Reporting from the Council of Europe meeting on February 1

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! We met again in the circle of the EU's heads of state and government on Thursday to once again discuss and decide on long-term support for Ukraine. Last time, as is known, no agreement was reached at all, and since these decisions must be taken by total unanimity, all countries effectively have a veto. This time it went much better, and I am very pleased that we were able to agree relatively quickly on the package that we could not agree on last time.

Now all 27 member states stand behind the support for Ukraine. It is a strong signal to President Zelenskyy and to all Ukrainians, and President Zelenskyy also participated via link shortly thereafter. It is also a very strong signal to American politics at a critical stage and to Russia. Regarding the USA, it means that the EU both believes in and hopes for continued strong engagement from the USA and that we, of course, at the same time pull our weight. We are now following the developments in the American Congress very closely.

There were, of course, also plans for how the 26 member states could proceed in a situation where it had not been possible to reach an agreement, but it would have been a significantly worse solution that would not have provided the long-term stability that Ukraine needs. It would also have broken the EU unity that, alongside transatlantic unity, has been our greatest asset during the nearly two years that have passed since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Mr. Speaker! Before the meeting, the member states met in a number of different constellations, large and small. In the morning, I met with the Nordic-Baltic countries as well as Poland's new Prime Minister Donald Tusk and Ireland's counterpart Leo Varadkar. I also, as I am aware, had deliberations with France's President Emmanuel Macron during the French state visit and with the Council President Charles Michel. The week before the meeting, I and Finland's Prime Minister Petteri Orpo discussed the issues in Stockholm together with the Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

Reporting from the Council of Europe meeting on 1 February

The changes that were eventually made are partly about the European Council being able, after two years, to ask the Commission to conduct a review of the facility before the next long-term budget, and partly about a reference to the same conclusions that existed in 2020 regarding the actual application of the conditionality mechanism. These were not difficult issues to compromise on.

This was not the first time the EU has faced major challenges where the countries initially had very different opinions. However, they have always been solvable so far, and it is a testament to the strength of the EU that we managed to do it this time as well, despite perhaps rather low expectations. For the curious, I can say that the tone between us colleagues, even with very different opinions, is almost always constructive and respectful. I place great value on this fundamentally solution-oriented attitude. It would be needed more often in both Swedish and international politics.

After the budget, a discussion followed regarding the EU's military support to Ukraine, which is indeed absolutely crucial for the country's ability to continue to defend itself. I put forward the obvious: that it is important that all member states now increase the capacity to be able to deliver ammunition to Ukraine.

Mr. Speaker! We also discussed the situation in the Middle East. Hostages must be released immediately, and we view the situation in Gaza with very great seriousness. Humanitarian access must be full and unimpeded, and we must avoid an escalation in the region. But the conflict there is also reaching Europe. Since Hamas's terror attack against Israel, antisemitism and hate propaganda have increased in both Sweden and other European countries. I underlined that we all have a great responsibility to ensure that the situation in the Middle East is not allowed to lead to violence, threats, and antisemitism in our own societies.

The EU is sometimes described as divided on issues concerning the Middle East because there are clear and historically rooted differences in views on Israel and Palestine. Nevertheless, I want to emphasize that what the EU agrees on are no small things. It concerns Israel's right to defend itself within the framework of international law, on protecting the civilian population as far as possible and providing humanitarian access and, not least, on reviving the absolutely necessary idea of a negotiated two-state solution - on that, the EU, the USA and important countries in the region are united, and that is where we must arrive with the help of the united international community.

The EU condemns the terrorist organization Hamas on very good grounds and underlines the need for a legitimate democratically elected government in the West Bank. But the EU also has strong reasons to expect that Israel acts constructively for a negotiated two-state solution and that the settler violence is stopped. To unequivocally stand up for the State of Israel's right to exist and to unequivocally stand up against antisemitism in our own countries is not the same as defending what the Israeli government says and does in every instance. Israel must take its responsibility to reach the goal of a negotiated two-state solution.

Mr. Speaker! The meeting last week took place at the same time as Brussels became the site of extensive agricultural protests. Manure was poured on the ground, hay bales were set on fire, and statues were toppled. You have surely seen the pictures from Brussels. Similar protests have taken place in quite a few European countries recently. The reasons are many and look different in different member states. High energy and fuel prices are one reason. Extensive red tape for agricultural companies is another reason. Free trade agreements cause protests and are a third reason. Imports from Ukraine and also from other EU countries cause protests in some countries. They are vastly different reasons.

