including nuclear power, but also by shortening permit processes for wind power and other types. That is how we can lower prices overall and be more strongly equipped for the future.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Madam Speaker! I noted that the Prime Minister said that we were alone, and that is not true. The homeowners want Swedish prices, and this government knows that very well. Many companies are now demanding that the government raise its voice so that we can maintain our competitive advantage in the form of the low electricity price.

Ebba Busch must, as Minister for Enterprise and Energy, know that at the same time that we Swedes pay high electricity prices, we export amounts of electricity. There is no electricity shortage or capacity shortage; instead, it is someone else who wants to buy the electricity from our electricity companies, just as it works in a market.

Now many countries are entering and want to change this by dividing the pricing between, for example, Sweden and abroad, just as Ebba Busch's state secretary wants. Why is Daniel Liljeberg wrong, Ebba Busch? Why is your state secretary wrong about the important energy issues?

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! I actually demand of all party leaders in the Swedish Riksdag that they shall keep track of how the representation of the government's line proceeds. This also applies, of course, to all secretaries of state for all ministers in the government.

It is like this: We need to significantly increase our electricity production in Sweden. If we are even to come anywhere near the purpose of the so-called Sweden prices, we must ensure that we have enough electricity where it is needed and when it is needed. The problem is that we have not had it that way. When it suddenly blows or when the sun shines, we can export electricity, because then we have a huge amount of electricity production. But it is not enough when it is calm or when the sun does not shine, and it is not enough where entrepreneurs are interested in establishing themselves.

We will tackle this now. I am happy to join forces with Vänsterpartiet to pave the way for all power plants and to bring down electricity prices in the southern part of Sweden without raising them in the northern part.

(Applause)

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

Annie Lööf (C)

Madam Speaker! Good conditions and strengthened competitiveness against European colleagues are absolutely crucial for our Swedish green industries. Therefore, it is surprising that the Christian Democrats, who spoke warmly about the countryside throughout the entire election campaign, are now participating in changing Swedish climate policy in a way that sends the entire bill to precisely Swedish farmers, for that is how it looks.

According to our commitments in the EU, we in Sweden must, in order to achieve the EU's climate goals, reduce our emissions by 50 percent by 2030 in the sectors that are not covered by the emissions trading system. When the government now scraps the reduction obligation and lowers the ambitions in the transport sector, there is in practice only one sector that will have to bear the burden, namely agriculture.

My question to Ebba Busch is therefore what the plan looks like with the Kristdemokraterna's and the government's policy. Has one intended to ignore the EU's climate goals and our responsibility, or is one going to let Sweden's farmers pay the entire climate bill?

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! Sweden's high climate ambitions are firm with this government. Yes, in the short term, the conditions deteriorate somewhat when emissions increase from the transport sector. But then we must remember that this also is linked to the fact that we do not want to move production to other countries where the emissions will be significantly higher.

If we are forced to import food and meat from farms in countries that have much higher emissions and poorer environmental conditions and are not as climate-smart, it will contribute to increased emissions overall, quite apart from the emissions from the export itself. Therefore, it is important to safeguard competitiveness in the short term by lowering the reduction obligation in order to allow production to remain in Sweden.

The long-term ambitions remain, and the way forward to achieve them is electrification and significantly expanded electricity production for the transition of industry and the transport sector, not agriculture.

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

Annie Lööf (C)

Madam Speaker! There were many fine words, but that does not mean that Ebba Busch escapes reality.

It is like this: Sweden has committed to doing its part to reach the EU's climate goals. We are to reduce our emissions by 50 percent by 2030 in the sectors that are not covered by the emissions trading. And when the Christian Democrats and the government now exempt the transport sector in that work, only agriculture remains in principle. This is where the broom is to be used. This is where the costs are to be placed to live up to the ambitions of the climate goal, and a Swedish agriculture already severely tested shall receive additional multi-million burdens that hit the jobs, hit Swedish food, and hit the competitiveness of Sweden's farmers against European colleagues. It is a blow just as great as a betrayal from KD against the farmers. KD promised to be the voice of the countryside. Why, Ebba Busch, do the Christian Democrats think that Swedish agriculture should pay the entire climate bill when the transport sector is now being exempted?

