Special debate on the euro

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! As the threat to Europe grows, Europe's democracies respond – not by withdrawing or isolating themselves, but by holding together, militarily, politically and in terms of values.

Sweden has taken large steps in recent years. We are now full members of Nato. We are arming our defense and cooperating more closely than ever with our European friends. But in a decisive way, we remain outside: We are not in the euro.

It is not enough. Today, it is up to the parties in the Riksdag to be clear for Sweden's citizens on an issue that is crucial for Sweden's future, economy, and security. Do you want Sweden to belong to the core of the European cooperation, or shall we continue to stand outside?

For the Liberals, it is obvious. We shall be a full member of the EU. We shall introduce the euro in Sweden.

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by thanking the Liberals for the initiative to the debate. It is good that we get the opportunity to discuss this issue in a somewhat longer format because it is complex and has many dimensions. I want to highlight three dimensions of the euro issue, Madam Speaker.

Firstly, it is of course about the economy and about the euro as a means of payment for private individuals and for companies. Very many Swedish companies conduct large-scale trade with other EU countries in a common market, but we have different currencies.

Having a common monetary policy is also an economic dimension that affects a country, while countries have different fiscal policies. It is about being part of a currency area with countries that have what sometimes resembles the Swedish economy but also very often differ quite a bit.

Madam Speaker! The euro question is about so much more than economics. The second dimension of the euro question is the cultural dimension. It is a question of a country's and a country's inhabitants' identity and belonging.

In 2003, the Swedish people voted no to Sweden introducing the euro. That many Swedes, perhaps even more today than then, continue to be skeptical, I believe is partly about identity and culture. I, as Sweden's Minister for Finance, do not take that lightly.

The third dimension – which I believe is partly the reason why Cecilia Rönn and Liberalerna have highlighted the issue – is the political and, above all, the security policy dimension. A great deal has happened since 2003.

In many ways, we lived in a somewhat simpler world back then. It was not only before the financial crisis and the euro crisis. It was also before Putin's aggressive invasion of Ukraine. It was before Trump went down his escalator, and now behaves as no world leader should behave. It was before covid, and it was before skyrocketing inflation and high electricity prices. It was before Sweden joined Nato. The list of changes can be long.

When the referendum took place in 2003, many arguments were raised both for and against the euro. Some of those arguments, and perhaps most of them, are as relevant today as they were then. But that being said, very much has changed. It is not only the security situation that is significantly more serious today than then. The EU has actually changed.

In 2003, the EU consisted of 15 countries, including the United Kingdom. In the years that have passed, more countries have joined the union and many also to the currency. It has often been countries that have economies or views on debt that are somewhat different from those in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! We Moderates are for the euro. I voted for the euro. But that being said, it is not obvious what the party's position is and what the population feels and wants. That is why I think it is so important that we investigate the question of the euro properly.

If I am allowed to continue as Finance Minister during the next mandate period, I want to take an early initiative for an investigation that will conduct a deep analysis of the advantages and disadvantages, and also with regard to the security situation we find ourselves in.

I think the question is worth it. I also think the Swedish people are worth us taking the question with just the seriousness that we do.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! The Swedish debate on the euro has received a renewed knowledge base, not least in light of the euro report that Lars Calmfors was responsible for and which was published shortly before Christmas. It is an interesting report that comes with several perspectives.

There are certain perspectives that speak in favor of the euro, and other perspectives that speak against it. Jesper Hansson notes that Swedish business cycles have become more synchronized with the euro area. This is likely due to increased economic integration, more trade, more multinational companies, and greater financial integration. That speaks in favor of the euro.

On the other hand, Karl Walentin points out that the ECB may conduct an interest rate policy that is less optimal for Sweden. Our high indebtedness and shorter interest rate binding periods make us more sensitive to interest rates. That is an argument he mentions. It could speak against it.

Lars Calmfors himself highlights both arguments that have been strengthened and those that have become weaker since the referendum. In total, he sees the euro as more advantageous today than at the referendum, not least due to the political reasons mentioned earlier.

I believe that Calmfors' nuanced view on the issue is wise. Since the Swedish people voted against the euro in 2003, the arguments both for and against have changed. Some have become stronger, and others have become weaker. Therefore, it is good that we discuss the issue today.

We Social Democrats and I myself campaigned for the euro, but we had different opinions within our party. We have no proposals today to abandon the krona and introduce the euro, but the question deserves a serious treatment.

In recent years, the world has changed. It is important that we discuss what implications this has for the Swedish economy and security. Russia continues its war of aggression against Ukraine while the American administration has created very great uncertainty about the future.

Trump's tariffs may be blown out of proportion this time, but that does not mean we can lean back. It is not possible to pretend that the danger is over and that everything is as usual, or as Mark Carney said in Davos: Nostalgia is not a strategy. On the contrary, the developments in the world show with all desired clarity that Sweden and Europe need to continue to prioritize our own strength, both militarily and economically.

Alongside a discussion on which exchange rate regime we should have in Sweden, we need to get growth started. We need to bring down unemployment. We must strengthen the conditions for Swedish companies to increase their competitiveness. We must ensure our strong public finances so that they are not eroded.

It gives us strength that Sweden is better equipped to withstand fluctuations in the world economy. Therefore, we Social Democrats want the government to present a protection plan for the Swedish economy.

We welcome today's discussion. A well-functioning economy, a good currency policy and a competitive financial system are important parts of a strong Sweden in an uncertain world.

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Swedish krona goes back to the old riksdaler. It began to be manufactured and used during Gustav Vasa's time, that is, in connection with the Swedish War of Liberation, the proclamation of Sweden as an independent country and finally, of course, the coronation of Gustav himself on June 6, 1523. It is obviously the reason why we celebrate Sweden's National Day on June 6.

The point here is that our currency is intimately linked to our independence. Conversely, one must ask the question: How independent is one really if one lacks a currency of one's own?

I have full respect for the fact that other people make different assessments than I do. I have full respect for the fact that there are other opinions than my own, and I usually at least try to take part in other arguments than just my own. What I, however, have a bit of difficulty understanding here is why one, with such passion and intensity, truly burns for Sweden to become a less independent country. How can it be the single most important issue to pursue, to make Sweden less independent? It becomes a bit incomprehensible to me.

Let us then stay a bit more in the near term, Madam Speaker. We do not need to wind the tape back 500 years to Gustav Vasa, but we only wind the tape back one year. We can then observe that the Swedish krona has strengthened by over 21 percent against the dollar, by 11 percent against the pound, by 8 percent against the euro and likewise against both the Norwegian and the Danish krona, by 22 percent against the Japanese yen and by 7 percent against the Swiss franc.

The fact is that the Swedish krona has performed so well that import prices are falling significantly more than expected. This is good news. It pushes down inflation even further, and in the long run, it enables the Riksbank to lower the interest rate even more than it already has – or at least not raise the interest rate. This is very good news for everyone who has a mortgage.

