The Commission's work programme 2025

Alexandra Völker (S)

Madam Speaker! ”In a time of serious instability and great expectations from the people in the EU, the elections that our EU makes this year will likely shape Europe for decades to come.”

Thus begins the commission's work program for 2025, the document that summarizes the commission's work and priorities for the coming year. One can say that it is the commission's roadmap, and it is this that we are here to debate.

The document covers all parts of the Commission's areas, but in the Foreign Affairs Committee's review, the foreign and security policy area in particular has been in focus. That is also what I will focus on.

Madam Speaker! The EU started as a peace project. After two closely successive world wars, the idea was to bind the countries' economies together through the coal and steel community and make war between the European states impossible in the future. Now, security policy is once again at the top of the agenda. Tomorrow, the EU's prime ministers are to have a meeting in the European Council. These meetings have increasingly come to be dominated by security policy and the security situation in Europe.

In the work program, it is stated that Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine is an existential threat to Europe and the EU. It is a statement that we Social Democrats, of course, agree with. It is also why we view the current developments with such great concern.

The rules-based world order, founded on international law and international law, is the prerequisite for long-term global peace and respect for human rights. The rules-based world order, which we have been able to rely on since the Second World War, is under multiple threats, including from Russia, through the invasion of Ukraine, the claims on territories in countries such as Moldova and Georgia, and the attempts to infiltrate the politics in EU countries and in the Balkans.

Unfortunately, we must also now state that the rules-based world order is also being undermined by the new American administration. We have seen unacceptable moves regarding the USA taking over Greenland and the Panama Canal, threats of violence against a Nato-allied country, and demands to lay claim to parts of Ukraine's natural resources.

Sweden and the EU Commission must in this new situation clearly take a stand against all such claims, mobilize the EU in support of the UN Charter, the rules-based world order and international law, and build broad global support for these principles.

Madam Speaker! It is important to speak plainly about the fact that these principles must apply to all states and that no one can place themselves above them. We can never accept double standards. This means, for example, that the same requirements that are set on Russia to leave Ukraine must also be set on Israel to leave occupied territory, stop the settlement policy, evacuate the illegal settlements in Palestine, and resume the ceasefire.

In the current situation, the EU Commission must prioritize developing relations with other countries that stand up for the rules-based world order, countries such as Canada and Australia. We also see that it will be important to expand cooperation between the EU and countries in the global south – in Africa, Latin America, and Asia.

Madam Speaker! Much has happened since the Commission presented its work program at the beginning of February. European cooperation is more important than ever, but we face one of our greatest common challenges. However, this is not really visible in the Commission's work program. Guaranteeing Europe's security is the overriding issue for European cooperation. That we are now to handle a work program where the new reality we have to contend with is not included is problematic. In that case, the program loses its function and does not become the roadmap it is intended to be.

Madam Speaker! To hold the EU together and, with a strong common voice, stand up for international law and the rules-based world order is one of the EU's most important tasks in this situation. It requires a proper analysis of what the new security policy situation entails, what the consequences of the significant changes in American aid entail, how the EU can strengthen its relations with other countries and organizations, and how we can increase our cooperation.

One thing I know we all in here agree on: A peace agreement must occur on Ukraine's terms.

To return to the first sentence in the work program: The choices our EU makes this year will likely shape Europe for decades to come. That is binding.

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

Angelika Bengtsson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today's debate concerns the European Commission's work programme for 2025. In other words, it is not a new law that we will later decide on here. It may be good to clarify this for the listeners.

I want to begin by referring to the special statement we have. Briefly, it concerns our ideological position on the EU issue, where we many times assert that decisions are best made here at home in this assembly and not in the EU Parliament.

We also consider that the EU machinery has become all too bureaucratic and that the administrative suit has grown all too large. We need to reform the EU in order to focus the cooperation on the fundamental cross-border areas of cooperation regarding economic cooperation, trade, environmental issues, and increased security and defense policy needs.

In other words, we need an action-oriented union that does good where cooperation is required, returns decision-making power to the nations, phases out symbolic politics, and turns competitive disadvantages into competitive advantages through regulatory simplification in a time when the member states need to reduce their dependency on external actors in the global market and strengthen Europe's economy.

The Commission begins the work program by pointing out that it wants to see a bolder, simpler and faster EU. It is here we mean that one needs to review the size of the cooperation and which priorities are made. That being said, the work program that the Commission has presented is broad, and it deals with many issues.

Once again, the support for Ukraine is palpable, and with all rights. We are entering the fourth year in which Russia is waging a war of illegal aggression and Ukraine is defending not only its country but also Europe's security. It is of the highest priority that the EU continues to provide comprehensive and long-term predictable support to Ukraine in several areas – both military and civilian, political, economic, humanitarian and legal support – as long as the country is under attack. The Ukrainian people's right to freedom and self-determination cannot be overemphasized.

The Sweden Democrats support Ukraine's and Moldova's candidacy process for EU membership. But we want to continue to emphasize the importance of progress in the reform work and that the fundamental requirement of a merit-based expansion process remains. It is fundamental for the expansion's and thus the EU's legitimacy and long-term sustainability.

Europe is in a new security policy era, and increased coordination and unity in foreign and security policy will be required.

