EU policy party leadership debate

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Good morning, Mr. Speaker! Europe, our values and our way of life are worth defending. Together and each of us individually, we have built some of the world's very best societies to live in. Europe is, as we all know, far from perfect, but overall we have done much more right than wrong. We also know that none of our strengths can be taken for granted. That which is good must be nurtured, developed, and defended.

We live in a time, Mr. Speaker, when European cooperation is more important than it has been in a long time. In such serious times, we in Europe must ourselves take greater responsibility for our own security and competitiveness and for our future prosperity. Both complacency and slowness are dangerous.

The full-scale war of invasion on our continent will soon enter its fifth year. We are therefore approaching a war of the length of the Second World War. Russia directs its attacks towards civilian targets – playgrounds, hospitals and schools. Children lose their lives and are taken away to Russia. Families are torn apart. It is a brutality beyond human limits.

Europe's most important task is to support Ukraine. It is a great thing that all parties here in Sweden unite behind that fundamental task.

On October 22, the ties between Sweden and Ukraine were further strengthened. President Zelenskyy and I then signed a letter of intent to build a new Ukrainian air force in the long term. It concerns an export deal with 100–150 Swedish Gripens, the world's best fighter jets.

Sweden is one of the largest military contributors to Ukraine. In absolute terms, we contribute more than countries such as France, Italy and Spain, with armored vehicles, artillery and air defense and with airbase equipment and training. We do this with pride, but more countries must do more. The Ukrainian people are defending not only their own freedom but also our freedom. We will stand by Ukraine's side, on the side of freedom and democracy, on the right side of history, for as long as it takes.

On October 23, the EU's 19th sanctions package was adopted. Sweden has pushed for sanctions against Russian natural gas and the Russian shadow fleet and for giving the proceeds from frozen Russian assets to Ukraine. But the EU needs to increase the pace of phasing out fossil energy from Russia and ensure that the frozen Russian assets are used for long-term financing of Ukraine. It is Russia that must pay for the damage they have caused to Ukraine.

Sweden has consistently stood up for the position that the EU should be open to more when there are countries that both want to join and live up to the requirements – a merit-based process. We deeply regret Hungary's unjust blocking of Ukraine's path toward EU membership.

Mr. Speaker! The safety of Sweden and of everyone is also challenged by cross-border crime. Drugs and weapons are smuggled across land borders. Money is laundered, moved, and hidden. Murders in Sweden are ordered from the Spanish sunny coast. The government is serious and is now doing what is required to combat serious organized crime. The political laxity towards the gangs ended when this government took responsibility for Sweden.

But the same offensive that we are carrying out here at home is also needed in the EU. The government is working hard for more measures to seize criminal proceeds. We have pushed to strengthen the EU's forfeiture directive so that we can even better access the criminal gangs' luxury items and status symbols. We have stepped up the efforts to reach the gang leaders. Just this year, over 200 wanted persons have been arrested abroad. The message to serious criminals hiding abroad is that we will find you, arrest you, and lock you up.

Safety and security within our borders requires better control of our external borders. Everyone remembers how it looked ten years ago. Sweden received 320,000 asylum seekers in a few years. Today we see the consequences of too much immigration in combination with a failed integration in Sweden, as well as in the rest of Europe. The government has now carried out the largest reorganization of Swedish migration policy ever, with the result that asylum-related immigration to Sweden is the lowest since 1985. It is an entirely necessary reorganization.

We are now negotiating important legislation to achieve faster and more efficient returns. This is necessary because only every fifth asylum seeker who receives a decision to leave the EU actually does so. But a no must be a no. The Government will continue to be the driving force in that work.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden and Europe face major investments in infrastructure, fossil-free electricity, research and development, and the upgrading of our defenses. All of this costs money. But resources do not come of themselves. An offensive agenda is required for increased growth and better competitiveness across Europe. The Government worked hard during the Swedish EU Presidency and laid the foundation for the European competitiveness agenda, which has now gained serious momentum. The EU Commission has presented six simplification packages, and two more are on the way. The Government itself has presented concrete simplification proposals within entrepreneurship, AI, and other new technologies.

But we are very concerned about the slow pace prevailing in the EU. When the Commission's simplification proposals are met with 1,000 amendments in the European Parliament, it is rather a sign of obstruction. For the EU to be a relevant global actor, the pace must be increased. The European economy needs simpler rules, now. My very sharp appeal to the parties here in the Riksdag is therefore to now speak seriously with your party colleagues in Brussels. Sweden must be able to count on the fact that Swedish members in the EU also contribute to rule simplification and competitiveness in Europe.

Access to capital is absolutely crucial, and the EU has incredible potential. A staggering 11,000 billion euros of household financial assets are currently lying idle in bank accounts or in cash. Only a fraction of that sum would have made a difference if it had instead been invested in growing European companies.

Here Sweden is an example. Our pension system and our ISK savings, which will now be tax-free up to 300,000 kronor, are part of one of Europe's very best capital markets. Now the EU Commission wants more to follow suit.

For a long time, Sweden has been a strong voice in the EU for free trade. We are Europe's most free-trade-friendly country and one of the most free-trade-friendly countries in the world. At the same time as the American administration has redrawn the trade policy playing field and increased uncertainty, we see a greater interest from other parts of the world to conclude new free trade agreements with the EU.

The EU is now taking important steps in free trade negotiations with Mexico, Indonesia, and the Mercosur countries. Progress is also being made quickly in the negotiations with India.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is the country in the EU with the lowest emissions per capita. According to the forecasts, emissions will also be lower in Sweden in 2026 than when we took over in 2022. Sweden is a climate policy role model in the rest of Europe.

The government stands up for an ambitious climate agenda in the EU that goes hand in hand with increased competitiveness. By acting jointly at the EU level, we contribute to lowering emissions more than if we all acted individually.

The task now is to agree on emission reductions for 2040, on the way towards climate neutrality by 2050. The Government supports the European Commission's proposal for 90 percent emission reductions compared to 1990 levels – the goal that now forms the basis for the EU's commitment at the ongoing climate summit in Brazil. But that requires all countries to participate and do the work. Otherwise, it is not realistic.

To live up to the EU's goals for carbon sequestration in forest and land, we in Sweden would in practice need to significantly reduce our own logging. This would have serious consequences for Swedish jobs and the Swedish export industry.

EU's climate policy cannot be built on the fact that Swedish forests are used as a carbon sink for countries with lower climate commitments. Those in Sweden who want it to be so are now answerable: How many Swedish jobs will be lost? How many Swedish forests will be subject to logging bans? The parties in the Riksdag who want to sacrifice Swedish interests should say it in plain language.

The path to lower emissions is based on the fact that all fossil-free types of energy must play a role. Nuclear power is now seriously back in European energy policy. In addition to more and more countries building their own nuclear power production, it is also noticeable that the regulatory frameworks are being developed in a more technology-neutral direction.

Mr. Speaker! As an EU member, one commits to democracy and the rule of law, free media, independent courts and an engaged civil society. Sweden expects all EU members to stand up for this. In every city, people should be able to gather under the rainbow flag without threat of violence or reprisals. That freedom we fight for every day. Precisely in this issue, I know that the government has the full support of this chamber.

The entire EU's toolbox must be used against countries that compromise with or violate the principles of democracy and the rule of law. It can involve withholding support from the EU budget and, in the long run, withdrawing voting rights in the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Speaker! In a year, barely, there is an election here in Sweden. Two alternatives will then stand against each other even in these EU issues. We are pushing for more European regulatory simplifications, so that it becomes easy for Swedish companies to do right in Europe.

We are pushing for a climate policy that lowers emissions without undermining the Swedish countryside and the forestry industry's important exports.

We are pushing for a stricter migration policy so that a no is always a no in the whole borderless Europe.

We will always safeguard Swedish interests in the EU, because no one else will do exactly that.

We live in serious times, but Swedish and European history still gives us reason to feel hope for the future. We have overcome wars and crises before. We have emerged stronger on the other side before – not alone and absolutely not without effort, but together and through hard work for a better tomorrow.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! 30 years have passed since Sweden became a member of the European Union. It was a time of faith in the future and future optimism, where the world developed towards more democracy, more free trade, and more peace. Now we are witnessing something else.

Mr. Speaker! In our time, the Swedish people see a full-scale war on the European continent. Bombs continue to fall. Children die. Residential buildings are destroyed. Ukraine's relentless fight for freedom has awakened our respect and admiration. It deserves our unwavering support.

Mr. Speaker! In our time, the Swedish people see an American administration that is rolling out the red carpet for an internationally wanted war criminal, who starts trade wars against the rest of the world and who has changed his view on European security. The rules-based order, the order that since the Second World War has given us stability and prosperity, is now being fundamentally challenged. It is a fundamental shift.

Mr. Speaker! Now the world economy also faces other fundamental shifts – trade wars and trade barriers, artificial intelligence and green technology – where large economies are now racing with state subsidies to build the industries of the future. Swedish companies face a completely new type of competition, where Europe and Sweden need decisiveness for investments, prosperity, and jobs.

Mr. Speaker! We live in times of war and upheaval. In such times, European cooperation is our safe haven – a stability, a security, and a safety to lean on for the Swedish people. It is a protection against uncertainty in a changed world. Precisely for that reason, the European Union may never have had a more important task to fulfill than it does now.

I want the European Union to step forward and be the world's strongest voice for a rules-based world order, where rules prevail over the right of the strongest. I want the European Union to stand up for international law, for free trade, and for an unwavering support for Ukraine.

The fact is that the European Union now needs to take on the role of the world's strongest force for democracy. There are forces that oppose this: foreign powers, pro-Russian far-right extremists and religious fundamentalists work to weaken Europe, to divide us and our community. But this happens because they know that European unity is our most important strength. Therefore, it is precisely that which we must safeguard.

Mr. Speaker! In our time, we in Europe must take greater responsibility for our own security. Therefore, we need to arm our military and civil resilience. Therefore, we must support Ukraine with full force.

In our time, Europe must therefore learn from the mistake regarding the dependence on Russian gas and reduce its dependence on China and other countries. In our time, Europe must forcefully step into the race for the industries of the future and the jobs of the future.

Here, Sweden has an important role to play. We shall do our part so that Europe stands strong.

But in the midst of this decisive time, Åkesson and Kristersson are about to make Sweden a sinking ship in Europe. Sweden now has the EU's third highest unemployment. We have the third highest youth unemployment. It actually stands at a full 25 percent. We have bankruptcies on a scale that we have not seen since the 1990s. We have gone through years with a growth in the EU's bottom swamp.

Mr. Speaker! It did not have to look like this. We have the conditions to be a growth engine in Europe. We have the innovative companies. We have a skilled and well-educated population. We have the natural resources. What is missing is political leadership, an ability to lead Sweden in the right direction.

What we are seeing now is the result of the Sweden Democrats' and the government's backward economic policy, where they lower taxes for the very richest while hard-working families are forced to act as a buffer against inflation. Sweden is the only country in the Nordic region that has refused to increase CSN and child allowance to make things easier for young people and hard-working families. Thus, Swedish growth is being held back.

