Speeches

Mr President, thank you very much. The Swedish Democrats have started a debate on how our country should negotiate in the EU. Social-democratic, moderate and liberal leadership sides recognise the problems we point to, such as over-regulation, micro-management and protectionism. But they do not come up with a single proposal that would actually limit the transfer of power from the Riksdag to Brussels. Instead, we hear the same old jokes: more proactive work and more Swedish bureaucrats and correspondents in Brussels. But it has been tried, with the same success as recreational farms against crime ... To safeguard our national interests and strengthen Swedish negotiators, we Sweden Democrats want voters to have their say on new transfers of power – a referendum lock. The idea is not ours! It has been tried by the British, Danes and Irish who have all negotiated better agreements with the EU. After three decades of failed negotiations, it is time to try a new strategy. It's over to be a doormat! The Swedes do not want to give more power to Brussels, and it is time that it is noticeable when the Swedes go and negotiate in Brussels.

Madam President, dear colleagues, this proposed pact is not equipped to deal with today’s migratory pressure, let alone higher numbers of future arrivals. By working with the left, Mr Tobé’s report removes instruments necessary to combat illegal migration, retains forced solidarity and reinforces pull factors. Don’t take my word for it: Swedish Greens celebrated the inclusion of their ‘broader concept of family reunification’ and the removal of aid becoming conditional on reducing migration. This pact’s solution is to force Member States to accept migrants against their will. Dear colleagues, either we embrace mass migration or reject this deal. That is the choice. In Scandinavia there is a new normal: liberals, the centre—right and conservatives work together to deliver durable migration policies. Dear colleagues from the EPP and Renew: yes, it is true, we do not accept migrant quotas dictated from Brussels, but we stand here with our hands outstretched, ready to cooperate on delivering future—proof solutions. We need to secure the external borders, utilise the external dimension to prevent and disincentivise illegal migration and relocate the entire asylum system to third—country reception centres. Madam President, dear colleagues, Europe’s future is at stake. Vote no!

Mrs. Taman! The resolution we adopted today on the anti-discrimination directive, drafted, among other things, by the environmental party Alice Bah Kuhnke, is so flawed that it is astonished. The authors of the proposal argue that discrimination is increasing in the Union. Bring out the evidence! They want to rush through a decision before the end of the year, which is completely unrealistic. They have been engulfed in their commitment and propose measures that run counter to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. Most importantly: They want to circumvent the normal Treaty procedure which requires unanimity by using the passerelle clause; passerelle. Then you can round the parliament. It has never been used, and if it were to be used now, it would set a precedent for even more transfers of power. In addition, they also want to unduly extend other directives that were never intended to be used in this context. Unreasonable discrimination certainly exists, but should not be used as an excuse to give the EU more power. The Conservatives should know that. Unfortunately, they choose to signal goodness with the Green Party. We don't.

Madam President, thank you very much. The Social Democrats claim to have tightened migration policy – but today when we voted on how the European Commission will spend the budget next year, the Social Democrats voted against our demands for funding physical border barriers, against making aid conditional on effective implementation of return agreements and against criticism of Clowns Without Borders' million-dollar grants for integrating unaccompanied Afghans into Sweden through pajama and circus activities. When strengthened border protection, surveillance and condemnation of hybrid operations with migrants as weapons and denied funding of physical border barriers forever replaced the demands, the Social Democrats chose to vote no. Generally, resolutions calling for increased spending are voted through by a North Korean majority and only a few budget hawks like the Sweden Democrats are included in the memorial protocol. Not today. The Democrats have a principle they never compromise on, no matter what they say: Open borders.

