Subsidiarity check of the Commission's proposal for a regulation establishing the instrument for strengthening the European defense industry through joint procurement

Helén Pettersson (S)

Madam Speaker! Today we shall debate, or at least discuss, the Committee on Defence's report number 2 Subsidiarity check of the Commission's proposal for a regulation establishing the instrument for strengthening the European defence industry through joint procurement.

I want to begin by emphasizing to the Chamber and to any listeners following the debate that this is a subsidiarity test. This simply means that the committee shall decide whether the proposal for a regulation violates the subsidiarity principle, that is, whether it is a matter that should be handled at the national level or at the EU level. The discussion is therefore not about the political issue itself.

The Committee on Defence is entirely in agreement in its report that this proposal violates the subsidiarity principle. The Committee bases this position on the fact that the proposal lacks a impact assessment ensuring that the Commission is not given greater influence over defense policy decisions that were previously made at the national level.

Furthermore, the committee considers that the European defense industrial and technological base is strengthened through competition and consolidation on market-based grounds and conditions, which is not reflected in the proposal. The proposed regulation instead gives the Commission the opportunity to direct the allocation of funds based on criteria that are not yet sufficiently transparent and measurable. This entails increased administration and increased supranational governance and control.

We are also in the committee in agreement that the proposal needs to be further analyzed and balanced against individual member states' conditions to determine which measures are most effective and expedient. It is defense policy, requirements for information security and security of supply that form the basis for whether defense materiel should be procured nationally or jointly in the union.

Madam Speaker! We view the Commission's overall ambition to strengthen Europe's defense capability fundamentally positively. At the same time, it is important to safeguard Swedish interests and national decision-making authority in matters concerning national defense and material supply.

We do not see here that the Commission has presented sufficiently clearly how the Member States' right to oversight and influence is ensured. Therefore, Madam Speaker, we do not consider the proposal for a regulation to be compatible with the subsidiarity principle, as these issues are primarily national competencies.

I note once again that it is a completely unanimous committee in this matter, but I move, for the sake of order, for approval of the proposal in the report.

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

Sven-Olof Sällström (SD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating whether a proposal from the European Commission to give the EU greater influence over joint procurement in the defense policy area violates the so-called subsidiarity principle.

During the vote later this afternoon, it appears that a unanimous Riksdag, which considers that the Commission's proposal violates the principle of subsidiarity, will decide to send a so-called reasoned opinion to the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission.

Madam Speaker! The principle of subsidiarity applies, according to the Treaty on European Union, to those areas where the EU does not have exclusive competence. It means that the EU shall take action only if the objective of the planned action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States themselves.

Today, there are no obstacles for the member states to bilaterally, through agreements between one or more member countries, carry out joint procurements in the defense area.

Madam Speaker! The Committee on Defence notes that the proposal lacks a proper impact assessment. The Committee on Defence also considers that the European defence industry is strengthened through competition and consolidation on market-based grounds.

Defense policy, requirements for information security and security of supply constitute the basis for whether defense materiel should be procured nationally or jointly at the Union level. The Committee considers that the proposal for a regulation is not compatible with the subsidiarity principle, as these issues are primarily national competencies.

Madam Speaker! Finally, even though we are today discussing whether the Commission's proposal is compatible with the subsidiarity principle, I would still like to mention something about the matter in substance.

Right now, we live in a restless time. After Russia's nearly eight months-long brutal war of aggression against Ukraine, there is a great need in most EU countries to both replace the defense materiel that has been transferred to Ukraine and, for the future, significantly strengthen the national defense capability.

We are therefore probably heading towards a situation where the European defense industry will be running at full throttle during the next 10-15 years. In that situation, presenting a proposal that ultimately reduces competition, consolidates the defense industry and steers towards joint procurement risks delaying the buildup of defense capability.

We need, on the contrary, a situation where a large number of suppliers can contribute to our common security through fair competition and cutting-edge competence in research and development. The Commission's proposal risks instead, by prioritizing certain suppliers, delaying deliveries, creating bottlenecks, driving up prices, and in the long run worsening our common defense capability.

I want to conclude by moving for approval of the committee's proposal to send a so-called reasoned opinion.

In this speech, Sara-Lena Bjälkö (SD) agreed.

