Speeches

Madam President, thank you very much. (inaudible introduction) ... ban, power tax, subsidies for renewable, politically appointed management at Vattenfall. Yes, the list of what the Social Democrats, with the help of the Center, have done to punish out nuclear power can be made long, very long. Now, however, reality has caught up. It is no longer possible to turn a blind eye to the consequences of the policy pursued: escalating electricity prices, uncertain supplies and inflation. With reality, public opinion reverses, and with public opinion, social democracy ‘pretends’. It was probably not a good idea to phase out nuclear power and destroy the world's best energy mix. So, just in time for the election, you pretend to make a U-turn. Here in the European Parliament, however, we see their real side. Both the Social Democrats and the Centre Party voted against including nuclear power in the taxonomy. Nuclear energy is still being punished as a source of energy. As usual, you say one thing, but do something completely different in reality. You can't trust either the Democrats or their supporters.

Mr President, thank you very much. As many as 3.2 million Swedes voted against EMU and the euro. It is an election result that Europe today ignores as we become more and more involved in its economic policy. The Corona Fund is an example of this, i.e. a package of grants to euro area countries that were already dysfunctional economies before the pandemic. While they receive the grants, Swedish citizens and entrepreneurs suffer from rampant prices on, among other things, food, energy and fuel. Next year, Croatia will adopt the euro. I defend the right of countries to decide which currency they want, but then they should also be able to manage their economies and not expect contributions from other countries, especially from us outside the euro zone. Croatia is welcome to join the monetary union, but it is time to respect the Swedish people's 'no' and stand outside it for real.

Mr President, thank you very much. The aim has been good and it certainly sounds good that the EU is now creating order in the digital world wild west. One might call it order, but in practice it is rather a gigantic and complex digital bureaucracy that will soon require new regulations. When in history has massive bureaucracy led to more dynamism, innovation and growth? To my knowledge never, on the contrary, massive administration ultimately benefits authorities and big companies that can afford to adapt. But the biggest problem here is, of course, that freedom of expression will be further restricted by this legislation. Our constitutional freedom will now lie in the hands, not only of Big Tech, but also of designated online police officers, so-called Trusted Flags, when instead our freedom of expression should rest only on democratically enacted laws – both offline and online. The laws exist. It is above all an adaptation of our courts to the speed of the digital world that we need, not more bureaucracy and arbitrariness.

Mr President, thank you very much. In the shadow of the Ukraine war, rampant electricity and fuel prices and inflation, the European Parliament is taking this opportunity to seek to increase the power of the EU, by abolishing the veto power of Member States on such a fundamental issue as taxation. There is no taxation without representation. "Without representation, no taxing rights," he said. I've said it before and I'll say it again: The EU is not a state and therefore should not have power over tax policy. For the representation, it's not just here. It is available at local and national level. And the power will primarily be with the people, far, far away from here. It is the government of each country, not the Eurocrats, that is accountable to its people. If voters are happy, they will be re-elected. If not, they can be voted out. Talking about the importance of democracy, as Parliament does at all times, and at the same time proposing the deeply undemocratic – the deprivation of a people’s control over their taxes – says a lot about the lack of democratic compass here in Parliament. That is extremely worrying.

Madam President, the bickering about different parts of the EU’s climate laws is a distraction from the real issue, which is the climate laws as a whole. With a share of 7% of global CO2 emissions, the EU relies on large nations from other parts of the world to join in on the climate measures. But they are not. China and India currently depend on cheap energy like coal, oil and gas. As we use less of it, it gets cheaper and they will use more. This means that we are subsidising their consumption and hurting our own economy, all while we’re not decreasing total global emissions. The solution isn’t more unrealistic goal-setting and climate socialism, but investing in research, technology and innovation, instead of bankrupting both our citizens and our companies.

Madam President, thank you very much. For almost 50 years, the EU has ignored its own rule that Member States must not have a public debt higher than 60% of their GDP. There have been many apologies: recent pandemic, high electricity prices and inflation. And now there's talk of being able to ignore so-called green debt. Countries should thus be able to continue to have undisciplined fiscal policies and increase their debt if climate action is used as a pretext. Whether the measures are effective or not does not seem to matter. As a swedish democrat, I will never accept unhealthy finances. Debts, no matter what we call them, sooner or later, must be paid back, if not now, by future generations.