Madam President, thank you very much. The EU Deforestation Regulation aims to promote sustainable forest management and reduce climate emissions, but will have many unintended negative consequences. This is an expensive and inefficient method of reducing emissions. Non-compliant companies will instead sell to other regions. The regulation increases the regulatory burden on companies to secure supply chains, which also requires even more government officials. Small-scale farmers are excluded from the market with negative economic and social consequences in developing countries. Many countries consider this to be nothing less than a protectionist measure and an attempt to dictate their domestic policies. The regulation can also trigger trade disputes with resource-rich countries on which EU countries rely, for example for metals for electric cars. If I were a leftist, I would call this a colonial ordinance, and I wouldn't be wrong, because that's the truth.

Madam President, thank you very much. Yahaya Sharif-Aminu has been sentenced to death for sharing an audio message that was considered to offend the Muslim prophet Mohammed. The European Parliament has previously condemned death sentences for blasphemy, for example when a Christian couple was accused of sending blasphemous text messages. The view of blasphemy has wide application in Sharia. Blasfemian accusations are raised, for example, for refusing to participate in jihad or condemning stoning in Sudan, setting up girls' schools in Bangladesh, criticising the mullahs in Iran, calling for contextual interpretation of the Koran in Indonesia, or calling for a ban on child marriage in Yemen. The EU must mark against Nigeria. But Europe must also mark when Islamists want us to adapt to their view of blasphemy, that we should sacrifice our freedom of expression. If we do, it's just the beginning. Then not only will the voice of the EU be silenced for Yahaya Sharif-Aminu and others affected by Islamic extremism – we will also have more victims of these blasphemy accusations in Europe. Remember Lars Vilks!

Mr President, EU Minister Roswall, after a surge in migrant arrivals, Italy has declared a state of emergency. Now, is the EU Parliament’s migration pact the solution? The Tobé report requires that Member States pledge to resettle migrants. Most of the Member States pledged to resettle 8 000 migrants, as you may remember, via the voluntary solidarity mechanism. Less than 500 have been relocated. But the Tobé report also requires that if the Member States’ pledges are too low, the EU Commission will decide where to allocate the remaining thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of migrants. Let me remind you, dear colleagues: 31 000 arrivals in Italy only in 2023, and we’re not even past April. Either the Member States embrace mass migration or they reject the current migration pact. There is only one way to help Italy and save lives at sea: stop the boats.

Mr President, thank you very much. Commissioner Šuica! Have you heard of the demonstration trains in Sweden? I assume you have done so because one of your main priorities is the union of work and family life. Have you heard what the firefighter Madelene Olsson has said, whose partner is also a firefighter, and I quote: “For those of us who have a small home, it would not be possible to reconcile family life and working life. One of us would have to stop.” Have you heard the personal assistant who has to buy a new car and that the children get longer days in kindergarten? If you do not know what I am talking about, you and the Commission should not ban the daily passes, which have been so good for both users and the working environment. If you and the Commission have not noticed that tens of thousands of people in Sweden have signed up to stop the changes to the implementation of the Working Time Directive, two things should happen: You should withdraw and leave them alone, and the Swedish Government should take this to the European Court of Justice.

Mr President, thank you very much. Commissioner Johansson wants to see government scanning of all messages on all platforms and in all messaging apps. The current chat control received such harsh criticism that a sunset clause was introduced, but it is at least voluntary. New chat control will be managed by a newly established EU centre with no specific focus on child protection. The risk of purpose drift is obvious. The Commission has already proposed to expand the list of EU crimes in what it calls hate speech and hate crime. Will I in the future be able to warn that the new mosque in Karlstad risks contributing to extremism because it is Salafist, or will I have been guilty of hate crimes? Nobody knows. The Data Retention Directive would only combat particularly serious crime, but instead was hunted down file dividers. One of Tele2's largest customers, moreover, when it came to requests for information, was the Swedish Tax Agency. New chat control requires search tools to be developed or approved by the EU Centre. Existing and functioning systems risk being replaced by less efficient tools. The Commission proposal would ban secure, protected and private communications. We must say no if we are to protect freedom.

