Activities in the European Union during 2024

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! The matter we are now debating is the Committee on Foreign Affairs' report number 10, which concerns the government's annual report on activities in the European Union. I would like to begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal on all points.

During this spring, Europe has truly had a moment of reflection. One might believe it was the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 that made the union wake up and realize it was being tested. And yes, much happened in the months after the invasion. The union held together and agreed on sanctions against Russia and on support for Ukraine.

It was very well done, but what has probably put us to the test even more is the shift in foreign policy from the US side. A new presidential administration has taken office, with a completely new philosophy towards its European allies.

Where many EU countries had taken for granted that the USA would always be in the background with its vast military power, it suddenly turned out that the new American leadership had grown tired of what they considered to be the Europeans' recklessness.

Why should the USA help someone who does not help themselves? the new American president has asked. He means that NATO countries that do not finance their defense in the manner agreed upon within the alliance can probably not count on full support from the USA. Suddenly, the EU countries realized that it was now about them themselves, not just Ukraine.

Many EU countries, which are also NATO countries, consistently invest far too little in their own defense. Belgium spends 1.3 percent of its GDP on defense – at least that was the case last year. Spain also spends 1.3 percent and Italy 1.5 percent.

The awakening was abrupt, and since then, a recurring theme in all discussions between the EU countries has been how we can rearm together, and not least how this shall be financed. This awakening took place, admittedly, during late winter this year, and the consideration we are dealing with concerns the operations during 2024, but it is difficult to only be backward-looking.

Madam Speaker! From the Moderates' perspective, the reconstruction is undoubtedly one of the most important European issues right now. Ukraine has fought bravely for three years. I take this opportunity to praise the Ukrainian security service for the fantastically skillfully executed operation where they took out many Russian bombers. It was very skillfully and brilliantly planned and executed!

Ukraine has fought bravely for three years, and we hope for success in upcoming negotiations and a just peace.

But when a potential peace comes, we know that Russia very well can come to forge new plans of attack – either because they believe they have won the war and in that way feel strengthened to start new wars, or because they feel like losers and therefore want to start new wars to take revenge.

As we see it, there is therefore a risk of new Russian wars regardless of what happens in Ukraine. Therefore, it cannot be overemphasized enough that Europe must rearm and that it does not only concern the countries closest to Russia, but that it must occur in solidarity with all the Union's members.

It is true that many member states are struggling with weak public finances, but war is more expensive and worse in every way.

We do not live in a time when one, as the former Prime Minister Göran Persson said about how one stitches together a state budget, can always take the last billion for defense. That time is over. Now, instead, it is such that if one happens to have any billion left over, it should go into defense.

Madam Speaker! In this context, it is also worth highlighting an aspect that is not included in the government's annual report but should be. It is the story of how the EU finally imposed a total embargo on Russian oil and gas. This has not happened, but it should have happened.

There are always countries within the union that import gas and oil as if nothing had happened in the world. Furthermore, the gas and oil find their way into the EU via refineries in smaller, less scrutinized countries outside the union, whereby member states import without checking where the oil or gas came from in the first place.

There is now more than one calculation on how much money this trade involves, and unfortunately, they show that the EU countries probably pay more for Russian oil and gas than what they provide in support to Ukraine. This is obviously completely unreasonable and must come to an end. I can understand if not all business agreements can be canceled from one day to the next, and I understand that governments do not want to punish their voters with more expensive district heating. But now the war in Ukraine has been going on for three years. There has been plenty of time to find alternatives.

I know that the Swedish government dislikes this, and I therefore hope that it pushes to get this issue higher on the EU's agenda. Whatever can be done to choke off money to the Russian war economy must be done.

Madam Speaker! Let me finally say something about the communication as such and the committee's handling of it.

The procedure is that the government once a year submits an account of the activities in the EU. The document is therefore called The Annual Book on the EU: Activities in the European Union 2024. The title is descriptive, as the document is indeed an annual book. In this, one can read about everything from animal welfare legislation and passengers' rights to ozone-depleting substances and rest time rules for bus drivers. The Annual Book covers most things.