Some are now placing all responsibility for this on the EU, but much of what Europe's farmers are protesting against consists of national decisions and national responsibility. That being said, in the recent past we have seen proposals that would make it harder to conduct farming even in Sweden, such as the nature restoration act and proposals regarding the use of plant protection products.

The Swedish government will continue to work against proposals that threaten property rights or hinder agriculture in our country. The regulatory burden must decrease, both in Sweden and at the EU level. At the same time, we will stand up for important principles. We are a small, export-dependent country. For our prosperity, free trade agreements are absolutely crucial. We also know that Ukraine's food exports are important, both for Ukraine's economy and for global food supply. At the same time, the EU must, of course, monitor negative unintended consequences.

The protests gave rise to a discussion in the council at the end of the meeting and a very short addition to the conclusions. I thus conclude my report, Mr. Speaker.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Prime Minister for the report.

I would like to begin by expressing my relief that the EU leaders were able to reach a unanimous decision this time regarding the multiannual budget and the very important economic support of 50 billion euros over four years to Ukraine. It is truly welcome and important. It is certainly a strength when the EU can deliver solutions to large and difficult challenges. The EU shows that we are prepared to provide sustained support to Ukraine for as long as is required.

I am also very relieved that it did not turn out as the Prime Minister feared at the consultation before the European Council: that the EU leaders would only manage to agree on a one-year support to Ukraine in order to accommodate Hungary. That would have been bad, and it would have created a great deal of uncertainty regarding the EU's ability to support Ukraine in a very sensitive situation.

Now it has become a unanimous and long-term decision. It is very welcome. Now it must also be of the highest priority that the Prime Minister, together with other EU leaders, does everything in his power to speed up the production of ammunition so that the EU can also deliver on that promise to Ukraine.

In conclusion, I see it as necessary to ask a question to the Prime Minister against the background that the agreement on Thursday contained wording regarding the application of the conditionality mechanism. How does the Prime Minister interpret this wording about the conditionality mechanism in the conclusions, which was thus necessary to include in order for an agreement to be reached?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I share the relief absolutely. Many probably feared even more complicated discussions and negotiations. There were also very many who were engaged both during the process and right at the final stage. The historians will have to figure out exactly what untied the knots at the end.

I share the view that when the EU is tested to the utmost, we deliver good results. It was not a given, given what happened in December. I also feared that we would reach a situation with a much shorter support, but still a support, but we did not end up there.

The issue of ammunition is completely central. There are many countries that can contribute in different ways now, and a very strong urge was given to all countries that have the capacity to do their part so that we can get there.

When it comes to the solution of repeating the previous formulation - which is what it actually concerns - if the conditionality mechanism says nothing new today compared to what it said then. It repeats an old position. One can certainly make slightly different readings in different capitals. I would probably interpret it as the EU leaders underlining that this is a legal mechanism that follows strictly legal principles regarding the rule of law. It is not a general, political assessment of what one thinks right now. So that is how I interpret it: This is law. They shall do their part, and then the EU does its part, and we stick to the legal assessment. There are certainly other interpretations as well. For our part, that one suffices. It worked last time, and it suffices this time too.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Prime Minister for the answer. I then interpret it as the Prime Minister meaning that the wording he refers to is not a way to dilute the conditionality mechanism or the principles of the rule of law. That is an important message from the Prime Minister in that case. But it is also important to follow up, because it concerns our common democracy and our trust in EU cooperation, this that the EU's fundamental values are respected.

I also want to say something about what the EU leaders discussed but could not reach an agreement on, something that I believe Sweden and the EU need to show leadership on, and that is the reality in Gaza. The EU's leaders must agree on a ceasefire now - period! This cannot continue. People - women and children - must get help.

We must always be able to stand up against antisemitism but also be able to see the reality in Gaza, and it currently requires a ceasefire. The Prime Minister should align himself with those EU countries that want and demand a ceasefire now. We must be able to stand up for both the Jewish people and the Palestinian people.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me first just agree - it is correctly interpreted. No one interpreted it in any other way either. It is law - important law, I would say, no more and no less. This is not general political opinion in any direction, but this is a legal application of fundamental values in the EU - important so!

