Follow-up on the Riksdag's application of the subsidiarity principle

Per-Arne Håkansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! We are now considering the Committee on the Constitution's report Follow-up of the Riksdag's application of the subsidiarity principle. I request to state some reflections and considerations based on the communication that has been submitted.

In a time when democracies are being pushed back globally and worrying pronouncements about the right of the strongest challenge rule-based international orders, such as humanitarian law and international law, there is every reason to safeguard and highlight the importance of European cooperation. It is about taking advantage of what unites us. Small and medium-sized countries become strong together.

Support in Sweden for the European Union is strong and has increased over time. In Statistics Sweden's latest survey, which was conducted last year, it was shown that support is stronger than it has been in 29 years. Two-thirds of the Swedish people say they support EU membership.

I want to assert that the thorough preparation and anchoring that EU legislation undergoes in the Swedish Riksdag is an important part of the trust that has been created. The parliamentary support, and by extension the popular anchoring, is something to protect and nurture. It is, in fact, about the handling of EU issues in everyday life.

Mr. Speaker! Sometimes when EU issues come up for discussion, I am met – perhaps more recognize this – with claims and questions of the type: Does Sweden really have to be the best in class? It is implied that all directives and regulations perhaps do not need to be persistently implemented in detail.

A response to that, however, cannot be to distance oneself from EU policy. Instead, we must ensure that we are constantly a part of it. Here, the subsidiarity checks in the Riksdag's committees have an important role to play.

Mr. Speaker! Let me go back for a moment to 2009. It was then – I believe it was on 1 December – that the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force. Since then, the Riksdag has had the task of examining whether a draft of one of the Union's legislative acts conflicts with what is called the subsidiarity principle. These examinations are carried out by the committees here in the Riksdag.

The Committee on the Constitution shall thereafter follow the application of this and once a year report its observations to the Chamber. This is done through the report that we are now submitting. The follow-up consists of two parts. One part concerns the purely formal handling here in the Riksdag of drafts of legislative acts. The follow-up in this part concerns which subsidiarity tests have been carried out and which methods have been used.

Only such a formally oriented follow-up should not fully meet the task that the Committee on the Constitution is intended to have according to the preparatory works. The investigation that submitted the proposal for amendments to the parliamentary rules considered it valuable if a body follows the development of the parliament's subsidiarity control and gathers experiences from different areas in something that can be described as a helicopter perspective. Against this background, the follow-up in the second part intends the outcome of the subsidiarity reviews at precisely an overall level.

In previous follow-ups, certain deficiencies in the commission's justifications in this context have been noted.

In the question regarding the subsidiarity principle, the Lisbon Treaty gives the national parliaments a special role when it specifically concerns control and application. According to this principle, in the areas where the Union does not have exclusive competence, the Union shall take action only if the objectives of the planned action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore be better achieved at Union level.

It therefore does not apply to those areas where the union has exclusive competence, for example, the customs union, certain competition rules, the common trade policy and the monetary policy for those member states that have the euro as their currency. For other areas within the union's work where competence is shared between the union and the member states, the subsidiarity principle shall, however, be applied.

Mr. Speaker! Within the framework of this year's follow-up, the Committee on the Constitution has received reports from five committees. In the reports, observations are made regarding developments within various policy areas and how the scope for national measures has been affected as a result of legislation at the EU level.

A collective summary of 2024's subsidiarity reviews shows that the Riksdag reviewed 45 drafts of legislative acts and submitted six reasoned opinions to the presidents of the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission. The Committee on Environment and Agriculture reviewed the most drafts of legislative acts, followed by the Committee on Justice and the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

The legal basis for barely 27 percent of the drafts examined during 2024 was Article 114 of the TFEU concerning the internal market. Eight drafts concerned agriculture and fisheries, and six concerned economic, financial and technical cooperation with third countries. The six reasoned opinions were submitted at the suggestion of the Committee on Taxation, the Committee on Justice, the Committee on Transport, the Committee on Industry, and the Committee on Employment. No drafts led to a so-called yellow card, meaning that they would need to be reconsidered by the Commission.

Since the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force and until the end of December 2024, the Riksdag has tested the subsidiarity of a total of 1,350 drafts of legislative acts and issued 106 reasoned opinions. This means that the Riksdag has had objections to barely 8 percent of all drafts of legislative acts that have been submitted for review.

The Committee can note that Sweden's Riksdag also this year provided the most reasoned opinions of the national parliaments within the EU. It appears from the commission's annual report that only 8 of the 39 national parliaments or chambers submitted reasoned opinions.

Mr. Speaker! The work with the subsidiarity matters being conducted in the Swedish Riksdag is important. It is in the political issues that cooperation is strengthened and shaped.

Based on this, it can sometimes be appropriate to remind of the history and the bloody and difficult hardships, violence and conflicts that have characterized the European continent. Now our countries sit at common tables and try to solve issues in dialogue and with respectful treatment. It is a task we need to take most seriously.

