Subsidiarity test of the Commission's proposal for a regulation establishing a crisis instrument for the internal market
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns whether the Commission's proposal for a crisis instrument for the internal market is compatible with the subsidiarity principle. S welcomes the proposal to ensure free movement during crises but argues that the proposal is not in all parts compatible with the principle as legal grounds and proportionality need to be clarified 1. M considers that ambiguities can be handled during the negotiation process and sees no reason to issue a reasoned opinion 2. SD welcomes the proposal but considers that it is not certainly compatible with the subsidiarity principle and wants the Riksdag to emphasize that the member states' competence shall be respected 3. KD considers that the proposal is compatible with the principle provided that the Commission clarifies certain parts 4.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Aida Birinxhiku (S)
Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the subsidiarity test of the Commission's proposal for a regulation establishing a crisis instrument for the internal market.
I want to begin by underlining to the Chamber and any potential listeners that the debate is about whether the proposal is compatible with the subsidiarity principle, that is, whether it is something that should be decided at the national level or at the EU level. The debate is therefore not about the political issue itself.
Mr. Speaker! Free movement in the internal market must function even in times of crisis. For a small, export-dependent country like Sweden, a well-functioning internal market with free movement is crucial for creating jobs, welfare, and growth. A well-functioning internal market is also a prerequisite for increased growth, employment, and competitiveness throughout Europe.
The actions of different member states after the pandemic and Russia's war of invasion in Ukraine show that it is particularly important to safeguard the principles of free movement in crisis situations. During the pandemic, member countries were hit hard by closed borders, delivery disruptions, and trade restrictions. Individual crisis measures were taken without any coordination or communication. It showed how vulnerable the internal market actually is.
We therefore welcome the European Commission's proposal for a crisis instrument to secure the free movement of persons, goods and services even in times of crisis. The protectionist tendencies that intensified during the pandemic remain to some extent, and in the wake of the crisis, it is more important than ever to stand up for free, sustainable and fair trade.
It is clear that the member states must cooperate and take greater responsibility regarding compliance with the rules of the internal market. We must be able to get through crises together.
Mr. Speaker! Regarding those parts of the Commission's proposal that concern ensuring that the internal market functions even in times of crisis, I want to emphasize that we do not make any other assessment than the Commission. What we, however, question are the proposals of a more intervening nature.
The proposal contains, among other things, provisions on securing access to goods and services of strategic importance. There is a need to clarify how these provisions relate to the legal basis stated. The legal basis for and the need for the Commission's powers need to be further analyzed – otherwise, there is an obvious risk that these provisions will encroach upon the Member States' national competence.
We also consider that the proposal's compatibility with the principle of proportionality should be clarified regarding the consequences for the Member States and the effect on competition, especially concerning the proposals of a more intervening character. The Member States naturally have a great interest in being able to oversee both the cost-related and actual consequences. This also applies to companies when it comes to, for example, workload and competitiveness.
It is important, Mr. Speaker, that there is a reasonable balance between the instrument's purpose and the interest of maintaining a free and open market even in times of crisis. Against this background, we consider that it cannot be stated with certainty that the proposal is compatible with the subsidiarity principle in all parts.
Mr. Speaker! The issue surrounding the legal basis and the principle of proportionality is something highlighted in several referral responses, including those from the Competition Authority, the Swedish Agency for Trade and Investments, and Svenskt Näringsliv. In fact, this is also highlighted by the government. The government also assesses that the relationship between the legal basis and the provisions on goods and services of strategic importance needs to be clarified. The government even goes a step further and says that certain parts of the proposal may need to be adjusted so that it is considered proportionate regarding the measures aimed at securing the availability of goods and services in crisis situations.
The committee members who have reserved themselves share the government's assessment. The only difference from our assessment is that, despite these uncertainties, they arrive at the conclusion that the proposal is compatible with the subsidiarity principle.
It is not entirely clear what the government thinks, but the government seems to land on some kind of conditional approval of the subsidiarity test which is dependent on the continued negotiation process.
The subsidiarity test is taking place here and now, and the uncertainties that exist make it difficult to reach the conclusion that the proposal is, in all parts, compatible with the subsidiarity principle. It is regrettable that the government at this stage has not produced the clarifications that are needed and that have been requested by the actors concerned.
The principle of subsidiarity is about decisions being made as close to the citizens as possible, and we must have great respect for that. It also means that power cannot be shifted to the EU Commission on general and vague grounds.
Mr. Speaker! We welcome the Commission's ambition to increase the Member States' opportunities to manage future crises together, but we believe that this proposal is not in all parts compatible with the principle of subsidiarity.
Against this background, I would like to move for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of the reservation.
Ann-Charlotte Hammar Johnsson (M)
Mr. Speaker! This matter concerns the subsidiarity test of the Commission's proposal for a regulation establishing a crisis instrument for the internal market. It means that we have to decide today whether the proposal from the EU Commission should be decided at the national level or at the EU level. This is what the subsidiarity principle entails.
The crisis instrument aims to ensure the free movement of goods, services, and persons within the internal market during a crisis. The proposal shall guarantee the availability of goods and services of strategic importance in a crisis situation.