Disinformation is increasingly used, for example, to destabilize democracy, create polarization, and threaten with security policy chaos. The Commission intends to develop proposals within the framework of a democratic shield. It is an initiative to protect against disinformation, influence operations, and hybrid attacks. The purpose is to strengthen information integrity and create sustainable information systems both within and outside the EU.

Madam Speaker! I want to emphasize that the committee, as in previous statements, has expressed that the EU generally should adopt a stricter application of the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity in order to limit the EU's legislative activity.

I began my speech by pointing out that we as a party believe that the EU has outgrown its suit. We naturally believe that every country should take greater responsibility to combat disinformation, and it is positive that the majority also believe that this is best done in each respective member state. The concept still, however, lacks a clear definition and framework for how we counter threats that can undermine our democratic values and human rights.

It is in this way that we ensure support for the Commission's work, that is to say by increasing the credibility of the issues that the EU chooses to prioritize. And we want the EU to prioritize other issues.

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Foreign Affairs' report number 5. I begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal.

The Moderates' general judgment of the Commission's work program for 2025 is that it focuses on the right things in all essential respects, above all Europe's lack of growth, but as the committee notes, the program was written just before the world was thrown into the turbulence that the USA created regarding Ukraine's future. In what we are talking about today, we must take this into account.

The program rightly focuses on the EU countries' need to revitalize their economies. Growth is not good enough, and many countries have weak public finances. As we now must significantly upgrade our respective defense forces, we must therefore get the wheels turning faster.

It is therefore pleasing that the Commission so clearly marks that a period of regulatory simplification awaits. The promise being made is that the administrative burden for companies shall decrease by 25 percent and for the smaller companies by up to 35 percent.

I have noted that Miljöpartiet, in its special statement, positions itself as the defender of the rules in order to protect natural values. It is fully understandable, but it is also important to be able to place trust in the industries without imposing rules on them.

There was a time when industrialization was a threat to the environment, but my overall impression after my visits to various industries is that it is here that the real creativity and the will to protect nature exist. It is high time to stop viewing companies as potential environmental villains and instead focus on the fine work they do to ensure that their production does not destroy nature. Regulatory simplifications are a way of telling the companies that we trust them, that we do not believe they have evil intentions and that we see them as partners. This is important now when we must achieve a higher pace in growth.

Madam Speaker! Must we then have higher growth? Yes, we must, because we are now entering a time when Europe will need to invest heavily in its defense. I do not believe that the population in neither our country nor the rest of the EU will want to start dismantling their welfare, worsening their pensions, or starving out healthcare and schools in order to be able to finance the defense. And a continent that is already highly indebted should, above all else, not indebt itself further.

The Commission's work program was, as I mentioned initially, developed after the USA signaled that it wants to reduce its engagement in Europe. But we follow the developments daily, and the general perception in Sweden as well as in the rest of the Union is that Europe must now manage on its own to a much greater extent.

This is also the Moderaternas view. That the USA is withdrawing quickly is not what we would have wished, but we fully share the USA's view that it is completely unreasonable for American taxpayers to finance the defense that we ourselves should have built up. It has been said before but is worth repeating: 500 million Europeans should not have to have help from 340 million Americans to defend themselves against 144 million Russians. We should be able to do this ourselves. We therefore welcome the work for even more defense policy cooperation within the EU that the commission announces in its program.

Madam Speaker! For the same reasons as we attach great importance to the upcoming European rearmament, we also attach importance to the expansion policy.

Previously, I have personally thought it is good if this process happens slowly to ensure that there really is a reciprocity. A country should only join the EU if it truly commits to the common project. But in light of Russia's dishonest attack on Ukraine, we have an acute security policy problem to solve. The EU is not a defense alliance and therefore cannot give Ukraine the military security guarantees that the country needs, but this will still be a step along the way. EU membership for Ukraine must therefore be seen as a priority goal for the union. The same applies to Moldova, which is also struggling to break free from Russian influence.

Madam Speaker! Let me also mention something about the commission's upcoming work with what is called the democratic shield.

The purpose of this work is for the EU to be able to assist the Member States when they are subjected to information campaigns that threaten the countries' democracies. It is known that foreign powers create such campaigns. There are therefore reasons for the Member States to help each other in identifying hostile actors. However, it is primarily each country itself that must protect its own democracy. The EU will never have the legitimacy required to intervene with rules in the democratic process in the Member States. This must be said because there has relatively recently been a dispute between the Commission and the owner of the media platform X, Elon Musk. The Commission should be restrained on this point.

Madam Speaker! The USA's new foreign policy has undoubtedly shaken most, and even though I do not believe that American isolationism leads to anything good, I believe we must expect that this will be the American policy for a good while to come.

Something positive can still come from this. It can lead to Europe pulling itself together, doing its homework, starting to build prosperity again, cleaning up its public finances and rearming. This can still end happily.

(Applause)

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thought this would be a rather smooth debate without so many discussions, as we are to submit a report to the records. But then one gets attacked from the rostrum, and then it is clear that one must stand up and defend oneself a little bit.

Of course, private companies are needed, and the vast majority of private companies do very many good things. But regulations will also be required. Private companies have produced substances such as DDT, PFAS, PCB and other types of dioxins, brominated flame retardants, bisphenols and phthalates, and they are spread in nature. It is only after we have found these in nature, examined them and found out what this means for us, our health and our environment that we can begin to regulate them – even though these companies in many cases have known exactly what it is they are doing.