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

Pål Jonson (M)

Madam Speaker! Today's debate is important - this despite the fact that it is a unanimous Defense Committee that has stood behind the conclusion that the Commission's proposal on the joint procurement of defense materiel - in its current form - is not compatible with the subsidiarity principle.

Mr. Speaker, the reason why today's debate is important is that we need to discuss the development of the EU's security and defense policy in light of a number of events occurring simultaneously. Sweden is at perhaps the greatest turning point in its security policy in over half a century.

Firstly, in less than three months, Sweden will take over the EU presidency. At that time, we will lead a union with 450 million inhabitants. Simultaneously, a full-scale war is raging in Europe through Russia's illegal, unprovoked, and unjustifiable invasion of Ukraine. This entails a heavy responsibility.

Of course, security and defense issues will be very high on the Swedish agenda during the presidency. Many issues, including the one we are debating now, will be handled by the Swedish presidency.

Secondly, a Swedish NATO accession will also undoubtedly affect Sweden's interests and our view on how the EU should develop as a security and defense policy actor.

There are, therefore, weighty reasons to carefully consider whether it is in the interest of Sweden and the EU to open up for joint defense procurements that are partly supranational in character, and whether this corresponds to the interests that Sweden and the EU have as the regulation is designed at this moment.

Madam Speaker! The reason for the committee's position is, firstly, that there is a lack of a thoroughly worked-out impact assessment of what consequences the proposal will entail. FMV argues, for example, in its referral response that the regulation may lead to increased supranational governance and control, but also that it can create more administration.

Against the background of the vague criteria linked to the regulation, there is also a risk that it is only the defense industries of the large member states, which have established international material cooperation, that can benefit from the regulation.

Madam Speaker! There is therefore a risk that the regulation will not achieve its objectives.

Secondly, there are today good conditions to carry out joint defense procurements on an intergovernmental basis through the European Defence Agency EDA, through what is called Occar, and also through NATO's NSPA. There are therefore alternatives to the proposal that the Commission presents.

Thirdly, in recent years, there has been a flood of various initiatives to strengthen the EU's military capacity development and also its defense industrial base. It is fundamentally good. I am thinking of proposals such as PESCO, EDF, CARD, EDIDP and European Preparatory Action, to name a few.

I believe, however, Madam Speaker, that there are reasons to reflect on and consolidate the proposals that have been adopted before embracing new ones, especially if they can have far-reaching consequences for national competence in the defense area.

The Swedish presidency has, in dialogue with the troika, committed to establishing a stronger coherence between the EU's various defense initiatives.

Madam Speaker! With all this said, the Moderates want to strengthen and deepen EU's security and defense policy cooperation, while we consider that Nato constitutes the guarantee for collective defense and is more important than ever. Ultimately, this is about the EU also having to take a greater responsibility for Europe's security and having instruments and tools that are complementary to Nato. A stronger EU is not in opposition to a stronger Nato.

The single most important issue right now for strengthening the EU's common security and defense policy is that we now fully implement what is called the EU's Strategic Compass with the over 50 concrete commitments that this entails. This also includes, just as the Commission proposes, a more efficient military capability building and a strengthening of the European defense industry.

We therefore share the intention in the Commission's proposal, but we believe that there are other ways to achieve this intention. For example, there has been talk for a long time about harmonizing what is called capability requirements. One would also need to have a much more transparent and competitive European defense market. We would need to have larger joint investments in research and development, and we would need to harmonize the national defense decision-making processes better. We believe that way is just as effective when it comes to moving forward on the issue.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has fundamentally very good conditions to influence and benefit from a deepened EU cooperation in this area. There is no country in the world of comparable size that has such a defense industrial capability. Sweden is a country that can produce fighter jets, surface combat ships, submarines and very advanced ground combat vehicles. We have a strong defense research in an international comparison through FOI, and we are also good at innovation.

Sweden should therefore - more than most - be able to participate in and lead and reap the fruits of increased cooperation within the EU. But that requires that we know what we want and how we are to design, use and benefit from the new initiatives that I just mentioned. It must not only be about us being against different forms of initiatives, but we must also have alternatives for how we want the EU to develop as a defense policy actor.

From the Moderates' side, we have therefore said that we want to launch a strategy for the EU's security and defense policy and a new defense industry strategy to provide guidance for priorities on how we want the EU cooperation to develop.