Sweden has a public debt at a low, absolutely controllable 33.5 percent of GDP. Greece has 153.6 percent, Italy 135.3 percent, France 104.7 percent and Spain 101.8 percent. Here, there are therefore proposals that we should enter into a financial marriage with other parties that are extremely over-indebted, at a level that is obviously not sustainable in the long term. If this continues in this direction, the euro will sooner or later collapse.

How on earth can there be any inherent value in us, who have a fully controllable and low level of debt, exposing ourselves to that risk? It is an enormous risk-taking with the Swedish people's prosperity at stake.

Madam Speaker! Let me conclude by saying that the banking union also entails a guarantee for other countries' banks. I wonder how eager the Swedish taxpayers are to "bail out" Italian and Greek banks when these collapse.

(Applause)

In this speech, Mats Arkhem and Charlotte Quensel (both SD) concurred.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! The Swedish people have once had to take a stand on the question of joining the European Monetary Union, EMU. Part of joining the EMU is to introduce the euro as a currency. It is an important part, but it is not the whole of the EMU.

The Swedish people voted a clear no to EMU entry in 2003. The referendum campaign conducted at that time is probably one of our time's largest nation-building efforts. The yes-side then carried out a massive influence campaign, where they tried to downsize the issue to solely being about avoiding troublesome exchange rates or making it easier to compare prices on vacation.

The question is naturally much more extensive than that, and it is fundamentally about relinquishing Swedish influence over monetary policy to other actors who have different interests. The Swedish people understood this then and made a very wise decision: Sweden shall stand outside the EMU cooperation.

It has certainly been over 20 years since then, but during that time we have been able to observe that it has served Sweden well to stand outside the EMU. The Riksbank has been able to adapt Swedish monetary policy according to the circumstances that have primarily applied to Sweden, while we have been able to see how other European countries have had to struggle hard when the European Central Bank has pursued a policy that has not always been in the interests of all individual countries.

There are several reasons to keep the Swedish krona as a currency. There are also quite a few reasons that would make it interesting to switch; one should not pretend otherwise at all. But the main reason not to switch currency and join the EMU right now, I would still say, is this: It is unnecessary to fix what is not broken.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! We are all so relieved now because the US President – perhaps – is no longer threatening to invade Greenland or attack our economy with extreme tariffs to get Greenland. A few years ago, many would probably have thought of this as a line from some absurd theater and not the reality we face in an economic-political debate in the Swedish Riksdag. It is a new situation.

What should Sweden do when nationalism tries to break apart the economy? We in Sweden are completely dependent on international exchange for the sake of our prosperity. We must stand proud as a nation and for our economy. But, as in the case of Greenland: For it to be effective, we must stand together with Europe. Europe is our home, our strength, and our open values. It is our primary trading partner, our source of great prosperity, and our champion – albeit a flawed one – for opening markets worldwide. For the small business in Småland, Dalarna, or Västerbotten, Europe is absolutely crucial for the jobs and for the region.

Therefore, we must start talking about the euro. It is the currency that binds Europe together and provides strength. There are still disadvantages, and there are still advantages to having our own monetary policy and our own proud Riksbank, where I once worked. But when international experts recently evaluated the Riksbank's monetary policy, it was noted that Sweden is increasingly moving in parallel with the euro area. Our economy and our inflation and even the Riksbank's interest rates are very close to the ECB's, because Swedish companies have become so closely intertwined with the euro area.

The experts say that a new investigation of the currency is therefore needed; it is one of their conclusions. It is the same observation that Lars Calmfors made in the previous large investigation 29 years ago. In his new shadow investigation, he says that the disadvantages decrease and the advantages increase. Our exchange rate, which previously helped and cushioned shocks, often amplifies them today. The Euro could increase trade significantly.

Keynes said: When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir? It is now 22 years since the vote on the euro was held and 29 years since the previous investigation was made. It is an acute security policy situation. It is a difficult international economic-political situation.

Now, if ever, a new euro investigation is needed. Preferably a debate on the euro, but preferably a real investigation, the government! Despite the fact that all three government parties here declare that they are for the euro and, above all, have made decisions in their highest decision-making bodies to appoint an investigation, nothing has happened.

I therefore now turn to the government and the Social Democrats. Are you prepared to say yes to the Center Party's proposal for a committee initiative in the Finance Committee on Thursday to appoint a new investigation into the pros and cons of introducing the euro? We are putting the elephant on the table. You must stop closing your eyes and shuffling the cards. Say yes, now, to an investigation!

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! On September 14, 2003, the Swedish people answered the following question in a referendum: Do you believe that Sweden should introduce the euro as a currency? 55.9 percent answered no; 42 percent answered yes. The politicians respected this clear result.

We Christian Democrats, who worked for a yes before this referendum – even though I personally traveled the country and the realm to secure a no – have since been clear that an initiative for reconsideration must rest on a strong popular mandate. Such a mandate has been lacking since 2003. The question of an introduction of the euro is therefore not relevant.

The euro was introduced on 1 January 1999 and is now the official currency in 21 of 27 member countries. It is the currency for over 300 million people in Europe.

There are, as this debate as well as all other debates about the euro show, both advantages and disadvantages. The Christian Democrats opened at their last congress, the one we call the national assembly, to shed light on the advantages and disadvantages without preconditions. It has been 22 ½ years since the referendum took place.

Madam Speaker! To build a strong Sweden is the beacon I navigate by. I am personally convinced that a careful analysis will show that we continue to fare better by retaining the Swedish krona. I am, however, prepared to change my opinion if the opposite can be proven.

We Christian Democrats believe that it is primarily through a strong internal market and trade that the EU can and will continue to contribute to increased growth and more jobs – even here in Sweden.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! EU cooperation is one of the most successful political projects in modern times. It has created peace where there was previously war, prosperity where there was previously poverty, and cooperation where there was previously mistrust.

In a time of climate crisis, geopolitical unrest and economic uncertainty, it is more apparent than ever that Europe's countries need each other. The EU must evolve. It must become stronger, more democratic and more capable of taking action.

But being for EU cooperation is not the same as being for the euro. On the contrary: Having a well-functioning European cooperation sometimes requires that one dares to say no to solutions that do not suit everyone.

Swedish households could end up very badly off. Our households are among the most interest-sensitive in Europe. Our housing loans are large, and our economy reacts quickly to changes in interest rates. If the interest rate decisions are made in Frankfurt instead of in Stockholm, we can at least be sure of one thing: They will not be adapted to Swedish households and Swedish companies. A monetary policy that is not adapted to Swedish conditions can have dramatic consequences for families with children with mortgages, for small businesses, and for the entire economy.

A separate currency is not a symbolic issue. It is a question of economic security and political room for maneuver.

Sometimes it is said that we are still only following the ECB's monetary policy and that the Riksbank is not independent in practice. It is true that the interest rates have often been close to each other, but that is because the world in recent years has been characterized by common crises: pandemic, war, and a fossil-driven cost crisis.

