Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen’s Opening Address at the Opening of the Danish Parliament, October 1 2024
Check against delivery.
Your Majesties.
Your Royal Highness.
Mr Speaker.
Dear colleagues here in the Parliamentary Chamber.
And all of you watching from home.
I would like to begin my speech today with a story. Written by Henrik Pontoppidan 139 years ago.
The short story is called “Alms”.
It is the tale of an impoverished elderly woman by the name of Stine Bødker.
Throughout her life, Stine toiled hard in the beet and potato fields, but then she injures her hand. She can no longer do this work. And, in the words of Pontoppidan, she “resorted to the great comforter of poor people, to the mercy of brandy.”
In other words, Stine has hit rock bottom.
How did Denmark of her day respond to this?
Well, it was decided to send Stine to the poor house – or, in the colloquialism of the time, “to the box”.
The box was a labour camp with strict discipline and punishment. Here, the poor got their wake-up call at four in the morning and spent all the long day weaving reed mats and baskets.
It is no wonder that Stine resisted. But she was forced to go.
In a dramatic scene in the book, curious neighbours crowd together in the narrow street where she lives.
The parish clerk is summoned. The old woman is bound hand and foot – and forcefully removed as the village children whistle and shout.
It is a heartbreaking scene, even reading it today.
And it is undignified.
Why am I bringing up this story?
For two reasons.
Because our Danish history sheds a – at times brutal – light on our own time as well.
And because we have a true treasure chest in Danish literature.
These books provide insight. Understanding. And the empathy that a society and a person cannot do without.
Would we know of the poverty and misery in the Denmark of old if not for Pelle the Conqueror?
Comprehend the lives of women without Tove Ditlevsen?
Would we understand the dark sides of modern Denmark without Thomas Korsgaard and Morten Pape?
Well into the 1900s, people like Stine – and there were many of them – were called “undeservingly needy”. Drunkards. Lazy.
They were considered a burden to society – and for this reason alone, of less worth than others.
They were not allowed to vote. They could not get shelter. And they were not allowed to marry without asking the Poor Relief Agency for permission.
Of course, things are not like this anymore.
Help is not charity. Helping and receiving help have become part of who we are – as Danes. But have we reached, where we want to be in terms of respect for other people?
Are we capable of catching each other when we fall? Truly? And do we understand how to put ourselves in the place of the socially vulnerable Danes?
Or, perhaps, has the pendulum been allowed to swing too far in the opposite direction?
With our welfare society today, we may tend to think that there are others to do the caring.
Today I want to talk about those of you who rarely have a home. Who do not have a job. But who often have an addiction. Who struggle with physical and especially mental illnesses.
Those of you who might appear frightening to others when you wobble drunkenly down the street with a loose dog in tow.
Those of you for whom the drugs have taken over.
Those of you who the rest of us rush past because we don’t know what to say or do.
Maybe we’ve seen you down on the bench with the others, or maybe we haven’t noticed you at all because you are alone at home. With too much rubbish. Too many unwashed dishes. And the blinds tightly shut because that might be the only option now.
I want to talk about those of you who rarely get much attention at the opening of the Parliament. But you are going to get it today.
* * *
We in Denmark have organised our society according to the large majority. Of course, we have. But with this comes an obligation to the minority.
If you are living a different kind of life, it can be difficult to fit into the square box of society.
Let me give you an example.
The vast majority of homeless people would like to have their own home. And the day they get one, it represents safety and an important step forward. But not for all.
Hus Forbi – the newspaper for the homeless, and an excellent one I would add – published an interview in August with 43-year-old Henrik.
For nearly three years, he had lived in a shelter where he received help with sticking to commitments. He built trust in other people. And he began to receive three regular meals a day.
Things went so well that he could start addiction treatment.
Henrik then recently moved into his own home.
He got his own home, but he lost something else: All of the people he was used to being with.
In his own words: “So I just sat there on the sofa and stared at the wall and thought: what the hell am I doing here?”
End quote.
And so Henrik went down to the supermarket and bought beer.
For most people, having a job and a home is very basic, but for some it can be far too much.