In the official European anthem, taken from Ludwig van Beethoven's ninth symphony – which the Speaker surely knows – which was set to music in 1823 and which has for many years been adopted as an official melody by both the Council of Europe and subsequently also the EU, freedom, peace and solidarity are intended to be the notes that we all shall be able to join in in one way or another. They are far from self-evident. But they must always be guiding in European cooperation.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Mr. Speaker! This is also a report that is to be notified and not debated by the Chamber.

It feels almost redundant to stand here in the speaker's chair after the entire chamber heard the previous speaker's exemplary presentation and also received a small lesson on the European anthem and other things that are a bit of fun trivia and such that perhaps not everyone knows. I am changing my speech slightly and will not babble a lot of statistics, but instead take the opportunity to share some reflections.

I truly agree with what previous speakers have noted and reflected upon, and what the committee jointly presents to the Chamber regarding precisely the task we have: to follow up on the Riksdag's application of the subsidiarity principle.

What is the subsidiarity principle then? It is about making decisions in as efficient a way and as close to the citizens as possible. It is also used to determine at which level a matter should be decided. Should it be at the EU level, or should it be in a national parliament?

It is also the order that we have in Sweden. We often want decisions to be made at the right level, and in Sweden, it is of course about at the municipal level, at the regional level or in our parliamentary Riksdag.

I believe that everyone, even my party which has historically had perhaps a more critical stance towards the European Parliament and the EU's other institutions than some others in this chamber, sees in the uneasy time and world we live in that it is quite difficult for a small country like Sweden to handle, for example, large social tech giants on its own. There, perhaps, just as previous speakers have said, several parliaments need to join forces and jointly pursue their cause to gain traction.

We have a rule-based world order that is currently being challenged in many ways, which, I think, absolutely occupies many people's thoughts and simply calls for reflection on how to navigate in an increasingly restless world.

But now I shall go back a bit to the matter. I understand that I may have drifted off a bit there, but I believe it is this that is the basis for our subsidiarity test: We must know whether it should take place at the EU level or in our national parliament. What will be best, and what distribution of power should apply?

In the Riksdag, just as in all other national parliaments in the countries that are members of the EU, there is an obligation to monitor that this principle is complied with. In the Riksdag, it is, as said, the Constitutional Committee's task to conduct a follow-up every year. This year, we have looked at the 2024 subsidiarity assessments. The Riksdag therefore assessed a total of 45 proposals and issued 6 reasoned opinions.

Something that the committee also notes this year is that in some ways we are the best in the class. Or perhaps we are the worst in the class – who knows? We do, in any case, submit the most reasoned opinions of all national parliaments. And we utilize the tool that many other parliaments obviously choose not to use.

One can also wonder about this. What is it due to that only 8 parliaments, I want to remember, have submitted reasoned statements out of 39 that have had the opportunity? What tools do the others use to exert influence? Or are we unique in the Nordic countries and Sweden and therefore so troublesome? Is it this that makes us oppose? Are all parties in the Riksdag EU-critics? I do not think so.

I believe, however, that we perhaps, as the previous speaker touched upon, are very thorough. We have felt that there is a principle and also a value in examining all proposals that come, mostly from the EU Commission, to the Riksdag. We also choose to let all proposals go to the respective committees, as they are the best at assessing the proposal's compatibility and suitability.

I just wanted to say one last thing that I am actually pondering a bit, something that previous speakers have also mentioned and which we note in our report. Over time, it is in barely 8 percent of all received review cases that the Riksdag has issued reasoned opinions. The question is, Mr. Speaker: Is that a lot or a little?

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

Fredrik Lindstål (C)

Mr. Speaker! We are here to debate report 2025/26:KU5 Follow-up of the Riksdag's application of the subsidiarity principle. It is somewhat of a conundrum, but I will do my very best. I note the continued consensus and the good tone in the conversation in the chamber.

Mr. Speaker! I have no illusions that we have anything other than a very knowledgeable audience. But let us nevertheless clarify the meaning of the subsidiarity principle. It is, therefore, about the principle within the EU which means that decisions should be made as close to the citizens as possible – locally, regionally and nationally – and that the EU should act if the member states cannot achieve the goals sufficiently well themselves. The principle limits the EU's powers and strengthens the role of the member states and the local bodies, with national parliaments monitoring that the EU follows the principle through so-called subsidiarity checks.

As a member of the Centre Party, I naturally cherish the local community and for decisions to be made as close to the individual as possible. It is that principle that has shaped the Centre Party, and we stand firm in our roots.

But we are also clear about the importance of the EU's role and the significance of close cooperation between countries, not least in times like those we are currently in, when things are truly stormy. Together we are strong, and we have everything to gain from standing united. The critical situation in Ukraine and the escalating developments regarding Greenland are clear examples where unity is important.

Mr. Speaker! I also want to say in this context that in a couple of weeks I will travel to Greenland to demonstrate in action that Greenland's cause is ours. We stand behind Denmark and Greenland, and we will not let ourselves be blackmailed.

