Reporting from the Council of Europe meeting on December 14-15

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Mr. Speaker! It was, to say the least, an eventful meeting in the European Council last week. Some here also met via video link during the meeting, and I would like to extend a special thanks to those who participated in the consultation at 02:45 on the night of Friday.

The starting point was very serious because both the economic support to Ukraine and the opening of membership negotiations risked being blocked. There were also long discussions where Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orbán strongly opposed opening the membership negotiations with Ukraine. Finally, after many rounds, decisions could be made. Viktor Orbán chose, however, not to participate in the decision.

Initiating membership negotiations with Ukraine and Moldova is a historic decision that we should be proud of. It shows that the EU keeps its promises when we gave Ukraine and Moldova candidate country status last summer. It shows that these countries' future is European and nothing else, and it shows that the EU can make a long-term investment in our security, our prosperity, and our stability. It is a strong signal to Washington, to Kyiv, and to the Kremlin.

During the meeting, President Zelenskyy participated via video link. He then emphasized how historic this day was for Ukraine and reminded the leaders of how people gathered on Maidan in Kyiv ten years ago under the flag of the European Union.

Reporting from the Council of Europe meeting on December 14-15

The European Council also decided at the meeting that Georgia's candidate status is recognized and that we shall return by March next year at the latest regarding the start of negotiations also for Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Parallel to the expansion process, we on the EU side must also prepare and adapt decision-making processes, the institutions' working methods, and budget issues, not least within the EU's cohesion and agricultural policy.

Mr. Speaker! The second main issue at the summit concerned the EU's long-term economic support to Ukraine within the framework of the revision of the EU's long-term budget. At the meeting, an agreement was reached that 26 countries, including Sweden, could support. Regrettably, Hungary could not accept the agreement and therefore laid a veto.

In the agreement that is still on the table, there are a number of important Swedish negotiating successes. The long-term support for Ukraine is in place in the agreement, while at the same time we have succeeded in reducing 90 percent of the other proposed new expenditures. This means that we have negotiated down the other expenditures from 48.8 billion euro in the original proposal to 4 billion euro. It is undeniably a very successful reduction that would not have been possible without active Swedish work together with our group of like-minded people.

We also succeeded in preventing the introduction of a more extensive provision on own funds than what we agreed upon in 2020. It was, and will remain, important.

Regarding the interest payments, we and like-minded [members] secured significant improvements compared to the original proposal. The model we agreed upon means that around 50 percent of the interest payments will be handled within the annual budget through redistribution and use of the flexibility within the budget. The remaining amount is covered by unused funds, i.e., existing funds that have not been used. Only after that, in an ultimate emergency, shall a so-called backstop financed by the Member States be used. The Commission's assessment, however, is that it should not need to be used. It is also important to note that this backstop is limited in time to the current budget framework.

Among the increased expenditures that remain in the agreement, the large item concerns migration and investments in, for example, securing the outer border, increasing the capacity in reception centers, increasing returns, and securing agreements with third countries. This is policy that we support. Reduced migration to Europe also means reduced migration to Sweden.

26 member states support this text. It is therefore too few to reach a decision but enough to send a clear signal about the strong support for Ukraine that exists within the EU.

The European Council will convene again on February 1 and then attempt to reach a necessary consensus. If that is not possible, we will need to look at other alternatives to support Ukraine. In that case, the government will, of course, return to the Riksdag. But as the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, said directly after the meeting, there will be a viable solution regardless of whether consensus can be achieved next time or not.

I want to emphasize that the situation is just as serious today as it was before the European Council. Long-term support from the EU to Ukraine is of the utmost importance, partly because Ukraine's ability to maintain basic public administration depends on international support, and partly against the background of the uncertainty we now see on the other side of the Atlantic. Agreeing on long-term support to Ukraine is a powerful signal not only to Ukraine but also to our partners, not least the USA.

Mr. Speaker! The discussion on the Middle East confirmed once again that within the EU we agree on quite a lot but not everything. This was clear even before the meeting given the outcome of the vote in the UN General Assembly on demands for a ceasefire in Gaza. No conclusions were reached in this part either.

Finally, a text proposal from Italy regarding the continued work on the external dimension of the migration work could be taken on board. Other texts on the table were adopted without discussion.

With this, I conclude the report.

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Mr. Speaker! It was, to say the least, a dramatic EU summit before the weekend. The fact that the EU leaders could not agree on anything of substance regarding the Middle East, or the fact that the EU leaders actually agreed to open accession negotiations with Ukraine and Moldova, would normally have been noted greatly.