When it comes to the Middle East, we had a long discussion. I have said many times that there are important things that the EU can agree on. I mentioned this just now, and it has also been in the conclusion since earlier. But we are no longer in agreement right now. It is that simple. It does not depend on the fact that we do not think the same way in what we have agreed on, but it depends on the fact that different countries have different perspectives on this.

It is perhaps only to be stated that it is in this way, and then one can either say that the glass is half empty or that it is half full. I think that the EU has the potential to act as an important geographical international power, on the basis of what we agree on. That we should use with a view towards a negotiated two-state solution.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Prime Minister for the report.

The agenda for the meeting was very similar to the agenda of the previous meeting, and the decision regarding the budget review became almost identical - the changes that the Prime Minister accounted for change nothing in substance. From the Sweden Democrats' side, we think that this has been a very successful Swedish negotiation where we have succeeded in getting closer to the Swedish line than we have done previously when previous governments have conducted these negotiations.

Mr. Speaker! The difference between this meeting compared to the last one is that all countries reached an agreement. This is something we from the Sweden Democrats are very pleased with - especially that the Ukraine facility is being established and that long-term support can be secured. That is something we are, therefore, positive about.

If one is to pick out something that we think is less good, it is the wording regarding own resources that is included here. These actually stem from the 2020 agreement. We were very critical at the time that the then Social Democratic government accepted this wording, and it was downplayed then. It didn't matter that much, the then government thought: This is far in the future, and we have not said yes to any EU taxes and so on. But now it is approaching. It is quite clear that proposals for new own resources are to be put forward.

My question to the Prime Minister is: How is the government working to advocate for Swedish interests? Do we see that there are opportunities to find support from more countries that are close to the Swedish position, or should we expect that this will become a reality?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! What resolved the acute situation this time and why we landed precisely in that compromise, that can be discussed. I still want to say, just as was hinted here, that the major Swedish contribution was that we were involved in negotiating the consensus that 26 countries could unite around, for which we also received a mandate from the EU Committee. The best thing, of course, would have been for there to have been consensus between 27 countries already then, but there we made an important contribution in keeping it as tight as it was at all possible. Then there were also many others who contributed to 26 becoming 27. I share the view that we did our big job in the preparatory work, so to speak. That is important.

When it comes to own resources, it is a well-known Swedish position that we are very skeptical about this. That was the case then, and it continues to be so. Now, it was a necessary part of the agreement that existed in December and which the EU Committee also accepted. My view is that we are in good company with other countries that are also very skeptical, but there are also others who think it is an important part of the EU's future.

The battle is therefore not yet won or lost, but I would say that quite a few countries share our view. It is the usual countries, i.e., the slightly stricter countries that think that budget discipline is just as important at the European level as at the domestic level.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the answer! The Prime Minister mentioned that the question of the agricultural protests around Europe was raised at the meeting, and we appreciate this from the Sweden Democrats' side. We have warned about this.

Just as the Prime Minister says, the EU is in no way solely responsible for the challenges that agriculture faces in many countries, including in Sweden. National governments also bear a responsibility, but at the same time, we can observe that EU policy is moving in an unfortunate direction.

The EU contributes to making it less profitable to produce food instead of creating opportunities for increased profitability. Bluntly, it is stricter environmental regulations, stricter climate regulations, stricter rules for chemicals, protection, and so on. At some point, we must reach a point where we begin to weigh different interests against each other.

My question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, is: Does the Prime Minister see an opening for more countries to begin to see this issue and that one perhaps must try to weigh interests against each other a bit differently in the future?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! As I said, there are many different things that are now being combined into a collective dissatisfaction. In that, I feel a strong understanding for part of the dissatisfaction, while I am more skeptical about other parts. It can probably vary in different countries.

From a Swedish perspective, I would say that free trade fundamentally is good for a small, efficient producer like Sweden. This applies to both agriculture and many other areas. This, in turn, requires common rules for it to work, which in turn requires that one is careful with one's own separate rules that complicate it. This applies to Sweden and other countries. It also causes significant suspicion towards third countries, which have additional other rules that can compete with European farmers. There is, therefore, much that is complicated in this.

The more we can contribute to increased free trade and fewer special rules that complicate it, the better. Then I believe fundamentally that farmers are entrepreneurs who want long-term, reliable rules that work for the consumers.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the report! We are all probably very pleased that the budget is now finally finished and that the important support to Ukraine is thus finalized.

