The Commission's work programme 2024

Linnéa Wickman (S)

Madam Speaker! In the European Commission's work programme for 2024, the European Commission outlines its political priorities for the year and the initiatives for new legislation and other measures that it plans to submit. The very work programme that we are debating today concerns a particularly short period given the EU election taking place in just six months, and the current European Commission has a mandate until October. The number of new initiatives is therefore fewer than in a normal year, and the focus is primarily on finalizing negotiations on matters that have been submitted earlier and have not yet been completed in the legislative process.

In my speech, I intended to focus primarily on how the Social Democrats view the areas addressed in the Foreign Affairs Committee's report on the work program.

"Results today, ready for tomorrow" is, Madam Speaker, the headline of the 2024 work program. It is a rather good summary of both the ambitions and the challenges of EU cooperation. Being robust and ready for challenges both here and now and for tomorrow's EU has well-seldom been so urgent. In a restless world with geopolitical tensions, a contemporary period characterized by multiple challenges and interconnected crises, a global pandemic, an acute climate crisis, war on our continent where Russia's unprovoked, illegal and unjust war in Ukraine continues constantly, it is clear that the EU's resilience and ability to hold together is of crucial importance in all those areas where we are stronger together as a union than as individual countries.

EU cooperation has been severely tested over the recent years. The strong support for Ukraine so that they may win peace and the historically large number of sanction packages against Russia that have been implemented also demonstrate the importance of an EU that stands up for human rights and international law in a world where the rules-based world order is challenged in many places by forces that instead want the law of the strongest to prevail.

Madam Speaker! Ukraine's war is our war, and while the Ukrainian people fight their way through yet another war winter, we, as a strong European voice, must be persistent and clear in our support for Ukraine – politically, militarily, humanitarily and legally – for as long as is required. This will only become even more urgent in a protracted war that Putin hopes will exhaust European solidarity and create greater spaces for division than we have seen until now. Not letting this become a growing problem is a core issue for the EU. At the same time, the work must continue with a special focus on preventing the circumvention of the sanctions that have been put in place in a large number of sanction packages.

At the same time as the war continues, Ukraine is also carrying out an impressive reform work and working to rebuild the country. An important issue linked to both reconstruction and accountability is how frozen and immobilized Russian assets can be channeled back to Ukraine. The Swedish working group has done a significant job, but now it is crucial that the EU Commission speeds up its work to move forward according to the mandate it has received and that it does not stop at merely focusing on the returns from the assets but also finds a legal path forward that is broadly accepted to use the actual assets. We know that it will be needed when Ukraine is to be rebuilt.

Madam Speaker! A united support for Ukraine will constitute a central area that will characterize EU work and positions for a long time to come. Preparing the union internally and externally to function fully with more member states will be another of these areas. It is welcome that Ukraine and Moldova have now been recommended to begin membership negotiations. Expanding the EU with more member states in the union is among the strongest and most important tools we have together to push for strengthened security, democracy, and the principles of the rule of law in a time when the security policy situation has not been as bad since the days of the Second World War.

The Social Democrats argue that we must guard the merit-based process that membership requires, not lock the process into how fast it must be, but rather focus on ensuring that it is correct and support candidate countries in taking the necessary steps in the form of the reforms that are required – not least in the areas of economy and the rule of law.

Candidate countries must be able to rely on the fact that if they thoroughly implement everything that is required, they will also ultimately be welcomed as members of the union. It will also be up to existing members and the union as such to strongly signal and act when existing member countries undermine the values that the EU rests on and move backwards when it comes to democracy and the principles of the rule of law. We shall set equally tough requirements on the countries that want to become members of the EU as on the countries that are already members to share and safeguard the union's fundamental values. It will be an incredibly important issue to ensure the EU's tools in the area also with more member countries.

Madam Speaker! In many ways, the discussion on what internal changes and adaptations are required by the EU in the event of a larger union is in its infancy. It will be very interesting to take part in the EU Commission's analysis of which adaptations are initially considered necessary for the EU's policies and institutions, which is included as an initiative in the work program for 2024. For the EU to be powerful in its common foreign policy, we Social Democrats believe that within the framework of foreign and security policy regarding human rights and sanctions, it should be possible for the Council to adopt decisions by qualified majority instead of requiring unanimity. It is a good step forward to increase the possibilities of making decisions effectively, but it is very important to point out that this change should not and does not need to occur in a new review of the EU's treaties.

Similarly, the expansion also entails an economic impact. From an external perspective, it is positive that we get a larger internal European market and can promote economic development and increased prosperity for many people. But also there, we must stick to a budget-restrictive line where redistribution of budget funds is advocated over adding more funds, as well as not opening up to giving the EU taxing rights.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to highlight the part of the work program that concerns the area A stronger Europe in the world.

In the work program, the work to strengthen strategic and favorable partnerships with African countries is highlighted as one of the initiatives that the European Commission will continue to work on within the framework of the new work program. Global Gateway is a fundamental part of this and will become even more important in contributing to large investments for sustainable development based on respect for human rights, the needs of local communities, and achieving the global goals in the Agenda 2030 work.

It is incredibly important to scale up this work, and it is welcome that it is mentioned in the work program because it is a task that we know needs to continue being scaled up and linked with the development of democracy and human rights in a world where it is clear that we are dependent on one another and where our everyday lives are affected in so many ways by what happens in our global environment. The EU has a job to do to scale up on the African continent and in other parts of the world.

I would like to conclude by moving for the approval of the committee's proposal for the report.

(Applause)

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

Rasmus Giertz (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Foreign Affairs' report number 5 on the Commission's work programme for 2024.

