1. Answer: We see the value of greater collaboration between the different modes of transport, regardless of the type of transport, through, for example, international booking systems. However, it is necessary for the public and the business community to be able to fly when the need exists. We are therefore positive about the airlines using new and modern plans with lower fuel consumption. In order to increase the attractiveness of train travel, we want to strengthen the maintenance so that the trains will go on time, but also invest in the rail network to strengthen capacity. This will attract travelers who have previously chosen to fly to instead choose the train as a means of transport.
2. Answer: We are in favor of travelers choosing trains as a means of transport, even for long-distance journeys, hence the importance of an international booking system. However, we do not want to deny the global significance of air travel and we do not want to set the modes of transport against each other, but instead to reward advantages and cooperation between the transport modes.
3. Answer: The rail market should be simplified within Europe to facilitate cross-border connections and EU policies should have some opportunities to facilitate this. However, we are critical of constantly increasing costs for building a common EU infrastructure, and believe that Sweden’s financial responsibility towards the EU should decrease.
4. Answer: The Sweden Democrats support market-based alternatives to middle-distance flights. However, several night-time lines have been discontinued in Europe as travelers have not found this form of travel attractive, which has made the lines unprofitable. Visions and ideas need to be realistic, anchored and well financially supported, in order for the market and policy to want to invest, and hindering that non-funded projects are finally funded by so-called “other Member States’ taxpayers”.
5. Answer: From a Swedish perspective, we support the independent European audit on high-speed rail within the EU. We consider, as the European Court of Auditors, that cost-effectiveness, economic sustainability, travel time and displacement effects in the maintenance of existing infrastructure can be questioned. For the Swedish part, it is currently unreasonable to invest in an expansion of high-speed trains, as existing infrastructure is in desperate need of investment in order to fulfill basic functions.
6. Answer: Legal circumstances for a chain of passenger services are a challenge. Here, the EU can very well go in and guide, but that the relationship between traveler and company should be well balanced. “Exceptional circumstances” is a strong formulation in circumstances that could not be avoided, but definitions in law should be thoroughly investigated, in order for the outcome to be well balanced between buyer and seller.
7. Answer: The Sweden Democrats do not t share the view that air travel is something that must be stopped at all costs. It would be a so-called “sectoral goal”, which we do not support. The Swedish Democrats see the emissions as a whole.
7.1 Answer: An EU-wide kerosene charge does not appear to be a prerequisite for the functioning of the internal market. We also oppose, for example, air tax, simply because it becomes a taxation of distance that affects companies in Sweden and people in the countryside.
7.2 Answer: No, such a ban is not reasonable. We want to enable more people to travel by train by investing in the existing infrastructure. The Swedish Democrats are investing one billion SEK in addition to the government in a so-called market pot to increase the rate of investment.