The Sweden Democrats and the government have not only pursued an economic policy that is backward here and now. They also lack a future plan – an idea of what we shall live off in the future, of how we shall ensure that the investments, the jobs, and the wage increases end up here, and of how Sweden shall develop and become wealthy and not become a low-wage country.

Mr. Speaker! We also see the lack of future planning at the EU level. In the EU, we can work to ensure that Swedish growth provides long-term conditions for Swedish companies, but the Sverigedemokraterna are now instead actively working to undermine that and tear up the EU's path to becoming less dependent on China – even things that we steered home during the Swedish presidency. Unfortunately, this is in line with Sverigedemokraterna's hostility towards new technology, new energy, new Swedish companies and thus towards jobs, wages and prosperity. And the Moderaterna, a party that used to stand for work and growth, is now changing as they adapt to SD.

Sweden has all the prerequisites to be a country that is at the forefront and is not a sinkhole in Europe. But it requires decisiveness and political leadership. It requires a new government.

(Applause)

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

Henrik Vinge (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The economic and military strength of the major authoritarian states, their cooperation, their claims to power, and their ruthless warfare mean that the European security situation is very serious. For Europe's democracies, it means that military cooperation must be deepened. No European country can stand strong on its own.

Russia's strength on the battlefield is based on the fact that they place a low value on human life. Europe's strength must be based on something completely different – on our economy, on our technology and on an ability to produce more and better than our opponents.

This insight is based on lessons from the last century. Brave people fought and died for freedom in Normandy, in Karelia and in Telemark. But the fate of freedom was not decided only there on the battlefields but also in Detroit, in Pittsburgh and in Seattle – in factories where the assembly lines never stopped.

40 years later, it was once again the free world's production that forced the Soviet tyranny to its knees and opened the door to freedom for all of Europe. Then, if not before, it became clear that freedom's strongest fortress in our time is a large factory. Only those who can provide for themselves have the power to preserve their self-determination.

There are reasons for self-criticism here. European industry bears an ever-heavier burden of regulations, permit processes, and political finger-pointing. Climate policy has become a straitjacket that binds Europe's hands while the rest of the world builds the factories that we then trade with. By burdening our own companies with bans, regulations, and high taxes, we drive the manufacturing and extraction of raw materials abroad. But because we need the raw materials and components, we are forced to import them from countries that have not imposed the same harsh regulatory frameworks on themselves. It does not save the environment, and it does not reduce emissions. But it puts us in a situation that weakens our ability to stand up for ourselves, and it puts us in a position of dependency relative to countries that do not share our view on freedom. Without a strong industry and a stable supply of input materials, Europe loses its self-determination.

This is not a time for illusions. When the USA and Russia decide Europe's fate, Europe must not be left out of the table. It depends on decisions that have been made here – political decisions that have been made in Europe. Political greed and social democratic over-regulation have caused our fate to now lie in the hands of others. To continue on this path jeopardizes our security. We must work for a Europe that understands what the great threats of our time come from and that acts based on that.

Mr. Speaker! Europe is the cradle of freedom, and the expression of freedom evokes contempt in those who live in embittered envy and who only understand the language of power. Vladimir Putin believed that the West would betray Ukraine when prices rose and that we would rather bow down than bear the cost of freedom. But he was wrong. This is also the historical mistake of despots. They mistake openness for weakness and consideration for cowardice. But democracies do not measure their strength in uniforms or parades. They rarely think in terms of enemies. But history shows that when they are threatened, they rise with a strength that no dictator in the world can command forward.

Mr. Speaker! Europe's historical strength has never come from high taxes, coercion, or centralization. Our strength comes from the free peoples' peaceful competition and voluntary cooperation.

Let us defend what is ours! Let us build a Europe that will never again be a victim of history, but which is the force that shapes the future!

(Applause)

In this speech, Staffan Eklöf, Runar Filper, Sara Gille, Erik Hellsborn, Daniel Persson and Martin Westmont (all SD) agreed.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden was the world's best and most equal country. Changes meant improvements. More and more people could afford to buy new shoes for the children when the old ones became too small and to take the family on summer vacation.

But something has happened. Swedish households have been stripped of money. But isn't that due to an inflation impulse that came from outside? No, actually not. Prices have fallen back in the rest of the world but not in Sweden. Here, they have continued to rise. Twice as many have become poor in Sweden in recent years. Over half a million Swedes live in poverty. The Riksbank can show that Sweden stands out compared to the rest of Europe and compared to the USA. Swedes have received the least money in their wallets. Only Portugal has been worse.

Mr. Speaker! I understand the frustration of the citizens. It is politicians who do not take action and solve people's problems. They talk and talk, but nothing is done. It is almost as if it were a law of nature that forced the government and the Sverigedemokraterna to dump the cost shock on hard-working families. But it is a choice. It is a prioritization. And it is certainly possible to do it differently.

The Kristersson prices have made it 3,000 kronor more expensive per month for a family with children to shop for food. The prices did not have to be so high. Rents have been raised by 17 percent in recent years. It could have been stopped, but the government chose to take the side of the banks, the food giants, and the property owners. Budget after budget, the Moderaterna and Sverigedemokraterna have chosen to prioritize wealthy families and households.

At the same time, they claim that they cannot afford a decent housing allowance and that they were forced to raise the fee for the medicine. The government and the Sweden Democrats have chosen not to implement what the Norwegians have already done and which they call Norway prices, that is, Sweden prices on electricity that would ensure we pay reasonable prices for the electricity we produce in our own country.

The government and the Sweden Democrats have thus given rise to the third highest unemployment in the EU. That is what happens when Kristersson prices hit, consumption decreases and the bankruptcies increase.

Neither are the Sweden Democrats and the government making sufficient investments in our country. There are so many tasks that need to be done, so many homes that need to be built, so much rail that needs to be laid, so much healthcare staff that would need to be hired. What is missing is a policy that ensures the job gets done.

Money exists. Sweden has received over 540 billion, more than ever before, so yes, there is money. But from having been the world's most equal country, Sweden today has one of the EU's most skewed wealth distributions. High interest rates have made bank directors richer, and by emptying your wallet, the food giants have made large profits.

So it won't work in Sweden. It must become cheaper to be Swedish. Politicians must stop shifting the blame. What we decide determines whether people can pay the rent and put food on the table. It determines if healthcare works, if more jobs are created, and if housing is eventually built.

We must return to the core of politics. We are elected to represent the citizens, so let us do that! The Riksdag feels far away, and even further away is the EU. We shall return to the time when people trusted that politics can change our lives.

I want to say to you who may be watching now: You are right! I understand that you are dissatisfied and that it is difficult to trust what is being said here. But I can promise one thing: We in Vänsterpartiet have made our choice. We Vänsterpartister will ensure that food prices are lowered, as well as electricity prices and grid fees. We will ensure that rents and interest rates are held back.

We will give Sweden a new direction. Sweden can be built strong and fair again.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! The EU needs more and greener growth. It is only in this way that we can reduce emissions at the rate that is required. It is only in this way that we have a chance to pay off the economic and moral debt that we have built up for future generations.

Whether it is in Milan or in Paris, in Malmö or in Piteå, I know how the talk goes in the companies. In the boardrooms, it is not discussed whether one will transition, but how quickly one will do it – because it is the right thing to do, but also because that is how one wins market shares when the world transitions.

When Swedish engineers develop new products, they do not debate whether the next version will be greener and more efficient than the previous one; it is completely obvious to them – because it is right, but also because it is our unique competitive advantage.

The farmer who is going to invest in a new machine is always looking for the one that is best and consumes the least fuel and looks forward to the day when there are competitive alternatives where the fuel can be produced on the own farm – because it is right, but also because he or she wants to be an even larger part of the solution.

The owners of the small farm are calculating whether it still pays off to invest in electric delivery vans and install solar cells and charging stations, despite the government's policy – because it is right and because their customers want it, but also so they can look themselves in the mirror and explain to their children that they have tried to leave a better world behind. They know that is where the development is heading.

These discussions take place every day in Swedish and European companies, in the boardroom as well as in the breakroom, in the small shop and the large factory. And the conversations, the plans, and the investments are moving in only one direction: towards the green transition. The companies are clear about what they need, namely high goals, sharp requirements, long-term rules of the game, and a policy that makes it profitable to invest in what is good for the environment.

It is therefore so regrettable that the government does the opposite. One promises to lower the electricity tax but raises it twice to then restore it to the same level as before the election. One promises to electrify but removes the environmental car premium only to now reintroduce it, albeit on a much smaller scale. First, one invites people to energy talks that companies and the climate truly need, then one abruptly ends those talks.

We see the result of this jerkiness here at home. Emissions have gone up and growth down. But the decisions made in Brussels are at least as important. Europe has few of its own fossil resources. If we continue with fossil energy, we will be stuck being an import economy.

We can break free from Putin's and the Saudis' shackles. We can build a clean economy with increased prosperity. But it requires decisiveness, and unfortunately, there are worrying signals that the Tidö parties have exported their way of working to Brussels. The Sverigedemokraterna want to tear up the EU's climate goals and the tools that exist for us to be able to reach them. Kristdemokraterna have said that they will vote no to the EU's climate goals for 2040. The Moderaterna's party group has spent considerable time braking the EU's climate work, which has led to the EU now traveling to Belém with lowered ambitions without support in science.

The attitude that the transition should take place somewhere else is now being baked into European politics after the climate minister participated in watering down the climate goals for 2040. To believe that e-mopeds in Ghana are better than electric cars in Sweden is, for me, incomprehensible. If, and I say if, it works with the e-mopeds, perhaps it is equivalent for the climate, but for air quality, competitiveness, safety, and jobs, it is madness not to make the investments here.

Mr. Speaker! It is not the time to tremble on the cuff in the climate issue, neither here in the Riksdag nor in Brussels. The Swedish companies are ready, and the European ones as well. They can and want to lead the development towards new technology and lower emissions. All they need from us is that we stand firm when others want to give up on the climate goals – that we hold to what we and science require of us.

We are ready to do the work, and that is what I expect from everyone in here as well.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Let us never forget that when the EU was born, it was from the ruins of a Europe scarred by war, extermination, and political extremism.

The vision was grand but actually quite simple, driven by the continent's Christian Democrats: Never again war. Countries that had bombed each other to pieces needed, therefore, to find a way to move past the unbearable, even the unforgivable.

Taking joint control over the war industry's raw materials was a beginning, followed by the belief in meeting and cooperating. The European Union is the world's most successful peace and prosperity project, a union of countries that share fundamental values. The EU has given us free movement, freer trade, and values that guarantee life in freedom.

But we also need to say it as it is. As the EU has grown, some of this has been lost. The EU has increasingly become a bureaucratic project. Freedom, forward spirit, industrial strength, and innovative power have been joined by the principle that everything that is not forbidden should be regulated.

Decisions that should be made at Swedish kitchen tables are being made at Brussels' desks. Farmers are drowning in forms, and forest owners are getting stuck in paragraphs. There is a risk that entrepreneurs who want to be innovative will seek out other parts of the world. It threatens the union's soul. It threatens the EU's legitimacy.

I believe in the EU. But I believe in an EU that sticks to its core task – an EU that gives hope, not headaches.

