Trade policy

Johnny Svedin (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is a small country, but we have successful global export companies within both the industrial and the technological sectors. When trade functions, jobs, investments, and tax revenues are created. When trade, on the other hand, is hindered by tariffs, uncertainty, or unnecessary complications, production becomes more expensive. Furthermore, deliveries become more difficult, and growth is slowed. This is not only noticed in annual reports and statistics. It is also noticed in wallets, in prices, in job security, and in the companies' willingness to hire.

The report shows that the world economy has been affected by the USA's tariff policy since the beginning of 2025. Many goods from the EU now face higher tariff levels. It shows that market access can never be taken for granted. When large economies raise the thresholds, it becomes more expensive for companies to sell. In the long run, it affects both jobs and prices here at home.

The effects are visible across the entire country. In Kalmar County, where I live, food, forest and wood, tourism, green industries and parts of the manufacturing industry are most often combined with profile areas such as energy, water and environmental technology. This makes the export chains concrete and time-critical.

A chain can start in the forest, continue through processing, and then enter European construction and industrial flows where delivery precision is crucial. Another chain can involve food where processing, packaging, cold chains, and logistics must function without interruption. When frictions increase, it does not just result in more paperwork and more controls. It also results in longer lead times and higher costs. Ultimately, customers choose suppliers who can deliver more simply and predictably.

If we look further north, in for example Norrbotten County, the value chains look different, but the logic is the same. The rules of the game determine where investments and jobs end up. When the chains go from raw materials through processing to industrial products on a global market, dumping, unfair subsidies, and rule violations become directly decisive for prices and investment willingness. Then it is about more than figures. It is about whether jobs increase, new initiatives are realized, and Sweden can compete on equal terms. Ultimately, it is about resources for the welfare system.

Mr. Speaker! Therefore, rule-based trade, functioning tools against distorted competition, and market access that is reliable are needed. There is also an important point here for AB Sverige. Exports are not made up of a few large companies, but rather consist of an interconnected system where large and small actors interact.

An export transaction often begins long before a product leaves the country. It begins with the subcontractors who manufacture a component, with the workshop that makes the special part, with the carrier who keeps the flow moving, and with the service company that delivers design, software, service, or financing. When friction arises in a single link – a customs duty, a new certificate, or a border obstacle – costs and uncertainty are created throughout the entire chain. Therefore, trade policy is not just about foreign trade but also about Swedish productivity, competitiveness, and jobs across the whole country.

Mr. Speaker! Against this background, we are today considering the Committee on Industry's report on trade policy. What must be guiding is clear. Trade shall be as frictionless as possible. The rules shall apply, and the transition shall strengthen Swedish competitiveness. It requires that the EU continues to be a free trade voice, but without naivety.

The Sverigedemokraternas goals are a free, sustainable and rules-based international trade, a well-functioning internal market as well as increased exports and international investments in Sweden.

It also presupposes a functioning world trade organization, World Trade Organization, WTO. The consideration describes the reform work and the importance of a functioning dispute settlement system as well as the preparations for the WTO's 14th ministerial conference in Cameroon in March this year.

For a small country like Sweden, this is of core interest. When the rules can be tested and disputes can be settled in a fair way, trade becomes something that benefits more people, not something governed by the law of the strongest.

The same principle applies to climate policy in trade. The mechanism for carbon adjustment at the borders, Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, CBAM, entered a new phase on 1 January 2026, which means that importers of certain goods shall declare embedded emissions and purchase certificates.

The report also describes simplifications intended to reduce the administrative burden, including minimum levels of 50 tonnes per year for certain goods. The goal is to counter carbon leakage and unfair competition while simultaneously making the regulatory framework clear, legally secure, and reasonable. For the general public, it is about something simple: Sweden should not be punished for being far ahead. We must be able to compete without those who cheat getting a shortcut.

Mr. Speaker! In the Nordic countries, the same logic is observed in practice. The committee reports on the Border Obstacle Council's work in identifying and prioritizing obstacles, driving solutions, and following up on them in annual reports. Double administration is reduced, lead times are shortened, and fewer points get stuck in special rules when the border obstacles are removed. This is good for companies that want to sell across borders, but also for people who want to work, study, or move without getting stuck in unnecessary complications.

The report also highlights an increased challenge for Swedish competitiveness, e-commerce, and small parcels. Within the EU, work is underway to tighten the handling of small parcels through, among other things, fees, duties, and stronger controls to push back fraud and goods.

The government has also adopted a new national strategy for market control 2026–2029, which means that authorities shall coordinate the work to secure e-commerce and conduct more efficient controls. There is a clear everyday connection here. When you click home a product, it must be safe, follow the rules, and not outcompete serious companies through cheating, copies, or dangerous goods. Order and regularity shall also apply when trade occurs via platforms and direct import.

When large actors pressure smaller countries, Sweden also needs to think strategically regarding trade and partnerships. The consideration deals with motions to strengthen trade and investment ties between, for example, the EU and Taiwan. For Sweden's part, it is reasonable to work to strengthen trade with like-minded economies when it benefits competitiveness with a focus on market entry and robust supply chains within the framework of current rules.

Mr. Speaker! In summary, it is about making it as smooth as possible, safeguarding rule-based trade and strengthening Swedish competitiveness in an increasingly tougher world. People should be able to feel security in their jobs, companies should be able to grow, and household finances should not be pressured unnecessarily. We Sverigedemokrater see this as a matter of course.

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

Mattias Jonsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Johnny Svedin, for the speech!

I did not intend to have any further exchange of remarks, but I still became a bit curious. We have, just as the member mentioned in his speech, difficulties and challenges with Trump's tariffs. It creates uncertainty, it becomes erratic, and we do not really know where it is all heading. It changes almost day by day and hour by hour, so one has to listen to what mood the administration in the USA is in.

When JD Vance was at a security meeting last year, the Sweden Democrats expressed that it was a fresh breeze. That fresh breeze is blowing quite hard both towards Sweden and Europe. It is blowing so hard that several jobs are at risk of disappearing.

I wonder: Why are the Sweden Democrats signaling at the EU level – trade policy is very much an EU issue – that they do not want to move forward and support the agreement with India? It is a large agreement that would be very important for Europe.

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

Johnny Svedin (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the question! Now, I am not an EU parliamentarian, and I actually had no idea about this.

In our group in the Riksdag, we naturally support a cooperation agreement and welcome and look forward to it. This was more than I knew, actually.

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

Mattias Jonsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is signals I am receiving from the comrades in the EU Parliament, and I believe there is a connection to the fact that in that agreement, one also wants the opportunity to get highly qualified labor here to Europe, something that I have perceived that the Sverigedemokraterna do not stand behind. But we can discuss that at another time, when the member has checked the facts.

But since we have a turn of remarks anyway, I can take the opportunity to ask a question about something we have pointed out for several years. When jobs in Sweden risk being severely affected, there are ready-made proposals to establish short-term work to facilitate when the industry transitions, when things are going poorly for the companies and we have strike actions and perhaps even bankruptcies, as it has been during the last few years. Then it is welcome, and we also saw a need for it in 2008–2009.

Since then, a great responsibility has been taken on by the industry, but it would have been welcome if the government base had also ensured that this was put in place. Can the member answer where the question lies and how the member views the need for this?

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

Johnny Svedin (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Mattias Jonsson, for the question! It is a labor market issue the member is posing, but I will try to answer it anyway. I believe I received it the last time I stood here as well.