That it has looked that way in recent years does not mean that it will look the same in the future. If something happens at home, we have significantly greater room for maneuver with an independent monetary policy.

The economic situation in the Eurozone is also far from stable. France is having great difficulties even adopting a budget in parliament. Many Euro countries are struggling with high deficits and growing national debts. The risk is obvious: If Sweden joins the euro, the probability increases that Swedish taxpayers will have to participate in financing rescue packages in a way we do not control.

We want solidarity in Europe, but solidarity must be combined with responsibility and stable economic structures.

We in Miljöpartiet want to stand outside the European cooperation in order to protect Swedish households and to protect our economic stability. A sustainable European cooperation must be built on reality and not on loose foundations and symbolic politics.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! There are several things that have changed since the 2003 referendum. I intend to highlight two of them: the security policy context and the free trade policy.

Since the brutal Russian invasion of Ukraine, the security situation in Europe has escalated at a dramatic pace. It is evident that Russia's actions are not just an attack in our immediate vicinity but an assault on all of Europe.

Above all, however, the developments in the USA are the clearest example in the recent past that Europe must cooperate to an even greater extent. Donald Trump wants to break down the free trade system with unpredictable and sky-high tariffs. At the same time, he threatens the security situation through his reckless attempt to annex Greenland. In doing so, he does nothing other than play right into the hands of the rogue states Russia and China. These can continue to pursue their aggressive and threatening foreign policy.

Madam Speaker! With a common currency, the trade barriers that exchange rate fluctuations against the euro entail are cleared. Furthermore, the trade flow between Sweden and other euro countries is estimated to increase significantly. A similar, if not greater, effect is also predicted for foreign direct investments in Sweden. It would make Sweden more reliable for the foreign investors who believe in Swedish companies and Swedish innovative power.

With more trade and cross-border investments, Swedish competitiveness is strengthened. Above all, however, it is an important tool to counter American and Chinese protectionism and to show that we never intend to be blackmailed by Trump's tariff threats. The EU makes us both wealthier and safer.

(Applause)

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! Sweden stands on a very steady political and economic foundation. Politically, we are unique in many ways in the EU. We, eight parties, have been able to reach an agreement on some very important basic foundations. We agree on having a framework that benefits Sweden's and the Swedes' economy. We agree on our defense buildup. We also agree on the framework and that, in the short term, we can borrow for its buildup. This is unique in many ways.

The world we now find ourselves in, where Donald Trump just last week began to blackmail other countries and also uses raised tariffs as a threat and blackmail method to take land, is a new situation. It is an absurd situation.

When the EU and Europe stood even more clearly together last week and expressed exactly this, Donald Trump changed his rhetoric and backed down.

Why do I say this in a debate about the euro? Well, the most important thing right now, in times of turbulence and uncertainty, is that we stand together in difficult issues and that we build Sweden strong. We are to build a strong economy. There we have slightly different starting points and values, but what we are doing now – ensuring that we bring down inflation and make large investments so that Swedish companies and Swedish households, hard-working people, are protected from what is turbulent and restless around us – that is the most important thing.

The euro does not make a big difference here, either to or from.

I think however – and this is important – that both the Swedish people and the situation deserve that we seriously conduct an investigation and see what has been good and less good during these years. And above all: What does the new security policy situation do? What does an American economy that does not look like it did a few years ago do? What does it do when the USA has an administration that is not the same self-evident partner and stands for the same stability in the world that we have previously always taken for granted?

Madam Speaker! All of this deserves an investigation and that we take the issue further. I appreciate all the contributions here and that we can be clear. If we were to ever land on introducing the euro at some point in the future, it would still take many years, and it is not at all certain that we will do so. The issue truly deserves to be taken seriously for the sake of Swedish companies and for the sake of Swedish households.

(Applause)

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I have two short questions.

I didn't quite understand, but the Finance Minister says that she wants an investigation. So, will an investigation into the euro be appointed? Or was it after the election? Will an investigation into the euro be appointed if you have lost the election and no longer cooperate with the Sweden Democrats?

My second question has a different perspective on the new security policy situation. The Riksbank has signaled that they believe there may be reason, not least for reasons of preparedness, to review our financial infrastructure. Our Swedish krona is competitive, but it is about it being more independent of extra-European infrastructure in the financial system. In that regard, work with the so-called e-krona has been requested. How does the Minister for Finance view the work with a Swedish e-krona? Should it be initiated now when they at the Riksbank say that it is both a preparedness issue and a question of the Swedish krona's competitiveness as long as we have our own currency?

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Mikael Damberg for the questions. I will begin with the latter question.

I have been a member of the Riksdag for many years, and we have discussed the issue several times. All parties have been clear about waiting on the question of a single krona because there have been quite a few question marks.

I note that when the ECB moves forward with a digital euro, there are certainly reasons to look at the issue. It is a question for the Riksdag and the Riksbank more than for the Ministry of Finance. It is not unreasonable to look at the issue, regardless of what the Riksdag lands on when it comes to this.

The second question is simple. I said "if I may continue as Minister for Finance," and I would gladly do so for another eight or twelve years. Sweden needs someone who puts hard-working people first and builds a strong economy. Therefore, I think it is obvious to investigate this question as well, and it is a task that I want to get started as soon as possible in the next mandate period.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I still interpret it positively that the Minister for Finance opens up for the fact that work may need to be done with the krona for reasons of preparedness and to create more financial independence in Europe. It is good for a competitive Swedish krona.

I note that the Finance Minister, unfortunately, is Finance Minister for several more months, and there is every possibility of appointing an inquiry if she is serious. But this only shows that she does not have the mandate to appoint an inquiry. We can note that the largest party in the government base has declared that there will be no inquiry and, above all, no euro in the future either.

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! It is good that we have turned a tough situation with high inflation into a low one as we now finally get back on track regarding growth. Sweden is expected to have one of the highest in the EU this year, and therefore it is good that the policy we are now pursuing can also continue. It strengthens the opportunities for hard-working people, and Swedish companies and Swedish jobs can remain in Sweden.

This is actually about the capital market, if I am to come to the point briefly regarding the e-krona. The reason why the digital euro is discussed so much – I am also involved in the discussions in the euro group's inclusive meetings – is that Europe does not have particularly good payment services. In Sweden, there is a strong capital market and thus strong payment services. There is a certain difference between other European countries and Sweden where they function well. You in the Finance Committee and the Riksbank can continue to discuss and submit proposals regarding the e-krona.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! It sounded exciting when the Minister for Finance for a moment said that an investigation shall be appointed as soon as possible. Then she added next mandate period.

I have a simple question. It is the Moderaternas parliamentary decision to have a Swedish connection to the euro investigated. I believe that you, just like the Centerpartiet, want to do it as soon as possible. We are talking about investigating so that one is prepared for things that can happen. And many things are happening now. Why postpone this? We all agree that there is an acute economic situation right now and that one must start investigating. My only natural explanation for it is that you are not allowed by the Sverigedemokraterna because it is they who decide.