With reference to the ongoing cooperation between us in Sverigedemokraterna and the government parties, the intention in our policy has in large parts gained traction in the committee's positions. But since we, unlike the committee, oppose changes to the requirement for unanimity in the council within certain parts of the common foreign and security policy, we have a reservation of motive in this regard. I would therefore like to begin by moving for approval of reservation of motive 1 from Sverigedemokraterna.

Madam Speaker! Today marks 650 days since Russia carried out its violation of international law, its invasion of Ukraine. The Russian Federation continues to constantly violate the principles of the UN Charter through its acts of aggression against Ukraine's sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity and by flagrantly and grossly violating international humanitarian law. The Russian forces have carried out indiscriminate attacks against residential areas and civil infrastructure, killing thousands of civilians and carrying out acts of terrorism throughout the country against various parts of civil infrastructure such as hospitals, schools, residential areas, railway stations, water and electricity networks, among others. Russia is suspected of war crimes such as massacres of civilians, summary executions, torture, rape, and kidnappings, while international humanitarian organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross have been denied access.

These crimes reflect a grotesque indifference to international law and the laws of war, which limit the exercise of military power. The Russian unprovoked, illegal, and unjust war with its bestial acts must be condemned in the strongest possible terms, which the committee clearly does in its position.

Madam Speaker! It is of the highest priority that the EU continues to provide clear and long-term predictable support to Ukraine in several areas - military, political, economic, humanitarian and legal support. As a central part of this, the EU should offer long-term and credible commitments in the security area to strengthen Ukraine's defense capability and its capacity to deter potential aggression and destabilizing activities.

Support for Ukraine requires a parallel and sustained effort to exert pressure on Russia but also on Belarus and Iran, which in different ways support Russia's war of aggression. Important parts of this strategy include the development and effective implementation of sanctions as well as actively countering all attempts to circumvent these sanctions. The recently presented proposal for a twelfth sanctions package, which includes such measures among others, is welcome.

At the same time, it is crucial to make progress regarding the use of frozen and immobilized Russian assets to finance Ukraine's recovery and reconstruction.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats have historically taken a cautious and critical stance towards the EU's expansion policy due to concerns about the consequences of a rapid and extensive expansion.

An expansion of the EU is often seen as a step towards a supranational entity where member countries risk losing control over their own decisions and political priorities. An expansion should take into account each country's individual needs and ability to be integrated into the union in order to avoid sovereignty being sacrificed at the expense of an overall European unity.

There are also economic and social challenges that can arise during rapid expansions. Problems with unemployment, economic inequality, and social conflicts can arise if the expansion is not carried out in a well-thought-out manner. The economic and social consequences for both existing and new member countries need to be carefully considered before expansion decisions are made.

A more gradual and controlled expansion process would enable better adaptation and integration of cultural and social differences within the union.

There are also security aspects and migration issues linked to the expansion. A rapid expansion can lead to increased uncertainty and migration flows, which can affect both existing member countries and the countries that wish to join.

That is why it is good that the committee underlines that the expansion is only possible if the accession process is perceived as legitimate and enjoys broad support in the member states. The accession process shall be merit-based to ensure this.

Madam Speaker! Against the background of the global situation, we in the committee see the value of the EU's unity and coordination within the common foreign and security policy, especially when it comes to sanctions against Russia and the support for Ukraine.

At the same time, unlike the committee, we oppose changes to the requirement for unanimity in the Council regarding certain parts of the common foreign and security policy, hence our reservation in the report.

A decision-making rule that allows for a qualified majority could certainly facilitate the council in finding negotiated solutions. But the fact that a decision does not have the support of all member states can simultaneously undermine the decision's legitimacy and create problems in implementation, even if the union has primarily shown itself capable of acting united in its support for Ukraine.

We therefore consider that the sentences regarding changing the rules for the council's decision-making should be deleted from the committee's position.

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

John E Weinerhall (M)

Madam Speaker! As we debate today the Foreign Affairs Committee's report on the European Commission's work program for 2024, Russia's illegal and full-scale invasion of Ukraine has been ongoing for no fewer than 650 days. It has been 650 days of devastation, misery, and distress. Reports indicate over 1 million dead. These are primarily military losses, but many civilians have also lost their lives. Millions of people are fleeing, and entire cities have been laid in ruins. Ahead of another war winter, the situation will now become very difficult for many, with shortages of electricity, heating, and food. Therefore, it is so important that we are there for Ukraine and stand up for them in Sweden and in all of Europe.

Mr. Speaker! Despite the severe hardships that the Ukrainian people are currently experiencing, the country has taken great steps towards European integration, which is impressive. The goal is clear: There is a political will and a popular anchoring to become the full-fledged part of the European community that membership in the EU entails. Even though there is still some way to go on the journey, great progress has been made regarding reforms to approach membership - and this while a full-scale war is raging. It deserves all respect.

It was pleasing, Mr. Speaker, that the commission a month ago recommended that the Council initiate membership negotiations with Ukraine and Moldova. It was an important signal that these two countries belong in Europe, and now we must ensure that this also happens. In that process, it is important that the EU and Sweden are supportive and that we help the countries with the adaptation. Even though membership in the EU shall be strictly merit-based and no country shall be given the opportunity to take shortcuts into the union, it is important that we do not place obstacles and complicate the process more than necessary. This is something that the committee emphasizes in its position.

It is also important that the EU makes adjustments to be able to welcome Ukraine, Moldova and the other candidate countries as member states. A Ukrainian membership is not only important for their, our and the entire continent's security but also strengthens the union in more ways. The EU will, among other things, become a gigantic food producer. This places demands on the design of the internal market, and it is worth discussing how it needs to be designed in the future as well as what budgetary consequences a large expansion will have.

Mr. Speaker! The committee also welcomes the proposal for additional sanctions against Russia and the announced efforts to counter attempts to circumvent the sanctions. The sanction tool is important to continue keeping the pressure on Russia up and to deplete the Russian war economy.

