Speeches

Mr President, thank you very much. Since 2017, Uganda has received SEK 2.5 billion in EU aid. At the same time, Uganda's parliament has voted that homosexuality can lead to the death penalty. It is enough that you identify yourself as gay and you can get ten years in prison. Only the President’s signature is now missing – the President, who has previously said that he supports the proposal, but who also wants to safeguard relations with the West. It is the EU's duty to the taxpayer to make demands on aid countries. Governments that violate human rights and oppress their own citizens or wage war against other countries do not need to receive a single penny of our tax money. It is immoral for the EU to give money to countries where homosexuality is punishable by death. What are the limits of when our aid to an authoritarian regime does more harm than good? When do we help cement a dictatorship through generous aid? One thing is certain: We need to rethink the EU's aid policy now.

Mr President, thank you very much. Appears to believe that the climate target is something fluffy and delicate that does not affect people’s everyday lives; It becomes easy when you live in a bubble that is not affected by inflation. The EU sells its climate laws as a way to save, but in fact they create a huge burden for ordinary people. More and more working people are finding it difficult to save money and have enough money. It is the poorest people who suffer the most when EU policies make everyday products more expensive. If transport becomes more expensive, yes, then of course products become more expensive – everything from food to building materials, yes, just about everything. There are no trucks that run on electricity today, so transport is also affected by the EU's new carbon price. The EU's climate policy is not a magical Nangijala. It has real consequences for ordinary people, and we need to remember that.

Mr President, thank you very much. Labour market issues are beyond the competence of the EU and are best regulated at national level according to the history, system and context of each country. The conditions are different and therefore different solutions are needed. There is no Brussels solution. The Wage Transparency Directive is costly, cumbersome and bureaucratic. It completely breaks the bones of the Swedish model where employers and unions negotiate wages. The EU wants to control what can be said in a job interview, how wage bargaining should be done, what statistics each employer should produce and how it should be communicated. Thus, a small number of people should decide which criteria should apply to companies throughout the Union. The EU seems to want to follow a kind of planned economic model where all occupations and all people can be placed in a few compartments. It is a model that historically has worked terribly poorly. This directive does not belong anywhere but in the trash.

Mr President, thank you very much. In the name of climate, the EU wants to regulate everything in our lives – from consumption, transport, buildings and travel, which, according to the Commission itself, has only a small impact on global average temperatures, while hitting our prosperity and people's freedom hard. Does climate policy really have to look like this? No, absolutely not. The EU must change its opposition to free markets and technology development. It will not help the climate if Europe isolates itself and shifts emissions to other parts of the world. Unfortunately, the EU is often an obstacle to nuclear power and carbon savings globally, although it is cheaper and more effective for the climate. Instead of promoting freedom and prosperity, many people seem to believe that the climate is improved by suffering European citizens, which is an incredibly costly mistake.

Madam President, thank you very much. Are you a homeowner? Then you should listen very carefully now. Millions of homeowners in the EU will have to renovate their homes to save energy. At the same time, the EU is doing nothing to reduce its own energy consumption. The European Parliament’s energy costs quadrupled in 2022 compared to the previous year – they amount to over SEK 600 million. The senseless warm-up of two parliaments in Brussels and Strasbourg is a disrespectful waste and a mockery of citizens. It is absolutely insane that we have to heat two buildings for Parliament. Swedish pensioners will need to take out loans to be able to afford to renovate their houses to EU standards – while the European Parliament travels back and forth between Brussels and Strasbourg. Ordinary citizens are already doing an incredible amount to save energy, while the EU completely ignores it and just throws the money straight out the window. That's disgraceful!

Mr President, thank you very much. In the midst of the current energy crisis, the EU wants to ban the internal combustion engine to promote electric cars. But is it really climate-smart? No, absolutely not. The war in Ukraine has led to a renaissance of coal power that produces electricity for Europe's electric cars. Or should we call them coal-fired cars because that's the right name? It can't get much dirtier than this. In addition, there is the expensive and carbon-intensive production of batteries with many parts from China. So instead of needing oil from Saudi Arabia or gas from Russia, we are going into a dependency on China instead. Is that really the lesson to be drawn from the war in Ukraine? Climate alarmism is not helping the climate. We don't need more regulation and we don't need more fear. What we need is more research, a market economy and confidence in the future.