But please! Now you can start to free yourselves a bit. We have submitted a proposal to the Committee on Finance. It will be taken up on Thursday and is to be decided on Tuesday. Can't you just let go of the rope and do what you actually think instead of just obeying SD on the issue? Can't we get an investigation on the euro now?

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! Martin Ådahl refers to the Moderate Party's party congresses. I believe many at the Moderate Party's party congresses are happy if I do not let Martin Ådahl steer our policy. That is something people sometimes talk about in the corridors and at the dinner parties.

It is quite obvious that we will implement what we have decided on. Now it is ours, and then it is an election. We will have this point as an important issue. But I do not believe that this is an election issue, but rather it is a matter of integrity to review the existence or non-existence of the Swedish krona.

The probability is high that we will still have the Swedish krona in 20 years, but I do not know that. That is why an investigation should be appointed. But let us not rush just because Martin Ådahl wants to present a proposal for a committee initiative in the Riksdag this week. I can promise that not a single Moderate thinks that is the best reason to drive an investigation.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I do not know how you usually do at your party conventions, but when we make decisions at our conventions, we follow them as far as we can. If there are any people being talked about at your dinners, it is they who decide in the government, and they sit on the bench here in the chamber. I have not been to a Moderate convention for a long time, but when I listen to your colleagues, they talk a lot about them.

Back to the issue at hand. This question has nothing to do with me. It doesn't even have to do with the Center Party, but it has to do with Sweden. We need preparedness to be able to introduce the euro, and for that, we need an investigation. There is now an acute economic situation. Forget about me, Elisabeth Svantesson, and focus instead on the question.

The Minister for Finance wants an inquiry, her party wants an inquiry, and all the government parties want an inquiry. Why can it not be appointed now? What is the argument? It is enough to look around the world, and everyone has been on that; certainly, the economic situation on that point is acute.

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! I have spent my more than three years as Finance Minister on doing a few things. For example, I have ensured that hard-working people get to keep more of their wages. The tax burden is the lowest in 50 years. This year, Sweden has one of the absolutely highest levels of public investment in the entire EU; approximately 6 percent. That would probably never have happened if Martin Ådahl had been involved and influenced the policy.

Sweden stands stable right now. With a strong krona and political stability, Sweden is beginning to be considered a safe haven. Many are investing in Sweden. I do not know where Martin Ådahl has been the last weeks, months, or years, but that is actually the case. We have done something completely unique, namely lowered the tax and doubled the defense spending. Sweden stands out in a European perspective. We have done that without the advice from Martin Ådahl.

The Euro issue is important, but it is even more important here and now to build strong protective barriers. That is exactly what we are doing.

(Applause)

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! I do not know how the Minister for Finance views this, but it sounds as if there is a little anxiety and jealousy from the opposition regarding how one should shape their law after the election.

During the mandate period, we have cooperated in an effective manner and solved many of Sweden's serious social problems. We fight crime, we give more money to households, and we accelerate growth.

Just as several others have said here, the Moderaterna opened at their convention last autumn to investigate the introduction of the euro, just as the Kristdemokraterna and now also the Centerpartiet did.

I was pleased when the Minister for Finance said from the rostrum that she wants to take the initiative to investigate the issue. But can we not make a breakthrough in the matter already?

(Applause)

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Cecilia Rönn, for both the question and this debate!

No, we cannot do that right here and now, but we agree that the issue shall be properly investigated.

As I said from the beginning, in my first speech, the security policy situation has changed dramatically. But also the American economy and the view of the American economy have changed. Not only has the view changed, but it has also changed in reality. It is a strong economy, which is doing well in many ways, but they have a very high national debt. And there are sometimes doubts from the market regarding the political leadership and where this will lead.

It is also about the dollar's role in the world. It can be strengthened and become even better in a few years, but it can also be weakened. Who knows?

Then it is obviously good if we have made our own analysis of the krona in relation to the euro and how the krona and the euro stand in the new both security policy and geopolitical situation.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! The Liberals are, as said, very happy that several parties are now taking steps to investigate the issue. Since the referendum, we have been clear that we believe it would be good for Sweden and Swedish competitiveness to become full members of the EU and part of Europe's internal financial core.

I truly agree that this needs to be investigated. Of course, there is no issue that has only disadvantages or only advantages. It is about making an assessment of what benefits Sweden best in the future. In that regard, the aspects that the Minister for Finance mentions are important, together with the new knowledge base that, among others, Lars Calmfors and his colleagues have presented.

I look forward to us working together to take the initiative to investigate the issue.

(Applause)

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! The argument that I have not used here and will not use, but which I know Calmfors raised, concerns Sweden's role in the EU. It is my firm opinion that Sweden has an incredibly strong voice at the table, both when we are at the inclusive eurogroup meetings and when it comes to Ecofin. Both this government and previous governments have and have had a strong voice.

I myself have been involved in pushing hard for the framework that is now in place. During the chairmanship, we also pushed the issue of competitiveness, which has actually been stalled since then. Sweden has a strong voice in the EU cooperation. It is not that we do not sit at the most important tables and talk – on the contrary. We truly have a voice and a place. We shall retain those, and we shall continue to be relevant and proactive and work together with other EU countries.

Madam Speaker! I do not usually give compliments about clothes here in the chamber, but the member's top is nevertheless the icing on the cake in this debate.

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

ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN

Yes, but I must point out that the member is thereby breaking the House's rules of procedure.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by thanking that some parties are now signaling that they are prepared to once again look at the question of a Swedish evaluta, a krona. Not least the Riksbank has pointed out that in this global situation it is important to ensure that both Sweden and our financial system stand strong and that we do not undermine the Swedish krona. I perceive that there is now support for the Social Democratic line to proceed with that work in the Committee on Finance. I think that is wise. Then there can be a broad political consensus around that work going forward.

This debate has however revealed that this is becoming a bit of a political show rather than being about reality. The Liberals have wanted to have this debate here in the chamber because they cannot get support for their line in the government. This has now been confirmed by Sweden's Minister for Finance, who says that she will not act on the issue before the election. That is because it is the Sverigedemokraterna who decide on this government's actions. Unfortunately, it has become very clear during the debate.

I nevertheless agree with the Minister for Finance that it is not only the currency policy that determines Sweden's strength in this situation. We have now a few years behind us where Sweden has underperformed. We have had lower growth than the rest of Europe, and we have had a situation where unemployment has surged. 100,000 more are unemployed in our country; half a million people do not have a job to go to.

We also have a cost crisis that has hit Swedish families and households very hard. I mean that the government has not understood how Swedish families with children are doing and that Swedish pensioners are having difficulty paying the bills and the medicine.