We can draw a parallel regarding the tobacco companies and the investigations that were conducted already in the 50s, 60s, and 70s regarding what impact nicotine has. Those investigations were kept secret until they were forced to produce them in court. It is clear that regulations were needed. The vast majority of companies are superb and do good things, but there are companies that put profit before environmental interests and health interests. How else are we to address this if not through regulations?

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Member Risberg is now arguing against a position that no one has taken, namely the total abolition of the rules. No such proposal exists. That is not what is stated in the commission's work program, but rather one speaks of rule simplifications.

I thought it was still worth mentioning the Green Party's defense of all forms of regulations, because the collective message in the Green Party's special statement is the defense of the regulations. There are, however, no plans to abolish any regulations, but rather it concerns regulatory simplifications. For example, it shall become easier for companies to report back on what they have actually done. They shall, for example, not need to fill out paper forms, but they shall do this digitally. The Green Party cannot be directly against this.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! Of course, we are not against things becoming easier to implement, but in our special statement, we raise a number of other types of issues. We take, for example, the issue that one can evade responsibility. When it comes to the chemical legislation in the Reach Regulation, we see that the potential simplifications and adjustments being made may mean that companies will be able to continue on the path they had previously, namely to release environmental toxins without first having investigated what impact they have. That is not what we want to see, and that is what our special statement is about. We are not against all types of regulatory changes, but we are against less regulation regarding dangerous chemicals.

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I thought there was reason to mention the Green Party's defense in the party's special statement precisely because it was so obvious that this was the Green Party's most important point.

Regarding the point that Member Risberg raises about what is called the Reach Regulation, it actually states in the Commission's work program that this work shall continue. There is therefore no threat to this specific point in the way the Member wants to claim.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! It was obvious that MP Olsson wanted to invite MP Risberg to dance, but I still thought I would jump in and participate in this dance regarding rule simplifications.

I think it is important to discuss this in the Swedish Riksdag, because Sweden's commissioner in the European Commission, Jessika Roswall, is precisely the environment commissioner. Therefore, Sweden has an extra opportunity – and the Moderaterna, as the party she represents, have a special opportunity – to influence these types of issues and legislation moving forward.

This morning I saw in the news on SVT Nyheter that criticism came from precisely those companies that are now to receive these regulatory simplifications. They have seen the legislation that was introduced during the European Parliament's previous term. Stefan Olsson's party group collaborated with Jacob Risberg's party group to develop much of the environmental legislation we see at the EU level, and there we have also seen that the EU has in many parts gone ahead of Sweden. Now the company Blåkläder, which we all know well, experiences that the conditions are suddenly changing. They have already made their investment plans and future visions, and all of a sudden the work that they and other companies have done, for example within the framework of the Hague Initiative, is being taken away.

The problem that arises when one changes the conditions in this way and has no rules – except for what Jacob Risberg touched upon regarding the pursuit of profit – is that there will not be equal competition between companies. Those who do not take responsibility for our future climate will get away more easily, and those who do not take responsibility for workers' rights will find it easier to compete.

A clear example regarding the legislation on PFAS is that legislation is underway for everything concerning consumers. However, there are no plans for this when it comes to the industry, as 80 percent of all areas of use for PFAS are to be exempted within the framework of these "regulatory simplifications."

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! Firstly, I would like to correct a factual error regarding what Member Svenneling claimed about Commissioner Roswall representing the Moderaterna. She has, indeed, held party membership in Moderaterna for a long time, but as a commissioner, one actually represents the commission. Svenneling knows this, so he should not have said that, but he can change his mind in his next speech and correct his mistake.

I want to say again that there is no proposal from the Commission that the rules should be abolished. This is about making the application of the rules simpler. Companies, for example, should not have to fill out paper forms in the same way as before. Something that is mentioned as being very burdensome is precisely the reporting from companies to authorities regarding what they have done for something. It is argued that this is a very heavy workload.

This does not mean that any rules disappear, but one makes the application itself simpler. I cannot really understand why it would be a problem that the application of the rules themselves should be simpler and how this would be a threat to the environment. I do not really see the connection there.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! Member Olsson is obviously correct that one represents the commission when one is elected as a commissioner. It is, however, the case that each country is allocated its own commissioner and that Sweden's government – led by the Moderaterna – has nominated and appointed Jessika Roswall to that position.

Just as the member is correct, every individual proposal in itself does not have to be bad. There will certainly be many great decisions missing during the five-year period with this commission, but it is very clear that this commission has an idea of shifting the focus. This was what the member was actually correct about.

I think we are moving away from the partnership with the companies a bit. I would like to see that we instead have an offensive environmental legislation, an offensive climate legislation, and good labor legislation to strengthen Europe's competitiveness against other parts of the world where one does not have this. We can be at the forefront and push our companies so that we are actually even more competitive in 10, 15, or 20 years. I believe that it is better than us going backwards and trying to compete with low wages, poor working conditions, or less consideration for the environment and climate.

