The Commission's work programme 2026
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerned the Commission's work program for 2026. SD emphasizes that the EU should focus on trade, security, and defense 1, demands merit-based expansion 1 and wants to see a strong defense industry 2 as well as a technology-neutral energy union with nuclear power 2. S wants Ukraine to have access to frozen Russian assets 3 and argues that climate change is a security threat 3. M wants an offensive growth agenda 4, strengthened defense cooperation 4 and less micro-management 4. V demands that Israel be held economically accountable for Gaza 5 and wants to maintain climate ambitions 5. C wants to secure Russian assets 6 and develop international law 6. MP demands negative emissions by 2040 7 and opposes regulatory simplifications that weaken environmental protection 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Chris Dahlqvist (SD)
Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Commission's work programme for 2026, which is presented in a time of deep uncertainty. The war in Ukraine continues, Europe's security order is under very heavy pressure, and the EU faces a decisive crossroads.
The Sweden Democrats largely share the committee's assessment of the work program, which we also express in our special statement. But at the same time, we want to clearly emphasize some important principles. The war in Ukraine requires determination, clarity, and perseverance. We see a very great value in the unity within the EU's foreign and security policy, not least when it comes to the sanctions against Russia and the long-term and broad support for Ukraine – politically, economically, militarily, and humanitarily.
The Russian aggression must be met by a strong and united EU, but at the same time, one thing must be emphasized just as clearly: the requirement for unanimity within the central part of the common foreign and security policy must remain. The Russian aggression must be met by a strong and united EU. It is a crucial guarantee for national self-determination and a principle that becomes no less important in times of crisis – on the contrary. The EU's strength lies in a cooperation between free nations, not in supranational solutions that risk driving the union in a direction that the member states do not support.
The Commission highlights Ukraine's and Moldova's EU processes in the work program. The Sweden Democrats support these ambitions, but with certain fundamental conditions. We support Ukraine's and Moldova's candidacy processes, but respect for the criteria must prevail. And progress in the reform work shall be the basis for every step forward.
The Sweden Democrats therefore want to emphasize that the expansion must be merit-based. Very good reasons are required for an EU expansion beyond what the commission states in the work program. Legitimacy and sustainability require that the EU does not rush political decisions for the sake of symbolism. It is only through a responsible and regular process that the EU can grow without being weakened.
Mr. Speaker! In the work program, the Commission highlights its work to protect children from abuse online. It is a deeply important goal. But the work has all too often led to proposals for far-reaching restrictions on the right to protect communication. The Sweden Democrats will also continue to stand up for the right to encrypted communication, the right to privacy, and oppose the EU's proposals that open for a general surveillance of citizens' digital communication. Protecting children is a duty, but it must not become a pretext that opens the door for mass surveillance from the EU.
Mr. Speaker! Perhaps the most important message that I want to highlight in our special statement, especially today, is that the EU needs to focus, not expand. The work program contains a large number of initiatives and ambitions. It grows in breadth rather than in precision, which means that the EU risks becoming too extensive, too overloaded with strategies and too bureaucratic, and falling too far away from its core tasks.
The Sweden Democrats' view is clear. The EU must be reformed to become narrower, sharper, and more action-oriented. This means that focus should be placed on real cross-border areas:
We need to reduce the bureaucracy, the number of strategy documents, and administrative structures. We need to ensure that there are fewer symbolic political projects, more concrete utility for Europe's citizens, more regulatory simplifications, strengthened competitiveness, and a reduction of the burdens on companies. Decisions where the nation is self-governing need to be returned to the member states. That is how we create an EU that makes a difference.
What is truly required is a union that helps Europe's economy stand firm and where the member states reduce their dependence on authoritarian actors and strengthen their industrial technological resilience.
Mr. Speaker! Europe is in a time when the solution is not more visions, documents, and areas for development. Instead, concentration, cost-effectiveness, and clear mandates are needed that do not erode the nation's self-determination. An EU that tries to do everything risks, in practice, not succeeding with anything. An EU that does fewer things perhaps does them a little better.
Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats welcome several parts of the Commission's work program, not least the consensus on Ukraine, the need for strengthened security, and the importance of reducing the EU's external dependence. But we stand firm on our fundamental principles:
The consensus must be protected.