Most recently today, we also received reports that elderly care is cutting back on the Sunday roast for the elderly. The municipalities are being forced to make cuts because this government has not compensated them for the cost increases in elderly care.

There are, therefore, economic issues that we must take care of at home to make Sweden strong in a very uncertain time.

(Applause)

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! It is hardly a great secret for those listening to or watching this debate that the Center Party is seeking to secure a majority in the Riksdag to appoint an inquiry.

Until now, we have received a somewhat stifled answer from the Minister for Finance. I still intend to ask a rather straightforward and simple question to the Social Democrats and Mikael Damberg: Is it not, given the precarious international economic situation, time to investigate the question of introducing the euro now – regardless of what one thinks about the issue itself? Would you be prepared to support such an alternative? Or shall we let SD decide for all of us?

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats pushed for a yes in the referendum but did not receive the mandate for it. The Swedish people voted no, and we have respected that referendum result.

Our view is also that if Sweden were to want to change the exchange rate regime and introduce the euro, it must be preceded by a good debate and a solid basis. But I am a bit old-fashioned when it comes to that and think that when one starts an investigation, one does so with the purpose of doing something. The purpose should then be to introduce the euro. That is what we must have as a starting point.

We are not currently pursuing the demand to introduce the euro. For us, it is therefore not a priority to conduct an investigation that would create a lot of discussion and uncertainty about what Sweden wants and does not want. The parties can, in that case, take a position and say that it is the direction they desire and then appoint an investigation.

I do not rule out that an investigation may be needed. Things and events may happen in the Swedish economy and in European politics that actually necessitate that we need to look at the issue a bit more deeply. But it is not our starting point that we should have an open-ended investigation just like that.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! That was also a somewhat stifled answer. Throw out the words, and then it doesn't become very concrete.

In order to be prepared, if we decide to join the euro, an investigation is needed. We do not share the view that there is a compulsion, that one must land on a yes and a joining, just because one investigates the issue. It would be strange to have an investigation then.

But if we are to do it, is it not sensible to start an investigation right now? Then, in these dramatic economic times, we have the opportunity to join the euro in an orderly manner if it should become necessary in the future. And in that case, we can do it as soon as possible, which Mikael Damberg himself touched upon slightly in his previous turn.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I will be honest and say that we are not locked in this view. We are rather quite pragmatic. We have just received a basis regarding the euro. Calmfors has presented a report where the arguments both for and against are deepened. Regarding the argument that we have not talked about the issue, we have just received a decision basis from researchers who illuminate the issue in depth and from several different perspectives.

The day we decide that it is time to introduce the euro – for security policy, political and economic reasons for the Swedish economy – I think one should be a bit clearer that it is nevertheless what we are preparing for.

I am prepared to listen to what Martin Ådahl has to say. But we do not usually appoint an inquiry just to appoint an inquiry, we do so with the aim of achieving something. That would be to abandon the Swedish krona and introduce the euro.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! We have called for this debate because we want to talk about precisely the euro. Unfortunately, the member did not quite manage to do that in the previous speech.

Magdalena Andersson has said that there are advantages and disadvantages to the euro, which the member has also conveyed in both exchanges of remarks and speeches from the rostrum. I have also on several occasions in other debates asked the member what he and the Socialdemokraterna think about this. Now there is an election in the autumn, and a statement on the issue might still be important consumer information for the voters.

What do the Social Democrats think about this issue? The global situation has changed, and it has been 23 years since the referendum. Just as the member himself said, a completely different knowledge base has been provided than what we had previously. Many parties have said that they at least want to investigate the issue, but the Social Democrats have not yet said anything. Can Mikael Damberg not provide a statement?

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I said in my speech that we are not pushing the demand to join the euro. That is our position. On the other hand, we are very clear that things can happen both in Sweden and in Europe that may prompt us to address the issue. In that case, a proper basis for decision-making will be needed, so that both the Swedish people and we in this chamber know which decisions we are making.

In every exchange I have had with Cecilia Rönn regarding the euro, I have stated that there are other issues that are much closer and that I think it is more problematic that politics is not handling: the low growth in Sweden, the high unemployment, the many bankruptcies, the funding of welfare, and the cost crisis affecting ordinary people. We also have the responsibility to take a stand on those. It is part of the economic policy. If we manage these home-front issues well, we stand stronger in this uncertain world. Cecilia Rönn will probably have to accept that I answer that there are other issues than just the euro to discuss in the political debate before the election, because people want answers to their everyday concerns.

(Applause)

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! I do not usually get any clear answers.

I want to clarify that this government has shown that we can do many things at the same time. One can investigate the issue of the euro and solve important national problems.

I believe that the Swedish people have an interest in what the Social Democrats, as Sweden's largest party, think on the issue. You made a blunder on the Nato issue, Mikael Damberg. Peter Hultqvist said: "There will be no applications for any membership as long as we have a Social Democratic government. I will definitely never, as long as I am Defense Minister, participate in such a process." Then you shifted. You perhaps do not want to repeat this blunder. In that case, it is probably better to appoint the inquiry and look at what needs to be done so that Sweden can quickly be able to join if it should be needed.

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

Mikael Damberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I believe I have said in every speech that there are arguments both for and against. We Social Democrats were for joining the euro, but we respect the referendum. As I have said in every contribution, however, things can happen both here at home in the Swedish economy and in European politics that cause the euro issue to be seen in a new light and become even more relevant. If that happens, we are prepared to work with investigations, deepen the underlying data, and move toward a decision on an important issue that affects the Swedish people. It should happen openly and transparently. It is nothing strange.

Right now, we are not pursuing this issue. But we understand that the Liberals are pursuing it and devoting all their time and effort to it, mostly in conflict with the Sweden Democrats, instead of dealing with the everyday problems that the Swedish people are working with: the cost crisis, high unemployment, and low growth.

(Applause)

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! The only referendum so far that I have been able to participate in as an adult and consequently eligible to vote is the euro referendum in 2003. I voted no. It is a decision that I have had no reason whatsoever to either regret or reconsider. The fact is also that the people have said no on the only two occasions when the euro question was put directly to the people: in Sweden in 2003, as mentioned, and in Denmark in 2000. In the existing euro countries, the question has therefore not even been put directly to the people.

It would be somewhat interesting to now hear from those who are driving this issue whether we are at least prepared to pose the question to the Swedish people before we abolish our own currency. Or is the idea that we in this chamber shall make that decision over the heads of the people, even though the public opinion is so clearly in favor of retaining our Swedish krona? Is this what liberalism is in Sweden today – when people think wrongly, we ignore them and simply steamroll them?

Madam Speaker! I touched upon the banking union in my first speech, but let me say something briefly again about it since it has not been raised in the debate here today. The banking union means, in short, that Swedish taxpayers stand as guarantors for banks, not only in Sweden but also in the rest of Europe. Southern European banks – Italian, Greek, you name it – are not nearly as well-capitalized and strong as our Swedish banks. It is only a matter of time before Swedish tax money will be used to "bail out" them.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats will not contribute to us moving in a direction towards abolishing our own currency. It is an election promise.