There are situations where we must allow vulnerable people to live their own lives, but without leaving them in the lurch. And we must be mindful as a society about having fixed ambitions on behalf of others.
Allow me to give another example:
The vast majority of people living with a drug addiction want to stop abusing drugs. That’s just not always where they are in their lives.
At the present moment, the problem might be taking drugs on the street. In a doorway. In a stairwell.
Pushing a dirty needle into an old wound. At the risk of infections and worse.
Put out on display. For others to see. For others to judge.
On Halmtorvet Square, not too far from here, we have a drug consumption room.
Here, the vulnerable can take drugs in a safe environment. Clean syringes. Healthcare professionals standing by. Without judgement. Rather, with dignity.
That may be what is needed right here and now. Not a plan laid by others for tapering off or treatment. Not yet.
Today, there are far too many young, well-functioning people in Denmark who take drugs. This is dangerous. It can have grave consequences. And we must punish the drug dealers much harder.
But for the most vulnerable, the story is quite different.
Here, the rest of us must understand that the drugs can be a form of self-medication, so that an unbearable life can, for periods of time, be bearable and survived.
Today, we have five drug intake rooms in Denmark.
One in Aarhus. One in Odense. One in Vejle. And two in Copenhagen.
We would like to allocate funding for more of these rooms.
To expand the existing drug intake rooms. Longer opening hours. Bigger rooms. And to establish new rooms in other Danish cities.
We must give more people a more secure and a more dignified life. Away from the doorsteps and the curious gazes of the rest of us.
* * *
In other words: We must accept a turbulent life, but never accept an undignified life.
And we in the Government want to do things differently in terms of social policy. Make who you are, the starting point.
And pursue a more dignified social policy.
And what does that mean – what does dignity mean?
Many things. Prevention is the most important, of course. And help with a job or education is, of course, the goal. For most people.
But we also have a group of very vulnerable people, where life is so hard, and where the defeats are so many that we must have the courage to put care and love as the most important things.
The most vulnerable people in Denmark are few, but there are still too many.
The majority are men. Unfortunately, they rarely get very old.
Many are on early pension benefit or cash benefit.
Many have debts to the public sector.
And half have received a criminal sentence within the past five years. Typically for theft. Or for having something in their pocket.
Our Danish welfare society builds on duty and rights, in that order, but for these particular people, we must make an exception – and put rights before duty.
To provide a safe space for a time, where there is room to do things differently.
Fewer requirements, fewer penalties.
Perhaps forgiving the debts?
When you live on the streets, you don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell to pay your debts – to the drug dealers or to the public sector – and the latter can easily add up to a very large amount of money.
We must reserve special consideration for the homeless person or the person with addiction who has to serve a sentence.
Because in prison, they often risk ending up at the bottom of the hierarchy.
They are taken advantage of by the powerful prisoners.
They are pressured into buying and selling drugs.
And when they are released, the debts have grown.
They are still addicted.
But with nowhere to go.
A woman described it like this after she was released: It was a freefall.
But we cannot accept allowing anybody to fall.
How can we prevent the weakest prisoners from being exploited by the strongest? Should the most vulnerable perhaps be allowed to serve their time in a different place than where they do today?
A place where they have access to substance abuse treatment and healthcare professionals. With help and support. Without gang members that can boss them around.
The road to all of this is full of dilemmas.
If we begin – and I hope that we do – making special rules. What particularly special group should be covered? Who shouldn’t?
This is not easy.
And I would not dream of talking about a society without consequences. Because of course you must be held responsible for your actions.
This Government will do everything to put an end to blunt violence. The gang shootings in our streets.
We are currently drawing up a penal reform with higher penalties for crimes that endanger or harm people. Again.
But when it comes to the most vulnerable, we will allow ourselves to think anew.
* * *
Maybe there is a social worker or a police officer listening along today. Or some of you who work in civil society for our vulnerable.
I know that many of you – fortunately – sometimes go to great efforts despite the rules we have made in this house.
I would like to tell you that we are going to need your knowledge and your involvement and help.