The expansion shall be merit-based.
Digital integrity must be protected.
The EU should focus on its core tasks.
The cooperation must be purified.
This is the way forward for an action-oriented EU that strengthens its citizens, not its institutions, and that stands firm on the order of free, independent European nations that the union ultimately rests upon.
In conclusion, I would like to vote in favor of the Committee on Foreign Affairs' proposal for a decision.
Alexandra Völker (S)
Mr. Speaker! This debate is therefore about the European Commission's work program for 2026, the Commission's roadmap for the coming year. It is strongly characterized by our global situation. It is, in fact, a tough time for those of us who believe in democracy and a rules-based world order, in the right of states to decide for themselves, and in that a state does not have the right to unprovokedly attack or invade another country. It is a tough time for those of us who believe in multilateralism, in meeting common challenges through cooperation, and in standing up for common rules.
Since Russia launched its full-scale war in Ukraine in February 2022, Ukraine has fought a war that is about their security but also about our security. It is completely unacceptable that a country unprovoked attacks another state. It is Russia that has attacked Ukraine. Therefore, peace must occur on Ukraine's terms. Anything else is unacceptable.
A Russia that emerges victorious from the war against Ukraine is an even more dangerous Russia. It means a more dangerous world. It means yet another departure from the rules-based world order and the rules that we have jointly designed.
Standing behind Ukraine and standing up for its sovereignty is Europe's and the EU's most important security policy commitment in the current situation. Therefore, EU countries must as soon as possible ensure that Ukraine gets access to the frozen Russian assets. The EU must take the next step to enable Ukrainian membership in the EU by opening the next negotiation cluster. Our message is clear: Ukraine's sovereignty is not negotiable. Ukraine's security is our security.
Mr. Speaker! For those of us who stand up for the rules-based world order and for international law, the international courts are extremely important. Through them, we can monitor international law and act when states and individuals fail. Through the International Court of Justice, ICJ, we have received black and white confirmation that Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories is illegal and violates international law. Through the International Criminal Court, ICC, there is an international arrest warrant against Russia's president Putin. It applies in all of the 125 countries that have ratified the Rome Statute. The European Court of Human Rights, on its part, recently ruled that all EU countries must recognize same-sex marriages.
The courts are thus important instruments for upholding international law, our freedoms, and our rights. Therefore, it is extremely serious that the USA has directed sanctions that hinder the work of the International Criminal Court, ICC. These are sanctions that target the courts' independence and which hinder the International Criminal Court's work and autonomy. They hinder its work in investigating Putin's war crimes, the war crimes in Sudan, the Assad regime's violations of international law in Syria, and the war crimes in Gaza. To counteract the impact of the sanctions, the EU has the opportunity to activate the blocking statute. It is the European Commission that has the opportunity to initiate such a process. We Social Democrats believe that this should be done as soon as possible.
Mr. Speaker! Recent years have made it clear that we must strengthen our preparedness and our ability to defend ourselves. That is why, from the Swedish side, we are significantly increasing our defense capability and have joined Nato. It is also why, within the EU over the last decade, we have made increasing efforts to strengthen the member states' common defense capabilities, develop new materiel, and strengthen interoperability, that is, the ability to act together.
Over the past year, it has become even clearer that we in Europe and in the EU's member states must further strengthen our own capacity and that we cannot rely on others. The Commission writes in the work program that this is the EU's time for autonomy. We Social Democrats agree that the EU and the member states must continue to arm themselves for the security policy threats we face. But the EU's member states must manage to become autonomous while we develop our cooperation with other countries and organizations. The EU cannot stand up for the rules-based world order alone. We must strengthen our relations with countries in Africa, Latin America, and Asia. We must prioritize the work in organizations such as the UN. At the same time as we increase our autonomy, we must truly strengthen our relations in the world.
Mr. Speaker! Security policy and the issue of EU security is a common thread that runs through the work program. The Commission is clear that the security aspect must be included in all policy areas. At the same time, we Social Democrats believe that this aspect is missing in the climate area. The Commission emphasizes that we must protect the Union's citizens from the effects of climate change and reduce our impact on the ecosystem.
