The Commission's communication on a competitiveness compass for the EU

Johnny Svedin (SD)

Mr. Speaker! When we today debate the Committee on Industry's report on the EU Commission's so-called competitiveness compass, I want to begin by clarifying that Sweden's and Europe's economic resilience, productivity, and innovation capacity must be strengthened by respecting national interests and our industrial reality, productivity, and innovation capacity. This is not only necessary for our growth but also for our security and our role in an increasingly uncertain world.

Mr. Speaker! The Sweden Democrats do not stand behind the idea that the green transition in itself should be an engine for competitiveness. That is to reverse cause and effect. The task of politics is to create reasonable, technology-neutral and long-term conditions for companies to grow, invest and hire – not to make climate policy a tool for industrial policy goals. We also believe that regulations and instruments must be designed so that companies can transition without being punished with increased costs, reduced profitability or diminished competitiveness against actors outside the EU.

Making climate goals the sole basis for Europe's competitiveness is not only risky but also irresponsible. It risks hitting European industry hard, increasing our costs and undermining our self-sufficiency while competing countries escape the same burdens. This is not sustainable in the long run and is likely a contributing cause to why the EU and Sweden have lost in competitiveness and growth.

Mr. Speaker! A truly competitive transition must be technology-neutral. This means that it is not for politicians or commissioners to decide which solution is best – whether it is nuclear power, bioenergy, hydrogen or electrification. It is the companies, the engineers and the researchers who know what works best for their operations.

We therefore oppose the wording in the government's position which states "the green transition needs to constitute a driver for the EU's competitiveness". For us, it is absolutely central that it is precisely competitiveness and free enterprise, innovative power, and investments that drive the transition – not the other way around.

We view with great concern how the EU has increasingly tended to lean on extensive state aid and subsidy packages instead of creating fair and stable competition conditions. This distorts the market, disadvantages countries with sound public finances – such as Sweden – and favors large centrally-controlled economies. It risks leading to a race between member states, distorted competition, and that smaller countries like Sweden may be disadvantaged.

We are positive that the pendulum has swung somewhat in Brussels and that competitiveness and growth seem to be taking up more space on the agenda. But let me be clear: We can never build our industrial future on state aid. We must have a free and fair internal market where the rules are the same for everyone.

We in the Sweden Democrats safeguard sound public finances. We say no to subsidy races and to increased indebtedness in the name of the EU. It must, however, be said that the state can intervene, for example, when the market fails in basic research and security-critical infrastructure or to promote groundbreaking innovation. It must, however, never become the main tool. Then we end up in an unsustainable situation, where growth becomes dependent on political decisions rather than business logic.

It is strange that the government says it is skeptical of state aid but still supports a new framework for subsidies in the EU. It is exactly such messages that we believe risk cementing the dependence on political decisions rather than company-driven growth.

Mr. Speaker! We in the Sweden Democrats view measures that strengthen the internal market through regulatory simplification and improved implementation positively. It is particularly important to reduce the regulatory burden for small and medium-sized enterprises, which are often hit hardest by bureaucratic complications. At the same time, simplifications must be made with deliberation and must not lead to the erosion of fundamental principles such as legal certainty, transparency, and quality. We say yes to efficiency, but we say no to lowered ambitions.

Simplifications should make it easier to do the right thing and not pave the way for negligence or unfair competition. We in Sverigedemokraterna want that regulatory simplifications should not only be about reducing administration but also about safeguarding legal certainty and reducing the disproportionate burden for small businesses. This applies especially for those operating in rural areas and in industrial towns.

Mr. Speaker! The energy issue is crucial for Europe's future competitiveness. We are therefore proud that nuclear power has a central place in our and the government's policy. It is not just about the climate. It is about securing a stable, affordable baseload for industry. This is particularly important given future needs.

I also want to clearly state that security of supply is not about isolating ourselves within the EU's borders and trying to produce everything ourselves. On the contrary, it is through stable and independent trade relations that we build real resilience. It is not through new layers of protectionism or central control from Brussels.

In conclusion, I want to say that we do not support an EU that uses competitiveness as an excuse for more supranationalism, more common rules, or larger budgets. The policy must respect the principle of subsidiarity and leave room for the member states to make their own decisions. That is how we strengthen Europe's competitiveness, freedom, and responsibility, as well as respect for each member state's unique conditions.

With this said, I have now highlighted the Sweden Democrats' specific position in the statement.

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Johnny Svedin for the presentation.

We are going to discuss the EU's competitiveness compass, which is based on the report produced by Mario Draghi, in which the challenges for the EU and the EU's competitiveness are analyzed. The report states that it is in research and innovation that the EU lags behind, primarily compared to the USA and China. We see how both in the USA and in China they are accelerating into the new technologies and the green transition. Then we will have to see how the green transition goes in the USA with Donald Trump in power.

This has been done not only because one is politically convinced that the future lies there, Mr. Speaker, but it has also been done because the business sector has identified that the future industries lie precisely in the green industry and in the green transition. This is nothing that politicians have sat in their offices and cooked up, but industrial companies that are well-established – some of them have existed for over a hundred years – have said that it is here the future lies and that it is what we must invest in.

Now we hear Johnny Svedin say that the green transition should not constitute the engine of Sweden's competitiveness, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, my question to Sverigedemokraterna and Johnny Svedin is: If it is not the green transition – which Svenskt Näringsliv, Företagarna and all the major industry organizations identify as the future for Swedish industry and Swedish prosperity – that Sweden should invest in, what should we invest in instead?

If we are not to carry out the green transition, the Sweden Democrats must answer the question: What will Sweden and Europe live on if not a green industry with fossil-free electricity that guarantees jobs for everyone?

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

Johnny Svedin (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the question!

As I said in my speech, we do not deny the need for climate adaptations. We do not. But we refuse to accept that it should happen at the expense of jobs, the profitability of companies, and technical freedom. There is a difference between transitioning and knocking out, and I perceive it as if a good deal of industries have also been knocked out.