From the Left Party's perspective, however, there are several negative parts in the budget, partly that cooperation with undemocratic states and migration shall be expanded and more resources shall be allocated to legally insecure asylum processes, and partly that the investment capacity in the defense area shall be expanded but not to support Ukraine, but for the EU's own defense. It is expanded budget items that will also lead to Sweden's fee increasing, something that we from the beginning agreed it would not do.

Support for Ukraine is conditional on Ukraine continuing to uphold and respect appropriate democratic mechanisms and the rule of law principle and guaranteeing respect for human rights. This is good, but recently there have been reports that Ukraine is deteriorating and hindering trade unions from operating while the conditions for employees are worsening.

That the war and the economy lead to worsened conditions can perhaps be understood, but not that Ukraine is taking the opportunity to worsen labor rights and labor legislation. I would like to know how the Prime Minister and the Council view this and what the EU is doing to ensure that Ukraine's labor legislation and labor rights live up to democratic mechanisms and the principles of the rule of law, both in relation to the conditions of the support and in relation to the accession process.

Finally, I also want to raise the question of an immediate ceasefire. I think it seems that the European Council has agreed on important conclusions regarding the war in Gaza, but here Sweden must dare to stand up for an immediate and permanent ceasefire so that a peace process can begin.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Specifically, migration was not raised at all this time. Then, it is naturally an important part of the budget itself, and this was a completely fundamental part for countries such as Italy, the Netherlands and Austria.

Many countries with completely different political systems think that the migration situation is incredibly burdensome and that more support is required, especially to support Europe's external border, and agreements with countries of origin and transit. There we differ - that is well known. There is a very large consensus among the EU countries that this is very important. Sweden, with its experiences, truly shares the insight that it is important not to lose control over migration once again.

When it comes to Ukraine, that aspect was not raised at all at this European Council, but it is rather a matter of long-term following of Ukraine's work with the various criteria regarding the membership negotiations. This was not raised at all this time, but it was what we could agree on in December. Now it was only about the economic support, so the question was not discussed at all. I do not rule out that we will take up Ukraine's internal affairs in upcoming discussions, as it is an important part of their accession negotiations.

When it comes to a ceasefire, we have spoken about humanitarian access and a humanitarian ceasefire, that is to say, gaining access, but it is not the case that the EU can or even should agree on a permanent ceasefire that is to lead to peace negotiations with Hamas remaining in Gaza. One can have different opinions on this. Sweden does not think so, and most EU countries do not think so either.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answer. I believe we can agree that a peace process should not include Hamas. I think the Prime Minister was almost a bit mean in his way of expressing this.

I also want to point out that reports have very recently emerged that the Israeli military has shelled and destroyed aid shipments to Gaza. Even if the government does not want to demand a permanent ceasefire, something must be done to protect Gaza's population, who are being subjected to bombing, shootings, and starvation. Far too many children have already died or been injured when their homes were hit by missiles, and those who have survived now risk dying from diseases and starvation.

What does the Prime Minister and the EU intend to do to end the humanitarian suffering? A humanitarian ceasefire can help partially, but after that, the war continues. It must lead to an immediate and lasting peace.

It is Gaza's civilian population that is now caught between Israel and Hamas.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Again: This is a report back on decisions made at the European Council. We had no decisions on this at all, but we had a discussion – important in itself – about matters where the EU is overwhelmingly in agreement with the USA and important countries in the region, about what should happen now, about the requirements placed on different parties and about what should be the long-term solution.

There were no decisions reached because we simply do not move forward in joint decision-making. That is why I am being a bit formal and sticking to this. Then we can disagree on what the EU should do or what Sweden should think in this.

I believe that Sweden's and the EU's most important contribution now is to ensure that the different parties who must be involved for a negotiated two-state solution to be reached come closer to this. It is the absolutely most important task in this issue.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anna Lasses (C)

Mr. Speaker! The definitely best SMS I received on Thursday was: Hope you have seen the white smoke.

It was EU Minister Jessika Roswall who sent it and alluded to my appeal to the Prime Minister last week to treat Thursday's negotiations as if it were an election for a new Pope that was to take place.

Well done, I would therefore like to say to the Prime Minister and everyone else from all over Europe who have been involved in the work to get this long-term support package for Ukraine through. It cannot be overemphasized how incredibly important this was. And I truly hope now that the USA is inspired by this. Above all, I want to give all support to Ukraine, which has a war that must be won.