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I must nevertheless say something positive to Member Svenneling and thank him for a point. It is, in fact, fantastic to hear a member of the Left Party speak about entrepreneurship and competition, and about how important competition and leading companies are. This has not always been the Left Party's melody through the years, so on that point, I must give him a great acknowledgment.

At the same time, it is such that one cannot view all initiatives regarding regulatory simplification as a threat. There are very many rules, and then every rule in itself becomes sacred. Eventually, one cannot change anything at all at any time. It is time now to really make an effort and try to reduce the regulatory burden. As said, it is not about abolishing any rules, but it is about making the application of the rules simpler. In the end, I believe that Vänsterpartiet is also on board with this when one sees the actual proposals in more detail.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! After the EU election in June 2024, the European Parliament received a new composition. Not least, the representation of conservative and xenophobic forces increased, which I believe will have a negative effect on many policy areas. This applies in particular to areas such as climate, equality, and migration.

The German right-wing politician Ursula von der Leyen was re-elected as the Commission's president. At the same time, she got rid of Charles Michel and Josep Borrell, who during the previous mandate period partially pursued a different political line than she herself. Now power is likely increasingly concentrated with von der Leyen, while the rightward shift in the Commission's work increases further.

This time, the far-right groups have also gained a clearer position both in the commission and in the European Parliament, as there were right-wing winds in a number of larger countries in Europe during last year's election to the European Parliament. At the same time, we had a left-wing wind in the Nordic countries with successes for left-wing parties in both Finland and Sweden.

We are already seeing a development where von der Leyen's group EPP, in which the Swedish parties Moderaterna and Kristdemokraterna are included, more and more frequently seeks political support from the extreme right instead of, as previously, from social democrats, liberals, and green parties. This obviously affects what policy is pursued in the EU. The development that Vänsterpartiet warned about already at the referendum on the EU in 1994 and at the referendum on the euro in 2003 is now taking effect in policy. Fort Europe has been built up at a frantic pace; everyone who wants to migrate to Europe shall be kept away. With a right-wing racist agenda as a backdrop, the migration policy has been overhauled. The result is death in the Mediterranean.

Now, Germany's former Defense Minister, Ursula von der Leyen, is also taking steps to arm the EU militarily, even though defense according to the Treaty of Lisbon is a national task. For the first time, the EU Commission has been given a defense commissioner, and proposals for proposals are now being launched so that the commission should have a role in the construction of Europe's defense. Today, the so-called white paper on defense issues is being launched, where the commission presents proposals on how it can further strengthen its power in the area.

To this, we can add the commission's agenda on so-called regulatory simplifications. It is, in practice, a right-wing agenda that is about removing legislation on workers, the environment, and nature.

Stefan Olsson was indeed looking for rules to change. After our exchange of remarks, I would now like to take the opportunity to mention two rule changes I want to see.

One concerns the state aid rules, which prevent states from investing in companies and supporting entrepreneurship. They are far too extensive today. The other concerns the Public Procurement Act, which prevents contracting authorities from using procurement in a way that favors their own. We actually see discussions about buying "Made in Europe" instead of "Made in America." It will be interesting to see where these discussions lead.

Each individual proposal does not necessarily have to be wrong, but I mean that as a whole it is going in the wrong direction – clearly to the right. Therefore, we in Vänsterpartiet are critical in several parts regarding the commission's work program and the work that von der Leyen 2 is conducting. In the European Parliament, we were clear that we voted against this commission being allowed to take office.

Is everything pitch black then? No, obviously not. In a time with Donald Trump as president in the USA, with a Putin breathing morning air in Moscow and with Xi Jinping in China seeking increased Chinese dominance, the EU and Europe need to pull together and build a more democratic and just alternative where the great powers are not allowed to dictate the terms for everything and everyone.

With Donald Trump, we have received an authoritarian president who does not seem to care about international law. In a short time, he has directed military and political threats toward several countries, such as Panama, Greenland, and Canada, as well as allied himself with Putin and Russia to force a war's end in Ukraine. Such a forced peace would in no way be just or on Ukraine's terms.

Europe needs to detach itself from the leash that the so-called transatlantic link has become and instead support Ukraine for a just peace. This includes that Ukraine, if the country so wishes, should in the long run be able to become a member of both the EU and Nato. It is the Ukrainian people's right to make their own political choices that counts here, regardless of what I as a Left Party member think about these organizations.

In several parts, the EU leaders have initiated this process. A few years ago, I was not a supporter of the French concept of strategic autonomy, but now it is becoming increasingly clear and easier to understand what this buzzword actually means. It is obvious that the EU must find its own role and define its own interests in a global world order that is being subjected to ever-increasing pressure. The EU's clarity in support for Ukraine has been and is crucial for the Ukrainian resilience against Putin's Russia, for the defense of its own democracy, and for defending democratic states against imperialists.

From the Swedish Prime Minister, however, we hear that we should have patience when it comes to Donald Trump as USA's president. The Prime Minister's words have also become the government's action plan. In other words, nothing is happening. The Swedish government completely lacks a strategy to handle Donald Trump. It was probably believed that Trump's second period as president would be more similar to the first period and that right-wing politicians would still be able to find common ground. This has turned out to be a completely incorrect analysis when Trump has pumped out presidential decrees and humiliated Zelenskyy.