Because I also think – after having been deeply engaged in social policy all my life – that this time we are at a crossroads.
Here in the Parliament, we are used to solving the problems with more case workers. More cross-organisational efforts. More processes. More requirements on the municipalities. All with the best of intentions.
But in this way, we are also imposing more measures and all sorts of processes onto our most vulnerable. An approach that may not correspond at all to where they are.
In our eyes, the time has come for the broad shoulders of society to bear more, so that the narrow shoulders of the vulnerable can bear less.
* * *
And here in the Parliament, we have actually done quite a lot already.
A homeless reform to address long-term homelessness.
“The Children’s Act”, in which we strengthen the rights of the most vulnerable children.
A better effort for people with severe mental illnesses – it is far from enough, I know that – but now, for the first time, we have a 10-year plan for our psychiatry services.
And we have finally introduced proper treatment for citizens with what we call double diagnoses.
Here in the Parliament, we recently adopted a measure to make “the social tax exemption card” permanent.
Important steps. Thanks, to you all. But we must do more.
We must be a Denmark where we believe in all of us. Where we see people. And create dignified opportunities. Help those who fall to get back on their feet.
Because, in reality, “the others” do not exist.
Who would that be?
They are people like you and I. They are us.
* * *
And this is the Government’s guiding principle in the major political proposals that we will be presenting during this parliamentary session: that we make policy for those whom it concerns.
What is it like to live in South Zealand or in Vendsyssel and not have a designated general practitioner?
Well, it is not particularly comforting.
And what is it like to have what we used to call smoker’s lungs, and now called COPD? Barely being able to breathe on your own? And, at the same time, having to find your way around a complicated healthcare system?
Well, it is not particularly reassuring.
And you know what? It also isn’t fair.
And it in no way represents the free and equal access to health care that we want to offer in Denmark.
Therefore, a doctors’ reform is most central element of the health reform that I hope we will soon reach agreement on here in the Parliament.
More general practitioners must be located where people are most sick. The same goes for specialist physicians. And the smaller hospitals that we appreciate here in Denmark, which are spread across our country – well, they need sufficient staff to offer the treatment needed by citizens.
Inspired by the cancer treatment packages, we will now introduce chronic care packages.
We will start with COPD. Continue on to diabetes. And other chronic diseases.
I know from my own family’s experience how reassuring the cancer treatment packages are in a situation that is very scary for many of us. You know what you need to do. You know what you can expect. Both as a patient and as a family member.
People with chronic diseases also need this same reassurance and certainty.
* * *
In principle, politics must be used to lift people up.
This also applies to those who do not yet have a job.
In Denmark, we have one of the most expensive employment systems in the world. Every year, we spend more than 11 billion kroner on it.
Over the years, if we are being honest, the system has grown too much.
Fellow citizens who have fallen ill have not been treated decently.
And there are many who feel like a pawn in the system.
Vulnerable people are summoned to interviews and programmes that are actually quite out of step with the reality of their lives.
And, at the same time, rules and requirements for documentation have been allowed to pile up.
Every year – now hold on to your hats – the jobs centres conduct nearly 2.4 million interviews.
The case workers. The social workers. They are just doing their jobs and following the rules we have enacted. But this means that for every half-hour interview with a citizen, the social worker spends another half hour on registration and documentation.
Therefore, it is the Government’s proposal that we shut down the job centres. A fresh start, where the municipalities will have the opportunity to organise employment efforts anew.
Fortunately, we experience a low level of unemployment in Denmark.
Most people who lose their job quickly find a new one. There are others who need education and upskilling. And then there are the vulnerable unemployed people who require special efforts.
We will propose cutting back a half million interviews. Remove penalties for citizens who are struggling with other serious problems in their everyday lives besides unemployment, while maintaining an expectation that everyone does their part to contribute.
And, therefore, a work requirement is finally being introduced, especially for the many women with a non-Western background who are still not part of the labour market as everyone should be.
We are now in the process of freeing elderly care of rigid schedules.
We have decided to free the municipal primary and lower secondary schools from central rules.
The next area of focus now is the employment system.
