Response to interpellation 2024/25:452 on strengthening the rules-based order and the principles of the rule of law
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M argues that the protection of the rule of law and democracy is a core priority in the government's work. M emphasizes that the foreign policy declaration highlights democratic values as a guiding principle and that the EU is a community of values in which the rule of law is included. M explains that Sweden did not sign a specific letter due to vague requests. M advocates for the principle that EU funds should not go to activities that do not observe the principles of the rule of law. M argues that there is a total Swedish consensus regarding these issues 1. 2 S argues that the government can and must increase the pace of work to strengthen democracy and the rule of law in Europe 2. 3 2 S wants the Prime Minister and the EU Minister to act to ensure that Turkey fulfills its commitments 3 2. 4 M argues that Sweden is one of the leading countries when it comes to putting rule of law issues on the agenda 4. 4 M argues that it is effective to condition access to EU funds on respect for the principles of the rule of law 4. 5 M argues that Sweden has a clearer Swedish agenda in the EU today than under the previous Social Democratic government 5.
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 Jessica Rosencrantz (M)
Mr. Speaker! Matilda Ernkrans has asked me how I explain the fact that the principles of the rule of law and democracy in Europe were not mentioned with a single word in the EU part of the foreign policy declaration presented to the Swedish Parliament on February 12. She also wonders why Sweden did not sign a letter stating that the EU's Digital Services Act must be used in its entirety to secure democracy, the rule of law, and the legitimacy of electoral processes in the EU's member states. The letter was sent by a number of EU ministers to Commissioners McGrath and Virkkunen, responsible for the principles of the rule of law and democracy and digital security and democracy, respectively. Finally, Matilda Ernkrans asks me to account for where the letter that Sweden and Finland wrote to the Commission regarding new initiatives for more of the EU's spending areas to be tested against the principles of the rule of law has actually gone.
Let me be clear initially: Protecting and promoting the rule of law, democracy, and human rights is firmly anchored in the core of the government's priorities.
Regarding Matilda Ernkrans' first question, I note in the introduction of the foreign policy declaration that our democratic values are highlighted as a guiding principle in the inevitable task of providing support to Ukraine and countering Russia's ability to harm us. The declaration's section on the EU then begins with the statement that the EU is a community of values – and as we all know, democracy, the rule of law, and respect for fundamental rights belong to these values. By emphasizing the community of values, the Foreign Minister reminds us of how important it is that all member states live up to what we signed on to in order to become members of the union. The importance of living up to the EU's values and principles is also emphasized in the part of the declaration concerning the EU's expansion.
Regarding what Matilda Ernkrans' second question refers to, I share the view that the protection of democracy, the rule of law, and the integrity of democratic electoral processes are extremely important issues.
We were given the opportunity to take a position on the letter that the French representative in the General Council had initiated and which was handed over to the responsible commissioners in connection with the council's meeting in January. The draft reflected in parts very well what the government is already actively and committedly pursuing, but also far-reaching and vaguely defined requests to the commission for powerful measures. These would have required a more in-depth analysis and preparation as well as anchoring in the Riksdag, which was not possible within the short timeframe we had to take a position on the draft.
Matilda Ernkrans' third question concerns the letter that my Finnish ministerial colleague Joakim Strand and I sent to the Commission in September, with the request to establish a comprehensive strategy to ensure that the principles of the rule of law are respected by current and future member states. What we specifically highlighted in the letter concerns strengthening the link in various ways between expenditures from the EU budget and the respect in the member states for the rule of law and the Union's values. The principle we are pushing is that EU funds simply should not be available to those who do not live up to the Union's fundamental values.
The Swedish-Finnish initiative has been well received, both by the Member States and by the Commission. In its message ahead of the next multiannual budget framework published in February, the Commission is clear that strong guarantees for the protection of the rule of law principle is one of the things that should be at the center of the budget. Not a single euro to activities that do not observe the principles of the rule of law, is the expression the Commission uses, which is also the core of what the Swedish and Finnish governments have jointly put forward.
Without anticipating a difficult negotiation, I see this as a good basis to build upon. The Government will, of course, continue to be active in all negotiations and in other ways in relation to the Commission and the Member States to strengthen the link between EU funds and the EU's fundamental values.
Matilda Ernkrans (S)
Mr. Speaker! Europe is in the worst security situation since the Second World War. The EU must rearm militarily but also strengthen that which builds peace and freedom in the long term.
In the long-term peace work, the struggle for the principles of the rule of law and democratic ideals is central. It is about our collective resilience against authoritarian leaders and also about protecting individuals against propaganda and undemocratic tendencies.