As curious as I am, I cannot help but wonder what was actually discussed during the preliminary meeting where a very limited number of countries were present, but not Sweden.

My question to the Prime Minister is therefore: Does the Prime Minister know what was discussed in the closed room, and can the Prime Minister, if so, say what? Was anything promised, or was it just a discussion?

Finally, I wonder about something that occurred in connection with this, even if it perhaps actually has nothing to do with the meeting itself on Thursday. What did Viktor Orbán actually answer to the message that the Prime Minister is prepared to visit him when the Nato issue is settled?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I will first say something about the papal comparison with the white smoke. No white smoke came, literally speaking. But it really felt like white smoke in the room, I must say. I completely share this enthusiasm.

When it comes to the USA, I want to say two things. We do not yet know how the USA will make its decisions. We know what we desire and what we expect from them. I can say that if we in the EU had not succeeded in reaching our common decision, our expectation of what we hope for regarding the USA would simply have become much less valuable. Now, I still believe that those in the USA who want to stand by a long-term support for Ukraine received a boost from the European decision. They would have been weakened if we had not been able to agree or if we had received a strange solution with only 26 countries in the short term. This is, therefore, important.

Regarding the preliminary meeting, I have learned not to try to interpret. I am happy to interpret meetings that I myself participated in, and I had many private conversations that I can interpret as well as possible. I spoke with President Macron two days before and with Chancellor Scholz in the morning. Then things happened in a rather small room with the commission, with the council's president, with Germany, with France and with Italy. It is good so. I have not received the slightest hint that anything strange, illegitimate and so on had been promised, but it was certainly a mixture of pressures in different ways that overall worked well. And everyone could quickly agree that this was the best possible solution.

Finally: I had a conversation in the margins with Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. I thanked him for the invitation, and he thanked me for the response. We said that we will find a date to meet, and that process is currently ongoing.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anna Lasses (C)

Mr. Speaker! Many thanks, Prime Minister! It sounds hopeful that it was a decent meeting this morning and that there are no strange rumors or anything else.

Since I suddenly have one minute left that I hadn't quite accounted for, I shall take up something significantly more boring. It naturally concerns Israel, Palestine, Hamas and so on. I hear what the Prime Minister says, and I know that it is difficult to reach an agreement. But somewhere one must still ask: Can the EU really not agree that we shall together actively do everything to achieve a humanitarian ceasefire so that the aid actually gets through? And by that, I mean that we shall do something active and that we shall not just talk about it. Now I know that no decisions were made at this meeting, and I heard what the Prime Minister said about what is most important now. But it must surely be possible to do more given the situation that prevails?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I share the frustration of watching the terrible things that are happening and not, physically so to speak, being able to be there and help.

Now we are doing important things. We are involved and ensuring that supplies come in when there are openings. We contribute financially in various ways. Now we and other countries have been forced to take a pause when it comes to just the UNRWA aid. We are looking for other ways, and we hope that as soon as possible it is clarified what has happened so that the support can be resumed again.

But I believe, as I said, that our strongest pressure is to do what we do together with the USA and use the unity that exists in the EU. We shall not overexploit it and not pretend that it is greater than it is, but we shall use what exists and, together with the USA and constructive countries in the region, work towards a solution that is as long-term as possible.

I want to be quite clear on this point. And I do not think we should exaggerate when it comes to whether we can do more than that – more than physical support on site, naturally.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Prime Minister for the report.

Much has already been said, and I will focus my energy on raising issues that we in Miljöpartiet have nagged about quite many times before.

There was a point that we are actually very much in agreement on, which concerns support for Ukraine. Since the invasion of Ukraine began, the EU has sponsored Russia's warfare with 200 billion euros, this with the help of various loopholes that have made it possible to continue importing, among other things, Russian gas. So, it is about 200 billion euros, and we continue to agree on various sanctions and different ways to support Ukraine. For me, this is a completely insane hypocrisy. I wish that this had been raised in discussions on how one can be solidary with Ukraine.

When we in Miljöpartiet highlighted this, we were told that Miljöpartist-style politics should not be legitimized. But when Ukraine's president Zelenskyy pleaded and put forward the same demands, consensus could be reached. Good for them!