In this time, the parties in the Riksdag need to unite and review Sweden's security policy analysis. That is what we did when Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine began. To have security policy talks together and, based on that, land on a new security policy strategy is the best way of working to create unity and consensus in Sweden in a restless world.

Madam Speaker! The European Commission's work program is a so-called review report. This means that we and all other committees read and analyze the European Commission's work program and subsequently 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 on the EU and EU issues.

Now follows some correspondence between the commission and the Speaker. The Speaker first sends a letter to the commissioner, and later in the year he receives a pleasant letter in reply.

The committee therefore proposes that the Riksdag submit the report for handling.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Madam Speaker! As the previous speaker said, this is a work program that has actually already begun to take effect. It concerns the commission's mandate period 2024–2029. We are therefore looking deeply into that which has already begun to be processed.

As has emerged previously, this is a work program that has met a completely new world and a completely new reality. Like previous work programs, it will be heavily affected by the new world we are now experiencing. It simply must be so. This applies both to how one prioritizes in the program and, naturally, what budget can be agreed upon. The latter is the decisive point and largely determines what is possible to implement. The budget process is, after all, in its early stages.

Centerpartiet is clear that we must reach new heights. The world asks: Who in the whole world can one trust?

When some of us in the committee visited Southeast Asia a few weeks ago, it was clear. Who can one trust in this situation to reduce the risks that come with unilateral dependence? Alternative contacts are being sought.

Many look towards the EU and Europe, not least the global south. These countries have previously fallen into either the Chinese, the Russian or the American sphere, but when they see how different leaders act today, they want to try to find alternative paths and reduce the risk of unilateral dependence.

Now the EU has a golden opportunity to show that we stand up for and remain firm on our values and for the multilateral order that has served us so well and which was partly created from the experience we in Europe have from two world wars on our continent. We carry with us the experiences of what happens if one does not hold on and persevere when it comes to the common regulatory frameworks we have created.

If one returns to a world where one believes that alone is strong and only tries to rely on oneself, one misses the message that many of our neighbors in the east are so clear about: Alone is not strong. We must never again experience that alone we have to face Russia.

On this basis, we must work during the upcoming commission period to build an EU that is capable of standing up for democracy, human rights, freedom, and the common agreements we have created. It is about building a safer and more secure world for Europeans but also for the rest of the world. It is truly a time when the EU's voice is demanded and when the EU must be persuaded to answer.

It is also obviously about the economy. The EU is a strong economy but must become stronger, and we fully stand behind the issues of competitiveness. When it comes to the USA, it is about this mandate period, so we shall not throw the baby out with the bathwater or tear down bridges. We shall build bridges, but we must also ensure that Europe's voice in the world is clear. When the USA relinquishes its soft power, the significance of the EU's soft power becomes greater and more important and must be asserted in every way.

This is also part of the work to stand up against Russia and Russia's aggressive ambitions. When it comes to the war of aggression against Ukraine, we stand united in this chamber. Ukraine must decide and win the peace. The example of a peace solution for Ukraine that we now hear discussed would not be a peace solution for Ukraine and Europe, but rather a peace solution that creates the conditions for the next Russian war of aggression, and that we can never agree to. Here, the EU and Europe must speak clearly.

Of course, we must strengthen our ability to defend ourselves, not only militarily but also in other arenas we work on. Let me touch upon a point in the Center Party's special statement here. It concerns the so-called democratic shield. Here, some say that we should manage this ourselves. But when the tech companies enter and try to govern and influence, it is only at the EU level that we have sufficient collective strength to meet this type of disinformation and influence campaigns from both China and Russia. We must therefore not believe that alone is strong, but we must see that the EU's common voice is needed and take advantage of that voice.

I also want to draw your attention to the Center Party's dissenting opinion in the statement from the Committee on Industry. It concerns simplifications of rules and the conditions to be able to meet these while simultaneously meeting the climate task, which the EU will soon be a guarantor for upholding.

First, last night I noticed with a blush of shame that the Labor Market Committee's statement from February 27 is missing from the report. Even here, the Center Party had a dissenting opinion that I had intended to refer to.

I move for approval of the committee's proposal to submit the report for handling.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! The European Commission's work program for 2025 marks an important milestone for the union's future. With the mottos a bolder, simpler and faster union, the program addresses several central areas that affect us all. But we must be honest. The global situation is changing rapidly, and what was prioritized when the work program was written may already be obsolete. Therefore, I both hope and expect that the Commission manages to reprioritize and reassess even already made decisions whenever the situation requires it.

Madam Speaker! The Commission emphasizes the need to strengthen Europe's competitiveness, and this can be seen as a lasting contribution from the most recent Swedish presidency. Through initiatives and strategies to facilitate for startups, the aim is to promote innovation and sustainable growth. This is important for Sweden as small and medium-sized enterprises form the backbone of our economy. But we also know that bureaucratic hurdles and excessive micro-management from Brussels often hinder rather than help entrepreneurs. Here, the Commission must show that it can not only add new initiatives but also remove unnecessary regulations that slow down development.

In a time of geopolitical challenges, it is heartening to see the EU's focus on strengthening the defense industry and reducing dependence on external actors. Cooperation with Nato and initiatives to improve crisis preparedness are crucial to ensuring peace and stability in our region. But the EU must not get stuck in protracted processes when we now see a Russia that is escalating its aggressive behavior.