Madam President, thank you very much. After the Council meeting, the Government declared Kristersson that the Union's competitiveness is at the top of the agenda. A little hope after a term of office with over 6000 new acts from Brussels. But the only concrete conclusion that EU leaders reached was that they would discuss competitiveness once a year. No one who has followed the debate on the EU's response to US green corporate subsidies is surprised. The Commission's counterpart was about opening up state aid to companies. Your proposal, President Charles Michel, has been called Karl Marx on steroids. It is clear that State aid and the detailed management of entrepreneurship are fashionable here in Brussels, which is the exact opposite of competitiveness. You even have to stand and explain this! When the EU enforces the principle of scrapping at least one law for each new law it adopts, when it introduces sunset clauses that prevent bureaucracy from growing, then its competitiveness is at the top of the agenda.

Mr President, thank you very much. The same year that the European Pillar of Social Rights was adopted in Gothenburg, the European Parliament found a problem and called on Member States to introduce ‘adequate minimum income’. Then the Minimum Wage Directive became law, against the will of Sweden and Denmark. To sprinkle salt on the wounds, Commissioner Schmit promised to tackle the inadequacy of minimum income. Last autumn’s non-binding recommendation called on Member States to reach an ‘adequate level of income support’ by 2031. Once the support has not reached the adequate level, there will be binding legislation, although the decision-making power will remain at Member State level. This is how the transfer of power to the EU works. Those who call themselves liberals vote as Marxists in this House. Today, they supported the demand for adequate minimum income. If, for peace in Europe, I were to demand billions of dollars in aid for the release of peace pigeons, the majority would vote in favour. The EU state grows unrestrained if no one resists. That is why we Sweden Democrats voted against the resolution on adequate minimum income.

Mr President, the Islamic Republic is an evil republic. The mullahs and/or their henchmen have poisoned thousands of schoolgirls in 11 provinces as part of an unconscionable and despicable tactic to suppress pro-democracy protests. These girls are not mere numbers, another statistic, but individuals – as valuable to their families as my own four daughters are to me. They have, or rather should have, the same – and even more – rights to life and liberty as our own daughters. These crimes against humanity are an affront to the people of Iran and to the international community. Our answer cannot be meek, diplomatic condemnations and feeble demands for justice for their families. No, our answer must have real consequences for those that took the decision to perpetrate these evil acts against young girls and strike at the political and economic foundations of the Islamist theocracy. The corrupt mullahs’ time is running out. The youth of Iran dare to dream again, and the party that will follow the fall of this evil regime will be one to behold. I call upon the Commission, the European Council and the Swedish Presidency, including Foreign Minister Tobias Billström, to invite representatives of the Alliance for Democracy and Freedom in Iran to Brussels for discussions on the future of a free, secular and democratic Iran, to end negotiations on the JCPOA, and to classify the IRGC and use their assets to create a strike fund. Member States should, of course, recall their ambassadors from Tehran and expel both the mullahs, diplomats and their families. (The speaker concluded in a non-official language)

Mr President, thank you very much. Once again, for the fifth time, we are debating tragic deaths at sea between Africa and Europe. However, the truth must be said: Boat migrants will continue to die as long as the EU rewards illegal migration with livelihoods and welfare. Migrants are often from Bangladesh, whose population has grown by more than 40 million in the last 20 years, or from Pakistan, which has grown by 80 million over the same period. How will your legal pathways meet migratory pressures based on that increase in population? Look the truth in the face. Follow Australia's example by moving the asylum process to third countries, rejecting all migrant boats and stopping rewarding illegal migration with asylum and welfare. You say no to it – the only thing that has managed to stop death at sea. More legal routes will not do so, and then boat migrants will continue to die. All that remains then are completely open borders and a Europe that will soon be unrecognisable. Be honest, is that really what you stand for?

