Reporting from the Council of Europe meeting on December 15

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Reporting from the Council of Europe meeting on December 15

Mr. Speaker! It is now, as we all know, only a few days left until Sweden takes over the presidency of the EU Council of Ministers. Large parts of the government and large parts of the chamber are very enthusiastic about this upcoming task.

As I described when I presented the government's priorities here in the Riksdag the other day, we are well prepared for the mission that awaits. Everyone understands that in times like ours, with a war in our immediate vicinity and with major economic problems, things will happen that cannot be predicted. All the more important is to have prepared what can be prepared.

Many important negotiations are already underway where we, as the chair, will take over the responsibility for the continued negotiations, push issues toward decisions where it is possible and push issues as far as possible where decisions are not possible. Let us all have great respect for the fact that we are taking over the chairmanship in a time that is not only restless but purely dangerous - most of all for Ukraine, of course, but also for us who think of them in Ukraine.

Russia's war against Ukraine and the consequences of that war will continue to demand powerful coordinated efforts from the EU, and those efforts will require continued unity between the EU's countries and between the EU and the USA if they are to have real significance. No other task is as important as life and death as achieving this unity. Only in that way will we get anything done in reality. Everything else is just words on a paper.

Mr. Speaker! Now to last week's meeting of the European Council.

On the agenda were two major issues: Russia's war against Ukraine, of course, and energy prices and the economic situation, of course. These are issues that have constantly returned to the European Council's agenda, and nothing indicates that they will disappear in the near future.

We also discussed the EU's transatlantic relations with the USA, not least in light of the Inflation Reduction Act, IRA, the major American climate package which both underscores that the USA is now back on track in international climate work and risks having negative consequences for European companies and for Europe's economy.

Mr. Speaker! 2022 will go down in history as a somber year for Europe. Russia's war of invasion against Ukraine has left its mark on almost all different policy areas, obviously on the war itself and security, but also on issues concerning economy, energy, food supply and migration as well as many other issues.

It has been said many times, but the EU's unity has been and continues to be the absolute greatest asset for the EU in the aid to Ukraine and for isolating Russia. The meeting last week was no exception in that regard. There was full unity on all the points condemning Russia's actions, in particular the recent missile attacks directed at civilian targets, but also unity on continuing to support Ukraine economically, militarily, and humanitarily. The efforts for the coming winter were noted all the more specifically. It was a very important signal against Russia that we could also reach an agreement on the ninth sanctions package.

Mr. Speaker! Energy issues have been addressed time and again by the European Council in recent years, including at the meeting last week. The focus was once again on the question of a price cap on gas, where a number of member states are pushing hard to introduce a price cap while other member states are more hesitant and see great risks for Europe's gas supply. Even though the same differences of opinion remained this time, there was also a will to nevertheless try to reach an agreement in the end and be able to move forward. The result was a clear signal to the energy ministers to once again reach an agreement at the next meeting on December 19, that is, yesterday. And so it happened.

Mr. Speaker! The European Council discussed the economic situation in light of the effects of the war – high energy prices, high inflation, and rising interest rates. Many also believe that the American Inflation Reduction Act is a potential threat to Europe's economy, that the USA is now acting in response to China, and that it risks affecting European companies.

The Government views the issue as follows.

It is very good that the USA now has completely new ambitions in climate policy and that the USA sees the importance of new innovations, new technology and new companies to achieve real climate benefit. This is good, and it should be said in plain language. Here, the EU and Sweden should, on the contrary, welcome American initiatives for a new, offensive agenda in climate policy.

At the same time, it is obvious that there is a risk that state aid and a somewhat one-sided view on precisely American production leads to simple protectionism and a risk of international countermeasures to protect other countries' companies in the same or similar industries. Just that has never built either competitiveness, prosperity, or climate benefit.

Furthermore, it is obvious that Europe had already lost competitiveness against its global competitors even before today's crises. Europe's companies, for example, grew 40 percent more slowly than their American counterparts between 2014 and 2019. The international tech industry is dominated by the American West Coast and the Chinese East Coast. It is therefore high time for Europe to also ask some self-critical questions about competitiveness in our part of the world.

I myself emphasized that the EU should not only take short-term measures to meet the USA. They were needed, but the EU must also have the strength to lift its gaze to the long view. State aid may be needed in this situation, but state aid does not build the most successful companies of the future.

Before the meeting, we therefore presented a text proposal from the Swedish side that focuses on also strengthening the long-term perspective. The initiative was anchored among the Nordic-Baltic countries and later received support from all member states.