Mr. Speaker! Back to the subsidiarity principle and the annual review 2024. There were 45 proposals reviewed, and the Riksdag submitted 6 reasoned opinions, that is, objections to the EU Commission's legislative proposals, which was thus the most of all EU countries, as the previous speaker has pointed out. This is a position that Sweden has had historically. With the exception of one previous year, one takes a comparatively more critical stance than other member states.

Sweden's objections span several policy areas, for example, regulatory frameworks for corporate income taxation, transfer pricing within groups, and reinforced police cooperation against human smuggling. They have also opposed certain rules for interns' working conditions as well as proposals to remove administrative barriers in border regions and regarding information services on inland waterways.

Mr. Speaker! The Riksdag considers, as is surely known in this chamber, that the proposals conflict with the subsidiarity principle and that decisions should consequently be made at a national or local level rather than at the EU level.

Despite the Swedish protests, no legislative proposal during 2024 was anywhere near triggering the so-called yellow card. The proposal that received the most criticism was the one regarding corporate taxes, which, in addition to the criticism from Sweden, also received criticism from Ireland and Malta.

Mr. Speaker! We welcome that Sweden is on its toes and continues to use the subsidiarity principle when we consider that decisions should be made close to our citizens. At the same time, we maintain a good balance and continue to safeguard a good, productive and stable EU cooperation in a time when cooperation across borders is a prerequisite for a stable, peaceful and respectful world.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We are talking about the Riksdag's application of the subsidiarity principle, that is, the assessment of whether a decision on a proposal from the EU should be made there or whether it should rather be made locally or nationally, closer to the citizens and those affected.

Sweden has stood out quite significantly in these issues in recent years, which previous speakers have also reflected upon. In Sweden, over a series of years, we have accounted for the most so-called reasoned opinions of all parliaments in the EU. It is not just a few more, but many more.

The Committee on the Constitution's conclusion is that we consider it unfortunate if only a few European parliaments take the opportunity to examine individual proposals with regard to the subsidiarity principle. That opportunity must nevertheless be seen as an important control function for democracy and for the legitimacy of the EU's decision-making. Or if one prefers: From a democratic point of view, it would be better if others did as we do rather than the opposite, i.e., that we adapt.

Mr. Speaker! Since December 2009, the Riksdag has examined whether proposals for legislation from the EU conflict with the subsidiarity principle; this is connected to the fact that the so-called Treaty of Lisbon entered into force then. At that time, the parliaments of all member states received an obligation and a task to ensure that the subsidiarity principle is complied with.

For Sweden's part, the arrangement became that it is the Riksdag's committees that are responsible for the review. It is a systematic approach that in itself creates recurring opportunities for the review of the legislative proposals coming from the EU. This can be one of several reasons why we from Sweden submit so many opinions compared to other European parliaments. Note, however, that it is one of several reasons; it is in no way the only one.

Another explanation for our great commitment to subsidiarity issues is that we, as do other parliaments to some extent, perhaps see the subsidiarity assessments to a greater extent as a way to also advance criticism and politics instead of just the purely legal considerations. It could be interpreted as that national conditions are given too little space in the EU's legislative proposals, but there can naturally also be other reasons.

Mr. Speaker! We need to remember that the European Community and subsequently the European Union have been seen as examples of an organization with an obvious democratic deficit. There are those who emphasize this deficit as decisive for the creation of the EU Parliament, with the first elections of members of parliament in 1979. Even here, as relatively often within economics, there are hopes for so-called trickle-down effects, i.e., in this case that the newly created European Parliament itself would contribute to legitimacy, democracy, and support at local and national levels.

I have no direct opinions on this other than a certain hesitation, just as with the same theory within economics. On the other hand, there is a great deal of support for the idea that decisions are best made closest to those whom the decisions affect. Those who are closest to an issue are often those who have the best information and see the practical consequences of the decisions. It is said that there is a structural lack of information at the central level. This applies in every respect within a country or a region, and it is not directly any news.

Decisions made close to oneself tend to have higher legitimacy, which can increase the acceptance of unpopular decisions. There is also some empirical support that decisions become more effective and better adapted to local conditions or, in matters of subsidiarity, to national conditions. This is particularly important in issues concerning indigenous peoples and minorities, for example when it concerns natural resources. I am thinking, among other things, of common European initiatives on rare minerals, where decisions on extraction are sometimes made very far from those affected by the interventions.

There are, of course, also areas where common decisions are obviously better and more effective than local ones. European transport – rail traffic to the continent, to name one – as well as competition issues and climate issues are examples of such issues. That the decisions are then adapted nationally and locally is partly another matter.

Mr. Speaker! In summary and to conclude: The Swedish administrative tradition and the structure with committees that carry out reviews continuously and regularly contribute to there being many opinions. We share that background to some extent with other Nordic countries, with Germany and the Netherlands and also with Switzerland and Norway, which have chosen not to participate in the union – perhaps with this as part of the explanation.

Lastly, even though it sounds a bit self-centered: It would probably be better if more people did as we do rather than the opposite.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

The committee's submission was added to the records.

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