EU policy party leadership debate

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! We live in a time of unrest. In the Middle East, a war is raging with very great human suffering as a consequence.

The EU stands united in much. We condemn Hamas's despicable terrorist attack on October 7, where at least 1,200 people were killed and over 220 were kidnapped. Not since the Holocaust have so many Jews been murdered on the same day.

Sweden and the EU stand behind Israel and the country's self-evident right to defend itself in accordance with international law. At the same time, the EU emphasizes that humanitarian access to Gaza with supplies such as water, food, and medicine is absolutely necessary. Sweden's humanitarian aid reaches Gaza's civilian population. Civilian lives must be protected as far as possible.

Both in Sweden and in Europe, one can have different opinions about the conflicts in the Middle East. That is part of our democracy. But it is completely unacceptable when actions and demonstrations against the war there turn into hatred and threats against Jews here. Sweden's government stands unequivocally behind our Jewish minority.

(Applause)

The Europe that once swore that Jews would never again have to fear for their safety is once again an unsafe place for Jewish families. It is actually a disgrace, or as France's president Emmanuel Macron says: We shall bring antisemitism back to where it belongs - behind bars and behind bars. No tolerance for the intolerant!

(Applause)

Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine is our time's European tragedy. Yet there are now voices questioning whether freedom is worth defending - as if a policy of concessions towards the dictatorship were in democracy's interest! If Ukraine loses, then Europe loses, then Sweden loses.

The war in Ukraine shows the EU's security policy significance. The EU's military intervention has already trained 30,000 Ukrainian soldiers. During the Swedish presidency, we agreed to provide Ukraine with 1 million artillery shells.

EU membership is Ukraine's goal. The Swedish government shares this goal and pushed the issue during our presidency. The European Commission recommended on Thursday to the European Council to initiate membership negotiations with Ukraine. I can today give the announcement here in the chamber that the Swedish government supports the decision to initiate these negotiations after the turn of the year.

(Applause)

Helping Ukraine survive as a free country and making Ukraine a full member of the EU will be two of our generation's most formative European tasks.

Mr. Speaker! It is no longer a question of if, but when and how the EU shall grow. Spreading stability, democracy, and respect for the principles of the rule of law lies in our common interest. But EU membership is not handed out lightly but is built on merits and progress in one's own reform work. The EU has requirements and conditions that must be met. There are no shortcuts here. The principles of the rule of law shall be defended and apply to both new and old members.

At the same time, the EU must be ready to receive new members when they are ready. The EU needs to be reformed to function effectively even with more member states. This applies in particular to agricultural and cohesion policy. Also, the EU's budget and the forms of decision-making will need to be reviewed.

Mr. Speaker! 70 percent of the criminal networks in the EU operate in at least three countries. The government is now carrying out a historic offensive against the Swedish criminal gangs. We are strengthening the justice system, and we are giving the police the necessary tools and powers. We are tearing down secrecy so that authorities can combat the organized economic crime that feeds the gangs.

The same offensive is needed now in the EU. When the EU's heads of state and government decide on the political priorities for the coming years next summer, the fight against cross-border serious crime must be a priority issue. The Government is working intensively on proposals on how this EU cooperation can be sharpened. More can be done to give authorities better access to information that is communicated in an encrypted manner. More can be done to choke off money flows and to coordinate criminal investigations against cross-border crime.

Europol must be strengthened in order to be able to strike harder against organized crime, and more cooperation is needed to stop the smuggling of narcotics through the EU's ports.

Mr. Speaker! The EU must take control of Europe's external border. It is important for the EU but also completely necessary for Sweden.

The government and the Sweden Democrats are now implementing a paradigm shift in Swedish migration policy. It has already had a major effect. Migration is increasing to many EU countries, but in Sweden, the number of asylum seekers has decreased by 25 percent compared to last year. Just over 200,000 migrants have crossed the Mediterranean just this year. That is 52 percent more than last year. These people are being grossly exploited, and this human smuggling is a significant source of income for organized crime.

Under the Swedish presidency, a major step was taken towards a new, responsible and restrictive asylum and migration policy. It was a significant success. The goal is to strengthen the EU's external border and to introduce a fast track in reception to separate economic migrants from refugees. It will reduce the pressure on the EU and on Sweden.

But returns must increase. We need more cooperation and more information exchange between all relevant authorities within the EU to enforce made deportation decisions. Furthermore, more return agreements with the countries of origin are needed. A significantly expanded cooperation with countries of origin and transit countries is needed. Only in this way can we prevent the root causes of migration and prevent many from seeking their way to Europe along life-threatening routes over land and at sea.

Mr. Speaker! The green transition is a core Swedish interest. Swedish companies and industries are at the forefront in technologies that the world is demanding, such as fossil-free steel, batteries, electrified vehicles, and forest-based innovations. Sweden has already come a long way toward fossil-free status by phasing out oil boilers and coal power early. Together with Portugal, Sweden has the lowest emissions per capita in the entire EU. More is needed. Climate change and environmental degradation are transboundary problems that require transboundary solutions.

Swedish climate policy shall be built on a European foundation. During the Swedish presidency, the EU adopted one of the world's most ambitious climate packages, what is called Fit for 55. The EU is now acting together towards common goals, and all member countries are participating and taking responsibility. When 450 million Europeans transition, it makes a global difference.

Sustainable Swedish forestry is important not only for Sweden's but for all of Europe's transition. The government is working together with Finland to create a greater understanding of the forest's importance. The forest is not only a carbon sink and a prerequisite for biodiversity; the forest is also crucial for replacing fossil materials and reducing our emissions.

Nuclear power also plays a crucial role for fossil-free electricity production in the EU. The government is working hard to ensure that both conventional nuclear power and small modular reactors can be used on the same terms in the EU as renewable energy. We are collaborating closely with other EU countries in what is called the nuclear alliance.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden and Europe need higher growth, and the internal market is central to strengthening our economy. The EU is the very core of the Swedish industry's internationalization. But the EU's share of the world economy is shrinking, and competitiveness has deteriorated. New technology increasingly comes from the US West Coast and China's East Coast. Europe should be a continent that is involved in developing new technology, not primarily a continent that imports it.

The EU's total investments in research and development as a share of GDP are significantly lower than in the USA and China, but also lower than in Japan and South Korea. It is high time that more member states reach the EU's goal of investing at least 3 percent of GDP in research and development.

Growth and innovation do not spring from a state-controlled economy but from a knowledge-based market economy with competitive companies. It requires less red tape, lower energy prices, faster permit processes, as well as better access to capital and competence. European companies must have rules and conditions that can withstand that competition. Simpler and fewer rules will become a Swedish main theme when the direction for Europe's competitiveness is to be decided. EU legislation must take greater account of the companies' conditions.

It is free competition in the internal market and free trade with countries outside the EU that has built Europe's economy strong. But free trade agreements are also important for geopolitical reasons. If the EU is not present in the world's growth regions, other countries will be. The EU's strength has long been its openness towards the world. That openness must be compatible with our own interests, our values, and our security considerations.

Mr. Speaker! In my first government statement, I said that Sweden shall be an active, engaged and proactive member of the EU before, during and after our presidency. EU issues are therefore not a luxury that a government can indulge in when the calendar so permits. EU policy is Swedish domestic policy. Many national Swedish interests can only be protected through the EU.

Sweden is, however, often worse than others at identifying and formulating our national interests. Sometimes we have lacked the will to take a clear stand. Sometimes we have simply not sought out like-minded people. Sometimes we have arrived much too late.

We are changing this now. The Government will establish new forms of consultation and cooperation with Swedish business, with the labor market partners, and with other important actors who represent strategic, vital Swedish national interests. This is good for both Sweden and for the EU.

Mr. Speaker! I have now set out the government's view on the problems and the opportunities that the EU faces in this very turbulent time. The EU is our primary international cooperation and an important platform for a small but internationalized country like Sweden. Let us make better use of that platform to combat crime and reduce immigration by strengthening Europe's external borders, to manage the climate transition, and to protect our successful Swedish export companies - but also to protect the fundamental values of freedom, peace, democracy, and the rule of law that we in Sweden believe in.

Sweden's history is intimately intertwined with Europe's, but it is also Sweden's future.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! The development in Sweden is heading in the wrong direction. The cost-of-living crisis is pressing households hard. The deadly gang violence has reached new record levels. Organized crime moves almost unhindered across Europe's borders. The Swedish people are record-pessimistic in their view of the future. An overwhelming majority feels that the development is heading in the wrong direction. For every day that Ulf Kristersson governs Sweden, it becomes a country that is both more dangerous and poorer.

At the same time, we live in a world where crises and conflicts are coming closer and closer. A protracted, illegal war of aggression is ongoing with full force in our vicinity. The level of conflict and violence is increasing in society. Pro-Russian forces, right-wing extremists, and Islamists want to exploit the situation to divide Sweden and Europe.

Mr. Speaker! When storms rage in the world, Europe must hold together, as we did when Russia brutally invaded Ukraine and our strong unity sent a clear signal that we can never accept Russia's unprovoked violence against a democratic neighboring country. The same unity we shall strive for when we condemn Hamas's horrific terror attack and demand that international law is followed in Gaza.

In dark times, Europe must come together. It is important, because international conflicts also test our societies here in Europe, where not only extremists but also leaders of traditional parties try to exploit the situation for their own political purposes. Then all of us others must do what we can to unite and stand up against all forms of antisemitism, racism, and hatred against Muslims at the same time. Then Europe's leaders must jointly show that both Israelis and Palestinians have the same right to life in safety, peace, and freedom - in the same way as all Ukrainians have a right to peace, freedom, and safety, and in the same way as we in Sweden, in Germany, and in Spain have the right to live in safety, peace, and freedom.

We countries in Europe have come together to safeguard our democratic principles and stand up for peace in Europe. We Social Democrats will always hold fast to that.

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker! The world has changed in a short time. Europe now faces a decisive time. Putin's violation of international law challenges not only international law but the security of our entire continent. The struggle in the Ukrainian trenches is not only about Ukraine's territorial freedom, integrity, and democracy. It is also about the safety and security of Sweden and the Swedish people.

Ukraine's struggle for freedom rests on support from the West. But in a year, the USA will go to elections again. We in Europe must prepare for the fact that the USA may once again choose a president who attacks the idea of international cooperation and community and who abandons common agreements on security, economy, and climate. This could happen at a time when pro-Russian far-right extremists, religious fundamentalists, and foreign powers want to weaken Europe and divide our community.

Mr. Speaker! The security of Sweden and the Swedish people rests on our ability to do what is required in Europe. When the wind blows strongly, Europe must increase its cohesion.

Mr. Speaker! In these uncertain and dark times, European cooperation is a stability, a security, and a safety to lean on for the Swedish people. It is a protection against uncertainty in a changed world.

Behind us, we have a term in the European Parliament that is unlike any other, with a migration crisis, a pandemic, an economic crisis, and war in Europe. But we are 450 million Europeans who have managed to hold together in a historically tough time. We have managed to do good things for ordinary European households. Through joint European procurement of vaccines, we, among others, Swedes, were vaccinated faster than we otherwise would have been. Thanks to a historic climate package, Europe will become independent of Putin and the oil sheiks' oil. We have also had the EU create more secure industrial jobs for electricians, assemblers, and forklift drivers.

We Social Democrats want to continue working to make life better, safer and cheaper for ordinary people in Sweden through the EU. Because we Social Democrats always put Sweden and the interests of the Swedish people first.

Mr. Speaker! We must face the world we live in now. It is a world in change. There are great risks, not least for a small country in the north.

What does the SD-government want then? It is not without one wondering. The largest party in the government base has, in fact, chosen, in the midst of burning war in Europe, to open up for Sweden to leave the EU, for Europe to cooperate less, and for Sweden to become weaker. What does it mean for Sweden's role in European cooperation that the government base is pulling in different directions?

One thing is clear. We Social Democrats know what we want. Europe must stay together. Sweden belongs in Europe.

(Applause)

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The EU has, as is known, decided that Europe shall become the world's first carbon-neutral continent. We in the Sweden Democrats consider this fundamentally positive. We have everything to gain from freeing ourselves from fossil fuels. It will benefit our economy, and it will benefit our security. But making goals at the desk, as is known, costs nothing.

When it comes to the details – how, when and in what way – the Sweden Democrats have had firm criticism. We have criticized that the EU Commission uses the climate as a battering ram to acquire new powers, for how they want to steer Swedish forest policy and Swedish housing policy, and so on. We have received a lot of criticism for that; we have not joined the majority.

Mr. Speaker! How does it go when the EU Commission tries to realize the goal of its green deal? I intend to take up an example today. It is proposed that property owners should be forced to renovate in order to radically reduce the building's energy consumption. That sounds positive. But the details are anything but positive.

The first sub-objective is that all housing in ten years shall be at least energy class D. By 2033, one third of the housing in our country shall be renovated. By 2050, all properties shall be zero-emission houses.

Mr. Speaker! There are obvious differences between Molkom and Malta. Therefore, it is unreasonable for the European Union to decide on common building regulations. The differences in climate are large, as are the differences between how the countries' properties are insulated and, above all, how they are heated. On the continent, many properties are poorly insulated, and they are heated with gas or oil. Here at home, in the northern edge of Europe, we have better insulation, and our buildings are heated with district heating produced from waste and with heat pumps that utilize electricity from nuclear, wind, and hydropower.

Carbon dioxide emissions from buildings in Sweden are simply much lower than in the rest of Europe. Swedes emit an average of 26 kilos of carbon dioxide per year for heating and cooling, while the European average is 700 kilos of carbon dioxide per year. With 4 percent on average, Sweden has the lowest emissions by a large margin of all countries in the union.

But despite the fact that we have done our part, done our homework, and are at the top of the class, the EU Commission proposes that approximately the same proportion shall be renovated in all countries. Since forced renovations in themselves will result in emissions, it is likely that it will do more harm than good for the climate. The renovations of Swedish properties may very well create greater emissions than what is built away. The proposal is therefore socio-economically unjustifiable and at the same time not necessarily sustainable from a climate perspective, at least not in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! If the EU Commission were to push through its proposal on mandatory renovations, rent shocks and devaluations of older villas and condominiums await. The cost of renovating a small house of 100 square meters in energy class G so that it meets the EU Commission's requirements for energy class D before 2033 is, according to Villaägarnas Riksförbund, over half a million kronor. If the villa is larger, the cost of the mandatory renovation will naturally be much higher. By 2050, all villas are to be zero-emission houses. It will become even more expensive.