Fewer interviews, fewer restrictions.
More humanity.
* * *
And when we talk about education, we have to try to put ourselves in other people’s shoes.
And that can be a little difficult for the Parliamentary Chamber here. We just have to try to think back. What was it like to be 15, 16 years old?
Summer holiday. Done with school. The palpable joy. Perhaps also an uncertainty. What is going to happen now?
You probably don’t know what you want to be when you become an adult. Not yet. So what do you do?
Many will naturally follow where their friends are going, on a path where you don’t have to lock yourself too far into the future, and to a place that is not far away and has a strong sense of community.
And therefore, upper secondary education programmebecomes the clear choice for many young people. Quite simply because the upper secondary education programmeoffer what most young people are seeking. A vibrant and inspiring youth environment.
But now imagine if the upper secondary education programmeand all of its opportunities could be a road to success for all of our young people in Denmark – including those who are not looking for the purely academic.
We want to ensure that, after primary and lower secondary schooling, all young people have a genuine offer of youth education. With an emphasis on youth. This is the core idea in the proposal that the Government will present next week.
For as long as I can remember, attempts have been made here to make small repairs to an education system that does not suit those who are young today. Now it is time to re-think everything from scratch and bigger.
Going forward, we believe that we should offer all young people the opportunity to attend upper secondary education programme, because that is what most young people want. And I think that we adults should listen to that. But it must be a different upper secondary education programmethan the one we know today.
There will be three paths to choose from.
A commercial upper secondary education programme. For those who want to learn about economics, language and entrepreneurship.
A general upper secondary education programme. For those who are interested in and capable of the academic work, more abstract and theoretical.
And, as a completely new option: A vocational and profession-oriented upper secondary education programme.
For those who want to work with people in our welfare. It might be that you want to become a nurse or a police officer. Or work with the green transition as an engineer or carpenter.
This education programme is also for those who might have an interest at some point in learning a skilled trade, but who right now want to keep all the doors open for other opportunities. Be allowed to stay in a school environment with other young people for a longer time. Without having to be ready to sit in the break room at a construction site as a 15-year-old.
No matter which upper secondary education programme you choose, you will receive a cap once you have passed your exams. And no matter which upper secondary education programme you choose, you will have all opportunities to continue your education afterwards.
* * *
Now that we are talking about education. There are many myths about the Government’s education policy that I would like to take this opportunity to dispel. Some give the impression that education is being cut back under this Government.
Of course, that isn’t correct. On the contrary. Overall, with the decisions we have made and the forthcoming proposals, the Government is prioritising a boost in teaching and education of approximately 5 billion kroner in 2030.
Our proposal for a new youth education system will cost more than 2 billion kroner every year. Because we want to make education more practical and interesting. To boost education on the whole. In real classrooms. With skilled teachers.
And at the same time, we have finally distributed the resources more equally in our education policy. Given more money for vocational education programmes.
It was high time.
Another myth. I have heard the argument that because we want to change youth education programmes so that they actually better suit young people, then we are dividing young people into an A team and a B team.
But isn’t it the adults’ snobbery that is coming to light here?
For far too many years, we have let all of prestige follow the academic education programmes.
That is actually what we want to fix now. With strong youth education programmes – in fact, an A team for all of our young people – including those with interests other than academics.
It is high time.
In ten years, there will be nearly ten percent fewer young people between the ages of 15 and 18 in Denmark. And it is expected that this decline will be even more pronounced in rural areas.
If we do nothing, there will be empty seats both at the local upper secondary school and at the local vocational school.
It can be the beginning of a vicious circle in the smaller towns.
That means fewer students. Less money. That it will be more than difficult to attract teachers. And, at worst, closures.
Therefore, we also need to renew our thinking here. We are proposing a new vocational and profession-oriented upper secondary education programme, which in some places will be located together with the vocational schools that we know, and which in other places will be located alongside other youth education programmes.
As a result, there will be more parts of the country with a strong educational environment – including for our young people outside the big cities – instead of their schools closing in the coming years.
