EU policy party leadership debate

TALMANNEN

Today's first item is the party leaders' debate on EU policy. I would therefore like to take the opportunity to mention to the members of the Chamber that it is exactly 30 years since the referendum on Swedish EU membership took place today. The referendum was, as is known, one of several steps on the way toward a Swedish EU membership. What has happened since then and how we in Sweden shall act within the framework of our membership going forward will the party leaders now speak about.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! We live in serious times - the war against Ukraine, the recession after high inflation, great uncertainty in important countries. In that global situation, many countries are turning inward. But over the last 30 years, we have learned that one is not strong alone. It is, on the contrary, more cooperation that builds a stronger and more resilient Europe.

Exactly 30 years ago today, the Swedish people voted yes to the EU - to become part of Europe's community for peace, freedom, and democracy. It was not at all obvious. Some argued on the contrary that the EU could not be reconciled with Sweden's then-sacred neutrality policy or even with our own welfare model. We were ultimately in 1994 a majority of Swedes who broke with the doctrine that had been prevailing since the 60s and made the historical decision to join the EU. It has made Sweden richer and freer.

In the year 30 years after the referendum on the EU, Sweden also joined Nato - yet another historical decision and yet another decision that was considered completely impossible until it was suddenly considered completely necessary. It has made Sweden safer and Nato stronger, and with both decisions, Sweden has finally come home.

Membership in the EU and Nato has probably never been more important than right now, because the world is changing at a rapid pace, politically, economically and militarily. More and more often, the world's conflicts also reach into Europe. We see this when North Korean soldiers are now fighting together with Russian ones. We see it in Iran's recruitment of gang criminals in Sweden to carry out acts on European soil and in the threat of trade wars between the world's superpowers.

When the truly great issues of our time are cross-border, cross-border answers are required. War, crime, climate, and competitiveness – that is how one can summarize in just four words why we must cooperate more. They are four words that show why it is utterly reckless to even play with the idea of leaving cooperation between democracies.

Mr. Speaker! In the government statement two months ago, I said that it is now brightening on the horizon in Sweden. But when we look out over Europe and the world, it is still dark times.

The Russian war of aggression against Ukraine will soon enter its fourth year. We see how Russia is backed by other authoritarian states, with weapons and soldiers. When they join forces to crush a democracy, the response from us and our friends must be crystal clear: We stand by Ukraine's side to help them win the war but also win peace. This is our generation's most important task of all.

Ultimately, this is a war against the entire free world. Parallel to the war in Ukraine, Russia is doing everything it can to destabilize the EU and our European neighboring countries. This most recently happened in Moldova and Georgia, where there is concrete information about Russian involvement to influence the currency - in Moldova also to prevent the country's rapprochement with precisely the EU. But the Moldovan population stood up and voted yes to the EU - or as their president Maia Sandu said when I spoke with her: We won fairly in an unfair fight.

In light of all this, some things are clear. Europe's countries need to take greater responsibility for our own security, each individually and together. The entire European defense industry needs to be strengthened. In Sweden, we take our responsibility, with historical investments in both military and civil defense. At the same time, Russia's influence must be limited.

That is why we have pushed for sanctions against the Russian shadow fleet and against Russian liquefied natural gas and for giving the proceeds from frozen Russian assets to Ukraine. And the sanctions are biting, more than Russia wants to admit, even though there is more to be done. Do not believe the economic reports of Russian propaganda!

At the same time, the EU needs to be reformed to be able to admit new members, such as Ukraine. The process shall be merit-based, as it is called in EU language. New members shall simply meet the requirements. EU membership shall be a quality stamp showing that one stands up for democracy, human rights and the principles of the rule of law and that one belongs to the European community of values.

Mr. Speaker! Both internal and external security require that the EU has control over migration and over our own external borders. In Sweden, we have finally changed the policy and look to receive the lowest asylum immigration since 1997 this year. It is a paradigm shift. Previously, no one wanted to follow us. Now, other countries are drawing inspiration from what we do in Sweden.

But the pressure from the rest of Europe remains high, and therefore we must do more. There is now a consensus in the European Council on the importance of a strict immigration policy, a consensus we have not been anywhere near before.

The Migration Pact is a good basis, but it does not solve everything. The EU must use more tools to address irregular migration and to increase the return of those who have been rejected and should not stay. This is required to counter shadow societies and the exclusion that has emerged over far too long a time.

There is a great interest in the EU for this government's line and our solutions. Just look at how we are now linking aid policy with migration policy. Sweden is now leading the way in this work.

Control over migration is also fundamental to combating organized crime. Of the gang members, 50 percent are not EU citizens, and 70 percent of the gangs in the EU operate in at least three countries. The criminal networks have neither moral nor geographical borders. Swedish gangsters cheat Swedish pensioners out of money from the Spanish coast. Murders are ordered from Denmark and Turkey. So we cannot have that.

The same offensive that the government is carrying out against gangs at home is now also needed in the EU. Europol must be given a stronger role to support the member states in the fight against organized crime. More cooperation is needed across borders to seize and confiscate criminals' assets and status items. Last week, the government made it possible to take the gang criminals' money, cars, and items to a greater extent here in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! The EU has long lagged behind the USA and parts of Asia. Today, more than 90 percent of the world's economic growth occurs outside the EU. While the USA's dominance in advanced cutting-edge technology has increased their productivity, the EU's dominance in legislation and regulation has caused us to fall behind. It is completely obvious that the EU has a competitiveness problem.

Mario Draghi's report is a frank reminder that we must take this seriously. At the same time, it is a great Swedish victory that competitiveness itself has moved high up on the EU's agenda. Now it is a matter of winning the content itself as well.

We need a stronger internal market with fewer barriers, especially for the service sector and the digital economy. We need a deepened and improved capital market, preferably with the Swedish reforms we have made as a model, more fossil-free energy, more world-leading universities, more cutting-edge research, a strong free trade agenda, and less bureaucracy. That is the content. Only then will the EU become a fast-moving economic superpower that develops groundbreaking innovations and does not just import groundbreaking innovations. New successful companies should not only be born in Europe but also grow strong in Europe.

To manage this, the issues that are important for all of Europe must also be borne by each individual member state. The focus must be on long-term national reforms, not on short-term European regulations. Many countries have homework to do in difficult national decisions.

Sweden and the EU have taken a leading role in the green transition through binding climate goals and legislation that effectively steer towards reduced emissions, not least through the world's most ambitious climate package Fit for 55. The Government ensures that Sweden does its part and that it happens in a way that households can also afford.

Now we must give companies the right tools to transition. Fundamentally, it is about strengthening our own competitiveness. Effective climate policy goes hand in hand with the business sector. The same applies in the EU as in Sweden: faster permit processes, more incentives for new technology, not least for negative emissions through carbon capture, so-called bio-CCS, and protecting the forest's role in the transition. It is an issue where Sweden and Finland are working successfully together.

Above all, however, more fossil-free, reliable, and affordable electricity is needed. In many countries, that task primarily consists of phasing out fossil fuels. But for us, it is about building further on our almost fossil-free electricity system. We welcome all fossil-free types of power. Now, the government is taking several concrete steps towards the next Swedish nuclear power program.

Mr. Speaker! A small country like Sweden, with an open, trade-dependent economy, understands the value of the EU. Half of our combined economy is about exports. Three-quarters of our total trade with the rest of the world occurs within the EU's internal market. In total, it concerns a staggering 4,250 billion kronor and 850,000 Swedish jobs just through exports.

Despite this, Sweden has sometimes been somewhat of a reluctant EU member. We cannot afford that. It is not in Sweden's interest. On the contrary, we must proactively and wholeheartedly work and cooperate in both the EU and Nato. We must go all in and, early in the processes, seek alliances with like-minded parties and use our place at the table to actively defend and promote national Swedish interests as well.

Mr. Speaker! The task of safeguarding Sweden still rests on us ourselves, but more than before, we now safeguard our country's own economy, our country's security and our global influence in close cooperation with others.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Today marks 30 years since Sweden held a referendum on membership in the EU. I myself lived in Vienna at the time and was studying economics. I remember how I went to the venue with the Swedish flag and was able to cast my vote for a yes to the European community. It was a great moment. In the evening, I then celebrated with my Austrian friends. Together, our countries joined the union on January 1, 1995. When these friends' children came to visit me this summer, they reflected on whether they might move to Sweden and start working or studying. That would be problem-free thanks to both our countries' wise decisions to join the union.

Mr. Speaker! In the time we live in today, the European community is our safe haven when geopolitical tensions grow, when international cooperation is undermined, and when economic clouds gather. The American presidential election last week did not contribute directly to more stability and order in the world.

Mr. Speaker! I note that security in uncertain times is something achieved partly by being strong oneself, and partly through strong partnerships and alliances. Our membership in the EU plays an ever greater role for our country's future and for the Swedish people's security and safety. At the same time, it is becoming increasingly important that we are an active actor in the EU, so that the EU develops in the direction we want and need.

That is why I become concerned when I see the policy that the government pursues, which is not a policy that makes Sweden stronger, and the government's EU policy is all too vague and weak.

Mr. Speaker! I begin with security policy, as the threats to our security are growing and becoming more varied. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is perhaps the clearest expression of that, but we also see how tensions are growing in other parts of the world. We have a new security policy situation in the Middle East, not least with the dreadful humanitarian situation in Gaza. We have cyber threats, terror threats, and rearmament.

This belongs to the things that we as a country and a union need to handle, and therefore it is good and important that we are also members of Nato. The transatlantic link is crucial for our country's and our continent's security. But at the same time, we must continue the work of strengthening our own preparedness in Sweden and also strengthening the European leg within Nato.

I have often said that it is time for Europe to take greater responsibility for our security, and I see the need for a more coordinated and cohesive security architecture in the EU. I see the need for a more active dialogue regarding European security challenges, interests, and systems, and I want to see a dialogue on how we promote the European defense industry through coordinated investments and more joint innovation projects when it comes to security and defense technology.

Mr. Speaker! I note that Sweden is defense-politically stronger today than a few years ago thanks to the buildup that was initiated as early as 2015 by the then S-led government. But I also note that the government has no clear line when it comes to Sweden's role for the stronger European cooperation. The government needs to answer what tools and resources are now prioritized to strengthen Europe in the security policy area.

Mr. Speaker! The second thing I want to address is the economic policy. The EU is absolutely crucial for the prosperity of our country. Trade and cooperation across borders enable innovation, the spread of new technology, and the creation of more good jobs. But the European economy is faltering. Several countries in the union have economic problems, and increasing geopolitical competition and increased trade barriers risk affecting us negatively.

In this situation, it is required that both the EU together and each member state individually pursue a policy that enables us to stand economically strong. But the Swedish government's policy has made Sweden both weaker and poorer. Swedish growth is at the bottom of the European ranking. Bankruptcies are increasing. Employment is falling, and unemployment is at a record high. Major investments in wind energy and in fossil-free industry are delayed or put on ice.

This is bad for Swedish households. It weakens us as a country, and it does not contribute to Europe standing strong in a world where economic tensions are growing.

I want to see a policy that not only secures the jobs we have but also creates new jobs with secure conditions and good wages. Therefore, I want Sweden to push so that the EU develops a concrete plan for a stronger economy in the union, where we deepen and simplify the internal market, where the EU focuses its budget on more strategic future industries, and where we increase the opportunity for investors to access capital through a deepened capital markets union.

Questions need to be asked. How is it actually the case that Swedish growth is at the bottom of the EU? How is it that the new industrialization has stalled? What does the government have for an agenda for a strong and sustainable economy in the EU? This is important for Sweden, and it is important for the EU.

Mr. Speaker! I have pointed out how important it is for the EU that we have strong countries and how important it is that Sweden acts actively for a safer and more economically strong EU.

We face great challenges that require a strong and clear voice in the world. We therefore need a government that stands up for Swedish interests in the EU, that drives the defense policy agenda in the EU forward, that works for a stronger economic union, and that puts the interests of ordinary Swedish wage earners first. Sweden needs a new direction.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It has been 30 years since the referendum on the EU. Time passes. I made my first political contribution, one could say, in that referendum campaign. I did not enter it with quite the same enthusiasm as the two previous speakers. I am also not as enthusiastic today as the two previous speakers. But – I still want it to be said – the EU is the platform for cooperation that we have in our part of the world. It is the platform that we can continue to shape and develop based on our own circumstances in the short and at least medium term. There, the Sweden Democrats are also a constructive force today, not least together with the government.