The background is that during the covid-19 pandemic, there were member states that put up obstacles to the free movement of people, which stopped and slowed down supply chains. With that experience, the Commission has identified a need to strengthen the resilience of the internal market overall and during crises.
What kind of crisis will come in the future we do not know; we have no overview of this. On the other hand, we know that it will come, and one can prepare for it by learning as much as possible from what previous crises have shown.
There is an added value in creating mechanisms for rapid and structured communication between the Member States and the Commission for coordination and information exchange in crisis situations similar to those that arose during the covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, we believe that the ambiguities highlighted in the government's assessment of whether the proposal is compatible with the subsidiarity principle can be addressed along the way during the usual negotiation process of the proposal for a regulation.
Therefore, we see no reason to issue a reasoned opinion from the Riksdag. We believe that the committee should submit the report for public record.
I move for approval of the reservation from the Moderates, the Christian Democrats and the Liberals.
I would like to conclude by wishing everyone a Merry Christmas.
Jessica Stegrud (SD)
Mr. Speaker! One of the last debates before the holidays concerns the Commission's proposal for a regulation establishing a crisis instrument for the internal market and the report in which the Committee on Enterprise has carried out a subsidiarity test of the same.
Every proposal for legislation that the EU Commission puts forward shall undergo a so-called subsidiarity test. Simply put, each parliament shall examine and decide whether there is any point in regulating the area at EU level or whether it is better regulated by the member states themselves. Proposals shall also be tested for proportionality, which concerns determining whether the EU Commission is taking too much or not.
At the core, there are no abyssal contradictions between the parties on the issue in question. The Riksdag sees the value of creating mechanisms for rapid and structured communication between the member states and the Commission and for coordination and information exchange in crisis situations similar to those that arose during the covid-19 pandemic or as a consequence of Russia's war in Ukraine.
The Sweden Democrats and the majority on the issue thus welcome the Commission's proposal for a crisis instrument in the internal market which, under strict conditions, shall ensure the free movement of persons, goods and services even in times of crisis.
In the opinion of the majority, it is important that the principle of free movement is protected during times of crisis, but we in the majority do not consider the proposal to be compatible with the subsidiarity principle in all parts. We therefore propose that the Riksdag decides to submit a reasoned opinion to the Presidents of the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission.
The Commission's proposal aims to ensure that the internal market functions well even in crisis situations. The proposal also contains provisions to secure the availability of goods and services of strategic importance, that is, goods and services that are absolutely necessary in order to ensure that the internal market functions in strategically important areas and which cannot be replaced or diversified.
In this context, we believe that there is a need to clarify how these provisions relate to the legal basis stated. In a situation where it is unclear how these provisions relate to the stated legal basis, the majority believes that there is a risk that the proposal will, in some parts, encroach upon the member states' national competence.
The Committee therefore considers that it cannot be considered with certainty that the proposal is compatible with the subsidiarity principle.
Mr. Speaker! For us Sweden Democrats, it is important that the Riksdag, with today's decision, points out to the EU Commission that the subsidiarity principle shall be respected and that one cannot once again exploit crises to advance their own and the EU's positions at the expense of the member states.
The Commission should present proposals that create conditions for the internal market to function well without encroaching on the competence of the Member States. Ultimately, the EU's already damaged confidence and popular anchoring are at stake.
Finally, I believe that significant decisions should be made on a factual basis and preceded by sound consequence analyses. Therefore, I welcome that there is a majority in the Riksdag that considers that the proposal's compatibility with the principle of proportionality should be clarified regarding the consequences for the member countries and the effect.
Mr. Speaker! With that said, I move for the approval of the committee's proposal and wish everyone a Merry Christmas.
Lili André (KD)
Mr. Speaker! We Christian Democrats consider that the proposal for a parliamentary decision should have the following wording: The Riksdag decides not to submit a reasoned opinion to the President of the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission and submits the statement for the record.
We Christian Democrats welcome the proposal for a crisis instrument in the internal market which, among other things, aims to ensure that free movement in the internal market functions even in times of crisis.
The proposal also contains provisions on securing access to goods and services of strategic importance, that is, goods and services that are absolutely necessary to ensure that the internal market functions in strategically important areas and which cannot be replaced or diversified.
In line with the government, we in the Christian Democrats see a need for balanced legislation that strengthens the internal market, promotes transparency, and benefits all member states. It is particularly important during times of crisis that the principles of free movement are protected. Therefore, there is an added value in creating mechanisms for rapid and structured communication between the member states and the Commission for coordination and information exchange in crisis situations.
We Christian Democrats share the government's assessment that the proposal is compatible with the subsidiarity principle, provided that the Commission clarifies the relationship between these provisions and the legal basis. We support the government's intention to ensure that the proposal's approach to securing free movement during a crisis is compatible with the proportionality principle.
The proposal's compatibility with the subsidiarity principle can be resolved during the usual negotiation process for the proposed regulation. We therefore see no reason for the Riksdag to submit a reasoned opinion to the President of the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission with the wording as set out in Annex 2.
Mr. Speaker! We therefore propose that the Riksdag submit the committee's report for consideration.
Subsidiarity test of EU proposals
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.