Labor immigration is nothing we see as strange or impossible. It is also something we need, naturally. But we need it in the right way, and we need to get the right type of labor into Sweden.

I come myself from a society with a high density of immigrants where people went and fetched labor by bus in the 1960s and 1970s, from Italy, the then Yugoslavia and other countries, primarily Finland. It has helped Swedish industry very much. It was necessary then and there, and I suppose that such a need can arise eventually. There is such a need already now, by the way.

But it is also about how one does it. The immigration we have had previously has resulted in a great deal of benefit dependency instead of labor. This is the difference and the problem that one must think sharply about how to solve. It is not more benefit recipients we want, but we want working labor for Sweden.

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

Mattias Jonsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is, as we all know, a small, export-dependent country. Our prosperity, our jobs, and our competitiveness are built on the fact that we trade with the rest of the world. It is even the case that every other krona we earn practically comes from exports.

For generations, we in Sweden have therefore had a strong desire for openness, cooperation and free trade, especially in the turbulent times we live in now. Trump's tariffs, which the exchange of remarks partly concerned, create serious uncertainty, insecurity, volatility and unpredictability. It is also against that background that we today look with concern at the government's management of trade policy.

While the Minister for Trade and the Minister for EU Affairs are writing op-eds, most recently on February 15, about the blessings of free trade, the government's own support, as I have understood it, announces that they intend to vote against the free trade agreement with India. It is an agreement that has the potential to become one of the most important for the EU in many years. It would contribute to Sweden's exports to India. For Sweden's part, the value could amount to as much as 44 billion.

Mr. Speaker! It is not serious. It is not responsible to say no to such an agreement. Instead of handling the division within its own government base, we have seen the government choose to expend energy on attacking us Social Democrats – despite the fact that for a long time we have been a clear and consistent voice for free trade and Swedish exports. It is a very strange prioritization from the government parties.

In area after area, I can note the same pattern: the energy issue, the pensions, and the fight against gang crime, and now it is trade policy. The government fails to build a long-term consensus. Instead, it makes itself dependent on a party that openly questions parts of Europe's trade agenda.

If anything risks delaying important trade agreements, it is truly not the opposition. I would like to assert that it is the government's own constellation.

Mr. Speaker! Trade policy today is about more than just tariffs and quotas. It is intertwined with security policy, geopolitics, and economic resilience. We live in a time of increased trade barriers, growing protectionism, and tougher global competition. We have wars, conflicts, and great power rivalries that affect supply chains, investments, and market access. In that situation, clear leadership, clarity, and predictability are required.

We Social Democrats believe that Sweden needs a more offensive and cohesive trade policy. We need a new foreign trade strategy that strengthens our competitiveness and our resilience in tough times. Therefore, we Social Democrats have set a clear agenda.

Firstly, in the new, uncertain situation, we need a concrete action plan to support Swedish companies. Companies need scenarios to handle tariffs, quotas, and disrupted supply chains. We need an activated Team Sweden and an updated analysis of Sweden's economic security and vulnerability. The state must be a partner, not a passive spectator.

Secondly, we need faster and more flexible trade cooperation alongside the traditional free trade agreements, especially in strategic areas such as digital trade and new technology. The negotiations with India are strategically important, and they need to be handled promptly. The government should be proactive regarding the agreements with Mercosur, so that they can enter into force promptly. Swedish companies cannot afford any kind of political paralysis in this situation.

Thirdly, we want to see a permanent and expanded customs support that provides companies with proactive guidance and reduces uncertainty for the companies. Small and medium-sized enterprises should not have to navigate an increasingly complex trade policy. When reality is tough, they should not have to stand alone.

For the fourth, we must step up the work of winning large strategic export deals. Many other countries are working systematically. They are working long-term to strengthen the companies' competitiveness. Sweden shall not stand on the sidelines. Instead, we shall be at the forefront.

Mr. Speaker! This is not about a high or raised tone – it is about higher levels of ambition. We are ready to cooperate every day of the week.

Trade policy has historically been an area where Sweden has been able to speak with a strong and united voice in Europe. The basis for our trade policy is primarily established within the European Union. It is crucial that the EU continues to pursue an open investment policy agenda towards the rest of the world.

Mr. Speaker! Export promotion is a major part of an offensive trade policy. The state's export promotion efforts need to be secured and must be developed, not least for more small and medium-sized enterprises, so that they can reach new markets. Today, there are far too many companies with good products and services that never get the opportunity to take the step out onto the world market.

We also need to take a collective grip to strengthen exports within life science. It is one of Sweden's most important knowledge and export areas. Here, there is world-leading research, innovative companies, and a strong tradition of collaboration between academia, the business sector, and the public sector. But the competition is very tough. We can see that other countries are investing powerfully. Then Sweden must not end up in a position where one leans back.

Mr. Speaker! In times of geopolitical uncertainty, it is more important than ever that Sweden stands up for global cooperation and free trade. Our history shows that openness has made us much stronger, in no way weaker. But openness naturally requires responsibility. It requires political stability. It requires that one is able to gather a majority around crucial issues of the future. There, I believe there are deficiencies in the government today.

It is not enough to write op-eds about free trade, as we have seen recently. It is not enough to speak warmly about the importance of exports. One must also ensure that there is broad, long-term parliamentary support for the agreements one says one wants to implement.

Sweden needs a united and decisive action in a world where the rules of the game are obviously changing very quickly. We Social Democrats stand ready to contribute to that work – for the Swedish jobs, for the Swedish companies and for Swedish competitiveness. But then the government must also choose a path.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden shall be a strong voice for free, sustainable and fair trade, which we believe should be the parliamentary goal specifically for trade policy. Sweden has a long tradition of pursuing a successful policy where trade, development cooperation and a strong protection of workers' rights as well as high climate ambitions go hand in hand.

Madam Speaker! Sweden deserves better than symbolic politics and invented contradictions. Sweden deserves a trade policy that is stable, offensive and future-oriented. That is how we build a stronger country in a more restless time.

I move for approval of reservation 17.

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

Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Welcome to the election campaign, I say.

Trade policy is, as Member Mattias Jonsson very rightly says, an issue that has a large and broad scope in Sweden's Riksdag. That the government does too little, that everything is wrong and that it is always at the wrong time is a rhetoric that does not work very well, so to speak.

On 1 December 2023, we introduced a new strategy for trade policy. It is a broad policy that runs across the departments. It permeates all different areas. One also turns outward with a team that works strategically to market Sweden in all ways with different brand managements.

One cannot – that may be news to Member Mattias Jonsson – have ministerial rule. But one can have conversations. One has very many conversations. One has a dialogue with organizations and with the business community to see which way the world is turning. This is a day-to-day issue from time to time. Some times, weeks have passed during the last year between things that have affected us – tariffs and other things.

I would like to ask the member how he views the work of the Swedish Trade Council (Kommerskollegium). It is one of the government's appointed agencies that is to assist companies, including small and medium-sized ones, when it comes to acting in a much more complex world.

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

Mattias Jonsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Throughout my speech, I tried to send a signal that we need to cooperate. What I am opposing is that the government rather seems to be mentally in opposition. Instead, social democracy is being accused of seeking cooperation for long-term stability in a very restless time. That was actually my main message in my speech.

I note that it is debate article after debate article. Jessica Rosencrantz and Benjamin Dousa most recently on February 15 had an attack on Social Democracy instead of devoting themselves to trying to achieve stability within their own government base – when we have major issues moving in the trade area. I am primarily thinking of the agreement with India. But there are, of course, also other areas where we need to have long-term thinking and broad agreements.