Mr. Speaker! I agree with the Prime Minister that cooperation is important and that cooperation is particularly important in times of unrest, such as those we are currently in. But this cooperation must occur with respect for every people's right to be master in their own house. It is here I feel that the line of conflict lies, in the sense that there still remains some kind of line of conflict in European policy today in Swedish politics.

There is a big difference, and that is where the conflict lies somewhere. I see a great need for cooperation regarding strengthening the external borders and managing migration flows from third countries - jointly in different ways. I see a great need to jointly strike down organized crime which, as the Prime Minister also pointed out just now, exists throughout Europe and in several European countries. It is about us jointly solving challenges and problems that are precisely common. But it must not happen at the expense of European cultural diversity. I think it is important to keep that in mind.

Mr. Speaker! During the first week of November, Kyiv was attacked, according to Ukrainian reports, by drones on six of the week's seven days. The systematic nature of attempting and, unfortunately, also succeeding in murdering innocent civilians is raw, cold, and ruthless.

In Sweden, we have not wavered when it comes to the support for Ukraine. Contributing to Ukraine's struggle and capability in the long term, while simultaneously undermining Russia's military capability, requires perseverance. It requires solidarity, understanding, and insights both here and between countries.

Both here at home in Sweden and in Brussels, the Sweden Democrats will continue to fight for a united and compact support for Ukraine for as long as it is needed. Ukraine's cause is also Sweden's cause. Ukraine's struggle is also our struggle, Mr. Speaker.

Just over a year ago, two Swedes were murdered in Brussels by a terror-worshipping Islamist. They were targeted because they wore Sweden's colors and because they were Swedes. As recently as last Friday, we were reached by the news that Israelis were attacked in connection with a football match in Amsterdam. They were targeted because they were Israelis and because they were Jews.

Mr. Speaker! The Islamist agenda, the deep hatred and the grotesque violence - we have seen it here at home in Sweden, and we see it actually everywhere in our part of the world - must come to an end. We must take every opportunity that exists to combat those who, using violence as a means and hatred as a motor, harm and in the worst cases kill innocent Europeans. People with such an agenda do not belong in either Sweden or Europe. Sweden can and should take the lead in a European concerted effort against the spread of Islamism. In that regard, it is very much about continuing to develop the migration policy that ensures that those who have nothing to do in Sweden or in Europe at all do not come inside Sweden's or Europe's borders.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! The election of a right-wing reactionary president in the USA is a wake-up call for Europe. When it is Putin, Orbán and Netanyahu who cheer that Trump was elected, one knows that international relations will suffer from a president who does not stand up for the rules-based world order, where it is not the right of the strongest that applies but where every people has the right to decide over its own future.

This applies not least in Ukraine and in Palestine. Europe will need to handle these problems. These are troubled times we live in.

But the question that many in Sweden ask themselves is: How can someone like Trump gain a majority of the voters' trust in a nation like the USA? He is a man who has faced facing jail time, who incited his voters to storming during a previous election loss, and who has made himself known as an indecent bully. Have they not seen how he behaves? perhaps someone wonders.

There is obviously not just one answer to that question, but what one can be sure of is that it is about the economic policy. The other becomes secondary when one worries about one's livelihood and one's future.

Most have fared worse, not better. We recognize this in Europe. Workers are not paid enough for the work they perform. The salary that arrives in the account on the 25th is too low. It covers far too little.

Extensive deregulation of everything from the electricity system to the railway network has made these services more expensive than before and harder to rely on. They have created problems in everyday life instead of being a public service that can be guaranteed. Banks are raising their interest rates disproportionately much. Food giants are making record profits in the middle of a crisis, and we see this in many of the European countries.

It is indecent. When citizens are left alone to handle crises and hardships, it is not particularly strange that they lose faith in politics and vote for the one who promises that you can put food on the table and arrange for a roof over your head.

We built better and more spacious when the state stimulated the housing sector to build more for more people and set the framework for it. Now we have a climate transition that has lost momentum, is becoming increasingly disorganized, and which burdens ordinary households instead of being an opportunity for growth and a higher standard of living.

The state must come back, set frameworks, point the way forward, guarantee basic public services such as electricity, trains that run on time, labor market policy, industrial policy, research and housing.

The EU must stop standing in the way of this. Meddlesome, bureaucratic EU rules cause Sweden to get stuck in poorly functioning privatizations, bad working conditions, and housing shortages. Instead, we could seriously solve the problems, modernize production chains, and lower electricity prices through well-considered investments.

There is something fundamentally wrong when a new, young generation sees that their opportunities in life are worse today than they were for their parents several decades ago.

Now Europe's politicians must wake up. Now we must wake up! It must be the workers, the citizens, who are to be put at the center. We need to clear out among subcontractors on Swedish construction sites. Truck drivers driving into Sweden shall follow Swedish rules. Taxi drivers and food delivery couriers must have rights. The extensive crime in working life must be cleared out. The climate transition will occur through large investments in fast, modern and clean trains, tens of thousands of new public charging points, cheap electric cars, carbon-free steel production - red growth instead of blue-brown stagnation.

It is not sustainable to further burden customers with high food prices and high interest rates. The task of politics is to secure the citizens' future. Our common economic development must be put at the center. We need a stronger state that governs and guarantees our security and clearly contributes to reducing emissions and creating new jobs.

Our children must have it better than we do. Anything else is to back into the future.

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! Hold the line for peace, freedom, and the climate! That was the Center Party's promise to the voters in the EU election. It is a promise that appears even more important today, just a few months after this EU election.

Having just returned from the presidential election in the USA, I carry with me yet another reminder of exactly this. There, a candidate whose campaign was built on climate denial, misogyny, and polarization has gained the trust to govern the USA for the next four years. Trump's message is clear and cannot be misunderstood: The climate is unimportant. Support for Ukraine shall decrease. Europe must prepare for a future on its own.

I and the Center Party will continue to do what we can to safeguard our relationship with the USA. It is important. But I will also continue to repeat this: the EU must take responsibility for its own destiny.

It is particularly in three areas where Sweden must now show greater courage, greater determination and decisiveness. On each of these points, it is absolutely crucial that we do it together with the rest of the EU.

Firstly: The EU must now step forward and hold the line for peace and freedom. Here, our Swedish government must take a leading role. The EU must arm itself at a faster pace to meet the Russian threat and strengthen support for Ukraine in every conceivable way. We must now create a defense fund for Ukraine of at least 1 percent of GDP every year.

We must send Jas 39 Gripen to Ukraine, and we must follow the Finnish example of seizing Russian assets even here at home in Sweden - and when we do that, I think we should start with Kubal in Sundsvall, something we should have done already yesterday. Furthermore, the EU is sitting on 300 billion kronor in seized Russian assets. Every single penny, not just the return, of this blood money must go to Ukraine!

Secondly: We must hold the line for the climate. Europe must reduce its emissions faster, improve its energy security and once and for all get rid of the dependence on oil, coal and gas. More and better green growth is the only way forward for this to succeed.

When the USA and others are now lowering their climate ambitions, Sweden must not follow suit. But unfortunately, Trump's climate ignorance is also echoing in the Swedish Government Offices right now. The Government is pursuing a policy that ensures we do not reach the EU's climate goals. We have gone from being a green role model to becoming a brake in the climate work.

It is now time for the government and Ulf Kristersson to stop, think, and seriously consider where the green right-wing project went wrong, to redo it and do it right. Do not go down in history as the Prime Minister who wasted decades of Swedish climate work!

Thirdly: We must maintain the line on jobs and companies. The government's report card in this area is unfortunately frightening. Sweden is at the bottom in the EU's growth statistics. We have an unemployment rate that is among the highest in the EU, and it is particularly bad for our youth. Far too many families are unable to make ends meet.

In this situation, the last thing we need is new trade wars and tariffs on Swedish export goods. But that is exactly what is looming after the election in the USA. Now the government must fight so that the EU will open up for more free trade, create better conditions for Sweden's export-dependent companies, and create all opportunities for our companies to lower unemployment for ordinary people.

My message may sound simple, but it is just as crucial for Sweden's as for the EU's future: Hold the line for peace, freedom, and the climate, for Ukraine, for the jobs and for the companies - quite simply for a better everyday life for ordinary people. This is a promise that I and Centerpartiet will stand up for every day, today and tomorrow.

30 years ago, Sweden chose to be a part of the EU. Here is not only our common history – here is also our common future.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We live in restless times. Russia's brutal war of aggression against Ukraine is entering its third year. The war in the Middle East has recently entered its second. Authoritarian regimes are on the march and are joining forces against us and against our way of life. Criminal networks are used by the Iranian intelligence service to commit acts of violence, and also on Swedish soil, against our citizens.

Antisemitism is growing, serious crime is becoming entrenched, climate change threatens life and property, and the USA is moving in an increasingly protectionist direction. Europe is in a period of transition with crises occurring both inside and outside the union's borders. In this situation, the EU is too important to be reduced to a caricature of itself, to be about plastic caps and straws. We must focus on the right things. The EU cannot do everything, but what it does must be done much better. Migration must be brought into order, antisemitism must be combated, support for Ukraine must be strengthened, and the foundation for a stable energy supply must be laid.

Mr. Speaker! Our migration policy needs to take into account an unpredictable and rapidly changing world. The migration pact that the EU has adopted is an important first step, but it is far from sufficient. The Christian Democrats want to introduce a developed quota system where the aid is primarily directed to those people who have the greatest need for protection. We call it migration pact 2.0.

When the Christian Democrats raised this issue six months ago, many in the chamber were critical. Now the EU Commission has spoken. Even the Social Democrats want to give the impression that they realize the seriousness, but reality says something else. S has voted yes to financing transports across the Mediterranean, which is where the illegal migration primarily occurs. At the same time, they vote no to financing physical barriers at the EU's outer border. It is obvious that the Social Democrats are doing their best to signal toughness on the migration issue at home, while doing something else in Brussels.

Mr. Speaker! In our Europe, there is no place for antisemitism. We accept no excuses and no relativization. The riots in Amsterdam this past week, where Palestinian activists attacked Israeli football supporters, is not an isolated incident. When open gatherings are disrupted by the parliament of the street, the response from democratic society must be resolute. Seriously: enough is enough!

The suffering in Gaza can come to an end if Hamas lays down its weapons, the hostages are released, and a counterpart in the negotiations for a two-state solution steps forward. Israel is attacked on several fronts simultaneously; by the terrorist organization Hamas in Gaza, by the terrorist organization Hezbollah in Lebanon, by the Houthi rebels in Yemen, and by those who enable the war to continue, namely Iran.

It is the same Iran and Revolutionary Guard that planned murders of Jews in Sweden, and it is the same Iran whose drones kill civilians in Ukraine. Russia, China, North Korea and Iran constitute an axis of authoritarian states that threaten the rules-based world order, the free world and our way of life.

We find ourselves in the most serious security policy situation since the Second World War. Europe is back at war. It is becoming increasingly clear that Europe primarily must take responsibility for its own security. Europe's military defense must be significantly strengthened, and the EU must work harder to secure European production of defense materiel and ammunition. Exceptions regarding environmental requirements, procurement rules, and state aid must be made. And this must happen urgently, both in order to enable Ukraine to defeat Russia and to strengthen Europe's strategic autonomy. The time to act is now. Our security cannot wait.

Mr. Speaker! The good values, those we hold so dear, and which define who we are, will also be our guiding star in the political decisions we make. Thus we strengthen our freedom, our independence, and our democracy. Thus we take the fight against antisemitism, and thus we ensure that Europe stands strong in the future.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The USA has received a new president, and it will entail great challenges for Sweden and the world. We face two major risks, namely that the USA withdraws from Ukraine and that Trump tears up the USA's climate work and returns to opposing the global climate transition.