When we have then asked about this, it has been blamed on the fact that this must be handled through the EU and that it is not something that member states can solve on their own. But now Finland has signaled that it will be done when there is a new gas reform in the EU. Even the companies' contracts have been used as an excuse for why it is not possible to move forward.

But now patience has run out. The Swedish people expect us to stop importing and stop sponsoring Putin's war. What is the government doing, and how are the conversations conducted in these rooms?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I just want to first confirm the consensus on the support for Ukraine. It is good, and I value it enormously - both the Swedish consensus and the European consensus.

Even though we have been in agreement on the sanctions, I understand. And we have become increasingly in agreement, both when we have added new sanction packages and when it comes to pressure on the countries that systematically circumvent the sanctions that we have.

The Swedish position has long been that we want European sanction packages that the countries agree on and not to do this bilaterally, i.e., that every country does this itself. I believe that is correct. It can be frustrating in the moment when one does not reach all the way and get agreement on sanctions, but I believe that the power of the sanction packages becomes much greater when we get agreement behind them. We therefore have no ambition to change that in the government now, but we stick to the European sanctions and are always at the forefront among those who want them to be as broad and as comprehensive as possible.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I do not hear that I am receiving any new information. There is still some kind of clarity for everyone who has a great expectation. This is not just any issue, but this has an incredibly strong connection to the terrible war that we all condemn.

I will also comment on other areas that have been raised. When it comes to agriculture, which was one of the points, the Prime Minister referred to it being about stricter regulations and that the environmental legislation has gone too far. I just want to say that it is absolutely not the whole picture. It is about people not being paid for what they produce and that the money disappears to intermediaries.

I must also mention Gaza and the Middle East. The Prime Minister said that one has been forced to stop the aid to UNRWA. But it is a choice that the Prime Minister and his government have made. One has not been forced.

We would like to know what the government intends to do to put an end to the enormous suffering in this war.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First, just a small kind correction: I absolutely did not say that environmental policy was behind this. I did not mention it with a single word. I said that it is a mixture of irritation over free trade, where we do not agree with the protests, and a more or less legitimate perception that it is many regulations, national and European, that make it harder to run agricultural enterprises in our part of the world than in many other parts. There are many different reasons for this. I absolutely did not say that it was ambitious environmental policy. I believe that most are in agreement on an ambitious environmental policy. But it must also be possible to create stable and competitive companies in our part of the world, otherwise we will not have any agricultural sector left at all.

When it comes to UNRWA, this somewhat complicated abbreviation: We were not forced, but I believe there was a very large expectation that we in Sweden, like other countries, wanted a proper scrutiny and review before we simply continue to pay out funds. As recently as today, a notification arrived regarding such a review with the help of, among others, the Swedish Raoul Wallenberg Institute. I welcome that.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Hans Wallmark (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Prime Minister stated in his account that there was nevertheless a constructive tone when negotiations were held in the European Council among the heads of state and government. Let me take hold of that and describe a good tone in the EU Committee.

When we had the open consultation last week, Anna Lasses, as was stated here, requested the white smoke. And there was consensus. Magnus Berntsson from Kristdemokraterna said something along the lines of – I am trying to pull it from my memory now – the best possible outcome with the greatest possible consensus, and that is what happened. It became the best possible outcome. And it became the greatest possible consensus, because there was consensus.

This is good, and I believe it is important that in times when we head towards elections to the European Parliament, we emphasize that the European Union can deliver and can do so in unity.

Then it is about money. It is about 50 billion euros, and they are to go largely into the Ukrainian budget. Therefore, it is also important, as the Prime Minister pointed out, namely that a part of the Russian, satanic warfare against Ukraine is to destroy Ukraine's economy - to make the country's exports impossible, which is what allows one to have an economy and finance wages for nurses, for teachers, and for the soldiers at the front. Therefore, it is an important aspect to address how Ukraine's economy can survive under this attack from Russia.

In conclusion, I want to – for easily understandable reasons with my Sweden-NATO pin – pick up where Anna Lasses' answer from Centerpartiet ended. I wish the Prime Minister success in the upcoming negotiations, not only with Hungary during a European Council but also now before the final shaking days before we get a desired ratification in Budapest.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First, I just want to confirm what is being said here. Sometimes all the focus, on good grounds, is on things that do not work. A European Council that does not reach an agreement nevertheless has a greater news value than a European Council that reaches an agreement. That does not diminish the value of us reaching an agreement on major, decisive issues.