The Commission shall therefore, at the beginning of next year, at the beginning of the Swedish presidency, present a long-term strategy to strengthen European competitiveness and strengthen European productivity. This is an important part of the collective work. It has been missing for a long time, and it is overall good that the USA is now acting so that the EU has reason to both cooperate with the USA on global climate problems and at the same time try to strengthen our own competitiveness.

Mr. Speaker! We were also completely in agreement at the meeting to condemn the brutality with which the Iranian regime treats peaceful protesters, especially women, with currently – in some cases even the death penalty. The EU foreign ministers' decision on strengthened sanctions against persons and companies in Iran is noted in the text that was adopted.

Mr. Speaker! The discussion on the relationship with the EU's southern neighborhood was characterized largely by migration issues. We also agreed, on Mark Rutte's proposal, to continue discussing the acute migration issues at an extra summit on February 9 next year.

In order to reach an agreement on the issue of the common support for Ukraine, a demand came from the Polish Prime Minister to repeat the EU's direction to implement both Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 in the revised international tax system. The Commission is urged to, if appropriate, present a proposal in the event that the international negotiations on Pillar 1 have not reached a goal by the end of 2023. It stands, as we know, already today that the Commission is free to present whatever proposals it wishes. I just want to be clear here that unanimity continues to apply to the EU's decisions on taxes and that the government, like several other states, will not accept proposals that mean the EU takes a path that penalizes European competitiveness.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the decision on Croatia's accession to Schengen and the decision to grant Bosnia and Herzegovina status as a candidate country were welcomed.

With this, Mr. Speaker, I conclude the report from last week's EU summit.

(Applause)

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Mr. Speaker! The EU member states have unanimously decided on a comprehensive support package for Ukraine, and it is an incredibly important message as we now enter a war winter that severely tests the resilience of the Ukrainian people. Russia's insane and bloody war and attacks must come to an end. There is surely nothing we desire more right now than for the air raid sirens over Ukraine to fall silent for good. But Russia's war continues, and the EU will have to continue to manage the consequences for a long time to come; that is true.

The unity in the EU on how energy prices should be handled has well not been quite as great. Only yesterday, after several extra meetings, an agreement on a price cap for gas could be reached. It is, however, unclear how this will affect, for example, Swedish electricity prices. I would therefore like to ask the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with this agreement and how he intends to drive the energy issue forward during the Swedish presidency. There are many of us who would like to see Sweden drive its presidency in a wise and good way, in the best interests of both the EU and Sweden.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! To begin with, I agree that it is important in every way to have unity regarding the support packages and the sanctions against Russia. All of this is important, and we come to the conclusion time and again that the unity itself has great value. It is good to emphasize that even if it may be obvious.

When it comes to the gas price cap, I must first, since the question is raised, say that it was not at all correct as stated before the election: that the EU was close to an agreement that would dramatically lower gas prices, which in turn would affect Sweden. There was no such agreement at all and there has not been since.

What has happened now is, above all, that a number of countries were finally able to agree on something that created consensus: to set a price cap with a number of restrictions and safeguards because a number of countries, with Germany at the forefront, were afraid that it would otherwise lead to a shortage of supply. Everyone wanted lower prices, but some countries feared more than others that low prices – or in any case lower prices – would lead to a shortage of supply. And they did not intend to jeopardize the supply.

Sweden acted as Sweden has acted all the time. If we can contribute to lower prices, that is very good, not because we are gas-dependent in Sweden, but because the marginal pricing of electricity could be affected by this. But the conflict, which has existed all the time and finally, last night, could be added to, was fundamentally between the countries that primarily want to push the price down significantly and do not fear any supply problems at all, and the countries, such as Germany and other industrial countries, that were afraid that the supply would be affected.

We would contribute to many different things. I just want to emphasize that the hope that this could have been quickly resolved at some meeting, with dramatic consequences for Swedish electricity, has never existed.

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Mr. Speaker! I note that the Prime Minister does not have such high expectations that the EU will be able to solve the energy crisis in the near term and that the Prime Minister is still learning about how the energy crisis affects both the EU and Sweden. Perhaps it is time for the government to consider introducing a Swedish electricity and gas bill emergency for Swedish households and companies, now that electricity prices are actually so high.