Particularly in the countryside, many villas have a value that is lower than the renovation cost. There is a lack of a plan for what those who live in these houses should do when their properties crash in value.

Apartment buildings must also be renovated. It is not a small amount of money. Sveriges allmännytta has estimated the cost to be 550 billion SEK until 2050. Those costs will be incurred through higher rents. Botkyrkabyggens financial manager warns of increases of 30 percent.

In addition, public buildings as well as offices, industrial properties, and summer cottages shall be renovated.

Mr. Speaker! The proposal is naturally indefensible. It is positive that the Riksdag, the government, and the Sverigedemokraterna agree that it is an unreasonable proposal.

In the European Parliament, for example, the Green Party and the Social Democrats have wanted to go even further than the European Commission's proposal, even though the mandatory renovations risk counteracting their purpose and increasing emissions. That the Green Party is pushing for this surprises no one. But it can be noted that the Social Democrats do not want to lift away stones either, but on the contrary, increase the burden for ordinary people by adding even more stones. They have lost their ideological compass and continue to ignore the reality that the citizens are forced to live in.

That is why the Sweden Democrats exist. We represent common sense in contrast to the EU's and the Social Democrats' forced renovations.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! After Hamas's horrific terror attacks on over 1,000 Israeli civilians, the Israeli government naturally has the right to defend itself. They have, however, launched a bombardment of the Gaza Strip of rarely seen proportions. According to Amnesty, thousands of airstrikes have been carried out on an area smaller than Öland that has over 2 million inhabitants. Half of them are children. The average age of those who have died from the bombings is five years. It is primarily toddlers who have been killed. Now, prematurely born children at the al-Shifa hospital in Gaza must be taken out of the incubators and wrapped in foil to be kept warm. Several have already died.

Entire families are wiped out. The Hijazi family was wiped out in an airstrike. Three were children. Amnesty International has found no evidence that there were any military targets where they were located at the time of the attack.

The 19-year-old Imad was on his way to buy bread for the family when he was killed in the attack against the market in the Jabalia camp. Amnesty reports that the family had just left their home in Beit Hanoun after receiving warning messages from the Israeli army and had therefore taken the long way to the refugee camp - which was then bombed by Israel. Imad had carried his little brother on his shoulders on the way to school in the Jabalia camp. The next day, it was father Ziyad who carried his 19-year-old son's lifeless body on his shoulders on the way to the funeral. Ziyad told from the coffin that everyone was looking for their children in the piles of bodies. The bodies were burned. "I recognized my child by the trousers he was wearing."

Sweden must now work in line with the EU's resolution so that war crimes are investigated and the perpetrators prosecuted and that military actions must be kept within the framework of international law. Innocent children must not die. They must never die. But now they lie in heaps in the mortuaries.

While the EU and the UN condemned the attack on the Jabalia camp in harsh words, our Swedish Foreign Minister Tobias Billström said the action was proportionate. While the EU and the UN very early on reminded every country of its responsibility to follow international law, the Swedish Foreign Minister could not, on his way into the EU meeting in Luxembourg on October 23, confirm to the media that Sweden stands up for international law. This is astounding.

I no longer recognize Swedish foreign policy - the one that stands up for the human being and her human rights, defends innocent civilians against terror and war crimes, defends the rules-based world order and protects small nations, not least against countries with great power ambitions, which also, to a very high degree, lies in Sweden's own interest.

Right must prevail over power. Everyone must follow the principles of international law. Civilians must be protected. Ulf Kristersson must show the world that the defense of international law is strong in Sweden. He does not do that. Both Israelis and Palestinians have a right to freedom and dignity, to their land and their future.

Sweden must not be the country that is the last to join the EU's defense of international law. Sweden must be a driving force for international law in the EU. Just like Spain, France and Ireland, the Swedish government must now demand a humanitarian ceasefire that is lasting and immediate and, in the long run, leads to the cessation of hostilities.

The FN's general assembly had the government lay down the Swedish vote in the vote on a humanitarian ceasefire. The justification was that Hamas's horrific attack was not clearly condemned in that specific resolution. But the EU has been very clear in all contexts with its condemnation of Hamas. Therefore, it is incomprehensible why the government cannot stand behind a humanitarian ceasefire in the EU. Now that the EU has condemned this, why does the government not stand together with the other parties and countries behind a ceasefire?

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! With 27 countries, nearly 450 million citizens, 24 official languages and the world's third-largest economy, the European Union is a crucial part of our world, our everyday lives and our reality. Sweden, in turn, is a crucial part of the European Union. Our strength and our voice can and shall make a difference. We shall influence the EU because the EU influences us.

The decisions made in Brussels and Strasbourg affect every day investments, procurement, laws, the labor market, and climate work in Swedish municipalities and regions, from Bengtsfors to Sollentuna and from Boden to Simrishamn. The debate we are having here today about the EU's policy and the future should be held every day of the year.

The common future of the EU and Sweden is not set in stone. It is shaped by the choices and priorities that politics makes, both at home and in Brussels. Therefore, it matters how we act in this chamber and whom we choose to represent us in the election to the European Parliament, which is only months away.

We see how the world looks right now. Our choices become truly important. European peace is shattered into pieces. We have a war in the heart of Europe, where Russia's insane violence harvests human lives and extinguishes faith in the future every day. It is our responsibility to keep hope alive, to ensure that we continue to support Ukraine's cause and never be blinded by the spotlight against Putin's war crimes and the Ukrainians' struggle for freedom. Here, a united Europe is the key to success.

We have a gang war in Sweden that knows no boundaries, whether it comes to the use of violence or to the smuggling of drugs or weapons. It is a gang war that must be stopped at all costs. Here, a united Europe is the key to success.

We see how climate change affects every part of our world and how extreme weather and emissions completely disregard the borders of countries and continents. If the climate crisis is to be slowed down here at home and in our vicinity, and if we are to get others in the world to also do their part, a united Europe is the key to success.

All of this should be self-evident. Yet, there are parties in this chamber that are hesitant regarding the EU, who want to turn their backs on the cooperation when we need it most, and who take the flaws of the EU system as an excuse to claim that everything with the EU is bad, instead of making what works less well better and highlighting how the EU cooperation has made Sweden a stronger country.

Wherever we turn our gaze today, the picture is clear: Alone is not strong. Alone is weak. To the one who asks "Why the EU?", the answer is just as clear, because the solutions to tomorrow's challenges are European.

It is only together that we can manage to make the EU climate-neutral and at the same time strengthen our companies in the green transition. It is only together that we can meet the threats to our democracy, which come from both outside and inside. It is only together we can stand up for personal integrity. It is only together we can make an EU strong enough to knock the legs out from under organized crime. It is only together we can make the EU sufficiently strong in the world and stand toe-to-toe against countries like China and Iran when they imprison our citizens, oppress their own and use economy and trade as tools of extortion. It is only together we can stand up against Russia and never yield an inch from the message that Ukraine's cause is ours.

No, the EU is not perfect - precisely because it is a cooperation project. But everyone who believes in the EU must also believe in the idea that it can become better. My and the Center Party's promise is that we will continue to work hard to get the climate transition done. We will fight hard every day for a green, liberal, courageous leadership for Europe and for a stronger Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The EU emerged as a response to the great crises of that time. In our time, the world faces new difficult challenges and great political uncertainty: Russia's war against Ukraine, the energy crisis and climate change, high inflation and uncertainty about Europe's economic future, unsustainably high migration - the list can be long.

Despite the challenges, there is still reason to be optimistic. During the Swedish presidency this spring, we succeeded in bringing to fruition the world's most ambitious climate package: Fit for 55. We also succeeded in what many thought was completely impossible: a historic agreement between the member states on migration. During the absolute worst security policy situation since World War II, Sweden also succeeded in contributing to maintaining unity among the EU's member states regarding eleven sanction packages against Russia.

(Applause)

Anxious times require clear leadership. Anxious times also require a leadership that dares to prioritize the core tasks: firstly, to stand guard over the EU's fundamental values and create security in our part of the world; secondly, to create good conditions for companies to transition, grow, and create welfare; and thirdly, to stop organized crime and illegal migration. As one of the founders of the EU, the Christian Democrat and the West German Federal Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, went to the election in 1957: Keine Experimente! No experiments! No excesses, but an EU that does what the union is supposed to do - an EU that is just right!

Mr. Speaker! The post-war Christian Democratic project, which became the EU, was a project that supported pluralism based on the Judeo-Christian ethics and the West's value base, conception of justice, and democracy. From this ethics and value base, we have received the notion of the inviolability of human life and the equal value of all people. It is this value base that makes us Christian Democrats fight for everyone's equal rights, regardless of whether you are a Muslim in this country, Christian, non-Christian, or Jewish. We fight for everyone's rights. It is also this view of humanity that has given rise to open societies where ideas are allowed to flow freely and goods are exchanged across borders.

Mr. Speaker! Today's security policy challenges require a comparable ethical and value-based conviction to create opposition against our time's authoritarian adversaries - against those who want to rise at our expense, who argue that it is a zero-sum game or who want to undermine our fundamental freedoms and rights on the basis of a religious conviction.

Hamas' reckless attacks on Israel is such a conflict of values. Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine is such a conflict of values. Both are struggles for society's fundamental values. Both are value struggles we must win together.

(Applause)

Mr. Speaker! When innocent people are systematically and cold-bloodedly murdered, it is terrorism. When a warring party deliberately executes civilian people, it is a war crime. When Jewish women and children are slaughtered solely because they are Jews, it is a continuation of the Holocaust. Just ask Ruth, 87 years old, who lived in the kibbutz Be'eri! She survived both the Nazis' persecution and the Hamas attack on October 7. But no one is allowed to diminish the human value on any side of the border between Gaza and Israel. It is a complete humanitarian tragedy we see right now.

In the European debate, it must be pointed out that it is a failure for our societies that antisemitism has been able to live so undisturbed in large parts of our country. This is an important fight to take. Therefore, the EU must prioritize its core tasks moving forward in order to be able to stand strong even for future generations in a difficult time.

(Applause)

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! When I, as a spokesperson today, make my final party leadership debate, I do so in an uncertain time and in an uncertain world. Russia's illegal and horrific attacks on Ukraine claim human lives every day. In the conflict between Israel and Gaza, many people, of whom many are children, lose their lives or health. In that case, it is important that Sweden is a member of a union where we can together be a strong actor for global security and greater safety and together can have a strong voice for all people's right to life, health, and freedom. But the EU is also an incredibly important force to counteract the basis for insecurity. In that regard, I am thinking not least of the climate and environmental threats.

Another month has passed, and another global temperature record has been noted, TT wrote last week, when reports came that this is on track to become the warmest year ever recorded. It has never been clearer that we can face a dark future if we do not change direction. As UN Secretary-General António Guterres expressed recently: "The era of global boiling has arrived." He made a message to all countries' leaders, including the Swedish: "Leaders must lead. No more hesitancy. No more excuses."

At the same time, we are met in Sweden by an almost numbing lack of interest among the Tidö parties. It is not sufficient to call this a matter of destiny in the government statement and similar documents, but then let the Sweden Democrats govern the climate policy and treat it as sternly as they do. What do the words mean then? The climate policy is obviously to be carried out by someone else, somewhere else, some other time. This seems to be what Ulf Kristersson's side in politics is most in agreement on: the climate crisis is not our problem.

For all of us outside the government, the problem is that Ulf Kristersson is wrong. It is our problem when people's homes in Gävle, Västerås, and Uppsala are destroyed after extreme rainfall and when farmers' harvests dry up and are washed away every other time. It is our problem when elderly people die in nursing homes in the extreme heat. It is our problem when tens of thousands of people lose their lives in floods as the collapsing ice of West Antarctica is about to raise the sea level by several meters and when Europe is hit by the worst drought and the worst forest fires in over 500 years.

All of this is our problem, and it is also our responsibility to do something about it. But it is also our great opportunity, because an active and ambitious climate policy has proven to be decisive for countries' competitiveness. That is not just us saying it. It is also being said by our very largest companies and industries.

Mr. Speaker! At the same time as Sweden is now dismantling its own climate policy, we and many others are placing our hopes in the EU. Here in the Swedish Riksdag, it is often said that climate policy should be conducted internationally and at the EU level. But unfortunately, it also seems to be just empty words from the government parties, because when the sitting government had the chance to act in the EU Council of Ministers, it voted no to the nature restoration law, opposed the deforestation law, and tried to block the EU's law on reduced use of environmental pollutants in agriculture. They do not even stand behind the legislation on increasing carbon sinks in forests and land. They beat their chests for an agreement that came about when Sweden was chair, but which they themselves have actually opposed.

We thus have a government that is increasing emissions here at home and which does not even mean business with the EU taking the lead. When the EU acts, it is also not strange that the climate work falters. Last week, a report was released showing that the EU is on track to miss all climate goals by 2030. To move forward, more measures are therefore required, not fewer, both at the EU level and nationally. Sweden is highlighted in the report as a country that was on track to reach the goals with ease. "Was", I say, because it was with the previous government's policy. That is no longer the case.

We have much to be proud of in the EU's climate and environmental policy. Many green ministers and green Members of the European Parliament have worked hard for it. But we also need to ensure that the pace increases nationally, because the EU is nothing more than the sum of its member states.

Mr. Speaker! Through the hard work of Green politicians, the EU has become a counterpoint to the Swedish government's climate and environmental policy. When the government fails every climate promise and breaks every climate goal, our and many others' hopes for a strong, green EU stand.

Today, I also want to take the opportunity to encourage Swedish voters who are watching the debate ahead of the 2024 EU election: Do not give the parties that are now dismantling climate policy in Sweden the chance to do so in the EU as well, but make a transformative choice. Vote for a strong green force in the EU for a brighter future!

(Applause)

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! On October 7, Israel and the rest of the world woke up to completely unimaginable images of terror, evil, and destruction. Hamas carried out the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. For the Liberals, there is no doubt. Sweden and the EU must stand behind Israel in these difficult times.

Hamas started a war, and Israel has the right to defend itself according to international law. That Sweden and the EU are increasing humanitarian support to vulnerable people in Gaza is also very welcome. Everyone suffering under Hamas's terror regime deserves Sweden's and Europe's support.

In our own part of the world, Putin's brutal invasion of Ukraine continues. We see it in the ruins of thousands of bombed schools and in the remains of entire villages and towns. But our blue-and-yellow friends still stand heroically in the fight against Putin's murderer regime. They do not give up. We will stand behind them all the way.

The Liberals want the EU to be a beacon in a compact darkness to inspire freedom-loving people all around the world and to stand out against despots who only know violence as a method. For this, cooperation and unity are required.