When the annual book reaches us in the Committee on Foreign Affairs for consideration, it is, however, almost exclusively the EU's common foreign policy that we focus on. The simple and obvious explanation is that this is what we in the Committee on Foreign Affairs are interested in. We review the Union's common foreign affairs at least once a month. But this is now only a part of what Sweden does within the EU. The EU is not an organization for foreign affairs primarily, but a cooperation organization for free movement within the Union.

I therefore wonder if it is to be the Committee on Foreign Affairs specifically that handles the communication. There are, after all, incredibly many important EU issues that we in the Committee on Foreign Affairs have no significant knowledge of because they lie in other committees.

Take, for example, the issue of fishing in the Baltic Sea. Fishing is regulated by the EU, and there are many in Sweden who are engaged in this issue because we want to save both the fish stocks and the small-scale fishing industry. This central EU issue does not receive the attention it deserves if it is we in the Committee on Foreign Affairs who are to handle it. It is our friends in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture who can best handle those questions.

I would therefore like to urge the Speaker to give some thought to how the government's annual report on activities in the European Union should be handled. The Committee on Foreign Affairs has done its best but still does not have a grasp on exactly everything that the EU engages in and is perhaps therefore not the body that should have the ultimate responsibility for the matter.

(Applause)

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! I had not intended to request the floor, but then a question arose that I nevertheless thought was very interesting. Member Olsson said that one would like to stop all imports of Russian oil and gas to Europe. It is something that we have campaigned for for a long time, actually since 1981 when Miljöpartiet was formed. I am glad that there are now more who are joining that line. It does not, of course, only concern Russian oil and gas but all oil and gas, but we can at least start with the Russian.

At the same time, the current government has helped to increase the demand for, among other things, Russian oil by, for example, lowering the prices of gasoline and diesel. This crude oil has to come from somewhere. We now know that it goes through other countries such as Turkey and India, where it is refined and then arrives in Sweden as Turkish or Indian gasoline or diesel.

One way to get around this, if one does not succeed in achieving agreement in the EU, is to personally introduce an origin labeling on gasoline and diesel while waiting for other countries to come around and be willing to introduce a total embargo. Is that something that the Moderaterna would stand behind?

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I think Member Risberg describes the situation incorrectly. The majority in the Riksdag has not pushed for us to increase the import of Russian oil and gas. That is not the case. However, we are pursuing a different energy policy than the Miljöpartiet wants, which means that Sweden actually consumes more oil and gas. That is quite true. But it does not mean that it comes from Russia. On that point, I think the Member is misleading the assembly.

When it comes to origin labeling, it is a very good idea, but I think it should take place within the framework of the EU. We are to have a common market, and the energy market within the EU should be common – but preferably origin labeling otherwise.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! Well, I think I describe the problem quite correctly. We have a world market when it comes to oil and gas. Most of the raw materials are traded on a world market. That is the problem when the fuel finally reaches our gas station: At the current moment, we cannot control where it comes from, but it is up to the fuel producers where they purchase their oil and gas.

There is no ban today on purchasing gas or gasoline from Turkey or India, for example, even if it originates in Russia. Just as the member says, this government has contributed to increased demand for gasoline and diesel, and thus has also secondarily increased the demand for Russian oil.

This issue of European labeling is interesting. The EU is generally very positive towards all types of labeling that help consumers make the right choices. Then it is up to each country to implement that type of labeling. We have, for example, had a pump label for some years now showing the climate impact of the fuels we have in Sweden. We could see a similar labeling here. We also have other types of consumer labeling that are unique to Sweden.

This is not an issue where we have to wait for the EU. Again: Moving the issue to the EU only means that one gets further away from the core problem. The best thing would be if we could already here and now start noticing oil and gas at the pump so that our consumers, our car drivers, can make an active choice: Do I want to choose this fuel producer or this one? This one has Russian oil, this one does not. What are we waiting for?

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

Stefan Olsson (M)

Madam Speaker! I think it is an absolutely excellent idea with product labeling. But the more one can do within the framework of the EU, the better it is. Then it becomes the same in all countries, and then it becomes easier to, as a Swede, refuel in Germany and so on. It is simply better to try to have all economic regulation common in the EU.