It was, as said, a bit tense in December. I still think that such things are repaired relatively quickly and that there is a kind of familiarity and a will to solve problems in the room that goes across national borders and party boundaries in a way that is quite impressive. That is at least my experience after having been present at every meeting over the last year and a quarter.

It was a very moved Volodymyr Zelenskyy who participated via link immediately afterwards. The President of the European Parliament, who had intended to come in and call for unity, had just received the message that unity had been reached before she entered the room and noted that her message was no longer needed.

As has been said, one must take hold of and celebrate the victories - for a short time, at least, for then new problems will arise that one has to handle.

And as we have said, we are not going to negotiate any NATO membership with Hungary at all. But we are going to discuss NATO common interests, important ones. How are we to cooperate as both being NATO members? We have a common aviation system; that is not everyone who knows. We have Jas 39 Gripen in both Sweden's and Hungary's air forces. It is incredibly important when we now broaden that cooperation as NATO members. There are surely other things to talk about as well. There is no lack of important things to discuss.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Hans Wallmark (M)

Mr. Speaker! Just very briefly: That is what international cooperation is about. It is that countries with somewhat different starting points and somewhat different interests nevertheless come together to solve common problems, usually in great agreement. It is about security policy, about the environment and climate, and about safeguarding the internal market that the EU represents.

With my background as a journalist, I can confirm that it is usually more fun to write about the conflict, because that is the news, than about the consensus. But the consensus is important and central in these times, both in a multilateral organization like the European Union and in accordance with Nato.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I agree.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the report!

A bit hastily thrown into these questions, I find it exciting to listen to all of you. We Christian Democrats are, of course, also very pleased that you succeeded in the negotiations to get an EU that is united on the Ukraine issue and that you finally reached an agreement.

It is, as said, important that there is a long-term perspective in the support provided to Ukraine and that the EU is united. It is a signal that we want to give to many other countries. As the Prime Minister said, it is a signal to Russia that the EU remains united together with Ukraine. But it is also a signal to the USA. It is a pressure on them to do their part when the EU does its.

It is also good that there are new sanctions in the works against Russia and that the loopholes that have existed are being reviewed and addressed.

Now to the Middle East. It is a difficult situation, but it is good that there are certain things that we actually agree on and that they are highlighted in the contexts and not just the areas where we disagree.

My question is primarily about Iran. It was discussed earlier what Iran's involvement is. What sanctions are there that we can introduce, and are there other things we can do as pressure?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First, just to confirm: I believe it is my Danish colleague Mette Frederiksen who usually says, in connection with the famous concept of war fatigue, that no other country has the right to speak of war fatigue as long as Ukraine is not war-weary. It is an important point, and I think we showed that here.

We have, as we have said, been spoiled by a perhaps unexpected transatlantic unity since February 24, 2022. It was not self-evident that it would be so strong. We have had long periods where sometimes European countries and sometimes the USA have expressed doubts about the strong transatlantic link since the post-war period. Now we have proven the opposite.

I do not think we should shout "hello" here. It is a very broad discussion in the USA. But we know what we think, and it is binding for Europe.

We actually did not discuss Iran in any other way than that it is well known that others act by proxy, as they say, or with Iranian inspiration in a destructive way in the region. Everyone is aware of that. Everyone is also aware that no one wants to escalate this to a large-scale war in the region. It is bad enough as it is. It is certainly also that which makes the US response to horrific attacks on Americans relatively mild. One does not want to escalate, but one cannot let these groups do whatever they want. Right now, it is most evident in the Red Sea.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Cecilia Engström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Now to agriculture and its conditions. I am, like the Prime Minister, glad that Sweden stands up for property rights and considers that Swedish food production is important for our resilience and for the future. I absolutely agree that free trade is important for Sweden and that EU membership has served us well in the past.

But I also mean that the rules must be reasonable. Therefore, I wonder a bit what other countries have said about the proposals on the table when one has talked about what is on the way and the considerations that must be made moving forward.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! That is a good question. There was no deep discussion about this at all, but it was quite colored by the fact that it was a huge uproar, which everyone could note. It looks a bit different in different countries, but I believe everyone has respect for this.

If we turn our attention to Sweden, one can say that the need for locally produced, high-quality food, the need for free trade, so that we can sell on a broader market than just little Sweden, and the need for food security are three vital reasons to truly care about Swedish agriculture and Swedish food production.