We also emphasize the importance of moving forward with the question of the frozen Russian assets. Following the adoption of the work program, the European Council has tasked the Commission and the High Representative with accelerating the work and submitting proposals on how to access the frozen Russian assets and use them to support the reconstruction of Ukraine. More momentum is needed here.

Mr. Speaker! The Committee also maintains its position when it comes to moving away from the requirement of unanimity in the Council regarding parts of the common foreign and security policy. For example, this applies to decisions on sanctions. There, a majority of the committee sees that it would be advantageous if the decisions could be taken by qualified majority. This, however, requires that all member states have the same opportunity for insight and influence in the Commission's work, not least regarding the preparation of various proposals. Therefore, the Commission should also in the future consist of one member from each country. This is also important for the Commission's legitimacy.

Sometimes proposals are voiced to conduct a review of the treaties, Mr. Speaker, and I believe that it would be unfortunate for several reasons. A debate on treaty changes would take up a great deal of time and energy and furthermore risk splitting us member states at a time when the union needs to maintain its focus on the truly great challenges and hold together.

In order to keep the focus on the major challenges we collectively face in the union regarding the security situation, the climate issue, and competitiveness, the committee wishes to emphasize that there is reason for the EU to be more strict in the application of the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity. That which we best solve at the European level, we shall solve together, but that which we can handle in the member states, we shall also decide on ourselves. For this, there are good principled reasons, such as that decisions should be made as close to the citizens as possible, and practical reasons, such as that the EU can then focus on exactly what the EU does best.

It has been mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, and I want to emphasize again the importance of all parties having an expansion perspective when preparing new EU legislation. It is important in order not to create new and higher barriers for the countries that are in the process of joining and therefore are making adjustments to EU law.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I shall take the opportunity to raise some issues that were important during the successful Swedish presidency and which the committee also welcomes in the Commission's work program. This concerns, of course, not least the competitiveness in Europe. It is central that we strengthen and nurture the free internal market, that we get more free trade agreements in place, and that the Union ensures that we are world leaders in research and development if we are not to be overtaken by others. Therefore, we welcome, not least, the work on regulatory simplifications and reduced burdens on companies, but here more can - as always, of course - be done.

Last but not least, I would like to wish the Speaker, the Minister, and my dear fellow members a blessed Advent season.

(Applause)

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! We are now debating the European Commission's work program in a so-called review report. This means that we, like all other committees, have read and analyzed the European Commission's work program and now have a debate on its content.

The debate itself and the decision that the Riksdag makes today will have no influence whatsoever on the actual content of the Commission's work program, but it is a way for the Riksdag to create debate about the EU and EU issues. The committee therefore proposes that the Riksdag submits the report to the records, that is, concludes the matter.

Mr. Speaker! At the EU level, there are now proposals for increased supranationality through changes to the decision-making procedures within the common foreign and security policy, which is abbreviated to CFSP so that no one understands what it is. Instead of all member states having their own foreign policy and the EU cooperating on what they agree on, over the last decades, there has been an attempt to find a common foreign policy for the EU. The result has been a diluted and somewhat toothless EU policy, especially where the EU countries differ on the substance.

One challenge that has been had is that a single member state among the 27 has been able to stop joint writings and opinions by being opposed. This has particularly concerned Hungary, but other EU countries have also used the tactic of being obstructive to get the entire EU to change its opinion on political issues. One example is Cyprus, which blocked a credible EU policy against Belarus by fixating on the conflict with Turkey in the Eastern Mediterranean. Even if they were right in substance, it was a miserable action that only affected the Belarusian people.

How then does one want to approach this problem from the side of the EU Commission and the Swedish government? Well, it is wanted to be done by moving even more power to the EU and Brussels. This is done by introducing so-called qualified majority, that is to say that it is enough for two-thirds of all countries to agree for the EU to decide that it is the opinion for all EU countries.

One can, of course, think that foreign policy is not something that individual Swedish citizens or, for that matter, the Swedish Riksdag should be involved in, but the system of qualified majority can therefore lead to that Swedish foreign policy is not decided here and is not based on what the Ministry for Foreign Affairs in Stockholm or the Swedish Riksdag considers.

All power emanates from the people, and the Riksdag is the people's primary representative. What do we do then if it is someone else, who is not even elected by the Swedish people, who decides on Swedish foreign policy? What do we do in Sweden the day when the Visegrad countries - which consist of more, and many times stronger, countries than Sweden and Sweden's neighboring member states - decide on a foreign policy that does not align with our values?

It is not only in foreign policy that Sweden can lose its power; even regarding changes in financial and budgetary matters, the question of a qualified majority is up for discussion.

In Sweden, we have a long tradition of being budget-restrictive, and we are part of the so-called frugal four. This is not so strange considering that Sweden is one of the EU's largest net payers. With a new decision-making procedure and a qualified majority, however, Swedish taxpayers could be forced to pay even more to an exorbitantly expensive EU than they already do - because other countries' governments have decided it. It is not the least reasonable, and it harms Sweden's opportunity to negotiate for less cumbersome budgets.

One would like to have answers to all these questions from the supporters of the proposal. But so far, the answers to the questions have been thin.

I also note that the government is for a qualified majority in foreign policy but against a qualified majority when it comes to fiscal policy. The logic there is not entirely clear.

Mr. Speaker! I also want to point out that Vänsterpartiet in the Committee on Finance, during a consultation with the government regarding the Ukraine facility on July 7, declared a deviating position with the meaning that the support to Ukraine through the facility should not be classified as so-called ODA aid but instead as additional aid to Ukraine – this is because we do not want the price for Sweden's support to Ukraine to be paid by the world's poorest.