We can take the initiatives that have been made in the northern part of the country as an example; they have not turned out as they should have, which is very unfortunate. A lot of money has gone into that. We have lost competitiveness in Europe. Why have we done that? Have we focused too much on implementing a lot of administrative burdens and environmental adaptations instead of seeing the world for what it really is?

I am not saying that it is wrong – I am only saying that everything has its time.

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Mr. Speaker! Now, it is not I who am saying that the future lies in the green industries, but it is large and well-established Swedish companies that are saying it. It is about large and well-established Swedish companies that want Sweden to lead ahead of everyone else. We are, after all, a small nation that depends on being better than others. Our competitiveness is built on the fact that we have high-quality products that can compete on a global market.

In Sweden, we have always welcomed new technology. In Sweden, we have always been prominent when it comes to innovation. Sweden has been the world's most innovative country, but now we are falling behind. Then it is difficult to understand why the Sweden Democrats do not want to invest in what the whole world is investing in, Mr. Speaker.

We can take the automotive industry, for example, where we see that we are being overtaken by China. That is absolutely due to unfair state subsidies in China, but it is also because they are very far ahead of us when it comes to the technological development of electric cars. Johnny Svedin does not want Europe to invest in that. We are talking about 13 million jobs – certainly more – that are dependent on the European automotive industry, Mr. Speaker. Are we therefore not going to invest in that in Europe?

I think the Sweden Democrats are answerable: What should Europe invest in instead? We actually haven't received that answer from the Sweden Democrats. Is it that the Sweden Democrats believe that European competitiveness in 20 years will come from fossil fuels and old technology? Or will we strengthen our competitiveness through investments in new technology and by investing in research and innovation? I believe in the latter. What do the Sweden Democrats believe in?

(Applause)

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

Johnny Svedin (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member again for the question.

I believe I answered the question a bit earlier. As I said, we do not deny the need for climate adaptation, but we refuse to accept that it should happen at the expense of jobs, companies, and profitability. Europe has de facto lost 10–15 percent of the world market due to an overly regulated environmental policy. What is it that the member does not see? Or what is it that the Socialdemokraterna, Miljöpartiet, and Vänsterpartiet do not see? I simply do not understand how you think.

If we are to do anything properly, we should be in the markets where it needs to be done. As the member himself says, we are in a good position. We have a good pace of innovation. We shall let the entrepreneurs work with this in peace and quiet. They need that, because they are so skilled in Sweden.

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the contribution, but I must object to one point.

To claim that the climate rules are a threat to Europe's competitiveness is to turn a blind eye to where the world is headed. It is not despite, but thanks to the climate policy that many Swedish companies are now taking the lead globally. We have companies that dare to develop fossil-free steel. We have companies that dare to develop green cement. They are now selling not only goods but also the knowledge of how the transition is to be carried out. If we in that situation began to back away from the climate ambitions, what would that say to the companies that have done the work? Should those who have invested and are now leading be punished because others did not keep up?

My question to the member is: Does the member believe that Europe's competitiveness in the future will be built by those who refuse to transition or by those who dare to transition?

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

Johnny Svedin (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member for the question.

This transition can be made in several different ways. What I am trying to say is that we do not like the supranational guardianship of things, but we think that the market will solve this itself. What we can do as members of parliament or within the EU is to ensure that we pave the way for this. That is what I have said – nothing else.

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Mr. Speaker! I completely agree that we as politicians should pave the way, but the market will not solve this on its own. What is required is that we as politicians and decision-makers ensure that there are clear rules of the game for the companies to follow.

That is why it is so important that we have common rules in Europe so that the market becomes larger. That is the whole point of the internal market. If all the products we are talking about, which the Swedish entrepreneurs are so good at and which are to go out onto a global market, only had their home market – with its environmental rules and climate rules – to go by, it would be catastrophically bad. That is why you need the EU.

The clarity and the long-term perspective are the very core of what has made companies dare to invest. The Paris Agreement made it so that the world's companies dared to step forward, and it was many companies that together developed their own models for how they could follow up on investments that were sustainable or different types of metrics. Then the EU chose to set goals for the climate, and after that, Sweden did.

If we now stick to the EU debate – I could talk about other parts of the climate debate, but we will stick to the EU part – the most important thing is that the EU holds fast to the goals that have been set to ensure that companies have a clear direction for where they are headed. That is what can provide competitiveness in the future.

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

Johnny Svedin (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Was it not that which also crippled Europe, namely just the strictly controlled climate goals? Is it not that which has caused us to fall behind in development? Is it not that which has caused us to stare blindly at reporting what we do instead of doing something?

As the member himself said, other countries have state subsidies. The competitive conditions become completely incorrect. There we unfortunately lag a bit behind.

We are against it. We want free trade and open markets. I do not think there is actually any difference of opinion there. But the climate goals must not become totally overriding; that is what we question. We are afraid that it will once again slow down Europe.

We need to enter other markets. We need to open up. We can show the way for what a green transition is once we are there, but we are not there now.

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Mr. Speaker! The EU's competitiveness is threatened when large nations such as China and the USA invest in future technologies and are becoming increasingly world leaders in technologies that were previously European expertise. The Draghir report was produced to analyze how the EU's competitiveness can be strengthened. In order to do that, one needs to ensure that the challenges are defined.

The report highlighted that the EU's productivity has stagnated since 2000, especially in comparison with the USA. We also have an innovation deficit – only 4 of the 50 largest tech companies are European.

It has been projected that the EU will lose 2 million workers per year until 2040. This demographic decline is a challenge, as is a fragmented internal market that does not function and needs to be developed to facilitate capital markets and digital services.

These are some of the challenges that the Draghir report identified. There are large clouds of concern regarding the EU and its ability to promote innovation and create more jobs in the union.

