DN Debate. S bluffed on the EU's increased power over the Swedish welfare

It is now sixteen months since Stefan Löfven and the Swedish government hosted the summit in Gothenburg. Then was signed the european pillar of social rights. We christian democrats warned in an early stage that the sequence was likely to be a gradual movement of power over the välfärdsfrågorna to the EU-level. Despite the arrogant avfärdanden from the Socialists, we now see clearly, with less a quarter left to the EUROPEAN elections, that it is precisely this that is now about to take place.

the EU is in a more ductile phase than in a long time. It is diametrically different opinions about which choices the union should take. The EUROPEAN commission wants to give themselves powers of taxation and chockhöja dues – for Sweden, with thirty-five per cent. It is a dangerous way to go, threatening to redecorate the relationship between the EU and individual member states. France and Germany, the respective governments would, in many respects, go further, and makes the common move, for example, if a EUROPEAN army.

basically, it is a kind of supra-national policy statement in the welfare area. Not legislative in itself, but a platform for legislation in the areas addressed. The meaning of this is clear: political areas such as social security-, social-, family - and labour law should to a higher degree are regulated by the EU in the future.

There is simply no reason to design the Swedish welfare in compromises with the bulgarians, greeks, and poles. And the end result of such negotiations will hardly be tailor-made to suit the Swedish approach to social policy.

Before the Gothenburg summit, warned against both the Christian democrats as several other parties for the consequences. The social democrats chose to completely deny the problem description. The social pillar will not lead to any new legislation, called it. Stefan Löfven went so far as to in an interview with Sveriges Radio (15/11–2017) assert that the criticism was due to the bourgeois parties ”are not interested in social security and improved living conditions for people”. And that the critics are trying to ”put out a smokescreen and say that now is leading to greater supranationalism, to try to move the focus from the question”.

considering how clear the EUROPEAN commission was already in the question of new legislation would be linked to the social pillar was Löfvens words, objectively speaking, misleading. And the unequivocal choice of words has, unfortunately, not aged well.

the Two legislative processes with a direct link to the social pillar is färdigförhandlade and waiting to finally be approved:

• includes directive if the balance between work and private life , as for the first time, apply quotas to cereal withdrawal of parental insurance in the EU-level. If the EU-commission had got its way, Sweden had been forced to add a pappamånad as a result of negotiations in Brussels, but now, the end result was instead a lunge that does not require Swedish updating of the legislation.

• Secondly, is it about arbetsvillkorsdirektivet , detaljreglerar domestic labour markets, for example, concerning trial periods. During the course of the negotiations expressed both in the trade unions, the employer, minister for employment Ylva Johansson (S), great concern for how this type of EU legislation would affect the Swedish model. The end result of the negotiations says the tray to be satisfied with, all the while the confederation of Swedish Enterprise says that it is unfortunate and completely at odds with the Swedish partsmodellen.

But the question is basically not so much how it now come on the place affects us, but what happens in the next step. The details of the family, is now for the first time EU regulated. What are the guarantees that is not a proposal for the further EU-governance will happen in the future, by minor updates of the existing directive? And what happens with the Swedish partsmodellen when it established a practice where the forms regulate in detail through EU-directives?

It's all about design, and it is division of responsibilities. There are also tangible examples of how wrong it can be.

When the EU-commission a few years ago released a completely different proposal relating to the governance of the member states 'parental allowances, the so-called maternity leave directive, so ended the negotiations with a proposal where the women was covered with" disqualification from work immediately after birth. The proposal was withdrawn, but should serve as a lesson for the future. There is simply no reason to design the Swedish welfare in compromises with the bulgarians, greeks, and poles. And the end result of such negotiations will hardly be tailor-made to suit the Swedish approach to social policy.

very much suggests that the new bill will come in these areas. EUROPEAN commission president Jean-Claude Juncker expressed in a policy speech in the fall that the new EU social legislation must be in place, and he did so with explicit reference to the eu summit in Gothenburg.

the Socialists Europaparti, PES, expressed in its electoral platform that they want to see ”binding rules that strengthen the welfare system”. They also want to move the unemployment insurance to the EUROPEAN level.

The Swedish social democrats have now indicated that it does not want to go as far. But they have in the european Parliament, for example, been behind the requirements of the common socialbidragsnormer within the EU, with co-financing on EU-level.

The type of the ambitions would fundamentally upset the balance of power between what are the individual's responsibilities and what are EU common concerns. Regardless of what the Socialists think of the platform as their Europaparti now developed so they carry a responsibility that we all find ourselves in this situation, by having been the driving force for the social pillar at all came on the spot.

Since the Swedish system is based on that the government anchors its negotiating positions in the parliamentary committee on EU affairs, it creates a new location. The coming term of office, this question will be crucial. This requires a clear american line in both the council of ministers as the european Parliament.

the Christian democrats go to the polls in an EU that keeps the right focus. A EUROPEAN union that continues to strengthen Europe's competitiveness and wearing the leader's jersey in respect of klimatomställningen. But also a EUROPE that allows the power of the Swedish welfare remain in Sweden.