But what became the drama at this summit was that the EU leaders could not agree on that crucial economic support for Ukraine. It puts Ukraine and Europe in an extremely dangerous situation. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Finland are rightly very concerned about this signal to Putin. One might ask why a country like Hungary does not share that concern.

I have understood that the Prime Minister is ill; I believe that was the reason this time why the Prime Minister cannot be here. My question to the EU Minister is: Why have the EU leaders pushed new negotiations back to February? That is a long way off. What is it that one intends to achieve by February in relation to Hungary that was not achieved now?

The conclusion that could have been drawn instead is that the 26 EU leaders who are in agreement now must move forward with their own settlement. Ukraine's and Europe's security cannot wait until February.

Therefore, I ask: How did the Prime Minister act at the EU summit to push for a settlement for the 26 countries that were in agreement? And in what way did the Prime Minister push to accelerate the timeframe so that decisions can be made as quickly as possible?

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

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Matilda Ernkrans for the questions.

I do not quite share the view that the drama was about the EU not reaching an agreement. I was there. The historical decision that we actually could agree on and the announcement that we managed to decide on unanimously - which the Ukrainians have asked for ever since the outbreak of the war, or actually, as I just said in my speech, ever since the events at Maidan ten years ago - is that Ukraine will become members of the EU at some point. It will not happen tomorrow, but it will take its time. But they have made enormous progress during this year since the outbreak of the war. It is a historical decision and a very important announcement. It was also what President Zelenskyy spoke a lot about in his speech at the European Council.

I do not, therefore, share the view that the focus was on the fact that there was no agreement. I then regret that an agreement could not be reached. It is serious. I agree with that. It was then decided that 26 member states would make a decision on this declaration and on whether we are in agreement. Now it is about finding a solution moving forward.

It is still time-critical - absolutely. And decisions must be made as soon as possible during next year. The notification we have now received is that this shall take place on February 1. And I would like to assert that it is sufficient time for us to be able to continue supporting Ukraine.

How did the Prime Minister act to push for reaching an agreement? It was primarily about the fact that we have constantly, ever since the decision was made in July regarding the proposal on the importance of reaching an agreement on a Ukraine facility and all the way until the night of Friday, pushed for this.

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Minister says that it is time-critical. February 1st is quite a long way off. Did the Prime Minister urge that the timeframe should be accelerated? And did the Prime Minister at all bring up on the agenda that one should conclude that the 26 countries that were in agreement should move forward with their own settlement? These questions remain.

We also know that the EU Commission released new funds to Hungary just before the EU summit. One could get the feeling that it was to ensure that Hungary withdrew its veto. We know the result. Hungary blocked new funds to Ukraine, despite the Commission's attempts at a settlement.

How will Sweden ensure at the summit in February that new money is not paid out to a country that does not live up to the EU's fundamental democratic principles? And what consequences does the government believe the decision made by the Commission to pay out support to Hungary will have for the EU's future opportunities to uphold requirements for the rule of law in the member states?

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

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Mr. Speaker! First and foremost, I must be clear - as I and other ministers have been countless times here in the chamber of the Riksdag - that this government will not compromise on the principles of the rule of law.

The decisions that Matilda Ernkrans highlights, and which she has highlighted previously and also received answers on previously, which the Commission made last week regarding the payment of frozen funds to Hungary, are something that lies entirely in the Commission's hands. It is the Commission that has made the decision. I assume that the Commission has made a correct and proper assessment.

But there are also funds to Hungary that are still being held back, which are frozen. I can note that the commission, in its decision, states that it does not recommend that other funds linked to the conditionality mechanism and the recovery plan should be released.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Minister Jessika Roswall for the report. It was an exciting meeting, just as one could have guessed in advance. We reached a consensus on membership negotiations with Ukraine. It is something that the Sweden Democrats welcome. But we can at the same time note that one of the countries did not participate when the decision was made. Hungary left the room.

What is the Minister doing for the assessment of the way forward? Quite right, as Viktor Orbán pointed out, Hungary has very many opportunities to stop the process forward. So if one is not part of that it should be held membership negotiations, this decision means nothing if one is then prepared to stop it at dozens of additional occasions. It would therefore be interesting to hear if the Minister can elaborate on this.

The second question I intended to focus on is the budget review where we from the Sweden Democrats, just like the government, were very clear that this is not a good way to review the EU's budget. One should not put more money into this at this stage. The negotiations have been very successful, I must say.