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! That is not what agriculture should do. I understand that in the Center Party, you are stressed when you have lost so incredibly many voters in both the forest counties and the agricultural counties. I understand these voters. It is not possible to go to an election on the basis of joining a government with the Green Party and at the same time claim that one safeguards Swedish sustainable forestry and agriculture.

Specifically, the way forward is electrification and the transition of the industry and the transport sector. We have a large company in Sweden that produces steel of absolute world-class quality, namely SSAB. They account for 10 percent of Sweden's total carbon emissions. They have a realistic plan for how they will eliminate those emissions and produce steel in a green and emission-free way. It is the type of investments and transitions that this government will pave the way for. But we do not do that by knocking out Swedish agriculture, the own population, or households. In this way, we can cut a tenth of Sweden's total carbon emissions. It is an offensive green climate transition that safeguards Swedish competitiveness and Swedish households.

(Applause)

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! If, in seven years, the EU's requirement that we reduce our emissions by 50 percent is to be delivered by all EU countries. For Sweden's part, it is therefore about a 50 percent reduction. At the same time, we have a government that in its own budget writes that with the government's policy, the goals will not be reached.

However, now that everyone is barking at Miljöpartiet, one can note that the government itself says that with Miljöpartiet's policy the goals would be reached. Then one can speak of effective climate policy.

The government's new mantra is fossil-free. It sounds like one is supposed to try to become less dependent on fossil fuels. At the same time, the government is now presenting proposal after proposal to lower the costs of burning fossil fuels in district heating and combined heat and power. They are now going to lower the tax on emissions in the transport sector. They are going to slash the reduction obligation, which increases emissions and thus the fossil dependency by 10 percent. The travel deduction will favor fossil cars rather than public transport. They are going to abolish the electric car premium, which stops the electrification, and they are making it harder and more expensive to build offshore wind power. How does this make Sweden more fossil-free, Ebba Busch?

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! Transitioning is incredibly difficult for our proud but emission-heavy industry in Sweden if there is not enough electricity where they have made their investments, especially when electricity is needed 24/7 and 365 days a year.

What the government is doing now is adding nuclear power. One can summarize the line as that all good forces are needed. We will pave the way for new solar power and continue to facilitate for households to put solar panels on the roofs. We will significantly shorten the permit processes for wind power, where it is welcome - both land-based and offshore wind power. I have not said no to any such, but we will do what we can to pave the way for it where it is right and proper. But what we are adding is nuclear power. This is the most decisive and important thing if we are to have a realistic plan to manage the transition ahead.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is therefore important to also be aware of how the world looks, that is to say that Sweden has a record-high electricity surplus. We export more electricity than we ever have before. In that case, it is not enough to only talk about nuclear reactors that have been decommissioned, because much more renewable and fossil-free electricity has been brought into the system.

Ebba Busch, just like the rest of the government, obviously has only one answer in this debate to all questions concerning climate and environment: nuclear power, nuclear power, nuclear power. It is obvious that it is a smokescreen, a radioactive smokescreen, to shift the focus from the major climate problems we have and the major climate challenges that lie ahead of us.

It is obvious that the policy being pursued does not lead to fossil-free status. The government itself writes that it leads to increased emissions, and it is somewhat dangerous for the credibility of politics in general, and perhaps also for Ebba Busch herself, to say one thing and do another.

But let us narrow it down to wind power. How does Ebba Busch think the interest in investing in fossil-free electricity is affected when one will now not have to pay the connection fees for offshore wind power?

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! This is about technology neutrality. We are not to favor one type of power generation over another; what is important is that we reduce emissions and that the power generation is fossil-free. Therefore, we will not provide unilateral subsidies to a single type of power generation. That is not the way we ensure that it becomes sufficiently cost-effective and can withstand a real green transition forward.