We Christian Democrats want to see a Europe that stands strong and united in the defense of democracy and freedom. The EU was formed by three Christian Democrats, Adenauer, De Gasperi and Schuman, as a peace project – not as a way to exploit the USA, which we have been able to hear in the last few days. The significance of this peace project is actually greater now than ever before during my lifetime.

Madam Speaker! The Commission's ambition to modernize social policy and promote skills development may seem laudable. By investing in education and adapting the workforce to the needs of the future, the aim is to ensure that no one is left behind in the green and digital transition. But the social pillar must not risk the Swedish model. We stand up for the principle of subsidiarity. The EU should not interfere in matters that the member states themselves best handle. Decisions on healthcare, school, and care should be made close to the citizens, not in Brussels.

At the same time, initiatives aimed at protecting our water resources and promoting sustainable agriculture are of importance. Sweden's rich nature and clean water are treasures we must preserve for future generations. But since we have the world's most sustainable forestry, we must also be clear: the green transition must not only mean new burdens for families and companies. We Christian Democrats want the climate work to be built on innovation and technology rather than prohibitions and taxes.

Madam Speaker! In a time when disinformation and extremism threaten our democratic foundations, the proposal for a democratic shield is a step in the right direction. Protecting our citizens' rights and freedoms is a fundamental task for the union. At the same time, we must be vigilant so that we do not provide EU institutions with tools that can curtail freedom of speech. Democracy is best protected not through censorship but through a strong public debate where we counter lies with truth.

The EU's commitment to supporting Ukraine and promoting stability in our global environment demonstrates our responsibility as a global actor. Through strategic partnerships and investments, we can contribute to a more peaceful and just world. But it also requires that we are willing to prioritize. Everything cannot be done at the same time. Therefore, we must be open to reassessing some of the initiatives that the Commission has already decided on.

Madam Speaker! Finally, the Commission's focus on simplifying the EU's regulatory framework and reducing the administrative burden for companies and citizens is very welcome. A more efficient union benefits us all. But efficiency is also about being able to prioritize when the world around us changes. If 2024 was a year in which we saw Europe's security challenged, 2025 can become the year when the EU shows that it is capable of reassessing, prioritizing, and focusing on what is truly important.

Overall, the European Commission's work program for 2025 offers an ambitious and comprehensive plan to meet the challenges and opportunities we face. It is now up to us, as representatives of our citizens, to actively participate in this work and ensure that Sweden's interests are taken into account in the ongoing process.

With that, I propose that the committee's report be added to the records.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! The European Commission's work program is a major step forward in the work on environmental and climate issues, but we also see risks that could threaten the green transition. One of the most critical points in the Commission's work program is the targeted review of the Reach Regulation.

A change risks weakening rather than strengthening the protection against dangerous chemicals, especially considering the ongoing lobbying from the industry to erode the proposed PFAS ban and other types of protective measures.

EU legislation must cover the entire life cycle of hazardous chemicals, from production to waste management, and stricter rules must, of course, also apply to the industry and not just the consumer end.

Madam Speaker! The EU Commission has expressed a proposal of a 90 percent net emission reduction by 2040. It is an improvement, but it is still not enough. To live up to the Paris Agreement's 1.5-degree goal, the EU must have a negative emission already by 2040. This is something that the Commission should have already presented as a clear legislative proposal during the previous year.

Instead, we now see alternative scenarios, which creates a risk that the goal will not be achieved. We also see risks if the EU's 2035 goal is pushed forward and is not handled through the EU's normal legislative procedure. We demand that Sweden in the Council of Ministers pushes for a higher level of ambition where negative emissions by 2040 is the goal.

Madam Speaker! In a time of extreme weather and loss of ecosystems, water resilience is becoming increasingly important. The Commission's strategy must be concrete legislative proposals to strengthen water protection and enforce existing legislation, for example the Water Framework Directive.

We want to see Sweden take a leading role in the work and ensure that the strategy contains sharp measures and not just visions.

To achieve the European Green Deal's environmental, climate, and social goals, sustainability reporting, CSRD, a sustainable chain, CSDDD, and climate tariffs, CBAM, are absolutely crucial.

We view with concern that the omnibus proposal, which aims to reduce the regulatory burden, as well as legislation that is crucial for the green transition, will lead to less sharp measures. That is, of course, not to be the case.

We oppose changes that risk weakening these laws and demand that the simplification work only focuses on administrative ease, not substantive deteriorations.

It is also worrying that the commission risks focusing unilaterally on regulatory simplifications and subsidies to fossil-dependent companies. The transition to a fossil-free industry is not a burden. Instead, the commission should steer investments towards the sustainable industries of the future.

We mean that the strategy must contain clear incentives for industrial transition but also social measures to support workers and regions affected by the changes.

Madam Speaker! Already in 2024, the rules on water were diluted. Now, the protection of wetlands and peatlands is being identified as the next potential victim. The work with the agricultural policy, CAP, seems to involve further weakenings of environmental requirements.

Sweden must oppose this development and instead work to ensure that the EU's agricultural policy is steered towards sustainability within the planet's boundaries.

