Speeches

Madam President, thank you very much. 90 new pages from the EU but zero answers for rural women. She doesn't need more strategies, she needs what all entrepreneurs need: She needs freedom, she needs capital, she needs roads that work and less bureaucracy. She doesn't ask for more gender mainstreaming, but asks: Do I get a loan? Is there internet? Can I run my business in peace? Entrepreneurship should be rewarded, not categorized. Entrepreneurship creates work and independence. But let's be honest! We do not get a living countryside because the EU demands quotas and earmarks money for women. The countryside becomes alive and is built by people who dare to start, invest and take responsibility. Both men and women. We do not need more Brussels strategies and rules, but real freedom and security.

Madam President, thank you very much. This vote is not about women's safety. The left wants to pick political points through placard politics and goodness signaling. If the left had really cared about stopping sexual crimes, they would have long ago pushed through higher penalties with us and to expel foreign rapists. But the left is constantly voting against higher penalties and pushing for continued mass immigration from culturally remote countries, where consent is not even on the map. Now they are trying to appear as women's champions by undermining national self-determination and the rule of law. That's hypocrisy. The idea of consent may seem self-evident in theory, but all the more difficult in real legal review. The principle must be that you are innocent until proven otherwise. We should not introduce legal uncertainty at EU level where the state forces individuals to prove their own innocence. It does not belong in the rule of law. That is why we are voting no.

Madam President, thank you very much. In this country we are in right now, nicotine pouches are banned, while cigarettes are sold on almost every street corner. France calls it public health, but it is not. When you remove less harmful alternatives, people don't stop. They start smoking instead. In Sweden, we chose reality over ideology. We made alternatives available and we have Europe's lowest number of smokers. Fewer cancer cases. Fewer deaths. This is what evidence-based public health policy looks like. But France chooses ideology and it is ordinary people who have to pay the price. Even Swedes who live, work in or visit France are affected. President Macron closes his eyes to evidence, but French people cannot escape the consequences of this policy. This will lead to more French people dying because of smoking, and therefore the rest of the EU should not follow France's example.

Mr President, thank you very much. We are facing a serious situation – deindustrialisation, job losses – at the same time we are becoming increasingly dependent on dictatorship-China. Now everyone is saying the same thing: Authorisation processes need to be faster. I agree, but let's be clear. Every year, the EU introduces more rules, more reporting requirements and more controls. At the same time, it is said that the decision should be made more quickly. This doesn't go together. We can't give our authorities a thicker rulebook while saying, "Read it faster." You can't run faster when you fill your backpack with more stones. It's a contradiction. With shorter deadlines and a thicker rule book, we actually run the risk of getting more rejections. The projects risk getting stuck in the system and fewer investments. Do we want faster permits? Then we have to simplify, and we have to have less bureaucracy. Really.

Madam President, thank you very much. The use of AI images for violations is completely unacceptable, but banning an entire technology or platform is the wrong way to go. Some now see their chance to limit platforms they dislike. It is not about protecting anyone. It's about power and control over free speech. Uncomfortable opinions are increasingly described as threats to democracy, but the real threat is censorship. Freedom of expression is the pillar of democracy, but power fears platforms that give citizens a voice, a chance to have their say, debate, share and generate. Let me be clear: We will limit crime, protect women, victims, children. But never by sacrificing freedom of speech. We are not defending democracy. We're weakening it.

Mr President, thank you very much. In Sweden, we sometimes pay wind power companies to stop producing electricity. This sounds absurd, but it is a direct consequence of the expansion of wind power. Within the framework of the Green Deal and climate objectives, with subsidies and financing via the EU Investment Bank, several billion SEK has been invested in wind power. However, the industry is suffering heavy losses. When it blows a lot, the price collapses, and the electricity becomes a cost to get rid of. When there is no wind, no electricity is produced. Wind turbines are difficult to recycle, they put a strain on the electricity grid and they pose major problems for those who live nearby. Now that we see the bankruptcies, we have to ask the question: What have we gained from this? Who's gonna win this? Why is critical review of wind power such a difficult political issue?

Madam President, thank you very much. For over 15 years, Christians in Nigeria have been subjected to systematic Islamist violence. Villages are devastated, children are murdered, churches are burned down and people are kidnapped because of their faith. Nigeria's government, they are passive and let the Islamists ravage freely. This is religiously motivated terror with the goal of introducing sharia and forming caliphates by means of violence. Yet this situation is met with silence from the Western media. Even the Church of Sweden has a hard time taking a stand. Christians are the most persecuted religious group in the world. But in the West, especially in the left, this is ignored because it does not fit their narrative. This is hypocrisy. Other conflicts receive massive attention, but Nigeria is ignored. You look away when Christians are murdered. The EU must stop turning a blind eye and act instead. Cut all aid to Nigeria and put pressure on their government.