Madam President, thank you very much. Millions of households are struggling with inflation and high electricity bills. At the same time, the Commission is calling for further binding annual greenhouse gas emission reductions. Sweden will be hit harder than other countries. We have already significantly reduced our emissions, and all cheap measures have already been implemented. Therefore, it will be more expensive for us to achieve these new goals. Road transport, heating of buildings, agriculture, small industrial installations and waste management will all be burdened with their own emission targets. We do not yet know the price tag for climate targets on behalf of Sweden, but the tug-of-war over the reduction obligation shows that a reduction in fuel tax could cost up to SEK 40 billion. Someone has to say it: The EU is developing into a centrally-managed planned economy. An effective environment and climate policy must be based on free choice, technological development and Member States deciding how much and in what way they can best contribute. The regulation will result in higher inflation, increased electricity prices at little climate benefit. That's why we Democrats voted no.

Madam President, thank you very much. Centralist environmental populism – that is what this proposal is about. We Democrats can't support that. That is why we voted against the LULUCF directive on land use and forestry. Forests are not mentioned in the EU treaties. The Directive therefore infringes the principle of conferral of powers and the principle of subsidiarity. A growing forest binds carbon dioxide. With regard to climate, the EU is therefore trying to regulate this area in detail as well. To compensate for other countries' emissions, the Union wants to use Swedish forests to increase carbon dioxide storage. If it does not increase by 2030, Sweden is threatened with heavy fines. Our forest industry should bear the cost so that other countries do not have to take action. This EU decision will cost forestry and agricultural jobs in rural areas. The Sweden Democrats, as the only party, are fighting wholeheartedly against this development.

Madam President, thank you very much. A planned economic utopia – the recast of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive can be summarised. The goal is to make all buildings emission-free. Well done, but unrealistic. Trying to improve the energy efficiency of more than 30 million buildings in the short time specified in the Directive will be costly. Price tag for the Commission proposal: €275 billion per year. The European Parliament's proposal would cost nearly €400 billion per year. The emissions trading system is far from perfect, but owners at least decide for themselves whether they save on changing heating systems or insulating. The EU apparently has no confidence in the market, but the solution is always to centrally control and regulate in detail. Instead of forced renovations and even more tax money shovelled to southern and eastern Europe, the issue should be left to the market, the Member States and homeowners. They know better than the bureaucrats in Brussels.

Madam President, firstly, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent report which clearly distinguishes between aggressor and victim. Azerbaijan’s hostile acts continue unabated. The reopening of the Lachin corridor, blockaded by so-called environmental activists from Azerbaijan, is paramount. Baku insists that ‘the legitimate demands of the representative of the Azerbaijani civil society should be heard and fulfilled.’ Colleagues, don’t be fooled. There is no thing as a civil society independent from the state in an authoritarian dictatorship. In light of the Russia-led CSTO abandonment of Armenia, I welcome Armenia’s commitment to CEPA as well as the EU civilian mission. Colleagues, I stand with justice and peace. I stand with Armenia.

Mr President, thank you very much. The Conservatives promised rigorous controls. The Social Democratic Minister for European Affairs described the Coronavirus Fund’s contribution as ‘well-targeted support’. SD's warnings that they risked washing 150 Swedish tax billions were taken lightly. No, the Coronavirus Fund would kick-start the economy, halt the climate crisis and speed up digitalisation. Money would only go to detailed and carefully reviewed national plans. The Commission and the Member States were, of course, promised the possibility of influence, so that it would not go wrong. But it was wrong, Mr President. EU auditors are now alerting that a significant part of the aid may have been misused due to lack of control and follow-up, delayed projects, lack of transparency, "hit-up reforms" and investments that have so here Much to do with economic recovery. Or how about more efficient heating of the Belgian king's palace? Mr President, thank you very much. I think many here hope that voters will forget who pushed through the corona fund, but they will not.