Mr. Speaker! Europe is being tested both from within and from without. The war in Ukraine reminds us of why the EU was once formed. Sweden may not be at war, but Europe is. When our ally to the west becomes increasingly unpredictable, Europe must be built strong. Europe's countries need to jointly strengthen strategic autonomy in the defense area, the agricultural area, and within industry. Let us use the potential in the Swedish mining industry and the Swedish forests to free ourselves from the dependence on countries such as China!

Europe is falling behind. This provides space not only for the external threats but also for the internal ones. Without growth, there is no welfare, and without competitiveness, there are no reduced emissions. The EU must reduce the regulatory burden, speed up the permit processes, and invest more in research and innovation. It is through growth – not through over-regulation and Swedish over-implementation – that we can build the Europe of the future and our strategic autonomy.

Mr. Speaker! It is possible to combine reduced emissions with increased growth. Sweden has shown that. The climate cannot become an over-ideology, but the transition must go hand in hand with economic security for the people. It must happen with reason and feeling. I want Europe to take responsibility for the climate challenge, but the EU must not be transformed into one of the world's largest deindustrialization projects.

We need innovation, new technology and – hold onto your hats – nuclear power. We shall manage the transition with our forest and agriculture producers, not in opposition to them. Swedish forest is not a museum. The forest is a resource that provides jobs and exports and that binds carbon dioxide.

Mr. Speaker! The EU is not perfect, but it is worth defending. When our cooperation concerns the right things and is based on common, good values, Europe is a force for exactly that good. It is an EU that stands up for Ukraine. It is an EU that protects democracy and makes it easier – not harder – to live, work and run businesses. Let us therefore safeguard the European project by building more trust and more freedom. Let us now make the EU a future project in a true pioneering spirit for peace, freedom and the future!

(Applause)

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The climate transition is crucial for Europe's competitiveness. But today, it is threatened by weak leadership. We find ourselves at a crossroads. Either we choose short-termism and populism and deepen our dependence on fossil fuels, or we choose the path forward to freedom and prosperity through the climate transition.

We see how the oil lobby is trying with full force to convince wavering power holders that the population does not accept any measures whatsoever to reduce emissions. The citizens, on the other hand, are clear-sighted. A majority of Swedes and Europeans are concerned about the consequences of the climate crisis and want politics to do more.

We stand, as said, at a crossroads. For Miljöpartiet, the way forward is obvious. The EU must be at the forefront. Sweden shall be a leading voice, not a brake.

Mr. Speaker! How is the leadership at home doing? Well, the Sweden Democrats are inspired by Orbán, Trump, and Le Pen. They wage a culture war against climate policy supported by Russian disinformation and the oil lobby's propaganda. And what do the other Tidö parties do? Well, the Moderates turn their coats with the wind. The Christian Democrats compete in populism to attract SD voters. The Liberals administer SD's climate policy. The citizens, on the other hand, are clear-sighted. They reject the government's climate policy. Satisfaction is zero.

Mr. Speaker! What we are dealing with is a weak Swedish leadership. It has consequences in Brussels. Just when Europe needs upright leadership the most, just when we are challenged by the USA, Russia, and China, Sweden backs down. Then our voice for human rights falls silent. We back down from our climate leadership and choose to focus on our narrow self-interest. It is weak, and it is dangerous.

Miljöpartiet chooses a different path. We know that reduced emissions are not an obstacle to growth but the foundation for future prosperity. When industry transitions to becoming fossil-free, jobs, innovation, and strong local communities are created. But for Sweden to be at the forefront, leadership is required that dares to take responsibility and share the risks. While the world invests in green steel and electric cars, the Tidö parties occupy themselves with casting doubt on the companies that are transitioning. That policy scares away investments and innovations.

The Green Party knows that the path to freedom and prosperity goes through the climate transition. Let me highlight how it can happen and how Sweden and Europe can benefit from it!

Firstly: The green transition secures future jobs and Swedish competitiveness. By investing in fossil-free industry, green steel and a circular economy, Sweden and Europe can become world leaders and not give a walkover to China and the USA.

Secondly: Renewable energy and green baseload power secure our energy supply. Solar, wind, and hydrogen are the way away from expensive imports and a vulnerable fossil dependency that only benefits Russia.

For the third: In Sweden, we have the opportunity for a sustainable forestry, a forestry that transitions. It is about ensuring that we meet our national climate goals and achieve increased growth in the forest and more jobs that make the local communities out in the country function. We know that at the turn of the century, we had a functioning forestry that provided good growth and developed. We shall aim for those levels. We know what needs to be done.

Sweden unfortunately has a government that is backing away from the future and does not understand what is needed in this situation: green industry, green base power, electricity that allows for a transition now, and a forest that gives the country a future.

(Applause)

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

Utbildnings- och integrationsministern Simona Mohamsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Once upon a time, it was trendy to be critical of European cooperation. The left's EU critics warned against free trade and labor immigration. EU opponents on the right warned of supranationalism and threats to democracy. But these are trends that have aged as poorly as 3D glasses at the cinema.

The fact is that EU cooperation makes Sweden richer and safer. Richer – because Swedish entrepreneurs can more easily export goods to Germany and France. Safer – because Frontex and Europol protect our borders and fight crime.

What really took the wind out of the sails of the EU critics, however, was the war in our neighborhood. When Russia invaded Ukraine, it put an end to all the delusions of nationalists and socialists that being alone is strong. Alone is not strong against Putin, against Iran, or against China. Now Europe must maintain the support for Ukraine – for peace, freedom, and a future Ukrainian EU membership.

Trends come and go, but the Liberals' commitment to a stronger Europe remains.

Mr. Speaker! The EU is an economic giant, but Europe risks being overtaken by North America and Asia. Technological development is moving as fast as the running clubs in town. This requires a Europe that prioritizes correctly in order to strengthen future innovations and prosperity.

There is a clear path forward for Europe based on more free trade, larger investments in research and new technology, and more exchange between EU countries where we together attract foreign experts to contribute to Europe's innovative power so that new ideas and products see the light of day in a tough global fight against American giants and Chinese copies. We need a common reinforcement against future trade wars and uncertainties. I am, of course, talking about the euro, which holds together both small and large countries when the world sways. Europe can become the world's democratic and economic role model, but that does not happen with bureaucratic socialism or conservative brakes. It happens with more liberalism, not less.

Mr. Speaker! Migration that does not go hand in hand with integration leads to shadow societies and exclusion where extremists and gang criminals exploit people living in vulnerability. Sweden is not alone in Europe regarding these challenges. These issues affect many countries, for example Germany, France and Denmark.

Here at home, the government has begun a paradigm shift to increase people's safety. Under the Tidö parties' watch, more gang criminals meet justice. Migration policy is being restructured to become more responsible and sustainable. Preventive work is being strengthened both in schools and in social services. The Tidö Agreement's policy is quite simply a plan to increase safety for more people, and it should be exported to every corner of Europe.

The EU critics were wrong about European cooperation. In area after area, the EU has proven that it is possible to solve major societal problems. We have done it before, and we will do it again.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Time and again, foreign citizens are sentenced for serious crimes in Sweden without being deported from the country. This concerns, for example, rape, sexual assault, and various violent crimes. There are many appalling examples.

As everyone knows, the government never interferes in individual judgments, but if the legislation yields unreasonable consequences, laws and conventions must be changed. We are about to move forward with the toughest legislation in the entire Nordic region when it comes to deportations due to crime. All crimes that result in more than a fine shall, as a starting point, also lead to deportation. With this, it is expected that six times more people will be deported from Sweden. We are going further than any government has previously dared to do.

We are also pushing hard for countries outside of Europe to accept their own deported citizens. As everyone now knows, we condition aid on countries behaving themselves. We experience strong support for this line, but not from everyone. Miljöpartiet, Vänsterpartiet, and Centerpartiet have expressed that they do not want to condition Swedish aid on countries accepting their own citizens.

For me, safety and redress for crime victims are fundamental matters in one of the world's most equal countries. Now we are implementing the reforms that the old government could not, did not want to, or did not dare to implement.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Right now we see the result of three years of Ulf Kristersson's economic policy. 100,000 people have lost their jobs. Youth unemployment is 25 percent. Bankruptcies are at levels we have not seen since the 90s. Growth is low.

Kristersson is happy to blame inflation and previous governments, but the truth is that Swedish growth over the last three years has developed far below its potential. Åkesson's and Kristersson's policy makes Sweden a sinkhole in Europe. The Moderates used to be a party that stood for work and growth, but here the Moderates have changed.

Mr. Speaker! My question to Ulf Kristersson is what he, with the benefit of hindsight, would have done differently during the last three years.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I note a new and dangerous trend within the Social Democrats. As soon as one gets the chance, one speaks ill of Sweden internationally. It is both reckless and incorrect.

The high unemployment is largely due to the very large asylum migration during the eight years that Magdalena Andersson was in the government.

Our climate policy has ensured that Sweden's emissions are among the lowest in all of Europe, but we do not intend to sacrifice Swedish interests for other countries that are less ambitious.

Growth happened to fall in Sweden in 2014, not only depending on the government that took office then. Now we see small but important signs that growth is increasing faster in Sweden than in other countries. The tech industry in Stockholm and Sweden is also the most vital in all of Europe.

When Swedes speak ill of Sweden abroad, they do not protect Swedish interests.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I have a motto: One must see reality as it is, say it as it is, and do what is required.

Ulf Kristersson thinks that we should turn a blind eye to reality. He thinks that we should turn a blind eye to the youth unemployment that has increased dramatically and now stands at 25 percent. He thinks that we should turn a blind eye to the fact that 100,000 people have lost their jobs. I was at Volvo in Gothenburg last week – 1,000 people there had been laid off.

Ulf Kristersson thinks that we should close our eyes to the fact that growth is far below the potential that Sweden has and that Sweden's emissions last year increased second most in the entire EU.

This is a reality that an extremely satisfied Ulf Kristersson would prefer that I and the entire Swedish people should turn a blind eye to. I will never do that. I am here to improve Sweden for hard-working Swedish households.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is funny that Magdalena Andersson closes her eyes some years and looks very closely at others. She closed her eyes in 2022 when food prices, under Social Democratic leadership, rose by 18 percent and inflation was 10 percent. Now food prices are no longer rising, with a few exceptions, and inflation is broken. She says nothing at all about that.

Magdalena Andersson turns a blind eye to the fact that Sweden has the lowest emissions in all of Europe, possibly together with Malta. We, however, say no when other countries want to take advantage of Swedish forests to the detriment of Sweden. She turns a blind eye to the fact that growth is declining in Germany while we see signs that growth in Sweden is increasing. She turns a blind eye to the fact that a completely irresponsible immigration policy has led to mass exclusion and long-term unemployment in Sweden. That thing about seeing and turning a blind eye does not impress me.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has promised to tackle the crisis of unreasonably rising rent and housing costs. For the first time, the Commission also has a housing commissioner. The European Commission describes it as Europe suffering from a widespread housing crisis because prices and rents have risen so sharply in recent years.

But the government seems completely unaware of the major housing debate taking place in the EU. Here, it is going the other way. Moderatstämman recently decided to introduce market rents for all rental apartments, which affects 3 million tenants. The Moderates call it security rents, but it is market rents. All studies show that this significantly raises the rents.