What we can do is, for example, join forces with France, which has found ways to shorten its permit processes for nuclear power and, above all, also for wind power. In this, we are happy to be inspired by other countries and take on what the previous red-green government did not do to increase the pace for new types of power. We welcome all types of power, regardless of how many times Per Bolund mentions the word "nuclear power" in his remarks.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! Yes, we are facing a climate crisis. I took that up very forcefully in my previous speech, but it is equally obvious that we are facing a nature crisis. It is also obvious that the two crises are very closely linked to each other, not least today, when it is the day for biodiversity at COP 27, the climate summit. It is stated in the research and in the IPCC's reports that precisely the issue of biodiversity, protecting nature, is also a way to protect our climate.

At the same time, it is a very worrying situation. From the World Wide Fund for Nature's Living Planet Report, it appears that since the 70s, the number of fish, mammals, and amphibians and reptiles has decreased by 70 percent. One million species risk being wiped out from the earth, and when a species has been wiped out, it is gone forever. Nature can save us but only if we save it first, says Inger Andersen, head of the UN's environmental program Unep.

Now there is a climate summit in Egypt. In December, there will be the UN's COP 15 for the convention on biological diversity. There, of course, Sweden, just like all other countries, also has a great responsibility to protect its biological diversity.

At the same time, the government parties, together with the Sweden Democrats, are pursuing a policy that goes in the exact opposite direction. They are now cutting the budget significantly to protect and manage valuable nature, precisely against what science says. They also vote against virtually all proposals coming from the EU: the strategy for biodiversity, that we should integrate environmental goals into the EU's agricultural policy, and increased carbon sequestration in forests and land – where they instead want a reduction. They have opposed the EU's deforestation regulation, which is precisely intended to counter deforestation of the Amazon. The government says no to that. It concerns new rules on pesticides, both in the EU and in the Riksdag, which affect biodiversity. They also deliberately breach the Water Framework Directive and the Habitats Directive.

This is of course worrying, as it weakens the EU's work. Not least when Sweden is now to be the chair, it is very bad that one takes an extreme position and opposes the work for biodiversity, which is also climate work within the EU.

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! Sweden takes over the presidency of the EU on New Year's Day. We Liberals are working to ensure that our member countries are not only ready to tackle the many serious issues we are discussing in the chamber today. We also hope that we will be able to turn our gaze toward the future.

Which new countries shall we welcome into our European family? That is the question. In June, not only did Ukraine receive status as a candidate country for membership, but also the fine country of Moldova. We must support these countries throughout the entire process. We assume that they will live up to the union's tough membership requirements so that they can eventually be welcomed as full members of the EU. But we must not let the ambitions stop there. The countries in the Western Balkans and Georgia in the Caucasus should be next in line. Let us welcome all these countries to history's most successful peace project!

We Liberals are convinced that Europe can improve if we cooperate more and if we cooperate more effectively. Together, we enter into free trade agreements with other parts of the world for increased growth, new job opportunities, and increased sustainability. Here, for example, the result in the Brazilian election is pleasing. The opportunities increase to really secure a sustainable trade agreement with large central parts in that part of the world, regarding the role of the forest, for example.

We will continue to work together to stand out against the war criminals in Moscow, and we will continue to support the freedom fighters in Ukraine. This is how we together take responsibility for our future, for our sustainable future, for the climate and for a transition.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Madam Speaker! In the negotiations for the new government, the Liberals were given responsibility for one of the government's heaviest assignments, namely the position of Minister for Climate and Environment. It is an important assignment to drive the green transition in Sweden. And in the upcoming presidency, one has the responsibility to lead the entire EU's work to reduce climate emissions.

Here in the chamber, we have heard that the Prime Minister, in any case, still stands behind the climate goals. But if the Minister for Climate and Environment is to have any credibility and the possibility to carry out their mandate, the government must also present concrete policies so that the climate goals can be reached. The Minister for Climate and Environment will not have any credibility in leading the work for the EU to reduce emissions if the Swedish government pursues a policy that instead increases Swedish emissions.

When will the government present proposals so that we can reach our climate goals and so that the liberal Minister for Climate and Environment has the opportunity to carry out their mandate?