In addition to what the Dragherr Report highlighted as essential problem areas for the EU, we have landed in the middle of a trade war created by right-wing populists in the USA. The chaotic world that is emerging shows that we in Europe collectively need to strengthen our positions and move forward with an offensive policy for jobs and growth. We shall be the strongest economy in the world, and that requires real changes.

That is why we Social Democrats have proposed that the EU should work to improve the conditions for the green transition by investing in research and the subsequent commercialization of research results. This includes strengthening programs such as Horizon Europe with an increased focus on climate, equality, and European competitiveness. The EU also needs to develop a clear industrial plan for how the industry can transition and introduce sub-targets to clearly demonstrate a roadmap for how we are to eliminate carbon emissions from the industry, which I am completely convinced that the industry wants.

We Social Democrats have therefore supported large parts of the competitiveness compass and the goals to strengthen the EU's competitiveness, create a common vision to create European jobs and ensure that the EU becomes the world's largest economy with increased prosperity for the citizens. The goal is fossil-free status and welfare.

It is quite obvious that the regulations in the EU need to be simplified, and this is something that the competitiveness compass aims for. However, this must not mean that our high environmental and climate ambitions are eroded. We must also continue to stand up for workers' rights and human rights.

Mr. Speaker! Previously, people spoke of "the Brussels effect" as something positive. When the EU set high requirements, the large companies, in particular, adapted to this and changed their internal systems worldwide to follow EU standards. This led to companies such as H & M signing something that can be likened to a global collective agreement. Volvo Cars decided to become an electric vehicle company by 2030 at the latest. European companies went to the forefront of the climate transition. This has strengthened European competitiveness and contributed to a world where we move from fossil fuels to fossil-free and from the exploitation of labor in third countries to strengthening workers' rights in the EU and globally. It is of the utmost importance that the EU continues to push forward on this and continues to leave a positive mark on the world market.

The competitiveness compass also points to the need for a regulatory framework that is streamlined, where companies know what applies and where volatility in our systems must not become commonplace. Unfortunately, we see how the Commission and Parliament are moving in a direction that does not strengthen the internal market or the predictability for companies in our union.

The EU's competitiveness requires an accelerated green transition. Therefore, we particularly want to emphasize that the work on regulatory simplifications should aim at streamlining and regulatory improvements – not at lowering the level of ambition in the industry's green transition, which is crucial for the competitiveness of both Swedish and European companies.

Mr. Speaker! I am concerned about what this volatility in the EU's regulatory framework means for our Swedish companies. In Sweden, we have a proud tradition of being at the forefront and embracing new technologies instead of clinging to the old. Now we see how Swedish companies that have made the transition and are well on their way to meeting the EU's high requirements and climate goals risk being disadvantaged in the wake of the major changes occurring in the EU. The Swedish government has not sufficiently protected Swedish interests but has instead gone along as regulations have changed in a way that can negatively affect Swedish companies. Nor has a proper impact assessment been conducted in connection with the various packages that the Commission has presented.

Furthermore, we have seen how the government's climate policy has distinguished itself in a negative sense in the European Union as Sweden's emissions have increased year after year. Swedish competitiveness is hindered when the image of Sweden as a leading nation in the transition no longer holds true. It affects investments in our country – they have decreased radically with this government in power, Mr. Speaker. Nor does the government seem particularly concerned about the instability that hinders innovation and entrepreneurship and which results from the government's policy, with cuts in the innovation area, and a lack of analytical capacity regarding what the competitiveness compass may mean for Swedish companies.

I also want to emphasize that we Social Democrats have consistently asked the government to safeguard Swedish values such as an ambitious climate policy and respect for workers' rights. I must unfortunately say, however, that it has been without success. We have also demanded that the government and the EU specifically present a plan for how to reach a union where class inequalities are reduced. This was also highlighted by Mario Draghi in the well-known Draghi Report.

We know that large economic disparities hinder economic growth. Equal societies are competitive societies, but as usual, the right has no answers on how we should remedy this phenomenon.

It is obvious that the European right, the Swedish bourgeoisie, and the far-right in Europe completely lack answers to the question of how we are to strengthen the EU's competitiveness. Failing predictability risks scaring away investments and creating a union where companies do not grow and thrive but struggle to survive.

In the wake of the right-wing populists' advance, we see how free trade is threatened, how the green transition is being cast into suspicion, and how growth is slowing down. The latest example is the Sweden Democrats' contribution to this debate. The party's representative explicitly stated that the green transition is not the engine of European competitiveness. It is astonishing, Mr. Speaker. It is bad for the EU, but above all, it is bad for Sweden and Swedish jobs. It is a pity that the government has made itself dependent on these forces here at home.

The Social Democrats will, however, continue to fight for sustainable and fair trade and for us to reach our climate goals. That is what we owe both today's generation and future generations.

I would like to move for approval of the Social Democrats' reservation 1 in the report.

(Applause)

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

Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The matter on the table today concerns the Commission's communication on a competitiveness compass for the EU. An overall strategy to strengthen the EU's resilience, productivity, and capacity for innovation is welcome. These initiatives for regulatory simplification are not only important but necessary.

It has been stated that the fundamental principle for the EU's economic security is that all measures shall be based on proportionality and precision, and that is important.

We have a new economic and geopolitical landscape to contend with and navigate. Every week, sometimes every day, updates on tariffs and the economy are issued. The landscape is therefore uncertain and requires that Europe's companies are given better conditions to be able to grow, compete, and create jobs.

There is now a window to take a major leap to work away bureaucracy and obstacles. It is a task that always needs to be done and that should have been done earlier, but now it can be achieved. There is an openness for a rethink.

For us Moderates, it is crystal clear: Europe's competitiveness is strengthened through market-driven solutions, free trade, and a business climate where small, medium-sized, and large companies can and want to invest in the future.

In a time when Europe's competitiveness is at stake, we cannot continue on the same path but need to review both rules and documents so that they become more predictable, simpler, and less burdensome. In the ambition to achieve well-intentioned EU documents, the good has become the enemy of the best. Europe is braking itself by locking the future in yesterday's solutions, and thus opportunities for growth ahead are missed. It is necessary that the EU's regulatory framework reflects the world we live in and the transition that is constantly occurring, not the world we have left behind. Therefore, the Commission has presented concrete proposals with simplification packages.

