What Dick spoke about.

Madam President, thank you very much. As far as the European Court of Auditors is concerned, it is interesting to hear that no one has proposed savings on this activity. We have very different political views in this House, but I think it is a strength that we agree that the European Court of Auditors is doing an excellent job. A reflection: The ECA budget represents less than one-tenth of the EU budget. That is a very small sum for the work and strength that it entails for the Union to have an audit that does proper work and reveals the problems that exist. 0.1% should be increased so that we can have even better reports and even more reviews on the activities that the European Union is doing. Then perhaps we could even be a little more in agreement on what the Union is doing, if we know that these are reasonable projects and that they are being carried out in a good and efficient way. So I think we should think hard about whether the European Court of Auditors should not have a much larger budget in order to be able to do more audit work for the Union.

Mr President, thank you very much. As rapporteur for this proposal, I would first like to underline the importance of the work of the European Court of Auditors. The ECA plays a unique role within the Union. The ECA carries out independent audits of the Union’s substantial spending and, through its work, reinforces the lack of democratic legitimacy that the EU suffers from, by providing increased transparency and accountability. For 2023, the Court’s budget amounted to around 175 million euro, representing an increase of just under 8 %. I consider this to be a very small increase given that the ECA’s work has expanded and now also includes the multi-billion-dollar coronavirus fund to be audited. In view of the increased need for auditing following the significant increase in the volume of resources through the Coronavirus Fund, the ECA’s cost increases may be seen as too small to carry out an effective audit. The Corona Fund was a response to a crisis, but crises must never be an excuse for lax controls. We must therefore be vigilant so that external factors do not obscure the visibility of potential internal control weaknesses. Several years ago, the Court of Auditors warned that the level of error in EU budgets is increasing significantly. In 2023, the auditors’ error rate increased to 5,6 %. These amounts are now enormous. Particularly with regard to the disbursements of the coronavirus fund, widespread fraud can be observed. According to the Court, it is simply not possible to follow the money to see where it has gone. Weaknesses in control systems and the very low level of on-the-spot checks are used by national authorities, companies and organisations to seize EU money. It is fraudulent towards taxpayers to allow this abuse to continue. Billions of dollars are spent wrongly every year. I therefore welcome the fact that, in the report, a unanimous Committee on Budgetary Control calls for a further increase in the scrutiny carried out under the heading: European public administrationnotes with concern that 30 % of the transactions analysed were affected by error; The wide-ranging errors signal the need to step up efforts to identify and combat fraud and irregularities. This is why, among other things, it is of the utmost importance that the Court of Auditors has full access to tools that can help their efforts. The ECA should have access to the Commission’s and Member States’ databases on fraud cases linked to EU funding. The Commission grants the ECA access only to certain modules of FENIX, the database that monitors the expenditure of the coronavirus fund. The Commission also fails to ensure that the information in the modules is updated quickly enough. It cannot be the case that institutions responsible for scrutinising Union funds are forced to work with incomplete or outdated information. The Commission should therefore provide the Court of Auditors with full and unhindered access to the modules in Fenix without delay. It is important to bear in mind that resources spent on auditing the EU's grant stream reveal misuse and save large amounts of money. I thank you for the cooperation in committee on this report. I hope that the groups in this Parliament can agree to support the important work of the European Court of Auditors.

Madam President, thank you very much. On the part of the Sweden Democrats, we have long been sounding the alarm about the EU's unsustainable budgetary policy, about the problems with joint borrowing and about the corona fund, the RRF. We warn that increased budgets lead to misinvestment and that billions are lost through fraud and irregularities. The Commission, on the other hand, is pushing for an increase in the budget and power at the expense of the nations. The report we are now discussing fits in with the wishes of the Commission. It insists that the next long-term budget be given increased resources. The historic restriction that the budget does not exceed 1% of GNI is to be waived. To this we should say no, no, no. The long-term budget must be reduced and responsibility returned to the Member States. The EU must stop signalling goodness. Through economy, the EU can carry out its core tasks with greater cost-effectiveness for the benefit of all.

Mr President, I would like to thank you. Unemployment is too high. Social networks are inadequate. There is a significant shortage of affordable housing. Healthcare needs to be strengthened." Much of what my colleagues have said here today can be agreed with. But these are not competences for the EU, but for national and local democratic bodies that are closer to citizens' everyday lives. We in the EU need to focus on strengthening competitiveness and reducing the regulatory burden. Only by boosting growth and creating better conditions for business can resources be created that can strengthen our social institutions and make life easier for those in difficulty across Europe.