In line with that, maritime policy must also be elevated higher on the EU's agenda. Oceans Pact is presented as a competition strategy rather than a tool for the recovery of ecosystems. A maritime goal must be introduced at the EU level, and this is something that Sweden should really push for. A healthy ocean is a prerequisite for all life.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has been one of the strongest advocates for the anti-discrimination directive. Therefore, it is scandalous that the Commission is withdrawing the proposal for a horizontal anti-discrimination directive. And not only that, the work program also lacks a new equality strategy.

We demand that the government works actively within the EU to revive the proposal and restore that all EU citizens are protected against discrimination. We also want to see Sweden demand that the Commission reintroduces the equality strategy and ensures that equality continues to be a priority.

Madam Speaker! The European Commission's work program contains both progress and some concerns. The Green Party will fight to ensure that the green ambitions are not undermined by industrial lobbying and short-term economic interests.

We expect Sweden's government to be an active force in the EU to ensure that the environment, climate, and social justice are at the center of Europe's future.

With that, I propose that the Riksdag table the Committee on Foreign Affairs' report on the Commission's action plan.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Madam Speaker! I naturally listened carefully to Jacob Risberg's contribution. Much of it followed the special statement. But I heard nothing about the very challenging security situation that the entire EU and Europe find themselves in.

We risk obtaining an unsustainable ceasefire or an unsustainable peace in Ukraine and a continued Russian course of aggression against the EU, the West, and Europe in order to divide and rule.

Here, the EU must take a clear position. The EU needs to build a stronger capacity to protect, secure and defend the EU's citizens but also member states in general. I am thinking of Ukraine and not least Moldova.

I heard nothing from Miljöpartiet, and that surprises me. It is nevertheless one of the most central issues for all of us here and now. It is something that will affect the commission's work enormously during the coming years.

We have seen what happened earlier, during the covid period, when the commission had to reorganize. We have also seen what happened after Putin's invasion of Ukraine, and now we face a new such situation.

Where does the Green Party actually stand?

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Lundgren, for the fantastic question!

This is an issue where we are relatively in agreement in the Riksdag. I see our specific statements as something to be raised where we do not have a consensus and where Miljöpartiet sees a problem with the work program. If we were to raise all the points where we are relatively in agreement in the Riksdag, it would become a very long specific statement, and I believe that neither my colleagues nor the Chamber Office would particularly appreciate that. That is probably where the problem lies primarily.

We see a great apprehension regarding what is happening in Ukraine, and we are in agreement that we need to re-equip and strengthen the defense against Russia. We need to strengthen Moldova, Ukraine, and so on against the Russian threat. But since we have a relatively large consensus on these issues both in the Riksdag and broadly in the EU, I do not feel that it is something that we need to bring up extra in the special statement.

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Madam Speaker! If not in the specific statement, I would still have expected that what is unifying in the contribution made by the member would be highlighted. But I heard nothing about exactly this, and that is why I asked the question.

One can also reflect, based on what is said in the committee, on proportionality and subsidiarity and that they are to be applied very strictly. The picture is that some interpret it a bit as that this should be handled nationally.

Is it also the Green Party's position that this is a national responsibility? Or does the Green Party see that the EU has a role here in building protection for democracy against, for example, the big tech companies? As individual countries, we do not have the capacity or the strength to ourselves meet the type of disinformation campaigns or else that individual large tech companies or individual states can exploit to influence, destabilize, and undermine our democracy and our common EU.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! I would like to take this opportunity to thank Kerstin Lundgren for giving me the opportunity to raise how important these issues regarding democracy, security, and safety are, especially towards Russia, in these difficult times. I also get the opportunity to point out that we are in agreement even on these issues.

The EU absolutely has a huge role to play when it comes to the protection of democracy and when it comes to threats from tech giants, particularly regarding disinformation. But it also applies to other types of activities that we see in the wake of the new administration in the USA, where we increasingly notice how incredibly dependent we have become on solely American tech companies in all the work we do daily.

There is very much to do here for both Sweden and, above all, the EU. It is important that we do this together within the EU circle for it to have any effect at all.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

When we talk about the EU's work program and the EU, it is clear that it is difficult not to start by saying that we have war on our continent. But we have peace among the countries that are part of the European cooperation, and that is precisely what has been the foundation for the entire EU from the very beginning. Europe has been a continent where blood has flowed on our lands for hundreds of years as long as human history has existed. Now we have had a long period where the countries that are members of the EU and which have integrated more and more with each other and cooperated more and more closely have also maintained peace.

This is what the project of the EU is fundamentally about. It is also why a forward movement in the project is needed and a work program that ensures the European Union cooperates even more closely.

Perhaps that is also why even parties such as Sverigedemokraterna and Vänsterpartiet, who previously have been very clear in their desire to leave the European Union, have now toned down these aspects of their policy. Instead, they now criticize things such as that there might be a bit too much bureaucracy in certain situations or that some detail of what the EU cooperation involves is not something it should be about. Also, these parties now seem to understand that we need a deepened cooperation and that we need to cooperate more and deeper and in more areas with the countries that are close to us here in Europe.