To strengthen Europe's competitiveness, it is required that we reduce the administrative and economic burden for our companies. Today, far too many, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, get caught in a thicket of reporting requirements and form-based bureaucracy rather than being able to focus on their core business. It is therefore why the simplification work must be targeted, purposeful, and proportionate. That is what builds a strong Europe.

It is important and very positive that the commission emphasizes the need for technological neutrality in the climate transition. That is how we reason. Policy should not choose technology but set clear goals for what is to be achieved and then let companies, entrepreneurs, and the market find the best solutions.

Mr. Speaker! The EU's trade policy is strategically important. We need more free trade agreements, secure access to critical raw materials, and build robust value chains. But it must happen without us falling into the trap of protectionism. Openness towards the world is a strength, not a weakness. Trade is a cornerstone of Europe's strength, even more so for Sweden as the export-dependent country that we are. Open and rules-based trade is absolutely crucial for our economic growth, technological development, and security of supply.

That is why it is important that we complete and update free trade agreements. But it must happen in the present. We cannot afford to negotiate for 10–20 years while our companies lose market shares. We need trade relations here and now, not in a distant future.

If the EU is to be a global economic engine, it is required that our companies have the right conditions. It is about capital supply, innovative power, and a strong protection for intellectual property rights. But it is also about saying no to excessive state support that distorts competition and locks us into old structures.

What also locks us into old structures is when wording in EU documents follows old tracks regarding known techniques, materials, and solutions. In that case, no development and innovation occurs, which is to the disadvantage of us all. Innovative companies working with new, future-oriented solutions must not be hindered by wording in EU documents that should be open to innovation, not least when we talk about green transition and sustainability.

Let me give an example. I have visited a company that develops compostable products made of biodolomite, which is a patented Swedish material. It can replace fossil plastic and thereby reduce carbon emissions in this area by 80 percent. For me, these products are spot-on when it comes to green transition and provide sustainability thanks to an innovative company that creates added value and important solutions for all of us.

What is it that is causing friction? Well, it becomes clear here how the wording in the single-use plastics directive prevents the company from selling its products on the market in Europe. It is a lost opportunity for our country and the internal market. This is an example of something that is Swedish and innovative and can be of great use.

The lock is due to the fact that the single-use plastics directive only allows manufacturing in so-called natural polymers when it comes to single-use products such as straws, cutlery, glasses, cups, plates, lids for drinks, etc. Natural polymers are large organic molecules that exist in nature, such as cellulose, lignin and viscose.

If the single-use plastics directive had instead focused on function, it could have opened up for new materials. Then, compostable materials would be allowed in these single-use products, and new solutions would be developed that benefit consumers as well as companies, jobs, and the environment.

This Swedish company has customers outside of Europe who have not written in restrictive text and who want to utilize these products. This means they get sustainable solutions on the ground while we in our part of the world fall behind and miss out on smart solutions. When it comes to the green transition, we must therefore ensure that the wording is correct and accurate so that new opportunities and desirable solutions are created. It is necessary for growth and welfare. Politics must not design wording in such a way that companies close their doors and leave Europe instead of producing and developing here for sale both locally and regionally as well as within Europe and globally.

Disposable items also have an important function in, for example, healthcare. Here, patients drink with straws, and the straws in today's material do not hold the same quality as the plastic straws we have removed. But with products in the new, fantastic material, the benefit will be greater.

Regarding reporting requirements and the measures we shall use to reach the goals, it is a misconception that more paperwork and more reporting would be the answer to how we reduce emissions. Climate work must occur in balance, where market-driven solutions and a business-friendly climate form the foundation. We must not shoot ourselves in the foot.

Let me be clear. For us Moderates, companies are not a problem to be solved. They are the solution. The starting point is that companies create jobs that generate tax revenues and sustain our welfare. Therefore, policy must focus on creating good conditions for entrepreneurship.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion: We face great challenges but also great opportunities. Europe can become a place where companies grow, innovation flourishes, and regulations open doors instead of closing them. The window is wide open.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal and against the reservations.

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson for the speech.

The EU's competitiveness compass is a good first step for us to be able to compete in a global economy that is becoming increasingly challenging for both European and Swedish companies. We see a world characterized by uncertainty and short-sightedness in the wake of right-wing populists' protectionist trade policy in the USA.

Of course, the EU and Sweden must stand up for sustainable, free and fair trade, because it creates jobs. I would say that this is particularly important for Sweden, which is an export-dependent nation.

When many changes are now proposed at the EU level linked to our climate ambitions and the commitment to strengthen workers' rights throughout the world, we see that many Swedish companies testify that they are being negatively affected.

Swedish companies have stepped up. They have seen the climate transition as a way to strengthen their competitiveness and create jobs in Sweden. It is very unclear, and I still have not received an answer as to which industry would be the alternative to green transition. But I know that the government is a supporter of the green transition.

Many Swedish companies have witnessed the volatility in the EU. They are concerned about what the competitiveness compass will mean when it comes to our climate ambitions, which they have invested billions in. I would like to know why the government and the Moderaterna have not presented a consequence analysis of what the various changes may mean for Swedish companies.

I wonder if the companies in Sweden can trust that the government will stand by the EU's climate goals, which benefit the green transition in Sweden, especially in light of what the government's coalition partner Sverigedemokraterna recently said, namely that the green transition in Sweden should not be the engine of European competitiveness.

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

Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro, for the question!

Growth is what we want to create through increased competitiveness. I took up an example, a small one, but it can be seen in a larger perspective. My reflection is that there are already companies that make innovations, but they do not get through. They can sell globally, which is fantastic, because it creates a lot of utility.