In the EU Commission's rule of law report from last year, we were able to see what the situation actually looks like in the member states when it comes to the principles of the rule of law and democracy. For everyone who has read the report, it is obvious that there are problems with upholding the EU's fundamental democratic values. It concerns right-wing nationalist, authoritarian, and populist forces that do not want the EU and who dismantle democracy bit by bit by suing critical journalists, threatening freedom of the press, restricting the independence of courts, and exposing citizens to propaganda.
We have previously in this chamber discussed the examples of Hungary, Slovakia, and Italy, but also Elon Musk's involvement in German elections with his active support for AFD, which is seen by many think tanks as an example of how authoritarian men, in this case from the USA, use right-wing nationalist platforms to weaken the EU. The development is clear. The democracy as we know it is being weakened. The examples are many more than I have listed here.
The EU must be a union of democracies, and EU citizens must be able to feel safe. The undemocratic tendencies affect ordinary people through propaganda and arbitrary government decisions. It prevents the EU from making important decisions. The ultimate expression is Hungary, which pursues a Russia-friendly policy in the Council by no longer standing up regarding its support for Ukraine. But this also affects people's civil liberties and rights. It shows, once again, not least Orbán's Hungary's latest decision to ban pride parades in the country. All over the world, we see how authoritarian regimes restrict LGBTQ+ rights, and now it is happening here, in an EU country.
The EU must do more. The Government and the EU Minister must do more. We cannot have a Prime Minister who hangs out the rainbow flag at Sagerska but sits in silence when Hungary undermines the EU's democratic rights.
What do the Prime Minister and the EU Minister actually intend to do to secure the human rights of LGBTQI persons in the EU country Hungary?
As recently as last month, as I said, the EU Minister claimed during a debate here in the chamber that the principles of the rule of law and issues of democracy in the EU engaged the entire government and that she was working intensively on these issues. It therefore became strange when we could state the following day that the principles of the rule of law were not mentioned explicitly a single time in the government's foreign policy declaration, despite the Minister herself having claimed that the issue was highly prioritized. We hear in the answer here in the chamber that the EU Minister must fight hard to claim that it was included but hidden under some other word.
It becomes almost even stranger to listen to why one refrained from pushing the issue together with twelve other member states – it was about the commission being to push issues on the rule of law, democracy and digital security. Denmark, Spain, Germany and France signed on. But Sweden chose not to – for time reasons. That is not sufficient.
The government must increase the pace and prioritize the principles of the rule of law and democracy in Europe. The EU Minister and the government must be able to answer why they abstain from these supreme opportunities to raise the issue of the principles of the rule of law.
What is the Minister's plan to get his entire government on board when it comes to prioritizing these issues in international contexts? It is not just about abstract democratic ideals, but also about our resilience and a long-term peace-building in restless and dangerous times.
Statsrådet Jessica Rosencrantz (M)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Matilda Ernkrans, for the questions and comments!
I would say that there is a total Swedish consensus in this chamber on issues concerning democracy, the rule of law, and fundamental freedoms and rights. I believe we should safeguard that consensus. I do not think it is worthy to insinuate that there should be a dividing line between the government and the Social Democrats on this issue. Rather, we should work together against those countries that oppose these fundamental values.
If one reads the foreign policy declaration that Matilda Ernkrans reads, I am sure that one can find many things to question or highlight. But I note, for example, that the Social Democratic foreign policy declaration from 2022 also does not explicitly highlight the principles of the rule of law and fundamental freedoms and rights as a priority in the EU work. This does not, of course, mean that I for a second believe that the Social Democratic government wavered on those issues. That would be doing the political conversation a disservice. I believe rather, as said, that we should work together on these issues.
Regarding the letter that Sweden did not sign, the government gladly urges the commission to generally apply the Digital Services Act, DSA, or any other legislation whatsoever, in that regard. This also shall contribute significantly to creating conflict in the chamber in this matter.
But it is important – and I believe Member Ernkrans agrees – that neither the member states nor the commission encroach on the other's area. As a minister in Sweden's government, I am keen that that boundary is respected, fundamentally also because I want the same respect to apply to what are the member states' competencies and powers.
The government safeguards our national room for maneuver. The draft we were asked to take a position on contained calls to the Commission to resolutely take measures to protect electoral processes and to present robust proposals on measures against hybrid activities. It was unclear what could be encompassed in such broad formulations. For example, it could not be ruled out that it could affect the frameworks for how we conduct elections in Sweden.