Trump's previous term meant four lost years for the US's climate work. The USA withdrew from the Paris Agreement, the transition was delayed, and environmental protection was significantly weakened. Trump has said that the USA will withdraw from the Paris Agreement again. There is no reason to believe that he is not serious.

This places great demands on the EU and Sweden to lead the way, to push, to take the leadership that the world needs, not least to ensure concrete and recurring support for Ukraine. In the ripples of the American election, Sweden's government must act in the EU and nationally.

Mr. Speaker! Right now, the UN's major climate summit COP 29 is taking place. On the agenda is the question of how the world's countries should cooperate and act to ramp up climate work moving forward. During the last meeting, the world's countries agreed to phase out fossil fuels and focus on actions in the near term. Since then, Sweden's government has phased in, not out, fossil fuels. Instead of reducing emissions in the near term, they have increased them. They have demolished the expansion of wind power, and the green transition is slowing down in the shadow of the government's climate-hostile policy.

At the same time, over 200 people have died after the great flood in southern and eastern Spain. We have seen images that are so catastrophic that they are difficult to take in. For the second year in a row, a global heat record was broken during the summer, and last year a drought hit almost half of the globe. The drought affects the food supply and the water supply and, in turn, the possibility of life on earth.

Climate policy is ultimately about protecting people from enormous risks. The Prime Minister often speaks about climate policy being conducted at the EU level. But he seems to have misunderstood one crucial thing, namely that the EU's climate policy is based on the member states implementing it, and Sweden is not doing so.

Mr. Speaker! Nothing is heard as clearly in the ears of the oppressor as the silence of the rest of the world. Last week, reports arrived that 70 percent of those killed in Gaza are women and children. At the same time, aid is being prevented from arriving, with starvation and increased misery as a result. What is happening in Gaza and in the West Bank is in no way proportionate.

The UN has recently stated that Israel is committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. At the same time, the EU continues to pump money into Israel through trade, and it is completely unacceptable. We want to see an immediate and permanent ceasefire, that the hostages and illegally detained people held by Hamas and Israel are released, and that the occupation ends.

Sweden must act powerfully in the EU to ensure that trade sanctions are introduced and that the union employs all available pressure measures to stop the war.

Mr. Speaker! The EU and Sweden face enormous challenges ahead. We have Trump, war, climate change that must be stopped, and economic challenges. But we can use the power that the EU and Sweden have to act for human rights, for peace, and for the climate transition. What is required for this is political will.

(Applause)

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

Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! It is often spoken of the summer of 1994, of Midsummer in the Pontiac Silverdome and of Ravelli's penalty save against Romania. But I think too little is said about the autumn of 1994, when the Swedish people in a November as dark as today's said yes to Europe. A bronze medal in the Football World Cup is all well and good, but nothing weighs heavier than a peace prize in gold for a continent with a history such as this.

Sweden's membership in the EU has strengthened our freedom and increased our prosperity. That is also worth remembering. But now, 30 years later, Sweden and Europe face new and difficult challenges. There is war in our neighborhood. Ukraine is fighting for its freedom against Putin's barbarism and imperialism.

At the same time, support is growing for world leaders who want to isolate their countries and limit free trade. For an export country like Sweden, this risks costing us dearly, not least for Swedish companies and Swedish jobs, and it risks leading to a Europe that falls behind in international competition, as Mario Draghi warns against in his very important report.

The Liberals' European policy is needed more than ever. A stronger Sweden is only achieved through a stronger Europe. The Liberals want Europe to take the lead for Ukraine, for the climate, for competitiveness, and for the future of liberal democracy.

Mr. Speaker! Europe cannot afford to be divided when the seas are stormy. It is not sufficient for Sweden to insist on standing outside of the European cooperation, because we indirectly renounce important influence over economic decisions that affect Sweden's future and opt out of a strong currency that would bind us with countries such as Finland, France and Germany when the wind blows hard.

Today, Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are alone in wanting to introduce the euro in Sweden. So I do not think it will be very long until that happens. Many are now saying that the arguments for the euro have strengthened. It is former Riksbank governors and heavy industrial leaders. Yes, even Magdalena Andersson's predecessor Göran Persson is on board with this. Many in this chamber have shifted their views on membership in the EU and on membership in Nato. I believe that more will soon realize that it is high time to take the full step to be at the center of European cooperation and that Sweden introduces the euro for Sweden's best.

Mr. Speaker! If the support from across the Atlantic falters, Europe must take increased responsibility for Ukraine's and our own future. The Liberals and the government will never abandon our Ukrainian friends. Their struggle is, as many have said, our own, and we therefore deliver support package after support package from this chamber. We want Europe to support Ukraine for as long as it is needed.

When other powers on different continents promise to extract every cubic meter of oil beneath the earth's surface, Europe must take a different path. There is enormous potential in the green transition with new, good business opportunities for Swedish companies, the emergence of new jobs, and stronger growth for everyone in the union. But it requires that the EU sticks to the ambitious climate goals and Fit for 55 and that the countries do their utmost to reach them.

That is why I am proud that the government is now judged to reach one of our most important climate goals: Sweden's ESR commitment until 2030. The opposite, we see with horror in our neighboring country, Germany's failed energy experiment. We know today that nuclear power is a crucial part to reach all the way to net zero. That is why the Liberals are pushing for a European stop law for nuclear phase-outs. Not enough with that; we think a nuclear power plan for 100 new reactors in Europe is needed - together with wind, together with solar and together with efficiency. It is only with fossil-free electricity without Russian gas that we can make Europe greener, safer and richer - together.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Nearly ten years ago, over 1 million asylum seekers came to Europe and more than 160,000 just to Sweden without there being a thought on how they would be integrated into our country or a thought on the consequences. We shall not go back there.

At the EU level, we are now reshaping the policy to gain control over migration. During the Swedish presidency, we succeeded in bringing the member states together around the migration pact. At the European Council, the EU's summit, there is now broad agreement on the problems with uncontrolled immigration. This is a major change in just two years. But every member country must also do its part. European security is built from the inside out.

In Sweden, we do our part, and we see how other countries are now being inspired by us. We are heading towards the lowest number of asylum seekers since 1997. We are re-evaluating Swedish citizenship, and now we ensure that foreign citizens who rape and rob are deported from the country and do not remain here and be able to commit new crimes. Step by step, we are now implementing precisely those reforms that the previous government did not want to make. Thus, Sweden has moved from being a cautionary tale to becoming an example in migration policy.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I just want to remind Ulf Kristersson that the last time he sat in government, he pushed for us to have Europe's most liberal migration legislation. That resulted in the refugee crisis in 2015 and that we Social Democrats then had to make a major paradigm shift.

We are having tough economic times, but Ulf Kristersson now claims that things are brightening on the horizon. I do not know which direction Ulf Kristersson is looking when he says that. It is at least not towards Sweden. We now have a growth that is among Europe's lowest. The number of bankruptcies is the highest since the 90s. Investments are paused while the government wastes decades of climate policy. We have the highest unemployment in ten years, apart from the pandemic. Youth unemployment is over 25 percent - thus, every fourth young person in the labor market is unemployed. And when unemployment is now falling in the rest of Europe, well, it is rising in Sweden.

My question to Ulf Kristersson is: What in the government's economic policy explains this development?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! These are serious times in the world, and then we must be careful here at home in Sweden. Inflation is now defeated. It creates conditions for lower interest rates.

Inflation could not have been defeated if we had pursued a policy even remotely close to the left opposition's over-supply policy. Fanning the flames would have been dangerous. We now see increased confidence in a very tough situation.

We have inherited major problems from you. Unemployment in Sweden is to a very high degree about unemployment that is linked to high immigration and poor integration, and your government option now wants to increase immigration instead of reducing it. Don't come and tell me about immigration policy!

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is, therefore, Magdalena Andersson's fault that Ulf Kristersson fails in the economic policy.

What if Ulf Kristersson took responsibility for something at some point, such as that throughout his entire political life he has pushed for free immigration and also implemented the largest liberalization that has ever been made in Swedish politics? It was something that we Social Democrats, as I said, reversed.

Or how about if Ulf Kristersson took responsibility for the fact that, just as housing construction fell, he removed the investment support that we Social Democrats had introduced so that young people would have the opportunity to move out from home? Just when youth unemployment is rising, one saves on labor market policies that are supposed to make it easier for young people to enter the labor market. And just when we need to support ordinary households and boost domestic consumption, he lowers the tax for the richest instead of raising the child allowance and student grants for young people.

Take responsibility for your policy, Ulf Kristersson!

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! So it is the party leader who was Finance Minister at the time when governments could not even get their economic policies through.

Three changes have occurred. The first is that we have pursued an economic policy that defeats inflation, in contrast to the policy the left side wanted to see at that time. The second is that we have a majority in this chamber to implement policy. Our budget is not a suggestion to the Riksdag, our budget passes. The third concerns the labor immigration of low-skilled labor that we do not need in Sweden when we have such high unemployment. We have now reduced that - because you were unable to do it.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! I noted in the previous exchange that Ulf Kristersson considers it to be fanning the flames to retain staff in Swedish healthcare. It is fanning the flames to lower food prices and ensure that mortgages do not become so high. But to lower the tax for Ulf Kristersson himself is wonderful and fantastically good inflation policy. Then we know that.

Recently, the Prime Minister was on the SVT program Frågan är fri. There, he told Ellen from Uppsala about her situation. She is 47 years old and is forced to borrow money from her mother to buy food. She lives on 12,163 kronor a month and is one of many Swedes who have had it very tough without the government having done anything. She asked what the Prime Minister earns. He earns 190,000 kronor a month.

The EU Parliament has just voted on this issue. There, the Left Party voted to lower the MEPs' very high salaries, while the Moderates voted against lowering them. Why is it so important for the Moderates that MEPs should have such high salaries, Ulf Kristersson?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! When we had high inflation, the left side of Swedish politics pursued an expansive economic policy with more money for almost everything. It is the very recipe for fueling inflation and making people's real incomes worth even less. It is simply bad economic policy.

Now we have brought down inflation, and we have continued a recession. There is a need and an opportunity - and sound public finances, thanks to the fact that we did not follow your recipe - which means that we have the room to help households restore some real incomes. That is good economic policy. So we drive our economic policy.

When it comes to the salaries, I have no other opinion than that parliaments in both Sweden and Europe must have systems and rules for this, and we adhere to the rules that exist. I suggest no changes to the salaries of either the members of the government, the members of parliament, or the members of the EU Parliament. We have the rules we have, and they appear to function quite well.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! I am not so sure that Ellen thinks it works very well when some people are to have such high salaries while others have to live on 12,163 kronor a month.

Why is it so important for the Moderaterna that Ulf Kristersson himself receives a tax cut of 3,600 kronor a month while Ellen receives zero? In what way is this inflation fighting, Ulf Kristersson? Why is it so important to always stand on the side of the wealthy? What is it that says that Ulf Kristersson is twenty times more important in our society than Ellen? This is my question.

Inflation has fallen across all of Europe due to falling electricity prices. It has nothing to do with the government's poor policy.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is still a bit refreshing that there is a Marxist left in Sweden - it is still a bit lively, I think. It also says something about the Center Party's upcoming antics. The best would have been 100 percent tax, or at least increased marginal tax. Everything that the Center Party says it is against is exactly what one will get if the Left Party were to form the next government together with the Center Party.

It is a bit refreshing - there are some different opinions in Swedish politics!

I do not believe in very high taxes. I also do not believe in taxes that are too low, because we need a well-functioning public sector.

For a period, we took the lion's share of Swedish workers' wage increases in tax. It was bad. It worsened in every way. It resulted in less money, also for the state. It took away the incentive to work.

The vast majority in Sweden now realize that work is better than benefits. Where does the Left Party stand?

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! I want to speak with the Prime Minister about the jobs - again.

Even though the Prime Minister here at home seems to be unable to lower unemployment, we know that a competitive EU can lift all boats - including Sweden's. The EU has fallen behind both the USA and other countries, and the gap only seems to be increasing. We are relatively poorer and less productive. We spend less on research and development. The list could be long.

