Response to interpellation 2024/25:288 on the euro as Swedish currency
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
I believe that the question of the euro is not currently relevant 1 2 3 and that a reconsideration requires strong popular support 1 3. I emphasize that Sweden has well-managed public finances and low debt 2 as well as that participation in the banking union is closely linked to euro adoption 3. I believe that common EU rules give Sweden greater muscles against global challenges 4 and that Sweden should be a constructive force in the EU 4. MP believes that the government is right not to do a complete U-turn 5 but advocates for an investigation without preconditions 5 and negotiations on an exemption 6. MP believes that euro adoption would strengthen Sweden's influence and remove currency risks 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)
Madam Speaker! I have asked Minister Elisabeth Svantesson if she will take the initiative for a public inquiry that examines both the advantages and disadvantages of Sweden's accession to the euro, what her position is on a new referendum on the euro, whether she and the government will negotiate for a Swedish exemption from the introduction of the euro, and what her position is on Sweden joining the EU's banking union.
The interpellation has been handed over to me.
Since 1999, the euro has been the official currency in the eurozone, and 20 of the EU's 27 member states have the euro as their currency. Sweden does not participate in the EU's currency union. This should be seen against the background of the outcome of the advisory referendum that took place in 2003 and which the parliamentary parties at the time chose to respect. An initiative for a reconsideration of that position should rest on a strong popular anchoring. The question is not current at present.
Since 2014, there has been a common system for supervision of banks and management of banks in crisis in the euro area, the EU's banking union. Sweden does not participate in the EU's banking union. In the report Sweden and the banking union (SOU 2019:52), the advantages and disadvantages of Swedish participation in the EU's banking union are presented. The question is complex and is clearly associated with the question of Swedish participation in the EU's currency union.
Rasmus Ling (MP)
Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Minister Niklas Wykman, for the answer, which was short and concise, which one is not used to from Minister Wykman. But we do have the chance to discuss the issue further in a few exchanges here, which I look forward to.
The Swedish people voted in 2003 on which currency Sweden should have, whether we should keep the krona or switch to the euro. The result that time was clear. The Swedish people said no to the euro. I think, Madam Speaker, that Niklas Wykman and the government are right not to do anything hasty in the other direction.
The Swedish people were clear, but one should also not see a referendum from nearly 22 years ago as something that is forever carved in stone. As with other issues, it is possible to make new decisions and at least discuss which paths one should take moving forward.
A considerable amount of time has passed since 2003. A large number of eligible voters today were not born in 2003. Sweden, Europe, and the world look very different in many ways today. This was before Allians för Sverige existed, just to take one example. It was before the great euro crisis of 2008-2010. We used cash in a completely different way then than we do today. Above all, the Eastern European countries were not involved either in the euro or in the EU to any particularly large extent. This was also before Brexit.
Today, the situation is different in many ways. The EU now consists of 27 countries that also cooperate more and more on more and more issues, and 20 of these countries use the euro as a currency every day. The reasons for cooperation have become stronger, not least against the background of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the climate crisis, and now also the increased protectionism from the USA.
Madam Speaker! I therefore think that the government is right not to simply do a complete U-turn. On the other hand, I think that those from the right-wing parties could learn a bit from the Nato process and the criticism that was directed at how the Socialdemokraterna acted in that matter. It was said from the Socialdemokraterna side that the issue was not current – the same wording that Niklas Wykman uses in his answer here – and it was not. But then it became so, and I believe that readiness was needed, both actual as well as mental, in preparation for things to potentially change, and that one therefore needs to push and pull arguments and also take in more knowledge.
This is an issue where there are different views even within the parties, it should be remembered, and that was also largely the case in 2003. Since then, several parties have changed their position on this, and because the issue has not been discussed particularly much in recent years, it is possible that more could be given new perspectives to take a stand on.
Madam Speaker! I believe that the government should appoint an investigation into the euro without any preconditions, why not a parliamentary one, and let it review both the advantages and disadvantages. I would therefore like to ask the Minister if he is prepared to do so.
Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)
Madam Speaker! The question is not relevant, and I have no such announcement to make today.
However, I place great value on Rasmus Ling's way of reasoning around the issue. It is good if difficult questions can be preceded by a transparent discussion where many parties are given the opportunity to participate and where the country's citizens have the opportunity to reflect on the choices that they face.
I can also do nothing but agree with Rasmus Ling that the world today is in many ways very different from how it was then, which of course can add to arguments both for and against a euro adoption.
As a liberal person, I rejoice at the general development in Sweden, where we seek more international cooperation and communities. The NATO accession is such an example. Now Sweden finally stands fully and firmly with the rest of the Western world for our values and principles regarding democracy, peace, security, and human rights.
Other areas where a similar, though not as binary, development has occurred are, for example, the environmental area, where I know that both Rasmus Ling and I have a warm commitment. There we have had a joyful and, probably, for me and Rasmus Ling a common victory in that very many issues in the environmental area have become important European issues.
Each individual can, of course, make efforts that both improve and worsen the environment, nature, and climate, but it is quite obvious that the major changes can be achieved if many of us do them together. A reasonably good regulation for very many people can have a much greater effect than a completely perfect regulation for a few people, and in area after area, there has been a shift towards more community in areas that are by their nature cross-border.
I can also just sign off on everything that Rasmus Ling says about world developments. Great Britain has left the EU cooperation, and Rasmus Ling mentions – a bit implicitly, I think – that it is clear that there is a difference in that Sweden was then a country that, together with Great Britain and others, was in the EU but not in the euro cooperation. Now Sweden no longer has that community with Great Britain, but now we stand with other countries outside the euro cooperation but in the EU cooperation.
One can continue for quite a long time in that manner by stacking pros and cons on top of each other. One can, of course, direct a great deal of criticism toward how crises have arisen and how countries manage their economies and so on.
One can observe that the euro has nevertheless endured and survived through crises. Others might add that many European countries have substantial problems with their public finances, which we do not have in Sweden. In Sweden, we have well-managed public finances. They are resilient. We have low debt. We have a very high degree of sustainability in our public finances if one compares them with others.
I share Rasmus Ling's approach that this is suitable for a large and broad discussion. Perhaps one can add that an inquiry is not necessarily the only way to have a discussion. There are, of course, many others who also have the opportunity to reason further regarding the euro issue. That one reasons further and delves deeper into something does not necessarily have to take the form of a government inquiry. I do not exclude that this is an issue that could be suitable for such a format, but I do not have such a statement to give today.
Rasmus Ling (MP)
Madam Speaker! There are, of course, more opportunities to discuss issues than in government inquiries. I foresee that it will be so in due time, both in seminar form and all around the country on streets and squares. Nevertheless, they are a very good way to gain more knowledge. It can also trigger discussions elsewhere when leading politicians delve into issues. It usually leads to further discussion.
Madam Speaker! I also believe that it can be seen that countries that use the euro and are part of that cooperation have the problems that Niklas Wykman mentions. I am, however, convinced that the question of whether countries manage their fiscal policy and do not incur too much debt is not in itself related to the euro. I believe one can be quite sure that even Sweden will be affected in cases where financial crises arise. If we are included, however, we will have a greater impact on the decisions that are made.
Madam Speaker! I also want to say something about the formalities regarding the question of the euro. Formally speaking, Sweden is bound to introduce it. Unlike, for example, Denmark, we have not had any exemption. In the years after the 2003 referendum, many motioned in the Swedish Riksdag that Sweden should seek such an exemption, but it has not been done. If the government does not envision Sweden joining the euro cooperation, one should apply for and negotiate to obtain such an exemption. That was one of my questions, but no answer was given, and I hope to receive one.
Madam Speaker! To follow up on Denmark – there, a fairly significant change in the view on EU cooperation has been signaled against the background of global changes, above all the full-scale invasion. Denmark has often been reserved regarding cooperation and, similar to Sweden, has opposed, for example, the EU taking out joint loans. But they have now opened up to reconsider this in order to jointly be able to fund the support for Ukraine and strengthen competitiveness. The question, therefore, is whether the Swedish government sees that the changes in the world lead to a changed view on these types of EU issues.
