Speeches

Mr President, one year has passed since the murder of Mahsa Amini. During that time, we witnessed the greatest uprising the Islamic Republic has ever seen: protests worldwide for ‘women, life, freedom’. Out of fear and desperation, the regime attempted to suffocate the burning embers of hope, imprisoning bereaved family members and friends for simply gathering near the gravesites of the mullahs’ victims. And what has Europe’s response been? Have Member States expelled the ambassadors of the mullahs while recalling their own? Did this House vote to terminate the Iran nuclear deal? Has the Council designated the IRGC as a terrorist organisation and used their assets to create a strike fund? No. High Representative Borrell, your Iran policy has failed. Iranians don’t want your rapprochement. They’re waiting for Europe to show maximum support for the people and to put maximum pressure on the regime. Dear colleagues, let’s honour the memory of Mahsa Amini by working together from left to right for a new Iran policy.

Mr President, Islamists and Islamic states are attacking free speech in Europe and some are waving the white flag. Denmark’s proposed ban on Quran burnings was praised by the Turkish Government. The speaker of the Arab League urged European states and the EU to adopt similar laws. Pakistan called Denmark’s bill a step in the right direction – a step, ladies and gentlemen. 97 % of mosques surveyed in Sweden want more. They want to criminalise desecration, provocations and insults of Islamic symbols and values in general – a giant leap toward Sharia. Mr President, if you know the Islamist end game, the proper response can only be this: not one inch. No appeasement, no submission, no surrender. Never.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, why should anyone do business/create jobs in Europe? Seriously? Regulations: the EU is suffocating businesses; 6000 legal acts from this mandate alone. Energy: unpredictable, impractical, expensive green energy is your solution. Overregulated, ageing, indebted, uncompetitive economies without access to cheap energy, inevitably deindustrialised. While we’re debating investments, companies are forced to spend less resources on things that matter and more on compliance. Today, you voted to strangle an emerging industry with EU red tape and you red Greens want a partial ban on forestry and farming, well aware of the massive economic damage it would do to my country and to Finland. Investments will come when start-ups are not constrained, industries can focus on production and electricity prices are low. If the EU repeals two laws for every law it passes, mark my words, investments will come.

Mr President, thank you very much. Madam Minister, colleagues! Last week, the Council agreed on a compromise on the migration pact, a compromise that was on a very, very delicate thread. The Council pleads, among other things, for swift expulsions of migrants coming from countries without a state of war, without threats to their lives, for migrants without grounds for asylum to be able to be deported to safe transit countries, and for migrant quotas dictated by Brussels to be something one would rather not see. As for my own country, Sweden, we have recently had a mass shooting that even left-liberal cultural writers associate with migration. Then the European Parliament cannot sit in the ivory tower and talk about the ‘narrative of fear’ – when teenagers in Sweden wonder: ‘Is it my turn next time? Are you going to lock me up at home now, Dad?’ It is very easy to do that, as neoliberals, you greens. If you adopt this attitude in the negotiations with the Council, I can promise you that: There will be no migration pact!

Madam President, thank you very much. Member States have now agreed on a counter-offer in the negotiations on the EU migration pact, and it rejects the coercive redistribution of migrants proposed by both Parliament’s Tomas Tobé and Commission’s Ylva Johansson. Parliament's majority, as we recall, deleted the entire portal paragraph on the fight against illegal immigration. calls for more coercive redistribution of migrants and increased family migration; They will now come to an agreement with the Member States in the Council who want to prioritise the fight against illegal immigration with faster and easier deportations, stopped shuttle traffic in the Mediterranean and agreements with third countries to house migrants in Africa. Negotiations between Parliament and the Council are now underway. If Parliament manages to pull the pact in its migration-liberal direction, it will become unsustainable. In a few months' time, we in the European Parliament will take a position on the finalized proposal. If this proposal leads to increased migration to our country and to Europe, we Sweden Democrats will vote no.

Madam President, colleagues, how can we deter illegal migration and deaths at sea, and provide protection for those in need? Well, by relocating the entire asylum process abroad, as Denmark is doing with Rwanda. The far-right government of Denmark. Oh, wait: it’s a Social Democratic liberal government. You don’t have to be a conservative to pursue reasonable migration policies, but you do have to be a realist. Although initially rebuked by Commissioner Johansson as bad and completely unrealistic, the model is gaining support. The Dutch Parliament called for cooperation with Denmark on Rwanda-style reception centres. Even Herr Weber, the EPP chief, supports this policy. Our very own Prime Minister, Ulf Kristersson, stated in Copenhagen that centres outside the EU probably is the future. Colleagues, externalising processing alone won’t remove incentives, though. Let me be clear: it’s essential that both processing and reception take place outside Europe. Only this way can we curb illegal migration, while at the same time providing refuge for those in need of international protection.

Madam President, thank you very much. Fruit is good, but it is not EU fruit support. EU support for school fruit does not exist to encourage schoolchildren to eat more fruit. It is about lobby groups having succeeded in inducing Brussels to spend EU money, tax money, on subsidising orchards, resulting in overproduction. But what will the EU do with all this fruit? What you do is either pay for the destruction of the fruit, or baptize the demand with more tax money. Swedish schools have the opportunity to apply for EU-sponsored fruit, a kind of refund on the Swedish EU fee. But our authorities have found that the bureaucracy eats up most of the fruit aid. The paperwork made it almost as expensive to buy fruit, with the fruit support as without. The EU should abolish both the aid for overproduction of fruit and the aid for school fruit, and reduce the membership fee by the same amount. Then maybe schools and parents could afford to buy the fruit our children need.

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.