Regarding the green transition and competitiveness, I also note in the conclusions from the council that renewables are mentioned four times and nuclear power is mentioned zero times. Could it be that the EU's member states realize that what can reduce our fossil dependency and bring down energy prices in the short term is a combination of energy from sun, wind, and water?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! This is, therefore, a report back from the council, but I think it is good that a representative from the Social Democrats, who for 40 years has not been able to decide whether one is for or against nuclear power, now once again shows that one does not want nuclear power in Sweden. It is quite obvious.

Had I been responsible for shutting down Swedish nuclear power, I would have been a little less moralizing towards others. Had I also made completely unreasonable promises that the EU could solve the Swedish energy crisis, I would have been even more humble.

The fact is that different countries are differently dependent on different types of energy. The EU cannot solve this. But if one can agree on procurement, price caps, and other things that work in reality, Sweden is ready for this, and that is how Sweden has acted. Then Sweden must take responsibility for its own energy production, and this government is restructuring Swedish energy policy and including renewables and nuclear power. My government will manage this.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! At the European Council and subsequently at the meeting of the energy ministers, a proposal regarding the price cap was finally reached. I had intended to ask the Prime Minister how he views precisely those promises that were made by the previous Social Democratic government, but the Prime Minister answered this most deservedly in his previous contribution: What Magdalena Andersson and the Social Democrats said during the election campaign was simply not true. The energy crisis had not been solved, and the promises that electricity areas 3 and 4 would receive lower electricity prices were also not true.

My reflection is that it was perhaps still quite good that we reached this compromise. We have historically been able to see how the Soviet bread lines functioned. The price was dumped by the state, the bread ran out, and the lines became very long. Then the bread was sold on black markets instead. Similar things can happen if one dumps the permitted price on gas on the TTF market. Then one can sell the gas somewhere else, and then mechanisms kick in that deactivate the price cap - which, moreover, has been set at such a high level that it will likely very rarely become relevant to implement.

Mr. Speaker! The Prime Minister mentioned the migration issues, and they are always high up on the agenda. Now we are going to have a summit in Sweden where the migration issues will be addressed. How does the Prime Minister view that? What opportunities does the Prime Minister believe there are to reach a consensus and resolve the migration problems that exist in the EU and in our vicinity?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the issue of energy, there are some conclusions that can be drawn beyond the one that Martin Kinnunen himself drew. One should not, a few days before an election, put forward promises that one can realize are completely unrealistic if one knows anything about what different EU countries think. Swedish energy problems we must primarily solve ourselves. We can cooperate in the EU, that is very good, but they cannot solve them for us. It is a well-known fact.

But I understand many countries. One does not want to be blackmailed by Russia in times of limited access to energy. There are many who need to transition to total fossil-free status and do it much faster. It is ironically good in this terrible situation. If this can accelerate the transition from a fossil-driven economy to completely fossil-free energy production, it is very good. Furthermore, countries do not want to jeopardize their total energy supply, especially not countries with extensive export industries. We have enough problems in the economy right now. I understand both of these camps in the EU, both those who in every way wanted to bring down the price and those who in different ways were worried about how it would affect industrial production.

Both the Netherlands and Austria are now experiencing waves of migration that are uncomfortably close to what we saw in 2015. For them, this is an acute problem, and they demand that Europe acts. What is most readily available is to, in accordance with the Dublin Regulation, keep track of where people are coming from and that they are registered, so that one knows that one cannot simply pass through certain countries to others. The external borders must also be respected. We are not ready for any decisions in the EU circle, but that is where I believe those countries will invest much of their commitment in this issue now.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I also want to begin by emphasizing the importance of unity regarding our support for Ukraine. I welcome the ninth sanctions package against Russia. It is impressive that we have been able to deliver a sanctions package almost every month since Russia's unforgivable war began.

It is good that Iran was addressed at the prime ministers' meeting. It is an important signal, but it is not enough. I hope that the Prime Minister ensures that Iran's ambassador to Sweden is summoned before he goes on Christmas break. After the Christmas break, you are welcome to ensure that the Revolutionary Guard is branded as a terrorist organization. In any case, we have temporarily stopped the executions being carried out in Iran. I believe that much of the political sponsorship that many members of Parliament have stood behind has been an important explanation for that.

I come today with two questions for the Prime Minister. One concerns Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is now receiving candidate country status, which is welcome given where other candidate countries are in the process. At the same time, the country is still characterized by great internal division and, above all, by a Serbian leader named Dodik who practices very strong nationalism. Yesterday, his part of Bosnia and Herzegovina was granted a loan from Hungary. It is obvious that he has support from both Orbán and Putin. I wonder how the Prime Minister views these challenges with Bosnia and Herzegovina and how he intends to support the country's development during the chairmanship.

