Follow-up on the Riksdag's application of the subsidiarity principle
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerned the follow-up of the Riksdag's application of the subsidiarity principle, which concerns the distribution of power between the EU and the member states to ensure that decisions are made as close to the citizens as possible 1. V (1) argued that Sweden distinguishes itself by examining all proposals and that the current order should be maintained, despite challenges with timeframes and a lack of cooperation between national parliaments 1. MP (2) emphasized that power should be shared and decisions made close to people to avoid excessive concentration of power. MP (2) also questioned whether the system of reasoned opinions has any significance in the dialogue with the EU and suggested that the interface between the EU and the Riksdag should be reviewed.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Jessica Wetterling (V)
Mr. Speaker! This report is, like the previous one, one that is not to be debated by the Chamber but which nevertheless shall be reported. It concerns the follow-up of the Riksdag's application of the subsidiarity principle.
According to the Rules of Procedure, the Committee on the Constitution shall follow this work and once a year communicate its observations to the Chamber. This time, the follow-up concerns the year 2023. It is also based on observations and opinions from seven other committees, which have obviously been valuable for the Committee on the Constitution in our conclusions.
The principle of subsidiarity is about making decisions in as efficient a way and as close to the citizens as possible. It is used to determine whether an issue should be decided at the EU level or in the member states, that is, the distribution of power between the national parliaments and the European Union. Recently, it was also EU elections, so this is truly something topical.
During 2023, the Riksdag scrutinized a total of 132 proposals under the subsidiarity principle and submitted seven reasoned opinions to the presidents of the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission. Sweden stands out among the EU member states. We are one of the few countries where the parliament scrutinizes all proposals.
Through the follow-up we have conducted, one can see a combined effect of various proposals. The opinions from the other committees also contain interesting observations regarding the development within different policy areas and how the scope for national measures within different policy areas has been affected as a result of legislative acts from the EU.
At the previous follow-up, the committee noted that only four national parliaments used the subsidiarity mechanism. In a report on the EU's future competitiveness, it is proposed that an EU investigation be appointed to analyze why the national parliaments do not use the opportunity they have to perform subsidiarity checks on proposals for EU legislation. This is something that we will monitor moving forward.
A committee that has commented to the KU is the Committee on Taxation. They present an argument that one may need to increase their engagement to improve the possibility of reaching the threshold for review, that is, the threshold for a yellow card in cases where the Riksdag has issued a reasoned opinion that the committee is considered to be in breach of the subsidiarity principle. Due to the timeframe with an eight-week deadline, however, the Committee on Taxation, and also we in the KU, see a challenge in informing the other national parliaments while there is still time for them, in turn, to act. Therefore, the value of cooperation and information exchange between the different national parliaments is something that has repeatedly been emphasized. It has also previously been considered how such cooperation can be achieved and what obstacles may exist for it.
A valuable way for the exchange of information between national parliaments is that we have a representative from the Riksdag at the EU institutions. It is also a way that is used by the committees.
The Committee on Environment and Agriculture also has interesting reflections in its statement regarding the threshold for a yellow card. It notes that this has been reached only three times. At the same time, the Committee on Environment and Agriculture notes that most other parliaments perform a form of selection of which acts they choose to examine. It has also previously considered whether the Riksdag should consider such an arrangement.
We in the Committee on the Constitution are, as said, a bit boring, but we are also quite secure. In this matter, we found that there were overriding reasons to maintain the order that currently prevails.
In last year's follow-up, we noted in the committee, as mentioned, that only a limited number of parliaments have submitted reasoned opinions in recent years. At the same time, it appears that several national parliaments instead submit opinions within the framework of the political dialogue and perhaps at an earlier stage than the Riksdag does. This has naturally raised a number of questions for us in KU. We also undertook a trip to Brussels last year where we delved even deeper into these issues. This is, of course, something that we intend to continue to follow.
We also note something that may be somewhat noteworthy: In its annual report for 2023, the commission counts only five of the Riksdag's seven reasoned opinions as reasoned opinions. They also do not provide any explanation as to why two of our seven reasoned opinions are not included. We believe it would have been good if that explanation could have been obtained.
Jan Riise (MP)
Mr. Speaker! It is pleasant to come already as number two among the speakers. That I am simultaneously last is, of course, another matter.
Mr. Speaker! This is about the subsidiarity principle. One risks stumbling over the words already, but this word and what it stands for is very central to Sweden's and other countries' relationship to the EU as a whole.
The subsidiarity principle has been present for nearly 40 years. It was therefore relevant as early as when Sweden joined the union in the 90s. Since then, it has developed and now constitutes part of the so-called Treaty of Lisbon from 2009.
The core principle is simple: the EU should not propose any legislation on matters that can be better handled at the national, regional, or local level. In practical terms, this means that the Riksdag will be given the opportunity to assess every proposed act from the EU from that very perspective. Depending on the nature of the question and the subject area, it is decided which of the Riksdag's committees shall handle the matter. It is important to remember that the review the Riksdag performs through the various committees does not concern whether the proposed measure should be implemented or not, but rather at which level it is best implemented.
One must also remember that the parliaments of all 27 countries carry out subsidiarity tests. However, it is not so common for the member states to cooperate on the tests. This is due to various issues, but not least the fact that everything would then have to be translated into everything else plays a role.
Mr. Speaker! A year ago, the Committee on the Constitution conducted a review of more general views on the subsidiarity principle and to what extent the possibility of commenting on the legal acts being proposed through, for example, so-called reasoned opinions is used by the national parliaments. Sweden accounts for a disproportionately large part of the relatively few opinions submitted by national parliaments, and a relatively large number of countries submit no opinions at all. This can be understood to be due to many different things. Changes have also occurred over time.
To that, the so-called Draghi Report, which was published a few months ago, shall be added. The former Italian Prime Minister and former President of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi, expresses there concern for the added values that are created or lost in a structure of national and European rules that are not optimal, with the buildup of unnecessary administration in the EU and/or in the respective member states.
Mr. Speaker! My party, Miljöpartiet, is a libertarian party that is opposed to all discriminatory structures that oppress and limit people's freedom. We view excessive concentration of power as undemocratic with a risk of corruption. Therefore, power must constantly be critically scrutinized. This applies to the state's power over individuals and corporations' power over labor and the economy, as well as to the power of prejudices and other structures over people.
Follow-up on the application of the subsidiarity principle in the national budget
The solution is, of course, to share power. Decisions should be made close to the people, and citizens should be seen as co-creators of our democracy. There is significant support for such a view. There are many types of knowledge, and some of it is based on proximity.
It is one side of the matter. We are also members of the European Union and will, of course, work to ensure that membership gives us advantages, savings, and new opportunities without us compromising on issues where we have special circumstances, for example when it comes to freedom of the press and freedom of expression.
As a concluding reflection, Mr. Speaker, I believe there are good reasons to review our way of, as the Riksdag, communicating with the Commission. Have we gained or lost influence, information, participation, and responsibility during the journey? It appears as if the system of reasoned opinions has no major significance in the dialogue between the EU and its member states.
We have also in the KU on several occasions discussed reports regarding individual ministers' relations in the work with the EU Committee. Obviously, other parliaments in Europe have different ways of expressing views. If the question of the entire interface between the EU and the Riksdag were to be reviewed with an international perspective, I could at least vote for that.
With that said, I thank you for the floor and propose that the report be added to the records.
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.