That is why we are pushing for more sharp EU sanctions against Russia. That is why we are pushing for more weapons to Ukraine and providing protection to Ukrainian civilians in our country. That is why we are pushing for the EU to admit Ukraine into our community as soon as it is possible. It is the European community where Ukraine belongs.

Mr. Speaker! It has almost been 30 years since Sweden joined the EU cooperation. In hindsight, one can state that it is probably one of the wisest decisions that Sweden and this chamber have made in modern times.

The opportunities for young people to study in France, work in Germany and hitchhike across the continent exist thanks to the EU. The opportunities to start a company from a garage in Örebro and find customers in Madrid or Prague also exist thanks to the EU. The opportunities to bind together 27 countries in common climate goals for our survival and for a greener and better tomorrow also exist thanks to the EU.

Our freedom has been expanded with the EU. Our prosperity has increased with the EU. Our tomorrow is closely intertwined and linked with Europe and the EU. But there is something missing, Mr. Speaker. It is a final piece of the puzzle for Sweden to fully become a part of Europe and take our rightful place at the big table, together with countries like Finland, Germany, France and the Netherlands: We lack a stable currency. We lack the euro.

One could say that there is a crisis in the currency issue. Saying no to the currency cooperation has cost us dearly. We have noticed this in recent years when we have imported inflation. Just ask what the Swedish people think about having their holiday savings eaten up. Small businesses are struggling with increased purchase prices, not to mention the price of bell peppers and the rest of the grocery bag.

The Liberals demand a new approach to the euro issue. Our decisions regarding our future must be made where we are fully involved and have influence. The Liberals want to take concrete steps forward to make a transition from the krona to the euro as smooth as possible. Therefore, we have now established a euro office. We shall forge a feasible plan so that we secure Swedish prosperity and full influence over our future.

We want to gather the experts, the business community, and the citizens who see the problems with an overly weak currency. And do you know what? All of you in here are welcome to participate to explain how you want to act to secure prosperity, influence, and security.

Together we are strong; alone one is the opposite. I want us to upgrade our membership in the EU from basic to premium. The Liberals intend to stand in the front line for this.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! In Sweden, we care about what is happening in the world and often take our share of responsibility to alleviate distress and misery even in conflicts far away that we have very little influence over, such as in the Middle East.

Mr. Speaker! At the same time, we must take full responsibility for what is happening here at home. Sweden cannot be allowed to become a stage for all the world's conflicts, such as when foreign citizens come here to burn Qurans in order to offend Muslims, as when regime-loyalists and regime-critics from Eritrea physically engage in brawls in Järva, or as now when the terror-romanticism from Gaza leads to antisemitism in Sweden.

After Hamas' terror attack on October 7, both Sweden and the EU see a wave of antisemitic propaganda. Reports of hate speech against a group with antisemitic motives have increased by 50 percent. Many Jews hear and see the hatred and the threats every day. Antisemitism's conspiracy theories now unite right-wing and left-wing extremists with Islamists and a part that has its origin where one hates Israel.

We must stop this, Mr. Speaker. We shall not be tolerant towards intolerance. The government focuses on three areas. It concerns strengthening the safety and security of Jews in Sweden, highlighting Jewish life in Sweden, and strengthening knowledge about Sweden's Jewish minority through education.

Now it is our unconditional duty in this chamber, beyond party politics, to guarantee that Jewish families will never have to fear for their safety and their security here in their own country.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! In a debate article last spring, Jimmie Åkesson stated that "there are today great reasons to truly evaluate our membership in the union." He meant that EU membership is starting to become dangerous, like a straitjacket. Let us call it what it is. It is a disguised svexit debate, or perhaps not even so disguised since the Sweden Democrats' youth wing is now promoting svexit openly.

This is happening in a situation where we have a war in our immediate vicinity and when it is more important than in several decades that the EU is able to show unity, reach agreements and hold together. This is happening before we are even full members of Nato. What does Ulf Kristersson think that sends for a signal to Russia?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It was an interesting question, given what the Left Party said the other day about the EU cooperation.

In Sweden, as far as I know, eight out of eight parties are fundamentally for Swedish EU membership. That was different when we held the referendum. Then, half of the Social Democrats were against membership, and it was split half-half for the sake of fairness. Welcome to the club now!

That we are all in favor of EU membership does not mean that everyone thinks alike, on good grounds. EU is Swedish domestic policy. We therefore differ in different issues.

I welcome all of this. But if the Prime Minister, who is myself, keeps track of that the government's EU policy is well-anchored, perhaps the opposition leader should keep track of his own government basis.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Once again we hear Ulf Kristersson wave away difficult questions about the Sweden Democrats. We have seen it time and again. Now in the speaker's chair, Ulf Kristersson was actually clear when it came to the Quran burnings. I wish he had been just as clear with that earlier, in the spring or in opposition.

But my question was not answered at all by Ulf Kristersson. My question is: What does Ulf Kristersson think the Sweden Democrats' disguised Svexit debate or their youth wing's open Svexit stance sends as a signal to Russia? That the government base is split on this issue, what signal does that send to Russia?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that in Russia, they are much more interested in which parties in Sweden want us to join Nato and which want to stay out. Half of the Social Democrats' government support is against the single most important security policy reform in modern times. And Magdalena Andersson has the nerve to stand here and talk about different positions on the EU issue!

I know that you are obsessed with the Sweden Democrats. Everyone knows it. But the big question here and now is: What are we going to use the EU for? Which problems should the EU solve, and what is the EU about politically? There, one can have different opinions.

I note that almost everyone is now in favor of Swedish EU membership. That is good. I respect that we disagree on what we should use the EU for, but I also see a growing consensus, for example, regarding the EU's role in reducing immigration – which applies in any case in some parties – and a growing role for the EU in climate policy. That is good.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! We are now seeing horrific scenes in the Gaza Strip. It is children who have to carry out the bodies of their siblings without heads from the rubble. There are bombings of hospitals and hospital staff, and it is now being requested to receive some support and some help from the international community. The UN has now for several weeks demanded a ceasefire. The government's justification for abstaining in the UN General Assembly this week was that in that specific resolution there was no clear condemnation of Hamas's actions.

The EU is now making it very clear that Hamas's actions and the hostage-taking are a very serious crime. Why then does Sweden not push the issue of a ceasefire more clearly in an EU context?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I completely share Nooshi Dadgostar's description of the horror on the Gaza Strip. I do so completely and fully, and I believe the whole world does too.

I think that Sweden and the EU have been extremely clear on the points where the EU is in agreement. We unequivocally condemn Hamas. It is not all countries in the world that can handle such a thing. Just this morning, for example, we could read the Palestinian ambassador's statement in Dagens Nyheter.

We clearly defend Israel's right to defend itself under international law. We demand humanitarian access. We demand respect for the laws of war. We demand a two-state solution. All of this is what the EU agrees on. It is very good.

The UN declaration was not voted yes by a majority of the EU member states for exactly the reason Nooshi Dadgostar suggests. It was not able to condemn Hamas's actions. That is where this conflict begins.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! This is the very point of my question. Now, the EU is condemning Hamas's actions and the hostage-taking. Why then is Sweden not pushing for a ceasefire now that this obstacle is gone? Or was it not true that it was for that reason that the government abstained? It is this that we do not understand.

Why does Ulf Kristersson not demand a ceasefire in an EU context now when there is a condemnation of Hamas's actions? Of course, a war crime cannot justify another. The government must be clear that it also condemns any potential war crimes that may be committed by the Israeli army. Is it not a self-evident matter for the Swedish position to condemn all attacks against civilians, regardless of which country they come from?

If what the government says is true, why is a demand for a ceasefire not being made, when there is a condemnation of Hamas in the EU?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! To be honest, I do not quite understand the question. We took a position on a resolution which most EU countries stated they could not vote yes to because it did not meet the requirements that most EU countries had.

Instead, the EU stated very clearly roughly what Nooshi Dadgostar says. It was about condemning Hamas, demanding respect for the laws of war, defending the right to defend oneself, and about conveying demands for humanitarian access and pauses in order to be able to bring in such material as the humanitarian access requires. That is exactly how Sweden voted. That is exactly how the majority of the EU's countries voted. That is where the great majority is, in unity.

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! "The better prepared we are to leave, the more we will get in future negotiations." That is how Jimmie Åkesson expressed himself regarding the EU as recently as May this year.

SD now also wants the EU membership to be evaluated when the Tidö Agreement is to be renewed. We all know how it usually ends when the Sweden Democrats want something in the Tidö cooperation.

My question to the Prime Minister is therefore straight and simple: Can the Prime Minister today give a guarantee to all of us who are pro-EU that the Sweden Democrats' will to increase the readiness for Sweden to leave the EU will not also become the government's?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! As I said just a moment ago, Sweden is firmly anchored in the EU. There is an overwhelming majority of Swedes who want Swedish EU membership. Swedish business would not function without Swedish EU membership. Swedish security would deteriorate. We would not be able to protect our borders without Swedish EU membership. Sweden is not considering leaving the EU at all.

As I said earlier, I note that in principle, eight out of eight parties are now in favor of Swedish EU membership. But I also respect that there are parties that are less enthusiastic. Sverigedemokraterna and Vänsterpartiet are perhaps the two clearest. I respect that.

One can have different opinions. We evaluate our EU membership every day. Often we conclude that it is very good, but sometimes we land on the fact that the EU does things we do not like. Forest policy, for example, I think is being managed poorly by the EU right now, and in those cases, we say it in plain language.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! I must thank the Prime Minister for sharing the obvious with us: that Sweden would not manage without the EU.

But now there is talk of an investigation that, in the long run, could be included in the Tidö Agreement. It is not just any investigation, but it concerns the fact that Sweden may also need to leave the EU in the long run. I cannot interpret the Sweden Democrats' rhetoric in any other way than that we are to evaluate the membership and prepare ourselves to leave.

The Moderates and the Centre Party have long shared the self-evident position that we shall continue to be a part of the EU. But recent years show that the Sweden Democrats are increasingly governing what policy and ideological development are called in the Tidö agreement. Therefore, I repeat the question: Can Ulf Kristersson, the Prime Minister, promise here and now that he will not let the Sweden Democrats undermine Sweden's EU membership?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! As I said a moment ago: I take responsibility for my government basis. I assume that the Center Party takes responsibility for the government basis that the Center Party is now part of – where the Left Party is also included. Good luck with that!

(Applause)

Sweden will not evaluate membership in any other sense than that we every day evaluate what works well and what works poorly. We shall continue to do that. We shall continue to set tough demands on the EU, participate with full force, say yes to good things, say no to bad things and exert influence. That has been the Moderaternas and this government's line from day one. So it will remain so. But I am very much in favor of us safeguarding Swedish national interests in our EU cooperation and that we raise our voice, as other countries do, when we think that the EU is stepping in the wrong direction.

Again: Vänsterpartiet and Sverigedemokraterna are the two most skeptical. If Centerpartiet handles Vänsterpartiet's EU-skepticism, I should be able to handle Sverigedemokraterna's EU-skepticism.

(Applause)

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! As I said in my speech, the EU is unfortunately on track to miss all the major climate targets for 2030. This is shown by the latest evaluation reports. The member states' collective measures are not sufficient to reach the target of reducing emissions, to be able to increase carbon storage in forests and land, or to be able to build out enough renewable energy. Sweden, with the new government, is unfortunately part of the problem in all these three areas.

It is therefore required to have more tools to help people, companies, and organizations all over Europe to transition. But instead of looking for new ways forward and pushing for more measures that move Sweden and the EU forward in the transition, Ulf Kristersson has signed a demand in his party group, EPP, for a total stop to all new climate and environmental policy.

The forecast is that the EU will miss its climate goals. The Prime Minister's priority is to demand a stop to new climate policy. Therefore, I ask, Ulf Kristersson: Does the government intend to treat the EU's climate law in the same way as it intends to handle the Swedish climate act? As Elisabeth Svantesson said: If we don't reach it, we don't reach it.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I believe it can be said that the EU is a prerequisite for an international European climate policy, as part of a global climate policy. But it naturally does not replace what individual countries need to do themselves and individual countries' views on what is the right climate policy. Of course it is so. It is an intergovernmental cooperation that we take very seriously.

Let me take three examples:

The Climate Package Fit for 55 provides unique conditions for the EU to become the world's first climate-neutral continent. It is fantastically good. I perceive that there is very broad support for that position.

The EU does not protect Swedish forestry well enough. The Green Party has never understood that. It is incomprehensible; you spend quite a bit of time in the forest. Swedish forest policy cannot be delegated to the EU level. Swedish forest is a fundamental prerequisite for jobs and for the economy in Sweden.

Nuclear power is now emerging in the EU in a new way.

It is three examples - good and bad.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I note that Ulf Kristersson does not contradict, but he has signed an appeal for a stop, a moratorium, on new climate policy despite the figures pointing in the wrong direction.

It is a bit embarrassing to stand and boast about the Fit for 55 package when it is obvious that the government parties have opposed the content of it through their actions in the European Council.

I have tried to talk to Ulf Kristersson about climate and responsibility and about the threats to the future. It has not gone so well, one can state. Therefore, I thought I would try, instead of talking about carbon emissions, to talk about kronor and see if it goes better.

We have great challenges. We have received 38 billion from the EU's recovery fund. The EU Commission is now threatening to withdraw those funds for Sweden because it does not meet the climate requirements.

The government wants to lean heavily towards flexibility, that is, to buy emission allowances from other countries. According to assessments, this will cost tens, perhaps hundreds, of billions of kronor. If you do not do that, you will instead have to pay EU fines at approximately the same level.

My question to Ulf Kristersson is: How much does Ulf Kristersson think it should cost the Swedish people to buy themselves out of doing the climate work for real?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! What this is about is that every country must create national conditions so that we can meet our common climate commitments. There is a prerequisite that we argue ourselves blue in the face about and which you pretend does not exist: clean fossil-free electricity.

It begins and starts there. If you have no energy policy, you have no climate policy. If you cannot replace fossil fuels, you have no climate policy. If you cannot have stable electricity for the industries that are to electrify, you have no climate policy. Best of all, the common European insight on this is now growing.

The terrible war against Ukraine has brought with it a small but important contribution, which is good: a rapid phasing out of the dependence on oil from Russia. Now the EU is to become completely fossil-free. That requires stable energy. The nuclear alliance is a good start to this, but since the Green Party refuses to even talk about stable clean electricity, the Green Party has no long-term climate policy.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I note that Ulf Kristersson clearly closed the door on the Sweden Democrats' demand for an evaluation of the membership, and since that evaluation was intended to be used as part of the Sweden Democrats' policy so that we can prepare to be able to leave the EU, I thank him for that statement and that promise. We shall see how long the promise holds.