Madam Speaker! Finally, I shall say something about the banking union and the investigation that in 2019 looked at the pros and cons of joining it. It was a solid product, which also went out for consultation. Several consulting bodies welcomed that this issue was highlighted in a multifaceted way. For example, Svenskt Näringsliv did not think we should join, but they also said it was good to look at it. Riksbanken did not take a position. Neither did Bankföreningen. But it has been quite a few years since then. Does the government see reason to look at that question once more?
Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)
Madam Speaker! The question of participation in the banking union is closely linked to EU membership. I am not saying that it is technically an absolutely necessary prerequisite, but it is nevertheless naturally connected in many ways. One or the other is probably not as relevant as both in this case.
Regarding Rasmus Ling's other questions, I can really only repeat my answer that an initiative to reconsider our position should rest on a strong popular anchoring. The question is not current at present. Even though the world has changed, the Swedish opinion does not seem to have changed particularly much. It is probably still a reasonable prerequisite for such a project that there is some shift in opinion in one direction or the other. I do not intend to dig myself deeper into any trench than that in this matter.
Madam Speaker! I am aware that it is the interpellor who asks the questions and I who provide the answers, but my curiosity has nevertheless been triggered. What does the interpellor themselves think about the questions regarding euro adoption and bank union membership? It could possibly have an impact on public opinion if there are politicians and parties who have traditionally had a very cautious or negative attitude toward this who suddenly were to turn out to be in favor.
Rasmus Ling (MP)
Madam Speaker! I appreciate questions as long as they are posed in reasonable amounts and proportions, and I am happy to answer this one. I belong to those who have shifted on the issue. I voted no in the referendum in 2003 and still think it was right to do so then. But I think the world has changed in such a way that if it had been a referendum today, I would have voted for the euro. My party has not yet landed on the issue, but we are having discussions and hope that it will be decided in more places. I believe that this will become more and more pressing.
Niklas Wykman speaks about the popular anchoring, and I can certainly agree to the extent that I have not seen any demonstrations at Sergels torg to join the euro. I can state that when opinion polls ask people, there is no one hundred percent support behind a no. It is still a large proportion who think that this would be a good idea. I can also state that in the government there are parties in the Ministry of Employment - and perhaps primarily in the Ministry of Education - who think that it would be very good. I also believe that there are many around the country who have not thought about this but who would gladly form an opinion.
Madam Speaker! I think the strongest reasons for this are that it would mean deeper political integration, that it would strengthen Sweden's influence in the EU, that we would get rid of currency risks, and that it is about a proven currency, which 20 countries use every day. I hope that this is something the government can look further into in the future.
Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)
Madam Speaker! I thank Rasmus Ling for the account of his assessment of the issue. I naturally take that to heart, as do other assessments I hear. I understand that when one listens to the discussion, it can appear a bit dull, passive, or well, cautious, to put it that way. But that is part of the role when one is to steer in very difficult and complicated issues. This is genuinely difficult. There are convincing arguments against a euro adoption, and there are convincing arguments for a euro adoption.
Sweden has recently taken large steps into the Western community by becoming fully integrated into Nato. To some extent, of course, that is where Sweden belongs. We shall not be spectators and sit on the sidelines when it comes to our common international security. We shall be involved. I am glad that Sweden is there.
I am also pleased about the major forward movements that have been made in EU cooperation, for example in the environmental area. Not everything is perfect or finished, but the fact that we can unite the EU countries around common EU rules in the environmental area obviously gives us much greater muscles when we face global challenges regarding nature, animals, and climate. In that spirit, Sweden shall always be a constructive and driving force in EU cooperation.
When it comes to the euro, I have no new announcements to give here today, but I welcome that there is a broad and deep discussion about the euro cooperation among both experts and people in general. To that extent, I share the interpellator's reasoning that this is an issue that should be discussed. But I have no announcements to give today regarding membership or investigations. That we have a discussion about an important issue is, however, very welcome.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.