Now I recall a debate that the member and I had on another topic regarding precisely the value of EU regulations. I just want to remind that even at that time we were in disagreement about how many regulations we should have. I argued that we should have as few regulations as possible. Now I notice that member Risberg is once again arguing for the introduction of even more regulations, which affect economic growth. He should also consider that. Economic growth is usually not what Miljöpartiet thinks about, so I just want to remind him of that issue.

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

Alexandra Völker (S)

Madam Speaker! The report can best be described as a summary of the work that has been carried out within the EU during 2024. It is a challenging time for the union, and it has become even tougher with the beginning of this year.

Several of the fundamental pillars of the EU are now being tested, with the American administration's tariffs, with Russia waging full-scale war in our neighborhood, and with the highest number of armed conflicts in 70 years.

Madam Speaker! Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in the spring of 2022 represents a new reality. Even before their full-scale invasion, they had made it clear that they no longer stand up for the European security order, that is to say, every country's right to decide for itself over its security and its security policy choices.

For over a decade, Russia has torn apart the European security order and repeatedly shown that they are a threat to democratic Europe. For Sweden's part, the Russian actions led to us making a security policy choice: We joined Nato.

Now we are working together with our allies to increase our security and deter the start of new wars. We also see that European defense and security cooperation must be strengthened. It is crucial to strengthen the collective European defense capability and the EU's capacity to act as a security policy actor and its ability to take responsibility for the security of the union and the surrounding area. Europe must, in the long term, take responsibility for its own security.

This year marks 30 years since Sweden joined the EU. At that time, we had just left the Cold War behind us. We believed in, and worked for, a more peaceful reality. Today, 30 years later, the reality is different, with wars in our neighborhood, hybrid operations, and disinformation campaigns. The EU must be armed for this new reality. I therefore move for approval of reservation 3.

Madam Speaker! Every day Ukraine fights for its and for our security, and we must do everything we can to support them in that. The EU must stand firmly behind Ukraine. In a situation where some are failing, Ukraine must never doubt the EU, on Europe.

It is Russia that has unilaterally initiated a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It is Russia that has unilaterally started the war. Ukraine has every right to defend itself, and peace must occur on Ukraine's terms. Everything else is unacceptable and threatens our own security. In a time when the rules-based world order is being tested from several sides – by powerful forces – Sweden and the EU must stand up for it in all circumstances.

Madam Speaker! In the question of Russia and Ukraine, the EU has shown what strength the union has when we speak with a common and clear voice. At the same time, we see that there are countries within the EU that hinder the support for Ukraine, countries that at the same time clearly restrict their democracy. Hungary restricts the LGBTQ+ movement and bans the Pride Parade, and now they are working on a bill that risks severely restricting independent society – journalists and civil society.

We have clear democratic requirements for countries joining the EU. We must continue to have equally high requirements when the countries are in the EU. We Social Democrats believe that the EU should introduce a sanction ladder that allows the EU to ultimately exclude a country that has completed a dismantling of democracy.

It is a disappointment for us to learn that the President of the European Commission has urged EU Commissioners not to participate in Budapest Pride. We hope that our Swedish Commissioner will take the opportunity to stand up for people's equal value by participating in the parade regardless.

Madam Speaker! The EU is our primary foreign policy arena. It is not possible at this moment to speak about the work in the EU without speaking about Gaza. What is happening in Gaza is a complete catastrophe, and it is happening right before our eyes. When we already felt despair over the situation, it was escalated even further. The human suffering is being further aggravated.

Now the Israeli army has forced the only hospital in northern Gaza to close. Hospitals are being bombed, damaged, or forced to close due to Israeli ground offensives. Over 52,000 people have been killed, a figure that only continues to rise.

Today, only 20 percent of Gaza's already limited land area is not covered by military restrictions. There, Israel is trying to squeeze the entire population of Gaza, without food, water, or access to medicine. Famine is spreading, and only a fraction of the humanitarian aid is being let in.

During the last few days, we have repeatedly been hit by reports of shootings of people on their way to get emergency aid. That people need to risk their lives to get food is completely unacceptable. During the last few weeks, the EU has finally raised its voice against Israel. For a year, we have pushed the issue of freezing the trade agreement with Israel, and at the end of May, the EU finally decided to review the agreement. It is a step in the right direction, but more is required. There is no time to lose – we must freeze the agreement now. We must increase the pressure on the Israeli government to cease the brutal warfare. All effort must be exerted to prevent a genocide.