The second question concerns the new civil pact, which is to be developed during Sweden's presidency and updated by May 2023. In what way can this pact benefit Sweden? Sweden has important functions today, with the EU's crisis preparedness warehouse in Kristinehamn as a clear example. Where I come from is the world's best authority: the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency. What can Sweden contribute?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I want to once again emphasize that unity is good. We say it quite often. The alternative would have been disagreement. Then we would not have been able to do anything at all. I think it is worth emphasizing time and again. Unity is a more beautiful word so that one does not let the best become the good's enemy. Almost every country has its own opinion on what would be the very best. If all countries were only prepared to do what they think is the very best and not what others suggest and which they think is quite good, the EU would not have gotten anything done at all. There, ironically, the requirement for consensus is quite good, because it forces the countries into joint action. I share the opinion that unity is important. I truly value if we can maintain that unity during a difficult winter, when Russia's war not only hits Ukraine with appalling force but can also hit many other countries, albeit in a different way.

It is difficult to convey the atmosphere in a room, but there was a genuine commitment to the Iran issue. At every meeting, there is only 100 percent collective commitment, so one has to divide the graces, but the commitment was great in the Iran issue. I thought that Sweden and others did their part at the Foreign Affairs Council meeting by achieving the writings that were agreed upon. The theme was: Let not the good become the enemy of the best! Here we could agree on strong markings.

Regarding candidate country status, nothing else was said. I have no other position than that we have rules for how to act as a candidate country to become a member. No one has any other perceptions than that this will be a long journey and that one must live up to the requirements that exist.

We were not closer on the Civil Pact on this specific occasion. It will surely return during our chairmanship, but it was not significantly up for discussion at this summit.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! The Prime Minister argues well for the line that I have, that is to say that we shall maintain the consensus principle within foreign policy and not start introducing qualified majority instead. It is good if it can become the Moderates' line again.

I believe that the Prime Minister will have six intense months during the presidency in the EU. There will be many challenges. I believe that one should keep an eye on, for example, leaders like Dodik, who very clearly signaled that he wanted Bosnia and Herzegovina to become a candidate country but at the same time rejected all forms of directives from the EU, as I believe he expressed it. It is simply a matter of him wanting to safeguard his nationalism and the increased division that it can entail in the Balkans. This can still result in a new war in the Balkans. This is something we must keep an eye on.

I hope that the Prime Minister can return to the issues of crisis preparedness. I think it is good that this is part of the Swedish presidency and that a decision will potentially be reached during that time.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I agree with this. I dare say I can guarantee that many countries will be keeping a close eye on the candidate countries. It is not easy to "mismanage one's way in." During the Swedish presidency, we may have a bit of extra focus on whether it can be the case that Ukraine lives up to a number of the criteria set for their candidate country status. We have said that in that case we are very prepared to act and confirm such progress during the time. Even that question, I believe, many countries will have views on.

I would also like to return to the second question.

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Prime Minister for an interesting report. It is a bit extra interesting for me, as someone who works with energy issues, given that there have been such intense discussions.

In the report, I read about the European Council's conclusions, which Sweden has signed. The importance of increasing investments in projects concerning, among other things, storage, renewable energy, and energy efficiency is repeated. The Union's dependence on imports of Russian fossil fuels shall be phased out, the green transition accelerated, and security of supply ensured.

It is very welcome that Sweden stands behind these positions. It actually feels like a self-evident matter in this chamber. These measures are crucial for lowering electricity prices and achieving the transition. Given that the government has stood behind the positions, one becomes a bit curious about what measures the government may come to take to fulfill these things and increase investments in storage, renewable energy, and energy efficiency. What measures could they be, and when can they be in place?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is often said that in the 70s, the need for fossil-free energy was a price issue. One wanted to lower the price, because oil was expensive. In the 80s and 90s, it became more and more an environmental and climate issue. More was known then about what other risks existed. Now in the 2020s, it has become a security policy issue.

These questions do not contradict each other – that is the only good thing about all of this – but rather reinforce each other. The world shall become fossil-free, Europe shall become fossil-free and Sweden shall become fossil-free. The more agreement we can achieve on this, the better.

If the terrible war can bring about something good through the insights into the dependence on countries like Russia and the dependence on climate-damaging energy sources such as oil, coal, and gas, then it is fundamentally good. That we also want a common market and competitiveness in Europe and that we do not do unilateral things in something as common as the climate is also good. That is why I said that it is fundamentally good that the USA is in the game. All of this is good.

