ARTICLE8 April 2014

Debt crisis priority issue in Swedish election debate

Austerity policies in Europe, current free trade negotiations between the EU and USA, the climate threat, and the internal market were several of the heated issues addressed when the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise helped organise an election debate with Sweden’s EMPs in Brussels.

Marit Paulsen (FP), Lars Adaktusson (KD) and Gunnar Hökmark (M) highlighted the EU internal market.Photo: Lars Wallgren
Marita Ulvskog (S) held that the importance of union organising rights are forgotten too often when discussing the internal market. “People are not goods,” she asserted.
Photo: Lars Wallgren

The Confederation of Swedish Enterprise joined with the Swedish Trade Union Federation (LO), the Swedish Federation of Professional Employees (TCO) and the Swedish Confederation of Professional Associations (SACO) to hold a debate for the coming EMP elections in May. On the spot were representatives from all the Swedish parties currently holding seats in the European Parliament.

The issues most clearly separating the parties were nuclear power and the climate threat, the European debt crisis, and the free trade agreement between the US and EU that Sweden’s entrepreneurs enthusiastically support.

Whether Europe and the crisis countries can save their way out of the current crisis turned into a debate between the Social Democratic party MEP Marita Ulvskog and Malin Björk of the Left Party, against the Christian Democrat’s MEP candidate Lars Adaktusson and Gunnar Hökmark of the conservative Moderate Party.

Ms Björk criticised in harsh terms the current austerity policies within the EU, but Marita Ulvskog also questioned whether these policies will resolve the economic crisis. “The large fall came in 2008 to 2009 in the economy. Then it slowly rose again. Then came another dip. We’ve heard talk of a double dip. Then this turned into an unbelievable austerity policy. And these are the consequences we see today,” argued Ms Ulvskog.

Gunnar Hökmark countered that larger deficits were not a solution: “If there is anything we have too much of here in Europe, it is government deficits. What we need is more policy reforms,” he emphasised.

Lars Adaktusson reminded the left of centre politicians of former Social Democratic leader, Göran Persson, who as Swedish Prime Minister during the country’s own financial and banking crisis in the 1990s, argued strongly to convince Swedish voters that the tough deficit cutting program implemented then was entirely necessary. “Here we use the term ‘Debt crisis’ to describe the current European situation when in reality it is a value crisis. Many countries in Europe have contributed to worsening the crises by not cutting their deficits. And many of these countries are weighted down by their huge debt burdens. Last year, 23 of the 28 EU countries continued to increase their gross public debt,” he noted.

Otherwise, the ongoing negotiations for a free trade agreement with the USA were highly criticised by Christian Engström (Pirate Party), Ms Björk, and Isabella Lövin from the Green Party. Mr Engström called for greater openness in the negotiations. Though all the other party representatives agreed on the significant value gained with an agreement.

Here, Ms Ulvskog agreed, stating “A free trade agreement with the USA is good. And, USA is as interested as we are in reaching agreement. Moreover, it isn’t an entirely closed process. Information about the negotiations is available.”

The environmental debate primarily concerned the benefit of binding targets for climate policy, nuclear energy (for or against), and dependence on Russian oil and gas.

Isabella Lövin went on the offensive advocating more binding environmental targets to reduce emissions, while Gunnar Hökmark argues that a single target was enough. “We want a single ambitious target for all of Europe, so we can meet up with the rest of the world. We want to get the whole world joined around a single long-term target of creating sustainable global society,” he argued.

In discussing the internal market, several panel participants agreed on the importance of protecting and improving it. Kent Johansson (C), counted off several areas needing improvement. “The internal market shouldn’t just be about making it easier for larger corporations, but it must also address the individual and small businesses,” he said.

Ms Ulvskog highlighted the importance of the internal market, but she also emphasised the importance guaranteeing collective bargaining rights, referring to the Laval case and the currently hot issue of primary contractor responsibility (for working conditions, safety and pay levels) in the construction industry. “You can’t talk about union rights and the internal market without being accused of being protectionist and even racist,” she argued.

Mr Adakutsson also noted that when debating the internal market, the positive impact of the internal market is most often lost in many. Here, he referred to survey findings that 80% of all Swedish companies consider the internal market is important for their operations. Ms Paulsen (FP), known for specialising in agricultural policy, didn’t mention the subject once, but was also very positive to the benefits of the internal market, noting “The internal market is critical for the Swedish export industry, and that industry isn’t located in central Stockholm, it is spread all across our countryside.”

Written byHenrik Svidén
Contact our EU Office

Address

Rue du Luxembourg 3
BE-1000 Bruxelles
Subscribe to our Swedish newsletter
Contact our EU Office

Address

Rue du Luxembourg 3
BE-1000 Bruxelles
Subscribe to our Swedish newsletter
Contact our EU Office

Address

Rue du Luxembourg 3
BE-1000 Bruxelles
Subscribe to our Swedish newsletter
Contact our EU Office

Address

Rue du Luxembourg 3
BE-1000 Bruxelles
Subscribe to our Swedish newsletter
Publisher and editor-in-chief Anna Dalqvist