I will move on to another issue, which I hope the young people in the gallery are somewhat interested in. It concerns something that has been hot and controversial in the EU recently, namely the issue of chat control. The ambition in the proposal is to combat child pornography crimes. That is a laudable ambition. But when we come to what means the EU wants to use, it is about total mass surveillance of all communication in the EU.

But, Mr. Speaker, Swedish politicians must have objected to this proposal, right? No, when the proposal on chat control was in the Committee on Justice, it was only the Vänsterpartiet that voted against the EU Commission's proposal. Fortunately, however, the European Parliament seems to have been more alert this time than the Swedish Riksdag. They have halted the proposal and are in the process of reshaping it and finding a more reasonable and feasible path. Only when there is a suspicion of a crime can digital surveillance be relevant.

Interesting in the case of chat control is also the extensive lobbying carried out by the companies that are interested in selling the surveillance tool the day the legislation has been put in place. The companies can, through lobbying, influence the proposal to suit them perfectly. It is alarming and worrying for Europe's citizens.

Mr. Speaker! In these times, one also cannot help but comment on the situation in Gaza. Last night, Josep Borrell, who is the EU's High Representative and one of the EU's foreign ministers, declared that the EU now wants to see a ceasefire in Gaza. The EU needs to show in words and actions that it is serious about its criticism of the Israeli occupation and settlement policy, and it must urge Israel to refrain from all actions that undermine a two-state solution.

The EU should be able to pursue a much tougher policy towards Israel than it does today. It should be possible to suspend the current association agreement with Israel and put further pressure on Israel to engage in the peace process and cease the apartheid-like treatment of Palestinians that occurs through forced displacements, confiscation of land, and extrajudicial executions.

The EU should take the initiative to introduce, for example, sanctions against the settler movement in Israel and sanctions that include an arms embargo. A lasting peace between Israel and Palestine presupposes that Israel ends the violation of international law regarding the occupation of Palestinian territory and begins to respect the Palestinians' fundamental human rights.

With this, I move for approval of our motive reservation number 2.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Mr. Speaker! Never again a major war in Europe! In these days, it is worth stopping for a second and paying a thought to those who were involved in founding the EU. For that was precisely why – to build cohesion through trade and cooperation and to secure peace and freedom in Europe. And here we stand, with a complete and brutal war in one of our closest neighboring countries and with a Russia that threatens our entire freedom and our democracy as we know it.

It was precisely for times like these that the EU was founded. Now it is up to us to prove to our mothers and ancestors that we are taking care of the wise heritage that they have left in our hands.

Ukraine's well-being and security are crucial. There are no alternatives, and the EU must take its responsibility - a significantly greater responsibility than ever before. It is crucial that the negotiations on Ukrainian membership proceed at a rapid pace. Here, Sweden must take its responsibility and do everything. We must use all the means we have to push the EU to use the power that actually exists in the EU.

Thus we see Russia's and also China's attempts to spread unrest and doubt. One example is the heavy pressure that North Macedonia and other countries have been subjected to. It is about disinformation and other things.

But it is not just about Ukraine, Moldova and the other countries that are waiting in line. It is also about the Eastern Partnership. Armenia is a clear example that is now seeking towards the EU again. Can we respond to this, or will we leave them to become a buffer zone?

Unlike before, we should no longer rely on the USA to solve everything. We do not know how it will go after the election next autumn and how it will turn out. We do not know if the USA will again unreservedly want to commit resources to save Europe once more, especially as long as it only concerns one country. Instead, the EU must learn to stand on its own feet and make bold decisions.

The power exists in the EU, and therefore there must also be power and courage in the member countries. The responsibility therefore rests on the shoulders of Sweden and the government to be one of those who lead and push forward the work. All of us who sit in Sweden's Riksdag shall support and push the government to shoulder this responsibility.

When it comes to migration and the process surrounding the migration pact, there is much to say. The proposals that exist are far from perfect but are so important, as the lack of clarity and uncertainty that currently prevails is catastrophic for the people who are in flight. We therefore hope from the Center Party's side that the trilogue will be the way forward.

And how are we actually going to do it – should we change the treaties or not? Starting a treaty amendment will mean that membership applications will be delayed. In the situation Europe finds itself in, the EU must manage to safeguard the values and the requirements that form the basis for cooperation, while at the same time there needs to be a readiness to welcome new members within a relatively near future. We need to use all the tools that are available already today.

Finally, I would like to move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We are here today to debate the Committee on Foreign Affairs' report on the Commission's work program for 2024. It is always pleasant to debate issues where there is a great consensus between the parties in the Riksdag, but where one can still discern certain nuances.

My colleagues from other parties have highlighted many of the important aspects included in the commission's work program, for example regarding the expansion, so I will not repeat all of that. But equally important to note is everything that is not in the work program – all the issues we expected the commission to prioritize and work on during 2024 but which we now lack, and all the promised legislative proposals that were supposed to come during the mandate period but which are now deleted.

The largest of these is probably the chemical legislation Reach. The EU was supposed to conduct a comprehensive review of Reach during the mandate period. Powerful regulations as well as the phasing out of and prohibition of certain chemicals are required, and our current government has not done particularly much to push for that. The importance of a strengthened Reach became extra clear yesterday when the PFAS judgment in Kallinge was delivered.

Mr. Speaker! The Commission had promised a major overhaul regarding animal welfare. It was to be a large legislative package with the processing of all directives linked to animal welfare, but it has now resulted in a promise to only review the legislation on animal transport.

There was also legislation in progress regarding a multimodal ticketing system in the EU, that is, a common system where all public transport would be included. It would make it easier for, for example, train passengers to buy a ticket from a single operator even if it involves traveling by both train and bus all the way from Arvidsjaur to Athens. This is now conspicuous by its absence in the work program, which will continue to frustrate train and bus passengers when planning longer journeys.