But the consequences of climate change for security policy are conspicuously absent. As recently as yesterday, the UN report Global Environment Outlook was released, the largest research compilation ever conducted in the field. The report warns of how climate change, land degradation, and pollution undermine our economy, our food security, our water security, and human health. This poses direct threats to our security. Furthermore, it leads to conflicts in many parts of the world. Climate change constitutes a direct security threat, but it is not actually mentioned in the commission's work program.
We must manage to handle today's security policy threats and tomorrow's security policy threats simultaneously. I would therefore like to conclude by moving for approval of motion reservation 1.
Fredrik Ahlstedt (M)
Mr. Speaker! As we now discuss the European Commission's work program for 2026, we do so at a time when the union faces major crossroads. For us Moderates, perhaps the single most important issue during the coming year is the continued military and civilian support for Ukraine. Russia's illegal war of aggression can under no circumstances be justified. We believe it is incredibly important that the Commission and the Member States can continue to maintain their focus on that. Furthermore, for us Moderates, the focus must lie on strengthening Europe's competitiveness, safeguarding our environment and security, and building an EU that is more capable of taking action and less bureaucratic.
Mr. Speaker! Europe needs a more offensive growth agenda. The year 2026 needs to be the year when we return to a policy that unleashes the power of companies and where trade is not seen as a necessary evil but as an engine for prosperity. We need more free trade agreements with strategic partners, modernized rules for the internal market, and an industrial and innovation policy that prioritizes competitiveness over micro-management. The EU must dare to let market solutions and entrepreneurship flourish, not stifle them with unnecessary regulations.
Mr. Speaker! As we move forward in the climate transition, we must do so in a way that holds together both the economy and social development. The EU must continue to be a global leader in the transition, but the focus for 2026 should lie on technology neutrality, innovation, and cost-effective solutions instead of symbolic politics. Nature conservation must be strengthened without reducing the member states' opportunities to cultivate their land and their forests. Climate policy does not benefit from us increasing centralization with more regulations, but from having a feasible policy.
Mr. Speaker! The forest is a key resource for several member states, not least for Sweden, which we have debated here in the chamber several times. The EU should respect national competence and build its policy on science and not on polarizing risk assessments. Forestry should not be viewed as a problem but as part of the solution for the climate, the economy, and the countryside. The same applies to fishing; sustainable management must be combined with viable coastal communities. 2026 should be the year when the EU strengthens cooperation with research and the industry for a more flexible and regionally adapted maritime policy. This applies not least in the Baltic Sea. Sweden's work to limit trawling there must continue to be a priority issue in the EU.
Mr. Speaker! Back to Ukraine. Russia's full-scale war of aggression in Ukraine continues to shape Europe's political and economic reality. It is therefore natural that the issue also plays a central role in the implementation of the Commission's work program for 2026. Two fundamental challenges that exist in the coming years, not least next year, are the need to continue supporting Ukraine both civilly and militarily but also to prepare for reconstruction and the need to strengthen the EU's security, energy independence, and economic stability.
In the work program for 2026, the commission is expected to continue to prioritize measures that contribute to long-term and sustainable support for Ukraine. This particularly concerns the discussion on the frozen Russian assets. But it is a matter of finding support that can handle the humanitarian issues and the economic issues and also continue to build Ukraine strongly institutionally.
This includes continued coordination of economic aid and military aid between the member states. We also need to strengthen civil protection and have a clear focus on the reconstruction of critical infrastructure. This applies in particular to electricity and for logistics.
At the same time, it is likely that the Commission will place great emphasis on deepening cooperation with Ukraine within the framework of the country's steps towards future membership. The Commission will have requirements for reforms that lead to ensuring reduced corruption and developing the principles of the rule of law, as well as continued democratic development.
For the EU, the war means that issues of security policy, energy supply, and economic resilience remain central. The work program for 2026 has the task of continuing the work to strengthen the defense capabilities of the union and the member states, improve preparedness against hybrid threats and cyber threats, and continue the transition away from Russian fossil fuels.
Discussion and proposals are needed to manage the long-term economic consequences of the war, higher defense expenditures, while at the same time the competitiveness within the European Union must be strengthened.