Mr. Speaker! The upcoming EU election will be completely different from previous elections. Wars are raging in Ukraine and in the Middle East. The cost-of-living crisis continues to press households very hard. Gang crime moves across Europe's borders, and we are painfully reminded of the terror threat against Sweden and Europe.

We Social Democrats are not naive. We are neither reckless EU enthusiasts nor Svexit advocates. We see reality for what it is, and right now Sweden is becoming both more dangerous and poorer every day.

In a time when gang crime and terrorism constitute a threat to all citizens' safety and security, Europe must stick together and ramp up cooperation. Drugs and weapons must be stopped already at the border.

Right now, Sweden is becoming poorer. Who then stands up for the economic interests of the Swedish people? I can give a concrete example. In a situation where every hundred kronor counts for households, a right-wing majority in the European Parliament, including parliamentarians from Sverigedemokraterna and the government parties, voted through new rules for water purification. These are rules that for a Swedish household can mean 1,000 kronor a year in increased fees. For a family with children, that corresponds to two winter jackets. Instead of the large companies, which make money on their products, paying for their own pollution, ordinary people are made to pay the bill. But we Social Democrats will always stand up for ordinary European households in our EU work.

(Applause)

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Just as Magdalena Andersson said in her speech, we are heading towards elections to the European Parliament. It is an important election, and we hope for a high voter turnout. From my party's side, we hope for many Sweden Democrats in the European Parliament.

What I would like to ask Magdalena Andersson is what one actually gets if one votes for the Social Democrats in the European Parliament election. In my speech, I raised the Commission's proposal on forced renovations, where the then Social Democratic government said one thing and the Social Democratic parliamentarians in Brussels said something completely different.

The same applies to nuclear power and green investments. In those cases, the government said one thing, while the parliamentarians said another. The parliamentarians wanted a new sovereign wealth fund, but Magdalena Andersson did not want that. Morgan Johansson wanted to use aid as a means of pressure to be able to deport persons who do not have the right to stay in Sweden. The parliamentarians did not want that.

My question is: Does Magdalena Andersson have any idea what the parliamentarians from the Socialdemokraterna are doing in Brussels?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! If you vote for the Social Democrats, you get parliamentarians who every day will work for the best interests of ordinary Swedish households in the EU and who, for example, will vote against the Sweden Democrats' and the right's proposal that ordinary households should pay for large corporations' emissions rather than the companies that make million and billion profits on products that cause the emissions. We stand on the side of ordinary people.

One gets parliamentarians who, unlike the Sweden Democrats, will not vote for increased tax competition between EU countries that can lead to reduced opportunities to finance our common welfare - the school, healthcare, and elderly care.

One gets parliamentarians who stand up for Sweden and the safety and security of the Swedish people.

(Applause)

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Magdalena Andersson, for the answer! I can state that one also gets a parliamentarian like Erik Bergkvist who negotiates the budget for the Socialdemokraterna in the European Parliament and there pushes for an increased budget. We have had a social democratic government that has pushed for a reduced budget, and then one has a budget negotiator in the European Parliament who does his best to reduce the Swedish discounts and increase the EU's budget so that Swedish citizens will have to pay more in membership fees every year.

This is a very strange situation, so I would like to hear again: Why are Social Democratic parliamentarians working to increase the Swedish membership fee while the then Social Democratic government claimed to be working to reduce the fee? Why do Social Democratic parliamentarians want very expensive mandatory renovations of Swedish homes? Does Magdalena Andersson have any control over her parliamentarians in Brussels?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! In the latest EU negotiation on the long-term budget, Sweden received a record-breaking discount. It was an immensely successful negotiation that Stefan Löfven handled. It is possible that Martin Kinnunen is worried about how it will be when the current government negotiates the budget.

Regarding renovations, it is always interesting that the Sweden Democrats want us to remain dependent on Putin's oil and gas to heat our homes. We Social Democrats want European households to avoid that, because it will become very, very expensive. In that case, we need to renovate the homes that are standing and leaking.

Of course, every family cannot bear that cost alone, and here families need to receive support. It should not rest on the individual, but it is the countries that must ensure that this happens in a way that is distributionally sound.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! In May, a Palestinian conference was held in Malmö which we now know was a Hamas arrangement. Palestine's ambassador to Sweden confirmed this in black and white in Dagens Nyheter this morning. This Hamas conference therefore took place four months before the bestial terror attack where 1,200 Israelis were murdered.

One who participated in this conference despite the Palestinians' advice against participation was the Social Democratic Member of Parliament Jamal El-Haj. Nevertheless, Magdalena Andersson has expressed her full confidence and personally vouched for the fact that he has waged a, as it is called, lifelong struggle against Hamas.

My question to Magdalena Andersson is: Does she stand by her unreserved support for El-Haj's actions?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! If it was seriously a conference organized by Hamas, why did the government allow it? What security arrangements were in place? Why did the Security Service not contact all participants and tell them? Why were moderates registered for the conference?

If Ulf Kristersson takes what the Palestinian ambassador says as a truth, does it mean that Ulf Kristersson takes everything she says in the interview as a truth, including that Israel allowed the attack on October 7?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I am merely stating what many have witnessed, namely that it was an arrangement with Hamas representatives and that the person whom Magdalena Andersson personally says has dedicated her life to fighting Hamas participated. Is that not a rather striking fact? It is one thing to say that one does not think it is good and to question it, and another to guarantee that this is part of a lifelong struggle.

My firm feeling is that there is a terror romanticism in certain S circles that should concern the S leader.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Ulf Kristersson, are you accusing Jamal El-Haj of being a terror romantic? His son-in-law's family was wiped out a few days ago - 36 people, swept away in this horrific war. And you mean that he is a terror romantic who stands behind Hamas?

It is a terrible accusation, Ulf Kristersson. You are the country's Prime Minister. How can you do this?

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats have pushed for a so-called social Europe, and that sounds good. But now we actually have the answer key as to what it leads to.

During the past year, we have received a directive for pay transparency and a directive for minimum wages, directives that the parties in the labor market are very concerned will disrupt the Swedish model. Therefore, both KD and S said no when these directives were up for consideration.

Despite this, the Social Democrats continue to push for new so-called social EU initiatives. Last year, for example, S supported in the European Parliament a non-binding call that the EU should legislate on long-term and elderly care.

Is S ready to say no to further EU initiatives within the social area and the labor market area, or does one want to continue to provide support for EU centralism in areas that the member states best manage themselves?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats believe that issues that should be regulated at the EU level, where there is a benefit to regulating them at the EU level, should be regulated there. Other issues should not do so. On the other hand, the EU can work with, among other things, comparisons within the social area, in order to inspire each other in that way. This is something that is done at, among other places, the Commission level.

Regarding the minimum wage directive, there is no doubt that there is strong opposition in Sweden. We have one of the world's most successful labor market models with clear collective agreement negotiations between the parties. That is why we are not critical of minimum wages.

But I believe one should be clear and explicit. It is not because we want a discussion about a social Europe that the directive has been pushed for by countries, but it has been pushed for significantly longer than that.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Especially during the last parliamentary term, there were many comments from the then S-led government on the theme: We didn't see it coming. We were naive. We have been naive.

I want to continue to warn that we will see a major risk of reduced EU support ahead if we continue to raise issues at the EU level concerning elderly care and healthcare that we ourselves want to have control over, and thereby risk obtaining an EU supra-nationality that is simply not good.

I also want to take the opportunity to express my sorrow for all those who have lost their lives as a result of the Hamas-Israel conflict. This concerns Palestinians in Sweden, such as El-Haj's family and relatives who have lost their lives. This is a terrible sorrow and tragedy, but one must keep clean in one's own ranks and ensure that the modern antisemitism that is now flooding the streets and squares receives a clearer condemnation even within the left wing.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! And also within the right wing. We have seen surveys showing in which parties antisemitism flows the most. There, naturally, the Sweden Democrats are the party in which it occurs the most, and the Christian Democrats are the second most frequent party.

What would be good would be if the government parties could finally come to the conclusion that antisemitism is increasing in Europe. There is an organization that is supposed to fight for minorities' rights in Europe, namely the OSCE delegation, but the Swedish OSCE delegation is led by a person who believes that Jews cannot be Swedes.

Take responsibility for the antisemitism in the government base and in the representatives you have chosen!

(Applause)

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! We need a safer, more secure and cheaper Sweden, said Magdalena Andersson in her introduction. It was not so many years ago that Magdalena Andersson strongly argued that Sweden should sit at the big table when Europe's future is decided, that we should participate fully in that so important currency cooperation. We know that the krona today is far too unstable, and it leads to uncertainty for investments and that what we import becomes more expensive. We are thus importing inflation. But it is also a security issue that Sweden is fully part of the currency cooperation.

Can Magdalena Andersson imagine participating in the European cooperation to ensure that Sweden fully participates in the EU cooperation?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I believe the question deserves a serious debate. During the 20 years that have passed since we had a referendum on the EU, I personally think that the arguments for joining the European cooperation have strengthened, but that also applies to the arguments for not joining the euro.

The arguments for joining have been strengthened in such a way that it is obvious that the situation for small currencies looks different now than it did 20 years ago. The arguments against have been strengthened because what was said then, namely that it would not cost the countries anything to be in the euro, has turned out to be incorrect because the euro countries have had to provide billions to countries in crisis. It has been expensive.

A serious debate about the pros and cons that exist and how they have changed is important and good for Sweden.

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I view this positively. To participate in this cooperation for the sake of Sweden's future is important. It is not a matter of some clueless EU enthusiasm, but rather it is about taking responsibility for Sweden. It is about taking responsibility for our security that we sit at the big table and not at the children's table, so to speak. Furthermore, it is a matter of securing our prosperity. We receive investments to Sweden. Even though Sweden is well-managed economically, it involves a risk when the large continental plates collide geopolitically and we have too small a currency area.

I mean that social democrats in Finland, Germany, France and the Netherlands take full responsibility for Europe's future. I want Sweden to do the same, and I welcome this discussion and that Magdalena Andersson will reconsider her current position.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I do not know which position I should reconsider.

But I can tell one thing to Johan Pehrson, namely that we all sit at the same table also when we discuss EU issues. Sweden is also at the table. I would question that it is about our security. When we discuss security, we really all sit at the same table.

However, the value of the Swedish krona is a problem. And it is largely about the image of Sweden that is being spread abroad right now. Sweden has received a tarnished reputation. It would be good if Johan Pehrson could contribute not only by raising a euro debate but also by having a serious talk with his friends in the Sverigedemokraterna, whose activity in spreading hatred against Muslims and fueling Quran burnings is not good for the image of Sweden and the Swedish krona.

(Applause)

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Yesterday, the parties in the Tidö cooperation entered into a principle agreement on climate policy. It is a good agreement for Sweden and for the cooperation because it maps out the direction for climate policy moving forward. But why is it so important just now?

Mr. Speaker! It is, of course, about cooperation in the European Union. The EU's supranational climate policy, which extends across a long range of political areas, such as forest policy, water management issues, and housing policy, has changed the conditions for national climate policy. It is therefore urgent to adapt Swedish climate policy to the EU, regardless of what one thinks of the decisions at the EU level.

As an example, we can take the ESR Regulation, which essentially penalizes us for having already phased out fossil energy from our residential heating. Because we did it before 2005, we cannot claim this at all within the ESR Regulation. Other countries can make these investments now and in that way meet the regulation. We cannot do that.

This was thus a catastrophic negotiation by the then S-government. It is now the task of the Sweden Democrats and the other coalition parties to try to clean up after this catastrophic negotiation for Sweden's part, where they did not care about Swedish interests. Now we must take the consequences of the poor negotiation and try to fulfill this act of justice in the best possible way.

That is what this is about. It is about taking responsibility for Sweden, here in Stockholm but also in Brussels - not to say one thing when you sit in the government here and then send parliamentarians to Brussels who do the opposite.

The Social Democrats have parliamentarians in Brussels who are pushing for taxation at the EU level, while at the same time one has had a Social Democratic government that has said that this is a zone that we absolutely should not move into. I think it is important that Swedish voters know this in the election.

Check what your Members of the European Parliament are doing down there in Brussels! The risk is great and imminent that they do not care one bit about Swedish interests once they have moved there.

(Applause)

In this speech, Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD) agreed.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! The railways in Sweden are not so good, most Swedes think. You can ask any train traveler - there is quite a lot of sighing and groaning over delayed train traffic.

A major reason for this is the EU's requirement to privatize and procure all parts of the railway system. These are large market experiments within the railway that fragment this infrastructure and make it very difficult to control and maintain as a coherent infrastructure across the entire country.

Privatization is, however, actually a myth, because it is a lot of other states that run train traffic in Sweden - almost exclusively China but also some other states.

You are the largest party in the government constellation. Why are the Sweden Democrats and the government going down to Brussels and applauding this market experiment with the railway? Explain to the train passengers why it is so good that the trains function so poorly!

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Nooshi Dadgostar, for the questions!

From the Sverigedemokraterna's side - and from the side of most of the citizens, I believe - I can only agree that it is deplorable how it works in the railway traffic. It is a source of great irritation and great problems for many citizens in our country.

We have nothing left for EU initiatives in this area. I do not think more eagerness from Brussels is needed, so I cannot say that we Sverigedemokrater recognize ourselves in supporting some kind of experiment or going down to Brussels and wanting to experiment even more in this area.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! A new initiative is coming now. It is yet another railway pact that is intended to further privatize and fragment the railway. But I am pleased with Martin Kinnunen's statement here.

I assume that if the Swedish government does not counter further privatizations with full force and does not push strongly in Brussels for increased state control over Swedish railways, then Martin Kinnunen's party will naturally question its confidence in this Prime Minister and maintain that position in the Riksdag. Is that correctly understood?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Naturally, the Sweden Democrats will advocate for Swedish interests even when new proposals in the railway area are to be negotiated within the European Union.

We have a cooperation with the government on a long series of issues. Whether we will cooperate on this legal act or not remains to be seen. The Sweden Democrats stand free on a long series of EU issues. We cooperate either with the government or outside the government to try to persuade the government to take as good a position as possible.