Mr. Speaker! In addition to the absence of these points and a good deal of other things, there are other matters to worry about in our time. The Commission has promised new climate targets of at least a 90 percent reduction in emissions by 2040. And the Commission's climate policy advisory body recommends a 90-95 percent reduction in emissions by the same year. Binding legislation in the area will be delayed, but the Commission now has an important task in how it communicates the issue going forward. By the spring, it will therefore be up to the Commission to prove whether it lives up to its own promises.

When it comes to issues such as the facilitation of wind power expansion and forest monitoring, where the legislative proposals have already been presented and are quite weak, it is of the utmost importance that the commission now works to sharpen the proposals and create consensus on the issues during the upcoming trilogue negotiations.

Common to many of these issues is how, among others, the Moderaterna and KD act in the European Parliament. These very parties are usually careful to highlight that Sweden's share in climate change is small and that it is more important how, for example, the EU acts. But when the issues do land on the EU's table, these parties often vote, together with other parties in the EPP, together with the far-right in the parliament, and brake the development of more powerful climate legislation. How the Moderaterna and KD act and whether their party groups choose to cooperate with Greens, Social Democrats, and Liberals or with the far-right is crucial for Europe's future. The Commission is a political organism. Which legislative proposals they put forward is about the political majorities both in the Council and in the Parliament. It is therefore of the utmost importance also how our representatives in Brussels act when it comes to getting the Commission to move forward with certain proposals.

Mr. Speaker! Finally: Part of the Commission's work program concerns the financing of the so-called Ukraine Facility. That support is, of course, very important, and we stand united in the Riksdag regarding its importance and the support generally to Ukraine. However, we in Miljöpartiet believe that the facility should not be classified as aid in accordance with the definition used by the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD-DAC. Therefore, I move for approval of reservation 3, which is a reasoned reservation.

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

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are dealing with the Committee on Foreign Affairs' report, where the review of the Commission's work program for 2024 is presented.

As stated in the introduction to the work program, we find ourselves very much in a different world now than we were when the Commission took office nearly five years ago. Much has happened in a short time, and we view the Commission's shift in terms of priorities positively. In a changing world, it is necessary to be able to be flexible and ready to adapt. The recent years speak their own clear language – pandemic, war in our immediate vicinity, electricity and fuel prices skyrocketing, rising inflation and interest rates being raised. At the same time, we face major climate challenges.

The EU was formed to secure peace and create stability in a world that had undergone war and conflicts. The promotion of democracy and human rights functions as a peace-preserving bridge-builder between countries, and economic integration makes our common welfare grow and strengthen. Through cooperation, we become stronger and more resilient.

Mr. Speaker! Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 was an unsettling reminder that certain states have a different ambition, an antagonistic agenda, a will to divide, a will to spread insecurity, and a will to put their own imperialistic interests ahead of the individual's inviolable value.

Putin's Russia does this by attacking its neighboring countries, through attacks against civilians and through the spreading of destabilizing disinformation. The terrorist organization Hamas acts in a similar way, which we have unfortunately seen following their attacks against Israel on October 7. These are terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians.

Positionings within great power politics have once again surfaced, and a struggle over the world order is now underway. The conflicts highlight the deep global divisions that exist. It is a polarized world, and this is not limited to state borders but divides countries and societies.

Mr. Speaker! The EU is Sweden's and Europe's most important forum and tool in these matters. The EU represents a rules-based world order based on liberal values and cooperation. The EU as a united foreign policy front is crucial, especially in these times.

We Christian Democrats believe in a moderate EU, not when it comes to the will or the power to meet crises, but in terms of the ambition regarding which issues the union should devote itself to. It is about an EU that does not encroach upon the member states' sovereignty in national matters. There is neither time nor room within European cooperation to devote energy and resources to problems that are best solved at home.

The EU is our absolute most important tool for preserving peace. History, which currently looks set to repeat itself with wars in the rest of the world, shows how important a strong and united European Union is. We therefore view the Commission's priorities very positively, especially when it comes to this:

The Commission assures that the Union's solidarity with Ukraine in resisting Russia's invasion is unwavering. Sanctions against Russia and effective accountability should continue to be the EU's top priority.

The EU should expand geostrategically and admit new member states. Naturally, candidate countries shall undergo the usual processes and fulfill the EU's requirements for membership. The EU's expansion is an important tool to strengthen ties to the surrounding area and contribute to peace, stability, and prosperity.

The EU needs to invest in the defense industry and increase production capacity, especially when it comes to different types of ammunition.

The global development goals in Agenda 2030 continue to be at the center of all policy, and the union shall continue to build partnerships with other countries and regions, in particular Africa, to address global challenges and strengthen multilateral and rules-based international cooperation.

Mr. Speaker! We live in a different world today than we did when the commission took office, and we have been reminded of the complex and historically recurring tensions that exist. We have also been reminded of what we can achieve when we work together towards common goals. Let us therefore continue to work, through cooperation and trade, to preserve peace and freedom in Europe and in our wider world!

(Applause)

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! I think it is obvious that Sweden, the world, and Europe need more of the EU. One can start with Ukraine. Ukraine is perhaps the absolute most important task for the EU and Sweden and our entire foreign policy during the coming years. It has also been that during the recent years. It is about Ukraine winning the war and Russia losing the war.

Both things are equally important. It is about Ukraine, together with the EU, needing to show that the European security order applies. One cannot just trudge into a country and take over territories. But, Mr. Speaker, it is also about the fact that this war is not a consequence of Russia's leader Vladimir Putin, but rather a consequence of ideas – ideas of revanchism and of a Great Russia. Those ideas must be defeated in this war. Russia must lose. These ideas must lose.