We have also demanded a faster process for increased free trade with more countries. We have also been those who first presented the proposal on tariff support.

In response to the question: The Ministry of Commerce naturally has an important role in this context. But we need to work broadly with these issues. We need to try to seek consensus.

Madam Speaker! When the exchange of remarks is initiated by saying that we are entering the election campaign, when my entire speech essentially boils down to the fact that we need long-term rules of the game, a consensus and stability in a restless time, I am very surprised.

(Applause)

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

Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Mattias Jonsson, for the answer!

One does not need to be so surprised by that. That is what happens when one polemicizes oneself and always stands a bit apart from what is happening. What has been written in the debate articles is precisely that we need to stick together and be a country that speaks with one voice outwardly. This is where you are constantly seeking a point of conflict. You do that in every single issue. You stand on the sidelines but still talk about a community. That is not quite the rhetoric that Sweden needs in the world that we are to navigate in.

It is good that Kommerskollegium still has the confidence of the Social Democrats, as it is a designated agency. It is good to have a cohesive organization and an agency that can take into account interests and collect questions and the concerns that exist. They can handle them and help companies, regardless of size, to move forward among the rules and other things in the world that they have to navigate.

Mattias Jonsson! The Social Democrats should perhaps try to approach the government and hold a line. How do you view that?

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

Mattias Jonsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson, for the question!

Sometimes it is not easy to get through. But I think it is a responsibility of a Social Democratic party in opposition to reach out to the government parties for stability and long-term perspective. To turn that into seeing it as attacks is a very interesting interpretation.

The Speaker said it is question upon question. I turn it around and say that we extend a hand, question upon question, in a world that is very strained and that puts Sweden to the test.

We have the energy policy. There, we in the opposition have entered into talks to try to get long-term rules of the game. The Moderaterna and Sverigedemokraterna choose to end that. It risks Swedish jobs. It risks Swedish industry in a way that is very, very serious.

We have gang crime. There we ask to try to reach an agreement on a so-called ten-year pact with the government, with the Moderaterna, even though we are in opposition. We see, namely, that it is an incredibly important issue to achieve long-term stability around and not a jerkiness. It is about the society showing that we mean business with breaking gang crime.

To claim otherwise is absurd. We are going into an election campaign. We will have different opinions. Even though we are in the same year as the election, we continue to stand here and say that in certain issues we need to have stability, agreements, and long-term perspective. Then one cannot turn it into polarizing, I think.

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

As we begin to approach the end of this parliamentary term – it is the final spring of the term – I remind the members once again in all humility that everyone shall speak through the Speaker. In other words: "You" shall not precede.

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

Johnny Svedin (SD)

Madam Speaker! I had intended to ask a short question, but I became a little curious. You speak of a broad agreement, Mattias Jonsson, about doing things together and so on. My question therefore does not have to do with trade policy – or it does too, because you mention symbolic politics and saying one thing here and doing something else. You are not interested in an agreement with the second-largest party in Sweden, which is strange considering that you say you want to cooperate.

Trade policy is, just as the member himself said, very important and very decisive for Sweden's welfare. What simplifications do you want to make so that small exporters can meet the requirements? The EU has placed a huge amount of requirements on export companies regarding, for example, human rights and environmental requirements on products and so on. How do you think about that? Do you accept that in practice it is only large companies that manage to do this?

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

Mattias Jonsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Johnny Svedin, for the question! It is correctly understood that we clearly express that we are prepared to cooperate with all parties except the Sweden Democrats in any type of government constellation. This is because we have different basic views. We have different views on humanity, and our ideologies are so far apart that we do not see the possibility or can imagine having that type of cooperation.

As I also said in my speech, it is incredibly important that small and medium-sized enterprises get out onto the world market. Many companies today do not get that opportunity, and therefore we must ensure that we support them. In my speech, I also said that we need an activated Team Sweden and an updated analysis of Sweden's economic security and vulnerability. We also have several different agencies and organizations that need to be activated in a more effective way. In a difficult time like this, with tariffs and uncertainty in the world around us, we must not only invest in large companies, but small and medium-sized companies must also get that opportunity.

It is about Swedish jobs and Swedish companies. Then we cannot just look towards the large companies. If that is how it has been perceived, it is completely wrong – this is an approach for breadth.

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

Johnny Svedin (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Mattias Jonsson, for the answer, even though I actually did not hear any concrete answer from the member's side.

Supporting small businesses is easy to say, but how do you do it concretely? You mention Team Sweden, and for that part, Business Sweden, which is good. In that area, the government has made investments, and we fully support that. It is fantastically good, because it is somewhat our face outward.

Now the EU is working intensively on, among other things, omnibus packages and the one and the other to facilitate, above all for small and medium-sized enterprises, to be able to enter the export market. Is that not essentially what the member is saying here? They are already working on this. When you stood here and took a turn to speak against me, you said that we cannot influence that much because it is mostly the EU that has the major right regarding our trade issues, and that is indeed true.

What do you Social Democrats want to do concretely? That is my question.

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

Mattias Jonsson (S)

Madam Speaker! In my speech, I outlined four areas where we want to gear up and strengthen so that small, medium-sized, and large companies get the opportunity to enter the market outside Sweden's borders.

We need to increase the possibility for export. We also need to strengthen and create more stability around Swedish companies that today experience a great deal of uncertainty. It is about a customs support so that one knows how to navigate the uncertainty that exists. There are a number of things that we can do at home.

Madam Speaker! In the previous exchange with Johnny Svedin, I pointed out with great concern that one is dodging the answers regarding whether to support an agreement with India worth 44 billion. The signals I receive from the Sweden Democrats in the European Parliament make me very worried. Such an agreement could create very large opportunities not only for large companies but also for small and medium-sized enterprises. That type of investment across the board is incredibly important. It is not about scaling down, but about scaling up. We must have long-term rules of the game, preferably across party lines.

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

Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M)

Madam Speaker! We are now living in a time when trade policy has moved from being a technical policy area to being a central part of both security policy and economic policy. International trade is to a large extent no longer about economic rules and structures for trade as we want it.

War in our vicinity, increased geopolitical tensions, and disruptions in global supply chains affect Swedish companies every day. Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine four years ago, an increasing rivalry between the world's largest economies, and a clear global trend towards protectionism have changed the playing field. Trade is increasingly used as a strategic tool. New dependencies are being built and old ones broken. We see how tariffs and large industrial subsidies are emerging, not least from the American administration in the USA.

When large economies act, the conditions of competition change rapidly. This risks leading to countermeasures, increased trade barriers, and a more fragmented world trade. We have also seen numerous examples of this over the past year when we have found ourselves in a tariff landscape that has changed in a capricious way.

The EU shall use its trade instruments when necessary but always with the goal of safeguarding open world trade. Sweden pushes forward in the work to ensure that competition is not distorted, while at the same time we safeguard open trade and avoid escalating tariff conflicts by acting constructively in the European Union and supporting the World Trade Organization. In this way, we ensure good conditions for Swedish companies. Being strong is not always about shouting the loudest but about getting results where the decisions are made.

Madam Speaker! For an export-dependent country like Sweden, the answer is clear: We are and shall continue to be proactive for free trade, competitiveness and open markets. More than half of our GDP is linked to exports. It is about hundreds of thousands of Swedish jobs in industry, the service sector, the tech industry and small businesses all over the country, to name a few.