Why do the Moderaterna decide to shock-increase rents for ordinary people when the EU is discussing that rents should become much lower?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The connection between the Moderate Party and EU issues is somewhat unclear, but if the Moderate Party is completely wrong, as the Left Party usually is.

But let us talk about EU issues. I was present at that meeting of the European Council where housing issues were discussed. It was not entirely uninteresting, but most countries pointed out with some clarity that housing issues are important but rarely European. There are a number of people who live in many cities in Europe simultaneously, but most do not. Most care about national housing policy, national prices, and national regulations. But that does not exclude the fact that there are certain common European features. There are regulations that could also be simplified at the European level, so no one dismissed the idea of discussing the matter. But honestly: housing issues are not at the top of the European Council's agenda and should not be there either.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is concerning with a Prime Minister who does not seem to care about housing issues at all.

The EU has now opened up for changes to the state aid rules, which have prevented Sweden from pursuing an effective and state-led housing policy.

But I return to the question the Prime Minister did not answer. At the Moderate gathering, a decision was made that the Moderates will go to the election on introducing market rents. This means significantly increased rents for 3 million tenants. The entire EU is talking about how housing and rental costs have gone up far too much and that they must be lowered. It is a major issue in many European countries. Why, then, have the Moderates decided to go to the election on introducing market rents, that is to say, significantly increased rents, for Sweden's 3 million tenants?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I answered the question, and Nooshi Dadgostar is completely wrong. We have no such proposal. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with the EU at all.

The difference between the housing markets of different European countries is quite large. Some countries have a high population concentration on a very small area, while others have exactly the opposite. I warn the Vänsterpartiet against wanting to outsource Swedish housing policy to the EU Commission. Sweden's housing policy is, in fact, far from that of Belgium or Luxembourg, to take two examples.

In Sweden, Swedes largely want to live in their own homes, and Sweden should focus on meeting the need that exists to be able to own one's own home. This, the Left Party has opposed since the days of the million program, and you continue to oppose it. We want to increase the chance for people to save for a down payment, own their own home, and build a fortune. You stand for the exact opposite. Say it in plain English!

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden's emissions have increased – by 7 percent just last year – since Ulf Kristersson moved into Sagerska palatset. I understand that it is a price one has to pay for the Sweden Democrats' support, but for the Prime Minister to justify it by saying that Sweden is already far ahead and that it is other countries that should reduce their emissions is irresponsible. Of course, other countries should take responsibility for their emissions. But in the EU, where the countries can make a difference together, the Moderaternas parliamentary group has joined forces with the far-right and is pushing for lowered climate goals and more petrol and diesel cars on the roads after 2035, and they voted against all references to the EU's Green Deal.

We heard the Prime Minister say that the EU is the arena for combating climate change. Why, Ulf Kristersson, does your party group then oppose offensive climate goals on the European arena?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I suspect that the Centre Party, with the increase, means that we lowered the reduction obligation on fuels because it drove up the price to Europe's highest levels and made it difficult for completely ordinary people in a time of high inflation to even be able to drive to work. Why doesn't the Centre Party say that you want to go back to 28 kronor per liter when that is what you actually mean? You are constantly running double bookkeeping. You pretend that you are for the things we do but pretend that they would not affect anything at all.

Sweden has a climate policy at the forefront. We are at the front when it comes to the European climate commitments, and we link climate policy with European competitiveness. Sweden will have lower emissions in 2026 than we had in 2022.

Why do you not stand up for your own policy if you are now criticizing that we have made it a little easier to be Swedish in times of high costs?

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! Ulf Kristersson is right that Sweden tops a list. It is the list of increased emissions in the EU last year. Sweden increased emissions the most of all member states, even though we know that we must reduce them.

Centerpartiet has presented a proposal and a climate plan for how Sweden could reach the goals without fuel prices at the pump increasing. The proposals are fully investigated and fully financed in our budget. It is the kind of thing that could be implemented. But the government does not prioritize this. Instead, they prioritize trying to get someone else to do something somewhere else.

We know that the EU has a great opportunity to jointly combat emissions and increase growth. But the Moderate party group is doing exactly the opposite. Why, Ulf Kristersson, is your party group in Europe fighting the green deal and the climate goals and wanting more petrol and diesel cars on the streets after 2035?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! When you are Sweden's least relevant opposition party, you can say almost anything about almost anything, because it simply doesn't matter. There is no one who believes your figures that one can achieve all road transport goals without increasing the reduction obligation and without making petrol and diesel more expensive.

How are you going to meet the forest goals without sacrificing Swedish forestry? It is about 70 million tons. Almost all parties in the Swedish Riksdag agree that it is a completely unreasonable ambition from the EU Commission to sacrifice Swedish forestry so that other countries can have the Swedish forest as a carbon sink. You pretend you can perform magic. But I do not believe that Swedish forest owners will be so impressed if you actually mean that it is Swedish forestry that is to solve the climate commitments for countries in Eastern Europe. If that is what you mean, say it in plain text!

(Applause)

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Okay, Ulf Kristersson, we are talking about forests. The Moderates claim that the EU's climate goals for forests are impossible to reach, but I doubt you have even tried.

For a long time, the Tidöregeringen has ignored the fact that the forest's carbon storage is crucial for the climate. Instead, you are spreading a false narrative that Swedish forestry would need to be shut down for us to reach the goals.

What is required is a policy that steers towards increased carbon storage and sustainable use, but the Tidö Government has not delivered a single answer other than to refrain from doing so. Mr. Speaker! I wonder why Ulf Kristersson and his government continue to oppose the transition to a sustainable Swedish forestry.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I appreciate that the government and the Green Party think totally differently on these issues, but that we stand by it. I respect that. The interesting question, Daniel Helldén, is what the Social Democrats actually think and what they would have been forced to compromise with you on regarding Swedish forestry. No one knows.

Soon you will have to turn your criticism toward the EU Commission and not toward the Swedish government, because the Commission has now taken note of Sweden's and Finland's persistent work to change the requirements placed on precisely the Swedish forestry.

I do not think anyone has missed that we have run a multi-year campaign to show that Swedish forestry does more good if it replaces other products and if it grows, is harvested, and grows up again than if it is to stand as a carbon sink for other countries. Now the EU Commission has taken note, and before the European summit we received a very clear indication that the Commission will change the rules.

We have never said that Swedish forestry would need to be shut down, but we will not agree to Swedish forestry being drastically reduced so that other countries can get away cheaper.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is common knowledge that the government has fought hard to ensure that we do not meet the climate goals when it comes to the forest.

The forest is crucial for us to reduce emissions. Sweden has a commitment that we have been involved in negotiating. We take our part. We have a large amount of historical emissions that we need to make up for. This is something that Sweden has committed to, but what the government is doing is trying to get this off the table completely.

Sweden has a great opportunity to do something, and we in Miljöpartiet have presented a long series of proposals to transition to a more sustainable forestry. We have proposals on a bonus-malus system for the forest, climate agreements for landowners, and a series of reforms that are freedom reforms for the individual forest owners. With our policy, we can reach the goals and have a sustainable forestry. 350,000 individual forest owners would be better off with our proposal, which at the same time ensures that Sweden meets the climate goals.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First, I must correct. We have, therefore, not negotiated the objectives that the EU once agreed upon. On the contrary, the Swedish government voted no to them, because we considered them unreasonable. That was our government, Daniel Helldén. Your government would never have done that.

At the same time, the EU set sky-high, much higher requirements on Sweden than on many other countries, which led to the unreasonable requirements on precisely Swedish forestry, so that other countries could use the Swedish forests as a carbon sink. We voted no. We stood up for Swedish interests and did not sacrifice them for others. If Sweden does not stand up for Swedish interests in the EU, no other country will do it.

The big question – with all due respect – is not what you think, but what concessions you would force the Social Democrats to make regarding forest policy, i.e., the price for the Green Party's participation in a potential government at some point in the future.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! During the last two years, unemployment has fallen in the rest of the EU, but here at home, it looks different. In Sweden, there are many fathers who have had to drive home to the row house, park the car, and go in and sit at the kitchen table, where they have been forced to tell the children that things will be tight now because dad has lost his job.

Since the Sweden Democrats and the Moderates took power, 100,000 more have become unemployed in Sweden, with 100,000 more such conversations around kitchen tables in Sweden.

Sweden today has the third highest unemployment in the EU. There are more unemployed in Sweden than in Greece. We have mass unemployment. Youth unemployment has risen sharply and now stands at 25 percent. This is the result of the Sverigedemokraternas and the government's policy. It is clear that Swedish households become poorer when they rule. The Moderaterna used to be a party that stood for work, but they have changed.

Mr. Speaker! My ambition for Sweden is that we should have higher ambitions than to be turned into a sink in Europe and that our country should be a strong growth engine and a country where everyone who can work shall work.

Then we shall do as we have always done in Sweden: ensure that we embrace new technology and stay at the forefront so that investments, jobs, and prosperity stay here, with support for people so that they can take the jobs that emerge and with a broad energy agreement so that we produce the electricity that Swedish industry needs to grow. That is how we get investments, work, and prosperity to Sweden, far away from the government's mass unemployment policy.

(Applause)

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

Henrik Vinge (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Magdalena Andersson often speaks about wanting a strict immigration policy in Sweden, but at the same time, the Social Democrats in the European Parliament vote no to a restrictive immigration policy and no to physical barriers at the EU's external border.

Magdalena Andersson's alleged government basis also rests on parties that do not want any restrictive immigration policy at all, and many municipalities governed by the Social Democrats have refused to even have a meeting with the coordinator for repatriation. In several of the municipalities, work is also being done on a plan to forcibly mix the population by, among other things, bussing schoolchildren and moving newcomers to functioning residential areas.

Mr. Speaker! How is it that Magdalena Andersson says she wants a strict migration policy, but every time she gets the chance to influence it, she does exactly the opposite?

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Henrik Vinge is therefore speaking with the person who was Minister for Finance in a government that implemented the largest tightening of Swedish migration policy ever to have occurred, in 2016.

We Social Democrats stand for a strict migration policy. We have established this time and again at our party congresses and when we, in a government position, carried out the very extensive reorganization. It is absolutely necessary.

Europe needs to have a strict migration policy, and Sweden needs to have a strict migration policy. Other countries in the EU need to take a greater responsibility than Sweden, because we have taken a large responsibility.

What we need to focus on now in Sweden is that people who live here and who have the right to stay here get into work, that children learn what they need in school, that people get a reasonable housing situation, and that we build away the overcrowding that exists in Sweden. Furthermore, it is only in this way that we can uproot the criminal gangs.

(Applause)

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

Henrik Vinge (SD)

Mr. Speaker! What Magdalena Andersson is doing now is trying to sweep under the carpet the traces of the insane immigration policy that she and her party are responsible for.

So this is the answer from the Social Democrats in the European Parliament: They have voted no to restrictive immigration policy, no to funding physical border barriers at the EU's external border, no to deporting more illegal migrants, no to reinterpreting international rules to facilitate deportations, and no to marking against Islamist infiltration in the EU.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Commission has presented a new proposal, which is intended to lead to increased returns of people who do not have the right to stay in Europe. This is being negotiated right now down in Brussels.

These are good proposals, which the Sweden Democrats support. What I wonder, Mr. Speaker, is whether the Social Democrats will also vote no to these proposals.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Henrik Vinge was somewhat selective in his enumeration.