We also want to see increased Swedish participation in more Pescoprojects, and we welcome an increased inclusion of third countries such as UK - UK - Norway, Turkey and Canada.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker: Sometimes in politics, one can approach issues from different perspectives but arrive at a common standpoint, and I think that is what we have done here today in the chamber. I know that there are differing preferences for how the EU should develop. But it is a great strength when we are united in this chamber, because then we have better conditions to jointly drive positions together with other like-minded countries within the EU.

The Moderates therefore want to see more European cooperation in security and defense policy. But for us to succeed with that, it is required that the proposals we are dealing with are proportionate and well-elaborated and that they have good impact assessments. Here, the Commission's proposals leave much to be desired.

With this, Madam Speaker, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

In this speech, Gustaf Göthberg (M) agreed.

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

Hanna Gunnarsson (V)

Madam Speaker! Hello to all of you who are listening! This is the first debate of the mandate period here in the chamber of the Riksdag, and it is a so-called subsidiarity test of an EU matter. The Riksdag shall examine whether a proposal from the EU can be implemented at the EU level or if it is most appropriate for the issue to be handled by the national parliaments, i.e., here in the Swedish Riksdag.

Vänsterpartiet usually considers it most appropriate that decisions are made as close to the affected citizens as possible. We are therefore usually opposed to moving more power to the EU from the Swedish Riksdag, and we are definitely opposed to more EU governance of defense and security policy and foreign policy. From Vänsterpartiet's side, we say no to increased military cooperation in the EU.

The matter that the Committee on Defence has now taken a position on is precisely about giving the EU more power within defense policy, more specifically regarding procurement of defense materiel. This is what Vänsterpartiet is against. There are also objections from our own agencies, which state that the consequences of the proposal have not been studied sufficiently and that the requirements for information security and security of supply are not high enough.

Vänsterpartiet argues that decisions should be made as close to the citizens as possible, and we are therefore pleased that the Committee on Defence has done something as unique as saying no to this issue being decided by the EU and that we thus rejected the issue in the subsidiarity test. It is Sweden's Riksdag that shall make decisions on all parts of Sweden's defence policy; that is Vänsterpartiet's view.

I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal.

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

Mikael Larsson (C)

Madam Speaker! For the Centre Party, cooperation is important both within Sweden and within the European Union. There is unrest in our world right now, and in that case, cooperation within Europe and within the EU is even more important.

In the proposal we are now discussing regarding the subsidiarity test of the Commission's proposal for a regulation establishing instruments to strengthen the European defense industry through a joint procurement, we share the opinion that the committee has fully settled on. We also share the committee's view that important impact assessments are missing in the Commission's proposal. At the same time, we see that cooperation within the EU and Europe regarding defense and security is needed. However, as both the government and the committee point out, there must not be too much administration and burden surrounding these types of issues.

Centerpartiet is here, as in other areas, for example, because the European defense industrial and technical base is strengthened through competition and consolidation on market-based grounds and conditions.

Something that is also important moving forward in this issue is precisely that defense policy, requirements for information security, and security of supply constitute the basis for whether defense materiel should be procured nationally or jointly at the Union level. We share the committee's assessment and writings in these matters.

With that, Madam Speaker, I also wish to conclude by, on behalf of the Centre Party, move for the approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

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

Mikael Oscarsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are discussing a subsidiarity matter. I would like, as a preliminary point, to move for approval of the committee's proposal, which is based on the view we all share: This is a proposal that contravenes the subsidiarity principle and something that can be better decided at the Swedish level.

Now that we have the first defense policy debate for the mandate period, we can, as several have pointed out, remind ourselves that we are in a very serious situation. We have the toughest defense policy situation since World War II. We have an offensive war ongoing. We have scenes that we have not seen since World War II when Hitler and Stalin raged.

There is every reason for us in Sweden and Europe to strengthen our defense capability. In that regard, it is of utmost importance that we reach 2 percent of GDP. It is also NATO membership for Sweden, together with other NATO countries, that provides security for us and for our surrounding area.

The proposal that is on the table today, we do not believe is the right way to go. It can complicate matters for both Swedish defense capability and the Swedish defense industry. Therefore, we believe there is reason to agree with the joint statement and say no to this, which we believe does not strengthen anything more than, in that case, the bureaucracy. It is nothing that is needed.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 9.)

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