Mr President, thank you very much. Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. She speaks of bold and decisive actions, yet the Commission is unable to do just that: focus. It continues to speak in terms of ‘more of everything’. To be truly bold, Europe must have the courage to make it a priority. A number of previously set ambitions must be prioritized down or scrapped. The big question is whether green climate goals should be allowed to delay military and security policy goals, for example through high energy costs. What does the Commission put first? The geopolitical situation requires clear language. We can't have both. It leads to neither. Freedom or green, that is the question.

Women's rights are, of course, something that is very important to address here. But I wonder why you do not mention what exists and spreads very much in Europe now, with the destructive women's culture that Islamist fundamentalists are trying to implement with oppression of honor and other things. Isn't that a very big and essential part to deal with when it comes to women's rights in Europe?

Mr President, I would like to thank you. Do you remember the Lisbon Strategy of 2000? The EU would become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world. Twenty-five years later, we can see that not only the Lisbon Strategy, but a series of other solemnly proclaimed treaties, have failed. The EU lagged behind and lost momentum. The competitiveness compass now proposed is filled with the same contradictions that five previous Commissions have expressed. On the one hand, simplifying the rules. That is right and it increases freedom, innovation and competitiveness. On the other hand, however, there is an emphasis on harmonisation, support policies and more climate regulation. This inevitably leads to more bureaucracy, waste and top-down governance that stifles innovation and competitiveness. We can't go on like this. Instead, we must act by deregulating.

Mr President, I would like to thank you. In the United States, Doge, the Department of Government Efficiency, has in a short time made big headlines when exposing waste in government administration. An initiative such as Doge is needed in the EU. Someone who questions priorities in current budgets and allocation of resources. The European Court of Auditors and others are doing a good job of mapping how resources are used within the framework of existing decisions. But already here the level of error is increasing and that is worrying. We need someone who does more than just auditing. We need someone who questions existing legislation from a strictly streamlining perspective. Do the funds and regulatory frameworks benefit or harm competitiveness in Europe? On the one hand is anyone who wants more money for good purposes. This needs to be balanced by a counterforce. We need a task force, like the American Doge's Mavericks, that exposes waste and inefficiency. A force that drives real change.

Madam President, I would like to thank you for your It is a serious misuse of taxpayers’ money when NGOs use contributions from the Commission’s LIFE programme to influence us parliamentarians on green issues. Following the revelation, the Commission, as Commissioner Serafin has now also said here, has changed the rules so that they are not allowed to use this money in direct influence. But it still means that there are opportunities for indirect influence through workshops and other activities. I would like to ask the centre-right Group of the European People's Party (EPP) whether this revelation is not an excellent reason to abandon, in future budgets, the EUR 2 billion spent on climate activism under the LIFE programme, in order to use these resources instead for urgent measures such as strengthening the EU's external borders and Frontex.

Mr President, thank you very much. The American people have chosen a new political direction. This will have positive consequences for us in Europe. Europe is finally forced to strengthen its competitiveness, green utopias must be reconsidered. There's an important sobriety waiting. The United States will deregulate the state apparatus, take control of borders and protect the interests of taxpayers. This means that we in Europe need to tighten up. We need less of planned economy, less of regulatory hysteria and an end to wok and gender confusion. Let us begin an era of common sense with the United States.

Madam President, thank you very much. All dictatorships in history have curtailed freedom of expression with motive to prevent disinformation, to prevent lies. Therefore, DSA is a tragic act that plays with fire. Instead, I would like to safeguard our European Enlightenment tradition and I could quote Voltaire: "I dislike what you say, but am prepared to die for your right to say what you think." It is a fundamental principle that is much deeper than a single piece of legislation, a fundamental value. Those who challenge our Western values, we shall meet them in open debate. I find it strange that so many in this House do not seem to believe in our values, but we must censor, stop and hinder. I am convinced that we will win every debate with Russia, China and all other dictatorships that seek to undermine our values. We will take them into open debate, not by trying to use their methods. It is absolutely essential that we protect our freedom of expression instead of chasing control.

Mr President, I would like to thank you. This discussion frightens me. In the last 20 years, nothing has strengthened democracy, made it broader, more accessible, than the internet and social platforms. Many tens, hundreds of millions of people have been able to express themselves in these media that have not been heard before, that have not had their voice heard, that have been able to participate in the public debate. It is an enormous step forward that the internet and social media have contributed to strengthening democracy. But here in this House you hear from the old ruling parties that it is poison, that it is brainwashing, that it lowers democracy. To me, this sounds like a medieval Inquisition that hunts heretics. Ordinary people should shut up. It's up to the ruling elite to decide. We can't have that. We need to protect and defend social media.