Madam President, thank you very much. The EU now wants to force electric cars into the market with the argument that CO2 emissions would then decrease dramatically. But either you lie or you close your eyes to the fact that the expensive and carbon-intensive production of batteries, together with the EU's fossil-intensive energy mix, means that electric cars, just like cars with internal combustion engines, emit carbon dioxide. "Listen to science" in this case means that the EU simply decides that electric cars should be classified as clean, regardless of what it actually looks like. What does a ban mean in practice? Yes, except that we are killing large parts of the European automotive industry, the oil sheikhs are not going to stop selling their oil. Because if we stop buying, the world market price drops, and other countries can buy all the more. Other countries are supplied with cheap energy, and in this way both emissions and growth will take place elsewhere. Banning the internal combustion engine neither creates wealth nor improves the global climate. Climate policy is not governed by science and common sense.

Madam President, thank you very much. Commissioner, thank you very much. Yes, for almost three years I have been standing here warning about the consequences of a completely unrealistic and naive climate policy. I have warned that the targets and planned economic methods would not lead to significant emission reductions, but would lead to runaway electricity and energy prices, major geopolitical risks, electricity shortages, waste of tax money and a loss of competitiveness for industry. Now that many citizens are really starting to feel the negative consequences, instead of rethinking and doing the right thing, you want to compensate them with additional crisis money. This time a Social Climate Fund. The bad policy should not be changed, but its bad consequences should be temporarily mitigated with even more Swedish tax dollars. It is short-sighted, it is naive and it is completely irresponsible. It's got to be enough now.

Emma Wiesner! You and the Centre Party's politics are making the Swedes increasingly poorer. We are seeing rampant electricity and energy prices, an inflation we have not seen for many, many years. Still, you just keep going. Now you also want Swedes to pay for other countries' rampant energy and electricity prices through the Social Fund. I wonder, is there a stop to your generosity when it comes to Swedish taxes and your naive climate dreams?

Madam President, thank you very much. Yes, there is nothing as permanent as a temporary EU grant. The trade union has become a grant union, and as new crises arise, new grants and now debts are created for Swedish taxpayers. While many Swedes are cracked by rampant gasoline prices and electricity bills, and while small business owners, hauliers and farmers go bankrupt, their tax money goes to countries that, instead of reforming themselves, have learned to live on EU subsidies. For example, Trevi Nano, a small picturesque village in Italy with 142 inhabitants, which now, like 20 other small picturesque villages, receives SEK 200 million in coronavirus grants: 1.4 million per inhabitant. What a jackpot! How is that even possible, you may wonder. Yes, but it is, thanks to Magdalena Andersson and her Social Democratic government, that without blinking again and again says yes to undemanding contributions of various kinds, of solidarity, but not with the Swedish people, but with countries that refuse to reform themselves.

Mr President, thank you very much. This proposal to introduce a minimum tax of 15% on companies should be something that comes from the Member States and not from Brussels. For the EU is not a state, nor is it sovereign and should have no power in tax matters. What do you think will happen when Member States realise that this agreement is reducing their competitiveness? Or that the United States, for example, will not implement this directive? We are then at risk of an unbelievable loss of European competitiveness. Here again, the Member States are being suppressed. It is no longer an agreement between states, but a centralist EU tax directive. An independent state can therefore no longer decide on its own tax. In Sweden, we are not even able to decide on such a simple issue as the VAT on our fuel prices. We simply cannot decide on our own energy mix without sticks from the EU. Step by step, power is irrevocably transferred to Brussels when we should instead trust democracy and bring it back to the people.

Madam President, thank you very much. What do we really get for EU money, apart from more officials and more bureaucracy? Do we get better quality? Do we get more added value for citizens? In the private sector, where I come from, shareholders do not agree to constantly inject more money into something that does not yield a return. In a competitive market, customers do not pay for bad products and services. But now this is not business, but a fundamentally good idea that has developed into an expensive administrative colossus. Today, the European authorities have growing powers and are made up of tens of thousands of officials, and it is our task, Parliament's, to critically scrutinise them. Despite all the flashing warning lights about inefficiency and waste, Parliament's main criticism is that the gender balance is not sufficiently even. So to answer my initial question: Better gender balance – that is what we get for the money if Parliament gets to decide.