Madam President, Minister Roswall, Commissioner, today we are debating the need for the speedy finalisation of the roadmap. Another headline could have been the ‘open borders’ left being desperate to approve the EU asylum and migration pact before next year’s election. They fear the adoption of the pact, with its forced solidarity and the permanent power it transfers to Brussels, is in jeopardy. Commissioner, the EU’s own proposed pact would transfer power to foreign politicians and far away bureaucrats over who settles and lives in our countries. Now we hear that the EPP is finally ready to get tough on border control, on increasing returns, on preventing illegal – excuse me, irregular – migration. But a few dear EPP colleagues, including my friends from the moderates in Sweden, if you really had your ‘road to Damascus moment’ on migration, then why are you rushing to approve the pact now, before the EP elections? Why ally with Socialists, Greens, Liberals and The Left on migration against your citizens, progressive support, enabling pull factors and hampering border controls? I mean, today we can hear how the left, the progressives, how they equal border control with Fortress Europe. It’s very evident the direction such a compromise would take, and the redistribution of migrants that the progressives are fighting for would create a new pull factor, further increasing migratory pressure on Europe, not reducing it. Voters do not want to hold hostage border control measures, and their own personal security, until Member States cave on enforced solidarity. But that’s exactly what you get when you work with the left on migration. By clinging to asylum dogma from a bygone era, the pact ensures that migrants will continue to die en route to Europe, that human trafficking gangs will continue to profit, and that segregation spreads across Europe. Instead, the way forward is to secure the border and throw forced solidarity in the dustbin of history!

Madam President, politicians rarely give their opponents advice on how to win elections, but the Irish protests against mass migration actually call for an exception. People are taking to the streets to alert the political establishment of communities overwhelmed, unable to handle the volumes of people entering Ireland. The answer? Labelling opponents ‘far right’. They did the same in Sweden. As the Sweden Democrats entered parliament, the centre—right government made an open borders pact even with the Greens. Smears instead of solutions is a big reason my party became the leading party right of centre last year in Sweden. I urge the Irish establishment to listen to the people. Avoid Sweden’s mistake for the sake of the Irish people, but also for the sake of Europeans. The battle over EU migration policy is right here, right now. Join us in the fight for secure borders and controlled migration, and avoid the fate of those who bitterly cling to open borders.

Madam President, Commissioner Hahn, EU Minister Roswall, soaring illegal migration, an effective return rate of 24% of individuals who should not be on European soil, unsustainable migration levels in Austria, the Netherlands and Belgium. These are among the main reasons why migration is topping the European Council agenda. Italian and Swedish voters also played a role there, I might add. Last week, EU migration ministers declared there is an urgent need to strengthen the external borders, increase returns and prevent irregular migration. How? The Commission claims there isn’t money for walls in the EU budget. But there is taxpayers’ money to waste on a EUR 387 000 Metaverse party that had less attendance than a July after-ski party in Denmark. What about increasing returns? The Commission loves to dangle those development aid carrots, but it’s afraid to stop funding countries that refuse to take back their own citizens. Here’s some advice: finance border barriers, cease funding countries who refuse returns and stop talking about ‘irregular’ migrations. When citizens hear you talk about ‘illegal’ migration, that’s when they will believe you’re sincere on border protection.