Even though it was pleasing to hear the Prime Minister raise the EU's competitiveness in his opening speech, it reminded very much of the domestic political debate: a lot is said, but the results are lacking.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister what the government is doing concretely to strengthen the EU's competitiveness and, in the long run, create more jobs here in Sweden.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Muharrem Demirok for an important question.

As I said, the competitiveness issues were at the top of the agenda at the last European Council, with Mario Draghi's excellent report as the basis. I would say that there was broad agreement on the diagnosis. We have fallen behind over a period of 20 years. This is nothing that has happened suddenly, but it is now being brought to a head, for many reasons. The EU invests less in research and innovation. The EU is heavy on regulation, unlike the USA. The EU does not have to become like the USA, but there is no doubt that the EU is falling behind.

I believe I initially mentioned what we think should be the recipe: more internal market, more free service market, more digital internal market, more free trade agreements and deregulation. As I perhaps hinted, there is no consensus on this in the EU. Some countries think more regulation is the answer; I would say those are the usual countries.

We stand up for this. Trade policy is European, and Sweden is an extremely trade-dependent country. Everything we can do for a free-trade EU that deregulates is also in Sweden's interest.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! I also heard the Prime Minister mention the green transition as an important part of this. It is not only companies and the business community here in Sweden that are talking about this and crying out for a clearer policy and unity in it, but the green transition is important all around in all of Europe.

The politicians here at home in Sweden are taking different paths. The government is lowering ambitions, increasing emissions, and placing roadblocks in front of the green transition. This creates doubts, and it does not create the conditions for increased competitiveness at a time when the EU should be stepping forward.

We also see that unemployment in Sweden has not only stuck but is increasing, right now in all groups. It is worst for our youth. We see families who cannot afford to buy Christmas presents for the children and life journeys that are being left out.

The EU now needs more than ever a leadership and a cooperation that can solve these citizens' problems. When will the clear results of the government's policy arrive? When will a policy to lower unemployment arrive?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I hear sweeping accusations. Speak plainly instead! If it is the case that the Center Party means that a policy where fuel costs 30 kronor per liter would have been better, then say that! Say that one cannot afford to drive a car in Sweden! If you seriously want offshore wind farms and disregard the Defense Forces' sharp recommendations for Swedish security interests, then say that! Your somewhat sweeping general bluster, which has no substance, inspires no respect.

I take Swedish national security interests into account. I therefore care about whether it takes Russia minutes or seconds to reach the Swedish coast. I take responsibility for Swedish households. They must both manage the climate transition and be able to afford to take their children to practice and themselves to work.

Speak up instead!

(Applause)

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! General blather, I hear the Prime Minister speaking. I intended to address one of the issues the Prime Minister raised. Last week, the government's decision was announced to deny permits for 13 wind farms with reference to defense. The former Moderate defense minister Mikael Odenberg calls it an energy policy and industrial policy catastrophe.

Of course, we must take into account the defense's needs and assessments during expansion, but the government's consistent rejections miss the importance of energy security for the total defense, delay the transition, and make it harder for Sweden to reach the commitments we have within the EU's climate legislation Fit for 55.

During our time in government, we gave the Armed Forces the assignment to look at how these issues can be solved, but the government has removed that assignment. How is it that the Prime Minister has done that?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is exactly the opposite. We told the Armed Forces: We have, as you know, the deepest respect for your difficult task in the worst security situation in many years. But you cannot simply say broadly that you are against offshore wind power, you must describe the consequences and explain where it is and is not feasible. The Armed Forces then came back with a detailed account.

I now understand that there are other security experts. Some are environmental activists and others work in the wind power industry, surprise, surprise, and these want to overrule the Armed Forces' assessment. Let me just say that I stand on the side of the Armed Forces and Swedish security interests. I do not intend to jeopardize anything and, against direct recommendations, build wind power in places that risk the Swedish ability to protect us against Russia. You security experts, overrule the decisions! I trust the experts we have.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The Prime Minister is engaging in guilt by association towards certain individuals. At the same time, he skips over, for example, the Total Defence Research Institute, which points out that the possibility exists. But it is also obviously general bluffing in this context.

Other nations and EU countries manage this, but in Sweden, strangely enough, it does not. We gave the Armed Forces a mandate to look at solutions for how this can be done and proactively test the wind power park by park and find the technical solutions that exist and that other countries obviously utilize. But a year ago, the government removed this mandate, and this year a flat no came for all of it. It is strange and an interesting connection.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! We clearly differ when it comes to taking risks with the Swedish defense in relation to offshore wind power. I do not risk venturing against better judgment the Swedish defense capability.

What Miljöpartiet for incomprehensible reasons forgets to mention is what prompted the yes. A third yes came in parallel with the many noes. In two years, we have said three active yeses to offshore wind power. You managed one in eight years. We want this where it benefits Swedish interests for energy reasons and security policy reasons. You appear to disregard the latter, but the government does not.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! The world's leaders are currently gathering at the UN's major climate summit. The climate crisis is here and now. We see changed weather patterns, droughts and floods, most recently in Spain. The unpredictable weather leads to drought and crop failure and thus rising food prices. Climate and economy are therefore interconnected.

After the SD government took office, Swedish climate policy has been dismantled. The government actively pursues a policy to increase Swedish emissions, and the government's own climate policy council points out that the climate policy does not align with the climate rhetoric.

This has direct economic consequences for ordinary households. Offshore wind power projects in southern Sweden that would have provided lower electricity prices are being put on hold due to the government's worsened economic conditions, and large industrial projects that would have provided jobs are being pushed into the future. The government is now being reported to the EU Commission because Sweden is not meeting a single one of the European climate goals, which means Swedish households risk expensive fines.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden's prosperity is based on the fact that we have been far ahead during major technological shifts so that investments and jobs have landed in Sweden. A few years ago, we were also well on our way in the green transition, with the expansion of renewable energy and a new industrialization that was gaining momentum. Sweden was an example to the world. I could boast about Sweden's green industrial revolution when I stood next to Joe Biden at a press conference in the White House. Then this government came, and now it looks completely different.

One cannot back into the future. We need a government that shows the way, expands, and gears up. Sweden needs a new direction.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We have earlier in the debate heard how the Social Democrats have acted in the European migration policy. They said yes to financing migrant transports across the Mediterranean and opposed the construction of physical border barriers, and so on, and so forth.

Mr. Speaker! I mean that there are important ways to develop the European migration policy, for example through asylum reception in third countries and by ensuring that people who should not be here - i.e., illegal migrants, convicted criminals and so on - return to third countries. These are important measures to truly achieve a responsible and long-term sustainable migration policy.

My question to Magdalena Andersson is why the Social Democrats have such desperate difficulty standing up to the tough migration rhetoric that is present in Sweden in European politics, where they act precisely the opposite.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! After ten years of negotiations, the European Pact on Migration is finally in place. It is the result of broad cooperation in Sweden, where many parties have contributed. It took place during the Swedish presidency and had been preceded by active work in a Social Democratic-led government. The responsible commissioner who finally managed to stitch this together was the Social Democrat Ylva Johansson.

The migration pact that applies in the EU now and which will create greater order and clarity in European migration has, in many ways, been made possible thanks to broad cooperation in Swedish politics. We shall take the credit for that in Sweden, collectively. It does not prevent us from needing to do more in Europe, not least so that people who do not have the right to be here and are not granted asylum shall return to their home countries.

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that one can question a part of that description, especially when it comes to the role of the Social Democratic commissioner. But perhaps that is another debate.

What I actually wonder is how one can have such a high level of double-talk as the Social Democrats have here in Sweden. In their rhetoric, they are incredibly clear that they indeed carried out the paradigm shift in migration policy and tightened things up. At the same time, in European policy, not least within the framework of the European Parliament, they opposed absolutely necessary reforms to get a responsible policy in place in reality—that is, not in the rhetoric.

More and more voices are being raised in more and more countries to take further steps for a responsible policy when it comes to asylum reception in third countries and deporting people to third countries. My question to Magdalena Andersson is whether the Social Democrats can clearly stand behind this and agree to the type of measures that lie outside the pact.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I do not know if I am boasting, but I can only state the facts. The largest reorganization of migration policy that has been carried out in Sweden was carried out by a social democratically led government. It was after that Fredrik Reinfeldt's government, in which Ulf Kristersson was included, had carried out the largest liberalization ever made in Sweden. In Ulf Kristersson's case, it is about the fact that throughout a long political career, he has constantly worked for free immigration.

We Social Democrats already began working in 2015 for Europe to take more collective responsibility for people fleeing who come to Europe. It was a completely unsustainable situation where Sweden took disproportionate responsibility. Therefore, other European countries needed to do more. We continue to stand behind that.

We think the migration pact is a good solution, but that does not mean we do not think that more people who should not be in Europe and who do not have residence permits should return to their home countries. On the other hand, we are hesitant that Swedish taxpayers should pay money to the EU which will then go to other EU countries to build barriers. That is their responsibility. But Jimmie Åkesson is perhaps more interested in using Swedish tax money in other countries.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let us continue on this theme. Sweden is laying the foundation for the entire immigration policy now, and other countries are drawing inspiration from what we do. On the left-wing side, conversely, there are those who want to restore the migration policy to how it was in 2015 with many times more quota refugees, refugee amnesty, no to the revocation of residence permits, no to strengthened repatriation, and no to knowledge requirements for citizenship – to make a selection from the left side.

Vänsterpartiet, Miljöpartiet and C go the furthest, of course, but even the Socialdemokrater want to more than double the quota refugee reception during the current year. My curious question to Magdalena Andersson is: With whom on your side of politics do you intend to continue reducing immigration to Sweden?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Ulf Kristersson needs to have his staff check the facts before he takes the floor. We have no proposal to increase the number of quota refugees in our budget alternative.

I can also point out that Ulf Kristersson in his previous speech claimed that one adheres to the fiscal framework. But I can state that in three out of three possible budgets, one has not done so. You are therefore not meeting the 0.33 percent surplus and structural saving.

I can also state that we Social Democrats, with the cooperation we had, managed to carry out the largest paradigm shift in Swedish migration policy that has ever occurred, for the purpose of tightening. It happened in 2015, because the situation created after Ulf Kristersson's policy was completely unsustainable. Sweden will also continue to need to have a strict migration policy.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! That was as close to historical forgery as one can get. On one occasion, the Social Democrats reached a decision, with a present—crying—green mouthpiece that, under protest, finally managed to make some difficult decisions in order to subsequently begin negotiating with the Left Party to go in the opposite direction.

Furthermore, it is simply a matter of reading in the budget that the Social Democrats have submitted, which applies to the current year, that you are increasing quota refugee immigration by 100 percent. That is the budget and the policy that would have applied now if you had won the election. I understand that it is not something you are proud of – you have indeed changed your mind in the budget proposal for next year. Welcome! But my question remains. With whom – C, V or MP – do you intend to continue restructuring the Swedish immigration policy?

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, Ulf Kristersson, we can talk about who is proud of their history!

Let us state that there is a person standing here in front of us who for decades has advocated for free immigration to Sweden, who criticized the sitting government for conducting an all-too-strict migration policy, who has sat in the government and voted yes for one of Europe's most liberal migration legislations and who opened up for the most liberal labor immigration in the entire OECD. That person is Ulf Kristersson. It is not me.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! First, I want to comment on what Ulf Kristersson said. It was incredibly unnecessary to humiliate someone for having shown emotions at a press conference. It was a bit "gubbig" [old-fashioned/macho].

Bicycle couriers, taxi drivers and other gig workers are exploited with lousy wages and conditions in Europe. The companies that everyone understands are employers are evading their responsibility. The system of what is called gig work or platform work can also spread to more industries.

Unlike social democrats in Europe and the Nordic countries, the Swedish Social Democrats have opposed a tightening of the regulatory framework for gig workers. This stands in direct conflict with what the Swedish Transport Workers' Union wants, namely that the rules be tightened at the EU level to strengthen gig workers' wages and conditions. Why did the Social Democrats in Brussels choose to vote against that directive?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I completely share Nooshi Dadgostar's view that these are unreasonable conditions for gig workers. It is a model that creates a low-wage proletariat and risks dumping wages for other employees. I believe that the starting point in Sweden should always be that, when one works, one should be able to live a good life on the wage one receives. I therefore share the view that the entire gig economy is a major problem.