Mr President, thank you very much. Rarely has so much been said about democracy and popular rule and at the same time so much has been done to reduce it. The shift of power from citizens to Brussels is ongoing and it is now proposed that in the European elections there should be a specific list of 28 independent candidates for citizens to vote for. They want members who do not represent their home countries, but Brussels. If the proposal is implemented, the list will in practice be filled by EU-famous federalists, elitists without feeling and belonging to the individual Member States. Members without responsibility. In what way would they protect the interests of Sweden and Swedish citizens? Not at all. As a Democrat, I voted against this de-democracy.

Mr President, thank you very much. Today, freedom of speech is under threat from many sources. In Sweden, we have recently been able to witness riots in which over 180 police officers were injured, police cars were set on fire and areas vandalized. This is because the police protect an individual's legal right to practice religious criticism by burning their own Quran. Political voices are now being raised about curtailing this right. Freedom of speech gives way to violence. But today we find the great battle for freedom of expression on the internet and the major social platforms. They are the square and meeting place of our time. The basic principle should be that what is legal to say offline should also be legal to say online. It is therefore extremely worrying that the EU is now moving in the opposite direction and calling for increased censorship. Even things that are legal can be removed. This is a dangerous step in the wrong direction. Without freedom of speech we are not free and without freedom of speech we have no democracy.

Mr President, thank you very much. As an economist, I understand the importance of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship. As an individual, I understand the importance of being able to choose. And as a woman, I understand the importance of being given equal opportunities, because it is equal opportunities, not equal outcomes, which should be the obvious principle even when it comes to entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship. But that is not the case here in the European Parliament. Through quotas, gender mainstreaming, targeted resources, gender perspectives and laws, we want to force equal outcomes in all areas. Instead, what we should be doing is investing in what benefits us all and entrepreneurship as a whole, namely education, cutting red tape, access to venture capital and low taxes.

Mr President, thank you very much. Brecht’s famous phrase could be the title of the proposal that we European citizens should be educated and given a common European identity, because, according to Parliament, we citizens have a lack of knowledge on topics such as European identity, post-colonial thinking, social skills and the benefits of Europe. The proposal bears frighteningly clear witness to Parliament's undemocratic view of referenda, individuality and national competences. "When we cannot depose the people, we have to educate them to think right", seems to be the motto. I myself will continue to be a Gotlander, a Scanian and a Swede – with the greatest respect for nation-states and their sovereignty – no matter how much education you force on me. And, of course, I voted against this EU propaganda.

Madam President, thank you very much. Commissioner, thank you very much. The warnings of global warming are based on solid research, as is clear from the first part of the UN climate report. The second part, on the other hand, in some places resembles a flyer for an insurance company. Great focus on risks and disaster scenarios. A little focus on probability and relevance. I am not the first to note this politicization. In the 1990s, the science magazine ‘Nature’ wanted to abolish the second part of the report as it no longer focused on promoting science. In 2010, a UN commission raised the same problem: a one-sided focus on the negative consequences of warming and often exaggerated and ambiguous conclusions. I call for reflection. We politicians should not act as scientists, nor should scientists act as politicians. Our task is to make well-balanced decisions for the whole of society on a scientific basis, not to ideologize research results.

Mr President, thank you very much. Commissioner, thank you very much. In 2011, when Germany decided to shut down nuclear power, it toasted at the Russian embassy in Berlin. A German journalist has testified about how the Russian ambassador raised his glass and said: ‘Greetings to the German Government, this is a good day for Russian energy policy, a good day for Russia’. That's right, because we're here a decade later. Russia has invaded Ukraine, and the EU has put itself in an extremely dangerous situation, as the transition to renewable energy has made us dependent on Russian gas. Even so, you now want more of the same medication. Nuclear power will continue to be shut down and replaced by weather-dependent solar and wind power. A new dictatorship will be replaced by another. This time from China. China currently produces 80% of the world's batteries and 70% of solar cells. It also has a monopoly on many critical metals. This is what happens when everything is subordinated to ill-considered climate goals. This isn't a game. All decisions have consequences – in this case extremely serious. A strong, stable and competitive Union must be self-sufficient in planable and affordable energy. It is time to stop climate floskler, stop the nuclear shutdown and invest in new modern technology, streamlining, preparedness and innovation.