At the same time, we are giving 17-year-olds with a driving license the opportunity to drive. We are introducing a travel deduction for students and trainees in the 25 outlying municipalities.
Because we want people to be able to have a good youth life all throughout our country.
This is important when you are young. This is important when you are old. And it is also important when children come into the picture.
* * *
For many of us, having children is the most meaningful thing there is.
The desire to pass on life. Those big eyes. In an even bigger world. And, wait, was that a little smile I saw there?
Suddenly there is a little person who is much more important than yourself.
For many of us, this is a big thing.
Nonetheless, we are having fewer children in Denmark.
An illustrative example: If things continue with the same average life expectancy and the same fertility rate as today, and excluding immigration and emigration, we risk that the Danish population will have shrunk to 2.5 million inhabitants in the year 2100. That is not very long from now.
This corresponds to all of Zealand being devoid of people – and although some will probably be thinking: well, at least we got rid of those Copenhagen city slickers, it is still hard to imagine a Denmark with less than half as many people as today.
Before we start this discussion, let me make it completely clear: I am not going to interfere with how you have children or how many children you want to have. Of course not. That is up to each of us individually. But I think it is sad if fewer people have the children that they want and dream of, and if fewer people in general want to have children.
And just to put things into perspective.
Precisely 100 years ago, in 1924, Thit Jensen travelled the country with her lecture, “Voluntary motherhood”.
Back then, women were physically worn down by too many pregnancies. Thit Jensen herself was one of 12 children and was a very modern proponent of preventing pregnancy and abortion.
This is an important women’s struggle that we carry on today. For the first time in 50 years, we are expanding the rights of girls and women in Denmark to abortion.
And as women’s rights in other parts of the world are being curtailed, we in the Danish Parliament are moving in the opposite direction. I am truly proud of this.
We are standing on the shoulders of others, and there is a common thread from then to today: that we want to be allowed to decide for ourselves what our families look like.
Many children. A few children. No children.
If biology is standing in the way – and it is for many people – then we must have better fertility treatment.
Research has traditionally focused on women’s fertility – even though the cause often lies with men. We must act to fix this.
And if the structure of society is inhibiting the desire to have children, then we must also be able to discuss this.
It could be a matter of achieving everything within just a few years’ time. Complete an education. Get your first real job. Find love. And then also start a family.
But I also think that we have to recognise that the solutions are probably more difficult than that.
Take one example: In Sweden, parents can stay home with an ill child for a total of 120 days a year, and they have the right to work part time until their child turns eight.
Nonetheless, Sweden has a lower fertility rate than Denmark, and last year saw the lowest number of children born in Sweden in 20 years.
So we probably need to learn more about what works and what people need – of course, with respect for the fact that in Denmark, the labour and employer organisations negotiate the terms of pay and work – and we as the Government want to look at everything in context.
Flexibility for families. Quality and the framework for the programmes and institutions we offer the youngest children. And, at the other end of life, in connection with pensions.
Pension, retirement, the “Arne” and senior pensions. Yes, these are matters that we have often had great disagreement about here in the Parliament. It has actually been this way for many years. And it is also something that is very, very important to Danes.
With the Welfare Agreement back in 2006, a broad political majority agreed that it is a fundamentally sound principle that, as we fortunately also live longer, we work longer, and that changes to the pension age must be announced well in advance so that Danes know what to expect.
Therefore, next year in the Parliament, we will we vote on raising the pension age to 70, effective from 2040 – that is, in 15 years’ time.
The Welfare Agreement has been, and is, absolutely vital for ensuring that we in Denmark have healthy public finances. We must, of course, continue to have healthy public finances in the future.
In particular because we are facing large investments at the same time. This includes investments in defence and security, and the green transition.
But the Welfare Agreement is almost 20 years old, and since the pension age is increasing to 70, it is natural to explore whether there can also be another mechanism.
A change to the Welfare Agreement has major consequences for the individual and for the national economy.
Therefore, these changes must be made with respect for the individual, and with proper preparation. The Government is currently underway with this process.
* * *
We must be able to live good lives. And we must do so in a Denmark that is becoming greener and greener.