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! It is a great responsibility that rests on this government - and previous governments - when it comes to saving our planet. The simple sentence in the long story is that we shall work for a new climate policy action plan, which we hope to be able to present to the Riksdag next year.

We have seen that parts of the previous work have been very short-sighted and have not had the long-term perspective. That is the answer. Without being too repetitive, Madam Speaker, I shall say that it is about the idea of how we are to have more, so to speak, controllable energy production. For all the goals - 2030, 2040 and 2045 - it is absolutely crucial that we double and powerfully strengthen our electricity production. No other way exists.

But we will present a new climate policy action plan to the Riksdag, including the Social Democrats.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Madam Speaker! Sweden needs more cheap electricity. I can state that the new government is worsening the conditions for offshore wind power, which is the type of energy that could quickly provide us with more cheap electricity. This naturally complicates the possibility of reaching the climate goals.

I can state that with the policy we pursued in the government I sat in, it was clear that we would reach the goals for 2030. But with the budget presented last week, it was clear that the new government will not reach the goals for 2030.

If the new Minister for Climate and Environment is to have any possibility of having credibility and carrying out their work of getting the entire EU to reduce its emissions, the government must pursue a policy that ensures we in Sweden reach our climate goals. It is a matter of leadership – ensuring that ministers from one's own party are given the opportunity to carry out their work. This must be presented before January 1.

The question is: Will you present policies before January 1st that will ensure we reach our climate goals in Sweden? It is a question of leadership, Johan Pehrson.

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! I share that opinion. It is about leadership. It is about leadership for a Sweden that is to hold together, a Sweden that is to have the strength to move Sweden forward.

We must not forget how it was when this chamber established the highest ambition regarding the reduction obligation – we Liberals were part of making this happen with utter courage. We were there, but it was in a situation where diesel and petrol prices were at completely different levels than what we see today.

It is about people being able to cope with the climate goals together, survive, make their daily lives work, have jobs to go to, and have houses where they do not need to dress in the latest undergarments. In that case, it is important to have a sustainable policy for people as well. That is why we will return in this climate plan with how we are to achieve this, but it is based on electrification.

I just heard the discussion about us removing the electric car premium - that it is what is breaking the entire goal. That does not seem wise. So it cannot be. We will return and take our responsibility so that we will also have a planet to live on in 10, 20, 30, 40 and 100 years.

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I reacted a bit to Johan Pehrson's opening speech, where he spoke about his vision for European cooperation and about anti-European forces. There are plenty of such forces in third countries, so to speak. Russia is perhaps the clearest example of a typical anti-European force.

As I understood Johan Pehrson – he is welcome to correct me if I am wrong – he spoke primarily about anti-European forces within Europe and the EU. That makes me a bit curious about what this means. For me, it is not obvious what is meant by anti-European forces. Are all those who do not support more power transfer to Brussels, more centralization, a more federalist EU and so on, anti-European forces according to Johan Pehrson and the Liberals, or who are the anti-European forces?

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! No, that is naturally not the case. One can be for an EU light, an EU in between, or a powerful EU. I and the Liberals believe that Europe and its people, freedom and democracy, the climate and prosperity have to gain from a strong EU in a world that is quite uncomfortable.

What I am thinking of are countries that for years have had the EU as an ATM, despite having restricted people's civil and political rights. It can be about everything from people who want to live with people of the same sex to women and their right to decide for themselves over their own bodies. That is what I am focusing on, not all other countries.

I want to remind that we are in a situation where democracy index measurements in the world are heading in the wrong direction. One must be clear about this and what the consequences will be for people in the future. It is heading in the wrong direction, and here we - all parties in the Swedish Riksdag - have a great responsibility together.

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Madam Speaker! For me - in my world, from my perspective - an anti-European force is a person or a force that wants to centralize, homogenize, and destroy the diversity that exists in Europe.

I said in my speech here earlier that I believe the single greatest threat to a long-term and stable European cooperation is that one does not have respect for each individual member state's uniqueness, special position, own interests, and so on. That makes me a little worried when we have government representatives expressing that there are strong anti-European forces within Europe today.