I assume that the member and the Social Democrats are also not ready to offer the commission or anyone else, in that regard, carte blanche when it comes to national electoral processes.
With that said, I and the government are very engaged in the question of how we best protect our democracy from disinformation, propaganda, and hostile influence. This applies within the union. But it also applies – not least – in our candidate countries and in our own immediate vicinity.
The Government has tasked Sida with terminating all direct agency collaborations with Georgia. The decision sends a clear signal to the political party Georgian Dream that the oppression of peaceful protesters, opposition politicians, civil society activists, and independent media representatives in Georgia is unacceptable.
We have recently decided on a facility for reform and growth for Moldova of 1.9 billion euros. Support for strengthening the principles of the rule of law and stable democratic institutions is central.
The reform support for the Western Balkans is extensive regarding the rule of law and democracy, both bilaterally and through the EU. The current strategy contains 4.9 billion in reform support over seven years, via Sida.
The Government also looks forward to – and will work very actively with – the initiative under the name Democracy Shield, which the Commission will present by the summer.
Matilda Ernkrans (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! The Minister stated once again that this is an important area for the government, but in substance it seems that the government actually sometimes prioritizes other things.
As the minister says, there is a broad support and a consensus in Sweden's chamber regarding the principles of the rule of law. But then it becomes even stranger that Sweden did not join together with twelve other member countries and push the commission regarding acting for the principles of the rule of law, democracy, and digital security. Countries such as, for example, Denmark, Spain and Germany made the assessment that it was possible to sign. But Sweden found some kind of argument that it was not possible.
I would like to ask again, as I did not receive an answer: In what way does the EU Minister intend to act to secure the human rights of hbtqi persons in the EU country Hungary? There are few things that are so important for long-term peacebuilding and democratic societies as that one respects the principles of the rule of law, the values of democracy and human rights.
The EU must be a union of democracies. Ultimately, it is about our ability to arm ourselves strongly but also to protect individuals in a long-term peace work that concerns the strengthening of the rule of law principles and a stronger democracy.
The democratic status in the EU's member states concerns us all. I truly believe that the EU Minister should take the lead on this important issue. It is required that the government sets demands in an EU context and participates actively in the initiatives that are taken. The EU must be able to guarantee the citizens' safety and security both physically and digitally, and in this work, the government has a chance to push forward to strengthen the rule of law principles and democracy in the EU. Not least, the Social Democrats give you their full support in this.
Sweden and the Nordic countries top the lists of democratic countries in the world. Therefore, Sweden and the Nordic countries have strong credibility in these issues. The EU Minister should take the chance. Use Sweden's credibility as long as we have it! Use the support, which, for example, the Social Democrats can give you, to push forward in the EU and increase the pace of the work when it comes to the principles of the rule of law and the fundamental values of democracy. It is simply not possible to read this in any other way than that democracy is being weakened.
I am moving on to another current issue which the Prime Minister as recently as today in the Chamber brushed aside by giving me the answer that I obviously had never been to an EU summit. That is correct. Neither had Kristersson before he became Prime Minister, and perhaps neither had the EU Minister before she became EU Minister. I have been to many Council of Ministers meetings as a minister in three different governments. But I have not been to an EU summit. However, I think that this is so important that I want to give the EU Minister the opportunity to answer the question that the Prime Minister brushed aside: Did Sweden mark its position at the EU summit on 20–21 March against the arrest on 19 March of Ekrem İmamoğlu, Istanbul's elected mayor and opposition leader in Turkey, and against the threat from Erdoğan?
Did the Swedish Prime Minister take the opportunity to have the EU act so that the candidate country Turkey must also fulfill its commitments regarding democracy, the principles of the rule of law, and the fundamental values that we are now increasing efforts to defend and for which Ukrainian soldiers are dying in the trenches?
Statsrådet Jessica Rosencrantz (M)
Mr. Speaker! I have already answered why Sweden did not sign the letter. It was because we judged that it was uncertain which measures were actually intended and that they could be too far-reaching and have an impact on Swedish electoral administration. If Matilda Ernkrans does not understand that answer, I do not really know what more I should say. But it was, therefore, not a lack of time that was my justification.
As far as Hungary is concerned, let me be very clear that in Sweden, the EU, and Hungary, one should be able to love whoever one wants and be whoever one wants. Hungary is moving faster and further away from a free Europe. The decision to ban pride parades is a clear step away from the EU's fundamental values. It is simply reprehensible. I have been clear about that. The Prime Minister has been clear about that. Furthermore, the issue is even more worrying because we see signs that the legislation also affects the freedom of assembly and freedom of expression.