(Applause)

In this speech, Erik Hellsborn and Charlotte Quensel (both SD) concurred.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! First, I want to tire both our happy listeners and viewers as well as the Riksdag with a small historical note. The Swedish krona does not at all have its origin in any riksdaler but in the Nordic currency union. That was why it was the same krona in all the Nordic countries, which in turn wanted to join the French gold franc, which was the monetary union at the time. End of the history lesson!

I would like to ask a straight question to the member from the Sweden Democrats. We are trying to investigate how things work inside the Tidö bubble – or the Tidö cooperation, as it is called. Is it the case that SD is stopping the Swedish government and the Minister for Finance from even investigating a Swedish introduction of the euro?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! With the risk of me making a mistake now: Can I correct my economic history, it was a Scandinavian crown and not a Nordic one. Iceland belonged to Denmark at that time as well. But we shall leave history there!

I can be quite transparent here. Normally I do not comment on internal negotiations, but this question has not been clearly on the table and is not included in the Tidö Agreement. We have not devoted much to it beyond this debate. Within the Tidö parties, we have focused on implementing the Tidö Agreement, and this is not an issue covered by the Tidö Agreement. It is also not an issue that I have devoted much time to. Was that an answer to the question, Martin Ådahl?

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I appreciate that Oscar Sjöstedt shares my interest in monetary history, which can sometimes be quite enlightening.

I want to go back to the question of whether it is actually SD that is blocking the government from appointing an inquiry into the euro. If the government wanted to appoint an inquiry into the euro as soon as possible, so that we do not end up in the situation we had with Nato, where things were done in a rush, but instead get to investigate this properly and officially, would the Sweden Democrats, in that case, oppose such an inquiry?

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

Oscar Sjöstedt (SD)

Madam Speaker! Yes, it is quite obvious. One does not commission inquiries just to have something to do, but one normally does it because one wants to go in a certain direction. I believe it was Mikael Damberg who said it, and he is completely right. It begins with wanting to go in a certain direction, and then one investigates what happens if one does so.

For us, it is very clear which direction we want to go in. We do not want to go in the direction that Martin Ådahl wants. In that case, it is completely pointless to appoint an inquiry into what happens if one goes in that direction.

There are other aspects to this that I touched upon in my first speech. It is more about independence, which is not fully quantifiable. There are therefore not only economic aspects to this.

Of course I would oppose that this is investigated. It is completely obvious. But perhaps we can have a new exchange of remarks and talk about the Scandinavian crown alliance. That would be a significantly better alternative. We both seem to appreciate monetary history.

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

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Madam Speaker! One of the major fundamental problems with the EMU is the large differences between the countries in the EU and that we conduct different types of fiscal policies. We in Vänsterpartiet believe that we rather have better opportunities and a greater chance of success if we deepen other forms of cooperation at the EU level. One can naturally have different opinions about that, but if we are to join the EMU and there were to be a political majority for it, we in Vänsterpartiet believe that this is a question for the Swedish people to decide in a referendum.

With this said, we do not see today that there are particularly pressing reasons to push in that direction. Sweden retains the krona as currency, and we should keep it. We should retain our Riksbank.

To solve the problems that Sweden faces, it is more important that we get a different government, which, unlike the current one, pursues an active fiscal policy that reduces the gaps in society and ensures that Sweden gets back on the right course.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! We are all fundamentally in agreement in this debate that the security situation has changed. Global economic cooperation is in the process of changing. We are getting closer to the euro area and are increasingly dependent on it. We have good public finances that protect us from shocks if we were to be in the euro. Then there are a lot of disadvantages.

Let me therefore repeat that I think we should appoint an inquiry. The experts are asking us for it, and I believe the people would appreciate it.

Also remember that it is not actually the Sweden Democrats who are the main opponents in this debate, but it is Donald J. Trump. Among other things, the American administration is now trying to introduce digital currencies, dollar-based stablecoins, backed by American government bonds.

As Jan Björklund has said, there are two problems with that: partly they are American, and partly they are government securities. They are heavily leveraged. The USA currently has an enormous national debt that is exploding. It is much worse than in Europe, even. It is not so good to be dependent on digital currencies from the USA.

I therefore share the view that we must start looking at a digital krona – e-krona, as it is sometimes called – and above all the digital euro and eurobonds, European government securities, which will become the major alternative in the world.

In all these aspects, the debate is now underway. It is not possible to stop the train now, the government. We must react and not be passive. We must protect ourselves in Europe.

I appeal once again to the government and the Minister for Finance, in a respectful manner. We may not share all views – for example, that the economy is strong when unemployment is very high and our growth is among the lowest in the EU – but can we not lift SD's ban on thinking when it comes to the euro and, as the experts and your party members request, appoint an inquiry into the euro?

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! It is good that the Centre Party has changed its opinion on the issue and now decided. I truly welcome that. It feels a bit like a sudden awakening: Now a decision has been made, so now we must act, and now it is suddenly urgent. We have been talking about this for 20 years, but I like that Martin Ådahl is ready for action.

The party leader wanted to go all the way and say that we should join the euro. I understand that she reaches that conclusion with the background she has. But unfortunately, she did not get the Center Party on board, which instead landed on wanting to investigate the issue. That is, in itself, better than nothing.

I still think I have heard that Martin Ådahl has been very positive towards the euro in his posts and in his exchanges of remarks. Perhaps we can get a new statement from Centerpartiet: Does Centerpartiet perhaps feel that they also want to introduce the euro?

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! We have had a major debate in our party about this and, in line with many of your parties in the Tidöregeringen, have decided that we want to investigate the pros and cons of the euro in a first step as soon as possible.

I actually intended to make a comment on this when Cecilia Rönn eventually gives her speech, but I can ask the question already now: If you have a heart that truly beats hard to get this first step taken, can you then not support our initiative to have an investigation established on the euro as soon as possible? There is really no other reason to wait until the next mandate period, as the Minister for Finance seemed to mean.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! It is I who have requested the floor, so I take the liberty of asking the question I intended to ask.

I would like to bring in one aspect to the question. You in Centerpartiet say that you stand on the side of small businesses. It is precisely small and medium-sized enterprises that have the least possibility to hedge currencies and manage the fluctuations of the krona. It becomes more expensive to purchase goods, harder to price, and riskier to export. The euro would reduce friction against our largest markets and provide more predictability, especially for small companies. I do not think it is right that they should bear such a large currency risk.

I am, as I said, very happy that the Center Party wants to investigate the issue as soon as possible. I would, however, like you to add at the end that you want to investigate the issue with the aim of changing the currency. Then it is, of course, clear that one should take the pros and cons into account. But here I actually agree with Member Damberg and think that an investigation should be commissioned with an intention.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! One can want a great deal. But if we are to achieve any result, we must start at some point. I think that the Liberals, who feel so incredibly strongly about this, could at least support the small but important first step of appointing this inquiry. I am sorry to nag, but if we are to get anywhere in the matter, we must indeed begin investigating the euro. On that point, we are actually in complete agreement. In that case, it is perhaps best to get an inquiry established first, since it is obviously difficult to get everyone to declare their position here.