Hungary has not taken a position on this. They cast their veto. But that had to do with the Ukraine facility. Does the government know anything about what Hungary thinks about this tenth negotiating box in general, if we disregard this facility? Regarding the settlement that 26 EU countries reached, will we be able to reach the same even if Hungary is included in the decision, or could it become worse?

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

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Martin Kinnunen for this.

It is historic and very welcome, especially by Ukraine, that we succeeded in reaching an agreement to make a decision to start membership negotiations. But the road to membership is very long; we know that.

It is difficult for me to speculate on how Hungary will act during the course of the process. From the Swedish side and from other member states, it is pointed out to all candidate countries that this process is merit-based.

What I can state is that Ukraine, just days before the European Council meeting, made decisions in accordance with the requirements that have been set by the Commission. Ukraine is therefore taking steps forward, and Sweden will continue to support both politically and economically, as we have said before.

But I cannot otherwise speculate on this, and it applies to all candidate countries.

When it comes to the budget issue, it was a successful negotiation from a Swedish perspective. And we should be proud of how we managed to achieve a historically large redistribution, for example. It has not happened before. We also got through that there was a significant reduction in new money.

How will an agreement occur in February, if it occurs? I do not know, and neither does the government right now. There are different theories about this. But the tenth box - the last one we made a decision on at 02:45 in the morning towards Friday - is agreed upon by 26 countries. And it is that one that, in that case, a decision shall be made on together with Hungary as well so that we achieve unanimity.

But we will have to return to the issue of alternatives if it should come to that. But it is the agreement that is now on the table that applies.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer.

I have another question regarding the negotiations. Sweden was now historically successful in achieving redistribution. It is something that we have not quite managed to achieve in the ordinary budget process, but the expenditures have mostly increased. Then one has tried to compensate for it with temporary discounts that one in the next negotiation must try to negotiate to extend.

Is there anything to take away from here? Is there any strategy that the government believes is path-breaking and that one can continue to work with moving forward?

A final question concerns the discussion on own funds. The then Social Democratic government downplayed the importance of the wording regarding own funds when we made the decision on the multi-year budget. This wording remains. Fortunately, it has not become worse. But how great are the challenges with the proposals on own funds that are going to come?

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

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the question. When it comes to experiences from the negotiation: It started, as said, in July, and as Martin Kinnunen is well aware, Sweden was very much alone at the beginning in pushing for redistribution.

My perception is that what we have done and been successful in is, among other things, gathering more like-minded people into our group and keeping them very close. Another thing that I have mentioned a few times is that I believe in something for which there might not be a word, but which we can call the parrot method, that is to say that we have repeated and repeated what is the Swedish position. I am very happy that it has become broadly anchored. I believe that is part of the success. We have, as said, known our numbers, and we have been able to argue for our matters.

Regarding the part about own funds, it is difficult given that we have the decision we have from 2020, but I am satisfied that we managed to stay with the wording we now received in these conclusions.

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

Hans Wallmark (M)

Mr. Speaker! Just as my colleagues have said earlier, there are both good and bad things to note. I belong to the type of politician who thinks that one can note what is good, so let us focus on that for a little while!

Membership negotiations with Ukraine and Moldova are extremely important, and just as has been said, it is something that President Zelenskyy welcomes very much. It means strong support for one of Europe's heroes, namely President Maia Sandu in Moldova. Also, the candidacy path for Georgia is very important – even if the country has a bit of a way to go, if I put it that way.

Reference is made to the 02.45 meeting during the night between Thursday and Friday. The EU Committee then had to have an extra meeting to confirm the Swedish negotiating line. All parties in Sweden's Riksdag stand behind the so-called tenth negotiating box, which means that one tries to make redistributions at the same time as everyone opened for money from the EU to Ukraine. It is extremely central and important.

Something we have not mentioned so far, which does not have much to do with the European Council but still has to do with the EU, is that the EU has also succeeded in producing another sanctions package against Russia. It is very important to squeeze the flow of money into Russia and to try to stop and prevent the flow of technology and other important input goods. It is therefore about money and things that Russia needs to continue its bloody war of invasion against Ukraine and thus the attack against Europe. This is good. The bad thing is, of course, that 26 countries are stopped by a 27th, and that is where it matters to exert the force.

If we look at these things, we still see that we can tick off three good things and one bad thing. When it comes to the bad thing, we have to increase the pressure.