Madam Speaker! One can certainly agree that the EU is sometimes a bit too bureaucratic. But there are surely many here who have studied a point or two of political science – that is perhaps my prejudice about Members of Parliament – and know that bureaucracies always swell over time. It lies, so to speak, in the bureaucrat's nature to be a swelling organism. Therefore, one must always work on reducing bureaucracy – in Sweden, at the national level, in municipalities, in regions, and of course also in the EU. When we have a bureaucracy, it tends to swell, and we must therefore try to counteract it.

At certain times, the EU needs to do certain things, and at other times, the EU needs to do other things. One could say that what is in the work program, which I perceive all parties in Sweden's Riksdag stand behind, is a form of a slightly more responsible and soft Doge, to take something current from the debate. It is precisely something like that which we need and should welcome.

Madam Speaker! The EU naturally also fundamentally implies a very large increased freedom for all the union's members. Freedom, and in that respect peace, is fundamentally based on the fact that we have continued strong growth. Therefore, there is a strong focus in the work program on increasing growth in Europe.

There are those, Madam Speaker, who think that this matter of growth is a bit difficult and that it is a word that one would gladly get away from. There are even those in Sweden who have spoken about degrowth, that is, the opposite of growth. It is quite strange. Growth is not as dangerous as some parties, perhaps especially on the green outer left wing, sometimes express.

This is how it actually is: When people work and cooperate on things, we call it the economy. That is the fundamental thing. The economy is that people work, cooperate, and do things collectively. If we do things better this year than we did last year, it is called growth. It is not that strange, and it is not that dangerous.

At its core, growth is about doing more things and better things with fewer resources. And that is exactly what we need to do if we are to save the climate, create greater prosperity so that we can have a welfare system that works, and create more freedom both in Sweden and on our continent. It is more growth that is needed, i.e., that we do more things with fewer resources. That is fundamentally what it is about, and that is also why the regulatory simplifications being proposed are so important. It is through them that we can enable growth.

Madam Speaker! It has been said here in the debate that simplification of rules can mean that things will get worse. It is rather the opposite; if the rules are too complicated and too extensive, it is even more difficult to follow the rules. There will be more corruption and more problems with upholding the rules, it will become a swelling bureaucracy and so on.

An increased regulatory burden does not necessarily mean that the rules are followed better or that the result becomes more of what one wants. It is quite simple that the best, that is, good and simple rules, become the enemy of the good. There are many who would rather have a few more and slightly more advanced rules because they believe they can regulate their own specific utopia for how society should look. But that is not how it works, because society consists of people. People who run companies and work are those who are the economy and create growth, and then the rules also need to be simpler and the regulatory burden reduced.

It was actually what the entire European project was about from the beginning: Instead of all member countries having their own rule, which made it a much more complicated regulatory framework in total, the EU now has a common rule that makes it easier for companies and people throughout the union to cooperate and work with each other.

Madam Speaker! I see that my speaking time has expired. I will continue anyway and am prepared for the reprimand that will come.

An incredibly important thing to remember in this is that the European Union is now the beacon of freedom and democracy in the world. The European Union is the entity in the world that is most important for upholding liberal democracy. Therefore, it is more important than ever to continue the work of making us less dependent on and less close to China. China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are cooperating and waging a cold war against us here in Sweden. They do so because they want to harm liberal democracy and the liberal, rules-based world order.

It is in situations like these – when we think it is a bit shakier, when we think it is a bit more difficult to cooperate with parts of the American administration, for example – that we need to think extra carefully about who our partners are. It becomes extra important that it is not countries like China – or for that matter Russia and Iran, with whom we have significantly less cooperation. When we make ourselves dependent on China, we also weaken democracy and our role as precisely a beacon for democracy in the world. We need to have less cooperation with China and more cooperation with countries that share our fundamental values. Deepen trade in the world, but do not deepen it with countries like China!

Finally: It is clear that the most important question for Europe right now is that Ukraine must win the war and Russia must lose it. This does not only mean that Russia must lose and Ukraine win militarily, but also that they must do so politically. That is why the EU needs to be open to Ukraine. That is why Nato needs to be open to Ukraine. It is about Russia losing and Ukraine winning also politically.

That is why the democratic shield included in the work program becomes an important part. Protecting our democracy is what this boils down to.

I agree with the Centre Party's comments regarding that there are things that need to be done at the EU level. We also say that in the statement. We welcome the work with the democratic shield. Everything that the Centre Party puts forward is actually included, even though the Centre Party has highlighted parts of it in an exemplary manner.

But there are also things that we are good at on a national level. It is not so strange. The European Union consists of countries, and things that we are good at on a national level, we should be able to do on a national level. There is no contradiction in that and in doing things at the European level. On the contrary, it is when we build resilience nationally and at the European level that we become stronger together and get a protection of democracy.

(ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN: As expected, I must then say that the speaking time was exceeded by 50 percent.)

The Commission's work programme 2025

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

Kerstin Lundgren (C)

Madam Speaker! For the sake of the minutes, I want to make it clear that there is a report from the Committee on Employment, AU4y. It can be read on the Riksdag's website if one wishes to take part of it. The report contains a dissenting opinion from the Social Democrats, the Left Party and the Green Party, as well as separate opinions from these parties plus the Sweden Democrats and the Centre Party.

It is, as said, regrettable that the statement is not included in the report, but now it is clarified for everyone. It can be read. The statement is available for those who wish to take part of it.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 16.)

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