Right before summer, we entered into a tripartite agreement on a green Denmark on the biggest transformation of our landscape in recent times.
You can almost visualise it.
First, there is a fallow field. Then, grasses and herbs begin to sprout forth. After a few years, a tree. And for future generations, a real forest.
Less nitrogen. Less CO2.
Cleaner water.
More life.
We are, as the first country in the world, introducing a climate tax in agriculture.
And we are supporting modern and strong Danish food and agricultural production.
The Danish Society for Nature Conservation calls the tripartite agreement on a green Denmark “historic”.
And the Danish Agriculture & Food Council calls it “historic”.
So there’s probably something to the talk.
And, of course, the negotiations were not easy. I might as well tell it like it is. And let me share a story from behind the closed doors.
As I have been told, this is what happened: Just before everyone was certain that they had finally reached an agreement, the farmers’ chairman, Søren Søndergaard, stood up.
He said that there was something he had forgotten. He looked around the room, and he could see that the others were thinking: “Oh no, here we go again.”
I think many of those in the room breathed a sigh of relief when Søren’s final request turned out to be on the lighter side of things.
He invited everyone to a harvest celebration at the family farm Baldershave.
And, as a result, a very diverse flock gathered there in late August.
Representatives of agriculture. The trade unions. The employers. Green organisations. And some of the politicians in this chamber.
At a farm near Billund. Midway between Lindeballe and Førstballe.
To celebrate this year’s harvest, and to mark a green agreement that required extraordinary determination from everyone involved.
Where else in the whole world could this happen other than in Denmark – that those such diverging interests would be willing to sit at the same table?
Knowing that the easiest thing would be to leave.
The tripartite agreement on a green Denmark at its very best.
And, in my opinion, the strongest generational contract that has been written in my nearly 25 years here in the Parliament.
There were many who said that it would never succeed.
First, that we would never agree in the Government.
We did.
That agriculture would never take responsibility for nature and the fjords.
They would.
That the nature organisations would not take responsibility for jobs.
They did.
Because there was something more important than ourselves.
Because Denmark’s fjords and drinking water are more important.
Because our children and grandchildren must still be able to sing along to our Danish songs about the cuckoo, the stork and the nightingale – and also see these birds in their own country in the future.
The fact that there are already parties that want to stand in the way of the tripartite agreement on a green Denmark is a mystery to me.
But thank you to others who are taking responsibility, and thank you to the many, many Danes who are fighting for our nature every single day.
With the decisions we make here in the Parliament, and with all the initiatives being taken across the country, life will once again return to our fjords and our waters.
* * *
We humans are part of nature. The forest, the animals, the air and the water – they are not something separate from us, but rather the basis of our existence.
They also hold tremendous power, and that’s the way it has always been.
In November 1872, Zealand, Lolland and Falster were hit by storm surges.
Entire islands disappeared. Dikes collapsed. And people and animals perished.
The railway was flooded, the telegraph blown down, which made it difficult to send calls for help to the rest of the country. It took some time before others understood how dire things were.
More than 100 years later, a hurricane hit all of Denmark.
On the island of Rømø, wind gusts were measured at 51 metres per second before the anemometer was blown over. That hurricane was one of the most destructive in our history.
I think that many people remember where they were on 3 December 1999.
Not least all of you who had a busy night helping citizens and cleaning up after the damage: our police, firefighters, emergency responders, military conscripts and volunteers.
Back in the 1870s, those in need could only rely on the aid and bravery of their neighbours. Or just on themselves and the whims of fate.
Fortunately, in 1999 we had a whole different society and an extensive emergency response system.
But do we also have a better emergency response system today than we had in 1999?
We should make it a priority to ensure that we do. Because the world has changed.
Just take recent years:
War in Europe. A pandemic. Severe weather. Right now in Vejle, among other places.
A heightened hybrid threat to Denmark.
Modern society is vulnerable.
The dangers have grown more numerous and more diverse.
When COVID hit, we had neither vaccines nor masks to protect our elderly and our sick.
And when the war broke out, Europe had reduced its military strength, while the Russians had built up their own army.