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

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Mr. Speaker! That is exactly it. It was a historic meeting where we made incredibly important decisions - historic decisions, as I said.

Something that is good and that we perhaps have not said so much about is that we made decisions regarding expansion. This was, in fact, done at the meeting in the General Council a few days earlier, but there are several parts to this. As members of the EU Committee know, it was a Western Balkans summit the evening before the European Council. This is also important in our joint decision to make Europe safer and increase our prosperity. It has, therefore, truly been a positive meeting insofar as there are positive decisions regarding expansion.

As Hans Wallmark has pointed out, we have also managed to reach an agreement on a twelfth sanctions package. It is welcome for many different reasons, primarily so that we can reduce the circumvention of the sanctions.

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

Hans Wallmark (M)

Mr. Speaker! We perhaps should not be entirely surprised that Moderate Roswall and Moderate Wallmark have similar views, but I also believe that many in the chamber agree with what we have just said. It is important, because this is a Swedish line. It is not a party's line or a government's line, but it is a Swedish line that has these successes.

With that said, one can, here at Christmas time, wish for more hard packages against Russia. Continue to push for sanctions and pressure against the country that invades a neighboring country and thereby exposes our entire continent to a risk and questions our values in Europe! When we talk about this, we must realize what is primary and what is secondary. The primary thing, in relation to everything else, is that Ukraine is attacked and needs our support. Everything else is fundamentally subordinate. This is about Ukraine, but it is also about our Europe.

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

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Mr. Speaker! That is exactly it. Even though we regret that all 27 countries could not reach an agreement, I think it is a sign of strength that 26 member states agreed on an agreement regarding continued strong support for Ukraine.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

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

We have talked quite a bit about how the negotiations on the budget did not completely reach a goal. Given the great needs that Ukraine has, it is regrettable that one failed to reach an agreement. But I cannot see that it is a catastrophe that the countries could not agree on a budget for 2024 since it, despite the government's very good work to bring down the cost, still involves a number of new commitments.

It would, however, be bad if the EU has to choose between paying out money to Hungary and supporting Ukraine. I truly hope that the states will be able to find a way to bypass Hungary when it comes to the support for Ukraine and that the Commission does not give in. The decision that countries that do not live up to the principles of the rule of law shall not receive a share of the EU's support funds must be followed. I would like to hear a bit more about what the way forward looks like to prevent Hungary from conditioning the disbursement of support to Ukraine.

I also want to bring up the war between Israel and Hamas, which has now been ongoing for over two months. Those who are hit hardest, in addition to the victims of Hamas's acts of terror, are the civilian population in Gaza. Of the over 17,000 who have been killed, 61 percent are civilians, and many are children. The hospitals are not functioning, and food and water are in short supply. Now the rest of the world must increase the pressure on Benjamin Netanyahu so that there is a ceasefire and genuine peace negotiations.

Until last week, Sweden voted no to a ceasefire, but after pressure, the vote was finally yes in the UN General Assembly. My question to the Minister is how the Prime Minister and Sweden are working so that the EU can contribute to long-lasting peace and not just to a temporary humanitarian truce.

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

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Mr. Speaker! The question concerned the way forward, if I understood correctly, and then it is probably not about whether we will agree on money for Ukraine but about not withholding the money. I ask myself the rhetorical question. I answer both questions, so I secure myself!

I will begin with the support for Ukraine, which I received several questions about, including from Matilda Ernkrans. I do not know exactly how it will look, but I feel secure in that 26 member states have been clear that we will ensure that Ukraine has long-term support. It was also confirmed by Ursula von der Leyen afterwards that a viable solution will be found regardless of whether consensus can be achieved at the next meeting of the European Council or not.

Earlier, I answered somewhat to Matilda Ernkrans' questions about withholding funds to Hungary and the way forward regarding that. One thing is, as I said – I am happy to repeat it – that it is the Commission that has made the decision regarding the money that Hungary received last week. However, there are other funds being withheld, and the Commission stated clearly that it does not recommend that funds linked to the so-called conditionality mechanism or the recovery plan be released. That is the position the Commission has and which the government also has, and we do not, as I said, compromise when it comes to the principles of the rule of law.

I also want to say something briefly about the Middle East and the extremely serious situation prevailing in Gaza. We all know that this is very serious.