Mr President, thank you very much. Toothpaste, perfume and sunscreen are three products that are at risk of disappearing if the Commission gets its proposal through. Its draft new cosmetics regulation would regulate the market for these products. The EU's worldview is once again clashing with reality. Bureaucrats find topics that are ‘dangerous’. In toothpaste, fluoride is dangerous. In sunscreen it is UV protection that is the culprit, and in perfume it is ethanol that scares. However, these substances are not dangerous if used in moderate and small quantities. Take fluoride, for example – it is dangerous to get too much fluoride, but in toothpaste it has been shown to provide very good dental health. Why should we limit such things? Why do you want to make life more complicated and boring for ordinary people? It is not dangerous to have fresh teeth. It's not dangerous to smell good. So stop this nonsense now and leave people alone!

– Mr President, the problem is that people are dying, and it is because of the politics we have now. So the people we can blame is the people who are supporting the politics now – because you have blood on your hands, you’re making people die instead of saving them.

Mr President, thank you very much. Commissioner Johansson! If we really want to reduce or prevent people from drowning in the Mediterranean, we need to change policy. We cannot continue to promise gold and green forests to migrants coming to Europe. Last year, 330,000 people entered Europe illegally. This is 64 per cent more than in the previous year. Instead of rewarding illegal migration, we must be clear that if you go to Europe illegally, you lose the right to seek asylum. Australia is a clear and good example of this, where it has stopped people from drowning in the ocean by introducing zero tolerance. All boats that will be returned immediately. It is clearly communicated in transit countries, and it is clearly communicated in migrants' home countries. Everyone knows they have zero chance. We need to do the same in Europe. I believe that everyone in this House agrees that people should not drown in the Mediterranean. We do not want this tragedy. Isn't it time for us to pursue a policy that actually prevents this from happening? (The speaker agreed to reply to a post ("blue card"))

Mr President, thank you very much. When Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson presented the Swedish Presidency of the EU, he was clear about the importance of putting national interests aside and that it is not for waving the big Swedish flag. Thinking European nowadays means that Sweden should pay more or compromise its interests. In Brussels, unlike in Stockholm, what Macron means when he says ‘defend European values’ is known. For him, it is exactly the same as French interests. Sweden, on the other hand, does not benefit from more planned economy, more power to Brussels and money that enables generous pension systems in other countries. So I wonder: When does Kristersson really think it's the right time to wave the Swedish flag?

Mr President, thank you very much. In the 1990s, Europe achieved something amazing that the whole world admires, and that I really love about it, namely an internal market of about half a billion people trading with each other every day. It is based on the fact that companies produce what they do best and that there is fair competition without countries providing support to their own industry. This specialisation has increased the prosperity of the EU. Unfortunately, this success story is threatened by an increasingly planned and centralised EU that invests in subsidies, bureaucracy and a model that will suit everyone, instead of genuine European diversity. I can only wonder: What kind of fever has led to this self-harm? Why do we want to slowly stifle the internal market instead of nurturing and developing it?

Madam President, thank you very much. The EU has a vision to make 240 million buildings zero-emission. It's great, but will it work in practice? Between 2010 and 2018, Germany spent EUR 342 billion on energy saving measures. That's as much as three national budgets. Despite this, the energy consumption was almost the same. We should learn from Germany and not throw the money into the lake. If we really want to make a difference, we invest in modern nuclear power plants and research and development. We need to end inefficient and expensive retail management and start investing in climate action that actually has an effect. We don't have to be world champions at saving on margin, but best at what actually makes a difference.

Madam President, thank you very much. The Sweden Democrats warned from the outset that the corona fund was not a temporary measure. Because with the EU, nothing is temporary. If you give a finger to the EU, they take their whole hand. With every crisis, the EU seeks to gain more power. Although parts of the Coronavirus Fund's billions have not yet been distributed, there is already talk of a new fund, the so-called Sovereignty Fund. It went faster than the Democrats thought. This is not sustainable. The EU must stop being a Union of contributions, wasting taxpayers' money, and become a more sustainable, competitive Union, where key reforms are actually implemented on the ground. Power must return to the Member States and the EU must stop thinking that the solution to all problems is more power to Brussels. It is time we put an end to waste and centralisation once and for all.