These discussions should be intensified. The objective will be to meet today's crisis without losing sight of the EU's long-term strategic goals of a stronger, more resilient and more united union.
Mr. Speaker! Europe needs security. Therefore, next year's work program must also prioritize strengthened defense cooperation, better support for the member states' military capacities, and not least a functioning border surveillance.
The Schengen cooperation depends on our external borders being secure. We need to stop the criminal networks that exploit people, carry out criminal activities – and in particular human smuggling and drug trafficking – and ultimately threaten our own security.
This is not about an EU for its own sake. It is about having an effective EU where the member states are given the tools required to protect their borders and their citizens.
Mr. Speaker! For us Moderates, the expansion is a strategic instrument for peace and stability in Europe. But it must never occur at the expense of the principles of the rule of law or the Union's functional capacity.
In 2026, the EU must stand firm on the principle that one must meet the requirements to move forward. If that is not done, then one waits. We need to be clear, predictable, and firm on principles. That being said, many candidate countries are making great progress that shows they want and have the ability to join the principles that cooperation in the EU rests on.
Finally, Mr. Speaker: The EU needs less micro-management. We need more market solutions, fewer detailed rules, fewer administrative burdens, and more innovative power. The Commission's work program for 2026 should not be another catalog of new rules, but a program for simplification, competitiveness, and restraint.
Europe becomes stronger when we trust people, companies and research more and bureaucracy less. I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.
Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)
Mr. Speaker! I agree with many parts of the committee's positions, not least regarding Ukraine. But I still want to state the Left Party's position on some other issues and, among other things, regarding the situation in Palestine.
The humanitarian suffering in Gaza is enormous. Since Hamas's brutal attack on October 7, 2023, Israel's bombings have killed more than 65,000 people. The UN has established that Israel's war against Gaza's population is a genocide. The ceasefire in Gaza has not brought any definitive stop to the violence and the killing.
Hundreds of people, including many children, have been killed in Israeli attacks, while Israel claims that the ceasefire is still in effect. The international community must join forces to ensure a peaceful development in Gaza. For a lasting peace to be possible, it is required that all civilians, regardless of side, can live in safety and that the formation of a Palestinian state is respected.
Gaza's future must be determined by its own population. All talks about peace must be conducted on the terms of the Palestinian people. This should also be the position of the EU Commission. I believe it should have clearly emerged from the committee's position.
I also believe that the committee should have stated that the EU has taken an all too passive role towards Israel. The first step towards a real peace in Gaza is to guarantee humanitarian access and sufficient humanitarian aid, which the Commission also describes as the immediate priority.
The European Commission should take a clear stand on UNRWA's ability to act freely in Gaza. Furthermore, Israel must be held economically responsible for the destruction of Gaza. Israel must pay out the Palestinian customs duties and taxes that, according to the Oslo Accords, belong to the Palestinian Authority.
As long as Israel continues with the violence and does not uphold entered agreements, the proposal to suspend the agreements between the EU and Israel must remain relevant. Israel cannot have a trade exchange with the EU and should also not be able to participate in Horizon Europe and receive European support for its military research.
Mr. Speaker! Those who are responsible for the violence in Gaza, on the West Bank, and in Israel must be brought to justice. Impunity must not prevail, neither for those who participated in Hamas's cold-blooded massacre nor for the Israeli government's genocide and war crimes against the people of Gaza.
The International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant against Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. The EU should stand ready to assist in their prosecution and impose sanctions against both Israel, extremist settlers, ministers, and Hamas.
The Swedish government has refused to accept severely injured patients from Gaza despite the EU Commission's plea. It would have been desirable for the Commission to follow up on its request and increase the pressure so that Sweden should also offer care.
Vänsterpartiet considers that the committee should present this in the statement's position. I would therefore like to highlight our reservation number 2.
Mr. Speaker! In addition to the EU's lack of action regarding Palestine, there are more parts of the Commission's work program that deserve to be commented on.
An important part of the program is rule simplifications. Rule simplifications and simple rules are clearly good. But we can already see how rule simplifications also become reductions in ambition.