Then all countries will choose different paths. When the French President and I discuss nuclear power with great enthusiasm, not everyone is equally enthusiastic. That is how it is, and we respect that. Some things we will do together. If we get a Europe that is a competitive place for investments in battery technology, which we currently have quite a lot of in, for example, Sweden, and in innovative solutions, it is only an advantage.

Each country continues to have responsibility for its own energy production. I do not want to disappoint anyone, but Sweden's energy policy was not on the agenda for the European Council summit. It was, however, the need to become completely fossil-free, which Sweden shares with many other European countries to an ever increasing extent.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Mr. Speaker! I think it is good that the Moderates and the Prime Minister have realized that the dependence on Russia is problematic. This is something that I and the Center Party have many times been quite alone in raising in the Riksdag's energy debates, but it is welcome that there is now a greater consensus on it.

The Prime Minister himself said in his speech that it is important that it does not just become words on a paper, but that is unfortunately roughly what I hear from the Prime Minister. There are many good things and arguments that I can agree with, but I asked a concrete question. The European Council's conclusions, which the government has signed, urge the countries to increase their investments in storage, renewable energy, and energy efficiency. When can we see this from Sweden, and what measures will be taken?

I can give the Prime Minister and the government some tips. You have offshore wind power on your table that corresponds to more than the entire Swedish nuclear power and which is just waiting for a decision. We have money set aside in the budget for efficiencies, which we do not know if they will come over at all. Unfortunately, the government's parties ruled this out as recently as last year, but it would be good if it comes. There is also regulatory red tape that needs to be resolved for battery storage. Can we see a solution to some of this in the near future?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Agreeing with the Centre Party on Russia does not feel difficult. I do not feel so slow on that issue, if I am to be honest, on the contrary.

The fact is, when it comes to the domestic, different countries will do things in different ways and have different conditions. It is quite obvious. Not everyone has seas, for example. It is a good reason for some not to have offshore wind power, to say the obvious.

Enormous amounts are being invested in renewables in Sweden right now, and enormous amounts are being invested in wind power in Sweden. We are looking, just like the previous government, at the possibilities for offshore wind power, with all the restrictions that exist regarding many environmental, nature, and defense considerations that must be taken into account. There were probably reasons why even Miljöpartiet did not manage to make any significant number of decisions in that matter.

Very large efficiency efforts are being made, and furthermore, new technology for carbon capture is arriving. So, enormous efforts are being made. If one adds nuclear power to this, Sweden will become completely carbon-free.

(Applause)

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is with pleasure that I hear the Prime Minister report on the successes in the European Council regarding supporting Ukraine's resilience and reconstruction.

Russia's illegal war against Ukraine is a security risk for all of Europe and affects the civilian population in particular. 14 million people are estimated to have fled the war since its beginning, and the majority of these are women and children. The sanctions package currently aimed at Russia – the ninth in sequence – is an important step towards constantly increasing the pressure on the rogue state in the east, in the hope that the war will come to an end.

Mr. Speaker! It is however with sadness that I note that very little indicates that the war will be over soon. The other day, a report from the Nordic Council was released pointing out that Sweden is the country in the Nordic region that provides the worst conditions for Ukrainian refugees. The Ukrainians who fled to Sweden in February have now lived on subsistence minimum for nine months, without a reasonable income, without support for establishment, and without even the right to full-scale healthcare.

Already this spring we warned of the consequences of the poor conditions, and for a long time we have received report after report of Ukrainian women who, in their desperation, are exploited in human trafficking and prostitution. These are women and children who are to rebuild Ukraine again when peace is won, but who in the meantime in Sweden are instead subjected to gross violence and humiliation, when they should be in a safe place.

Mr. Speaker! I would therefore like to ask the Prime Minister what he intends to do, after the European Council's negotiations on a support package for those who remain in Ukraine, to provide the mothers, sisters, and daughters of the Ukrainian freedom fighters here in Sweden with a reasonable livelihood, a proper existence, a childhood, and the right to care, instead of as they do now, keeping many of them trapped in poverty and sexual exploitation.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! My answer will come in three parts.

First and foremost, I agree with Märta Stenevi regarding the description of what Russia is doing, and we agree with each other regarding the sanctions and the common European responsibility for Ukraine against Russia. I appreciate that we have a number of large, important – life-and-death-important – issues where we have total unity in Sweden's Riksdag, which is good in every way.