Large parts of the trade union movement want this to be resolved through collective agreements and that we should stand up for the Swedish model, where we resolve this type of problem through negotiations between unions and employers. This is the background to the positions we have taken in the EU.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! I understand that other trade unions may abstractly think it is important, but those who de facto organize the gig workers - Transportarbetareförbundet - urge the Swedish Social Democrats to change their minds. What is Magdalena Andersson doing about the assessment that one is completely alone in Europe on this issue?

There is an assessment showing that the number of gig workers in the future could become explosively large and that gig work can enter new industries so that the workers are ultimately forced to become self-employed. This is the greatest threat to the Swedish labor market and to our wages and conditions.

Why has the Swedish Social Democrats, as the only social democratic party in Europe, opposed improved conditions for taxi drivers, food delivery workers and other gig workers?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish model on the labor market differs from that in many other European countries. We have a collective agreement model where strong trade unions and employer organizations negotiate the terms for the Swedish labor market together. This creates a flexibility where one can quickly adapt to new conditions prevailing in the economy and on the labor market.

In many other countries, much of this is handled through legislation instead. I believe there is a great reason to stand up for the Swedish labor market model. It has created one of the highest employment rates in Europe, it has created good real wage development for many years, and it has created successful companies that both pay decent wages and are competitive.

It is against this background that Sweden often stands out in the EU when it comes to votes on the labor market model.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Nuclear power provides us with stable base load and is a key to lowering our carbon emissions. I welcome that the Social Democrats have begun to ease their categorical opposition and see the value of nuclear power in the energy mix.

This seems to have escaped your Brussels office, Magdalena Andersson. Nuclear power is not mentioned anywhere on their website; it is only about renewable energy. When one looks at how you have voted, it also clearly appears that the Social Democrats are pursuing the same energy policy in Brussels as the one that led to a power shortage in Sweden, with high electricity prices and imports of fossil electricity when the wind is not blowing.

My question to Magdalena Andersson is: Do you support an expansion of nuclear power both in Sweden and in Europe?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! We can begin by stating that the government's energy policy has completely failed. When the conditions for offshore wind power, which could provide southern Sweden with lower electricity prices, were worsened, the wind power projects were put on hold.

One has also not done enough to ensure that municipalities have incentives to say yes to land-based wind power, and when the promises of cheap electricity via nuclear power were tested against reality, it turned out that the government's nuclear power plans risk costing Swedish households 8,000-10,000 kronor every year for 35 years. It will be expensive.

In Europe, it is up to each country to decide on its own energy systems. Here I can state that the Swedish government has not achieved success with its energy policy.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, Magdalena Andersson, for the answer, which is a non-answer.

That we have a government that is completely overhauling the energy policy right now is the only right thing for Sweden, so that companies and citizens can trust that the electricity is there when it is needed, where it is needed.

The Social Democrats were part of a government that decommissioned nuclear power and ensured that we got an electricity system that we now need to sweep really clean. We are moving from what was previously a completely renewable system to a system that is now completely fossil-free. That is the only right and correct way if we are to be able to reduce climate emissions.

I want to ask a question to Magdalena Andersson. The door to cooperation is still open, and we are happy to join forces when it comes to the future of nuclear power. How long does Magdalena think we can wait on this? I believe we need to ensure that we take a responsible energy policy into the future.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! In almost every debate I have with the Christian Democrats, they say that invitations should be extended to energy policy talks, but we are still waiting for an invitation where the entire opposition is invited to talks on a broad energy policy agreement. This is something that we in the opposition have demanded for a long time, but we have not received any proper invitation to the broad talks that are needed.

It is correct as Camilla Brodin notes that the government has completely overhauled and rearranged the energy policy. Now they are saying no to the energy production that could provide Swedish households with cheap electricity in the near term. The energy minister we have risks becoming the first in a long time who does not ensure that more cheap electricity is procured. It is clear that this will cost Swedish households dearly.

(Applause)

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

Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Many years ago, Magdalena Andersson's predecessor Tage Erlander dismissed Swedish membership in the EC, or the EU as it is called today, as something that did not work with our neutrality or our economy. This has changed, which I am very happy about. Sweden belongs in the heart of Europe.

Sometimes I like to ask Magdalena Andersson if it is not the case that decisions should be made when there is relatively much calm and peace. I am thinking about the question of euro membership. If Sweden is to be a safe haven in a safe Europe, as Magdalena Andersson referred to in her main speech, and if we are to strengthen the Swedish position in the internal market, do we not become stronger with a Swedish membership in the euro cooperation than with just the Swedish krona?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Johan Pehrson for giving me this question again. I am happy to discuss and reason about the euro. I was very active in the euro campaign the last time we had a referendum and worked for Sweden to be able to say yes to the euro. Now, it was not this that became the outcome of the referendum. But it is many years ago, and much water has flowed under the bridges since then.

I have previously told Johan Pehrson that I think the arguments for membership have strengthened, but that I also think the arguments against membership have strengthened. When it comes to the arguments for, it is now more countries that are in the euro. When it comes to the arguments against, much of what the "no" side warned about – that this would in practice be a union where the countries that fail with economic policy and incur a high national debt bail each other out – unfortunately has also turned out to be the case.

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

Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answer.

The central documents that are on the EU's table – we have the Dragherr report, we have the Lettar report on the internal market and we have the Niinistö report on a safer and more secure Europe – are about things that must be implemented so that we can stand strong in a stormy sea. Remember: For Sweden to be strong, a strong Europe is required!

We need to be present at the decision-making tables where the important decisions are made. Do you not think, Magdalena Andersson, that the chance for Swedish influence – from a Swedish Riksdag, a Swedish government and the Swedish people – increases if we are present when the economically decisive decisions are made? Because that requires a Swedish membership in the euro.

Many have also warned about the global political situation, and one should not rule out that at any time we may be subjected to economic pressure such as speculation and hostile attacks on the Swedish krona. It will harm ordinary people.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I actually do not know what it is like for Elisabeth Svantesson now, but during my time as Finance Minister – at least during the last five years, I believe – I was always invited to the meetings when the eurogroup gathered and made decisions. We sat around the table, in any case, when I was Finance Minister, and we also had the opportunity to be part of the discussions.

If we are to have a serious debate, I want to say that I see very many problems with Europe's competitiveness. I see a rigid labor market in some countries. I see pension systems that do not work and retirement ages that are not grounded in reality. I see a capital market that does not work, regulations that are too rigid, and much, much more. I do not, in the name of honesty, think that the fact that Sweden does not have the euro ranks particularly high on the list of Europe's competitiveness problems.

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! As usual, it has been a refreshing debate. It has been entirely focused on EU policy but perhaps also had one or another point of contact with Swedish domestic policy.

One issue that has been discussed is migration policy. I think it is quite fantastic to see how Social Democrats and Moderates are now fighting over who has historically been most irresponsible in migration policy. It is a development that I have actually expected for quite a long time. We have seen it in other countries for quite a while, but for Sweden's part, it is a rather new debate.

The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that both Social Democrats and Moderates have historically been equally irresponsible in migration policy and bear an equally large responsibility for the situation that Sweden, as well as large parts of Europe, finds itself in today. The difference is that one side has sobered up considerably and shown in action that they now actually want to do something different, while the other side talks and talks but in action shows the opposite, that the talk is just talk. When it comes down to it, they are not prepared to make the important and decisive decisions that are required, whether here in our chamber in the Swedish Riksdag or in European politics.

I also note that the Sweden Democrats are constantly the engine in the paradigm shift that is currently being carried out between four parties, Mr. Speaker.

Another interesting thing that I caught onto was that Daniel Helldén said today that the government has phased in fossil fuels. One could think that when we make it possible for ordinary people to drive their cars to work and drop off their children at school, football practice, or whatever it may be. But those who have phased in fossil fuels in an electricity system that has been almost fossil-free are actually those who bear the responsibility for having decommissioned our fully functioning nuclear power, and it is not primarily this government. It is not the Sverigedemokraterna either. On the other hand, Miljöpartiet has a gigantic responsibility for the fact that we are now burning a lot of fossil fuels in Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! In Sweden, we have a strong tradition of small-scale coastal fishing in the Baltic Sea. Herring and sprats are served at Christmas, Midsummer, the surströmming premiere, and many times in between.

The herring and the salmon in the Baltic Sea are, however, acutely threatened, and to protect the stock, the EU has the so-called five percent rule. It ensures that the quotas are set at such a level that the fish do not die out. Jimmie Åkesson does not want this rule, and when the EU Commission recently tried to remove it, the Sverigedemokraterna chose as the only Swedish party not to participate in the vote to save it and the fish.

Even if one does not eat fish, which Jimmie Åkesson does not, herring and sprat are an indispensable part of the Swedish folk soul. Is it not worth standing up for, Jimmie Åkesson?

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is a fact: I prefer to eat something other than fish, especially herring. But that perhaps does not belong here, for there are very many others who appreciate it. It is certainly also very good food for people.

This question is, however, quite complex, Mr. Speaker. Now that we have backed the government's position in the negotiations that have taken place, we have done so based on some kind of picture of how reality actually is. It is clear that one can wish for things. One can present all kinds of wish lists, think that things should be in a certain way and so on, but then there is still a reality that one must contend with and navigate in. That is precisely what the Sverigedemokraterna are doing here.

I am quite glad that it is not the Social Democrats or others who have negotiated these issues, but rather a government that understands that one must abide by reality and not by wish lists that exist back home in Sweden.

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Now Jimmie Åkesson did not answer the question regarding the five percent rule. The Sweden Democrats had the opportunity to decide how they would vote in the EU Parliament and chose not to participate in the vote in order to save that rule.

As for the EU negotiations at the ministerial level regarding a reduction of large-scale industrial fishing in the Baltic Sea, they are a total failure. The large-scale industrial fishing needs to be put on pause so that local, traditional coastal fishing has any chance at all.

As usual when it comes to Jimmie Åkesson, people are very eager to talk about standing up for Swedish interests in the EU, but when it actually comes down to it, a completely different policy is pursued. Is it not worth standing up for the Swedish herring and sprat, Jimmie Åkesson? And is it not still a form of hypocrisy to talk about standing up for Swedish interests but not doing so?

(Applause)

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Magdalena Andersson describes the result of the negotiations as a total failure, and one can think that. One can think that, and one can wish for something else.

The fact is, however, just as has been pointed out from not least the government's side, that we would have had a completely different situation if the government had acted in a different way, for example the way that the Social Democrats and the rest of the opposition here wanted. We have nevertheless managed to reach as far as it was judged possible to reach. If Sweden had not participated in the negotiations at all – if the government had left the negotiating table – the result would probably have been even worse. It is through that pragmatism that Swedish interests are upheld.

There is very much to say about decision-making at the European level, and there is very much to say about both these issues and other issues where we are constantly forced to compromise with countries that may not even be affected by what is being discussed. But that is the reality we have to contend with, and I have full confidence that the government does what it can to safeguard Swedish interests.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! Today we see how EU rules force public service, our municipal rental housing companies, to be run for profit, and it is required by EU rules that high return requirements are set on the housing that is built. This causes the rents to skyrocket and that we ourselves cannot decide. The whole point of public service is to avoid just that and instead be able to build well at cost price. This makes the rents altogether too high.

The Sweden Democrats are very disengaged in this issue and have done nothing so that we in Sweden can control our own public services. Does Jimmie Åkesson believe that EU rules should govern public services, or should we in Sweden do it? What do the Sweden Democrats intend to do in that case so that we can decide over our own public services?

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! In this issue and in a long series of similar issues, it is becoming increasingly difficult for us to decide for ourselves over things that we take for granted here at home in Sweden because everything is regulated at the EU level. That is the very problem with today's European cooperation. There are very strong forces in Europe in particular that want more and more power over the individual member states, who want to centralize as much as possible and who take every chance to do so. This applies especially in the crises that arise. Every crisis, from the financial crisis to the euro crisis and the pandemic, is used to grant this European elite more and more power.