We are a constructive partner to the government and other parties in EU matters, but we will also be clear that we will take Swedish interests into account. If it is the case that European cooperation can achieve improvements for Swedish railway transport, we are open to it. But if it is the case that European cooperation makes it more expensive or more complicated to strengthen Swedish railway transport, then we will be tough opponents.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! I begin with a now familiar quote: "The better prepared we are to leave, the more we will get in future negotiations." This is the Sweden Democrats' starting point for what they now want to call a new EU strategy and something that, according to their own statement, they shall drive towards their colleagues in the Tidö coalition.

At the same time, the Sweden Democrats' own youth wing has spoken out and is now talking openly about a demand for a Swedish EU exit.

My question is straight and simple: If the Sweden Democrats do not see the changes in the relations between Sweden and the EU that are demanded, will you end up behind your youth wing and demand what the party now only insinuates: a Svexit, i.e., that Sweden leaves the EU?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Muharrem Demirok, for the questions!

SD:s proposal on Swedish EU strategy is partly at the center of this debate. It is funny, I think. At the same time, I can state a few things.

The Sweden Democrats have no proposals here in the Riksdag to change the Swedish EU membership, so it is not on the table here today.

At the same time, one must be humble before the fact that European cooperation is changing. We have an expansion that is being carved out. We have had approximately 9,000 new legal acts in the European Parliament just this mandate period. We have demands for an increased budget. We see that EU cooperation increasingly takes on new forms and takes on new issues.

I believe we must be open to developing a strategy for us here in Sweden, because we must remember that we have the most EU-critical parliament. The Riksdag is the most EU-critical parliament in Europe. How do we safeguard this parliament's interests?

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the answers, Martin Kinnunen!

To talk about an EU exit "is not on the table here today." That is a literal quote from the answer I just received. It concerns a renegotiation of the EU strategy, where there is open talk about a readiness to leave the EU. I cannot interpret it as anything other than that it is not on the table here today but that it could come up.

Then I wonder, and many with me: If one does not get through a renegotiation, if one does not, against all odds, get the government on board, or if there are no negotiations with the EU, when will the Sweden Democrats bring up the question that is not on the table here today about a Swedish EU withdrawal?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Muharrem Demirok, for the questions!

What the EU strategy is about is to try to take advantage of Swedish interests in the changed EU cooperation. What one hears if one listens to how the debate goes in Europe is that we are moving towards an expansion of the union. At what pace it goes - if it is a matter of a few years or several decades - remains to be seen, but very many voices say that this requires treaty amendments.

The Sweden Democrats' thoughts regarding an EU strategy are that we should set red lines for what Sweden can agree to. It will strengthen Sweden's negotiating position, because one will not want to see a divided Europe. If it is known that there are levels that cooperation cannot be taken further to, levels that the Riksdag does not want, the Swedish negotiating strategy will be improved.

How things develop, whether we see a union that moves more towards a trade union or if we see different levels of cooperation, the future will reveal. We are open to many different paths here.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats and Martin Kinnunen gladly and often speak about how other countries should take their responsibility instead of Sweden when it comes to environmental and climate policy. But the house of cards that they have tried to build up in climate policy collapses very quickly when one looks at how the Sweden Democrats actually vote in the EU Parliament.

This spring, the parliament passed, for example, several laws that shall ensure that the union reduces its emissions. This included, among other things, a carbon border adjustment mechanism, meaning that countries outside the EU, such as China, India, and the USA, shall have to pay the difference between the emission price they pay and what we pay in the EU, when they export products to us.

Seven of the Riksdag's eight parties voted for this. The Sweden Democrats were alone in voting against, despite the high tone and despite that criticism was directed at other countries and it was meant that China and India would do the work. It simply does not add up. The climate work should be done abroad, according to the Sweden Democrats, but at the same time, one should give competitive advantages to companies that do not pay their climate bill in other countries.

So the job is not to be done in Sweden, not in the EU and not internationally. On what planet is the climate work actually supposed to be done, Martin Kinnunen?

(Applause)

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Per Bolund, for a good question! I think it is an important question how we can maintain Swedish and European competitiveness when we are simultaneously to reduce emissions. The Sweden Democrats are in principle positive towards CBAM, which is called the carbon border adjustment mechanism in EU language.

Everything depends on the details. There are outstanding questions regarding CBAM that create concern for us. It is about, for example, how competitiveness can be maintained in connection with exports. It is about the fact that we are to import things from other markets and manufacture things ourselves, but we also want to sell things to other markets. How will this work in the WTO? Will we get a trade war, and so on? There are questions that we do not think are resolved and things that need to be resolved at the detail level, quite simply.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats usually call themselves friends of Sweden. Climate friends, I think, would be a stretch, given the policy you are implementing. But if you are indeed friends of Sweden, one might think you would want to favor the competitiveness of Swedish companies.

Swedish companies are now saying loudly: We are going towards becoming fossil-free, reducing our emissions and electrifying ourselves. Volvo will only produce electric cars, and Scania is switching to producing electric trucks. SSAB and LKAB will produce green steel without fossil fuels.

At the same time, the Sweden Democrats vote against the border adjustment mechanism. They want, instead, to favor those who export to Europe – products that compete out the products of Swedish companies. They want to throw sand in the gears of fossil-free steel. This is what they write debate articles about; they are against that entire project. And they fight hard to make it cheaper to both buy and drive fossil-fueled cars, which compete out Swedish-produced cars from Volvo, for example.

Martin Kinnunen, how can you say that it is pro-Sweden to compete out Swedish industries that want to become fossil-free and sustainable?

(Applause)

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is, as said, about what we think of the details in various legal acts and what we think of the principles. We think, for example, that the EU's emissions trading system is good. At the same time, we are concerned about in what way and at what pace the emissions should decrease and what the curve for that looks like. We are concerned that this will harm households in Europe and Swedish competitiveness. This means that we, even though I assume we have voted no in the European Parliament to various proposals on ETS, are at the same time positive towards the principle of ETS.

It is the same thing with a border adjustment mechanism. We see great value in that we can try to collect payment from those companies that have significantly more favorable economic conditions as a result of emitting much more greenhouse gases. But the details are still the core that determines how one votes. Principles are something one has in principled declarations.

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! Many people talk about you Sverigedemokrater, but not with you. I have no problem with the latter. I think it is absolutely necessary that we adhere to parliamentary realities in the Swedish chamber, in order to get something done and do the right things.

But I am still a bit concerned. As we could see yesterday, the Sweden Democrats have stepped into the European community and are part of the climate goals, which Martin Kinnunen himself presented yesterday, among others. This is a big step forward for SD, away from any potential climate denial, and it is to be welcomed in every way. But I am thinking about this that one is to start evaluating things. If I were to come home to my partner and say that I think we should start evaluating our relationship, I don't know how that would be received. People are generally interested in deepening a relationship that they are in.

What do the Sweden Democrats want with the EU in the long term?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! I also think it is good that we can exchange views and not just talk at each other. Our parties have a good relationship in that sense today.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats have not really viewed EU membership as a marriage. Therefore, we are not as concerned about how we express ourselves regarding it.

We note that Sweden is a member of the European Union and that there are no proposals on the table to change this. There is no popular or parliamentary support for it today.

But we see at the same time that a lot is happening in Europe. We see that the Swedish Riksdag is becoming increasingly isolated. Swedish governments find it increasingly difficult to negotiate in Europe. Countries are pushing for the EU to receive powers in areas where we do not want to see them. They want to see a higher budget. In that case, a new Swedish EU strategy is needed for how we can take advantage of Swedish interests in a better way. Many different issues should be on the table there.

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! That at the end did not turn out so well. It shows the great differences that exist between the Sweden Democrats and the Liberals. It was pure Brexit arguments about that we must build ourselves and fare better alone. We do not fare better alone at all. Sweden's future is intimately connected with those of the other EU countries. We have a common future and must solve the problems jointly.

There is surely no risk that the Sweden Democrats will participate in the Liberals' euro office and in the work to ensure that we change currency to one that is stable, favors investments in Sweden, which we love, and ensures that Swedish wage earners and citizens get to keep their well-earned kronor instead of having them sink in value. Or can the Sweden Democrats imagine ensuring that Sweden gets a stable, strong and secure currency?

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats fundamentally appreciate European cooperation. We love free trade and think it is fantastic that we have the trade we have in Europe.

What we are concerned about is everything else – that we have a European Union that wants to scan all our messages. We won't even be able to send SMS or encrypted messages to other people without someone scanning them. This was not the EU that people joined.

We are open to the fact that we will see changes. It may perhaps happen that there will be an EU at different levels.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the question of the euro, we also want people, just as Johan Pehrson said, to be allowed to keep their kronor. That our currency is weak is not because we have the krona, but it is because of poorly made decisions in this chamber over several decades. That is something we shall try to change together.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Madam Speaker! It is good that the EU sets a framework for emissions and pressures the member states. But the problem is that the EU, together with the Swedish government's line in the EU, prevents the member states from implementing the climate transition in practice.

The government is working both in the EU and at home to reduce investments in public transport and railway expansion. The government is forcing through even more forced privatizations and complicated procurement rules on the railways, which has proven to be extremely inefficient for achieving fast and functioning rail traffic. And the EU continues to prevent us in Sweden from having a sensible and offensive housing policy. There, the government is, if possible, an even greater domestic problem.

The climate transition is a societal construction that must be able to be implemented in practice. If the EU's very neoliberal, market-liberal straitjacket continues to prevent Sweden from implementing the climate transition, we will not reach the climate goals.

Sweden's government must start standing up for Swedish interests in the EU. Demand an exemption from the electricity market to bring down Swedish electricity prices! Simplify and improve railway maintenance and railway expansion! Demand to have a housing policy that makes it possible to build good, cheap housing for the Swedish people!

We must have a government in Sweden that starts working for real in the EU for a climate transition that is good and fair and that leads Sweden forward.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! The horrific attack against Israel on October 7 has left few untouched. I have noted that Nooshi Dadgostar has been very clear in her distancing from the acts of terror by Hamas. That is good.

My question is how it is that precisely Vänsterpartiet needs to open expulsion cases because of leading local politicians' sympathies with terror sects, and how it is that it is precisely Vänsterpartiets aid organization that, in the long run, has been involved in financing Palestinian terrorism.

Even in the European Parliament, the Left Party deviates from the other Swedish parties. As the only Swedish party, the Left Party, for example, chose on October 23 not to stand behind a position that Hamas should be eliminated.

My question to Nooshi Dadgostar is the following: What political self-reflection, both in the European Parliament and at home, is Vänsterpartiet prepared to make in order to be able to show a united front against terror and antisemitism on these two decision-making levels?

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Madam Speaker! It is because the Left Party, unlike the Christian Democrats, does not accept anyone who stands up for terrorism. In that case, the person is excluded.

Now we see in Gaza that the Christian minority is being completely cleared out. This is something that Ebba Busch has said nothing about. She has not condemned it. Christian Gazans have tried to seek shelter in churches. The Christian Democratic Party in Sweden has not thought that there are any problems with that. The churches have been bombed, and the Christian minority is being annihilated in the Gaza Strip. It is nothing that worries Ebba Busch.

Vänsterpartiet has in the European Parliament stood up very powerfully for a condemnation of Hamas, so I have no idea what Ebba Busch is talking about. But we also demand that all countries stand up for international law. A war crime cannot justify more war crimes.

We want to see Ebba Busch and the government now demand a ceasefire to protect the Christian minority on the Gaza Strip.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! My tears are the same for Palestinian mothers who are now forced to bury their children as they are for Israeli or Jewish mothers who are forced to bury their children. They are the same. My condemnation of innocent lives that have been extinguished is the same regardless of where it occurred. I condemned it as recently as in my major speech in the Riksdag this weekend.

My question here is: Is there any self-reflection within Vänsterpartiet, beyond the condemnations that I have heard from Nooshi Dadgostar herself, regarding the strong foundation for this within Vänsterpartiet? The prime ministerial candidate whom Nooshi Dadgostar herself supports should pull themselves together and take responsibility. We hear no condemnations against the antisemitism seen on the streets and taken here in Sweden where "from the river to the sea" has been shouted, a clearly antisemitic slogan that Hamas uses and which Germany is now banning. Where are the condemnations and self-reflection when this has a larger presence in leftist circles than anywhere else?

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Madam Speaker! I want to correct Ebba Busch's inaccuracies. What the Vänsterpartiet has done is, therefore, to strengthen women's rights at Västbanken together with young women. We have not financed any type of attack, which Ebba Busch was hinting at.

All of our political commitment, everything we stand for, is about the equal value of all people. Ebba Busch herself has a very hard time with this. She does not understand why it is so important, and she herself cooperates with a party that as recently as the 90s stood and shouted "Heil" at Sergels torg.

Ebba Busch must clean up where she herself stands. And she is unable to clearly demand a ceasefire when Gazabor, even Christians, are about to be exterminated. It is incomprehensible to me how a Christian party can stand for this.

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! Europe's future is the EU. It gives Europe the conditions to be able to solve common problems in a difficult time when developments are heading in the wrong direction in so many parts of the world.

Many have wondered what the Sweden Democrats want with the EU, but I also wonder what the Left Party wants with the EU. Are you for or against membership? You have a congress or meeting soon. What do you want? Do you want us to be full members or should we be outside? Should we solve the energy problem together in Europe? Should we solve the issue of public transport in Europe together? Do you want to stay in the EU, is that a clear message from the Left Party?

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Madam Speaker! We believe that we should cooperate as much as possible. Many of our problems are common.

However, the Left Party is not fanatics in the way the Liberals are when they mean that the important thing is that we move all power from Sweden to Brussels, whatever the cost may be. The Left Party cannot agree to that.

We see major problems with the railway pact that is moving forward, where we are going to privatize our railway. Most recently, it concerned rules for procurement that mean passengers cannot travel between Gothenburg and Stockholm. This is happening despite that we know we could fix our railway in a faster way if we just used the right tools. It becomes very strange.

It is clear that it is unreasonable that we should pay 20 percent higher electricity prices because we are part of an electricity market that is completely poorly designed. We must dare to work for that, even within the framework of the EU.

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! One is engaged in a balancing act; one picks out a certain subject: from the Sweden Democrats it was housing, and from the Left Party it was the trains. One tells that that is so terribly bad and that we certainly shall manage on our own.

Nooshi Dadgostar sounds like a conservative man in the UK a few years ago when they raked and laid the foundation for a Brexit. We are not going to have it that way. We are connected with the other EU countries to together solve common problems. It is about the trains' timetables, about more rails and about having the possibility to travel across the entire EU. More people should be able to hitchhike, as I did many times. It is important.