The second thing worth saying is that something that was not taken up at all in the Council's discussions was how Ukrainian refugees, according to the EU's mass flight directive, have it in individual countries. It was nothing that was discussed. Then, I am happy to discuss in another context whether Sweden is doing everything we should for Ukraine, in Ukraine and in Sweden. Are Swedish families being helped in a sufficiently good way? Are we doing our share of what all of Europe is doing? This truly deserves to be discussed.

My view is that there is a very great commitment in Sweden to help. My view is that we live up to the requirements placed on us and all other countries. My view is that it is good that there is a European common regulatory framework for this. All of this, I think, is fundamentally good. My view is also that many Ukrainians, not least mothers and children, as Märta Stenevi said, hope to be able to return to Ukraine and their families as soon as possible.

If crimes are committed, they must be condemned regardless of what benefits one has in different countries. Märta Stenevi mentioned several examples of crimes that were committed, and in those cases, one must act uncompromisingly and harshly. Perpetrators must be brought to justice, convicted and sentenced, and the victims must be protected. There is no doubt about this.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Already in May, the Gender Equality Authority warned that the conditions that Ukrainian refugees face in Sweden increase vulnerability and the risk of being subjected to crime. It was precisely for that reason that I asked the question.

When Ukraine has won the war against Russia and there is peace again, Ukraine will face a major reconstruction effort. Then Sweden and other countries will need to assist with resources for the reconstruction, but already now we can lay the foundation for this work by offering education, healthcare, and a good life in Sweden for those who have fled here from Putin's atrocities. Ukrainian women and children shall be able to return to Ukraine from Sweden strong and whole, to rebuild their country and their lives, and not be traumatized by atrocities after having lived in limbo in a Swedish shadow society where they have been stayed on charity.

The government must now give Ukrainian refugees with residence permits the same opportunities to build a life here as others with residence permits have and not leave them in the clutches of cynical sex buyers and organized crime. It is, as the Prime Minister himself expresses it, a matter of life and death.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First, without in any way disregarding crimes that have been committed and that may come to be committed, I want to say that my view is not that most Ukrainian refugees in Sweden feel poorly received, persecuted or exploited. I would say that it is precisely the opposite. It is my absolute view and truly my hope that Sweden in every way shows that we want to help and that we do.

We follow the EU's mass flight directive. Most other countries in Europe do as well, and I believe it was very good that there was such a common framework that made it very simple for countries to help each other in helping Ukraine.

For the sake of form, Mr. Speaker, I also just want to say that these questions, that is, were not up for discussion at the European Council summit.

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

Hans Wallmark (M)

Mr. Speaker! The EU's trumpet fanfare could be described as us being strong together. That was proven just a few days ago with – just as Håkan Svenneling from Vänsterpartiet mentioned – a ninth sanctions package. It is almost one a month since Russia's massive invasion on February 24 into the independent, free Ukraine. It is also Ukraine that is the supporting beam now in the coming months, and also unity regarding Iran.

However, there is slightly less agreement, at least between the EU and the USA, regarding what the Prime Minister mentioned: Inflation Reduction Act, IRA. I have found a quote where the Prime Minister says: Now it is important to cooperate and not argue with the USA.

This is the duality that IRA creates for us. On one hand, it is good that the USA wants to take on the fight against inflation; everyone should do that. It is good that the USA marks its climate ambitions. So that was not quite the case with the previous administration. On the other hand, there is a genuine fear in Europe that this also has protectionist traits, and that one is defending the North American market - USA and Canada - against Europe.

Therefore, it would be good to hear if there are hopes that the European countermeasures do not become a form of self-protectionism, that they do not become own funds for European sovereignty or various forms of trade wars and tariffs, but that one genuinely tries to convince the USA that the strength in world trade benefits North America - USA, Canada and the EU stand side by side against Russia and against the People's Republic of China.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I think Hans Wallmark describes the complexity of the issue quite well. It is easy to see both the advantages and the disadvantages. It is also easy to see that it is very good that the USA sees the opportunities to also act against climate change through technology, innovation, and entrepreneurship. It is simply good. The opposite would have been much worse. It is good if one wants to fight inflation, even if some of the measures may not be as convincing as inflation-dampening. It is also good that the USA at least sees that there are risks for other countries.

I believe that this should be seen in the light of what China has done. It does not exempt the USA from responsibility for what the USA risks doing, but for a long time, China has acted in the free world's economies in a way that the West has not been able to do in China. It is a rather brazen way to encourage, protect, and defend its own industry, sometimes at the expense of others, and this is not sustainable in the long run.