For the sake of small businesses, it is incredibly important that we lower their taxes and improve their opportunity to hire. We have very high unemployment, but small businesses have – perhaps to their great surprise – faced increased costs under the Tidö Government.

Now a major shift is needed where we get growth and entrepreneurship started and get down unemployment. We must get up the jobs and get down the emissions in Sweden.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! The other day I read that a senior economist at one of Sweden's largest banks called the krona the Swiss franc of the Nordics. He noted that in the past, one would own Swiss francs. The country, in fact, had order and discipline in its public finances. One also had a predictability regarding the currency.

I have previously raised in this chamber my concern regarding the EU countries' public debt problems. They are disregarding the rules regarding the Maastricht debt – that one should not have a public debt exceeding 60 percent of the gross national product, GDP. It is a rule that was written because one wanted to avoid the risk that public debt problems in one country spill over onto other countries.

A reflection: Would France, if it had kept the franc, have been able to build up a national debt amounting to 113 percent of GDP, as it currently does? Not for a single year since France entered the euro cooperation has it had a balanced budget. One can wonder if this would have been possible without the euro. Probably not, is my answer, because the market would have reacted with higher interest rates.

In Calmfors' investigation, it is noted that when a country enters a currency union, the signaling system is eroded. In the same investigation, it is noted that there are three reasons why the debt ratio in these countries increases: It is weak economic growth. It is strong economic shocks. And – listen now! – people ignore the rules. I shall quote from Calmfors' investigation: ”It is however clear that membership in the euro cooperation does not seem to increase rule compliance. On the contrary, the opposite seems to be the case.”

The Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies released a report in October last year. They asked the question: Who will ultimately pay for these high national debts? I mean that it is a major risk that Sweden, in the event of euro membership, will face increased costs for other euro countries' high national debts. It has, in any case, increased since 2003.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! Now everyone is probably guessing what I am going to ask Hans Eklind from Kristdemokraterna about. His party has a committee decision to investigate a Swedish accession to the euro – just like all the other government parties.

Now, perhaps the answer in some ways came in the latest speech. Mr. Eklind did not sound directly pro-euro or interested in the euro. But are you, nevertheless, prepared to follow your own chamber decision and, together with the Moderaterna and the Liberalerna, appoint an investigation as soon as possible regarding the advantages and disadvantages for Sweden of an introduction of the euro? You will have the opportunity to do so very soon.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! It is fantastic how the member follows other parties' congresses and is skilled at interpreting them.

It is like this: At the Christian Democrats' national meeting, there were both motions where they wanted us to be clear with a no and motions where they wanted us to be clear with saying yes. We reached a conclusion. There is no popular anchoring. I do not think the member can claim that, and I want to assert that it absolutely does not exist. But if there is a popular anchoring, we mean that it is reasonable to appoint an inquiry that looks at the different aspects surrounding how an EU membership would affect the Swedish economy, politics, the citizens, and so on.

There are both advantages and disadvantages to the euro. I think we have been quite clear on that, regardless of what position we hold on the issue. I am very negative towards the introduction of the euro. But my party thinks that we should investigate the issue. And if I can be proven wrong – that it is good for Sweden to join the euro – I will, of course, change my opinion.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! Whatever we think regarding the euro question itself, I have questions.

There is now a doubt regarding the interpretation of this. Is the answer yes or no to the question of whether the Christian Democrats have decided whether one should appoint a euro investigation? That is my first question.

Then I have my second question. We can look at how this could affect, as Hans Eklind expressed it. Can one not imagine that such an investigation could give us greater clarity on how it would affect and give us a preparedness that would be of great benefit to Sweden in these economically turbulent times? Accordingly, one could imagine that the Christian Democrats in the Riksdag follow what the party has decided and say yes to a new Swedish investigation of the euro.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! What we in the Christian Democrats were clear about at our national convention, and what we have been clear about since 2003, was that we respect the referendum. One can naturally ignore that if one wants to – it is up to the member. But for us, it has been important to have the very clear message. Therefore, we have also said: If there were to be a popular anchoring regarding the fact that we in Sweden could see a different line in this issue, we want to see an unconditional investigation. But we are not there now, and I do not believe we will be there within a foreseeable time. I may be wrong. Much can happen both in Sweden and internationally that would cause me to reconsider that position, but right here and now, no investigation is current.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! We have called for this debate to discuss the issue. We believe it is an important issue and that it is an important piece of consumer information before the election regarding where the different parties stand.

We have, just like several others, noted that the Christian Democrats have opened up for investigating the issue. Therefore, I say the same thing as I said to the Moderaterna. I think that we together – with the Moderaterna and the Sverigedemokraterna – during this mandate period have made, and are working on, many important reforms to solve Sweden's problems. An important issue for our future competitiveness is, in any case, that we are just changing currency, the Liberals believe.

The Minister for Finance is opening for the investigation to be appointed after the election – I hope it will be before. Regardless of whether it will be before or after the election, I wonder: Will the Christian Democrats support such an initiative?

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Cecilia Rönn, for your question, even if it may have been partially hijacked by a previous questioner!

I personally think that I have answered the question a number of times. The question is not relevant from our side for the simple reason that we believe there should be a popular anchoring for this if we are to stop respecting the referendum, which admittedly is 22 ½ years old. There is no popular anchoring for this. I believe that neither Cecilia Rönn nor I want to claim that.

I have a counter-question for the member, who is vigorously advocating for the euro. The International Monetary Fund, IMF, warned a few months ago that the EU countries' debts could grow to 130 percent of GDP by 2040 and force governments to fundamentally rethink their role when it comes to providing basic services to citizens – it is therefore about welfare. My question to Cecilia Rönn is: Does she share the IMF's conclusion or warning signal?

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! I understand that one respects a referendum. I think it is honorable.

Now, 23 years have passed. An entire generation of Swedes has grown up. I would still like to say that I do not think I can see that there is a large opposition to the euro. Approximately 30 percent say that they are for it. Slightly more say that they are against it. But a large proportion say that they are unsure. If the unsure were to decide, it would become very much clearer whether there is a popular anchoring or not. And for unsure voters to be able to decide, I think we must have a discussion on the issue.

One can say that the Swedish krona has strengthened a lot during the recent period. In 2003, the rate was approximately 8.60. At that time, I perhaps do not think that 11 kronor, which it is around now, is so strong. One can say that we will need to pay others' debts. I do not agree with that. Things affect us today – internationally and globally. We will be affected by how things go for France, whether we are with them or not.

My speaking time is running out. I think we should continue debating this issue.