It is not difficult to state that a closed world produces losers. It should be emphasized that our country has chosen free trade based on the fact that we have a strong economy, competitive companies, and the ability to manage risks. In other words, Sweden has made a strategic choice.

Trade policy begins here at home. That is why the government on 1 December 2023 presented a strategy for trade and investment. It strengthens Swedish competitiveness in an uncertain world. The strategy is based on cross-sectoral work, where trade is linked with innovation, climate, digitalization and industrial policy because trade today permeates the entire economy.

At the same time, the government has established a regulatory council to strengthen the work on regulatory simplification with the aim of reducing the administrative burdens on companies. An implementation council has also been established to counter over-implementation of EU legislation so that Swedish companies do not receive worse conditions than their European competitors.

It is ultimately about competitiveness and about rule-based conditions. Sweden clearly stands up for free, sustainable and rule-based trade. The European Union and the muscles we have together play a decisive role. Sweden is a strong trading nation, but we are also dependent on the EU's collective weight. Through the EU, we get the muscles to negotiate with the world's largest economies. Therefore, Sweden pushes for more free trade agreements.

The EU is negotiating with several important economies, including India, Indonesia, and Australia. Work also continues on the agreement with Mercosur, which is strategically important both for opening new markets and for reducing vulnerabilities in global value chains.

In a more uncertain world, Sweden needs to put its eggs in several baskets. At the same time, the multilateral trading system is more important than it has been in a long time. Sweden is actively working to strengthen the World Trade Organization WTO, not least to get a functioning dispute settlement system in place again.

Trade shall be decided through rules, not through power politics or escalating tariff conflicts. This is crucial for Swedish companies, which are dependent on stable and predictable conditions. But trade policy is not just about large global agreements, it is also about companies actually being able to use the opportunities. Here at home, Kommerskollegium plays an important role as the authority that has a particularly large responsibility to help companies understand regulatory frameworks and navigate international markets.

In parallel, the government is working with the Made with Sweden initiative, which strengthens Swedish brands, innovation, and export opportunities in global markets. Together with Team Sweden – where embassies, authorities, and the business sector collaborate – this opens doors for Swedish companies and helps them compete in new markets.

Madam Speaker! Sweden must be a strong voice for open trade in a time when the world is becoming more closed. We work to strengthen competitiveness through better regulations. We work to influence in the EU and in global organizations to create good conditions. And we work to build broader trade relations to reduce vulnerability in an uncertain world. That is how we strengthen Swedish companies, Swedish jobs, and Sweden's role as a global trading nation.

With this, I move for approval of the proposal in the report and rejection of the motions.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! Just as the member stated, the strategic importance of trade policy has increased in recent times. The Moderates have, in recent weeks, finally come to the conclusion that Donald Trump is not Sweden's best friend and that his policy harms our relations. The road to that point has been quite long and winding, but finally, you have arrived. Even if it is not always the strongest and most powerful expressions you pull out of the toolbox, it still marks a stand against Trump's policy.

After Trump took office, he has on repeated occasions threatened Europe with tariffs. To counter this, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, was sent to Scotland and Trump's golf course in connection with a vacation that Trump had there. After the meeting, Ursula von der Leyen brought with her a napkin sketch where the USA got what they wanted and the EU practically got nothing. Many politicians, both on the left and on the right, have criticized this agreement.

But when Trump once again threatened Greenland and Denmark received support from other countries, including Sweden, the process of ratifying the trade agreement between the EU and the USA came to a halt. Still, it did not take long after this before the Moderaterna began dreaming of a ratification of the agreement as soon as the tariff shock and the acute military threat against Greenland were gone. Then the Moderaterna wanted a trade agreement with the USA once again.

But the disappointment did not end there. Now that the INTA Committee in the European Parliament was to look at the issue this week, Trump got feeling again and wanted to introduce new tariffs, now at 15 percent, against Europe. He has not followed the trade agreement even once. Yesterday, the news came that they are once again stopping the ratification.

Madam Speaker! Why in the whole world do the Moderates want this bad trade agreement with the USA as quickly as possible?

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

Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Svenneling for the question.

It is not that the Moderates, the government, or Sweden are against the USA. It is the administration and Trump who are acting, not the USA as a country. Many companies have business with the USA. It appeared in another exchange of remarks that it is important to work so that the businesses also function. Therefore, one wants trade agreements.

We are working all the time to establish free trade agreements with countries. We believe that trade is a way forward also to create contacts and community and develop exchanges that lead to positive things.

In that situation, one must balance what is happening and which tools should be used that can affect someone who is perceived to be heading in the wrong direction and is constantly pushing for tariffs. At the same time, one wants to change the world so that one returns to an order with a functioning rule-based trade. That is the answer.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! The agreement is signed with the Trump administration. It is no one other than Trump that the agreement has been negotiated with. Trump breaks the agreement time and again, most recently the other day. The Moderates and the EPP group state that they still want to proceed with the ratification of the agreement. I do not understand the logic.

For me, the conclusion is that we must reduce the dependence on the USA to guarantee the existing value chains and a stable demand. We need to find new global production and trade patterns, and we shall make ourselves less dependent on the USA. We have been critical of the trade agreements because they harm European industry and our agriculture, and it leads to an increased dependence on the USA.

It is stated in the agreement, among other things, that the European Union intends to abolish all tariffs on industrial goods from the USA. At the same time, advantages are given to the USA on a wide spectrum of goods, from nuts to pork and bison meat. For the USA, it is generally 15 percent on all EU products when it is virtually zero for the USA. This can damage our agricultural sector and our ability to be self-sufficient.

Part of the agreement is that Europe shall purchase American fossil energy for 750 billion dollars over three years. One must still be able to question the realism of this. This is clearly in conflict with our climate goals, and it increases our dependence. It requires significant investments to quadruple energy imports from the USA, in a situation where we need to reduce our dependence on fossil energy and on the USA.

It also states in the agreement that we are to purchase more military equipment and defense materiel, at a time when we need to strengthen our own security and reduce our military dependence on the USA. The Moderates want to build this into the trade agreement.

Madam Speaker! I do not understand the motives.

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

Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Håkan Svenneling for the question.

One does not preclude the other when we talk about free trade. We can both pursue free trade agreements with a country and make the agreements progressive to reach a different position than the one we are in today. The agreements have served us well, and we believe they will continue to do so in the future.

I do not see the USA as an enemy. On the contrary! We have extensive trade with America. Håkan Svenneling believes that we should seek elsewhere. The government does this by putting the eggs in several baskets. The government is pushing to create relations with other countries and build trade agreements. At the same time, trade agreements are being built with the EU in order to move forward. One does not preclude the other.

If Sweden is to be a small open country where we believe in trade, we must allow others to send their goods here. We cannot demand that we send our goods out into the world and that everyone should think it is fantastic without them getting anything in return. Free trade is important.

Even though it does not help in substance, the EU has tariffs against the USA. It is not the case that they are only on one side. We must take that with us when we look at the issue.

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

Mattias Jonsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson, for the speech!

I have two questions for the Moderates and Ann-Charlotte, Madam Speaker. I hear the government and the Minister for Finance express that we have a Trump-proof economy. At the same time, it is said that our barns are empty, and we have an unemployment rate of 9 percent and a youth unemployment rate of approximately 25 percent. During the mandate period, we have also seen large volumes of layoffs and bankruptcies. We would probably have to go back decades to find corresponding figures.