In all of this, the EU has rigorous and careful rules against state aid so that Europe's different countries do not start competing with state aid against each other, to the detriment of others and, in the long run, to our common detriment. All of this now becomes, on the contrary, a small problem for us when other countries, which is a country - read USA - can do the opposite.

This is, therefore, complex. I believe everyone saw the complexity. And the countries that have an easier path to protectionism and interventionism saw greater opportunities in this. This surprises no one. The countries in northern Europe - all our Nordic and Baltic neighbors - who primarily see free trade and no protectionism and who see the risks of intervention, we acted for our own sake. We ultimately landed on the fact that there may be a need to do short-term things so that industries do not leave Europe for the USA for this reason, but also that there may be a need for long-term changes that strengthen European competitiveness. Both are correct, and both legs are needed.

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

Hans Wallmark (M)

Mr. Speaker! For this year's final reply, I intended to continue to dwell on IRA, however, Ira Gershwin.

I went through a melody list for Ira Gershwin and took up some titles: But not for me - that is the fear we feel in Europe for what the USA is doing. Nice work if you can get it - that is our hope that the USA and North America do not strike against us. Let's call the whole thing off - yes, that is perhaps a slim hope that the USA will back down, given that it has also gone through Congress. That track we in Europe must therefore leave.

Therefore, I believe that all of this should be characterized by the fourth and final song title: Love is here to stay. When North America and the EU walk side by side, we are strong together.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! A Spotify list of its own here! I thought it was very interesting. It is as we all know that in the USA there is a duality: sometimes protectionism, sometimes free trade, and sometimes both parties agree on protectionist elements.

We must see the risks; let us not be naive in this. There, Europe has an important task in resisting this. At the same time, we should preferably be united in the EU as well, for if we are not united on a response, we will not have a chance.

Then I should still say that there are both high-level talks and private conversations – the commission now has so-called task force talks between the EU and the USA to mitigate Europe's suspicion that this would hit European industry. From that, I perceived it as that the USA at least understands our concerns with this. Whether that will be enough, I will leave completely unsaid. We must see both the risks and the opportunities in this.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by thanking the Prime Minister for, in his role, having helped ensure that there finally also became an agreement on a large economic support program for Ukraine. It was extremely important. It is both necessary and welcome. And more will, of course, need to be done during the Swedish presidency.

I agree with the Prime Minister that the unity and clarity from the EU side, together with the transatlantic link, will be instrumental for the struggle that Ukraine is waging for the rules-based world order but also for all our freedom. That is what I want to emphasize.

When the Prime Minister visited the open meeting with the EU Committee last week before the Prime Minister traveled to Brussels for the meeting with the Council, I asked the question whether there was anything to say at that time regarding the so-called Qatar-gate. There was not much to say then, so my follow-up question today is whether there is anything more to say now that came up at the meeting regarding this. Even though this is primarily linked to the European Parliament, it does have an effect on the entire picture of the European cooperation. I think it could be good for us to know something about how it is being reasoned, given that we are to take over the responsibility with the Swedish presidency in just a few days.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is good that Magnus Berntsson raises the question! I did not raise it, because it was not up for discussion and even less in the council conclusions. But absolutely! Roberta Metsola, who is the President of the European Parliament, gave a rather substantial introduction on the subject. She was very, very concerned, on good grounds - angry, I would say - that this could be taking place at all. She was very concerned that such things have been able to continue for an unclear amount of time. There was no attempt to downplay this in any way.

Some of the matters are now the subject of purely police investigations, as the Belgian Prime Minister pointed out. This is being handled on its own track, and we should not interfere in that. But I thought it was obvious that the Speaker also envisioned that changes in rule systems, control systems, and such things may be required. For this naturally takes a toll on the trust capital for institutions, not only for the European Parliament's elected members but for the entire collective EU machinery, and it is very bad right now. I thought everyone took it seriously, but I also thought it was obvious that the Parliament's Speaker took it seriously.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the answer! It was reassuring. I hear in the voice and in the answer from the Prime Minister that there was a discussion around the table where this was truly taken seriously and where the measures that will need to be taken were looked at. That needs to be done in a proper way so that the right decisions are made.

But I think that it perhaps is not just about the European Parliament, but that we need to look at all institutions and all parts that can be exposed to this way of trying to influence political decisions. It is a great risk for democratic society.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I agree with this. I believe that it sheds light on a much broader issue regarding influence operations from countries that are very far removed from normal democratic dialogue and corruption risks also in democratic systems. Other countries have domestically seen such problems. I note that several countries, including Canada and Australia, have had those kinds of problems and have also disclosed them on good grounds.