A couple of days ago, the member states and the parliament agreed to significantly reduce the requirements for corporate sustainability reporting and responsibility for human rights. Thousands of companies are exempted from rules that have been hammered out in recent years. Many believe that this is a failure for climate work.
The legislators have chosen to weaken two central EU sustainability laws instead of strengthening them, despite broad criticism from researchers, human rights experts, civil society, companies, and investors, says Swedwatch, for example.
Swedish companies have taken the lead when it comes to implementing the EU's sustainability goals. Swedish business is a loser when the rules are removed or postponed into the future. It is a competitive advantage that has disappeared.
In the continued work on regulatory simplification, the Commission and the Member States must ensure that the regulatory simplifications do not involve reduced ambitions in, for example, climate and environmental work or deteriorations for, for example, animal welfare, human rights, and workers' rights.
Mr. Speaker! Another part of the Commission's work program is to put the pact on asylum and migration into practice. We share the view that human trafficking and smuggling need to be combated, but we also see that the asylum and migration pact has taken the worst of refugee policy and turned it into EU law. This involves, among other things, legally secure rapid checks at the borders and an expanded possibility to place people in detention. We will see more prison-like camps, such as those that already exist in Greece, but now outside the EU's borders in so-called return hubs.
Today, an entirely too great responsibility rests on the countries that are people's first country of arrival. It will also continue to be countries such as Spain, Italy, and Greece that have to take the greatest responsibility. Here, the pact gives countries the opportunity to buy themselves free from receiving refugees, and unfortunately, Sweden's government has chosen that path instead of solidarily welcoming its share of those who are granted refugee status.
The Commission's objective within the migration area should be that the EU shall provide a humane and legally secure protection to people forced to flee from war, persecution, and oppression, and that people on the run shall have reasonable chances to seek and receive protection in Europe and good conditions to establish themselves in society. There should be an increased focus on legal and safe routes as well as efforts to ensure that the right to asylum and its spirit are respected and complied with.
Mr. Speaker! There is much more to say about the Commission's work program, but I choose to limit myself to these points.
Magnus Berntsson (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Foreign Affairs' report on the Commission's work programme for 2026. It may sound technical – a work programme among many other documents, but in reality, it is about the EU's course during some of the most serious times for Europe in decades.
For the Christian Democrats, the starting point is clear: the EU is Sweden's most important foreign policy platform for handling the war, crime, the climate, and competitiveness. A strong and values-driven EU makes Sweden safer and more prosperous and strengthens our voice for democracy and human rights in the world.
Mr. Speaker! The Commission's work program states that the EU and the EU countries must take greater responsibility for their security and their defense, which we Christian Democrats agree with. When Russia launches a brutal war of aggression against Ukraine, when the rules-based world order is pushed back, and when authoritarian regimes advance their positions, it is not enough for Europe to lean back and hope for others.
We need a strong European defense industry, a better ability to jointly procure materiel, and a clearer security perspective in all EU policy. At the same time, we must establish that Nato constitutes the basis for the collective defense of Europe and that every country's security policy choices shall be respected. The EU's role is to complement – not replace – Nato, but to do so in a significantly more powerful way than today.
Mr. Speaker! Ukraine is the great test for Europe's credibility. The EU's support for Ukraine must be unwavering and long-term and include political, military, economic, humanitarian and legal support. It is a line that we Christian Democrats wholeheartedly share. We want to see increased and more predictable support from the EU to Ukraine, not just from month to month but planned over several years. This applies to both arms deliveries, reconstruction and reform support on Ukraine's path towards EU membership.
Russia must pay for the enormous damage it has caused through its full-scale invasion. Therefore, it is right that the EU continues to work on how immobilized Russian assets can be used to support Ukraine, in accordance with international law and EU law. The sanctions against Russia must be effective and legally sound and implemented uniformly throughout the union, but also further developed when Russia tries to find loopholes.
Mr. Speaker! The EU's credibility is not only about hard security but also about values. The Committee welcomes the Commission's emphasis on the rule of law, democracy, and protection of free media. We must be very clear here: No EU funds shall go to governments that systematically undermine independent courts, free media, and fundamental rights. A merit-based enlargement process, not least for Ukraine and Moldova, is also an important tool to strengthen democracy, combat corruption, and increase stability in our neighborhood. When countries do their homework, implement major reforms, and show that they are serious about the rule of law and human rights, the EU shall respond with concrete step-by-step integration.