One thing these companies manufacture is fishing nets, which we know sometimes fall to the bottom today. There is a large discussion there about how we manage our seas and what becomes of the work. These nets can become biodegradable. The impact that it can have is real for me. These are real solutions for a green transition.

When it comes to the green engine, I don't know. I cannot speak for another party, but if we had discussed on the side how to find solutions that come, that is to say, originate from the function of what we are to achieve, I think we might be speaking the same language.

Achieving good solutions is about reducing bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is a major hurdle, and I cannot see our Swedish companies having anything against it; on the contrary.

Those were the answers to the questions.

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Mr. Speaker! My main question was about why the government and the Moderaterna have not carried out a consequence analysis of what the different packages would mean for Swedish companies. They are out in the debate now and signaling that they are concerned about what the volatility in the EU might entail. In that regard, the Swedish government's position has not been clear at all.

We have demanded, time and again, that a consequence analysis be carried out. We have demanded that the government take the opinions of Swedish companies into account and see how this affects them, who have made the transition and who are on their way to the future we all want to see, namely a future with zero carbon emissions. We know that the longer time passes, the more serious the climate crisis becomes.

Mr. Speaker! What did Swedish companies do when everyone thought the climate crisis was an insurmountable mountain? Well, they decided to invest their way out of the crisis by creating jobs in Sweden. And they were on their way, but now the green transition has come to a total standstill in Sweden and in Europe, in the wake of right-wing populism.

One can think what one wants about us Social Democrats and our industrial policy, but the fact is that Swedish companies grew when we had power and more influence in the Commission and the European Parliament and, above all, when we had power here at home in Sweden. European companies had strong growth. Now we have the opposite.

Mr. Speaker! We see that Swedish companies repeatedly plead for the Swedish government to take their interests into account in the EU. I would like to know why a consequence analysis has not been carried out, if such can be presented, and if Swedish companies can expect that from the Swedish government.

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

Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you again, Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro, for the question!

Sometimes I wonder if we are in different worlds. It is very easy for us to pick out different answers from what we hear and see. Not all companies reason like those the members have had contact with, and even if they do, these interests are taken for granted.

I think it is strange to compare sitting in government during an economic boom with being in a different situation. The USA, as has been said, has received a new administration, and there are trade barriers with tariffs that swing back and forth from day to day and from week to week. We do not really know where the world is headed. It is completely different conditions to work under.

Those who are good at what they do are, of course, at the forefront. Then one looks at how many rules entrepreneurs have to work with. They weigh more heavily on the small and medium-sized companies than on the large ones, which have bigger muscles.

With this said, one often hears the Social Democrats talk about the business sector and companies, but it is rarely heard anything about the small and medium-sized enterprises in the debate. Everyone shall be included, and it must work. We shall have both companies that lead the way and innovations, but we must also allow the small ones.

As I mentioned in my speech earlier, there are plenty of examples where small companies could benefit if we adjusted what needs to happen in Brussels. There, we talk with our party colleagues about getting wording into documents that need to be renewed and improved. I hope that other parties do the same.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the competitiveness compass, one can only state to this extent that the compass does not point in the same direction for all parties. As reported, the Commission's competitiveness compass contains a long-term strategy to strengthen the EU's economic resilience, productivity, and innovation capacity.

The purpose is to adapt the Union's policy to a new geopolitical and economic situation and to ensure the conditions for sustainable growth. The competitive transition is emphasized as a key to achieving the Union's green and digital goals, while investments in strategic technologies and skills supply are prioritized.

I would like to emphasize initially that competitiveness must not be seen as an end in itself. A long-term sustainable and fair economy requires that environmental considerations, social rights and workers' rights, as well as equal opportunities, are weighed in every part of the economic policy. Therefore, I argue that the Commission's ideas on a unified competitiveness compass are far too one-sidedly focused on deregulation and the conditions for companies, and that they fail to recognize the need for a just transition that encompasses the entire society.

A sustainable economy presupposes that the green transition occurs with respect for both the environment and people's rights. I view with concern that several of the Commission's initiatives risk undermining central environmental requirements, particularly through the proposed work on regulatory simplifications within energy, permit processes, and sustainability reporting.

A dilution of these regulations risks weakening the pace of transition and increasing the pressure on already vulnerable environments. Competitiveness should not be created through lowered standards or reduced social commitments, but through investments in a strong society with equal conditions, secure employment, and a high level of education. I therefore call for a greater focus on public investments in the energy transition, public transport, green technology, and regional development.

A just transition also requires that workers' rights are guaranteed and that trade union organizing is promoted, something that is given too little space in the commission's strategy.

Furthermore, I and Vänsterpartiet believe that state support should be used to enable important societal investments in fossil-free industry, renewable energy and new technology, particularly in sectors where the market does not deliver the necessary transition on its own.

I view positively that the commission opens for an action plan for clean industry, but it needs to clearly focus on reducing emissions, creating employment, and strengthening climate justice.

When it comes to the strategic importance of trade policy, I mean that it needs to be designed to a greater extent to strengthen global justice, environmental considerations, and democratic rights.

The EU's trade relations should include binding requirements on human rights, good working conditions and climate protection. It is also of significant importance that trade with developing countries is designed to promote local value creation rather than to unilaterally benefit European interests. The Union's trade policy must not constitute an obstacle to these countries' right to enact their own rules and laws for the protection of the environment, animals and people.

At the same time, I see a need for the EU to reduce its strategic dependencies by building up more robust, regional and circular supply chains.

Investments in recycling, energy efficiency and renewable energy are crucial to creating truly sustainable resilience.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to emphasize the importance of ensuring that small companies and small producers are not left behind in the industrial development. The EU's competition policy needs to be adapted so that smaller actors can participate on equal terms and global trade is not allowed to occur at the expense of social and ecological sustainability.

We must remember one thing when we talk about this matter of state subsidies and what role the state should have. We can look back 120 years to when the Malmbanan was built. It was courageous politicians who took up almost an entire state budget to do it. There was no Excel spreadsheet showing which day it would be paid off, but one saw that it was something that was necessary in the future.