Mr President, thank you very much. Europe's electricity prices are more than four times higher than in the United States. But instead of low electricity prices, we are chasing unrealistic climate targets. At a huge price tag. Emissions in Europe? Yes, they have decreased. Not because of any wise policy directly, but because industry is closing down and jobs are disappearing. At the same time as the EU is currently regulating away its own competitiveness, we are making ourselves more dependent on China. Our emissions are reduced only on paper. This is not climate policy. This is self-harm. A climate policy that breaks down competitiveness does not make the world greener, but Europe poorer. So I would like to rename this Green Deal as deindustrialised. Because that is what will be the result.

Exactly what I said in my speech: We will invest in research, development, innovation, cheap energy. But it is a bit interesting to hear the Centre Party, which claims to protect small businesses and forest owners, but constantly votes against their interests in this House and also in the Swedish Parliament. So I'd like to ask myself that.

Mr President, thank you very much. COP30 ended just as expected. Discussions went in circles. But there was one thing the countries agreed on: Europe will pay. Climate finance from the so-called rich countries to the poor was now raised to SEK 3,000 billion per year, while China, the US, India, the BRICS countries and the Gulf countries account for more than two-thirds of global emissions. Yet the EU, which accounts for only 6% of global emissions, is tightening its climate targets, raising energy prices and sacrificing jobs. The climate effect is almost zero. Notan, it ends up with ordinary households and European companies, hoping that the rest of the world will follow our example. This is not climate policy. This is wishful thinking. Europe should do what we do best: invest in research, new technologies and nuclear power. If we make energy cheaper, other countries will follow suit, without moral pegs.

Madam President, thank you very much. The EU's gender equality policy is not brave. It's a coward and it's naive. You're stuck in a gender workshop. The focus is on choice of words, forms and norm criticism. At the same time, we turn a blind eye to the real problem: Islamization, honour violence, insecurity, parallel societies where women's freedom is actually sacrificed. And what does the EU do? You write reports, you hold panel discussions, you chase pronouns. The problem is, they're not men. The problem, it is men who consider themselves to own women as their property and so-called feminists who excuse, defend, silence. It's not about powerpoint. It is the right to feel safe, to be able to move freely in society without being controlled, threatened or silenced. So stop playing brave in conference rooms. Stand up when it actually costs you something. Fight the Islamists without subterfuge. That's why I voted no today.

Madam President, thank you very much. Europe is responsible for 6% of global emissions. Yet we are preparing a new strict 2040 climate target as if we alone could control the planet's temperature. But the inconvenient truth is this: The climate in 2050 will not be decided in Brussels, but in Beijing, Washington and New Delhi. If we set goals that our industry can't achieve, then we're not saving the climate, we're just moving our emissions, and we're hurting our factories, jobs, and our prosperity. Emissions, they're coming. True climate leadership is about technology, innovation, competitiveness. It is about nuclear power, affordable energy, not symbolic goals that no other country follows. That is why I voted against the new 2040 climate target.

Madam President, thank you very much. COP30 is held in Belém, on the outskirts of Brazil's rainforest. Another climate summit where fifty thousand participants are flown down from all over the world and stay in hotels for SEK 20,000 per night. COP30 is less about the climate and more about who should pay. The UN is talking about a funding gap of SEK 11 trillion per year that will go to developing countries – a sum larger than the EU’s entire annual budget. The United States is leaving. China, the world's largest emitter, refuses to pay. The rich oil countries of the Gulf, they don't pay either. And then it is we in Sweden and Europe who will pay the bill. But Sweden is no longer a country that pays everyone else's bills. Our money, they are needed here at home; to pensioners, to health care, to our safety. If you want to save the climate, you invest in innovation, not corruption.

Madam President, thank you very much. The EU said it would save the forest, but instead the new law on deforestation is collapsing under its own bureaucratic weight. The Commission is now proposing once again to postpone this legislative proposal. The Commission's own computer systems are not able to cope with the burden, according to them. If the EU cannot cope with its own system, how will farmers and small businesses cope with it? This law does not stop chainsaws in the Amazon. But it saws off the branch for our own companies. While the world is running away from us, Europe is stuck in forms. This is not environmental policy. This is bureaucracy in disguise. So, Commissioner Roswall, I beg you: Withdraw this proposal! It would be the absolute best for both Sweden and Europe.

Mr President, thank you very much. The EU needs to switch down and start deregulation. For years, the EU’s response to problems such as the financial crisis, the pandemic and climate challenges has been the same old solution: More regulation. Simplifications? This is something we are happy to talk about in this House, but it always turns out to be empty words. And the result? Yes, our European companies, they are currently suffocating in a sea of reporting requirements, duplication of work, bureaucracy. While our competitors in the US and Asia are going the other way. They deregulate. They are investing in their competitiveness. No wonder we fall behind. The new proposal for a common data platform on chemicals is unfortunately no exception. Examples of how bureaucracy grows, not shrinks. Despite promises of better data access, the proposal only increases reporting and administration and makes it more difficult for our European companies. And Article 22 obliges companies to report all studies, including those that have already been reported, creating more paperwork – not more security. The EU is keen to talk about so-called “better regulation”, but is constantly delivering: more regulations. If Europe is serious about strengthening its competitiveness, we must dare to break down bureaucratic barriers and stop building new ones. It is time for the EU to find a reverse gear and dare to deregulate and simplify for real, and not just paint red tape in new colours.