That we then differ on domestic policy and that we here in Sweden can have views on and perhaps even sometimes find reason to condemn the developments in certain countries is perfectly natural, but I think it is a somewhat alarming choice of words to speak of anti-European forces when it actually concerns wanting a different view on the EU as a system, not on Europe as a continent.

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! I am glad that Jimmie Åkesson and the Sverigedemokraterna are raising this, because that is not what I mean. When I say anti-European and Europe, I am talking about the Europe that has given us so much.

Europe over the centuries has not only given us war, mass destruction and extermination, but it has also created much of what we in Sweden love. It is about democracy and human rights, which are well-established in all our projects. We work in the Council of Europe and the EU, and together we have worked on and laid a foundation for all of this - to talk about the freedom of individuals. This is what I mean when I talk about anti-European, in the same way as I assert that it is very anti-Swedish not to be clearly solidary to and from.

But back to the indices. I want to remind the entire chamber at the end of the debate here that when The Economist reviewed the democracy indices, it turned out that the world between 2006 and 2021 has gone from 28 to 21 democracies without remarks, while the EU has gone from 17 to 8. Countries such as France and others that we see as strong democracies now have very serious remarks in their democracy index. We must take this to heart, because I believe that peace and freedom are best safeguarded by democracies.

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

Annie Lööf (C)

Madam Speaker! Think that Johan Persson, not even once during the previous exchange, could criticize the Sweden Democrats as an openly EU-critical party that openly hails Viktor Orbán's Hungary - not even once.

I will focus on border controls, and I want to start with a quote: "Temporary border controls between Schengen countries are concerning if they are allowed to continue for a long period." That is what it says on the Liberals' website.

Johan Pehrson answered questions about border controls in Sydsvenskan the other day and pointed out how important it is that the Nordic countries are connected, not least in terms of the labor market. The Swedish EU Commissioner Ylva Johansson has said that border controls conflict with EU law and that it is high time that Sweden ceases them.

My questions to Johan Pehrson are: Will the Liberals hold fast to their view that our future lies in the Nordic countries and the EU? Will they be a guarantor that the government follows EU law and rejects the idea of the permanent border controls that are in the so-called Tidö Agreement?

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! It is no secret that, in response to Jimmie Åkesson's question, I tried to explain that there are differences. However, it would be better if Annie Lööf asked Jimmie Åkesson directly whether he stands behind Hungary or not. He has said that he does not stand behind everything there and that he stands behind a Swedish EU membership. We must, as good democrats, accept that parties have different views on how far we should push integration in Europe.

The border controls are an extension of the regulations that apply. I wish that we can as soon as possible return to a situation where we do not have any border controls, not least when it comes to the important Nordic integration. For most who are listening to this debate, it is clear that we live in a restless time in Europe, and that is the background to why we and many other countries that we see as like-minded maintain the border controls for a while longer.

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

Annie Lööf (C)

Madam Speaker! Now the Liberals in the so-called Tidö Agreement have reached an agreement with the Sweden Democrats regarding permanent border controls, so even there it is not possible to see the Liberals as a guarantor for anything that can even be likened to a liberal policy in the new government cooperation. I regret this. Others likely regret it too, not least those who live, reside, and work in, for example, the Öresund region.

It is possible to cooperate more and more sharply at the EU level regarding security and migration without breaking apart labor market regions or the everyday lives of ordinary people. This is something a Minister for Integration and Labor Market should know. It is possible if one wants to, but instead, one backs down and agrees to introduce permanent border controls to appease one's new partners.

Once again, it is the Sweden Democrats' politics and power that take precedence over business conditions and the lives and daily routines of people commuting to work. Why is free movement within the Nordic region and labor market regions no longer important for the Liberals and Johan Pehrson?

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! They are important. It is important to have border controls where they are needed, and I note that several other countries are also extending their temporary controls with reference to the very serious situation.