As I began by saying, the EU faces a long series of challenges. Foreign policy is one of them. Trade policy is another. In addition, we have the climate crisis, a fateful issue that concerns the entire planet. Just the temperature increases and climate changes we see now cause great challenges for all the world's countries, and the EU countries are no exception.

It requires an EU that takes the lead, an EU that binds together emission reductions, environmental protection and strengthened biodiversity with economic development, a just transition and more jobs. When great powers leave the Paris Agreement, the EU must take greater responsibility to uphold it, find new partners and get more countries and regions to pursue an ambitious climate policy.

Madam Speaker! It is a time that places great demands on the EU. Just as all organizations become what the member states make them, the voice becomes as strong as its political leaders choose it to be. The EU needs to strengthen and raise that voice. Sweden must start showing initiative and be the one driving, not just following the current. It is a time for courageous leadership.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! 30 years after Sweden's entry into the EU, we still stand firmly rooted in our conviction that EU cooperation is a necessary foundation for peace, freedom, and economic prosperity. The Christian Democrats see the EU as a tool, not just an end in itself, and our task is to ensure that it is used in the right way.

The EU must be focused, efficient, and anchored in the principle of subsidiarity. This means that decisions should be made as close to the people as possible – in municipalities, in regions, and nationally – and only when it is necessary at the EU level. During 2024, the government has worked in exactly this spirit, and I want to particularly emphasize that.

EU's foreign and security policy has been at the center this year. With Russia's brutal attack on Ukraine, our community has been put to the test, and it has, for the most part, held. We are grateful that Sweden, as an EU member and now a NATO member, has been a clear voice for Ukraine's freedom. It is not just about support for an attacked country, but it is about defending peace in all of Europe.

The government has during the year actively worked to strengthen the EU's defense cooperation, build up defense capacity and deepen the partnership with Nato. It is the right path, and it is a path the Christian Democrats wholeheartedly support.

Madam Speaker! We welcome the EU's enlargement agenda, but it must be clear that there are no shortcuts. Ukraine, Moldova, and the countries in the Western Balkans deserve our support, but membership must be built on the rule of law, democracy, and a will to reform. It strengthens the union and guarantees that the enlargement does not erode the EU's community of values.

Sweden has stood up for this. We have been clear that we want to see an expansion, but not at the expense of principles. It is a Christian Democratic view: solidarity with responsibility, but also that we stand ready to help candidate countries in their reform work.

The internal market is one of the EU's absolute greatest successes. It provides jobs, growth, and prosperity. But it must not be stifled by over-regulation or micro-management. During the year, Sweden has pushed forward to safeguard free movement, improve competitiveness, and reduce bureaucracy, and in that, the Christian Democrats have been a driving force.

We also see a clear need for the EU to focus more on technological development, innovation, and research, not least within the green transition. But it must occur in a technology-neutral manner and with respect for the member states' conditions. That is why we so consistently speak of fossil-free energy instead of only renewable.

Madam Speaker! Sweden is a trading nation. We need more free trade agreements, not fewer. We need an open, regulated world order, not protectionism. The EU's trade agenda is crucial for our economy, and the government has continued to push for agreements with, among others, India and Mercosur.

But we are also clear: Trade shall not take place at the expense of human rights or future generations. Therefore, it is good that Sweden has been a driver for sustainable and ethically grounded but not over-regulated trade terms.

For the Christian Democrats, it is clear that we must have order and clarity in Europe's finances. The EU should have resources to solve common tasks, not to grow into areas where the member states already take responsibility.

We are therefore very pleased that the government continues to stand up for a restrained budget line, where support for Ukraine, border protection and security are prioritized while proposals for new EU taxes or permanent common debt have been rejected.

Madam Speaker! Europe is in a decisive time. We face war, crises and change but also opportunities. The Christian Democrats want to see an EU that is strong where it is needed, restrained where it is wise and always rooted in responsibility, solidarity and freedom.

I support the report in its entirety and therefore also wish to reject all motion proposals. Sweden's position in EU policy is clear, and it has our support.

(cont. § 6)

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