Madam President, thank you very much. Prime Minister Kristersson! Welcome to the European Parliament! One thing we have in common is a respect for Gösta Bohman's political deed, his fight for freedom against the great state. Now the big government is making a comeback at EU level. You know that Brexit did not lead to the necessary self-examination in Brussels and that the centralists saw their chance. You know that power transferred to Brussels will never come back. You know that the EU acquis is becoming increasingly burdensome and that the EU regulates more and more of the lives of its citizens. Dear Prime Minister, The principle of subsidiarity would limit the transfer of power. That was not the case. Crisis after crisis is used to transfer power to Brussels. The EU would promote free trade and fight protectionism. That was not the case. Instead, protectionist green investment support financed by loans is proposed, as is the case with the Coronavirus Fund. We need to maintain our labour market model. That was not the case either. To this can be added the EU's decisions on forests, hunting, energy, fuel, quotas, migration and asylum. Dear Prime Minister, In Sweden, the Moderates have finally adopted a realistic migration policy, but your party has essentially accepted Migration Commissioner Ylva Johansson's proposal to give Brussels power over migration volumes. Because even if your line means that you can pay yourself free from receiving Brussels' migrant quotas, it is about fines in the billions class in order to be able to pursue an independent migration policy. The reduction obligation, i.e. that the government may have to pay up to SEK 20 billion in fines for fulfilling its election promises, should be appalling. In addition, we know that migratory pressure will increase. Just look at the UN population projections for Africa and the Middle East. Frontex has reported the largest illegal migration since 2016. The Pact on Migration is not designed to address future migratory pressures. We must not give up power over migration volumes. Dear Prime Minister, Down here, the big state is growing. The Corona Fund's financing with joint debt is now a precedent. Those sitting here today – from the left to your own EPP group – are demanding more debt, new EU taxes and more transfers of power. And my question is: When will the Conservatives draw conclusions from this? Prime Minister Kristersson: Gösta Bohman fought for what he believed in and you can do that too! I am convinced that many of your voters, not just mine, would appreciate Swedish threats of veto against the indebtedness of future generations and a referendum lock that gives the Swedish people an opportunity to have their say on the major transfers of power that are planned. More than you think would welcome a change of course away from the United States of Europe, to safeguard individual freedom, corporate competitiveness and Sweden's sovereignty. I wish you the best of luck!

Madam President, discontent is spreading in red China, where lockdowns remain an essential part of the zero-COVID policy. Lockdowns are enforced so harshly that 10 people, including a 3-year-old child, died when a fire broke out in a residential building in Xinjiang. Some suspect they could not get out and that firefighters were prevented from arriving at the scene by CCP pandemic laws. The tragedy triggered protests across China and the world. Some, mainly in Chinese, bravely called for an end to CCP rule and for Xi Jinping to step down. Blank pieces of paper were used to mourn those who died and to protest against the censorship, cover-up and victim-blaming of the regime in Beijing. We know that authoritarian regimes do not value human life. We know the CCP is on the wrong side of history. But why is High Representative Borrell silent? Where is the condemnation by the EU? Fellow colleagues, I’ve summarised High Representative Borrell’s statements in support of the brave protesters in China. This is the summary. (The speaker held up a sheet of paper)

Mr President, every Treaty transferred more and more powers to Brussels. Every Treaty increased the number of decisions taken by QMV (qualified majority voting). National vetoes have been abolished in area after area. Today, Member States can be steamrolled by the majority in most policy areas. Sweden recently had minimum wage, pay transparency and gender quota directives imposed on us against our will. EU centralists now have their sights set on the final areas Member States retain veto over: taxes, spending, foreign policy and enlargement, and changes to the Treaties – the rules of this club. Here in Strasbourg, most want to abolish these last vestiges of national sovereignty, but you lack the consent of the people. Swedes don’t want to transfer more power to the EU – it’s one of the most unpopular policy ideas around. Swedes want to retain the right to say no to your new taxes and your new spending sprees.

Mr President, Commissioner Vestager, Mr Bek, the energy crisis is bad now, and it will get worse next winter. There isn’t enough production, supply nor import capacity. You progressives fought for the shutdown of nuclear power, resisted the restart of reactors, refused extraction, and restricted the use of branches, tops and twigs from logging in bioenergy. You push for new, expensive climate legislation. You claimed renewables offered salvation. You refused to classify nuclear as sustainable in the EU taxonomy. How do you think it’s working out? Madam President, a price cap won’t make up for zealotry. It won’t resolve the underlying problem, which is lack of supply. Europe needs a moratorium on new climate legislation. It needs gas drilling, the restart to nuclear, and that we stop the mindless attack on Nordic bioenergy. It’s time to take a stand for people who are losing their jobs and for the pensioners in Sweden calling helplines in desperation as they cannot afford to heat their homes.