When it comes to electricity, we must interconnect Europe's electricity. If it is blowing here, the electricity should be able to be sent there where it is not blowing, if it is wind power we are talking about, and if the sun is shining there, the electricity from that should be able to be sent here. But then we must have a common electricity market.

But all of that is to be shut down, it is to be isolated and it is to be a nationalist climate policy. No thanks!

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Madam Speaker! I understand that it bothers Johan Pehrson to speak with a balanced party, but that is what we are. We are able to say that what is good is good and what is bad is bad. We welcome what is good, and we intend to fight what is bad.

It is not good for Swedish electricity customers that we have so much electricity and could lower our electricity prices but that we do not get to do so because of the EU. It is not about the fact that it is not blowing in Sweden. On the contrary, we have a surplus of electricity, and precisely because of that, we are to pay more for electricity, according to the European electricity market. We think this is wrong. It slows down the climate transition, and it means that our companies might move away from the southern parts of Sweden and establish themselves on a completely different continent. This is bad for the climate transition.

And it is bad for the climate transition if we cannot use the train, we think.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Madam Speaker! The white protective wall wound along the shoreline. In flooded basements, family albums, clothes, and shoes floated around in the brown-muddy water. As we walked across farmer Anders' fields, the water stood high on the boot shafts and splashed against the steps. Here, more than a quarter of the harvest was destroyed.

Those who still doubt the effects of climate change can ask Salobarna about their summer - ask about the torrential rains that destroyed everything. Those who still claim to protect Sweden, those who claim to protect farmers and the forestry industry, and those who claim to protect ordinary people must also protect the climate and do more to give both Sweden and the EU an even sharper climate policy. For it is only when we have the courage to do what reality demands of us, and even a little more, that we can make a change. It is when we cooperate globally that we can solve even the local problems that climate change creates.

Centerpartiet works every day to sharpen the EU's climate policy. We are making a difference, but we also know that more is required. We want to sharpen the climate goals and reduce emissions even further by 2040. We want to invest more in renewable energy and a stronger European power grid. We want to see a European water pact that provides people, industries, and agriculture with the clean and safe water they need.

We simply want to make the EU a climate union, a union where we together do what is required to secure the future both in Sala and in Salzburg.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! In not too distant future, the EU will adopt its climate goals for 2040. It is an important milestone on the way towards climate neutrality, which the union has set itself to reach by 2050, compared to Sweden's 2045.

We are now waiting for extensive analyses and reviews from the EU Commission on how they view the issue and what consequences different targets would have for the Union's climate policy instruments. The Center Party, however, seems to have already finished its analysis, as already this summer the party came out and demanded at least a 95 percent reduction by 2040 in relation to 1990 levels.

This sounds complicated, but I will now come to the question, Madam Speaker. Sweden recently voted no when the so-called LULUCF regulation was to be updated to reach the 2030 targets, as a consequence of the uncertainty it would entail for Swedish forestry. The question to Demirok is therefore: What consequences does he believe C's proposal for a new climate target for 2040 would have for Swedish forestry?

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Ebba Busch!

The question of forestry is a fateful issue, not only for Sweden but for Europe, but it is also the climate change.

When I visited Sala and spoke with Anders, we also talked about the forest. One could not enter the forest because there was swine fever and it had been closed off. One could not see the damage that the heavy rains had caused. To turn a blind eye to climate change and not dare to do what is required now is also to turn a blind eye to what is Swedish forestry.

I can say that when we in Centerpartiet decided on the forest, we pushed for what the Tidö Government here in Sweden could not push for, namely to ensure that forest land would not be converted into reserves and to secure the landowners' rights. This is what Centerpartiet has pushed for in the European Parliament via our parliamentarians but also in this chamber, and we will continue to do so.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! I think the ambition increases sound good, but I think it sounds like the impact assessment is deficient. When the EU was to push this forward, they did so at the expense of the forest. They ran the forest off the track. When the Centre now comes forward with similar proposals in the same direction, there are no guarantees that the EU will not land in something that becomes even worse for Swedish forest.

C is seemingly to believe that one can form governments with MP without it having negative consequences for the Swedish countryside, and in EU policy, the party obviously believes that one can win a bidding war over new climate goals even before having seen the impact assessments for its own proposal and without it having consequences for the industries of the Swedish countryside. I mean that this is dishonest or, at best, unconsciously very risky.

We Christian Democrats know that climate policy must be designed with deliberation, not with a bidding race where Swedish forestry and agriculture are the stakes.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Madam Speaker! I want to assert that Swedish forestry is already on the negotiating table and is included in the pot that is now at stake, because it is climate change that affects Sweden's forestry, agriculture, and countryside the most.

The global climate changes have local consequences, not only in Sala but also in my own home region in Östgötaslätten. There, one sees the consequences of extreme drought but also of extreme heavy rainfall. The impact analysis is very clear. Climate change is here and now, not something we can wait for, and every day that the government drags its feet and every day that we do not get clear decisions on the table, in the EU Parliament or here, means that the conditions become more difficult for all landowners and all farmers who struggle every day.

The costs for them will also be unaffordable, so I look forward to being able to discuss these issues. But if we drag our feet, it is the Swedish forest owners and farmers who will pay the price.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! In the last election to the European Parliament, the Christian Democrats made nuclear power an important election issue. This was not quite appreciated by everyone, I can say, especially not by the red-green parties. They claimed that nuclear power, that is, the basis for a secure electricity supply system, does not belong at the EU level.

But if we look back at the past year, reality says something else. The nuclear power issue has sailed to the absolute top of the EU agenda. Let us state the following: nuclear power is now classified as a sustainable investment in the taxonomy, the innovation fund within the new emissions trading system shall finance zero-emission technologies, that is to say also nuclear power, and a lot has happened only since I took office as Minister for Energy.

Firstly: A nuclear alliance met for the first time in Stockholm during the Swedish presidency.

Secondly: A historic agreement was reached under Swedish leadership, which means that the directive on renewable energy, for the first time, recognizes the role of nuclear power.

Third: In the new electricity market design, the possibility to support the construction of new nuclear power was included.

For the fourth: Nuclear power is included in the proposal on net-zero industry. And as recently as last week, the commission opened to form an industrial alliance for small modular reactors.

Madam Speaker! Groundbreaking steps have been taken. But it would not have been possible without us. It would not have been possible without parties that chose to safeguard the union's core tasks - the Christian Democratic core task for the EU - and dare to lead when others stand aside.

We will continue the work so that nuclear power can be used to carry out the green transition. I can state that it matters which government you vote in and which members you choose to the European Parliament.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Madam Speaker! I naturally note with pleasure that Ebba Busch speaks about the electricity market directive and the design for this. She naturally understands what I am getting at.

Sweden has a lot of electricity. We have done our homework. We have hydropower, which has meant that we have had very low electricity prices for a long time. Precisely because of that, the new EU regulation that will soon come into force will mean that we must export this electricity, which will cause us in Sweden to pay increased electricity prices. Just because we have done our homework and produce a lot of electricity, we are to export. Perhaps it will lower the electricity price somewhat on the continent. We cannot be entirely sure of that. But what we do know is that the electricity price will be shock-increased in Sweden.

Why is this so good, Ebba Busch?

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! If the new electricity market design is implemented in that manner, I would like to say that Nooshi Dadgostar and I agree that it is not even just bad, but that it is pathetic.

At the same time, it is the case that since we have pushed in 10,000 megawatts of new power production over the last ten years - but almost all of it has been weather-dependent - our electricity system is incredibly unstable. It comes and goes a bit when it wants to. We do not have enough power where it is needed and when it is needed. That means that on certain days we give away a huge amount of electricity - we export and sell it, of course - and other days we are completely dependent on imports. During the winter it usually becomes quite tough, for example in February. Therefore, we cannot just cut the cables. We must expand our own power production, and we must do the homework that S, V, MP and C have refused to do over the last ten years. We shall take that into account when we implement the new directive.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Madam Speaker! This is not serious. Now the Minister for Energy must answer these real questions. An EU regulation is coming that will cause the Swedish electricity price to perhaps be raised generally by up to 20 percent. It has to do with the EU's market system. It doesn't matter how much electricity we pump into Sweden, it is about how the electricity is priced on the EU electricity market. Therefore, the Minister for Energy must now answer that question. Svenska kraftnät has now conducted a simulation. If we have what we have now, the price will be 20 percent higher. It has nothing to do with the production of electricity here and now, but it has to do with the electricity market and how it functions.

What does Ebba Busch intend to do about this? We have proposed an exception, as I said in my speech. Why is the government not working harder to bring down the Swedish electricity price?

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! Under some of all the stones that Magdalena Andersson and Morgan Johansson promised to lift, parts of the Left Party's energy policy seem to have found themselves, and the Left Party seems to have missed the debate during recent years. It is clear that this has to do with our production. If we do not have enough power production and power production with the right characteristics to make the system stable and adapted for a country as long as Sweden, we become more vulnerable to what happens on the continent. There is a direct correlation between these things.

A test run has now been conducted of what is called flow-based capacity limits and capacity calculations. It is a test run. We have called in the authorities to hold a dialogue on whether they believe this will truly be the outcome and what we can then do to continue to stand on the side of the companies and households. But this is connected. And it is too early to say exactly what the effect will be. But in the long term, there is only one way forward, namely to build more nuclear power.

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Madam Speaker! Slice by slice, we shall deliver on that falukorv. So said Ebba Busch before KD's national convention last weekend. The election promises must begin to be fulfilled. But the reality is different.

One of the promises was better conditions for Sweden's farmers. But looking at the reality, Ebba Busch's colleagues in the European Parliament are choosing a different path. Instead of fighting for the EU to set equally high requirements for animal welfare and low antibiotic use as our Swedish farmers have and have worked with for decades, they are backing down. Rural Affairs Minister Peter Kullgren, whom I saw in here just now, wants instead that Sweden should lower its requirements. And KD's parliamentary group voted no to a new animal welfare legislation.

My question is: Why has it suddenly become more important for Ebba Busch and the Kristdemokraterna to safeguard the German bratwurst and the Polish kabanos over the Swedish falukorv?

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! I mean that the conclusion that Muharrem Demirok reaches is incorrect. We have a situation in Sweden where the governments during the last two terms have continued to allow an over-implementation of EU directives. This means that we have put ourselves and the Swedish entrepreneurs, including both foresters and farmers - Swedish farmers - in a much tougher position, in addition to the tougher legislation that Sweden has towards the European competition, what is called gold plating.

We will shortly present and proceed with the introduction of the implementation council, which will be able to put a stop to much of this but will also be able to review previous implementations.

But in area after area in the European Parliament, we continue to stand on the side of both Swedish forest owners and farmers.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Ebba Busch for the answer.

We completely agree that there should not be so many complicated rules. This is what the Center Party has lived by for all these years, both in this chamber and in the European Parliament, and pushed for. We have achieved a reduced use of antibiotics in the EU as a result of our commitment.

But I think the Christian Democrats need to have greater confidence in the Swedish farmers and the work they have done over all the years. They deserve enormous respect for the work they have done with animal welfare and reduced use of antibiotics, which has also created a competitive advantage for them compared to farmers in the other European countries.

What the government now risks doing is pulling the rug out from under precisely the Swedish farmers and taking away the competitive advantage they have and instead placing it on other European farmers.

I do not think one should back down in the negotiations in the EU Parliament. Yet, that is what the Christian Democrats are doing.

I must ask: How exactly does it strengthen Swedish agriculture to take away from Swedish farmers the competitive advantage they have with extensive animal welfare?

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! Soon it is Christmas again, soon it is Christmas again - and Christmas lasts almost all the way until June 9, when we vote on who shall represent the Swedish people in the European Parliament.

I note that the Centre Party and the Christian Democrats have chosen somewhat different paths in some decisive issues, such as agriculture and forestry. I mean that Swedish farmers and Swedish landowners have received more value for money - or rather more politics and a more rural-friendly voice - thanks to the vote they cast for KD. So it will also continue to be so, I believe. But there is a good and great commitment in both of our parties.

I actually do not know if I fully understand Muharrem Demirok's question, because I do not know which vote the center leader is referring to. We must not see more pig farms being knocked out due to unhealthy competition where one cannot assert oneself against one's European colleagues - and where those who break the laws that exist at the EU level can simply continue, which has happened in, among others, Germany and Denmark. We must put a stop to that.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! Ebba Busch has truly elevated the falukorv to new heights, both in the air and in the political debate. But once you have actually bought that falukorv – which one hopefully has done if it is now to be delivered slice by slice – it is quite good if one can afford to cook it too. I am probably not alone in being very worried about the direction that the government has chosen.

People say that they think all types of energy are good, but what they do in practice is oppose the cheap energy types—those that cost the least to build—in order to instead hope for a future solution that is not even proven yet and which currently costs four or five times more to build. Not least from Ebba Busch's side, they have incited against wind power, which is why municipalities across Sweden are now saying no. People talk about it being dark steel forests that are to be built, they have retained the municipal veto, and they have opposed the investigation on returning a portion of the profits to the municipalities.

My question is: If one now has the means to buy the falukorv, how is one supposed to afford to cook it, given the Christian Democrats' energy policy?

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! First and foremost, I want to state that all good forces are needed. You will hear me say it many times: All good forces are needed where we can reach an agreement in politics. For example, I hope for broad support for the most fundamental parts, which will allow us to get order and clarity in the energy policy here in Sweden when a new energy policy direction bill reaches the Riksdag.

At the EU level, we have concluded the largest climate legislation package – or legislation package ever – in the EU's history, Fit for 55. This happened under this government's leadership during the Swedish presidency. During the spring, we also concluded what is called RED, the renewable energy directive. There, we have thus, at the European level, paved the way for a lot of new renewable energy. But we have also said that if we become even more countries that go the same way as Sweden has done and push a lot of renewable energy into the system, we must also pave the way for baseload power such as hydropower and nuclear power. That is what we have done at the EU level.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! One should preferably stick to facts and truth, not least when it concerns what an energy system should be based on. The truth is that the EU pushed through as much as possible of the Fit for 55 package before Sweden became chair because there was concern about the new government's, and not least its government support's, direction. The government also voted no to parts of the package, so one has hardly helped it along.

I find it very exciting to debate energy with Ebba Busch. What I am met with is a galloping technological pessimism: What the EU Commission has as a goal and what a majority of Ebba Busch's energy minister colleagues see as a self-evident fact – that is, to base the system on the technologies we know exist today and that are renewable and to link them together into a functioning and one hundred percent renewable energy system – Ebba Busch says is not possible. But she combines it with a galloping energy optimism regarding new technologies, which do not even exist to be purchased, to solve all problems ahead – for example, small modular reactors.