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

Hans Eklind (KD)

Madam Speaker! If this regarding the popular anchoring for an introduction of the euro changes, the Christian Democrats are positive towards appointing an inquiry that looks at this very carefully. How does it affect the economy? How does it affect society? How does it affect the citizens? I have been very clear about that in this debate.

That I nag a bit about the Eurozone countries' debt accumulation has its reasons. Just like many others, I note that this currency union has made it possible for individual Eurozone member states to be free riders, that is to say, one has been able to drive this debt accumulation.

I have a question for all those who so eagerly want to see the euro introduced: How will it be paid for in the end? If we join the euro, we will definitely have to participate in the payments. As the IMF also notes, the development we are seeing is not sustainable in the long term at all. I mean that everyone who urges us to introduce the euro should take that perspective into account.

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

Janine Alm Ericson (MP)

Madam Speaker! Most of it has already been said in this debate, also that the influence in the EU would increase if Sweden joined the euro.

But influence is not just about currency. It is also about political credibility, about standing up for common rules and about driving development forward. Sweden has had a strong voice in the EU without being part of the EMU, just as the Finance Minister said.

What threatens our influence today is not the crown, but that the government's climate policy undermines Sweden's role as a reliable and progressive partner in the challenges that lie ahead of us. Let us also remember the euro crisis. Greece is doing better today, but from a significantly lower level than before the crisis. Behind the statistics are years of mass unemployment, cuts, and social catastrophes.

We shall be a country that pushes for a stronger EU. We shall build more common climate policy, more common security and more common justice. But a strong Europe also requires respect for different economic structures. Sweden shall cooperate with the eurozone, just as we do today, but not join the euro.

That is why we in Miljöpartiet say yes to the EU, yes to more European cooperation, but no to a common currency.

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! By standing outside the euro, Sweden signals that our country hesitates before full EU membership, that we reserve ourselves and do not fully believe in the European cooperation. We stand with one foot inside and the other foot outside.

The world no longer allows Swedish policy of caution. We have already tried that. The world needs European decisiveness, where Sweden is an important component and has influence. Sweden's geopolitical position, our security and our future require that we choose and show which community we belong to.

Opponents say that the euro takes away our independence and that Sweden will have to pay for others' crises. It is a scare tactic based on risks that today are significantly smaller. Major crises in Europe affect Sweden regardless of whether we stand outside or are included, and therefore it is better to sit at the table all the way and influence rather than stand aside and be affected.

For us liberals, the risks of continuing to stand outside are greater for the economy and competitiveness, but also for security and safety. Alone is not strong. Alone is just alone. When the world is characterized by trade wars and geopolitical unrest, the Swedish krona becomes more vulnerable. When the stock market and the world economy fluctuate sharply, our currency becomes more unstable. Then independence does not matter.

Madam Speaker! Several parties have today said that they can consider investigating the issue. The Liberals welcome all steps towards EU membership. We need to act immediately with both an investigation and a mapping of what is required for a euro option so that we can quickly join if it should be required.

For the Liberals, it is obvious. We know that Sweden's future is European. We know that we are stronger together than each one alone. We also know that the community in Europe must be built not only in words but also in action.

That is why we say what other parties do not dare: that it is time to make Sweden's EU membership complete. It is time to move from standing on the sidelines to standing together. It is time to introduce the euro.

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! We stand here after a long euro debate. We can certainly agree that it has been quite a long time since we had a referendum on the euro here in this country. We can certainly agree that the world has changed in so many ways since then. We can certainly agree on the quote from Mark Carney, who in turn quoted someone else: Nostalgia is not a strategy.

Well, and now I am looking a bit resignedly at my eminent colleague from the Liberals, we are getting nowhere here. No investigation is being appointed. This is one of the Liberals' absolutely most important issues, but you are getting nowhere at all with your government. It seems as if it is SD that is deciding and blocking everything.

What shall we do? How shall we get anywhere? How shall we achieve a readiness to be able to join the euro? What is the way forward?

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! I am very glad that we have had this debate, because I think it is an important piece of consumer information for the Swedish people before the election this autumn regarding where the parties stand.

Our most important issue, I just want to emphasize, is school, education and that everyone should get the same life chances. There are many issues that we can drive simultaneously. Euron is one of them. We were also very clear about a Nato membership, and we have been clear regarding nuclear power. There are many other issues where we have been right.

I think this is a bit of a political game. I would like to invite the Center Party to join in for real. I see it as that we have come a very long way! We have been for this issue since 2003. Now the Center Party has changed its mind, and KD and the Moderates have opened up to investigate the issue. The Finance Minister says that she wants to do it next mandate period. Yes, I want to do it faster, but my god – is this not progress?

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

Martin Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I gladly accept invitations of all kinds from Cecilia Rönn, perhaps not just to the Tidösamarbetet.

If we look at the issues, it doesn't feel very appealing to join the Tidö cooperation. Even if you burn your whole European heart for something and want to stand up for it and get it moving forward, you will absolutely get nowhere, because the largest party decides and drives our country in a completely different direction, in many ways in the same direction as Trump – back inwards and against what serves our small businesses and our economic interests. They even decide on one of the Liberals' absolutely most important issues. Is it not time to break free so that we can at least get something done in these important European issues?

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

Cecilia Rönn (L)

Madam Speaker! There is a great difference between our parties here, because even though I sympathize with very much of what the Center Party stands for, we have seen the realities and choose to take responsibility. The Liberals have implemented very large reforms in schools during this parliamentary term. We have allocated resources to schools and to welfare. We have strengthened small businesses, expanded the growth support, lowered employer contributions, and lowered the tax on income. We are getting a lot of policy through.

I am completely convinced that we will also get the Sweden Democrats on board to investigate the issue of the euro, and I wonder: Is the probability greater that Martin Ådahl gets the Left Party and the Green Party on board to investigate the issue of the euro?

I think that this does not need to be a question of bloc politics. We need to investigate the issue, discuss it and take a position when we receive an investigation on the table. For us, it is clear: We need to change currency as soon as possible.

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

Finansministern Elisabeth Svantesson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to everyone who has participated in this debate!

Sweden stands stable, both economically and politically. We have turned high inflation into low, and we are now turning low growth into significantly higher. But much remains to be done. We are not there yet. We four parties that are cooperating want to continue turning the development and strengthen Sweden.

As Finance Minister, it is obvious to me that I think it is important to investigate the question of the euro and the krona. It does not have to mean that one has any given direction toward what one wants – on the contrary. The matter is worth evaluating and investigating.

We will never do anything over the heads of the Swedish people; that is absolutely self-evident. My starting point from the very beginning was that the Swedish people have spoken. But the world is changing and the EU is changing, and then we must also dare to evaluate, investigate and analyze – for the best of Sweden, Swedish households and Swedish companies.

Thank you for the debate! It was held in a very good tone, and I believe that many who listened appreciated that.

The special debate was hereby concluded.

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