All countries think more or less the same. Then, different countries are differently dependent on the entire food sector, and furthermore, different countries have both common EU rules and their own national specific rules. That makes this a very complicated matrix.

This was not an in-depth discussion, but rather it was about marking that we understand that there is dissatisfaction. We share some of the dissatisfaction to varying degrees; other parts we do not share.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the report!

The European Council's decision regarding Ukraine is welcome to say the least - a relief, as some said, and so it truly is. It is also, just as the Prime Minister said, an important and strong signal, not only to Ukraine and the USA but perhaps primarily to Russia. The EU's support is completely indispensable to ensure that Ukraine not only succeeds in resisting Russia's aggression but also actually wins the war. In a geopolitical situation where the USA has difficulties gathering a majority for more support for Ukraine, it is more important than ever that the EU stands united.

But it is obvious that the process of getting the support for Ukraine through is vulnerable even within the EU. A single member state can, through its right of veto, prevent important foreign policy positions. At the open EU committee meeting that preceded the meeting the Prime Minister was subsequently at in Brussels, my party colleague Joar Forssell asked about the view on qualified majority or, if you will, the right of veto. The Liberals have for a long time pushed for an abolition of the right of veto in foreign policy. But as long as the current order prevails, the EU stands in a position where situations like the one we have now seen can arise again.

Given that more decisions regarding support for Ukraine and sanctions against Russia will need to be made in the future and European unity is of the utmost importance, I wonder a bit how we can avoid such situations arising in the future. The Prime Minister touched slightly on this in the beginning of his progress report but is welcome to elaborate on the reasoning somewhat.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! To say the obvious first: the more member states, the potentially more difficult it is to reach an agreement, naturally. This is no reason not to have a large, broad Europe where many can agree, but that is how it is. It requires quite a lot of legwork and knowing what one wants but being pragmatic when it comes to solutions. It requires forming alliances with others, which more countries in turn can join. And it sometimes requires a degree of plain speaking and a bit of toughness.

So it is no strange thing, but these are complicated matters. And I think that only shows the importance of what we have learned, not least now during the presidency: to be involved early in the processes and listen even to those who have objections so that, to the greatest extent possible, one can take care of their objections and still reach an agreement. This is difficult, but that is how it is. The alternative is to succeed in nothing, so I still think this is good.

When it comes to QMV, qualified majority, we in Sweden find it easy to agree that we could imagine deviating from unanimity specifically in foreign policy. Other countries think exactly the opposite. They could imagine deviating from unanimity and applying qualified majority in taxation matters; we would not think that at all. We will therefore have to live with the fact that different countries will have different views on potentially deviating from the principle.

These are treaty issues that will become relevant as the EU gradually grows and gains more members – perhaps already when Ukraine and Moldova become members. The question is therefore not closed in any way, but no one should believe that we will manage to push through precisely our Swedish line.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I appreciate the very broad consensus we had in the EU Committee and the constructive tone there. After a long night of negotiations, I received a mandate from the EU Committee last time. That is exactly what I have used, and after a short discussion, we were able to easily agree on the starting values this time; I appreciate that and place great value on it.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for a detailed answer!

I thought I would take a question on the fly now that I have a minute to spare. The Prime Minister has mentioned property rights, free trade, reasonable rules for agriculture, nature restoration and so on, and we have had some discussion about this. My perception is that the EU is the world's best environmental and climate organization, and my direct question to the Prime Minister is whether he shares that view.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, it is at least right now the world's leading [example] insofar as one has been able to agree on Fit for 55 and the climate package. This sets an example for the rest of the world and could create conditions for reaching an agreement with other continents. In the USA, we see some good things beginning - not without problems, but still. If we could get South America, parts of Africa, and even China and Asia to do the same, we would go much further, so it is fantastically good.

Reporting from the Council of Europe meeting on 1 February

This does not prevent us from still having sharp objections. I fully understand that the EU thinks it would be good to use Swedish forest as a collective carbon sink, but it is not the Swedish view that we should sacrifice Swedish sustainable forestry to solve other EU countries' problems with becoming fossil-free. Sometimes, however, one must also dare to speak up and say: This will not do; we like the EU and believe in cooperation, but here we are protecting vital Swedish interests.

The reporting was hereby concluded.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)