To call the Swedish energy system dismantled is actually an exaggeration that does not hold water when evaluations show that it is environmentally friendly, robust, and resilient.

What I want to ask Ebba Busch is why she is such a pessimist regarding the possibility of building a renewable energy system in Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! Facts and truth it was. Five of eleven parts of the Fit for 55 package - the largest package in the EU's history and the most ambitious climate goal and climate package in the entire world - were completed during the Swedish presidency. It is a fact. Five of eleven parts we took to completion.

RED, EED, ReFuelEU Aviation, FuelEU Maritime and AFIR - all these huge changes to pave the way for precisely the climate transition and a green transition are based on existing but also new technology. It is existing technology that needs to be developed; for example, we need to ensure that wind power in Sweden also contributes with ancillary services such as dead-network start and operation, which it does not do in the current situation. It is also a reason, for many, why we had a real risk of disconnection this winter.

How Miljöpartiet can say that this is robust is beyond me. It is not robust when municipalities are forced to say no instead of yes to business establishments. We are now fixing that both at the EU level and in Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! In my final party group debate as spokesperson, I thought I would take the opportunity to look back a little.

I want to see the work that I and Miljöpartiet did during our time in government but also the decisions that have been taken in this chamber. There are so many important decisions that have built a stronger foundation for Sweden in the future. I am thinking of the climate framework, with one of the world's sharpest climate laws. I am also thinking of all the decisions - from electric car bonuses and fuel switching to industrial steps, that is to say the entire palette of climate policy - which led to the goals not only existing on paper but being possible to reach, and even ahead of schedule.

When I, as Environment Minister, spoke with my colleagues, ministers from other countries, it was clear that what we did in Sweden made Sweden a country that came into focus. We were a country that showed that the climate transition is not a burden but an opportunity with enormous industrial investments and the fastest electrification in the entire EU. This was something that many looked upon with envy. Even at the EU level, both green ministers and green parliamentarians have made the EU an important arena for the creation of a sustainable world.

Madam Speaker! In my final debate, I would also like to take the opportunity to say thank you. I would like to extend a warm thanks to the Speaker's Bureau for having led the debates so well. I would also like to thank the Director-General of the Riksdag and the entire Riksdag Administration with its fantastic staff and employees here in the Riksdag – without you, much would not be accomplished in this chamber.

As a former minister, I would also like to take this opportunity to thank all the fantastic employees at the Government Offices for the competence and drive you have helped both me and previous and subsequent governments to implement their policies with. It is commendable.

Not least, I also want to extend a big thank you to all the members of the Riksdag. And to my colleagues in the party leadership, I want to say: Thank you for all the spirited debates! Let us remember that we must keep democracy alive – but also keep in mind that our mandate rests on a trust from the voters. It is a trust that we must earn every day.

Thank you very much for this time!

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Madam Speaker! Per - my colleague, my partner at the Ministry of Finance and my friend. I miss you already!

We have been through a lot together, from the government negotiations after the 2014 election and all the way - through many and long budget negotiations, a migration crisis, January agreement negotiations and a record number of extra supplementary budgets during the pandemic - to today. You are a skilled negotiator and politician. You are well-prepared, you are objective and you are convinced. You have always been able to put Sweden and the Swedish people first - also when it has been tough times, such as during the migration crisis, during the pandemic or when Russia invaded Ukraine.

You have fought for what you believe in and achieved great successes, not least with the climate policy framework and the Climate Policy Council. You have pushed for large climate investments, railway investments, investments in schools and school libraries, lowered VAT on repairs, outdoor guides, upgrading of hiking trails, protection of valuable nature and many other things that we have spent hours discussing.

When the world a few years ago marveled that New Zealand included other measures of development than GDP in its budget, Per Bolund had argued this into the Swedish budget several years earlier.

As you so often were a step ahead. Nearly ten years ago, when you got the ideas about circular economy into the Swedish budget, it was revolutionary. Today, it is mainstream. It is so mainstream that I am bringing a used book for you – climate-smart reused. It is about fine hikes in Stockholm, which I hope you will have more time to carry out when you finish as a spokesperson. One of them is right near where I live. I imagine that during that hike you will stop by my home and do exactly what Annie Lööf and her family did, namely, come for a grill lunch on my now not quite so secret sandy beach near where I live. I look forward to seeing you, Per.

(Applause)

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you so very much, Magdalena, for all the successful work, for all the pleasant moments and for all the long negotiations we had, which also led to so very much that I think we can both be happy and very proud of! I think we showed that we could combine the best of our two parties into a unit and a whole that delivered more than what we could have done individually. This is indeed something to be truly proud of.

I also know that there is not only a rational economic analyst in you, but also a true nature lover who is passionate about safeguarding Swedish nature, outdoor life, and the opportunities for recreation. This is a passion that we both share, and I truly look forward to sharing it with you for the first time. I hope it will not be the last.

Many thanks - now we continue to fight together for a greener, and red-green, future!

(Applause)

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by explaining why I am here. I am here because Jimmie Åkesson had to throw in the towel early this morning due to illness. He would have very much liked to be here and take the debate. He would also have wanted to be the one to take over the microphone from Per Bolund.

I have a greeting from Jimmie Åkesson. On the occasion that this is Pers last party leadership debate in the Riksdag, Jimmie Åkesson wishes to present a gift in the form of a symbolic donation to the Foundation Sustainable Seas, which fights for a healthy and living Baltic Sea and sustainable growth in the region.

Our two parties do sometimes have slightly different views on things, but marine environment issues are actually an area where we have negotiated policy together in the Environmental Goals Commission and produced a very thick book. Unfortunately, it hasn't become much of anything yet – we will have to see what happens moving forward.

Personally, I can also regret that the party leadership circle is losing its only AIK member. I hope that you can choose some new gnawer as a spokesperson – I do not know which candidates you have.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! I must ask Martin Kinnunen to thank Jimmie Åkesson and send a big "keep it up" to my party leadership colleague.

I can state that passion comes in many different varieties. This applies both in football, where the passion for AIK – and, of course, for other football teams – can go far beyond all party boundaries, and in politics. Even though the Sweden Democrats and the Green Party have quite little overlap in views, one can state that our parties pursue their politics with passion and commitment. We do not make the same analysis of the world around us, and we do not reach the same conclusions, for example when it comes to the ambition in climate policy. We do, however, pursue politics with passion, and that is at least a good start.

I also want to take the opportunity to thank Martin Kinnunen for speaking a lot about climate policy in the debate. We need to talk much more about this, because it is truly the defining issue of our time. I hope that the joint work for the marine environment in the Environmental Goals Commission results in action and not just a very good plan.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! Dear Per! I want to say thank you for many debates and conversations over many years and in many different roles. Many thanks for that!

As I believe both you and I know, it is perhaps more what divides us than what unites us, in any case in ordinary politics. We do, however, have some important common denominators, and today I want to focus on those.

We have a deep commitment to what we believe in - it concerns different things but the same commitment.

We have different views on climate policy and on EU policy, but I believe we are united in that it is good that more countries are now joining behind a common climate policy.

I believe we can both say that we have an ability to distinguish between the issue and the person.

The fresh air outside the office also unites us. You are always on a bicycle; I prefer to have my running shoes on.

You are a Stockholmer and I am a Sörmlandian, but we are united in the province of Sörmland. It is underrated.

You are going to get two things from me today. It is said that nowadays it is only party leaders and bank directors who wear ties. We are both in that role – at least for now. I have no idea what you will do next, but it cannot be ruled out that there will be an opportunity for a tie even in the next life. In that case, we have one ready – the Swedish EU presidency tie.

The second thing you will receive is the landscape Sörmland. This is the only book one needs when hiking the 100 miles of the Sörmland trail. I have only walked 50. If you want company for a stretch, I am completely open to that, so the conversation can continue.

Thank you very much for these years!

(Applause)

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Ulf Kristersson!

We have, as we have said, worked with many different issues and in many different roles. When I was Minister for Financial Markets, we worked a lot with economic stability, i.e., with maintaining budget discipline and ensuring that the Swedish economy is kept in balance and under control. I know this commitment exists, as does the commitment to many other political issues.

I hope that Ulf Kristersson and I will share a commitment not only for the economic budget but also for the carbon budget and ensure that we together can keep it at a level that allows us to secure the climate for the future.

I thank you for the gifts. I really look forward to this. Hiking - or jogging, for that matter - is a fantastic way to experience our wonderful Swedish nature. There, too, I hope that we will be able to share a commitment to ensuring that it remains for future generations.

I also want to thank you for the tie. I assert, as I said in my speech, that we must earn our mandate to uphold the trust of the Swedish people. I think one also does that by being a little well-dressed in the debates. This tie will be able to be put to good use, whatever I may do moving forward.

Many thanks for the gifts!

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Madam Speaker! Johan said earlier something about me being like a conservative political uncle. That was nicely put. I appreciate your objectivity in the debate, Per. You are a very strong, good, and traditional politician, which I truly appreciate in these times. I also considered buying a tie for you, because you always wear a tie since you are a very objective politician and a doer. You have accomplished things for a long time, even in Stockholm City Hall, and I know what decisive climate actions you have taken.

We are close to each other, so close that we share a courtyard at the Riksdag, and I therefore often see Per cycling into this courtyard. Since we live in Sweden, not on the west coast yet but in Stockholm, it rains from time to time, and then you are wet as a cat when you come in. Therefore, I have chosen to purchase a poncho for you so that you can stay a bit drier, because I know that you will be cycling a lot even in the future.

I will miss you very much. We need more objectivity and clarity and more people who stand up for values in political debate. I am very happy that we in our two parties have cooperated for many years, and I hope that we can do so in the future as well.

I can't really bear for you to do other things; I don't know if you will either. I therefore hope to continue to see you in the climate work in Sweden. Thank you for everything you have done for our country and our society, Per!

(Applause)

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! How wonderful! I of course thank you for the kind words; they truly warm my heart. It is perhaps my background in research that makes objectivity close to my heart - perhaps a bit too close, as some think I am a bit dry and boring in debates, but I believe that objectivity has its function in politics.

A poncho will work wonders. It is not entirely easy to stay dry when cycling to and from work, and we know that it will be even harder in the future given how extreme weather will hit both Sweden and the world. Everyone should therefore be given a rain poncho for the future.

I also want to thank you for the fantastic cooperation. I know how much Nooshi Dadgostar burns for human rights and for a more just and equal society. That is also the basis for the environmental and climate work: to create good conditions for people both now and in the future. I really hope that we will be able to see each other in the courtyard in the future as well. Maybe we can have a coffee in the sun sometime in the future now that I have a bit more time. We shall see if your schedule allows for it as well. Many thanks for the cooperation!

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Madam Speaker! It is sad that just as I have gotten to know you, Per, I have to say goodbye to you. But that is part of the reality we live in.

Environment and climate have always been in focus for you, and I have followed your work from the outside. I have also listened to what colleagues and friends in the Riksdag and in the party say about you. Regardless of whether one knows you or not, it is impossible to mistake your genuine green commitment. It is not a single specific issue for you, but it runs strongly in your veins. Nor can the impact you have made be mistaken, regardless of whether you have been an expert, Member of Parliament, Minister, or spokesperson.

Our parties are not always in agreement on the exact path towards a greener society, but we agree that Sweden must walk a path towards a greener society. We share the conviction about the value of an offensive and active climate policy. We share the view when it comes to leaning forward in these issues and not letting others lead and putting oneself in the backseat. Together, our two parties have moved the positions for Swedish environmental and climate policy forward.

During my now not-so-short time as party leader, I have come to appreciate you as a person and the work you do immensely. It is therefore sad that a strong voice, not only for the climate but also for openness, humanism, and anti-racism, is now leaving the Riksdag. I wish you luck in your continued work, regardless of what you take on.

You receive no material gift without a proof of the importance of continuing to work for nature, the environment, and the climate, and that even something as simple as letting the flowers bloom by the roadside is an important environmental effort. We have made a collection to the World Wide Fund for Nature in your name, and we know that it will go towards strengthening nature work in Sweden and in other places. I hope that you appreciate it.

Everyone else has invited you, and if you would like to come and plant an oak or some flowers in Linköping or elsewhere in Östergötland, the most beautiful of landscapes, you are more than welcome.

Thank you so very much for your efforts, Per!

(Applause)

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Muharrem, for a wonderfully beautiful gift. As a biologist, this is the finest thing one can receive, a gift for a more flourishing landscape and not least for our pollinating insects, which unfortunately face a number of challenges.

I have truly appreciated the opportunity to cooperate with you and to discuss, debate, and find ways forward. I would have thought it would have been fantastic to continue this journey, and it feels reassuring that Centerpartiet has a party leader who is so deeply rooted in their values, not least when it comes to a sustainable future, that the whole country shall live, a living countryside, and environmental issues. I believe that we could have worked wonders, but now I must leave it to my successor to hopefully do so with you. I truly believe that a red-green cooperation where two green parties are included can do very much good for Sweden. I look forward to following this from the sidelines.

Thank you very much!

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Madam Speaker! Being a party leader is a special task that one does not share with many others. If one is a spokesperson, one is at least two, and I can sometimes be a little envious of that. To lead a party, and to do so in a government position, can at times be heavy. One must deliver on the mandate the voters have given and show care for one's movement.

I would like to thank you, dear Per, for the care you have actually shown me when we have met in many different contexts, for the cups of coffee you have offered in the corridor, and for asking how things are going. I have greatly valued that this has been able to happen outside of the tough factual debates, because these small signs of care mean a lot in an otherwise rather tough working environment.

This concern seems to be something that has been significant for you; that is what one hears when asking around here in the corridors of the Riksdag and among many of your colleagues in Miljöpartiet.

Being able to meet across party lines and show each other respect is always nice. Of course, Per shall receive a gift. I know that Per, as the good environmentalist he is, buys some clothes secondhand. I am a bit surprised by the clothing theme that has emerged in the thanks here, but even I have bought a tie. My gift to you is therefore a tie, which I have found at Myrorna. I personally think it is quite stylish and nice.

I also found yesterday, via a fantastic colleague I have with me, a text that he received as a new employee at the Ministry of Finance in 1984.

It states: A correct and well-maintained conduct should be pursued. Regarding attire in the workplace, male liaisons should wear a suit or well-maintained trousers and blazer, as well as well-kept low shoes. A tie is used during the period from September 1 to May 31, unless the weather requires concessions in this regard.