My question to Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson is: What does a Trump-proof economy mean?

There is simultaneously a distorted competition from China when it comes to steel, which has affected 90,000 jobs between 2008 and 2023. What measures does the member consider need to be taken to address the distorted competition?

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

Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I do not know if Member Jonsson listened to the debates earlier today in other committees and boards. There, one strayed outside the own debate on trade. We are perhaps doing that here now as well. That is why I bring it up.

One must remember where we come from, regarding the question that Mattias Jonsson is now raising. In 2022, inflation was very high. We have, therefore, moved from a place where we had high fuel prices, enormously high electricity prices, and so on. Work has been done on that along the way.

The rhetoric that the Social Democrats use about the barns being empty is not our rhetoric. It is your rhetoric, Mattias Jonsson. That is what I mean by a campaign.

We have chosen to use a reform space to make reforms. That is the direction we are moving in. We have made historical investments in infrastructure, not least in the upgrade and repair debt that dates back a long way. We have made large investments in the research proposition, upgraded the defense, and lowered taxes, so that more remains in the wallet broadly, even though the Social Democrats claim otherwise.

In a time of global uncertainty, we have strengthened the Swedish economy. We have broken the recession. We came from a place far down and are now at a place high up. It is claimed that we have high unemployment. Yes, we do in the comparative figures in Europe. But if we look at our own country and remove those people who are not unemployed according to our own statistics, that is to say young people who are of working age but who perhaps go to university and work during the summers and have other jobs and so on, we see that it falls noticeably. I think it is important to include that aspect, because it affects how we should handle those issues here at home.

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

Mattias Jonsson (S)

Madam Speaker! My interpretation is that a Trump-proof economy means tax cuts, reforms, and borrowed reform space.

I heard no answer regarding China and the dumped prices on steel. 90,000 jobs and 25 percent of the workforce in the steel industry have disappeared. The steel production in Vikmanshyttan, which has existed for 500 years, has shut down.

There has been no protection mechanism against the cheap Chinese steel. But now a decision has been made at the EU level to handle the over-import. It is a tariff quota of 18 million tonnes. It is important and something that the steel industry has demanded for over ten years. Finally, it has been put in place.

I note, however, that the Moderates in the relevant committee in the European Parliament voted no to this tariff quota, which secures jobs in Sweden and Europe, in order to handle the dumped prices from the Chinese steel.

My question remains: What do the Moderaterna want? And why did the Moderaterna vote no to the tariff quota to handle the distorted competition?

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

Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M)

Madam Speaker! When it comes to Social Democrat Mattias Jonsson's expression regarding a Trump-proof economy, I would say it is about being able to handle tariffs. They are manageable, even if it is something we do not desire. At the bottom of this lies that we want free trade and are constantly working to be able to have open economies. It serves our country well.

That there is a great impact from other parts of the world leads, for example, to companies that have been in China having problems with where they belong and whether they should pay within the EU or towards countries like China. Work is being done to find solutions to that. One might talk to the business community, which responds: This is something we can manage, and this is something we cannot manage.

Mattias Jonsson paints a dark picture of that everything is wrong, that one cannot do this and that something should have been done a long time ago. It is interesting. If things and matters and much that one thinks do not fit now happened ten years ago, why did the social democratic government do nothing then? That is what I would like to know, but since this was the closing remark, I do not get an answer to that.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! It feels good to be back in the trade policy debates. It was one of my areas of responsibility during the first parliamentary term I served in the Riksdag, between 2014 and 2018. Many parts of the debate and the proposals, as well as some of the members, are the same. But a lot has happened regarding the members, but above all regarding the policy.

Donald Trump has become the President of the USA once again, and his aim is set on using tariffs to push through his policy. It is a policy that is harmful to everyone in the world, especially for the global supply chains, which are part of what binds us together in a common global economy.

I would like Sweden and the EU to pursue a fair trade policy that prioritizes people, social justice, animals, climate, and the environment, and that focuses on societal benefits for everyone, not just profits for large corporations. I want to see a trade policy with the objective that it should not result in deterioration for citizens in other countries. For trade to be conducted on fair terms, poor countries must receive advantages and greater room for maneuver to design their own trade policy.

Trade should also be a tool to share green technologies and encourage countries to strengthen their climate and environmental work and their policies. It is crucial that poor countries are given real opportunities to develop their own industry and their own agriculture so that they are not pressured into agreements that limit their opportunities to pursue an active development and business policy.

Sweden carries out extensive trade and investment promotion work at the national level which has global effects through, among others, the Swedish Export Credit Agency, EKN, Svensk Exportkredit, SEK, and Business Sweden. The work takes the form of various supports where export credits or guarantees are issued for exports and investments abroad. Unfortunately, I believe that the transparency in these activities is very deficient, despite the fact that large sums are used to support investments and trade, sometimes in countries that are dictatorships. I mean that the government should return with proposals to increase transparency in activities such as the Swedish Export Credit Agency and Svensk Exportkredit.

I also want to highlight in this context the EU rules on corporate responsibility, which risk being diluted by the Commission's eagerness for regulatory simplification. We need to clarify companies' environmental and climate responsibilities. It is of great importance that the government works towards the requirements that what is called human rights due diligence and environmental due diligence gain greater traction in Sweden's and the EU's regulatory frameworks regarding companies' actions abroad.

Madam Speaker! What I said earlier regarding trade policy applies in particular to the trade relations between Israel and Palestine. The EU is Israel's largest trading partner. Approximately one-third of all exports from Israel go to the EU. Israel's occupation of Palestine would not have been possible without the EU's favorable trade agreements with Israel.

Palestine today has no power over its own economic development due to the occupation. With the wall that Israel has built around Palestine, the checkpoints that exist and the military laws that have been introduced, Palestinian companies are prevented from growing and establishing themselves in export markets. Increased trade with Palestine is therefore an important tool for Palestine to be able to be rebuilt, while simultaneously giving the EU the opportunity to put pressure on Israel to respect international law.

I mean that there are many effective ways to go so that the EU can achieve this. For example, since 1997, there has been a so-called interim agreement on association between the EU and Palestine which includes, among other things, trade. This agreement could be upgraded and converted into a permanent association agreement and thereby create better conditions for trade between the EU and Palestine. This, in turn, would strengthen the Palestinian economy.

One reason why Israel's occupation of Palestine can continue is that international companies contribute to the occupation. In a report from the UN Special Rapporteur on Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, a number of companies are identified as contributing to the occupying power's execution of the occupation, primarily through demolitions. One of the companies mentioned is the Swedish Volvo Group, which continues to sell excavators to Israel year after year. Another company is Atlas Copco, which according to the report has contributed equipment to military posts and other infrastructure in occupied territory. Last year, we stopped the Swedish company Aimpoint from delivering red dot sights, as they have been used to aim at and kill Palestinians. Now, the trade of other companies with the occupying power Israel must also be stopped.

Vänsterpartiet has many times emphasized that Sweden should act forcefully to prevent new Israeli settlements from being added on Palestinian land and that existing settlements should be dismantled immediately. The Swedish government should therefore, like the Norwegian government, produce recommendations to Swedish companies on how they should conduct trade with Israel that contributes to the continuation of the occupation of Palestine. The recommendations should, in my opinion, contain a warning against all trade that directly or indirectly supports illegal Israeli settlements. They should also include calls to companies to take into account legal, economic, and moral aspects in business linked to Israel on occupied land.