Mr. Speaker! The work program also contains an upcoming strategy for the Middle East. Sweden shall, within the framework of the EU, stand up for international law and the humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence. The aid must reach those who need it most. At the same time, we must be clear that Hamas cannot be part of the future government in Gaza.
In the longer term, the EU must contribute to the reconstruction of Gaza, support the reforming of the Palestinian Authority, and safeguard the conditions for a negotiated peace. We need more countries to be involved, both regionally and globally, in that work. We also need to exert more political force to support democracy and stability even in countries such as Syria and Lebanon.
Mr. Speaker! The Commission's work program also highlights the need to reform the global system for humanitarian aid. Here, the EU has a particularly important role to play, both as a major donor and as a norm-setter. For us Christian Democrats, it is central that humanitarian aid should be needs-based and grounded in the inviolable value of the individual human being. We welcome that the EU wants to work for faster and more effective interventions in crisis situations, but it must never occur at the expense of humanitarian principles.
Mr. Speaker! Strengthened security and a robust international system also need a strong economy at their back. The government's work program contains important parts regarding regulatory simplifications, strengthened competitiveness, and investments in innovation, research, and the internal market. We Christian Democrats view positively that simplifications are being made that facilitate things for companies and citizens.
The EU also needs to be a real energy union, with a strengthened power grid, removed bottlenecks, and technology neutrality where nuclear power also has a given place. This reduces vulnerability and dependence on authoritarian regimes, and it strengthens both the climate and competitiveness.
Mr. Speaker! Europe is now being tested both in its ability to defend itself and in its will to stand up for its values. The Commission's work program for 2026 is not the entire answer, but it is an important part of the course we are now setting for the union. We Christian Democrats want Sweden, through the EU, to continue to be a clear voice for freedom, responsibility, and human dignity in Ukraine, in the Middle East, and in the entire rules-based world order that is now under pressure.
I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report in its entirety.
Kerstin Lundgren (C)
Mr. Speaker! It is a very special time we are experiencing. I have just, this morning, returned from Washington, and with the image of the challenges that await us on my retina, I read the work program and the committee's positions.
This is a statement that is only added to the records, so we are not making any decision. But we are handling a work program that possibly worked when it was written but which I believe will be affected enormously by what happens during the coming weeks.
It is undoubtedly the case that this is part of the guidelines that were developed for 2024–2029 and which were based on the insight that Europe needs to strengthen its security and strategic capacity to solve tasks within our area. It will probably become even more focused during the coming years, because if the picture is that Europe itself is to manage its defense from 2027, it is a clear message: It must go fast, and we must be able to manage much more during the coming year than we possibly have thought when the picture has been a bit more forward-looking.
I am therefore convinced that it will be a very challenging year for the EU and for us. Unfortunately, that is the case, and it is clear that in that context, what is happening in Ukraine and the possibility for Ukraine to obtain a peace that they consider credible and sustainable will be absolutely decisive for the development of our neighboring region, the EU, and the world at large.
What we are seeing now is a return to the politics of spheres of interest globally, and it is clear that it will affect how the EU works. But a development of Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine that involves Ukraine being forced into a peace and into giving up territory, where we cannot secure the resources that Ukraine needs to be able to resist, we cannot manage alone. It is naturally an enormous defeat for our ability to solve the tasks we face and something that will characterize coming decades for our part.
I therefore experience that the work program and the statement we have from the committee today capture hopes but perhaps not what we will see. Already next week, Mr. Speaker, we in the EU have the opportunity to resolve the issue of the Russian assets. It is extremely important that we succeed then, because if it is pushed into the future, others may have resolved the issue, and that would naturally not be anything that would facilitate our common future.
So, it is about an enormous amount of credibility and ability during the coming years in the EU. Of course, we shall stand up for what is said and what has been the foundation for the EU, namely the peace project. We are a peace project, and this will naturally also be tested during the coming years. I hear the discussions about a membership perspective for Ukraine and Moldova. It could be an issue that concerns peace. There, we might possibly need a stronger leadership that is ready to make decisions – not a stronger individual leadership, but that we together could be a stronger leadership that could make decisions to open up and, as a peace marker, make Ukraine and Moldova a part of the EU.