Then comes the end, which I think is quite good: The ministers and secretaries of state dress representatively and neatly, but without being snobbish. I think Per Bolund has met this well! The text continues: All too flagrant attire is not appreciated by the voters. On the other hand, people do not expect a minister to walk around in a sweater while on duty. There should be a bit of neatness, but not too much. I think, as I said, that Per Bolund has met this well.

But back to the secondhand shop, where we found the tie, to the knitting café, to the parents' cooperative, and to the sports club - that is where the real power lies. All the good forces are there. Civil society is a fundamental pillar in our society. Here, our parties have united in several joint initiatives, and our task is to support these.

We are providing a small contribution from the party to this purpose so that more children and young people can move around and engage in a sport that they find fun. It should not matter where one lives or what socioeconomic conditions one has; everyone who wants to should be able to play basketball, and perhaps even become really good at it. Therefore, we have donated a sum to Svensk Basket's initiative En sportslig chans.

Thank you for your time here, Per! I have a feeling that we will meet again, but in other capacities, and I look forward to that.

(Applause)

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! Many thanks to you, Ebba Busch! As we have said, we do not always land in the same conclusions, but I have always appreciated the exchanges of views that we have had. Often we have shown very clearly where we stand in the various positions and sparked engagement, and I truly think that Ebba Busch has contributed very much to that.

I want to thank you for the fact that, even though it is sometimes heated in the debates and it can appear as if we stand extremely far apart, it has always been possible to meet as individuals. I truly think that you, Ebba Busch, have lived up to that ability to distinguish between the issue and the person and to have respect for one another even if one does not share the other's views in a fantastically good way. I appreciate it very much.

I try to be well-dressed but without being snobbish, as I said! That is always a challenge, because there are slightly different assessments. In the green movement, it is not always everyone who thinks a tie is not being snobbish, but there are those who think it is a bit over the line. I have nevertheless held firmly to the idea that attire has its significance.

I thank you so very much for the gift and the commitment to more sustainable consumption. I notice that more and more people are sharing it, and a used tie is always a fantastic way to become a bit more sustainable and not snobbish but well-dressed.

I also look forward to meeting, perhaps on the basketball court. I interpret that as an invitation.

(Applause)

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! A big thank you, Per, for your efforts in the service of democracy! Now an adventure awaits beyond the mountains.

Being on the front line of democracy is tough and challenging. It is fun, and it is important. You have served the Swedish people and democracy with a big heart and strong commitment, and I am incredibly grateful to have been able to debate and discuss with you here in the chamber and in other ways.

The burden of leading a party or a movement, whether one is two or alone, is well described in many biographies. This applies to some of the gentlemen, the stone statues, on the other side of the street, in the other parliament house. Karl Staaff was a known liberal, also he - I'm just joking! He described the assignment as a combination of being a standard-bearer, when needed, and a spittoon. It is the price for being in the front line of democracy. You have done it with a cheerful mood, great commitment, and witnessed good knowledge.

Now you get time for things beyond the mountains. We shall see what it becomes. I have met you in many contexts, not just here. Most often it is some activity, such as in Almedalen, Järvaveckan and other things. Then there is often a bit of sports involved, and it is very clear that you are a basketball fan. Exactly how good you are at dribbling I cannot really vouch for, but perhaps there is some veteran league that one can play in.

Both you and I know what role sports play for many young people. Regardless of what we both usually say – that one must manage school – one must also have a meaningful leisure time. In that, sports play a large role, not least basketball. There we actually think completely alike.

We have therefore bought a good basketball. It is not signed by Michael Jordan. He is taller than the one who signed it, but the one who signed it is taller than you. Are you good - can you take a pass here?

(PER BOLUND (MP): Proceed!)

I'm just joking. Many thanks for your efforts, and good luck with the basketball!

(Applause)

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you so very much, Johan! The ball was truly the right thing for the right person. I am a basketball enthusiast to a great extent, both when it comes to watching and practicing. In that case, as said, the height is a certain advantage, and I think it has been a little bit in politics as well. I boasted about being the tallest in the party leadership circle until I was outcompeted by a certain Johan Pehrson, who came and beat me by, if not horse lengths, at least a few centimeters.

As has been said, it is an advantage to be tall on the basketball court as well, so if Johan Pehrson wants to evaluate my dribbling skills, that possibility always exists. I always show up for a good basketball match, don't I?

I would like to take the opportunity to thank Johan Pehrson for all the good debates. You have also added a great deal of good humor and joy to politics. I think there is sometimes far too little of that, so you add a spice to politics that it has long needed. I look forward to meeting, perhaps on the basketball court or in other contexts. I had hoped to get a visit at the grill from the guy, and I might grill something that is also sustainable. Grilled vegetables, for example, I like very much. Maybe we can try that sometime. Thank you very much!

(Applause)

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! Last week, the EU Commission announced that it is time for membership negotiations for Ukraine and Moldova. Finally, we say. The Liberals have always believed that the EU has room for more. It is obvious that Ukraine should enter the European fold. That dream must also live on for countries like Albania, Bosnia, and Georgia, for all countries that strive for democracy, human rights, and a strong rule of law.

Let us not forget that the EU was created in a Europe that was in ruins, a Europe where two world wars had been fought and a Europe that had seen extreme ideologies. The EU was created to secure peace and democracy, for today and for tomorrow.

Peace requires more cooperation, preferably with many new countries that want to join the democratic association. To those who want to close the door to the world's leading peace organization for new countries, I therefore have only one question: Do you understand what the alternative is? We see the alternative in Ukraine with the Russian war of aggression. We saw the alternative in the horrific conflicts that shook the Balkans in the 90s and during the horrific horrors of World War II.

Fredsunionen can never get enough of new member states. The Free Trade Union can never get enough of more member states. The Climate Union can never get enough of new member states.

The Liberals see Europe's challenges. The Liberals see that we must solve them together. The Liberals say yes to new friends in the EU. Let us definitely start with Ukraine!

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Madam Speaker! After Hamas's attack in Israel, we see how antisemitism is increasing throughout Europe. We see how the hatred against Jews is increasing. We have even seen how planes from Israel have been stormed. In this situation, it is incredibly important that we stand up against antisemitism.

There is an organization, OSCE, which works for the rights of minorities in Europe. But the Swedish OSCE delegation from the Riksdag is led by Björn Söder, who does not think that Jews can be Swedes. The Liberals have been involved in voting him into that position. Tell me, Johan Pehrson, why Björn Söder is the one of the 349 members of the Riksdag who is most suitable to lead this delegation in a situation with increased antisemitism!

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! One must be careful that this chamber, which is starting to become a bit sparse now, is composed of the Swedish people in general elections. The election result from the Swedish people is fixed. It leads to that parties, by size, receive different mandates in this chamber. If one can think much about this, but wants to change it, one ensures that the problems are solved so that one gets a different election result. I believe that Magdalena Andersson also strives for that.

When we talk about the antisemitism on our streets and squares today, about those who chant out their hatred against Jews, we must be careful to see who it is that is standing and shouting. If one does not see this, if one is not clear about who it is, one should probably just be silent in principle.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Madam Speaker! Johan Pehrson says it is the election result's, that is, the Swedish people's, fault that the Liberals support Björn Söder as the leader of the Swedish OSCE delegation to support minorities' rights, while at the same time he does not think that Jews can be Swedes. No, Johan Pehrson, it is not the Swedish people's fault. It is Johan Pehrson's choice.

Johan Pehrson knows very well that another choice would have been possible, but now Johan Pehrson has chosen this path. Then Johan Pehrson must also explain to the Swedish people, when his choice leads to Björn Söder leading this delegation, why Björn Söder is the right person to do so. Johan Pehrson must stand by the choices he makes and not blame them on the Swedish people.

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! Okay, political science, A-level: The Swedish people elect the Riksdag. Based on size in the Riksdag, representatives are appointed to committees and other entities that the Riksdag appoints. That is when the election result matters. It is no coincidence.

It is completely correct that the Liberals have chosen to form a liberal bourgeois government. It is completely correct that we can talk with the Sweden Democrats. We do not take personal responsibility for every thing that a Sweden Democrat has said, says, or will say.

The fight against antisemitism is, however, acute. On our streets and squares, hordes of people are chanting who really do not seem to have understood what it means to live in Sweden, where Jews have minority protection. This protection we must truly defend. We shall show that in Sweden, one can be both Jew, Muslim or Christian and Swedish.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Madam Speaker! 10 million tons of carbon dioxide – that is how much Swedish emissions will increase by 2030. These are not my words; they come directly from the government's own budget. This government, with a liberal Minister for the Environment, is shock-increasing Sweden's emissions. At the same time, they flag that it will be difficult to live up to the EU's environmental requirements. The Liberals also call the EU the world's most important environmental organization at the same time.

I know that liberals at heart have a higher ambition than what they are now forced to deliver. But I still have to ask the question: How does all of this add up? How have Johan Pehrson and the Liberals intended for Sweden to continue to be a climate role model and succeed in influencing other countries, inside and outside the EU, when Sweden itself fails to live up to the common climate goals that we have decided upon?

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! First, we must be glad that yesterday we were able to present a consensus that the climate goals are central and that the sub-goals until net-zero 2045 are covered by all parties that now support the government - and, I guess, also by Muharrem Demirok's party.

Net Zero 2045 can never be reached by any other way than through electrification. When Volvo, in one, two, or three months, manufactures the last diesel engine, it is fantastic. The internal combustion engines are relegated to history, and electric transport steps in. The path goes through expanding Swedish energy production with nuclear power, with wind power, and with solar power. De facto, a doubling is required. We will not get away from that path.

I am very happy that the Centre Party now supports Swedish nuclear power. It took a while, but finally the penny dropped.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Madam Speaker! It is pleasing – I really mean it – that all parties can now stand behind the long-term climate goals. As for the 2030 goal, it remains to be seen what it is. At the press conference yesterday, we heard three different messages about what the 2030 goal entails.

It took some time, but it is good that the penny dropped that the climate goals now apply. The problem is only that the current policy yields no results. Emissions are increasing, and the climate goals remain. It is not I who is saying it. It is said, again, by the Ministry of Finance's budget department. The policy they pursue leads to increased emissions and causes Sweden not to reach what it has agreed to in the binding agreements it has with the EU. That is bad for Sweden, and it is bad for the climate.

Johan Pehrson! How is Sweden going to manage to negotiate with others and demand that they do their part when the Swedish government is currently not managing to do its own part here at home?

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! It is not the case that any evaluation in any budget or by any other actors has shown a straight line towards net-zero 2045. There have also been question marks during previous governments.

But it is correct that it has a short-term negative effect to remove that level of reduction obligation which has been so negative for many people, for example when it concerns being able to live in more sparsely populated parts of our country where public transport or subways do not exist. It obviously has an effect.

But the production of biofuels is not in any way thrown into the lake. That which is produced is moved to other fuels. It can go to boats and airplanes. This leads to the fact that emissions can be reduced and it has an important role to play.

We will return to our climate plan to point that out. There are, for that part, plenty of other measures to take when it comes to reducing emissions.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! When one is in one's final party group debate, one wants to prolong it as much as possible. Therefore, I must take one more turn.

Given the exchange between Johan Pehrson and Martin Kinnunen from Sverigedemokraterna, it is not without reason that one wants to ask a question to Johan Pehrson. Is Johan Pehrson prepared to evaluate the cooperation with Sverigedemokraterna, or will it, on the contrary, be deepened, as he recommended in his marriage analogy earlier? I hope that in such an evaluation, it will be concluded that there are other collaborations that better benefit liberal forces.

I also want to ask about the Liberals' policy regarding another major environmental issue: biodiversity. On the Liberals' website, it states that the Liberals want to protect the forest. But when one votes in the EU on, for example, the nature restoration law, which has been described as a game changer for environmental work in the EU, one votes against the proposal. This also goes against what the Liberals' Karlsbro in the European Parliament says. She argues that it is "a decision against science and international commitments."

Is Johan Pehrson prepared to evaluate that decision as well?

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! Everything is being evaluated all the time. The Liberals said before the election that we must change the government because we must solve a number of extensive societal problems. These included, among other things, energy and climate policy, which are so closely linked and which also affect biodiversity. It is very much as Per Bolund said earlier: If everything boils, besides humans, a good deal of plants and animals are affected by inconveniences. It is connected.

We are talking about crime, we are talking about Sweden's external security, and we are talking about functioning migration and integration. Here, Sweden has gone the wrong way. If we are to be able to safeguard safety, prosperity, and freedom in the country, one must solve real underlying problems. That is the basis for the cooperation we have with parties that are located on the outer edge of Swedish politics.

It will never happen that Jimmie Åkesson adopts me. The opposite will also never happen. Our parties were formed for completely different reasons, but we happen to be united in a will to solve decisive societal problems for Sweden. That is the basis for our cooperation.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Madam Speaker! I believe that the Liberals have a great deal to prove precisely when it comes to standing up for liberal values in their choice of coalition partners. This unfortunately also applies to the work for biodiversity.

One must remember that the climate threat is not the only planetary boundary we have crossed. We have also crossed the boundary when it comes to exactly species extinction.

I mentioned the nature restoration law. There, the Liberals voted against both the science and their own MEP. I also want to mention the deforestation law, which is intended to protect against deforestation in, among other places, rainforest areas. Even the regulatory framework for increasing carbon sequestration – the forest is a carbon sink, if managed correctly – the Liberals chose to vote against. It is therefore difficult to understand how this matter of the Liberals wanting to protect the forest aligns with how they act.

Again: The cooperation with the Sweden Democrats is not leading the right way when it comes to liberal values, nor does it lead the right way when it comes to environmental work. I hope that Johan Pehrson wants to evaluate it fundamentally and not deepen it.

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

Arbetsmarknads- och integrationsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Madam Speaker! Here, there are tough battles. I am glad that we have now made everyone realize that we are heading towards net zero 2045. This also has a decisive impact on forests all over the world and on species. There is no doubt about that.

But one must also see that people are good. Per Bolund is fantastically good. I think incredibly highly of you as a human being, Per. You are fantastic. But it is not enough. One must see difficult societal problems as they are. It hurts, and in some cases it also requires solutions that are difficult.

In the question of migration and crime fighting, one must not be naive. One must solve real problems. Then one can discard the politics of simple solutions, regardless of whether it comes from the far left, the far right, or any other fringe. It matters little. One must have a policy in the center that is anchored and solves difficult societal problems. This applies to Miljöpartiet, and it definitely applies to Liberalerna.

(Applause)

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

I would like to thank all the party leaders for participating in the debate and extend a special thanks to Per Bolund, who has had his final debate.

The party debate on EU policy was hereby concluded.

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