How we work long-term with this was one of the questions that was discussed at the European Council. All member states phrase the words slightly differently and have slightly different emphases. As I said in my report back, the member states are not entirely in agreement. I would, however, like to emphasize that they are in agreement on the long-term solution, that is, a two-state solution.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer.

I would like to take this opportunity to urge the government to work for a lasting ceasefire, because this war cannot continue until Gaza is completely bombed to pieces and its inhabitants killed. Furthermore, the European Council must discuss how to act to put a stop to the settlement policy. The settlers take the opportunity to intimidate or even kill their Palestinian neighbors in order to be able to annex their land. This is also an important issue for the EU to discuss. Are there sanctions? What can be done to stop this?

I also want to briefly mention COP 28. The Council welcomes the agreement but says nothing about the EU's continued work. The question is whether an agreement at COP 28 is sufficient for us to reach the climate goals. What can the EU do to reduce emissions? Will the Council discuss this issue in the near future, or will the budget put a spoke in the wheel here?

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

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Mr. Speaker! How does one work for long-term peace? I would say that it is a matter of focusing on what one agrees on.

Even though it may possibly be perceived as utopian to stand and speak of a two-state solution right now, this is what the member states are talking about. They agree on many things. They agree on the serious humanitarian situation and on the fact that support must be increased. The Swedish government has, as Ilona Szatmári Waldau knows, contributed a lot of money in recent months.

Ilona Szatmári Waldau also raised the issue of settlement policy. I know that this was one of the issues discussed when the foreign ministers gathered, and the high representative will return to it.

When it comes to COP 28, it is very true that the Council welcomes the agreement. The question will, of course, return at later European Councils, both in the individual Council of Ministers and at the European Council. I do not know exactly when it will occur next.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is good to hear that the government is not compromising on the principles of the rule of law; it is very reassuring. I also want to say that it is incredibly positive that the process regarding Ukraine's membership is moving forward – there is nothing to say about that.

But to drill a bit into what is still problematic, I want to ask about the role that Hungary has taken on. It is clear that many are wondering, to speak plainly, what the EU actually had to pay for Orbán to leave the room. Absolutely – it was the Commission's decision to release the money to Hungary. I am, however, a bit more on the previous question of how one will work moving forward so that this does not happen again, even if one will be able to bypass Hungary in just this specific issue.

How do we want it in the long term so that a blackmail situation like this, with a single state blocking, does not arise again? This applies in particular in a situation like this, where Hungary essentially holds the entire EU's security in its hands.

How do we keep the key to the democracy lock? What can Sweden's government do to work to ensure that this key ends up in the right hands?

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

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Mr. Speaker! The member asked what the EU had to pay. Nothing! I have now answered twice that the Commission made a decision regarding the payment of the funds that Hungary received. I assume that it is correct and proper. Other funds are still withheld, and the Commission's decision right now is that it is not recommended that they be paid out.

Sweden is working very much with the principles of the rule of law in various dialogues and with different tools. This is something that stands high on the agenda and which I will continue to work for. Exactly how it will develop, I do not want to speculate on, but it was something that we constantly had focus on during the Swedish presidency.

How did they do it now? Each of us can, of course, speculate about it, but it was still 26 member states against one. We received a decision to open membership negotiations with Ukraine. It is an important announcement. The decision was unanimous, as Hungary was not in the room.

It was an immensely important decision - a historic decision - for which the Ukrainians are immensely grateful. I and Europe are also grateful that we have been able to make this decision.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Mr. Speaker! I truly agree – it was an incredibly important decision.

At the same time, we stand there with a country that continues to constantly block on these issues and which exploits the security policy situation we find ourselves in. One still feels a certain concern over this situation and how the EU can be able to solve it. I have absolute trust that the government holds the line; it really is not about that. But how shall we proceed in the future so that this does not occur again?

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

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Mr. Speaker! What I see before me right now is that we are trying to, as soon as possible – one can discuss what is fast and what is not, but February 1 is in a reasonably near future – reach an agreement on continued support for Ukraine. This concerns both the Ukraine Facility and the budget otherwise.

When it comes to the rule of law principle generally, which there are problems with in several countries in the EU, we work with different tools that we use in different ways. We shall, of course, see if this can be deepened or changed in any way; it is clearly an ongoing discussion.

I understand the concern, and it is clear that we must address this. The positive – and I want to focus on that – is that we have made decisions to start membership negotiations with Ukraine and Moldova. I think we should rejoice in this.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Minister Roswall for the presentation and the answers to the previous questions. It may happen that we return to something that has been said earlier.