Madam President, thank you very much. It is almost empty in this House now that most MEPs have gone home, when we are debating ticks, among other things, this afternoon. But I welcome this discussion. Tick-borne diseases such as Lyme disease and TBE can involve long periods of illness and, at worst, neurological problems. Unfortunately, these tick-borne diseases have become an increasing problem. The increased population of deer and cervids is one of the reasons for the spread of ticks. Nationally, a number of preventive measures are being implemented to combat both diseases and to reduce their spread. To remove some ticks belongs to the summer, but if you are unlucky, one of these ticks can actually spread dangerous diseases. When I was growing up, we had a little poodle, Kajsa. Every summer she was given tick repellents and tick necklaces. But my dad, when he was a kid, he had a dog called Cheri and it unfortunately passed away because of a tick-borne disease. In the Nordic countries, we are closely following this development through initiatives such as SVA's "Reporting ticks". Therefore, I would now like to take this opportunity to extend a big thank you to all of you at home who engage you to contribute with data to map the spread. This is a local issue. We do not need any more EU involvement. I hope never to hear any proposals for an EU strategy or, worse still, a tick commissioner. It would be just as bad as anything else to be centralised and decided supranationally without national competence. We need no French and no Germans to deal with our problems with ticks in Sweden. Let hunting also be regulated nationally without restrictions from the EU, so that we in Sweden can effectively combat ticks and the spread of these diseases.

Madam President, thank you very much. Gui Minhai has become a symbol of the struggle for freedom of expression. He dared to criticize Communist China. For this, he was kidnapped and imprisoned – an attack on Sweden’s sovereignty and our fundamental values. The utopia of the left – Communist China – is once again showing its true face. Freedom is shattered and dissidents are silenced. Yet the EU continues with its naive globalism and its bowing to Beijing. We are becoming increasingly dependent on this blood-red dictatorship. Our industries, our jobs and our values are being sacrificed on the altar for cheaper trade. This is not just financial madness, it is a betrayal of everything we say we stand for. The EU must stop crawling for China. Trade policy must put Sweden's and Europe's interests first. Do not strengthen a regime that oppresses its people and threatens our freedom. It is time to speak clearly and act with the spine.

Mr President, thank you very much. Lisa in the Netherlands, Liana in Germany, Wilma in Sweden. Their lives were extinguished by men from Muslim countries who should never have been here. After every tragedy, we have the same words from the left. Our thoughts go out to those affected, and then it's quiet. Nothing is done. Where does indifference come from? Would you rather protect your multicultural ideology than those who fall victim to it? No ideal, no ideology and no political goal is more important than security in Europe. No speech, no ceremonies and no slogan can restore security. So my question is: When will Europe change course?

Thank you, Mr President. The Commission's ELV proposal is a threat to our Swedish car industry and car culture. I do not understand how the Commission was able to come up with such an incredibly bad proposal. This should actually end up in the trash where it belongs. Many Swedes love their cars. We repair, renovate and keep older vehicles alive, and that's part of our culture. The Commission wants to make this more difficult and wants to ban functional spare parts, force scrapping and increase the cost for those who want to buy or sell an older vehicle. The EU wants to micromanage hobby mechanics in their garage, screw by screw. Sweden does not need EU rules that stifle car enthusiasts, are counterproductive and waste resources. Scrap this proposal, not our cars.

Mr President, thank you very much. Recently, world leaders came together to pledge the largest ever package of contributions to the Third World: $4 trillion a year, with the aim of fighting global poverty. Ambitions are not lacking, but the perception of reality shines with its absence. Unfortunately, this will not help the most vulnerable. The focus should be on clean water, nutrition and care. Instead, the focus is on reducing carbon emissions, in countries where many have no electricity at all, or on quotas and gender equality projects, while mothers cannot even feed their children. We've seen it before. Expensive conferences, fine speeches and promises, but then the money disappears into bureaucracy and corruption and consolidates grant dependency.

Mr President, thank you very much. Recently, world leaders came together to pledge the largest ever package of contributions to the Third World: $4 trillion a year, with the aim of fighting global poverty. Ambitions are not lacking, but the perception of reality shines with its absence. Unfortunately, this will not help the most vulnerable. The focus should be on clean water, nutrition and care. Instead, the focus is on reducing carbon emissions, in countries where many have no electricity at all, or on quotas and gender equality projects, while mothers cannot even feed their children. We've seen it before. Expensive conferences, fine speeches and promises, but then the money disappears into bureaucracy and corruption and consolidates grant dependency.