I am generally opposed to such a development. This applies to this issue, and it applies to all other issues that are not such that we handle common problems. Swedish public interest is not a European problem, but it is a Swedish matter.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! I am very surprised by Jimmie Åkesson's answer, because this talk means nothing in Brussels. There, they vote against all these things. When we want to change the rules for public utilities, the Sweden Democrats vote with the Moderates on all proposals.

When the railway pact is handled in Brussels, the Sweden Democrats vote with the Moderates and think it is okay that we have a privatized railway system that does not work, which creates deficiencies in the system effects and where the trains do not run. When we discuss the electricity market at the EU level, the Sweden Democrats stand on the Moderates' side and think it is completely okay that we have a market that makes it so that we ourselves cannot control and lower our prices. This causes the German energy shortage to reach Skåne and raise prices there.

Nothing holds together in the Sweden Democrats' EU policy. Why don't you do what you say here in Brussels? There, you do exactly the opposite.

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is not the first time we stand here in the chamber and clash different votes in the European Parliament against each other. You voted this, and you voted that. The truth is that the voting procedure in this context does not even resemble what we have here. Positions are taken on matters that those pressing the buttons many times themselves do not understand. This probably does not only apply to Sverigedemokraterna, but it applies to everyone sitting there.

I do not intend to take responsibility for any single vote anywhere. I am only stating that our general line is the one I have accounted for. Then those who vote in the European Parliament must account for why they choose to vote in a certain way in each individual vote. I cannot account for that here and do not intend to do so either. It is better that Nooshi Dadgostar turns to those who are knowledgeable about what these votes are about.

The Sweden Democrats guard Swedish interests. We do it in Sweden, we do it in Europe, and we do it in all other contexts.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is said that perseverance prevails, so therefore I intend once again to raise the climate issue with Jimmie Åkesson.

Sweden's companies want to see ambitious and long-term rules of the game when it comes to the climate, even at the EU level - or perhaps preferably at the EU level. I will not hold Jimmie Åkesson responsible for individual votes, but there are patterns that I intended to bring up.

The Sweden Democrats have, in Brussels, been the party of the Swedish parties that has most often voted no to climate measures. But not only that. The Sweden Democrats are also one of the absolute worst parties when it comes to voting for the climate. Of all parties among all EU countries, the Sweden Democrats are the party that has most often voted no to climate measures.

Jimmie Åkesson claims to be pro-Sweden, and then I must ask: Why do you vote no to all the proposals that Swedish companies want to see, which create Swedish jobs and which would contribute to revenues for Swedish welfare and the economy?

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I believe the answer is quite simple. If they are bad proposals, we vote no, and if they are good proposals, we vote yes. It does not need to be much more difficult than that.

The problem with European climate policy today is that Sweden is so incredibly good when it comes to the climate compared to large parts of Europe. We are incredibly far ahead and have been for decades, long before we had Miljöpartiet in the Riksdag and government. We transitioned early, in fact. And what was it that we transitioned? Well, it was primarily in electricity production. We did that very early.

More than 50 years ago, we made the decision that we should have nuclear power as the basis for our electricity production here in Sweden. Centerpartiet has been against it for a very long time, but I maintain that it was very good. It is the single most important climate measure. We are now moving forward with it together with the government to get the shovel in the ground and get new Swedish nuclear power in place. It is the single most important.

We say no to bad proposals.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that Jimmie Åkesson and I could agree on one thing. Sweden has been good. Sweden has been an example in European climate policy. But we differ on another thing. I mean that Sweden is no longer an example. Sweden is no longer the country that is followed in terms of climate measures. On the contrary, Sweden is taken as a frightening example.

We will always come back to nuclear power. I am prepared to do what is required for Sweden and talk about fossil-free energy of all kinds. Jimmie Åkesson could perhaps take that up with Ebba Busch the next time they meet. Invite them to a conversation and we will ensure that long-term conditions are created!

Let us return for a second to climate policy and jobs. I do not think I received a good answer from Jimmie Åkesson regarding the votes that take place at the European level. Now it is Europe and the EU that are in the lead in the climate transition. Will we also continue to see "no" to the climate measures proposed at the European level? Or will we see a policy even from the Sverigedemokraterna that creates jobs here at home in Sweden, which ensures that Swedish companies can grow and which ensures that Swedish welfare receives more income?

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Muharrem Demirok does not provide any concrete examples, so it is difficult to contend with what he says. But let us take forest policy as an example. The EU wants to make it harder for Swedish forest owners to manage the forest in a reasonable way. It is clear that we vote no to that and oppose it as much as we can. When European policy wants to ban petrol and diesel-powered cars, it is clear that we vote no to that. It is completely out of touch with reality.

We say no to bad politics. If, however, there are good and effective measures, we say yes. I think, for example, it is excellent that within the framework of the EU, it has now been opened up so that we can take into account emission reductions that occur at our expense but in other parts of the EU. It is a prime example of good, effective climate policy. It is much cheaper to reduce emissions in a country that has high emissions than to do it in a country like Sweden where we have relatively low emissions.

Good proposals we vote yes to. Bad proposals we say no to. It is not harder than that.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thought to return a little to the fish. Magdalena Andersson earlier asked Jimmie Åkesson about the party's relationship to the Baltic Sea and the herring and sprat. She wondered what the party actually thinks and intends in these matters. I have also understood that Jimmie Åkesson does not like fish, but that of course has nothing to do with the politics themselves.

One of the most important things for the Baltic Sea, apart from the quotas, is to keep the so-called emergency brake, which means that fishing must stop if the risk of collapse of the fish in the Baltic Sea exceeds 5 percent. The Council of Ministers tried to tear this up and abolish the emergency brake. When this proposal was taken up in the European Parliament's fisheries committee, the Sweden Democrats also stood up for that the emergency brake should be abolished. I wonder what Jimmie Åkesson actually thinks on the issue.

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Is there really any conflict here in these issues? My picture of the debate that has been held, not least since the latest negotiations, is that we fundamentally want the same thing. We want to guard the long-term and guard that we will be able to have a coastal fishery in the future. Now, people are trying to find different lines of conflict here in an issue where I do not experience that there is any conflict.

The great debate has concerned what I also raised with Magdalena Andersson here: that one must take into account how reality looks. One cannot simply send in wish lists and then expect them to become reality. If we constantly stare blindly at our own wish list, we will not be taken seriously. Then people do not listen to us in negotiations, and then it becomes even worse than it would if we nevertheless actively try to participate in negotiations.

Again: I cannot take responsibility for individual votes in the European Parliament. You have to take that up with those who are sitting and voting. There can be a thousand different reasons for voting one way or another in the European Parliament. Everyone who has any connection there knows that.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! What is the reality in this context? Fishing negotiations are one thing. Here, the government should have pushed hard and stood up for lower quotas. It did not do that, which is regrettable.

When it comes to the emergency brake, it is not just a question of some vote. It is about the Sweden Democrats' representative in the Committee on Fisheries and that person's attitude toward how to act when the fish stocks are about to collapse. The cod has collapsed, which is tragic. If the herring collapses, the entire Baltic Sea ecosystem collapses. It will have enormous consequences for coastal fishermen. It will also have enormous consequences for Sweden's idea of what Sweden is. It will not become some surströmming. Jimmie Åkesson must take responsibility for how Jimmie Åkesson's parliamentarians in the European Parliament vote in such an important issue.

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Of course, Daniel Helldén! It is, of course, so that I take responsibility for the policy that Sverigedemokraterna conducts, and I do not intend to stop doing so in any way.

What I am trying to say is that I find it difficult to spontaneously answer in detail about what is happening in an individual vote within the framework of the European Parliament. There can be a thousand different reasons for choosing to do it one way or the other. I cannot answer as to what reasons there were for us voting in a certain way. But I am happy to return to that if there is a genuine interest from Daniel Helldén's side, because I think it is an issue that is important to take seriously.

I do not come from a part of the country where one fishes herring, but I come from a part of the country where one fishes sill. There, this is an identity industry.

These are incredibly important issues. It is important that we do our best even within European politics in order to be able to preserve this for the future. There, I believe we are in complete agreement.

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

Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I have a question for Jimmie Åkesson concerning the long-term perspective and whether Jimmie Åkesson believes that a stronger Sweden is built on a stronger Europe.

We see the challenges from China, Russia, and Iran. We see how they act against Europe and against Sweden. It is therefore required that we get a deeper, stronger, and more resilient EU.

Jimmie Åkesson reported very honestly here in the beginning how he was deeply opposed to the EU cooperation when he began his political engagement but now realizes that it is important. Does Jimmie Åkesson believe that a deeper, stronger and more resilient EU benefits Sweden more towards China, Russia and Iran?

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I actually do not know what what Johan Pehrson says means. "Stronger and more resilient" can mean just about anything. More resilient in what context, in what context?

Even though I do not quite buy Johan Pehrson's description of what I said regarding how I have developed in my view on EU cooperation, it is still the case that the Sweden Democrats as a party have adopted a more constructive line. We note that we find ourselves in this context and that we will be for the foreseeable future. In that case, it is better to try to work constructively to make it as good as possible and so on. On that point, we are in complete agreement.

But when Johan Pehrson or any other liberal in the Swedish Riksdag speaks about a stronger or more resilient EU, it usually means that we should send power over absolutely everything to Brussels. I do not think we should do that. I believe that it would be bad, especially for precisely the resilience and the long-term perspective. On the other hand, I think we should continue to cooperate and strengthen the cooperation to solve common problems.

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

Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! When one speaks of a deeper, stronger and more enduring European cooperation, it is, for example, about deepening the internal market to increase Europe's competitiveness, about coordinating more, about investing in research and about a stronger economic cooperation. I have understood that the Sweden Democrats are opposed to the euro, which I regret.

To safeguard an open Europe where we are masters in our own house together, more police cooperation is required. It is together that we can reach the gangs that do not recognize any moral or geographical borders, as the Prime Minister said. We must do more together against crime at the EU level. We can do this even while preserving European cultural diversity, which Jimmie Åkesson advocates for, which I also gladly do.

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

Jimmie Åkesson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! When one listens to Johan Pehrson and the Liberals, it is only platitudes that are heard. Deepen the internal market to increase Europe's competitiveness - what does that mean in practice? Regarding what the Prime Minister said in a previous exchange: Speak plainly, Johan Pehrson! What is this additional power you want to send down to Brussels? What more power should Brussels have? That is what is interesting, not the platitudes. The debate only becomes interesting when Johan Pehrson and the Liberals explain that one wants to give the EU taxing rights, that one wants to give the EU's police organizations police powers in Sweden and so on. If one just swings around terms like that everyone should have it well and no one should have it badly, it becomes no constructive and interesting debate.

I believe very strongly in cooperation. But I also believe that a cooperation cannot function in the long term if we do not simultaneously have great respect for every people's right to be masters in their own house, that is, to decide for themselves over matters that are internal affairs. That is where we differ, Johan Pehrson, and I respect that.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! In the same waters where our children play in the summer along our coast, rusty and uninsured ships circulate with Russian-sanctioned crude oil. The so-called Russian shadow fleet is Putin's way of bypassing sanctions after the bloody invasion of Ukraine.

Through complicated systems, Russia succeeds in running its ships under other countries' flags and getting the oil onto the world market, thereby fueling Putin's war chest. As much as half of Russian oil exports occur in that way. Even though it is our waters, our coastal landscapes and our sensitive marine environments that are threatened, it is Ukraine that pays the highest price so that Putin's war chest does not run dry.

If a single ship in the Russian shadow fleet breaks apart or runs aground, we can expect an environmental catastrophe in the already vulnerable Baltic Sea. If a single ship capsizes or releases its cargo, it may be finished for many years to come in the Baltic archipelago.

Unlike what Ulf Kristersson claimed here earlier, the government has been very passive in the EU on this issue. It is the Left Party that has pushed forward. Now we have succeeded in getting through a proposal in the European Parliament that aims to stop the Russian shadow fleet.

Tomorrow, the European Parliament will make a decision on the proposal initiated by Vänsterpartiet. Hopefully, we will see the beginning of the end for the Russian shadow fleet. We cannot stand by silently while the world's oil traders rub their hands over the Russian oil.