Madam President, thank you very much. Transmission problems, low availability, volatile increasing prices, dependence on Russian gas and Chinese components. Negative impact on the environment and fisheries. Technology from the 1850s. Does this really sound like a winning strategy? Something for the future? No, this massive investment in offshore wind power may be one of the most reality-averse I've heard here in the European Parliament. Do you really not understand the consequences of your decisions? For ordinary people, for the electricity system, for competitiveness and ultimately for the environment. It's time to stop dreaming and do it right.

Mr President, thank you very much. Commissioner, thank you very much. Facebook and Google have repeatedly shown that they want to make the Internet a forum for specially selected perspectives and opinions. As a Sweden Democrat, I want instead to have a free and open arena for thoughts, ideas and exchanges of views. This is the foundation of democracy and development. The proposal we are voting on tomorrow has its points, but as a whole unfortunately does more harm than good. I welcome proposals that promote law enforcement, transparency and consumer protection, but completely reject the idea of allowing opinion police and private companies to decide what constitutes harmful content online. The line should be drawn in the case of illegality, nowhere else. Freedom of speech is the foundation of free thinking and problem-solving. What is controversial today may be self-evident tomorrow. We need freedom of ideas and opinions, not censorship or central control, neither from Silicon Valley nor from Brussels.

Madam President, thank you very much. Competition and freedom are the engine of any successful economy – an insight that is not always widely supported in the EU corridors. All too often we want to see centralisation and planned economic solutions instead. In this case, however, it is different. The Digital Markets Act represents a genuine attempt to limit the enormous hegemony of big tech giants. Platforms like Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon have with their advantage simply monopoly in the market. There are no alternatives for consumers. There are no real opportunities for competitors. This kind of dominance should simply be regulated. In order to maintain competitiveness and innovation, SMEs must be given significantly better opportunities to develop and operate. It is through a free and open internet that tomorrow's inventions are created. I am pleased that we have managed to reach a compromise that is a step in the right direction, and I would like to thank everyone involved for their very good cooperation.

Mr President, thank you very much. Our geostrategic dependence on China is already very high. China, for example, accounts for 98% of the EU's rare earth needs and controls to a large extent the trade in cobalt for electric car batteries. The new climate targets and massive investments in e-mobility and weather-dependent energy will increase this dependence in many ways in the future. It is becoming increasingly clear that China is the big winner in the EU's climate transition, because already now we are seeing the effects of the EU's offensive ambitions in terms of rising energy prices, inflation, less competitiveness and increased dependence on the outside world, while China is both increasing its emissions and consolidating its geopolitical position in terms of access to raw materials and the manufacture of vital components. Unfortunately, I am forced to reiterate that the transition that, according to the Commission, would make us successful and independent of dictatorships lacks adequate impact assessments. It's time to rethink.

Madam President, thank you very much. You wanted to reduce dependence on fossil energy and avoid a relationship of dependency with Russia. So what did you really think when you decided to shut down working nuclear power? Now the need for both fossils and Russia has increased. You also want to build wind and solar power at any price, a price that has now hit the citizens. Energy poverty is rampant. I know that many here want to do more of what has proven not to work, that is, invest even more in weather-dependent electricity production before the problems of power transmission, storage, access to raw materials and waste are solved. It's too late to do everything right, but not too late to do the rest right. Repeal the requirements to build weather-dependent electricity generation, regardless of the consequences. Suspend the plans to shut down and worsen the conditions for nuclear power, which is of course the best for the climate, competitiveness and our wallets. ‘Never let a good crisis go to waste.’ Learn from this crisis before it is too late for real.

Mr President, thank you very much. Commissioner, thank you very much. The EU is already the most climate-efficient region in the world. Even though our share of just 9% of emissions is decreasing and much of the rest of the world is increasing, myriads of regulations are now being introduced. We do not know whether our efforts will have any effect on the global climate, but what we do know is that the EU's expensive climate policy will lower our living standards, increase energy poverty and make everyday life more expensive for ordinary people. We also know that European industry will find it extremely difficult to compete globally. The truth is that the EU is now creating a protectionist trade castle, while the rest of the world, not least China, will be able to continue consuming cheap oil and gas. Just because we choose to abstain, the outside world will not. We have never had more opportunities to make the right decisions, both for the climate and for prosperity, but instead we are investing in an irrational and market-hostile model that the rest of the world will not mimic.