Then it requires a lot of weapons and ammunition for Ukraine, and it is required that the EU pulls its weight in that work. More financial and economic support is required, and tougher sanctions are required. It is also required that the sanctions already in place are actually followed and that we stop various forms of circumvention. It is also required, of course, as several have pointed out here in the debate earlier, Mr. Speaker, that the immobilized and frozen Russian assets can be used for the reconstruction of Ukraine.

Some have argued that this is difficult legally. To them I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that that argument is nonsense. It is actually politicians, for example we in this chamber and the politicians who work in the European Parliament, who decide what is legal and what is not. There are also historical examples of when similar things to what this would entail have been done in retrospect.

Russia's crimes against Europe, against humanity, and against Ukraine are so great that they justify us simply enacting laws and using the monopoly on violence that we have in our various countries. It justifies that we refer to the exceptional situation that applies and take the money that exists in Europe and use it to rebuild Ukraine.

Another important issue that also links closely to Ukraine, but not exclusively, is of course the expansion of the EU. It is extremely important that the EU continues to expand, both for us who are already members of the EU, for peace on our continent, and so that the legitimacy of the cooperation shall be maintained.

For NATO's credibility to endure, Sweden must be admitted into NATO when we have fulfilled all the requirements for joining, and likewise, we must think regarding the EU. If a country fulfills all the requirements and criteria to be in the EU, it must be allowed to be in the EU, because it is about the EU's legitimacy and credibility.

There are some things that are usually brought up as arguments against Ukraine specifically. One argument is agriculture, i.e., that Ukraine is a large agricultural country and that this would mean difficulties for farmers and agricultural producers in the existing EU. From the Liberals' side, however, we consider this to be a fairly simple issue. The Liberals do not think we should have what is called CAP, i.e., the European agricultural policy. "Scrap the CAP", we usually say, if the Speaker will excuse my English.

But actually, it is also the case that all people who have a basic understanding of economics understand that it is positive when the market is expanded. Competition is good. Competition leads to lower food prices and better quality for EU consumers. A larger market leads to a more well-functioning market. It leads to an increase in the EU's self-sufficiency. Naturally, those who today receive subsidies from the EU or who today do not have this competition may think it is a bit difficult, but in the long run, it is always good for everyone living within an area when the market is expanded and competition increases. It is therefore a rather nonsensical argument, and one of the most well-argued such arguments, that Ukraine's agriculture would be a problem.

Mr. Speaker! A third issue that is completely crucial for the future is the climate issue. The climate issue is interesting in that it is global. The emissions are global, the climate changes are global, the climate crisis is global and we are in the middle of it. But the climate issue also has the character that its consequences are often local and regional. Droughts are local. Floods as well as different forms of water rises are local and regional. The list can be long of local and regional consequences of the climate changes.

If one wants to reach them and be able to handle them, one needs to cooperate more with others. If drought knocks out agricultural production in Sweden, we need more trade. We need closer contacts, and we need to be more open towards others. If we are to counter wildfires that break out in Sweden, perhaps we ourselves, Mr. Speaker, cannot have all the resources required, but then we need to cooperate more with others. Both to stop climate change and to manage its consequences, it will therefore be necessary to have more cooperation across our borders – more EU and more free trade.

Another thing is crime. It is clear that we can invest as much money as we want in the police, the justice system, and all parts of the justice chain here in Sweden. We can do an incredible amount to strengthen legislation, tighten penalties, and so on. But this matters no amount if the criminals move across the border, out of Sweden and into some other country where we cannot get hold of them. It matters no amount if the crime is committed in several countries simultaneously if we cannot see the pattern because we do not cooperate closely enough.

This too, Mr. Speaker, is an area where the EU needs to deepen its cooperation, and we from the Liberals have long pushed for a European FBI. It is about deepening the cooperation and making it very practical, quite simply, in order to be able to curb cross-border crime.

Mr. Speaker! I also want to say something about qualified majority in different issues, something that has been raised in the debate earlier. Today, the EU's foreign policy is becoming obviously limping, because there are countries that have been affected by influence from either China or from Russia or that have other interests in the world that cause them to oppose important positions when it comes to the European common foreign policy. From the Liberals' side, we want to move to qualified majority instead of unanimity so that we cannot be blocked in these important issues, but we want to do it in more policy areas. This is only a first step. The EU needs to move towards qualified majority more generally.

Vänsterpartiet claimed that the EU was extremely expensive. They have also been involved in the committee's work, so therefore I think it is relevant. What I want to say to them is that then you cannot do this with basic economics. Just because something costs a lot does not mean it is expensive. The EU costs a lot of money, but it is incredibly cheap for what we get.

With this, Mr. Speaker, I wish a Merry Chrismukkah to all who celebrate any of this!

(Applause)

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

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for giving me the opportunity to come here today and debate the commission's work program for 2024!

The program is, as several have pointed out, in many respects retrospective but also includes some new proposals that the commission intends to implement during the remainder of the legislative period. In my speech, I also intended to look up and see a bit beyond this work program and say a few words about how the government views the next legislative period.

Mr. Speaker! In June next year, there is an election to the European Parliament. Then a new commission shall be appointed. At the European Council meeting in June, the so-called strategic agenda shall be decided. The EU's leaders agree every five years on a new strategic agenda, and the purpose of the agenda is to point out the EU's political priorities for the next five years. Before the decision, the leaders had an initial discussion in Granada, and after that, discussions and consultations have been held in smaller groups. This work is ongoing.

On Sweden's part, we established priorities for the Swedish presidency, and I would say that these priorities are still highly relevant. When I read the committee's report and listen to the speeches here in the chamber, I can also state that there is a great consensus. I think both of these are good signs, even if, as Jacob Risberg says, there is a certain difference in nuance regarding the Swedish priorities.