Since then, it has been no secret that my party has a different view than many other parties on the importance of precisely border controls. That was why, in a previous exchange of remarks, I struck a note for Schengen and the importance of having free movement within an area but also extremely clear controls of the people who can come there to check that they behave and that persons who commit crimes or engage in terrorism can be controlled. The border controls have no other purpose than this, and one must ensure that they occur as smoothly as possible. There is no doubt about this, and let us see how long they remain.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! I will not hide the fact that I was a little concerned after the election when I saw what majority had been formed. I know that many who care about human rights, climate, environment and the rule of law were also.

I - and I believe many with me - was perhaps a bit naive and still had a small hope that the Liberals would stand up against the Sweden Democrats' policy in the new government. Instead, we have witnessed example after example of the opposite. It is about how they dismantle the rule of law, move to a migration policy that is far from the Liberals' and an environmental policy that truly is a dismantling of all ambitions. Point by point, the Liberals have abandoned previous positions and let the Sweden Democrats dictate the terms.

It is somewhat interesting that just as Sweden is to become the EU chair, the most EU-positive party in the Riksdag is now governing on a mandate from the most EU-critical party. Therefore, I want to ask Johan Pehrson if he is not at least concerned about the consequences of the Liberals now cooperating with the Sweden Democrats, who are openly EU-critical when it comes to our role in the EU.

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! I think this was clarified by Jimmie Åkesson himself in the speaker's chair. There are many who speak to Jimmie Åkesson via me. But I have not become a public representative or guardian in any way for Jimmie Åkesson, even though it seems to be portrayed that way.

We do not have a cooperation within the EU area. We have agreed on an agreement to govern Sweden, move Sweden forward and give Sweden a new start, because people perceived that Miljöpartiet was not quite the solution to all of Sweden's social problems, and hardly even its own. That does not include the EU issues.

It remains for me within my ministerial area and for all other ministers in the government to return to the Riksdag and gather support for the policy we want to pursue. Sometimes this can happen because Jimmie Åkesson and the Sverigedemokraterna are included.

When it comes to Miljöpartiet, which is so super-progressive, I just want to remind Per Bolund that it wasn't that long ago that Miljöpartiet realized that this thing with the EU was a good thing. Previously, one was more like Vänsterpartiet and kept cranking on about how the market, so to speak, crushes all environmental ambitions when we know it is the opposite.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! If the voters, according to Johan Pehrson, did not have confidence in the Green Party's policy, one can ask what applies to the Liberals, who received even less support from the voters in the election. Perhaps Johan Pehrson would like to comment on that.

It is unfortunately the case that the Tidö Agreement is historically many steps backward for liberal thoughts but also for the environment, and not least the budget is historically bad for the environment. Here, the EU has, for example, decided that at least 30 percent of ecosystems on land and at sea shall be protected. This is something that we have also committed ourselves to. But we are far behind that goal. Now come new announcements from the Minister for Rural Affairs that one shall prioritize down the environment and nature conservation. It is precisely in line with what the Sverigedemokraterna have demanded.

The Liberals and Johan Pehrson have themselves said that the Sweden Democrats are their main ideological opponents. I do not think I am getting any answer on how the Sweden Democrats' influence over the government's policy will affect the government's opportunity to be a powerful EU chair.

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! In the government statement, we have presented our view on the importance of having a strong European cooperation that is effective and that does the right things. This applies in terms of prosperity as well as peace and security, both external and internal. It also applies in terms of the climate. Here we must do this together. But to constantly turn one's back on reality, as I unfortunately experience Miljöpartiet doing, and to turn one's back on ordinary people is no way forward.

I previously stated that we will return with a climate action plan to manage to look at the goals for 2030, 2040, and 2045. We are fully aware that we have a planet that we must save. This also concerns the important matter that Per Bolund raised in his speech, namely biodiversity. Here, there are things that can be done that both save the climate and save our biodiversity. That is why we are pleased that everything is being done, from strengthening support for solar cells to strengthening the possibility for more wetlands and strengthening the possibilities for energy efficiency. All of this is things that Per Bolund refuses to see. But we intend to stubbornly explain that we have a high ambition, not least from the Liberals' side.

The party debate on EU policy was hereby concluded.

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