Madam Speaker! During the autumn's general motion period, the Left Party (V) submitted a motion regarding West Africa, an exciting region on an exciting continent. West Africa consists of at least 15 countries depending on the definition. A number of countries in West Africa are in a decisive geopolitical upheaval that can affect the development in the region for a long time to come. The colonial legacy has characterized the countries long after the colonial powers withdrew.

Important choices will now be made that can have long-term consequences for the region's future. Increased independence from the USA and Europe can, at best, lead to increased power over own natural resources, a strengthened economy, increased popular influence, and international cooperation on more equal terms. At the same time, there is an overriding risk that the military regimes in some countries are driving them into a dependence on authoritarian superpowers such as Russia and China.

West Africa accounts for around 30 percent of Africa's population and also contributes approximately 30 percent of the continent's GDP. I mean that Sweden, through fair and responsible trade promotion work, can contribute to a positive development in the region. The countries in West Africa differ, however, when it comes to economic conditions and the degree of democracy. Several countries, including Nigeria, are potential growth markets for Swedish companies, not least within digitalization, technology, transport, and green energy. At the same time, there are significant trade barriers and risks in the form of political instability, corruption, democratic deficit, and lack of respect for human rights.

Madam Speaker! Another example that I want to highlight is Morocco's occupation of Western Sahara, which has been ongoing since 1975. It is an occupation that violates international law and against which the UN has adopted clear resolutions. The occupation has been judged as illegal by the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

Contrary to my view, the Swedish government expressed support for Morocco's autonomy plan regarding Western Sahara on January 19 this year. Morocco does not have sovereignty over Western Sahara and can therefore not dictate the terms for Western Sahara's future. In order to put pressure on the occupying power, Morocco, the EU and Sweden must therefore develop guidelines on how companies and investors should act in the region. Such guidelines should aim to prevent investments on occupied land as long as they are not made with the approval of Western Sahara's legitimate representative: Polisario.

Madam Speaker! Furthermore, I want to point out the double standard we see from the Western countries when it comes to China. They criticize the State of China's abuses of human rights, which is correct. But at the same time, it is the case that Western companies oppose improvements in the working conditions for their employees in China.

Of course, countries in the West, not least Sweden, must take responsibility for how their companies act in China. But Sweden's governments, regardless of party affiliation, have far too rarely highlighted the role of companies in human rights and often seem to make a very large distinction between political and economic contacts with China. I mean that it is not possible to make such a distinction and to separate issues of investment and trade from the work for human rights. The government should therefore demand that Swedish companies operating in China act more consistently and in accordance with Swedish policy when it comes to human rights.

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of reservation 18.

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

Lili André (KD)

Madam Speaker! We are now debating the Committee on Enterprise's report on trade policy. I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the proposal in the report and the rejection of all motions.

The restless world around us makes trade policy even more crucial. International trade is a prerequisite for Sweden's global competitiveness, prosperity, and job creation, as well as for sustainable growth and climate benefits. It also has great security policy significance.

The goal of Sweden's trade policy is free, sustainable and rules-based international trade, a well-functioning internal market, growing exports and international investments in Sweden. This is responsibility in a time when trade policy is more complex and security-politically charged than it has been for a very long time.

Madam Speaker! The world has changed rapidly. In recent years, the USA has pursued a more protectionist line with new tariffs and renegotiated trade arrangements. China continues to combine economic strength with state-led industrial policy, extensive subsidies, and strategic investments in critical sectors worldwide. Trade is used today not only to create prosperity but also as a means of power. Economic dependencies can become political pressures. Global value chains are being questioned, and the fragmentation of world trade is a real risk.

For a small, export-dependent country like Sweden, this is not a theoretical discussion, Madam Speaker. Our welfare is built on openness. Our companies are deeply integrated into international value chains. Our jobs and our tax base depend on the fact that goods, services, and investments can move across borders. In such a reality, free, sustainable, and rules-based trade is not an ideological preference but a necessity.

Despite a restless world where the world economy has been affected by the American administration's tariff policy and by geopolitical tensions, the development has been relatively strong, Madam Speaker, with good resilience in both world trade and global industrial production. Sweden focuses on being the EU's clearest voice for an offensive free trade agenda with priority on concluding free trade agreements. Such agreements strengthen the resilience in global value chains and create new opportunities for Swedish companies and consumers. The World Trade Organization, WTO, is a fundamental prerequisite for global and rules-based trade and for countering fragmentation.

Madam Speaker! The multilateral trading system is under pressure. The dispute settlement system within the WTO is not functioning fully, and confidence in the common rules of the game has been weakened. But this government is pushing for the WTO to be modernized and to regain a functioning dispute settlement system. This is absolutely central for Swedish companies that are dependent on predictable conditions and legal certainty within trade. It is therefore crucial that the reform work for Sweden's trade policy continues. When large economies act unilaterally, the need for common rules increases. When the system creaks, we must strengthen it, not abandon it.

It is important to remember that Sweden's trade policy is not solely national. It is shaped in decisive parts by the European Union. It is not a limitation but a strength. Alone, Sweden is a small actor in a world dominated by the USA and China. As part of the EU, we are part of one of the world's largest economies, with significant negotiating power and the opportunity to set standards globally.

Madam Speaker! Sweden's foreign trade strategy sets the framework for the management of relevant authorities and promoting actors in the field. Sweden's foreign agencies and Sweden's Export and Investment Council, Business Sweden, and its overseas offices, our Team Sweden, play an important role in the reform work. Also, the companies' capacity for innovation, development, and sales is crucial.

The strategy has goals that now apply to Sweden, Madam Speaker. It is important that the responsibility is clarified for the implementation and follow-up of the strategy work and the cooperation between the government, authorities, and relevant actors.

An annual feedback process is now taking place regarding what effects and added values the various measures have. Feedback from the business community also contributes to ensuring continuous learning for all actors within Team Sweden and will serve as a basis for adjusting the implementation of the measures for the greatest possible effect.

Madam Speaker! Trade and security are closely linked today. Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine has shown how vulnerabilities can be exploited and how economic relations can become part of a larger conflict.

Strengthening Ukraine's economy through trade, investments, and closer integration with the EU's internal market is not just an economic project but a part of Europe's collective resilience. The relationship with Ukraine is a priority, and concrete measures have already been taken to facilitate trade and investments.

At the same time, Europe must reduce unilateral dependencies. In a world where great power rivalries characterize the economy, it is crucial to develop diversification of supply chains, new trade agreements with like-minded democracies, and strengthened cooperation on critical raw materials and technology. It is not about isolating oneself, but about standing stronger and more independently.

Regarding the EU's internal market, the EU's long-term competitiveness shall be strengthened and the internal market deepened. The EU is now making a renewed political commitment with a long-term vision for the internal market as a strong and sustainable engine for jobs, entrepreneurship, and sustainable growth over the next ten years.

Common rules in the internal market shall be respected. Rules shall be simplified at a faster pace, and administrative costs shall be reduced both within Sweden and at the EU level.

Service trade, Madam Speaker, needs special priority, because integration in the service area is progressing slowly despite the fact that the service sector accounts for 70 percent of the EU's production.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I would like to highlight Sweden's contribution and the EU's work within e-commerce. The sharp increase in goods purchased online and imported directly to consumers in the EU has created significant challenges. There are risks to consumers' health and safety, increased environmental and climate effects, as well as distorted competition for companies that follow the law.