Mr. Speaker! With this said, I move for approval of our reservation 2, which means that we submit the statement to the records with our justification.

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

Lili André (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We Christian Democrats welcome the European Commission's communication on a competitiveness compass for the Union. I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision and rejection of all reservations.

We find ourselves in a decisive situation right now. The global situation is changing rapidly – we see increased geopolitical uncertainty and face major climate challenges, and the technological race is accelerating. The USA is becoming increasingly protectionist. China has for a long time had a model where the state directs innovation.

In that situation, Europe faces a double challenge: We must defend openness and our democratic values and at the same time become more independent and competitive.

The EU therefore needs to strengthen competitiveness to ensure a positive development for growth, trade and jobs in the union as well as to meet the climate transition. In a time when Europe's growth must accelerate, when more investments are required and when our global position as an innovation leader needs to be strengthened, action, clear priorities and focus on the right things are required.

Competitiveness is not an end in itself, Mr. Speaker, but it is a means – a means to create growth, jobs, prosperity and freedom, and a means to manage the green and digital transition. Without a strong economy and innovative companies, no climate goals; without stable growth, no secure welfare; and without productive companies, no sustainable security.

Mr. Speaker! The Government emphasizes that good framework conditions and increased productivity are keys to competitiveness. We share this view with the Christian Democrats. Therefore, we are pushing for a deepened internal market where trade barriers are removed, regulations are simplified, and the regulatory burden on companies is reduced.

We also need to move from words to action in the digital transition. The EU must become better at turning research into innovation and innovation into new products and companies.

Here AI and supercomputers are important pieces of the puzzle, and it is pleasing that Sweden will now be able to host one of Europe's seven AI factories through the Euro HPC cooperation. It strengthens our role as an innovation nation.

Innovation, research and entrepreneurship are the foundations for future competitiveness, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, we need to provide better conditions for startup and scaleup companies to grow in Europe. Therefore, Sweden and the EU are responding to the strengthening of patents and intellectual property. We need a sharper focus on commercializing research – especially within strategic technology, where the EU is lagging behind.

The green transition shall be an engine for growth, not a brake, and the transition must be based on technology neutrality. Therefore, it is crucial that the EU provides the same rules of the game for renewables and nuclear power. We Christian Democrats stand up for an energy policy that unites climate responsibility with a stable electricity supply, competitive prices, and energy security.

The EU's dependence on fossil fuels – and on critical raw materials from authoritarian regimes – is unsustainable. But we must not replace one dependency with another. Strategic investments in domestic production and raw material supply must be made with respect for other sectors, not least food production, and the availability of clean water.

Mr. Speaker! We see at the same time that large investments are required in both green and digital transition. Here we are clear: It is primarily private capital that shall bear these investments. The EU's role is to create the right conditions, not to expand a subsidy culture or create new common debts. Balance is required here, and market-oriented solutions are required here – not state over-steering.

We are therefore positive that the Commission highlights the importance of deepening the EU's capital markets union. A strong flow of capital within the union benefits companies, reduces dependence on state aid, and increases the EU's resilience.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize that the EU's competitiveness cannot be strengthened through increased central control or detailed regulation in areas that are close to the member states' competence. Respect for the subsidiarity principle and clear accountability at the national level is a prerequisite for the policy to gain legitimacy and long-term impact.

We Christian Democrats are determined to ensure that Sweden continues to be a strong defender of this principle in all EU discussions, that the EU focuses its efforts on the areas where cooperation truly yields results, and that we at the national level have the freedom to make decisions that best benefit our citizens and companies. This responsibility is a matter not only of sovereignty but also of building a competitive, sustainable, and just future for all of Europe.

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the speech!

The Christian Democrats have now decided to become Sweden's most car-friendly party. But this is in direct conflict with the policy that Sweden's Minister for Enterprise from the government that the Christian Democrats are part of has been involved in negotiating at the EU level.

In the competitiveness compass, which we are debating here today, the EU's member states – including Sweden – have agreed that Europe's future competitiveness shall be built through electrification, green technology, and fossil-free industry. Swedish companies have already begun delivering electric vehicles and emission-free transport solutions, and all of this is being exported and developed at a very rapid pace. It is this that makes Swedish companies competitive in Europe.

Therefore, it is at least remarkable that a governing party simultaneously pursues a policy that aims to brake the transition, defend fossil fuels, and undermine the steering towards sustainable mobility.

My question to the member is: How does the member believe Swedish companies can be competitive in the European transition if Swedish politics sends the signal that we would rather look backward than forward?

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

Lili André (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the question!

I want to begin by saying that this matter of us being a car-friendly party is not in opposition to anything else. It is important that the car continues to function in Sweden. It is not in opposition to us pushing for and defending digitalization and a green transition.

That we are a car-friendly party is about being able to use the car. When we look at the technology moving forward, we see that it can also be developed. We develop diesel engines, but the most important thing is that we have a focus on green transition.

Mr. Speaker! I do not, therefore, stand behind the idea that there should be any contradiction regarding the green transition, which the Christian Democrats are truly pushing forward.

The most important thing for the Christian Democrats is simplification of rules and speeding up permit processes so that companies can benefit from the green transition. Here we see that the Center Party is more reluctant. What are your thoughts regarding that?

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Lili André, for the question! I cannot really see how we would be opposed to rule simplifications. The member may elaborate at another occasion.

It is clear that the car is important, and it is important with different types of fuels. The green transition is about biogas, green diesel and other things. But the signals that the government sends out to those who manufacture cars in Sweden are that one no longer believes in the transition to electrification. It is about the large car manufacturers but also about those who make fully electric trucks and who also work with fully automated trucks. In that area, our research and development is actually world-leading.

I wonder therefore: What is the point of sending out these signals that the green transition to digital and battery-powered cars is no longer as important?

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

Lili André (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist, for the contribution and the question!