Let me remind you once again that it was a Social Democratic-led government that implemented the largest austerity measure that has ever occurred in Swedish politics.

The Social Democrats are also the party that has pushed for us to have a significantly stricter labor immigration policy than we have in Sweden today. We want to completely overhaul it from the open and liberal policy that, among others, Ulf Kristersson has pushed for throughout his entire political life to order and regularity, where we have means-tested labor immigration.

Regarding return migration, we Social Democrats naturally think it is good that there can be a support for people who want to return if they have not settled in Sweden. It is a support that has existed for a long time and which was actually introduced by Social Democrats. It is a policy that we stand by.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Like few other EU countries, Sweden has for many years provided countries with aid money completely without counter-requirements. But during this mandate period, several expulsions have been able to be carried out, for example to Somalia, as a result of the government's new requirements that countries receiving aid must also accept their own citizens.

I have now noted the agitation among Social Democrats such as Morgan Johansson, but also among the Green Party and the Left Party, so let me give just a few examples of crimes that these deported persons have committed: assault, rape of children, fraud, aiding and abetting murder, and aggravated assault.

The question that must be asked of Magdalena Andersson is: Why do you and your coalition partners want these people to have stayed in Sweden and thus in Europe?

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I heard Ulf Kristersson tell the journalists outside that he would focus on EU issues in this debate. It is as usual with Ulf Kristersson: He says one thing and does another.

(Applause)

The problem with Ulf Kristersson is not a lack of rhetorical devices, so to speak.

We Social Democrats, during our time in government, were also prepared to use our aid money to increase repatriation and get countries to accept their own citizens. We had, for example, a cooperation with Morocco when we had Moroccan street children on the streets of Stockholm.

However, we have drawn the line at bribes. The government's policy increasingly resembles bribes to a Hamas-supporting, anti-Semitic and Islamist regime. Money has gone to the employment of the Prime Minister's relatives with salaries of 100,000 kronor per month.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is difficult to interpret Magdalena Andersson's answer in any other way than that these people from Somalia would have remained in Sweden. That is not what the Swedish government thinks.

Then it is as it always is with the Social Democrats: You would have been "prepared" to do things. If 320,000 asylum seekers to Sweden during the period you led Sweden's government was strict, one wonders what a non-strict policy would have been. If 19,000 per year is strict – three times as much as right now – one wonders what your perception of a moderate asylum immigration to Sweden actually is.

These are EU issues. Ask the Belgian Prime Minister if these are EU issues! The person who took the lives of Swedes in Brussels should not have been in Sweden or in Europe. If Sweden does not keep track of people who commit crimes here and who should be thrown out of our country, then those people also commit crimes in other countries. Few issues engage other EU countries as much as that one.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Ulf Kristersson would like to have a migration-historical political debate again. Ulf Kristersson's interest in Swedish migration policy history is interesting, not least against the background of his own footprint in advocating for freer immigration.

With that said: Of course, people who commit serious crimes in Sweden shall be deported. We took the initiative during our time so that this would happen. We used aid money so that this would happen, and with me as Prime Minister, the government will work hard so that this will continue to happen. For me, it is a matter of course. But I am not prepared to bribe Islamist, anti-Semitic Hamas supporters. That is where we differ, Ulf Kristersson.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! I am convinced that Magdalena Andersson means well with her support for chat control, the proposal which entails mass surveillance and backdoors to encryption services such as those used by, for example, the Ukrainian Defense Forces. But well-meaning is not enough.

Expert after expert has explained that chat control is a threat to personal privacy. Expert after expert has explained how it can be misused by the state for other purposes and how foreign powers can gain access to private messages from Swedes. And Ukraine's defense is dependent on this type of service.

Explain to me, Magdalena Andersson: Why are the experts wrong? Why is the Ukrainian Defense Forces wrong? What is it that S knows that they do not know?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I think one should be honest and say that these are difficult trade-offs. It is about the balance between personal privacy and crime fighting. It is obvious that the Social Democrats and the Center Party have ended up in different positions in that trade-off.

The background is that it is reported that there are 105 million images and videos worldwide showing sexual abuse of children. Approximately 60 percent of that material is in the EU. In Sweden, every fourth child under the age of 15 is contacted online by adults with sexual purposes. Against that background, our assessment is that we need to have sharper legislation.

What is in this proposal is that not all activity is scanned, but a risk assessment is made on the digital platforms. We Social Democrats support this proposal. We stand up for the children.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! They are difficult trade-offs, but in the end, it is very simple. These crimes are obviously horrific, but to risk the Ukrainian children and their safety by stopping the type of services that Ukraine's defenders are dependent on is unjustifiable.

A backdoor in is a backdoor in. It cannot be explained away, and the proposal cannot be adjusted with regard to security and privacy because it violates exactly that. The entire purpose of the proposal is to create backdoors that hackers or states can exploit.

I wonder: Is it party-political prestige that has crept in? It was Ylva Johansson who launched the proposal.

Surra is not at this mast! Do not let the ship sink! Do not let Ukraine be dragged into misguided goodwill! It is time to scrap chat control, Magdalena Andersson. Do it, once and for all!

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I do not share Rickard Nordin's view that it is a misguided goodwill. This is about protecting children in the EU and in other countries. This is not about Ylva Johansson doing an enormous job in getting this proposal forward. It is about the children.

I share Rickard Nordin's view that it is a trade-off – a difficult trade-off. We have landed on different positions, but we Social Democrats support this proposal against the background of the terrifyingly extensive sexual abuse against children that we see in Sweden, in Europe, and in the world. In that case, sharper legislation is required than we have today.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thought we would talk about regulatory simplifications, because the EU's most important work moving forward is to clear away bureaucracy and supranationality to enable more jobs and increased competitiveness.

I thought the Social Democrats stood behind this, but judge my surprise when European social democracy chose a different path. It chose rules and bureaucracy over jobs and welfare. The workers' party became the rules' party when the European Parliament voted on the Commission's simplification package Omnibus 1. The package included, among other things, a revision of the so-called sustainability directive. According to the Swedish Agency for Growth Prospects, the directive has increased costs for our companies by almost 14 billion per year. The package fell in the European Parliament by the smallest possible margin.

Why, Magdalena Andersson, were you against this?

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Of course, there are rules we can change and simplify. However, this is to an all too great extent about a package of regulatory deterioration – deteriorations that are not good for Swedish companies.

This is about environmental requirements, and it is about requirements to ensure that child labor does not occur. These are requirements that Swedish companies already comply with and will continue to comply with, but when other European companies are now going to weaken their environmental rules or their work against child labor, the competition for Swedish companies will deteriorate.

The risk now is that we will see more child labor in the world. This legislation came after a thousand workers had been killed in an accident. That was precisely why it was wanted to ensure that there would be reasonable requirements. The question is how the Christian Democrats could end up in a situation where we risk seeing more dead workers, worse environmental regulations, and more child labor.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The arguments are flawed, because reasonably there must be some kind of middle ground between a yes to children dying at dangerous workplaces and a yes to increased costs of 14 billion for Swedish companies.

If what Magdalena Andersson says is true, why would this proposal then contribute with such an enormous cost burden on Swedish companies? Is that what we need in a situation with war on the European market and where we see waves of mass bankruptcies across Europe because we are being squeezed in an industrial step between the USA and China?

It is a very serious situation for European competitiveness. I am proud of my Moderate colleague Jörgen Warborn who has negotiated this in the European Parliament. However, there is a lot of talk and little action from the Social Democrats, when one says to stand for increased competitiveness and then votes against precisely those regulatory relaxations that would be needed and which safeguard both the fight against child labor and the fight for human rights.

(Applause)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I welcome simplifications of rules, but I do not want to see rule changes that worsen the very opportunities to work for children's rights or that undermine trade union rights.

The problem is that Swedish companies, with this so-called simplification package – or deterioration package – will have a worse competitiveness. Swedish wage earners will face more low-wage competition. This risks leading to lower wages in Sweden, worsened conditions for Swedish companies and more child labor worldwide.

Simplification of rules, yes. Deterioration of rules, no.

(Applause)

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

Utbildnings- och integrationsministern Simona Mohamsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! The Social Democrats and the Liberals have often stood close to each other on issues of equality. Together, we have made Sweden a country where women should be able to combine career with family. Both Social Democratic and Liberal cabinet ministers have led by example and shown that this is possible.

Many are wondering, however, Magdalena Andersson, if you share Margot Wallström's opinion that Romina Pourmokhtari should have asked to leave her seat because she could not travel to the climate summit because she is pregnant. My question to Sweden's first female Prime Minister is whether she distances herself from Margot Wallström's statement.

(Applause)

(TALMANNEN: In this EU policy party debate, I now give the floor to Magdalena Andersson, Socialdemokraterna.)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! It was about time! If I have understood correctly, Margot Wallström did not know that Romina Pourmokhtari was pregnant when she wrote that. I assume she would not have written it if she had known. Margot Wallström is a well-known feminist.

The problem is not that just one pregnant minister could not travel while the negotiations are currently ongoing. That Sweden does not have a single minister on site is also not Simona Mohamsson's fault. It is a leadership issue.

All around Sweden, managers deal every day with the fact that people get sick, quit, become pregnant, or go on parental leave. In those cases, they ensure that the work still gets done – but not Ulf Kristersson! Because it is not the case that every single minister in Sweden is pregnant or that no one can take a leave of absence. This is about leadership.

(Applause)

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

Utbildnings- och integrationsministern Simona Mohamsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has some of the lowest emissions per capita in the EU. That is a fact. Sweden is now also making important investments to secure our future climate work. That is a fact.

Do not try to bluff your way out of this now, Magdalena Andersson! You have party comrades who question whether a pregnant minister is following the healthcare staff's recommendations not to travel to Brazil.

My question remains, then: Is this really worthy of a feminist party, Magdalena Andersson?

(TALMANNEN: I tried to point out that this is a debate on EU policy. But Magdalena Andersson, of course, gets to respond in a closing statement.)

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

Magdalena Andersson (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to continue the discussion regarding Ulf Kristersson's lack of leadership.

We Social Democrats are in no way critical of a pregnant minister not traveling. We are, however, deeply critical that Ulf Kristersson does not ensure that another minister is on site now when the important negotiations are taking place.

Swedish companies are there. It is Swedish companies that are at the forefront of the climate transition and who want the rest of the world's countries to also transition so that we can sell our Swedish goods on the world's export markets. But now, while the important negotiations are ongoing, Sweden is there for the first time without a minister. It is Ulf Kristersson's decision – or is it Jimmie Åkesson's?

(Applause)

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

Henrik Vinge (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has had a stable labor market because we have let the parties take responsibility. Through the Saltsjöbaden Agreement, negotiations and trust, we have historically had fewer conflicts, higher employment and more order and regularity than the countries on the continent.

In Brussels, however, they think differently. There, they operate a supranational model according to the motto "one size fits all" regarding minimum wages, daily rest, strike actions, and ongoing detailed regulations. In theory, there are to be exceptions that are to safeguard our model, but in practice, we know that the exceptions will be eroded and that they can be torn up at any time. Countries with functioning collective agreements are in the minority, and over time we will be steamrolled by larger interests.