I want to start by emphasizing that I find it very pleasing that we have now opened the membership negotiations with Ukraine and Moldova. Ukraine has been talked about a lot in the chamber, but I also want to emphasize this when it comes to Moldova, which is in a very vulnerable situation.

I am very pleased that we have started the membership negotiations and that Georgia has taken steps on the way that allow the country to obtain candidate country status. Georgia still has some way to go, and I hope that the Georgian government will take this seriously.

I also think it is important that it is emphasized in this decision that the EU has not forgotten the Western Balkans. That part is also intended to be part of a European community of values that we really want to see us move forward with.

I want to say a few words about the budget decision. I want to emphasize that it is very well negotiated from the Swedish side. This was shown by the support given from the EU Committee, which was largely in agreement. It was not because the decision was made in the middle of the night, but rather because it follows the line that Sweden has had.

It is regrettable with the veto from Hungary, but we must move forward. It is a very pious hope that we will reach an agreement at the European Council on February 1. But it is very important that the commission has spoken about that there are ways forward. It is important, not least, to speak about it for our transatlantic friends, but it is also a clear signal to Russia.

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

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for Magnus Berntsson also highlighting Moldova!

It is very true that we talk a lot about Ukraine. It is our first focus. But Moldova is subject to heavy pressure from Russian propaganda and pressure. It was a very important decision.

I have spoken about how impressed I am by the reforms that Ukraine has implemented during a raging war. I am also impressed by the reforms that Moldova has made and continues to make. This can be read about in the report.

It is very true that it is also a matter of us looking at the Western Balkans. We help and support in the reform processes that all the different countries need to undertake in order to enter the EU.

It was said that it is a pious hope that the EU will reach an agreement on the budget issue. We were all a bit pessimistic before the European Council and worried about how it would go. The positive thing is that we reached a decision on membership negotiations. I think that still came a bit unexpectedly for many.

It is difficult to speculate on how the next meeting of the European Council will go given that we actually do not know. I still, of course, hope that we will find a unanimous solution, but I feel confident that we will find a solution.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the answer!

It is obviously very desirable that we could reach an agreement on the budget decision at the next meeting of the European Council. But it is also very important that we send the signal that even if we do not reach an agreement, there are ways forward that mean the support that 26 of 27 member states have agreed upon will be given to Ukraine. This support does not stand or fall on whether we reach an agreement on February 1, but there are other ways forward. It is a very important signal.

Sweden will, of course, provide very strong support so that we can find a way forward even if we do not reach an agreement. I hope that we reach an agreement, because unity has been the EU's strength in showing support for Ukraine and against Russia as an aggressor in this war.

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

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the clarification, Magnus Berntsson!

I want to add what I said in my opening speech and what many have said at several different occasions about the importance of us in the EU being able to agree on support for Ukraine. It is of course also an important signal to Ukraine but also to our other partners. When we know that it is turbulent on the other side of the Atlantic in the USA, it is very important that the EU now manages to reach a decision. I feel confident that we will do so.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Many thanks to the Minister for EU Affairs for the report!

I also want to thank you for the commitment to Ukraine, which I perceive as extremely genuine. But I must nevertheless, as an environmentalist and as part of the opposition, raise the points where we believe that not enough is being done.

The EU has since the invasion pointed out the problem of fueling Russia's war chest through the import of fossil fuels. Regarding coal and oil, significant progress has been made, but regarding Russian gas, there is still a great deal to be done.

Since the invasion of Ukraine, no fewer than 26 ships have delivered Russian gas to Sweden. Sweden has, by this, fed the Russian war chest with more than 1 billion kronor. This has occurred despite the fact that we know the consequences.

Ukraine's president Zelenskyy has appealed to the Riksdag to put a stop to the import of fossil [fuels]. More than 31,000 signatures from the Swedish people have been signed for the same appeal: Stop the import of Russian gas! A notice has been directed from the chamber to the government, and yet it continues.

Now there is an updated regulatory framework for fossil gas. Member states can proceed. One does not need to wait for unanimity in the EU. My question then is: Will the government stop the import of Russian gas to Sweden and if so, when?

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

FÖRSTE VICE TALMANNEN

I must remind that the subject is the reporting back from the Council of Europe's meeting on December 14-15. Now it will be exciting to hear Minister Jessika Roswall's answer.

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

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Rebecka Le Moine, for the support of our commitment regarding Ukraine. It is very much genuine. It is something that I feel the entire Swedish Parliament stands behind.