It is in Sweden's interest that the sitting and the incoming commission focus on how the EU prepares for the next expansion, competitiveness issues, energy and green transition, management of migration, cross-border and organized crime and counter-terrorism. Support for Ukraine is, of course, central.

Support for Ukraine economically, militarily, humanitarily and politically, as well as continued sanctions against Russia and guaranteeing accountability, should also continue to rank very high on the EU's agenda. It is one of the major formative issues for our joint political work. Ultimately, this is a question of defending democracy.

Less than a month ago, the commission presented its enlargement package, with the recommendation to begin membership negotiations with Ukraine and Moldova, something that the government welcomes. It is a testament to the impressive efforts Ukraine has made despite the ongoing war.

At the same time, it is important that the EU is ready the day the candidate countries are ready to become members. Therefore, the government particularly welcomes that the Commission in its work program has indicated that it is already initiating work to conduct impact assessments of how the enlargement affects different policy areas and the EU's functioning. The question of enlargement will undoubtedly continue to be a high priority and will shape the next Commission's work.

But there are also other issues that are important, and in order to achieve the greatest possible impact for Swedish positions, a prioritization is necessary. Sweden needs to put extra effort into ensuring that competitiveness issues receive a prominent position in the upcoming agenda. Other areas that should be addressed are migration, cross-border crime, the implementation of the climate transition, and respect for the principles of the rule of law. So let me, Mr. Speaker, say something briefly about this.

Firstly, competitiveness and the internal market are Swedish specialties and issues that Sweden successfully drove during our Swedish presidency. I believe there is an expectation among like-minded countries and the Commission that Sweden shall also continue to wear the leadership jersey in these issues and manage the credibility we won during the presidency.

Strengthened competitiveness over time requires investments in research and innovation and a diligent effort to reduce complications and unnecessary administrative burdens for companies. It is, I think, pleasing that the commission places such great emphasis on these issues in its work program, but this must also be in focus for the next commission.

Competitiveness is about more than just reducing red tape. A strengthened internal market and an active policy for free and rules-based trade with the rest of the world are also central areas for improving the EU's competitiveness. These issues have also become increasingly geopolitical. To stand strong in the global competition, the EU needs to be competitive, growth-promoting, outward-looking, and innovative.

The discussion on economic security and so-called resilience will likely continue, and here Sweden has a very important role to play. Our goal is, of course, to increase resilience and reduce our vulnerability, but we must also contribute to the appropriate trade-offs that need to be made between "openness" and strategic autonomy so as not to jeopardize our long-term competitiveness. Here, I believe Sweden's line must be clear: Strategic autonomy must not become a pretext for protectionist forces to advance their positions.

Secondly, migration remains one of the EU's greatest challenges. More than 200,000 migrants have crossed the Mediterranean just this year. That is 52 percent more than the corresponding period last year. The situation in Europe is very pressured, not only in the Mediterranean countries but also in, for example, Austria and the Netherlands, which underscores that this is a common European challenge.

Therefore, an agreement on the EU's migration pact is of the utmost importance, for the EU as well as for Sweden. The strategic agenda should address the importance of an effective implementation of the common legislation as well as the continued advancement of the EU's common and long-term work. This includes issues regarding new forms of cooperation with countries of origin and transit countries and large host countries, and on how the EU can streamline its return work.

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, cross-border crime is a threat to the system. This applies regardless of whether we are talking about internal or external security in the EU. Of the criminal networks in the EU, 70 percent are active in at least three countries.

Under the Swedish presidency, a high-level group for effective access to information for law enforcement was established. It will present recommendations on joint efforts at the EU level this autumn. The Government will push for effective recommendations and work to ensure that these and other pressing issues are captured in the strategic agenda.

Furthermore, the threat of terrorism against Sweden and Swedish interests abroad is at a high level. The Government is working on a broad front to meet the threats that violent extremism and terrorism now pose to our free and open society. The Minister for Justice and the Minister for Migration therefore sent a request to the EU Commission and the Spanish Presidency just over a month ago with an appeal to strengthen the work regarding persons who pose a security threat at the EU level, including through a strengthened external border, increased information exchange, and effective return.

For the fourth, the green transition to meet climate change remains central to the EU cooperation. The Commission's work program is, as mentioned, also very much about implementing adopted legislation, and this applies largely to the climate package to reach the 2030 targets.

For Sweden's part, we have competitive advantages in the area through access to fossil-free energy, and we are far ahead in the green transition. Sweden also safeguards the right for every country to choose its energy mix. Our common regulatory framework shall not stand in the way of increased production of nuclear power within the union. The Government will also push to avoid further detailed regulation in the energy area.

Finally, the situation regarding respect for the principles of the rule of law gives reason for continued concern in several countries. The strategic agenda needs to have a clear focus on how the EU should act, through continued dialogues and scrutiny of the member states and their work, but also through clear requirements for respect for the principles of the rule of law in order to participate in the union's funds.

Mr. Speaker! There are, of course, many other pressing areas that the EU must continue to work on, so the points I have now raised are not exhaustive. But I choose to stop here.

(Applause)

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! EU Minister Roswall concluded by speaking about the principles of the rule of law. One such rule of law principle is that the state shall not monitor its citizens, especially if they are not accused or suspected of any type of crime.

Chat control does, however, mean that apps and social media platforms are forced to scan all their users' messages. Fundamentally, this proposal is about combating the storage and dissemination of sexual abuse material and stopping attempts at so-called grooming, i.e., when one tries to contact children. It is very good that there is an effort from the EU side to achieve this ambition, as 37 percent of all young people between 13 and 16 years old in Sweden have at some point received a request to take lightly clad pictures and send them to someone.

But chat control is unfortunately not the solution for catching more perpetrators. Instead, it risks leading to mass surveillance and to it becoming harder to conduct investigative journalism.