Madam President, thank you very much. The EU has become the world champion in regulating digitalisation, rather than supporting innovation and innovation. We have therefore fallen behind on a global scale. I support the idea of investing in digital development, because it is a good thing, but I fear that this strategy will fail. I hope I'm wrong. It contains many beautiful words and incredibly ambitious goals, instead of an effective strategy that will bring value to our money. It is through economic reforms and education that we create sustainable development for the future and not through inefficient bureaucracy that gives rise to waste. Although the EU spends more money than both the US and Asia on digitalisation, we are still lagging behind. This is not reasonable. We cannot continue on the same track, but we must start to think in new ways.

The whole debate about having to quota people in is not doing anyone a favour who will be quota—ed in. Because the problem is that if someone gets quota—ed in for a position – and it doesn’t matter what kind of thing they are being quota—ed in for – the other people around will think they are there because of the quota, not because of the competence. That’s the biggest problem. I know from my class when I was studying, from my university classes, that it was over—represented with women, and I can see that many of them now have good positions. It takes time for this to happen, and I believe that it’s going to go through and also that if you have two people and they have the same competence you will choose the person who is right. I believe that is true and it’s going to be more and more that women will be over—represented in many areas, like my colleague said, in the public sector. It will be like that.

Madam President, thank you very much. It is tragic that the EU now believes that people should be judged on their gender and not their skills. I am ashamed that it was the Swedish Social Democrats who opened up to this madness, that it was the Swedish Social Democrats who in 2017 opened up for the EU to now legislate quotas on company boards and that the EU should have control over wages. But believe me, there are many more votes than the Social Democrats. I am one of them, and we are strongly against this. Once and for all: Quotas are discriminatory. It is not when we quota by gender, skin colour or sexual orientation that society develops, but when we take advantage of people's skills and experience. As an LGBTQ person, I would never have wanted to be elected to something just because I'm in love, or have a boyfriend, but I would like to do it just because I'm good at work. (The speaker agreed to reply to three "blue card" interventions.)

Madam President, thank you very much. Cyber threats are becoming increasingly cross-border. Collaboration is an important part of dealing with it. No single state can guarantee cybersecurity without international cooperation, exchange of information and experience from others. We need more benchmarking that allows states to learn by comparison with others. Such positive and inspiring competition between states ultimately makes everyone stronger. It is the only alternative to an otherwise low, average and centralised EU standard which is in practice full of compromises, inefficient bureaucracy and which, above all, risks discouraging fair competition between states. I welcome this debate and wonder how we can compete with China and the United States in the long run if we always invest in a one size fits all EU-approachFull of compromises. It is high, not just right, cybersecurity that leads to value creation.

Mr President, thank you very much. From 2035, the EU wants to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars. This madness will have drastic consequences for the environment and the economy. In addition, it will increase our dependence on China, which in the future will strike back very hard. Just look at what the naïve political decision to become dependent on Russian gas has led to. The batteries consist mainly of cobalt and lithium. 80% of the cobalt comes from Chinese mines in Congo, where children work for $1 a day. Their working conditions are inhumane. Lithium is abundant, but mining is an ecological disaster. To extract one tonne of lithium, it takes 1 million litres of water! Didn't everyone just warn that there is drought in our forests? This policy is neither sustainable nor responsible. It completely ignores the consequences for our environment, our economy and human rights. It's time to take off your ideological glasses and face the truth.

Mr President, thank you very much. Thank you for taking the floor in this very important debate, which is also my first, my first speech in plenary. Two gay men were recently shot dead outside a gay bar in Bratislava. It is a very tragic event. As an LGBT+ person, I think it's very terrible to see this, because I can imagine that it could be both me and my boyfriend who was exposed to this or one of my friends. Although Europe is very open and tolerant, I don't feel safe holding my boyfriend's hand when I'm out in public, because I know that you can be exposed to threats, hatred and harassment. I am far from alone in feeling the same. What happened is not an isolated incident. We must all work to make society safer, regardless of political affiliation. As a full member of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, I will work across party boundaries to make society safer. I therefore extend my hand to the rest of you to be involved in this work.