We also use recurring EU law as a tool in this issue. Sweden intervened, together with 15 other Member States and the European Parliament, in support of the European Commission in its action against Hungary in the Court of Justice of the EU regarding Hungary's so-called child protection law, which the Commission, among other things, considered to be discriminatory against hbtqi persons. It is well known that Sweden stands at the forefront for rights issues in the EU and for our common values. The government will continue to do so. Here we stand firm.
It also leads me to Matilda Ernkrans' appeal to take the opportunity to act on issues of the rule of law. Once again, I do not quite understand why the member is seeking conflict, but let me nevertheless emphasize that we take the opportunity – repeatedly. I would say that Sweden is one of the countries considered to be among the foremost when it comes to repeatedly putting these issues on the agenda.
There is a worrying development in several member states, and there is room for improvement. The Commission's rule of law report is clear on that area. The experience from this type of report and from examples of how things are going in the wrong direction in some countries is that it is effective to condition access to EU funds on respect for the principles of the rule of law. Sometimes money is simply the only language everyone understands. That is the method the Swedish-Finnish initiative aims to develop, and we are continuing to work on that. We have already received support from the Commission in large parts. It has been announced that not a single euro in the next budget will be paid out to entities that violate the principles of the rule of law.
We have also presented several proposals to the Commission on how this can be done concretely. I may not have time in one minute to go into all the technical parts, but it can involve strengthening the application of the conditionality regulation through clear support for the Commission to take initiatives against member states in situations that justify it. It is also about introducing comprehensive conditions linked to Article 2 on the Union's values for payments from all funds and programs in the EU budget.
Another proposal is linked to the expansion. It concerns introducing safeguard clauses or similar in the upcoming accession treaties so that the EU can take measures if the development in a new member state begins to go in the wrong direction.
Briefly and clearly, I can assure the members that Sweden is extremely active in these issues, partly with concrete proposals to the Commission on how it can be done, and partly in all dialogues, for example in the dialogue with Hungary which I myself quite recently had in connection with a meeting with the General Council. There, I expressed my criticism directly to Hungary.
Matilda Ernkrans (S)
Mr. Speaker! It is good that the announcement has now come regarding where the Minister believes the Swedish-Finnish initiative has gone. Nothing has been directly reported; it simply disappeared into the EU's bureaucracy. It was good that I could get the answer in this interpellation debate.
I hope that the next time twelve countries – most recently including Denmark, Spain, Germany and France – stand up for the principles of the rule of law, democracy and digital security, Sweden can also join those who make that assessment. I truly hope that Sweden's Prime Minister and also the EU Minister will act to ensure that the candidate country Turkey fulfills its commitments regarding democracy and the principles of the rule of law.
The EU simply must do more to protect its citizens and the union against authoritarian and sometimes even imperialistic forces. The tools are about strengthening democracy and the rule of law in Europe to protect citizens and individuals who would otherwise suffer as a result of democracy being weakened. I want to assert that the government can and must increase the pace in that work and further prioritize these issues. We Social Democrats are also prepared to give our support to this.
Despite the EU Minister's claim that issues concerning the principles of the rule of law engage the entire government, I believe there is more for her to do at home and in the EU for a strong EU and strengthened security in Sweden.
Statsrådet Jessica Rosencrantz (M)
Mr. Speaker! I want to be clear that I am very concerned about the situation in Turkey. What we are seeing now, the arrests of opposition politicians but also other individuals, is serious. It raises clear questions about whether Turkey is truly living up to democratic principles and furthermore means that an already slowing EU process will become even more difficult when the country does not live up to the fundamental requirements set for a country that claims to want to become a member of the EU. I think it is important to convey this type of views to Turkey just as to other candidate countries.
I am currently traveling a lot around Western Balkans, for example, where many countries are undertaking a major reform work. They still have much work left to do regarding corruption, the principles of the rule of law, and the independence of the media. It is very important that we are clear from the EU's side regarding what requirements we set for candidate countries to ensure a future where both today's and future EU member states truly live up to the principles of the rule of law.
Regarding the question on Turkey, we have been very clear, and I have noted that, among others, the Foreign Minister has commented on this. I also welcome the commitment from Matilda Ernkrans's side. I am proud that the government is very active in all EU matters, including the rule of law work.
The Social Democratic government that Matilda Ernkrans sat in was known for a fairly large measure of vacillation and indecisiveness when it came to issues regarding the forest, nuclear power, and the Swedish model. I think that today we have a much clearer Swedish agenda in the EU and there are many good forces working together there. I hope that we can also in this chamber join forces in several of the issues.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.