This proposal has met with massive criticism, not only from parliamentarians like myself or members of the European Parliament. Even Germany's Minister of Justice, Marco Buschmann, has said that it is not in order that every private communication on the internet will be monitored by the state without reason. And Germany is not the only member state, but also Austria and Estonia have been clear in their criticism of chat control. These are countries that Sweden normally tends to stand very close to.

A vote has now been held in the European Parliament. The proposal has been reshaped, and the proposal that the European Parliament has come up with is, I believe, significantly better than the Commission's proposal. I therefore wonder what the Swedish government's position is. Is it that they support the European Parliament's compromise proposal, or are they for the EU Commission's mass surveillance proposal?

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

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me begin by saying one thing. This is a proposal for a regulation to prevent and combat sexual abuse against children. I want it to sink in, because this is what it is actually about. Håkan Svenneling speaks of massive criticism. I want to assert that there is also a massive demand from the police, prosecutors, and crime victims - just so that we agree on what the purpose of this proposal is.

Combating sexual abuse and other serious crime online is a very high priority for the government. I hope that it is also for the Swedish Parliament and Håkan Svenneling. At the same time, I and everyone else understand that it is always a matter of a balance between the tools of law enforcement and personal privacy. It is a matter of finding this balance.

Exactly where this is located right now, I must ask to refrain from answering. I know that the Minister for Justice was in the EU Committee on Friday, but I do not believe that this issue was on the agenda for what is called the RIF Council - speaking of abbreviations; I apologize for that - this week.

For me, this is about preventing and combating sexual abuse against children and finding a balanced regulation, and the government obviously stands behind this. However, I do not have the latest information from the agreement that has been reached - if it has been reached.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! It is well-known EU logic that one tries to push through heavy and extensive proposals by putting them in a package, calling the package something important, and including proposals that many like. That is exactly the case in this instance. As the EU Minister says, chat control is only one part of the package, and that is why this part of the package is very much highlighted. However, there are other parts in the package that are very good. It is the Swedish EU Commissioner Ylva Johansson, former Social Democratic Member of Parliament, who has driven this forward, and fundamentally it is good that one takes responsibility for these issues at the European level because it concerns international crime that we must tackle.

I have understood that this was nevertheless up for discussion in the RIF Council on Monday and Tuesday, but that no decision has been reached. Given how much discussion there has been about the proposal, one can imagine that there was at least some corridor talk. I hope that the Swedish government can reposition itself in the issue, because I believe it is important that we in Sweden manage to work against sexual abuse, grooming, and child pornography crimes while simultaneously standing up for the principles of the rule of law and understanding that nothing becomes better by mass-surveilling every citizen. I do not want a society and a state that demands that all the apps and platforms we have in our phones should monitor my and the EU Minister's private communication, regardless of whether it is encrypted or not. We shall work against child pornography crimes, but we shall also find ways where not everyone is pointed out as a perpetrator.

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

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Mr. Speaker! I also hope that we can find a balanced regulation. However, I continue to object to it being a matter of massive control. I do not know the figures, but I know that the number of sexual offenses against children online is increasing massively. This is something that I and the government will continue to work against, and I hope that the Swedish Riksdag will also continue to do so. It is, as said, about finding a balance.

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

Linnéa Wickman (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for participating in the debate; it is much appreciated.

It is an apocalyptic situation. That is how the UN's World Food Programme describes the situation for the over 2 million Palestinians who are currently trapped in the Gaza Strip. According to the UN, an immediate ceasefire is required in order to even be able to provide Gaza's civilian population with emergency aid. As mentioned earlier in the debate, the High Representative Josep Borrell has now also stated that the EU also sees that an immediate ceasefire is required. In the Foreign Affairs Committee's statement on the work program, peace in the Middle East is also mentioned as a current and important area. This will surely also dominate the agenda in the foreign affairs area well into 2024.

My question to the Minister for EU Affairs is simple: Does the Swedish government also support an immediate ceasefire?

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

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me first give Linnéa Wickman an accolade for taking up Global Gateway in her speech. I completely share the view that it is an important flagship for the EU's joint aid work.

I also share the view that the war and the conflict in Gaza will continue to have a major place on the EU's agenda for a long time to come. Let me repeat what the government has previously said about that we obviously condemn Hamas' actions and give Israel the right to defend itself in accordance with international law.

We all saw the need for a pause, and it is regrettable that it is now over. The pause was necessary to get in humanitarian aid, and I am pleased that the government contributed 150 million to this. But everyone realizes that we need further pauses to get in humanitarian support, and it is important that we try to reach there.

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

Linnéa Wickman (S)

Mr. Speaker! Now that the EU is finally clear and demands an immediate ceasefire in order to be able to provide emergency aid to the severely tested civilian population in Gaza, it is unfortunate that it is not possible to get a clearer statement from the Minister in the chamber of the Riksdag. We are all strongly affected by the news we receive, and we see that international law is challenged in many ways in the war between Hamas and Israel.

The Commission's work programme 2024

The Minister mentioned the humanitarian aid. Recently, Sida confirmed that not a single krona of the Swedish development aid has gone to Hamas, and a review at the EU level has reached the same conclusion. Will Sweden, based on this, immediately resume the development aid? It goes to the forces in Palestine that work for democracy, human rights, the rights of girls and women, yes, all that Hamas does not stand for. We need to work to strengthen these forces while simultaneously demanding an immediate ceasefire.

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

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Government has received the report on the review, and I think it is good that the EU, Sweden and many other member states have conducted this review. The report is being prepared by the Government, so I will have to come back to this.

It is however important to point out that we are doing what we can to facilitate the humanitarian situation in Gaza. I hope that there will be more pauses so that we can get in the support that is needed in this serious situation. This is something we are working hard on.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 14.)

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