A bold Ukraine policy also challenges these interests and puts Ukraine's freedom first. Not a crown to Putin, not a drop of oil in the Baltic Sea and freedom back to Kyiv!

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden and the EU need more and green growth. One cannot be achieved without the other. There is an important dividing line here between my party and other parties. Some on the left seem to believe that the business sector stands in the way of ambitious climate goals. Some on the right seem to believe that an ambitious climate policy is a barrier to growth. Both are wrong.

It is only green growth and innovation that can reduce emissions. It is the green companies that create the jobs of the future. That is what the Swedish business community has understood. There is a reason why one wants to see sharp and long-term climate goals: The one who is first and best with green technology and green services has a fantastic competitive advantage against the rest of the world.

But unfortunately, we see something else from our Swedish government. The Tidö parties seem to listen more to climate skeptics and follow an alarming global trend where they back away from climate goals, lower ambitions, and increase emissions when we need to do exactly the opposite.

Those who are currently doubting can turn their eyes toward Spain and the hell they are currently experiencing due to climate change. We see it here at home, and we see it all around the EU. The Moderates' and Christian Democrats' party group in the European Parliament is backing away from effective climate measures.

We must do more now. We must strengthen European cooperation. We need to become greener and wiser. Anything else is a betrayal of the climate and our future, but it is equally a betrayal of Swedish jobs and companies. The EU is crucial for a green future, and Sweden is crucial for a green EU.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! Muharrem Demirok is speaking about the climate transition, something I appreciate, and for that, low electricity prices are required to phase out fossil energy. We live in a cold country. We need low electricity prices, and we have had low electricity prices for a long time.

Now we see how they go up and down, and they are heavily affected by the catastrophic energy policy in Germany. That causes us to have high electricity prices towards SE4, that is, southern Sweden, and even SE3. Experts on German energy policy and German energy say that Sweden must do everything to remove the price signals from Germany.

The background to this is that the EU has an electricity market that causes us to receive the German prices even though we have enough energy for southern Sweden. What is the Center Party's view? Do you support the system where we receive German prices for southern Sweden?

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that Swedish consumers have experienced it in a way that no one else has experienced it. They have had the German electricity prices straight into their households and have had to pay those prices quite dearly.

The reason why we in Sweden have the system we have is not that we ourselves chose to step into a system with electricity price areas. It was a ruling in the EU that forced us into it.

What we are seeing now with Germany is that they would need to do the same thing. They would need to review their own energy policy and see how it is divided in the country so that the expensive prices are not imported to Sweden.

Cutting cables or closing the border for Swedish import or export of electricity is not the right way to go. On the other hand, Germany needs to take responsibility for a sound energy policy, for sound pricing, and for ensuring that there are fair prices all around Europe and that we do not receive their high costs.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! I hear a completely different rhetoric now from Muharrem Demirok than a year ago. The Centre Party thought it was very good that we had the common electricity price market. It harms us in Sweden the most because we are so close to Germany and have such low electricity prices. We are the big losers on the European electricity market.

I appreciate that Muharrem Demirok now wants to make a change to this, and I am happy to cooperate on that. The one who wants to stop cables is the Swedish government, Johan Pehrson and the others. They have stopped a cable called Hansa Power Bridge because they realize that it will only increase prices in southern Sweden.

I appreciate the signals that Muharrem Demirok is giving. He wants to regulate the export. That is what makes us get the high prices. Can we cooperate on regulating the export, Muharrem Demirok, to do what the business community wants, to stop the price impact from northern Germany into Sweden?

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! I cannot recall highlighting in anything I said that we should regulate our exports. I want to be very clear about that. Sweden is in all parts an export-dependent country, even when it comes to energy production.

By exporting fossil-free, sustainable, green electricity and cheap electricity to Europe, we push away a great deal of the bad things around the continent. But the price effects must not spill back over Sweden as they do.

The rest of Europe must take responsibility for its energy production. One cannot simply rely on the fact that there is good, cheap energy production in Sweden. The rest of Europe must do its homework.

Sweden also needs to increase the production of fossil-free, sustainable, green electricity. It is our homework to do. In a situation where Sweden needs to double its energy production, we unfortunately see all other signals now.

We are heading into an acute energy crisis even here at home in Sweden. That is the first thing I regret.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! If you ask two Center Party members, you get three opinions. This statement is attributed to the former party leader Olof Johansson, and I think I recognize the pattern a little bit.

It appears that the Center Party wants to be one party here at home and another party in Brussels. Here at home, you want to shorten permit processes in the environmental sector. In Brussels, you vote for more regulations. Here at home, you want to be forestry's foremost champions. In Brussels, you vote for the harmful LULUCF regulation. Here at home, you protect commercial fishing. In Brussels, Emma Wiesner demands a moratorium and bans. Here at home, you want to give the police more opportunities to use AI technology. In Brussels, you vote against the AI Act, where AI can be used to fight crime.

I am just wondering: Which line is it that applies?

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! I am, in light of the discussions we have had here, somewhat surprised that one can return to the point that our policy is not understood. This applies both here at home and in the EU.

Centerpartiet has two MEPs, Emma Wiesner and Abir AlSahlani, who are the foremost advocates when it comes to the conditions for the forest here at home. They understand that a Swedish coniferous forest is not the same as a Greek olive grove. They understand that the AI Act is important, but they also see the dangers with it. I think more MEPs should follow the Center Party's lead. They should see that everything that is said is actually not good and that there are dangers with what is being put forward.

And when we are talking about coastal fishing anyway: It worries me that the Christian Democrats say one thing here at home and then go down to the EU and negotiate the absolute worst conditions for Swedish commercial fishing, for Swedish coastal fishers, and for Swedish herring and sprat. It is worrying to see what you do.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Muharrem Demirok for the answer, but I was not quite finished. Here at home, you speak of regulated immigration with order and clarity. In Brussels, you do everything to hinder the reinforcement of the EU's external border, and you want to increase immigration significantly. Here at home, you stand firm against antisemitism in your government base, and you do so in an exemplary manner. At the same time, Abir Al-Sahlani raises a blood-stained hand in the speaker's chair and demands that the EU's trade agreement with Israel be terminated. The member states' sovereignty over taxes is apparently not to be respected either, for despite your promise, you vote in favor of new own resources in the European Parliament.

Mr. Speaker! Sometimes one simply has to decide on a line and stick to it. But you in the Center Party complicate things a bit for yourselves.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party is for regulated immigration, which we also advocate for in the European Parliament for the simple reason that Sweden is part of the migration pact that was negotiated. I have heard government representatives themselves stand in this chamber and be very proud that they were involved in pushing through this pact. Is it then wrong of us to stand behind Europe's migration pact? Is this the Christian Democrats' view? Do you want to move away from the European migration pact and have something else instead? If so, that is a new announcement from this chamber to everyone listening.

The Center Party's position in all these issues is clear. The support for Jews all around Europe is unwavering. On that point, we are very clear. But there is also every reason to raise the questions about what is happening in Gaza, on the West Bank, and all around the Middle East. We must be able to see different parts of the same issues without, for that reason, backing down when it comes to the support for Jews all around Europe.

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

Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I have a question for Muharrem Demirok regarding the euro. The Liberals fought for a long time so that the Center Party, when the party left eco-humanism and began to profess liberalism, would become a member of the liberal party group in Europe. There, it is important to consider how we strengthen European cooperation and make it deeper, stronger, and more sustainable.

Then also the question of Swedish participation in the European cooperation is important. It is important that we sit at the big table and not at the small table, with countries like Hungary and others that are not part of the European cooperation. In that way, we can increase the Swedish people's influence over their own future in a restless time. What does the Center Party think about the euro?

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! To begin with, I would like to take up what Johan Pehrson said in his first speech in the rostrum. I do not think that one should downplay the Swedish miracle in the USA in 1994. One should not set these things against each other. Ravellis and the others' efforts were fantastic. I still thought I heard a certain adjustment of this.

When it comes to the euro and the fantastic things happening across Europe, I was also for the euro cooperation when it happened, just as I have heard others say here in the rostrum. The Swedish people gave a different message and made a different choice, which I have full respect for. But a long time has passed since then, and the Center Party has been clear that a new investigation linked to the euro was needed. If the investigation shows that the euro is good for Sweden - let us then have the discussion! If the investigation shows that the euro is not good for Sweden, we must have respect for that as well.

I am open to looking at ways forward. I do not think we should close doors, whether for a continued no or for a possible yes.

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

Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! The sad thing is that the arena where the miracle took place in the USA at the time it occurred, when Sweden took bronze in the World Cup in football 30 years ago, has been leveled to the ground.

We must now ensure that Europe's future is not leveled to the ground and that Sweden becomes stronger through a stronger Europe. That requires Swedish participation in the European cooperation.

Muharrem Demirok refers to the fact that he wants an investigation. But could the Center Party itself, for example in the liberal group in the European Parliament, listen to those who say that the euro makes us stronger together? It increases the influence for the Netherlands, for Finland and so on. Can the Center Party have its own opinion, or is Muharrem Demirok a slave to various professors who are to conduct an investigation?

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! I understand that the distance between the Liberals and research and science is beginning to grow ever larger, which I regret.

There should be no doubt about the Center Party's commitment to strengthening the EU. But when it comes to strengthening the EU in the situation we face, it is about peace, freedom, and the climate. The euro can, of course, be part of this, but above all, it is about defending ourselves against the enormous atrocities taking place in Ukraine right now. I now hear European leaders opening up to peace talks with Putin – on the aggressor's terms! That can never be allowed.

Our most important mission right now in this chamber is to ensure that Ukraine never loses the war. We need to ensure that we send Jas 39 Gripen and begin to seize Russian properties even here at home, such as Kubal in Sundsvall. It is for me to strengthen Europe. It is for me to sit at the big table, and not just to sit at it but also to show leadership. Let us talk about the euro, but let us start with that which actually makes a difference for the EU and Europe!

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Fossil fuels account for a full 38.6 percent of the total electricity production within the EU. It goes without saying that this is not compatible with our climate ambitions.

Demand for electricity is steadily increasing in line with the electrification of the transport sector and industry. To meet the demand, all good, fossil-free sources of power are needed. We need a stable, predictable electricity market with power where it is needed and when it is needed.

Mr. Speaker! To achieve this, it does not work for politicians to place the woke movement's current convictions ahead of the laws of physics. Time and again, politicians run the lobbyists' errands at the expense of common sense and balance in the electricity system. We see it in Europe, and we have seen it under Social Democratic leadership in Sweden.

The consequences have been high electricity prices and power shortages, particularly in southern Sweden. When the wind has not blown, we have had to import fossil electricity from our neighboring countries. Weather-dependent power sources are not the entire solution; they are a solution as part of a whole.

This government is now shifting the energy policy and expanding nuclear power, which has been opposed for a long time. It is important that Europe does the same.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden possesses unique competence, and we need to share it. We in the Christian Democrats want Sweden, together with Finland, to take the lead and initiate a nuclear power cooperation at the EU level, a Team Europe. With a joint program for research and development, we can streamline the processes toward new nuclear power.

Now we need to take responsibility and invest on a large scale in nuclear power in Europe. Carbon dioxide emissions must be lowered, self-sufficiency must be strengthened, and it should not be so damn expensive to be Swedish.

(Applause)

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thought we would talk about votes in the EU.

Less than a month ago, the EU Council of Ministers and the Christian Democratic rural affairs minister Peter Kullgren made a decision that is a direct death sentence for the Baltic Sea. Fishing quotas were increased by 108 percent in the central Baltic Sea, in a situation where all industrial fishing should be stopped completely.

The Christian Democrats' explanation has been that Kullgren fought bravely to lower the fishing quotas but had a majority against him. Perhaps this is the Christian Democrats' best defense, but it is a defense that unfortunately echoes hollowly when one is also the only party saying no to a trawl ban in the Baltic Sea and, furthermore, has a least questionable relationship with the industrial fishing lobbyists.

My question is actually: When will the Christian Democrats take the fishing issue seriously and put the Baltic Sea's best interests ahead of their own?

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Muharrem Demirok, for this question! I gladly take it.