Particularly clear is the development of low-value shipments up to 150 euro, where volumes have increased sharply from third countries. This mass import of small parcels, often purchased via global e-commerce platforms, means that enormous quantities of goods pass through the EU's borders without the authorities having realistic possibilities to control quality, safety, or regulatory compliance in every individual case.

The result is that the capacity of the customs and market surveillance authorities is being pushed to the breaking point, which in turn increases the risk that dangerous, unauthorized or falsely declared products reach EU consumers.

With the EU's new toolbox for safe and sustainable e-commerce, the work is intensified to ensure that products sold online actually meet the EU's requirements.

Sweden is actively working to strengthen compliance, modernize control systems and ensure fairer competition between law-abiding EU companies and actors outside the union. Sweden's serious companies shall not be disadvantaged, and consumers shall feel secure even in a rapidly growing digital market.

Madam Speaker! Sweden shall continue to be a strong voice within the EU for free, sustainable and rules-based trade. When others erect walls, we shall stand up for open markets. When uncertainty increases, we shall defend the rules that create stability. When the great powers compete for dominance, Sweden, together with Europe, shall be a force for cooperation, predictability and long-term economic strength.

It is the line that the Christian Democrats stand behind. With that, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report and rejection of all motions.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! Tariffs, tariffs and tariffs! It is 10 percent in tariffs, 15 percent in tariffs, 40 percent in tariffs, 75 percent in tariffs and 130 percent in tariffs. Tariffs, tariffs and tariffs! The entire trade policy in the world is about tariffs.

Let us take it a bit calmly. Let us take our oar, place it in our oar-lock, and row out onto another water. Let us sit in the Harpsundsekan and look out towards new opportunities and towards new waters.

Sweden is a fantastic nation. We are a small, export-dependent economy. We have a disproportionately large number of global companies. Think about it for a second. You can surely, while sitting here, count off 20, 30 globally active companies just off the top of your head. It is absolutely fantastic what a country we are.

What is it, really, that has led to us becoming this great export success country, Sweden, up here in the north? We have a small domestic market with few inhabitants. A global expansion has simply been necessary for Swedish companies.

We have had a strong export tradition for a long time, for example the East India Company. We have a strong engineering tradition. We have a high level of education that is relatively evenly distributed. We have a digital maturity, a well-developed welfare society and a stable social system where we have a high level of trust in our institutions.

What however now, with the government's significantly changed migration policy, creates deep concern for me, in academia and in the business sector, is what is happening with the deportations of skilled workers and the deportations of teenagers. From the summer, there is to be a salary requirement of 33,390 kronor per month to be allowed to stay in Sweden. What happens then to Swedish business? What happens to the Swedish public sector? What does it do to the image of Sweden?

Most recently today, we could read an article in Aftonbladet by Jonas F Ludvigsson from Karolinska Institutet about what an internal survey has yielded in terms of results. He had asked a number of questions about the image of Sweden and how one views the current policy to all researchers with a background outside the EU/EEA.

One answer that really stands out was that 96 percent responded that Sweden's tougher migration policy reduces our ability to attract international top researchers. It is quite serious.

He concludes the article by saying that it is an academic own goal. I would like to add that it is an industrial policy own goal, a trade policy own goal, and even an own goal for Swedish growth.

Trade drives prosperity. Believe me, I was born and raised in Borås. It is the city of the "knallar" and the traveling merchants. Often, someone would come to my family's home with a trunk filled with textiles that he wanted to sell, a modern "knalle".

I particularly remember one time when a man with an arm full of bathrobes came into the hall. We perhaps had no need, but we bought two bathrobes, one for me and one for my brother. I got a blue and white one, which feels very strange in hindsight because Borås is Elfsborg's city. It naturally should have been a yellow and black bathrobe.

In any case, I learned early on about the importance of trade. I learned that small markets achieve poorer prosperity than large ones and that protectionism and planned economy are, in some ways, children of the same spirit. There, freedom, ingenuity, competition, and entrepreneurship are not the foundation. Both systems lead to stagnation and inefficiency.

World trade also leads to peace. When we understand each other, can discuss trade relations and how we want them and understand each other's cultural differences and so on, the understanding and respect for each other also increase. Trade drives peace.

At the same time, we unfortunately find ourselves now, Madam Speaker, in a geopolitical situation that everyone is fully aware of. We have a USA with a completely different political agenda than one has had historically, with tariffs, tariffs, and tariffs. We have a China that is very oriented around its own success and a Russia that has its sphere of interest.

When it comes to Sweden, as the small, export-dependent economy, I would like to say that the only possibility for us to ride out this time of geopolitical unrest is to unite much more intimately in the European Union.

In the EU, we are significantly more inhabitants than in the USA. We have a strong history. We have four freedoms that we can build upon: free movement of goods, free movement of services, free movement of capital, and free movement of persons.

If we can also add a greater self-confidence regarding Europe's ability to take a leading role in the geopolitical unrest, that is the opportunity we have and the path we can take. There is also a self-interest for Sweden, since 75 percent of our exports go to the EU.

Centerpartiet thinks that we should deepen the internal market. We want to continue to remove barriers in the internal market, especially for services and digital products, to make it just as easy to trade with them across borders as with physical goods. We want to push for more trade agreements. We have previously mentioned the Mercosur region, South America, India, Thailand and Australia. That is the path we should take in the EU to see what is on new waters.

There is reason to strengthen the EU as a global actor, and there is an opportunity for Sweden to take a leading role in the EU in order to also strengthen the transatlantic economic relationship with the USA.

At the same time as we call for free trade opportunities, we must see the geopolitical reality. There is reason for us to protect strategic interests. A changed security policy situation also affects trade policy.

At the same time as free trade and openness are important starting points, consideration must be taken for the protection of Sweden's security interests. This type of balancing must be made to a greater extent than before. A number of measures may therefore need to be taken from Sweden's side. One example that we are driving is a review of the screening system for foreign direct investments. Our view is that the current system does not meet new necessary requirements and should therefore be reviewed.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I shall say a few words about the green transition, which is – or at least has been but probably still is – a Swedish specialty. Alongside the geopolitical anxiety, we see that there are two things that affect companies to an extremely high degree. It is about the climate threat, and it is about the incoming AI development.

When it comes to green transition, Sweden's companies are at the forefront. That we had the courage to introduce a carbon tax in 1992 has driven a proactivity within Swedish industry and Swedish business. We see that there are many reasons to continue a path set with stable, long-term climate goals for Sweden.

It may not primarily be about the small reduction in emissions we can achieve in Sweden having a global significance, but rather it is about our companies being able to export and earn the big money tomorrow. It is about us also achieving a truly substantial reduction in global emissions with the technology we spread across the world.

To achieve an export promotion that benefits both Swedish business and the green transition, we in the Center Party believe that the government should establish a goal for the export of environmentally friendly technology.

Madam Speaker! We choose to move for approval of reservation 3.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Madam Speaker! For my party Liberalerna and for this government, it is of the utmost importance to stand up for precisely that rule-based and open trade. We have recently seen terrifying examples of what happens when the rules of the game are abandoned internationally.

Just to strengthen the growth and resilience of our economy, we need more international trade and more cooperation with the rest of the world. Swedish trade policy aims precisely to promote Swedish economic interests and the image of Sweden abroad. It is about being able to facilitate exports and foreign investments to Sweden and to continue the trade exchange with other countries that we have done so very successfully, as has been mentioned here earlier.