We see the same pattern in the Green Deal, with the consequence that small business owners will be burdened by an ever-increasing EU bureaucracy. It is unreasonable to force craftspeople and small business owners to report on climate, Mr. Speaker. Every hour spent on climate bureaucracy is one hour less in the workshop, and fewer billed hours mean less money in the Swedish economy.

The EU must respect that different countries solve problems in different ways. The Swedish model works. It is built from the ground up between parties that take responsibility. Therefore, we need to safeguard the Swedish model. We need to stop the supranational meddling. We need to remove unnecessary complications for Sweden's companies and let Sweden continue to decide over the labor market. That is how we strengthen growth and ensure security for the jobs in Sweden.

(Applause)

In this speech, Erik Hellsborn (SD) agreed.

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish people, both households and companies, are paying altogether too high electricity prices.

In Sweden, we produce much more electricity than we consume. The problem is only that we have built cables to other countries, and as soon as the Germans, the Poles, or someone else wants to buy our electricity – the electricity for which we have sacrificed land to build out – the prices rise for us here in Sweden. They might drop a little bit in Germany and Poland, but then very marginally.

Vänsterpartiet therefore proposes Sverigepriser, and we have worked for it even in the EU. Henrik Vinge's group has, however, opposed the proposal. They think it is a good system that Sweden exports electricity and pays for it with higher domestic prices. We think it is a crazy system that goes completely against the idea of Sweden producing electricity. The system reduces the incentives to do so.

Why does Henrik Vinge's group oppose the idea of Sverigepriser?

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

Henrik Vinge (SD)

Mr. Speaker! If it were as simple as Nooshi Dadgostar presents it, the matter would be completely different, but that is not the case. There is no simple model that would mean we would get Swedish prices. If we in Sweden isolated our electricity market, it would also mean that we would not have the possibility to import electricity in the way we sometimes need to do because the need for electricity goes up and down.

It is true, however, that electricity prices are too high. This is primarily due to the fact that the left-wing parties have dismantled Swedish nuclear power. That is the root cause, and therefore we are now rebuilding nuclear power again. We are also doing what can be done to compensate the Swedes for the high prices in the short term: We are lowering food prices by lowering the VAT, and we are lowering the price of fuel so that it is possible to drive a car. This in itself also indirectly lowers food prices because the food must be transported. We are also lowering the tax for everyone who works.

In this way, we compensate for the high prices which fundamentally stem from the left-wing parties' mismanagement under the previous government.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! Now the math is wrong. We are producing more electricity than we ourselves consume. You can wallpaper all of Skåne with nuclear power, Henrik Vinge, but what is the point of that if we are only going to export the electricity to Germany? Why should we spend 400 billion kronor on a nuclear power plant that is only going to export the electricity to Germany? We must ensure that our investments benefit Swedish companies and Swedish households. What is the point otherwise?

It is only a few years since the EU's electricity market became what it is today. We have had cables to the outside world since the 90s, and that has worked perfectly well. A few years ago, however, the EU began building up a large electricity market, which means that Sweden has received higher electricity prices because we have to export to everyone else and pay the price for it.

We could keep the exports. When we import – it is a few hours per year that we do it – we should of course pay the price for that. But why should we in Sweden pay such high prices because we export our electricity? Why do you support such a system, Henrik Vinge?

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

Henrik Vinge (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Again: Had it been as Nooshi Dadgostar says, the situation would have been different, but the picture she paints does not match. That is not how the European electricity market system works; it would not be so simple for Sweden to isolate itself from that market. Had it been that, we would of course have done so, but it is not possible.

It depends, among other things, on the fact that nuclear power has been phased out. Had we had a stable base power that we could rely on, the situation would have been different, but we do not have that. What we do instead is to compensate households in various ways – through food prices, fuel prices and taxes, but also through electricity prices. We are now lowering the electricity tax to 2022 levels and are trying in various ways to compensate for this.

The European electricity system does not function optimally, but what Nooshi Dadgostar proposes is not possible to implement.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish companies are clear: They want high-level climate goals both in Sweden and in the EU and sharp emission requirements that do not change over time. They have made multi-billion investments based on that premise. They neither want nor can they compete with China in selling the cheapest and dirtiest products on the market, instead, Swedish competitiveness comes from the fact that we export better and greener products.

Despite that, the Sweden Democrats want to tear up the EU's climate policy. During the last parliamentary term, they voted against climate measures more times than any other right-wing populist party from any other EU country. They are the worst in their class. I know that Henrik Vinge doesn't care significantly about the climate – the Sweden Democrats don't hide that – but why do you want to stop and sabotage the Swedish companies that just want to create jobs and earn money from the green transition?

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

Henrik Vinge (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The reality is quite the opposite. What Rickard Nordin, C, and other climate bureaucracy-lovers want to do is to tax the companies. They want to take the companies' resources, put them in a pot, and then let politicians decide how the money should be distributed. They believe, in fact, that they know better. They believe that it is politics that should steer – that it is political finger-wagging, central control, and various types of levies that in some way are to drive us in the right direction.

It is completely wrong. The companies know what they need to grow. They know what they need to be able to compete with the rest of the world. Therefore, let the companies make the decisions themselves! Unleash European entrepreneurship and stop the political meddling when it comes to European industry!

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! Now it is the case, Henrik Vinge, that the Center Party in its budget lowers corporate taxes more than the government does. We have also proposed a significantly larger reduction in electricity tax than the one that the government and the Sweden Democrats have made.

The companies say very clearly that they want long-term rules of the game and tough climate requirements. This policy from the Sweden Democrats, not least at the European level, harms Swedish growth. In the long run, it also harms the Swedish welfare, because it is from there – from the companies' profits and tax payments – that we get money for healthcare, school, and care.

In the fossil economy, that is, the Sweden Democrats' economy, Sweden and Europe are import-dependent, but in the renewable economy, we become a winning exporting country. The business community has understood this, and that is why the Center Party is driving this. When will the Sweden Democrats put Sweden first and enter the growth race? When will the Sweden Democrats start listening to the Swedish business community and stop voting no to every proposal for a more ambitious climate policy in the EU?

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

Henrik Vinge (SD)

Mr. Speaker! European growth has been significantly worse than, for example, the American growth. This is largely due to clumsy politicians like Rickard Nordin.

It is precisely this that we do not need if we are to be able to compete with the rest of the world. We need, on the contrary, to unleash the power in European industry. For European companies to be able to grow, create, and produce things, we need to let them make decisions based on a rational basis, not on politicians' whims.

It is the core of our policy. It is also what will drive growth and what will be able to ensure European competitiveness moving forward.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats say no to the EU's climate policy, no to renewable energy, and no to investing in the green industry. The Sweden Democrats are simply saying no to the economy of the future. They will then be held accountable. What will we live on in Sweden and Europe in the future if we do not transition? Does Henrik Vinge think it is a good idea to make Europe completely dependent on China when it comes to electric cars, batteries, and fossil-free steel?

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

Henrik Vinge (SD)

Mr. Speaker! No, I do not think so, of course. But there is a fundamental difference between the views of the Sweden Democrats, the Green Party, and the Centre Party on this. We do not believe that politicians make better corporate decisions than the companies themselves do.

We do not believe that companies function better if you take their resources, put them in a pile, and let politicians distribute them. We do not believe that companies function better if we tell them, from Brussels, Stockholm, or somewhere else: "This is how you shall conduct your business. This is what you shall invest in and do." We believe that the companies themselves make those decisions better. That is the basic premise.

The companies want to grow. The companies want to produce more. Let them do it! Remove the meddlers! Let the companies release the power themselves! That is how we get growth in Europe.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is interesting to listen to Henrik Vinge. The Sweden Democrats are, in fact, engaged in slowing down the entire climate transition. They are removing all the things that made Swedish companies stay at the forefront and have damaged the companies' business models for how they should work moving forward. They ensure that the money that large industrial companies, which need backing from the government and clear support internationally, want and need, is locked in, regardless of whether it is economically profitable for the companies or not.

We in Sweden are falling behind. The EU is falling behind. We see China overtaking Europe. They are taking all the market shares. We will be left here with an economy that is retreating because the Sweden Democrats are braking the entire climate transition.

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

Henrik Vinge (SD)

Mr. Speaker! There will be some repetition here. The reason why China is taking market shares from Europe is that politicians like Daniel Helldén are putting a straitjacket on European companies and preventing them from being able to compete with, for example, China. That is the fundamental problem.

If the European companies had had the same conditions as the Chinese ones, the European growth would have looked better. And then our security policy situation would have been better, because we would have had greater production capacity.

It is fundamentally a misconception to believe that it is politicians who create value. That is not the case. It is not politicians who create growth. It is companies that do that. Let the companies make their decisions in peace, and remove the meddlers from European industry!

(Applause)

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

Utbildnings- och integrationsministern Simona Mohamsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is a small exporting country with a small currency. Our closest trading countries are fortunately located in our vicinity, here in Europe. These are countries such as Germany, Finland, the Netherlands and France. They have one thing in common: a common currency.

My question to Henrik Vinge is: Would it not be best for Swedish trade and growth to tie Sweden closer to our trading partners and introduce the euro?

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

Henrik Vinge (SD)

Mr. Speaker! No, I do not think that would be the case. We can look at history. The Euro cooperation has functioned well at certain times and been beneficial for countries that have participated. But at other times it has been very problematic.

We can look at, for example, the crisis that hit Europe, called the financial crisis, where different countries in Europe practically went bankrupt and other countries had to pay the bill. At that time, we in Sweden were glad to stand outside, to have an independent Riksbank and to have the possibility to manage our own monetary policy.

One cannot plan for it to be sunny weather all the time. It will not be. Sometimes it will rain. Then we will be glad that we have our own currency that we can fall back on.

(Applause)

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

Utbildnings- och integrationsministern Simona Mohamsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! It is precisely with regard to rain and slush that I pose the question. The euro is much more than just a common currency. It is an insurance against trade wars and uncertainties. It is a ticket to the negotiating table with countries important for Sweden's trade, such as Germany and Finland. It is therefore in Sweden's interest to join the euro cooperation.

My question to Henrik Vinge is: Are the Sweden Democrats prepared to reconsider their view regarding the euro if the global situation were to require it, just as was done regarding Nato when Russia invaded Ukraine?

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

Henrik Vinge (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Our view is that the Swedish currency has served Sweden well and that it continues to do so. We derive great benefit from being able to make monetary policy decisions ourselves in times of uncertainty. Right now, the entire world is in a security-politically restless situation. In that case, it is even better that we have the opportunity to make those decisions ourselves.

We draw lessons from what happened during, for example, the financial crisis. Then, Sweden was well served by having its own currency. Had we not had it, we would have been hit significantly harder, which would have damaged Swedish growth. It would have led to higher unemployment and higher costs. But we avoided that because we had our own currency. We should be happy about that.

Hard times will come again. Then we will be grateful that we did not go that way and joined the EMU.

(Applause)

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! For the sake of the climate and the economy, we must make large investments. The railway needs to be expanded and become Europe's best. Currently, however, we have one of the worst railways. Our railway is worn out, maintenance has fallen behind, and there are major capacity problems.