Mr President, I would like to thank you. Today's debate on innovation in Europe is very important. The situation is serious. Europe's share of the world economy is rapidly declining and our industry is moving abroad. We spend less on research than the US, where four times more venture capital is invested and twice as many patents are registered. We're missing the tech boom. The EU has only 85 unicorns, while the US has 500. We can't go on like this. Supranational strategies, grant programmes and a new European Innovation Act do not solve anything. We need more freedom. We need to empower innovators and entrepreneurs. By removing red tape and regulatory complexity, creating incentives to increase access to private capital – we are increasing the power of innovation.

Madam President, I would like to thank you for your Once again, everything indicates that a Chinese ship has sabotaged important infrastructure in the Baltic Sea. A ship is detained in the Kattegat. The Swedish Prime Minister has kindly requested that the vessel go to a Swedish port to be investigated. It's not good enough. The ship should be forced to a Swedish port, where interrogations can be carried out and evidence secured. Then there is the need for deterrence. China calls its aggressive foreign policy Warrior diplomacy. Together with NATO, Sweden and the EU should act to maximise the price of such aggressiveness. It's time to show hybrid warring states like China and Russia what they can do.iking diplomacy may mean. Otherwise, we will only risk more malicious attacks on our infrastructure.

Mr President, I would like to thank you. The Court's annual report is alarming. Last year's waste of over SEK 150 billion is unacceptable and something radical must be done. We need to drastically reduce the oversized EU budget. When the amounts are so huge, and the time frame for spending this money is tight, the control mechanisms do not keep up. The Sweden Democrats warned of just that when the long-term budget and the corona fund were approved. The billions spent incorrectly could instead have been used to increase security, to the judiciary, to health care and to border guards. They could have used this money better than the grant contractors. It is time for decision-makers to start taking the EU budget process seriously, and Sweden must learn to use the right of veto. Every euro lost is a theft from the people.

Mr President, thank you very much. Parliament’s discussion on the 2025 EU annual budget focuses on one thing only: More money for Brussels. Member States show greater financial responsibility and cut proposed expenditure by EUR 1 billion. Parliament must sober up. Money doesn't grow on trees. Europe needs to focus on effective solutions, on competitiveness. Despite record levels of error – up to 150 billion disappeared from last year’s budget – you in this House want to continue pouring out the billions. Do you not understand that the already oversized budget is fuelling corruption, inefficiency and waste? Less money means less waste and waste. It also gives the EU an opportunity to prioritise what really matters: safety, security and welfare.

I welcome the support of the Social Democrats in sending weapons to Ukraine. But it is worrying that your partner the Green Party now, according to Swedish Radio, criticizes Poland when it stops Russia's hybrid warfare with migrants across the border from Belarus. Isn't it serious that the Green Party is running Putin's affairs?

Mr President, I would like to thank you. After police raids in Eastern and Southern Europe earlier this year, Rolex watches, gold, diamonds, jewelry, apartments, villas, cryptocurrency, Lamborghini, Porsche and an Audi Q8 were seized. A single criminal gang is suspected of stealing over SEK 6 billion from the coronavirus fund Next Generation, with the help of experts on grant applications, AI tools and scam companies. When social democrats and moderates let the corona fund through, rigorous controls were promised. It didn't happen that way. The oversized EU budget feeds corruption and waste, but also helps criminals who have found a new cash cow milk through financial crime. The grants are so large and the beneficiaries so numerous that rigorous checks are not possible. This must come to an end.

Mr President, I would like to thank you. Supranational socialist funds create perverse incentives. Those who are not prepared will be rewarded. Those who have done their job will have to pay. Natural disasters are tragedies, and they are not worthy of being used as an excuse for increased economic redistribution within the EU. To let others pay, for example, if the Dutch would stop maintaining their grassland towards the sea would be as unreasonable as if Sweden would demand compensation from southern Europe for our cold winters. Of course, countries can help each other. Like when our forests burned and Poland's fire department came to the rescue. It was voluntary and genuine solidarity. Responsibility for civil preparedness shall remain national. It is not a supranational issue and the costs should not be dumped on good countries. The Sweden Democrats are voting no to harmful contributions, not just for Sweden, but for the whole of Europe, well.

Madam President, I would like to thank you for your The UN summit, which would be a global governance, makes me think of John Lennon's naive song Imagine. The final declaration states that we should improve migration pathways and recognise the positive contribution of migrants. On the other hand, no mention is made of the sharp increase in violence caused by migration in countries such as Sweden. The conclusions are therefore a mockery of Mikael, the father who was shot dead in Stockholm this summer when he cycled with his son to swim. A Middle Eastern migrant is now in custody, suspected of the murder. Why are the problems that Europe has been facing as a result of the excessive migration being ignored? The UN Declaration embellishes a global perspective and denies reality. It should be thrown in the trash where it belongs.