I do not stand behind what the member implies. The Christian Democrats continue to push the green transition hard, even if the member has read an article suggesting that the government would like to lower the climate ambitions or the green transition. We do not stand behind that.

The Christian Democrats want to emphasize that we are a car-friendly party, and we see that development goes hand in hand with using the car in a green transition.

We remain strongly in favor of the green transition and for us to electrify in the future. But it must also go hand in hand with technological innovations.

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Mr. Speaker! I realized that I did not receive an answer to my question from Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson. I also realized that it is Lili Andrés's party that holds the ministerial post at the Ministry of Climate and Enterprise.

Swedish companies have requested a consequence analysis regarding these large packages that change the regulations in the EU and which affect the Swedish companies that have gone to the forefront of the climate transition, which has benefited Sweden and Swedish competitiveness. I have mentioned it on a number of occasions, Mr. Speaker, and we all know that, except for the Sweden Democrats.

The government has appointed an investigation on how to implement the directive on due diligence, the so-called CS3D directive. We have at several occasions asked whether it is the case that these directives are to be reviewed, and I am a little surprised that one did not answer my question about that. Now I have hinted a little about where I am headed.

I would therefore like an answer to the question of whether the government sees any need to carry out any form of impact assessment. Can the government and the Christian Democrats give signals as to whether supplementary directives should be given to an investigation that is to investigate how we should implement a regulatory framework that the Commission has now proposed to change?

Mr. Speaker! For me, it is obvious that supplementary directives need to be provided for something that is undergoing a fundamental change, and I therefore want answers to these two questions.

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

Lili André (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the question!

The Chairman speaks about a consequence analysis, and it is the case that the compass highlights the need to consistently weigh the effects on competitiveness and analyze regulatory burdens, cost-effectiveness, and proportionality. It is clear and distinct.

We are in the middle of a new reform process, and we are also in a situation in the world where we really must be agile. In that regard, rule simplifications are the most important thing for Europe and for the directives that Europe develops, and it is also important that Sweden follows the subsidiarity principle: Which rule simplifications do our companies need?

That is exactly what it is about. The compass highlights the need for a consequence analysis. We are in the middle of the reform work, and we will look at the effects.

The Speaker highlights the CS3D directive. When we implement a directive from the EU, it is important that we have an independence to ensure that we do not over-interpret it, but instead ensure that we adapt it so that we do not increase the regulatory burdens for our companies.

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is true that the competitiveness compass highlights the need for impact assessments. The problem is that the government has not carried out any impact assessment, Lili André. That is the problem, and that is why I repeatedly pose the question to the members who represent the government parties in this debate.

When it comes to the directives, I asked whether it is not the case that there should be additional directives to the committee directives that have been given to the investigation that is to review how the CS3D directive should be implemented when CS3D itself has been fundamentally changed.

Mr. Speaker! I still think this is quite symptomatic of how the Christian Democrats view industrial policy and the climate transition: One believes and hopes that the market itself will solve this – if we just ensure that some regulatory simplifications are introduced, this will resolve itself.

It is, however, obvious that it will not do so. It is obvious that the government's climate policy hampers Swedish and European competitiveness. Sweden is crucial for all of Europe's competitiveness, and it is very clear that there are no new establishments in Sweden. There are no new jobs in Sweden and no increased growth, but rather the opposite.

Therefore, I cannot understand, Mr. Speaker, why one cannot present a consequence analysis for Swedish companies that are currently suffering because the government has not taken their situation seriously.

We have heard the Sweden Democrats say that the green transition is not the engine of Europe's competitiveness. But what is the engine then? Are fossil fuels the engine in the SD government's competitiveness? We really must not hope for that, and we know that the business sector is not investing in it. I would therefore like to know when the government will present an analysis of how this affects Swedish companies. Can the Swedish business sector expect that from the Christian Democrats?

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

Lili André (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the contribution! First, I just want to say that I am a Christian Democrat, not a Sweden Democrat. The Christian Democrats are in the government. The Sweden Democrats are a support party. The Christian Democrats stand for the fact that the green transition is an engine for competitiveness. It is extremely important.

Several initiatives are being taken in the EU. It is a new situation. There has been a recession. It was probably a bit simpler for the Social Democrats to lead Sweden in a time of boom. Then there were more companies that grew and could hire. Now we are taking care of a Sweden in recession and doing what is best so that companies can continue to grow and also hire. In many areas, we are taking initiatives for education so that more people can get jobs.

I am glad that I, as a Christian Democrat, sit in the government in this situation. Now we need to see the big picture, the global one. We need to be active in the EU. We must be active negotiators and spread our initiative through the companies that are far ahead in the climate transition. They are those we are proud of. They shall be involved in driving competitiveness and green transition in Europe. Therefore, we are present in Europe. Therefore, we as politicians are present in negotiations.

We have been involved in developing the competitiveness compass. It was during Sweden's presidency that we took the initiative together in Europe to emphasize the importance of competitiveness. We continue to be active there. We are constantly looking at the effects and at what this can yield. The entrepreneurs can rest easy. I do not believe they are as worried as the member says. We will manage this. We look at the effects of the measures and change based on them.

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

Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist (C)

Mr. Speaker! We live in a time where Europe's competitiveness is being tested from several sides – by war and geopolitical tensions, by the demands of the climate transition, by an increasingly tougher global trade climate, and by the tariff chaos in the USA right now.

I met a restaurant owner on Sunday. He was out walking with his three-year-old in a stroller. We have met a few times before in Malmö. He said that he hadn't thought that with his two restaurants he would need to worry about what mood a president in the USA wakes up in.

When a tweet from Donald Trump can change the conditions for Swedish companies overnight, we understand that Europe's economic strength must come from within. We must have a business sector that stands strong on its own feet, an internal market that functions, and rules that can be relied upon.

The Centre Party welcomes that the Commission has presented a competitiveness compass. Europe needs a direction. We need a framework that unites climate ambitions with innovative power. We need to have a focus on small and medium-sized enterprises, because it is in the new and small companies that the jobs will come.