It is also felt when we meet Ukrainians in various contexts. The Prime Minister was in Oslo and met the Nordic prime ministers when Zelenskyy was there. I personally met Deputy Prime Minister Olha Stefanishyna in action and in the sense of showing our support and hearing how the situation looks. I thank you for that support.

The second question is, just as the Speaker says, not a question that was raised at the European Council. What was raised this time was sanctions, and one could agree on a twelfth sanctions package.

It is my view that the strongest and best way to use sanctions as an effective tool is for decisions to be made jointly by many member states together. Therefore, I am pleased that a decision could be made on a twelfth package.

I do not know what the future holds. But we have now, over a period of two years, made decisions on twelve packages. I think that is very good.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! The question of Ukraine was also raised at this meeting. The question is highly relevant also because COP 28 was part of the meeting.

And with the invasion, many quite wide-awake have woken up. To make oneself so deeply dependent on the fossil [fuel] is also a major security problem. For the first time, it was finally mentioned at COP 28 that one must phase out the fossil [fuel].

I know that the climate issue has slipped down a bit on the agenda for the European work. I hope now that the EU minister will take the momentum and the demands with them. They are very critical, and it is very urgent that we achieve unity in the EU and also implement it.

The question is: How was it raised and how was the implementation of COP 28 discussed?

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

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Rebecka Le Moine!

At this meeting of the European Council, it was welcomed that the EU has stood strong and united in the negotiations regarding the COP. The EU has also achieved great successes, just as Rebecka Le Moine highlights. This was welcomed by the leaders at the meeting.

The negotiation mandate is negotiated in various council formations. The only thing that was decided now was that we have succeeded in our collective negotiations. Otherwise, I naturally take with me the recommendations that Rebecka Le Moine puts forward.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to Minister Roswall!

We are pleased that the Council, despite great uncertainties before the meeting, finally managed to agree to welcome Europe's foremost freedom fighters into the fold and initiate membership negotiations with Ukraine. No decision that the EU has made in modern times is actually more important than that.

Ukraine has been denied entry into Europe and the EU and security guarantees from the collective West for far too long – this despite the fact that Ukrainian citizens have strived not just for two years or for ten years and not even for twenty years but for thirty years toward the reality that we now hope for. Right now, Ukraine's soldiers are also fighting for us.

Even though we are glad that Ukraine will one day be able to enter the European warmth for real and receive its long-awaited membership, there are those who today stand in the way of this. It is no secret, and it has been raised here earlier in the debate. It is clear that it is a failure that one did not succeed in reaching a real consensus, even though there was consensus on paper.

I believe that many who are listening to the debate are wondering how we are to handle this situation in the future. It is not possible to have a situation where the EU's unity is repeatedly undermined, both when it comes to the fundamental issues and when it comes to the funds that need to be provided, even in the future.

It is necessary that the EU be reformed to avoid this situation in the future – that the EU is held hostage. We from the Liberals want to see a scrapped veto right. We want to ensure that we do not make these types of concessions, which one does not need to do if there is no veto right.

My question to the Minister is quite simply: How does the Minister view the possibility of achieving a situation in the future where we can make decisions in the EU by qualified majority and not give individual countries a veto right in individual issues?

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

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Mr. Speaker and Joar Forssell! I truly agree: No decision could have been more important. President Zelenskyy's speech to the European Council was very emotional and had just the tone that Joar Forssell repeats here today. The Ukrainians have fought for this for a long time. That is why this is so historic, and it is immensely crucial that this decision is made.

How does one handle the question of the EU's decision-making in the future? It is an important question, and it has to do with the report. One of the points included in the conclusions is the follow-up of the Granada Declaration, that is, when the leaders met to discuss how the EU should function in the future with 35-36 members.

What is agreed upon now is that these are parallel discussions. This concerns, among other things, what Joar Forssell raises, namely how we can make decisions effectively.

My perception, however, is that the EU has been successful. When it matters, we are successful and make quick decisions. We can recall how it was during the covid crisis when we made decisions on vaccinations. After the outbreak of war, we made quick decisions on sanctions, mass protection directives, and much more.

