Speeches

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.

Mr President, thank you very much. In November, Heléne Fritzon, the European Parliament's majority wanted a parliamentary resolution critical of Qatar. There, you and your party colleagues Erik Bergkvist and Ilan De Basso voted against that idea. I would like to ask why? I would like to ask why the Social Democrats in Sweden took a stand for visa-free travel for Qatar when, for example, the Center Party, which is not directly known for closed borders, voted against?

Madam President, thank you very much. Recently, we could read that 52 percent of French teachers engage in self-censorship so as not to offend religious students. As self-censorship spreads, Islamists have achieved an important milestone on the path to statutory censorship. In Sweden, we have an Islamist party represented in several municipalities that run blasphemy laws. It should scare the punches of every freedom-loving European. But for a number of years, the EU has been supporting Islamists, actively undermining our European way of life. Youth organizations with links to the Muslim Brotherhood have received millions. The association against Islamophobia in France, which was dissolved by the government after the murder of teacher Samuel Paty, has received grants. The Islamic University of Gaza, an important symbol of Hamas, received over SEK 5 million from the EU in 2019. After my prophecies, the contributions to the Islamic University have been stopped. Member States are exchanging experience in the Council to tackle Islamism and the Commission has been mandated to tighten the requirements to stop subsidies. It's about time. If freedom is to have a place in Europe, Islamism must be pushed back.

Mr President, today the European Parliament decided to designate the Russian Federation as a state sponsor of terrorism. Now, some Members of this House were trying to water down this resolution and delete this designation. And I’m glad those efforts did not succeed, because right after this vote, two things happened. The Russian Federation started to terror-bomb Ukraine and Russians hacked the European Parliament’s IT system, which means that this vote actually made a difference, something that was confirmed by the message by President Zelenskyy. Now, my message here today to the Member States, to the Council is: take this seriously. Establish a European legal framework to designate Russia a sponsor of terrorism. Do it quickly. It’s needed.

Mr President, thank you very much. When the Riksdag approved the EU coronavirus fund, it would be a temporary one-off event. The Sweden Democrats, the Court of Auditors in Germany and many others warned that a precedent for shifting the cost of future crises to the EU level was established. Now the next crisis is here, and you centralists, of course, refuse to cut support funds, waste or bureaucracy. Even the Islamist contributions are sacred. calls instead for joint borrowing, as a normal way of financing EU spending – a massive increase in power at the expense of the Member States; The aim of the debt is to increase pressure on Member States and approve the introduction of several new EU taxes to repay the loans. SD votes no to debts and taxes. Jag hoppas att statsministern i Sverige hörsammar sin föregångares varning – den som är satt i skuld är icke fri – och håller sitt löfte om nej till EU-skatter.

Mr President, thank you very much. I come from one of the most wolves-dense areas in northern Europe. For those of you on the left who think that the EU should under no circumstances change its protection status, I will tell you something from Värmland: “We could see the sheep from the kitchen window. Some were only 20 yards from the house. Most of them were dead. Two I had to shoot in the pasture", says farmer Mats Eriksson, Brandbol's farm, outside Gräsmark, at home in my Värmland. We have dog owners who don't dare to go out with their dogs anymore and parents who don't dare to let their children out. We have seen an increase from the tens of wolves – 17 wolves in Sweden, when this protection status was established – to over 400 wolves today. And you don't want to touch the protection status. It doesn't hold. You undermine confidence in the EU through this. It's time to change the wolf's protection status.

Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Bek, Commissioner Schinas, I agree that the EU right now operates as firefighters. As illegal migration decreases in the western Med, it soars in the central Med: almost 300 000 illegal entries into the EU this year alone. As the Commissioner pointed out, right now we see economic migrants from Bangladesh, Egypt and Tunisia. But Commissioner, do you honestly believe that the migration pact will solve the problem? The UN predicts Africa’s population will triple from 1.4 billion to 4 billion within this century. From 2000 to 2050 the Middle East population is estimated to increase by 329 million. The current migratory pressure fades in comparison to what will come. The migration pact is not designed for migration of that magnitude. Why? Because the EU will be overwhelmed by economic migrants using asylum as a means to enter our territory. And relocation won’t solve that. Commissioner, strict measures are a necessity. Illegal entry must mean forfeiture of the right to asylum. The EU must start financing border barriers. The Danish asylum plan must be recognised as a serious attempt to safeguard social cohesion – our European way of life.