Free trade and market economy are completely central to lifting people out of poverty, to manage the green transition, and to finance our common welfare. In international trade policy, Sweden must therefore remain a clear voice for free trade when our former friends begin to tremble in their boots in that regard.

We have today in the chamber on a number of occasions discussed the EU's trade agreement. I will not speak further about that, but it is clear that we in Europe need to break the dependence we have had on both China and Russia. At the same time, we must manage to stand up for an open EU that stands guard over global free trade and that continues to push forward for the rules-based international trading order. This shall, of course, also be done in times of global unrest, perhaps especially then.

It is through trade that Sweden's and also Europe's prosperity and security grow. I am biased, but I think that this government has pooled its strength to increase global competitiveness and foreign trade and to improve the opportunities for Swedish companies.

In the foreign trade strategy that has been mentioned here earlier, Strategy for Sweden's foreign trade, investments and global competitiveness, a holistic approach has been taken from the side of Swedish authorities and the Swedish government to be able to create the opportunities that Swedish companies shall act upon so that they can not only be present but also be able to develop in a global market.

It is an explicit goal that Sweden's position in the world shall be strengthened. We have previously mentioned some of the measures that have been taken within the framework of this. I can also mention the customs duty that one has been forced to introduce and that we have been able to offer practical guidance for trade issues. The latter is important, not least in light of the major changes that we have seen in the trade area. The changed customs duties, in particular, have come to characterize international trade and make it extremely difficult for companies to act globally.

Overall, these efforts are important for Sweden to be able to maintain its position as an export-oriented trading nation. We must not underestimate the value of Swedish exports, which amount to almost half of Sweden's GDP.

We have seen how Sweden has acted historically, as the Center Party pointed out earlier. I think all speeches should contain references to the East India Company! The strategic investments that we have made historically have been completely decisive for Sweden to be able to build prosperity. We have adopted a free trade policy. We have pushed through structural reforms that have strengthened property rights and promoted economic freedom.

From being a country that struggled with poverty and had very limited opportunities, Sweden has, over a relatively short historical period, developed into one of the world's most successful economies. It is worth reminding oneself of this. By increasingly integrating into global trade and later systematically investing in research and development, Sweden has been able to increase its economic production and finance a welfare state.

Against that background, it is positive that free trade has come to be emphasized so much by the bourgeois government. We naturally want to continue to work to ensure that Sweden, not least through cooperation in the EU, continues to build open, strong and sustainable trade relations with the rest of the world. This is not least about being at the forefront of technological development.

The government has invested more than 6.5 billion kronor in research and innovation. These are historical investments. We have also intensified a strategic cooperation with a number of countries, not least Great Britain, Germany, Poland and France. The latter is important, not least against the background that the Eurozone countries are Sweden's most important trading partner. The euro is used today by 350 million Europeans. It should perhaps also be emphasized in this context that the euro would simplify for Swedish companies and strengthen Swedish competitiveness and growth.

It is no secret that the Liberals want Sweden to join the European cooperation. I believe that it would be the single most important thing we can do to strengthen Swedish trade moving forward.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Katarina Luhr (MP)

Madam Speaker! How trade policy affects us all and what a powerful tool, but also a weapon, it can be has become clear for most people over the past year. International trade policy has been a very turbulent journey lately, something that truly underlines the risks of unilateral trade dependencies of individual countries and the need to create good trade relations with a larger number of countries than today.

At the same time, we also see how trade policy can steer political direction and development very strongly. We know that increased trade can contribute to developing private companies and entrepreneurship, creating employment and better working conditions, and not least generating export revenues and access to new green technology and climate-smart products. The opportunity for low- and middle-income countries to participate in the world economy and trade with other countries has also had a very great significance for reducing poverty in the world.

But for world trade to contribute in a positive direction, clear international regulatory frameworks are needed that point towards trade relations also contributing to a sustainable society. Trade policy needs to be designed to strengthen the possibilities to set high climate and environmental requirements and not risk increasing inequality or moving emissions and environmental damage to other countries. Here, Sweden needs to be a pioneer in achieving open, sustainable and fair trade where reduced climate impact and good working conditions are fundamental conditions.

Both Sweden and the entire EU have a great responsibility to work towards ensuring that trade does not contribute to either climate-damaging emissions or environmental destruction, or worsen the situation for people living in poverty. It is also important that the conditions for low- and middle-income countries to be able to participate on fair terms in global trade are strengthened.

With long-term rules of the game and a clear focus on sustainability, Swedish companies can become pioneers when it comes to human rights and environmental considerations and thereby contribute to a global trading system that protects both people and nature.

I therefore believe that Sweden needs to be a clear voice for higher requirements in international trade agreements and needs to push for solutions that do not harm people or the environment, even in countries far from Europe. This simultaneously increases Sweden's and Europe's competitiveness, as companies' opportunities to compete on unequal terms, such as poorer environmental requirements or weak labor environment legislation, are reduced.

The EU has several trade policy tools at its disposal to influence the rest of the world towards reducing climate-damaging emissions. For example, as we all know, the EU has introduced a system with so-called carbon tariffs, CBAM, to protect industry within the union from unfair competition from companies with low climate requirements. The tariffs contribute to increasing the pace of the climate transition and reducing emissions in countries outside Europe, which both lowers emissions in other countries and helps us in Sweden to reduce our consumption emissions, while they also increase Europe's competitiveness.

Here, I also feel forced to emphasize that fossil energy must be phased out because it is the primary cause of climate change. The combustion of coal, oil, and fossil gas, regardless of where the emissions occur, leads to large emissions of greenhouse gases that drive global warming and contribute to extreme weather, droughts, and floods.

If we seriously want emissions to decrease in other countries, we also need to set requirements that what we ourselves trade does not contribute to increasing emissions. It is therefore of the utmost importance that the EU utilizes the climate tariffs and that the legislation surrounding these is tightened instead of being watered down, which we unfortunately see clear signs of at the current moment.

When we talk about water scarcity, it is not only climate tariffs we need to talk about, but also the EU's own requirements on sustainability reporting and due diligence for companies.

The EU's sustainability legislation has been an important breakthrough in ensuring that companies systematically consider their impact on the environment, climate, and human rights. Even here, however, we see that the European Commission's regulatory simplification initiative leads to tangible weakenings of sustainability rules that have already been adopted and implemented by a large number of companies, not least here in Sweden.

It cannot be in the long-term interest of Sweden or Swedish companies that the EU backs away from rules that are broadly anchored and which contribute to increased clarity, fairness, and sustainability throughout the entire value chain. Here, Sweden's government should, unlike today, lead the work and take a clear stand against further erosion of the EU's sustainability legislation.

Madam Speaker! Finally, I would like to say a few words about the work regarding Sweden's export credits and the change that the government has made in the Export Credit Board's regulatory letter.

As I have mentioned previously, it is absolutely crucial that fossil energy is phased out as quickly as possible so that we can live up to the commitments of the Paris Agreement. That Sweden is now contributing to the construction of new fossil infrastructure goes completely against both Sweden's previous climate promises and the research that emphasizes that we cannot add new fossil infrastructure if we are to stay within the Paris Agreement. New fossil infrastructure, therefore, cannot be built. The government needs to back down and change this idiotic decision.

With this said, I want to emphasize the importance of a clear, sustainable and fair trade policy and at the same time call for approval of the Green Party's reservation number 4.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 4 March.)

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