But the question of QMV and veto is a question that is part of this discussion. I would like to assert that the question is in its infancy, and we will all need to discuss it several times and find solutions moving forward. For me, the important perspective in this – and I am therefore glad that it is in the conclusions – is that the whole thing is parallel. It is partly merit-based from the perspective of the candidate countries, and partly the EU must do its homework. These things must happen in parallel. The EU must not hinder a future expansion.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! I have another question, which is closely related. Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine can be placed in a common context with Hamas's attacks on Israel but also with China's aggressions against Taiwan. It is the axis of evil in the world - Russia, China and Iran - who are cooperating ever more deeply. In Ukraine, Russia bombs with Iranian drones manufactured with Chinese components. Hamas carried out its attacks with the help of Iran but also with North Korean weapons.

My question is: What does the Minister see as the EU can do to also put pressure on Hamas and ensure that we get an unconditional surrender from Hamas? As long as Hamas remains, it is not possible to achieve a two-state solution. This was also pointed out by the Prime Minister in the EU Committee last week: Hamas must be gone for a two-state solution to be possible. What is the Minister and the EU doing for this?

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

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Mr. Speaker! I have answered the question somewhat earlier. In the discussion on the Middle East that was held now at the European Council meeting, there was no agreement on everything, but there is still agreement on some parts. It is also an important message.

What is being done de facto is that one clearly condemns the attack and stands behind Israel's right to defend itself in accordance with international law. Sweden also provides assistance, bilaterally and together with the EU, to the humanitarian situation in Gaza.

Already during the previous Swedish presidency in 2009, the EU countries agreed that it is a two-state solution that is the goal. As I said in a previous answer, it may be a bit utopian right now, but it is still the path we are moving towards. This discussion is ongoing partly between the leaders, and partly between the foreign ministers.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you to the Minister for the report! We Social Democrats have several times in the EU Committee pointed out that the climate seems to be leaving the agenda at the EU level all too often nowadays, so even at this meeting of the European Council. One might think it is strange considering that the meeting took place just after the COP negotiations had concluded. It would be natural to analyze how the EU is now to take forward the conclusions that come from the latest climate summit.

Ahead of the climate summit, that is in October, the leaders of the European Council called for increased global ambitions for greenhouse gas emissions to reach their peak by 2025 at the latest. It is therefore natural that we wonder how the leaders will now conclude what has happened during the climate summit so that one lives up to this very ambitious call from the EU.

I and the Social Democrats would like to hear how the government analyzes this and how the minister assesses that this meeting in the European Council summarized the climate summit.

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

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, Jytte Guteland! It is of course possible to have views on the agenda for the European Council. One cannot discuss everything at every meeting.

With that said, the climate issue was partially raised this time, as it was a few days after COP 28 concluded. As we have all now noted, there were also very large other issues, which were critical – which the climate issue clearly also is.

The question of support for Ukraine and the question of starting membership negotiations took up an enormous amount of space, and there were protracted discussions on many other major issues.

Everyone in here knows that I was not in the room during the discussion, but the meeting did nevertheless lead to a conclusion - a text that you have all been able to read - in which the agreement reached at COP 28 is welcomed. It also welcomes that the EU countries stood together and that we were successful in our negotiation.

The climate issue as such will, of course, return to the leadership's agenda later. At this meeting, it was precisely a summary from COP 28, but the climate issue is, as mentioned, very often on the agenda. I will return to the various ministerial councils where it is discussed how to approach the agreement and break it down so that the EU can reach its goals.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to the Minister for this account! It is encouraging to hear that the Minister wants to see that the climate issue repeatedly remains on the agenda and that it receives the large place in this assembly that it should have.

One might think it is important that the Swedish voice is strong in these contexts. To press and hold on issues is also about what the Swedish government does and how much one ensures that the issue retains its place on the agenda.

I am convinced that the Swedish people look with surprise that this is not given a larger role after the climate summit, that the European Council does not summarize and pass on the conclusions from the climate summit in an overall and committed way. I am convinced that the Swedish people would have expected that. We must hope that the government ensures that it does so at the next European Council and that the Prime Minister does his job there.

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

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Prime Minister is doing his job. This time he had a focus on supporting Ukraine. We succeeded in that. We succeeded in getting membership negotiations started. We succeeded in getting 26 countries to agree to provide Ukraine with financial support. We succeeded in the negotiations on the budget.

COP 28 was on the agenda. What I want to raise, which I did not raise – and perhaps there was not such a large discussion about it at this European Council, but it is discussed in the General Council and in other contexts – is the strategic agenda. Sweden raises a number of issues every time that, from our perspective, are prioritized for the next commission, and the climate issue is one of them. We are, therefore, doing our job.

The reporting was hereby concluded.

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