In Austria, on the other hand, they take more state control over the railways and build for high-speed trains, and in Germany, they introduce a monthly pass for 60 euros that applies to train journeys throughout the country. But the government and the Sweden Democrats are doing nothing. In Sweden, we let other states run the trains for us instead of doing it ourselves.

According to an EU regulation, Sweden must build double tracks on the Ostkustbanan. This is something that Ulf Kristersson promised the voters before the election. But even that he failed to achieve.

Investments in the railway are a necessity for more people to choose trains instead of flights. The climate emergency demands this. Nevertheless, the government chooses to spend 528 million on unprofitable regional airports instead of investing in the trains.

The 0.1 percent richest emit 45 times more than a low-income earner. They would need to reduce their emissions by 99 percent if we are to reach our climate goals. We could start with a ban on flying with private jets within the EU. Then we would have come a good way. The climate transition must be fair. It is not ordinary people who should pay the price because Ulf Kristersson and his friends live as if there were no tomorrow.

Sweden shall stand at the forefront of technological development, create new, modern jobs and be a proud industrial nation that is not ignored by great powers. It is a Sweden that we will fight for.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! Europe is in a difficult situation. Russia threatens us with war, sabotage, and disinformation. Europe's economy is doing poorly, the USA has overtaken us, and China is closing in. Right-wing populists and nationalists who want to split the European project are on the march. Now, more than ever, a strong and united EU is needed that shows that we can still solve the problems together.

What is the Left Party doing in Europe then? Is one constructive and taking responsibility? Does one spend their time solving society's problems? No. One says no to a new commission without having a realistic alternative. Several times, one has called for a vote of no confidence against Ursula von der Leyen. Instead of building compromises and finding stable majorities and solutions, one throws sand in the gears.

There are only two types of parties that do this in the European Parliament: on one side, the Sweden Democrats' gang on the far right, and on the other, the Left Party and its comrades on the far left. Why don't you take responsibility instead of obstructing?

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! I am glad that it is the Centre Party that is asking this question. One might ask whether it is I or the Centre Party who, in Sweden's Riksdag, is preventing a stable majority to change the direction for Sweden.

We want the EU with Sweden to become a continent where we produce our cars and the new and green. We are an industrial nation, and we shall be proud of that and invest in it. That is why the railway must be expanded and built together across the entire continent. That is why we need to change the EU's energy union so that we can lower electricity prices, both for the small companies and for the large Swedish industries. We shall build cars and batteries and produce the steel here in Sweden or in other parts of the continent – preferably in Sweden. That is what we stand for.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! That vision of the opportunities is also shared by the Centre Party, and it is something that I have highlighted several times from the rostrum. Growth must increase, and emissions must go down.

In the European Parliament, at some point, the Centre Party and the liberal group have shown that it is possible to reach compromises with both the right and the left and find collaborations that are stable in the center of politics. The problem in this chamber is that one has locked oneself into block politics.

The question remains. If one wants to achieve this vision, which Nooshi Dadgostar so meritably advocates for, one must find compromises, solutions, and collaborations with others. In that case, it is not possible to join forces with the far-right and merely obstruct.

How are you actually going to do this, Vänsterpartiet? How are you going to achieve the vision if you do not want to cooperate with others?

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! I am happy to cooperate with many. I am happy to cooperate with the Center Party. It is the Center Party that has more to explain. They pledge to both the left and the right, and it becomes a bit lonely there in the middle sometimes. Of course, I extend a hand to Rickard Nordin so that we together will invest in our infrastructure, in research and technology development, and in new energy production and an electricity market that we ourselves take control over, which is not deregulated and which does not drift away into high electricity prices – if that happens, we will fail to build out our industry. These are important issues, and I truly hope that the Center Party wants to be with me on that journey.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The Left Party likes to talk about security and the rule of law but consistently votes no to concrete EU legislation that protects our citizens against terror, crime, and identity fraud. In the spring, they voted against the regulation on safer ID cards. In the summer, they voted no to the EU's entry and exit system, which Sweden and other member states can now finally do what large parts of the world have already done for decades: use mandatory fingerprints and facial images on those arriving to protect citizens from those who want to harm us. Most recently, last month, the Left Party voted against the new rules that make it easier to revoke the freedom of visa issuance when it is abused for illegal migration.

What are the actual security-creating measures that Vänsterpartiet is for?

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! We will always stand up for safety. It is the most important thing we have. We will also stand up for the rule of law. But we will also stand up for people being able to put food on the table, for people to have a job to go to, and for us to have growth in our and other European economies. We will not stand in an election campaign and say that we will lower food prices only to then raise them by 30 percent. We will not stand in an election campaign and say that we will make it cheaper to be Swedish only to then make it incredibly expensive to be Swedish. We will do it in a different way.

When it comes to the rule of law, it is always a balancing act. How much can one monitor people, online and in other parts of life? We also know that power can be exchanged and that information can be misused.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It is noticeable which party leaders truly think it is very difficult that we have an EU policy debate. The European Union is super important for Sweden. I think it is strange that Nooshi Dadgostar is so incredibly uncomfortable with my questions that she suddenly speaks about completely different things, Mr. Speaker.

I am also for people having food on the table and a job to go to and for us to have growth, as Nooshi Dadgostar highlights. I look forward to an election campaign next year where Nooshi Dadgostar will explain to the Swedish people why she does not support a regular Swedish working family now having 5,050 kronor more left in their wallet thanks to our politics.

But one can be against this and still be for safer ID cards – why did V vote no to this? Why did V vote no to a safer entry and exit system and to the possibility of taking fingerprints and facial images of people to keep track of those who subject Swedish elderly to fraud and those who want ill will towards our country and our union? Why say no?

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! I am sorry if Ebba Busch feels disappointed that I answered her question about safety in Sweden and on the continent. I answered exactly the question she asked. It may be Ebba Busch who feels uncomfortable: She promised to lower prices, but they went up by 30 percent. She promised that it would become cheaper to be Swedish, but it has never been so expensive to be Swedish. Perhaps that is what is most uncomfortable in this exchange of remarks.

Of course, we must ensure that we have systems with security for inbound and outbound travel. We will do everything we can so that the banks take greater responsibility so that the elderly and others will never, ever be subjected to bank fraud. We have fought hard in the Swedish Riksdag, perhaps hardest of all, to put a stop to this. Here, the banks need to take a very large responsibility. We will always stand up for legal certainty, for security, and for people to have food on the table.

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

Utbildnings- och integrationsministern Simona Mohamsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Both I and Nooshi Dadgostar have a connection to Gothenburg, a trading city that has long been Sweden's gateway to the rest of the world, from the East India Company to Volvo Cars. My question to Nooshi Dadgostar is: Is it not time for Vänsterpartiet to do what is best for Gothenburg and take a stand for a strong trading currency, such as the euro?

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for this fantastic question.

As long as I am party leader, we in the Left Party will always stand up for Gothenburg and for Volvo. It is very central. That is why we want to invest in Sweden. We want our cars to be built in Sweden. We want our batteries to be created and built in Sweden. That is why we need to invest in infrastructure, research, and energy production. We need to invest in Sweden. We think that it is more important than that Simona Mohamsson and I should get large tax cuts. The 540 billionaires get the absolutely largest tax cuts. It is more important that ordinary people have money in their wallets and that we can invest in Sweden and Gothenburg. Build out the rails! Make sure it becomes cheaper to travel by public transport!

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

Utbildnings- och integrationsministern Simona Mohamsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! It is not about standing up for Gothenburg. A trading nation like Sweden benefits from tying itself closer to EU countries such as Germany and France that have the euro as their currency. It is an important insurance against future trade wars and conflicts.

The Liberals therefore want to future-proof Sweden's place in the EU and have the euro as the currency. My question to Nooshi Dadgostar remains: Does the Left Party think that the Swedish krona functions as a sufficient insurance against future trade wars? Is that the answer to all Gothenburg residents?

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

Nooshi Dadgostar (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Liberals never fail. They want to move as much power as possible from the Swedish people to Brussels.

We do not think that it is bureaucrats in Brussels who should take care of our monetary policy. We can take care of that ourselves. We are proud of it. It ensures that we get greater self-determination. It is not different bureaucrats in Belgium who know what is needed here for us in Gothenburg, in Stockholm, and in other parts of the country.

We say no to moving power from the Swedish people to very pleasant but often ignorant bureaucrats in Brussels. We will not stand for that. We are convinced that if Sweden is to become a stronger industrial nation in the future – we have the industrial experience – we need to commit and invest in our country. We shall not make people poorer, as the government is doing.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! Imagine if the state were to open all your letters, rip open every envelope and photograph every postcard. Imagine if the state were to listen to all your telephone calls and save transcripts in some archive somewhere. Or imagine if the state's microphones and cameras were to capture your conversations with friends and family at the dinner table.

Mr. Speaker! When you imagine it, I do not think it is Sweden 2026 you see before you, but perhaps a country behind the Iron Curtain 50 years ago. Yet, it is precisely that path that the government, together with the Social Democrats, wants to take. It is not about ordinary phone calls and letters but apps like Whatsapp and Signal, even though experts say no, companies say no, and the Swedish people say no.

Signal is an important messaging service for the Ukrainian defense. How do you think it would have functioned if there were a built-in backdoor that an optional authority or a skilled hacker could exploit? How do you think the opposition in Hungary will be treated if the government there gains access to all their messages?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Of course, crimes against children must be combated. We have presented proposals for both harsher penalties and new criminal classifications. But the consequences here risk becoming unmanageable.

For me and for the Center Party, it is obvious not only to pull the emergency brake and pick up the megaphone but also to take our stand at the barricades. We will never accept mass surveillance of Swedish citizens regardless of what purpose is had or what technology is used. We know that it never stops there.

I want to conclude my contribution and my participation in the party leadership debates by urging my friends here in the chamber – Ulf Kristersson, Ebba Busch, Simona Mohamsson and Magdalena Andersson – to rethink. I know that you have invested a lot of prestige in this. I understand that it is difficult. But scrap chat control once and for all!

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! There was a time when the Centre Party, under Fälldin's leadership, was guided by the question: How does this affect these people, such as farmers and foresters in Ramvik? The Centre Party continues to scatter rather large words about forests and the countryside. But in practice, the Centre Party has unfortunately lost its compass.

C's MEP Emma Wiesner has presented proposals for and feverishly defended the need for a new EU forest monitoring law. We have repeatedly seen how forest policy has gone wrong in Brussels and misses Swedish interests.

How does the Centre Party think when you defend a new EU forest monitoring law and at the same time vote against simplifications in the burdensome deforestation regulation? How are the farmers in Ramvik supposed to understand this?

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! The fact is that the proposal from the Commission that was on the table was deeply problematic. By this point, we have learned that the Commission and the EU do not back down on forest policy. They find other ways for it to come in, and that is what they have done this time as well.

What we did was to present a proposal that was better and that allowed us to use the data that exists in Sweden and continue to build with the Swedish model, instead of with the EU-centralized system that the commission proposes.

The united right chose to vote down in favor of trying to block new legislation at the EU level. But the risk with that is that it will become even worse for the Swedish farmers and the Swedish foresters when the Commission continues to push its proposals, which are far too extensive.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I understand that defense is strategy, but it has not become better for the Swedish forestry industry as a result of this. I mean that the Center Party is not serious when it comes to the forestry industry and the simplifications and improvements that the industry desperately demands.