The committee has a common view that we should increase the pressure on Russia and that we should phase out Russian fossil energy from the EU. It is a scandal that the EU is still trading fossil assets for more than we give to Ukraine, not Sweden specifically but the EU as a whole.
Mr. Speaker! In the text concerning precisely the Russian assets, the picture is that it may only occur in accordance with international law and EU law. Here it is necessary to develop international law, because we have to face a situation where one country, Russia, has so totally challenged and acted in defiance of international law. We must not let this go unpunished, and it is not only about some compensation for what has been done to Ukraine. It is therefore important that we see opportunities.
Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to point out the reservation of motive from the Center Party. It concerns something that we consider important, namely that we strengthen our competitiveness. It is extremely central that we do this in Sweden, and it is extremely central that the EU does it. It is about regulatory simplifications and legislation that allow us to strengthen our competitiveness. But it is also about taking advantage of the advantages that the EU actually has in the upcoming competition with other countries, not least China, and then it is about the climate.
Climate is a security issue and also a competition issue. I want to emphasize what we write in our statement of motive: We must not follow the path of the climate deniers or the climate delayers, because if we do, it will be as the expression says: We sell the butter and lose the money. One does something that one believes is very good for competitiveness by dismantling some of the environmental rules – and loses the competitive advantage that the EU actually has.
Jacob Risberg (MP)
Mr. Speaker! I can observe that everyone is reading out their speeches and that there is not much debate. It is quite pleasant. But we still have certain differences, and it is primarily those that we want to highlight during this moment in the chamber.
The European Commission's work program is a small step forward in the work on environmental and climate issues, but there are major risks that could threaten the green transition.
One of the most critical points in the Commission's work program is the revision of the Reach Regulation. A change risks weakening rather than strengthening the protection against dangerous chemicals, especially given 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. Stricter rules must, of course, also apply to the industry and not just the consumer end. Reach must continue to focus on the protection of both health and the environment.
Mr. Speaker! When it comes to emission reductions, we continue to see that the EU Commission has ambitions that are far too low. It is far from sufficient to live up to the Paris Agreement's 1.5-degree goal. In order to have any chance at all of meeting it, it is required that the EU has a negative emission already by 2040. This is something that the Commission should have proposed already in previous years, so we would welcome a clear legislative proposal regarding this.
Instead, we now see alternative scenarios, which creates a risk that the goal will not be achieved. We also see great 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. Using article 6 credits to meet the EU's commitments under the Paris Agreement will not be enough and is completely the wrong way to go.
Mr. Speaker! When it comes to regulatory simplifications, I mean that it is generally good to have simplification work, but at the same time it is important that it is not carried out at the expense of the environment and climate. I view with great concern the omnibus proposal, which aims to reduce the regulatory burden, as well as legislation that is crucial for the green transition. It will lead to less stringent measures. That is, of course, not how it should be. We oppose changes that risk weakening these laws and demand that the simplification work only focuses on administrative reliefs, not substantive deteriorations.
It is worrying that the commission risks focusing unilaterally on regulatory simplifications for and subsidies to fossil-dependent companies. A transition to a fossil-free industry is not a burden. The commission should instead steer investments towards the sustainable industries of the future. We believe that the strategy must contain clear incentives for industrial transition but also social measures to support workers and regions affected by the changes.
Mr. Speaker! During my relatively short speech, I have chosen to focus primarily on measures regarding climate and the environment. I want to point out that I largely agree with the statements that both the Social Democrats and the Left Party made during the debate regarding the EU's handling of Israel and its illegal occupation of Palestine.
I could also have spent time on questions regarding animal welfare, the signals about a potentially changed fishing policy that we have received in recent weeks, questions regarding discrimination, which are largely missing, the diluted rules on water, as well as the work on the upcoming agricultural policy, which risks involving further weakenings of environmental requirements. But I can conclude with something we are quite in agreement on, all eight parties in the Riksdag, and that is that our support for Ukraine stands firm.
I move for approval of motion reservation number 4.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.