I really think that one should be observant of this and realize that democracy is fantastic, but that deeply suspicious and dangerous behaviors can flourish even in democracies for too long.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker and Prime Minister! Now before the summit we saw how Poland blocked a support package to Ukraine because they wanted to get their way in a completely different issue. In the same way, Hungary threatened a veto if they did not get parts of the support from the EU's recovery fund.

This is a very worrying development that risks splitting the EU at a time when we need to stand completely united against the Russian aggression and show wholehearted support for Ukraine. It is now very important that the entire EU circle continues to clearly signal against just such behavior.

Therefore, I want to ask the Prime Minister here today how he views this issue. What do we need to do during the Swedish presidency to ensure that we continue to hold the EU together when it comes to clear sanctions against Russia and the support for Ukraine?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! On an overall level, it is easy to simply state that there are risks that countries use a completely different issue to block and not create consensus in a current issue. It is a well-known problem. One can have many different views on requirements for unanimity or majority decisions, but if one has unanimity, it is this that applies.

I believe I mentioned in this chamber, or possibly in the EU Committee, that the same thing happened when Cyprus blocked a question that had nothing to do with Belarus at all. They simply did it because they could.

That is an inherent risk, and I almost think one has to accept that such things can occur. Then one should have a friendly pressure on each other not to abuse the system too much. In several of the cases we have seen – and Hungary is an example – I still think that it became a completely decent compromise in the end.

In the question that is now mentioned, it is even more complicated, because there it would have become a package of questions that were actually separate. Poland was absolutely not an obstacle when it came to sanctions against Russia or support for Ukraine. It was rather the case that it would have become a package where Poland saw a concern in the package solution that had to do with completely different issues. It actually concerned taxation issues linked to OECD and EU. I will not go into detail on this, but it is relatively complicated.

I believe, therefore, that one should let a moderate amount of shadow fall on Poland in this case, because this became a package through the care of others. Now it became a good compromise here as well - a completely acceptable compromise where we and others, not least Poland, could accept that this was taken as a joint package. These were, therefore, issues that were actually separated from one another but which were nevertheless decided jointly.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! First and foremost, I would like to thank the Prime Minister for the report. It is positive to see that the European Council is in agreement on increasing the pressure on Russia. It is also positive to see that they are now also seriously discussing the energy crisis in light of our dependence on Russian gas and oil.

However, it is sad to see that one still does not seriously see the direct connection between precisely this fossil dependency and the continued financing of Putin's war of aggression against Ukraine.

It is also positive that the European Council addresses the situation in Iran in its conclusions, even if the conclusions do not contain any other news regarding the situation or the EU's actions. But the Council conclusions only provide a picture of what happens when the EU's heads of state and government meet. At least as interesting is that which is discussed but is not found in the joint conclusions.

My questions to the Prime Minister are therefore: Regarding the war in Ukraine - were some extended sanctions against Belarus discussed? And regarding Iran - was a potential terror listing of the Revolutionary Guard discussed at all?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Many things are naturally discussed that never land in resolutions. They are also discussed more bilaterally between different leaders.

Fundamentally, I agree with these points: the unity and the energy crisis. But I would like to defend my European colleagues a little bit. They certainly understand the problem of being dependent on Russian gas! I would like to say that right now everyone understands that problem. More and more people understand it now, both from a climate perspective, a fossil perspective, and a security policy perspective. As I said earlier, this is the only good thing about this: that one sees the dual reasons for it.

Then different countries draw slightly different conclusions because one has such different dependencies. I would never moralize over German energy policy, but it is clear that Germany has actively pursued an energy policy that, for their part, is currently creating a very large dependency that they must manage. No country can get through the winter with ice-cold homes and shut down industries. We must respect that from our side as well, because we would not have managed that either.

This creates a number of difficult trade-offs, but I have nevertheless perceived a very solid basic attitude in these issues.

When it comes to the question of Belarus - regarding complex issues - there is absolutely, at its core, a great will to act further against Belarus. At the same time, there is a certain fear among some member states that Belarus will be drawn even further into the Russian and become an even more operational party in all of this.

This was not up for real discussion right now; that must be said. But there is a deep suspicion towards what Belarus is doing and not least towards Russia's actions through Belarus and via Belarus - there is no doubt whatsoever about that. We had the three peace prize winners at lunch the other day, and then this was discussed quite thoroughly.

(Applause)

The reporting was hereby concluded.

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