We must not keep letting ourselves be surprised.
It is common sense to be prepared to help ourselves and each other.
And I know that, for many, this of course gives rise to various concerns. When you have to buy water containers and the old FM radio. And purchase food so that you can get by for a few days – canned mackerel in tomato sauce, for example.
It has been many years since we as Danes had to think about these types of things. In fact, there are many of us who have never had to before, but we do now.
We have to prepare, individually and as a society.
Therefore, we established a new Ministry of Societal Resilience and Contingency, which will have the coordinating task and the coordinating responsibility for crisis management and the security of supplies.
In a world of turmoil, Denmark must be better prepared.
* * *
The world around us has grown more insecure.
The Realm between the Faroe Islands, Greenland and Denmark must change to reflect the reality in which our three populations live.
I am happy that these changes can be made through good and close cooperation, and with respect for each country’s independent identity.
Thank you to the North Atlantic mandates here in the Parliament for your great efforts.
Thank you to the Prime Minister of the Faroe Islands and the Prime Minister of Greenland for a respectful cooperation.
Today we have a common desire to expand opportunities for the Faroe Islands and Greenland to have their own voice in foreign policy.
One current example is the Faroese desire to become an independent member of the WTO.
This is completely understandable, but there are legal issues. And we must attempt to solve these challenges.
The Prime Minister of the Faroe Islands and I have thus agreed to submit the question to the board which, under the Home Rule Act, can decide on legal disputes. The board has never before been utilised in the 76-year history of the Home Rule Act.
Greenland is the large Arctic country in the Realm, and it is quite natural that Greenland will play a special role when the Kingdom of Denmark assumes the chairmanship of the Arctic Council.
When external forces attempt to divide us, we pull together, but we do so in a new way. Between equals. Respectfully. And we dare to take new paths.
* * *
Today it is two years, seven months and seven days since Russia began a full-scale invasion of a European country, Ukraine.
I am proud of Denmark’s determined and unconditional support for Ukraine’s fight for freedom.
With historic broad support – in the Parliament and among the Danish population – we have placed ourselves on the right side of history. In recognition of the fact that freedom was not given to us as an eternal heritage and possession.
Freedom has a price. And – also in our time – freedom is an eternal fight.
If that fight does not succeed, I sincerely fear that Europe’s future will be very, very dark.
And, therefore, the fight must succeed.
I am proud of the European and transatlantic unity against Russia’s aggression.
The EU is stronger today than before the war. NATO today is stronger than before the war.
But I disagree with the somewhat theoretical approach that dominates aspects of the public debate.
Lines are drawn in the sand. Weapons are donated, but may not be used in a full self-defence that can effectively push Russia back.
And the weapons that are necessary for Ukraine to win the war are still nowhere to be found in Ukraine.
No one can win a war with one arm behind their back.
And for far too long we have talked about how Ukraine must not lose the war – but is that enough for all of us who want freedom?
The Ukrainians are fighting a nearly unbearable battle, not only for their own flag, for their own country, for their own lives.
They are fighting for Europe’s freedom.
And there is only one possible outcome of this war –victory for Ukraine.
To succeed in this aim, the Ukrainians need our aircrafts, our weapons, our military knowledge, our investments in the Ukrainian defence industry and our economic support.
If we do not provide what is necessary, then we fail to live up to our responsibility.
And, therefore, the Danish support for Ukraine will continue for as long as it is needed.
There is no reason to believe that Russia will stop at Ukraine. Russia will continue until they are stopped.
In Denmark, we now spend more than two percent of our GDP on defence and security.
Let me be honest and put it bluntly: We will need more. To defend ourselves and our country. And contribute to the protection of our alliance in NATO.
All of us here in the Parliament must be ready to prioritise and pay the necessary bills, including in the future.
In 2025, Denmark will assume the presidency of the Council of the European Union.
The war in Ukraine will be the most important issue, of course, together with the efforts to strengthen a true European defence industry, but there will also be much else to work on.
The green transition, EU competitiveness, and the need to strengthen the EU’s external borders.