This year's quota negotiations in the EU Council of Ministers were tough. The quota proposals during the negotiations from other member states were much higher than the Commission's proposal. Are we satisfied? No. Have we made any difference in a restrictive direction? Yes. For the first time, we have a minister who is down there negotiating and getting the quotas down. We still landed on the scientific council's lowest point, something that neither the previous nor the previous-previous government managed even once.

Either you stand on the fish's side, or you don't. We chose to stay and also got results.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answer from the Christian Democrats. The fact remains, however, that you are the only party that is opposed to a trawling ban.

Referring to brave negotiations can be good. But the fact remains that the fish are threatened. The Baltic Sea faces a death sentence if we do not do something serious. Referring to cooperation must not be an answer just because one has failed in the negotiations. The Baltic Sea's crisis is too serious for that.

This is not a way to try to create polarization. I am genuinely curious - which I believe the Swedish people are too, just like all of us who love the Baltic Sea and actually eat fish: How will the Christian Democrats compensate for the failure that occurred in the negotiations? What does the plan look like to save the Baltic Sea's fish?

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! If one wants to reduce the fishing quotas and make a real difference in the Baltic Sea, this work should have been done much earlier. That we are where we are today is not due to what Peter Kullgren has done in the Council of Ministers just now. What we have done just now is that we have nevertheless managed to reduce the fishing quotas somewhat. If we had left the negotiating table, they would have been much higher.

We must ensure that we work jointly with other countries in the EU. If one believes that this is an exclusively Swedish issue, one is very mistaken. It is an EU matter. If both our parties around Europe pull themselves together and ensure that they work for the Baltic Sea and for the survival of fish, perhaps we can achieve something in the right direction moving forward.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! A core part of the EU's climate package Fit for 55 is to increase the share of renewable energy. Sweden's opportunity to meet its commitment has deteriorated significantly with the government's policy. Instead of following the EU legislation that all countries have jointly decided on, the government is now trying to come up with its own interpretation of the law.

Since the government took office, the expansion of renewable electricity production has slowed down. Most recently, 13 applications for offshore wind power were rejected in a single board meeting – electricity equivalent to perhaps 18 nuclear power plants.

In the climate and energy plan submitted to the EU, the government has written that Sweden will meet the goal for renewable energy if nuclear power is included. This is very strange. Do the Christian Democrats mean that nuclear power is renewable?

In this speech, Jacob Risberg (MP) agreed.

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, Daniel Helldén!

Energy policy has a fundamental bearing on whether our companies can conduct their operations at all and for our citizens to be able to drive their children to and from school and get to and from work.

That we have fossil-free electricity production is something we in Sweden should be incredibly proud of. It includes, among other things, nuclear power and hydropower. It has taken us to where we are today and also made it possible for us to be a country to establish oneself in. We have reliable industry that sees Sweden as a country to continue to invest in.

What we are doing right now, by restructuring the entire energy policy, is something that this government has taken hold of because what the previous government did was downright harmful. To stand there with incredibly many more terawatt-hours that contain nothing is not to take responsibility for an energy policy moving forward. Therefore, we also need to ensure that nuclear power remains for a long period.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Camilla Brodin says that wind power contains nothing. That is also a strange statement considering that our expert authorities point out that it works perfectly well to build an energy system based on renewable electricity, where wind power is one of the pillars. It would be strange if they said: No, it is just air.

I did not quite feel that I received an answer to the question. The Christian Democrats are responsible for a good deal of the policy concerning energy. Now, a document has been submitted to the EU where one essentially says that nuclear power is renewable if it is allowed to be counted. Then I wonder again: Is nuclear power renewable?

It is quite strict in the EU. This is a legislation we must follow. We are to increase the renewable. Then the government says: Can we squeeze in nuclear power and say that it is renewable, we can manage that. Is that so?

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

Camilla Brodin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Nuclear power is necessary in Sweden and Europe, also so that we can rid ourselves of the dependence on Russia, which has invaded Ukraine. Europe needs to be able to stand on its own feet. We see the failure in Germany right now and the energy policy they have had. Earlier we could also hear an exchange here in the chamber where people spoke about Swedish prices and so on, and that is blamed on the German energy policy.

Sweden is actually one of the countries that is leading in Europe when it comes to pushing for nuclear power to take responsibility for the energy policy moving forward. Nuclear power will be needed. Regardless of whether Miljöpartiet thinks it should be included or not, I hope that it will still be able to be seen in the future. Several green parties around Europe are now taking a stand that nuclear power will be part of the energy policy solution that Europe so badly needs.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Herring and and and herring are the very hub, the engine, of the Baltic Sea's ecosystem. In a situation where the herring population has decreased by 92 percent over the last 40 years, the cod is already overfished and the Baltic Sea is on a steady course toward collapse, the fisheries ministers in the EU have agreed to double the quotas for fishing of herring and sprat in the Baltic Sea next year. This is a catastrophe.

The government has expressed disappointment over the quotas. It is, however, a step in the right direction, from a position where the government has rather acted to worsen the situation in the Baltic Sea.

Last year, the Minister for Rural Affairs expressed that he was satisfied with the very high quotas that were decided upon then, satisfied that he had overridden the Commission's proposal on fishing bans, and satisfied that the government and the council had broken the emergency brake in EU legislation. The risk of collapse of the spawning stock was about 25 percent last year. The law on the emergency brake requires fishing bans already at 5 percent.

There is no time to lose. In order to be able to save the coastal fishery and the entire Baltic Sea, we must listen to what the coastal fishers say and do what is required and has the greatest effect in the short term. We must stop the industrial trawling, which continues to vacuum the sea of fish.

To save the Baltic Sea, the government must act proactively and offensively, as offensively as it has acted to, for example, stop EU legislation and to respond to the UN's global nature agreement and other environmental legislation.

Now everything must be done to mitigate the consequences of the Council of Ministers' decision. If we do not change the management of the Baltic Sea, we will kill off this entire sea.

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

Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! The big global network giants do not care about the students' school results at Almåsgymnasiet in Borås or at any other school for that matter. They do not care about education. They rather contribute to affective polarization. The network giants only care about the advertising money flowing in through their addictive algorithms.

Today, everything points to the fact that children's misuse of screens hits hard against their learning and physical and mental well-being. Brain researchers, behavioral scientists, and pediatricians all agree: the screens' algorithms are eating away at children's future, and it will haunt them their entire lives.

Just a few days ago, teachers at Lund University warned that even students who graduated from upper secondary school with top grades cannot manage to read longer texts. Something is seriously wrong, Mr. Speaker.

Sweden is far too small a country to act alone against the tech giants and the screen pandemic that is hitting students' school results all around Europe and not least in Sweden. Therefore, the Liberals want to see a powerful European strategy against the screen hysteria, to give parents back the real power to set healthy boundaries for their children and to prevent young people from being drawn down into a dark rabbit hole of lack of imagination, sedentary behavior, and mental ill-health.

A cultural change is required, and quickly. Age limits are needed for social media, which are built to steal young people's valuable study time, and night locks so that parents can get children to fall asleep in time for the next school day. It is only together in Europe that we can put maximum force behind demands that the big tech giants take total responsibility for their products and toxic and addictive algorithms.

It is with less time in front of screens and more time devoted to play, reading, and imagination that we can build a defense for young people against what they themselves call brain rot.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to speak with Johan Pehrson, between us liberals, about chat control, the EU proposal that would entail mass surveillance of citizens' private digital messages on a historical scale.

Johan Pehrson is certainly not alone in this assembly in wanting to introduce chat control. More people in this chamber want to do so. But Johan Pehrson is the only one of them who leads a party that calls itself liberal. Not only that, in the spring, the Liberals campaigned to stop chat control in the European Parliament. But less than just two weeks after election day, they voted for it in the Riksdag. It must still be some kind of record in how quickly one can break an election promise.

Now the process is, thank goodness, paused because of the Netherlands. I therefore wonder if Johan Pehrson will change his stance on chat control now that he has been given a new chance to stand up for personal integrity.

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

Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! That is correct. At the European level, we are working very hard to address what plagues so many people. Time and again, children in Europe are tormented in the digital age. Vast amounts of crimes were committed that destroy everything freedom means, where people are humiliated and where their future is destroyed. We must find ways to tackle all of that.

Until now, there have been various proposals. The one that is now on the table is much better. The Swedish government looks forward to working hard to be able to get balanced legislation in place. The Center Party should also, even if they are sometimes slightly screen-hysterical and believe that the truth is in the screen, be concerned about the crimes committed in the digital age.

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

Muharrem Demirok (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Johan Pehrson!

Let us establish the obvious: All parties in Sweden's Riksdag are doing everything to combat and stop the spread of sex crimes against children. We all share that concern and care, and we are prepared to do very much for it. But it does not mean that one should throw all common sense overboard.

Being liberal is largely about resisting things like this as well. If the Liberals are not willing to stop chat control completely, is there then any possibility that they will at least take the initiative for a new analysis of the security risks in light of the warnings that came from the security services in the Netherlands and which caused this to be stopped - paused - for a while?

Will Johan Pehrson request it in the small momentum we have now gained? Or will they stand firm that this shall proceed, as they voted for in the Riksdag?

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

Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! There were more parties that voted for this in the Riksdag, if I remember correctly.

I am taking advantage of all the momentum that exists. I have an intensive cooperation with Justice Minister Gunnar Strömmer. We talk a lot about this. It is clear that we, as Muharrem Demirok says, are not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. But if one is to control abuses in the digital environment – where people have their lives destroyed for all time – it means by definition that one must be prepared to intervene and also access the digital environments where this shit – excuse me, Mr. Speaker! – that violates people and destroys their lives occurs.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The Government appointed an inquiry this year to promote a long-term sustainable and competitive forestry. This is an ambition we would gladly like to share with the Government, but it is becoming increasingly clear that the Government's plans do not contain anything that is either long-term sustainable or competitive.

Last week, much worrying information emerged that the investigation working on this wants to make it easier to clear our mountain forests. The mountain-adjacent forest needs to be protected, not cleared at an even higher rate. It is about thousand-year-old ecosystems that are already being cleared at a rapid pace, and these proposals would fuel that development in a catastrophic way.

Mr. Speaker! I wonder how Johan Pehrson intends for Sweden to protect our valuable nature now when everything indicates that the Liberals and the government are putting all interests before the environment.

(Applause)

In this speech, Jacob Risberg (MP) agreed.

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

Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question! We who love to be out in the forest naturally feel a concern that less natural forest will remain and for that which is so important for Sweden on the other side: a forestry that is rational and also is an answer to the question of how we shall manage the climate and the Swedish economy. A rational, adapted Swedish forestry can threaten the forests that are still worth protecting.

From the Liberals' side, we point out, not least, the importance of protecting more areas, that is, using the state's resources to purchase forests and in that way protect them. I am, however, the first to agree that this is not always sufficient.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! There were in previous budgets, before this government took office, funds to specifically purchase and protect mountain-adjacent forest. This is an ecosystem that is both unique and extremely valuable. We have just had the UN summit on biodiversity. These are types of nature that cannot be replaced. Forestry is being conducted there that is not good; we are destroying something that we cannot get back.

With the proposals of this investigation, we risk ending up in a situation where this will go even faster. Instead, money should be invested in purchasing the forest and ensuring that it remains so that we do not encroach on the mountain-adjacent forest.

I think that the Liberals should have a policy that ensures we protect this forest, but I cannot see that this is happening in the government where the Liberals sit. Is it the Liberals' fault?

(Applause)

In this speech, Jacob Risberg (MP) agreed.

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

Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)

Mr. Speaker! We can do even more, but we have never had as much protected forest as we have today. The Liberals are working to protect even more of that forest and to ensure that, together with the Swedish forest industry, both large and small forest owners, we do everything we can. When I meet the latter, they are very clear that they love their forest. They do not want to hand over any logging practices to the next generation. They work in completely different ways to preserve biodiversity. There we have much we can resort to.

Working together with the industry is important, I mean. The Swedish forest industry is not nothing. It is a central part for us to be able to pay for Swedish welfare and Swedish prosperity. There is no other way than that we continue to use this green gold, but it must happen responsibly.

We need to protect more forest - that is the Liberals' definitive opinion.

The party debate on EU policy was hereby concluded.

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