Mr. Speaker! We are positive that regulatory simplifications are finally being lifted high up on the EU's agenda and not just treated as a duty issue in the competitiveness council by the ministers of industry. For many companies in Sweden, high taxes and global competition are not the biggest obstacles. It is actually the strange rules.

We have known, ever since Sweden became a member of the EU, that the EU's regulatory framework is often over-detailed and difficult to navigate. It has been sad to see how good ambitions within the climate and environmental fields have created rules that, in practice, have been obstacles rather than helping to create competition on equal terms. The bureaucracy has sometimes shown its worst side here. The simplifications in the competitiveness compass are therefore absolutely necessary, but they must be made with the right approach – not by risking that we back away from climate requirements and not by creating uncertainty for the companies that have already taken responsibility.

Sweden must protect all the companies that have invested to be at the forefront of the green transition. These are companies that today have a competitive advantage precisely because they have followed the EU's climate ambitions. This also applies to all other companies that sell knowledge on how the transition should be carried out in practice. We must not repeat the mistake of moving from over-regulation to ambiguity. Again: Companies, large as small, need stable, clear rules of the game.

We are also concerned about how the state aid rules have developed. When some countries can pump billions into their companies, we risk getting distorted competition where small member states with sound public finances fall behind. This disadvantages Sweden. It disadvantages our companies, and it threatens the legitimacy of the internal market.

We continue to need market-driven solutions and not subsidy competitions. At the same time, the EU must stand up for open trade. It is not the time to turn inward – on the contrary. In a time when the world economy is fragmenting, Europe must deepen its partnerships, secure critical raw materials, and remove barriers for climate-friendly products and services.

Mr. Speaker! We do not say no to the competitiveness compass. On the contrary, we share the Commission's goals, but we believe that the Swedish Riksdag should speak with a stronger voice on some crucial issues. The climate goals must remain firm. Regulatory simplification must not become another word for climate skepticism. Competitiveness must also be built for the small, the new, and the green companies. The internal market must not be undermined by unequal state aid rules. Companies throughout the EU – not just in the largest member states – must be able to be part of the future. We therefore have a reservation of motive to improve the foundation, not to undermine it.

We believe in a Europe where companies are given the conditions to grow, where free trade and climate ambition go hand in hand, and where those who dare to think anew do not get stuck in an administrative dead end. That is how we create competitiveness, and that is how we build faith in the future.

I vote in favor of reservation 3.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Mr. Speaker! I will be brief. We live in restless times. We live, above all, in unpredictable times. It is difficult to know what the trade policy, the exports, and the geopolitical situation will look like in a year, in six months, or even tomorrow.

It is against the background of this uncertainty and the productivity challenge that Europe faces that the Commission has developed a strategy to strengthen Europe's productivity, resilience, and capacity for innovation. I think that is, of course, absolutely excellent.

Simplification of rules, long-term conditions, and reduced administrative burdens are important steps for us to be able to continue to have a free business environment in Europe. Against the background of the fact that we had a long debate on energy policy last week, I also welcome the Commission's focus on stable and fossil-free energy supply.

I vote in favor of the report.

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

Malte Tängmark Roos (MP)

Mr. Speaker! In the European Commission's work program for 2025, the focus lies on strengthening Europe's competitiveness, simplifying regulations, and accelerating the green transition. The Commission emphasizes the need for a more cohesive, capable, and effective union to meet the various challenges that Europe faces, not least security policy tensions, climate change, and economic competition.

There are many measures of great importance for Europe to be able to continue to be an important actor in the climate transition, a transition that I believe must form the basis of the work on Europe's competitiveness. The government also highlights in its position that the green transition needs to be an engine for the EU's competitiveness and that the overall objectives for climate and environmental policy need to remain firm. This is both pleasing and important, and I hope that the government can stick to this position instead of, as today, giving very unclear signals about the importance that transition and climate goals have both nationally and internationally.

I and Miljöpartiet believe that the transition to a sustainable and fossil-free economy must be the driving force in the work to strengthen competitiveness. The green transition is not an obstacle but a foundation and a prerequisite. At the same time, it is clear that several of the initiatives within the framework of the competitiveness compass are characterized by simplifying rules rather than raising environmental and climate requirements, which is problematic. Simplifications must not be used as an excuse to lower the level of ambition or erode newly introduced sustainability requirements, but must be actual simplifications or clarifications.

The Commission's focus on energy security and fossil-free production is very important. For EU industry to become competitive in the long term, a clear orientation towards renewable energy, electrification, and efficiency is required. Therefore, policy needs to prioritize solutions that promote solar, wind, storage technology, and grid expansion.

I also want to emphasize the importance of accelerating the work to phase out Russian fossil fuels. At the same time, we must ensure that alternative solutions do not lead to increased imports of fossil fuels from other questionable countries.

Trade policy has a great strategic importance, and therefore it needs to be designed to a greater extent in line with Agenda 2030 and the Paris Agreement. This means that all trade agreements should contain binding requirements on environmental protection, climate responsibility, and human rights. The EU's global influence needs to be used to promote sustainable development and poverty reduction, not to lock countries into dependencies or limit their opportunity to pursue sharp environmental policies.

The Commission's communication on a competitiveness compass for the EU

Sustainable competitiveness requires that environmental considerations and human rights are integrated into every part of the EU's economic strategy. The EU must therefore take responsibility and set high sustainability requirements in all links of the value chain.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the EU's strategic dependencies, the union needs to reduce its vulnerability by investing in more sustainable and self-sufficient systems, for example by promoting recycling, resource efficiency, and a circular economy. Environmental and social sustainability must be at the center of every strategy aimed at reducing import dependencies. To achieve this, long-term rules of the game, strong environmental goals, and a clear path away from fossil fuel dependency are required. That being said, I wish to vote in favor of the Miljöpartiets reservation 4.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 15 May.)

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