We must get the number of people coming to Europe under control, and we must stop the inhumane business model of human smugglers.
In every respect, a strong Europe that takes more responsibility for its own security is needed.
Next year, we will also have a seat on the UN Security Council.
Here, we will work to find solutions to the world’s far too many conflicts and protect the far too many civilian victims.
This also applies to the Middle East.
Right now, we are watching the developments in Lebanon with concern.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark has encouraged all Danes to leave the country and is following the situation closely.
And on Monday. On Monday it is one year since we woke up to one of the worst terrorist attacks in world history.
Hamas raped, tortured and killed.
The largest number of Jews since the Holocaust were killed in just a few hours. Hundreds were kidnapped, and many are still being held as hostages by Hamas.
No matter what one may think of Israel’s response, everyone should demand the release of the hostages. They deserve nothing more than to be reunited with their families.
They have no part in the conflict. They are innocent.
The same is true for the thousands of Palestinian children who have been either killed in Gaza. Forced to flee. Separated from their parents. Or who are suffering from acute food shortages and at risk of polio and other serious diseases.
The human suffering is almost unimaginable and a ceasefire remains essential.
The conflict in the Middle East is tragic, and unfortunately brings with it polarisation, irreconcilability, and division, including in our own country.
But strife has no place in Denmark, and we must all have the will to unite in a double message: that Israel of course has the right to exist in peace and freedom, and that the Palestinians have precisely that same right.
This requires a number of things.
First, that Hamas stops the terror and disbands itself. A Palestinian state cannot be built on a terrorist organisation.
Second, that Israel stops the illegal settlements which have no justification, and which only serve to escalate the conflict.
Once there was common sense and pragmatism on both sides. Since then, the far wings have taken over, to the detriment of most. Indeed, of all.
And, therefore, thirdly, we must put much greater pressure on the parties so that they also acknowledge that a two-state solution is the only long-term and sustainable path.
Instead of populations here at home and other places being irreconcilably divided at levels we have rarely seen, we should stand together on precisely these demands.
Unfortunately, the conflict has brought more than harsh words with it.
Some have also taken action. A young man has been charged with terrorism for having planned an arson attack against a Jewish woman here in Denmark.
I am mortified. And I am mortified that anti-Semitism has grown in Denmark.
The promise that we gave Danish Jews after World War II will always apply.
This includes clear support for the right of Israel to defend itself – just as every other country has that same right.
But does this mean that Israel has a right to do anything? No.
They must abide by the laws of war, and they must do more – much more – to protect the civilian population, no matter how difficult it is when Hamas cowardly hides behind women and children.
Niels Bohr said that the opposite of truth is simplicity, and there is truly nothing simple about the conflict in the Middle East.
* * *
There isn’t much at all that is simple anymore, but the challenges – we are capable of overcoming them if we want to.
And that is precisely the task for us here in the Parliament. To work every single day to solve the problems facing our people, our country and our world.
Since the last time we opened the Parliament, we have welcomed a new King and a new Queen.
We have achieved the highest level of employment ever.
And, for the first time, we entered into a genuine and binding generational contract for the nature and the Danes of the future.
In the Government, we look forward to continuing to take responsibility and – together with all the parties in the Parliament who are willing – to take care of and develop our wonderful Denmark today and tomorrow. And, not least, to take better care of those who need it most.
When the world’s greatest welfare society fails to catch those who are having a really hard time, I hope that we can all agree that we in this chamber must make even more of an effort.
And if someone sitting here is thinking: Why is a Prime Minister spending so much time on social policy and the vulnerable in an opening speech, let me briefly make something clear as I conclude.
There is probably no single area of policy that reveals more about a society and its citizens than social policy.
How we meet other people is a mirror of who we are.
I began my speech today by looking back 139 years. At the exhausting life and undignified treatment of Stine Bødker.
When our descendants look back one day 139 years from now and look at our way of treating other people – what will they see?
Let us strive to be the best version of ourselves.
And with these words, I ask you all to rise.
LONG LIVE DENMARK. Hooray! Hooray! Hooray!