We voted no precisely because it was uncertain how the implementation would look. Now we are working as hard as we can to ensure that the implementation becomes as good as possible. The Center Party, on the other hand, has now instead voted yes to a clear shift of power.

Those who measure and monitor inevitably gain power, and in this case, it is the EU Commission. The Center's proposal contained indicators such as deforestation where even logging can be classified as damage to the forest.

I mean that it runs counter to Swedish interests. It is regrettable that C has also now chosen a different path than what was taken for the Swedish forest as recently as the last parliamentary term.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! It has turned out that the government's line of obstruction does not work. Had one instead chosen to go with the Centerpartiets proposal to utilize the Swedish data that exists, we would have had a significantly better opportunity to influence.

Worst of all is that the forest owners are affected by the government's climate policy. The EU targets are clear. We must reduce emissions in the transport sector, in agriculture and forestry, and from work machinery. When the government chooses fossil emissions in the transport sector and from the work machinery, it is the forest and the land that take the hit.

When you increase emissions so significantly that Sweden now looks set to pay EU fines, we know who it is that will have to pay. It is agriculture and forestry that will take the hit because the government is sacrificing climate policy. That hit will be extremely hard.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The EU is not just a trade union. It is a union of values. Europe has emerged from the Judeo-Christian ethics and the humanism that follows from this. It is values that have united us and shaped our way of life. Today we see how they are being threatened.

Russia wants to force us to our knees through the war in Ukraine and the dependence on energy. China can pressure us through its control of the world's critical raw materials. Countries that do not wish us well attack us with influence operations. We see how extremism, antisemitism, and Islamism grow in the shadow of our own so-called tolerance.

To safeguard Europe's values means that we stand up for them in action. It is about not letting the streets of European cities be filled with antisemitism, not letting parallel structures and honor-based oppression take hold, not letting an Islam that does not want to adapt gain ground in our cities, and protecting children's freedom, even online, from malicious forces that want to shape their thoughts and values.

We must have the strength to speak out, because when we betray our values, we also betray Europe's soul and future.

Mr. Speaker! Europe was built on the conviction that man is destined for freedom, but that freedom requires responsibility. Without these values, the EU becomes merely a shell, but with our shared values, we build hope for an entire continent.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! In her role as Minister for Enterprise, Ebba Busch speaks warmly in favor of the industry's transition. But how does she view the fact that the Sweden Democrats actively oppose it and wage a culture war against the individual Swedish industrial companies?

In a situation where Europe is being totally overtaken by China when it comes to electric cars, batteries and fossil-free steel – does Ebba Busch then think that the Sweden Democrats' rhetoric benefits our competitiveness? Does she believe, Mr. Speaker, that it attracts more investors to Sweden?

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I want to show respect for the House. But I do not lend myself to this type of questioning. If you have a question for the Sweden Democrats, you are welcome to ask it, but we are not going to behave as we did in this House in 2006 or 2010. My time is too important for that.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I am surprised that the Minister for Enterprise does not want to talk about industrial policy issues in the chamber, when the government cooperates with a party that obviously locks up money that was intended for a company and which was possible to allocate to this company.

We can read the international press, for example Financial Times, which quotes investors who are irritated that the Swedish government is making it difficult for the green industrial companies. Financial Times reports that the Swedish government has sent signals to investors to stay away from the green transition by locking up approved funds for Stegra.

I want to ask the Minister for Enterprise again: Is the Minister for Enterprise satisfied that her government is being pointed out as a brake that opposes the European industrial transition?

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! No, and I am very glad that it is not actually that image that prevails internationally.

I just came home from Singapore. It is another small but smart country, just like Sweden – small but smart, as we said in English. There, Sweden was praised again for being absolutely world-leading, number two in the world, when it comes to innovation. I think we should be proud of that as Swedes.

We are attracting very heavy investments to Sweden. It is not just about a single company, which can do well or poorly, but we see this across the board. We see it in the agreement with Siemens Energy, the signing of which I was able to witness. It will mean increased revenues both to the Swedish state and to our common welfare and security, and it will also mean jobs directly in Finspång. This is an agreement that we signed now when we were in Singapore.

I am pleased that we are taking step by step to strengthen Swedish competitiveness and that it is noticed internationally.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! At the same time as this debate is taking place, the world's countries are gathering for the UN climate summit COP 30. But no Swedish minister is present.

Sweden used to be a leading force. We were the country that pushed for stricter climate goals and took the initiative for green investments. We were the country that other countries looked up to. Now, the government instead delivers silence, hesitation, and empty chairs.

At the same time as global emissions are hitting records, the EU's countries have just agreed on new climate goals for 2040 but have settled on the lowest possible level. It shows how urgent it is with political courage and leadership.

Mr. Speaker! At the climate summit, the leadership and credibility of the wealthy countries are being put to the test. It is about keeping what has been promised, reducing emissions, and contributing to the financing of the global transition.

The EU has long been the strongest voice for increased ambitions in the international negotiations. But for the EU to be able to continue to lead, the member states must pull in the same direction. When Sweden hesitates and questions the climate goals, it is not only our influence that is weakened, but the entire EU's.

Mr. Speaker! This is a time when the world needs climate leadership, not hesitation. That is why Miljöpartiet continues to push for Sweden to once again be a voice for the future, for solidarity, and for a just climate transition.

(Applause)

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The Green Party lives a bit in a fantasy world. I mean it is a world where transition should occur at the expense of competitiveness and growth, and a world where red tape is more important than the EU protecting its industry, its defense capability, and its self-determination. This is dangerous, because we live in dangerous times.

This is the result of MP having voted against regulatory simplifications for our companies. KD's answer is clear: emissions must go down, but growth must go up. Then the EU must realize that increased red tape, even in the name of the climate, stands in the way of companies that want to spend more time on innovation, that want to give forestry better opportunities to replace fossil materials, and that want to give farmers reasonable conditions to cultivate their land.

I wonder: Can Miljöpartiet stand for that net zero according to Miljöpartiet actually is zero companies, zero forestry and zero activity?

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Ebba Busch spoke earlier about 2006 and 2010 and the debate climate that prevailed then. I know she was referring to other things, but now Ebba Busch is insinuating that Miljöpartiet would want to shut down Swedish companies when all we do is work to develop Swedish companies and for Sweden to gain competitiveness against the rest of the world. We see how, above all, China is overtaking Sweden, and the government is trying to dismantle climate goals and create an industrial climate that prevents Sweden from growing further forward.

The regulatory simplifications at the EU level that are being discussed and that we have heard about earlier in the debate are, de facto, about releasing the possibility for child labor, ensuring that environmental and climate goals are not handled in global trade towards the EU, and making it so that we do not stand up for individuals' rights.

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

Energi- och näringsministern Ebba Busch (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It still sounds as if the Green Party has misinterpreted the net-zero concept. If one listens to both the Swedish business community and the business community in Europe, one hears that this is a matter of grave seriousness. They do not know if they can continue their operations in Europe and whether we can see increased economic growth here if we continue to add so much regulatory burden on our companies.

It is a very stomach-turning claim that the choice stands between increased costs for companies of 14 billion – then we are back in that discussion – and yes to child labor. It is false. It is not true. We stand with frenzy for human rights.

But in that case, I think Daniel Helldén should clearly say to the Swedish business community: Yes, Miljöpartiet thinks it is great if you get an increased cost of 14 billion. We believe that it contributes to increased competitiveness for the Swedish forestry industry and the Swedish business community as a whole.

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is interesting to hear how Ebba Busch does not want to stand up for the rights that actually exist in this legislation. She wants to tear them up and make it easier to trade and import things without taking into account our global environment and human rights, including child labor.

It is interesting to hear how she insinuates that forestry would be harmed by our policy, when we have presented a forest policy that de facto meets Sweden's climate goals and strengthens Swedish forest owners. 350,000 individual forest owners will get better freedom of choice and the opportunity to receive support from the state to have a sustainable, nature-oriented forestry.

We also see in this context how the government instead sets itself on the path where the large forestry companies are given the opportunity to continue exploiting the forest in the wrong way.

We provide opportunities for Swedish forest owners.

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

Utbildnings- och integrationsministern Simona Mohamsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! After the Green Party's congress, we have it in black and white: When Sweden and Europe need more fossil-free energy production, the Green Party says a clear and distinct no to Swedish nuclear power. And not only that: the Green Party says it is firmly determined to fight all attempts to expand nuclear power.

My question to the floor is: How do you think Swedish companies and families are to get more fossil-free electricity without Rominareactors?

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! This discussion about nuclear power is interesting. I think we should look a little bit at what is happening in our global environment. 90 percent of all new electricity production being built out in the world is renewable – wind and solar. 10 percent concerns other things, where nuclear power is not the majority but just a very, very small part.

What Sweden is doing with this government is going completely the wrong way. What is cheap and can be done quickly is the renewable. Nuclear power is enormously expensive. It will send the bill to Swedish households, who will sit there and have to pay for this for 40 years – if you would even succeed with your project, Simona Mohamsson.

You are also talking about small modular reactors, but some of those are not available to purchase on the market.

It will be exciting to see what you manage to achieve during the next eleven months.

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

Utbildnings- och integrationsministern Simona Mohamsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! The language tube thinks this is interesting and that we should look out into the rest of the world. Let us do that!

Europe and Sweden need more fossil-free energy production, not least after Russia invaded Ukraine. The Liberals are working for a Europe free from Russian gas. In that regard, nuclear power plays a decisive role.

My question to the speaker remains. How is Europe to get rid of Russian gas with the Green Party's opposition to nuclear power?

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

Daniel Helldén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Firstly, Europe must stop importing Russian gas. That is the most important thing. We are on a good path regarding what is called LNG, but we should choke off all imports of fossil fuels from Russia. It is absolutely necessary. We must do this from Brussels, and the government should also stand up for this there.

How are we, for the second point, to achieve the energy supply that we need? One only has to look around the world. 90 percent of what is being built out is renewable. We can, for example, look at what is happening in China. There, they have an enormous explosion of, above all, solar power, and they are building out the possibility to store this long-term.

What the government, the Minister for Enterprise, and even the Liberals are doing is trying to push for nuclear power instead of getting the renewables. We have had four lost years in Sweden.

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

Utbildnings- och integrationsministern Simona Mohamsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! A number of countries are now gathering so that Europe can have an orderly, fair and secure migration policy in place. Today's migration system simply does not work. It contributes to a shadow society where people suffer and are exploited by human smugglers, cartels and unscrupulous employers.

In Sweden, the Liberals and the government have begun a paradigm shift for sustainable migration. Like our liberal friends in Denmark and the Netherlands, the Liberals want the EU to receive the resources required to strengthen Europe's external border. It is only criminal forces that profit from an unfair migration policy – smugglers who exploit desperate people and who send families and children on life-threatening routes over seas and mountains.

Even here, we need a stronger Europe to handle the cross-border problems.

The Liberals want to significantly expand Frontex to put a stop to smugglers who put people in mortal danger. An orderly, fair and secure migration policy begins and ends with Europe's external border.

The party debate on EU policy was hereby concluded.

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