Reporting from the Council of Europe meeting on April 17-18

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! The EU's heads of state and government met on Wednesday and Thursday last week, and this time it was competitiveness issues that were at the center, but also Russia's war against Ukraine, of course, the EU's future relations with Turkey and the conflict in the Middle East. All of this was on the agenda.

Wednesday was devoted to foreign affairs, and President Zelenskyy participated as usual via link. He underscored Ukraine's immediate need for more military support, especially air defense, drones, and ammunition. He made a comparison between Israel's effective defense against the attack from Iran a few days earlier. There are large obvious geographical differences, but his point was that Ukraine needs the same effective defense against the Russian attacks. That point came across.

Germany had, before the European Council, proposed that a coalition should be created for increased support to Ukraine with specifically air defense. Sweden has previously contributed to this, and we are open to doing even more in a coordinated manner. We have therefore joined the German initiative. Right now, we are analyzing within Nato what different countries can best contribute and how other countries can fill the gaps. On Monday, this discussion continued in the foreign ministers' council constellation.

We also agreed at the meeting on further tariffs against Russian and Belarusian agricultural products.

As I mentioned in the EU Committee last week, the Russian so-called shadow fleet was not on the formal agenda, but it was naturally taken up in other conversations at the meeting, in the margins and not least between Nordic and Baltic countries. After that, it was taken up in more detail during my visit to the corvette HMS Gävle at Berga naval base on Friday. Later you saw that the Foreign Minister at his meeting took up that the EU's next sanctions package against Russia should also include measures to curb the Russian shadow fleet.

Madam Speaker! The European Council condemned Iran and signaled against an escalation of the conflict in the region.

The utterly appalling situation in Gaza continues. The European Council repeated well-known demands for an immediate ceasefire, the unconditional release of hostages, and much greater humanitarian access.

Madam Speaker! The meeting was fundamentally convened to deal with issues of competitiveness. During the Swedish presidency, a strategy for long-term competitiveness and productivity in Europe was launched. This was, as you all know, an important priority from our side during our presidency, after a relatively long silence in the EU on these issues.

The President of the European Council, Charles Michel, subsequently proposed a competitiveness initiative, and we devoted the entire Thursday's discussions to that issue. Just this, I want to say, is fundamentally a good sign. That the EU – despite all ongoing crises and despite a history over recent years of permanent crisis management – is now sitting down and discussing long-term economic competitiveness issues is not only necessary but also really good. Long-term economic issues must take place despite other burning, acute issues.

The meeting began with the former Italian Prime Minister Enrico Letta presenting his report on the future of the internal market. He emphasized that the world looked quite different when the internal market was presented as an idea and vision. The Soviet Union still existed, Germany was still divided into two parts, and the number of member states in what was then called the EC was less than half of what it is today. The combined Chinese and Indian economies were a fraction of what they are today, and Europe has since fallen behind several major global competitors. It was a different time in many different ways, and therefore new initiatives are required for the internal market.

Above all, Letta saw in her large and extensive report, where Sweden finds it easy to agree on much and will easily object to other things, the importance of now integrating even the finance, telecommunications, and energy sectors into the internal market, not to mention all sectors that involve security issues.

The discussions at the meeting thereafter primarily concerned how the proposed competitiveness initiative should be formulated in the form of conclusions. That is when it becomes a bit troublesome. As so often in European contexts, it is about where the balance point should lie regarding things such as the economy's openness toward the outside world, the degree of state intervention, and not least the almost eternal question of what should be decided at the EU level versus at the member state level. Nothing new under the sun there, in other words.

With this said, the meeting nevertheless laid a good foundation for the continued work of strengthening the EU's competitiveness. Sweden's fundamental perspective, which we together with other countries have put forward for a long time – regardless of which government has been in power, I want to emphasize – meets with fundamental respect.

We agreed on several important ingredients, not least the need for increased investments in research, the need for both green and stable electricity supply for the transition, the forest's great potential, and that the EU needs a more ambitious trade policy.

It is a success that 3 percent of GDP for research is now explicitly mentioned in the conclusions. Nuclear power also gains successes, and we now have clear wording about using all potential solutions in the work to achieve climate neutrality.

As I said in the EU Committee last week, better, not more, legislative packages must be the motto. Now we agreed on clear conclusions – that the regulatory burden for European companies must begin to decrease.

In the conclusions, we return several times to the green transition and to a climate-neutral Europe. We link this with issues such as competitiveness and how companies can take advantage of the opportunities that the transition entails. It is the entirely correct perspective. Companies are, want to be, and must be a part of the green transition, and it is they who already today in practice carry out a large part of it.

Much of the approximately eight hours of discussion on this was spent on formulations regarding the capital markets union. These issues are naturally difficult and complex, because even though everyone agrees that European companies need to get more and better access to international capital, there are completely different views among the member states on how this is best to be done.

Everyone agrees that it is not working well enough today, and everyone agrees that it is a pity that many European companies, for various reasons, feel almost forced to go to the USA for their continued expansion. However, there are different views on the solutions - some want a completely centralized supervision of all capital markets, and we others emphasize that convergence and cooperation is a better way than centralization. Some emphasize harmonization of insolvency and bankruptcy rules.

Some want to see a harmonization of tax rules, which is a red line for both us and many other member states. That is why it was important that Sweden, together with like-minded countries, resisted writings that wanted to restrict the states' sovereignty regarding precisely tax matters.

We could, from the Swedish side, instead show good examples of how much private savings and pension savings are active parts of the economy rather than lying in passive savings accounts. Thus, one also says in practice that one understands how complicated processes it involves in each respective country to change completely different issues which in turn have significance for capital formation.

This was notably evident from an article in the Financial Times, actually published on the same day, where Sweden's financial ecosystem was highlighted as a good example of a relatively small country that nevertheless has a large and well-developed capital market, which means that the conditions for new, innovative companies – not least tech companies – are really good. We have good reason to guard what we have, and we have good reason to increase international cooperation.

Much more remains to be done, but the positive thing is that there is now a consensus that competitiveness is important issues that are urgent. The EU is lagging behind the USA and parts of Asia, and it is high time to reverse that development. Already at the next meeting in June, the European Council will continue to address capital market issues.

With that, I conclude the account of the meeting, Madam Speaker.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking the Prime Minister for the report.

A continuing burning issue is the Russian shadow fleet, which the Prime Minister also mentioned in his report back. The shadow fleet has for a long time been present in the Baltic Sea for the purpose of bypassing oil sanctions, and it has continuously supplied itself with fuel from an oil tanker located in the Swedish economic zone. Thus, Russia is replenishing its war chest.

This week, the announcement came that the Foreign Minister has joined the Social Democrats' demands for tougher sanctions against Russia and that the shadow fleet shall be included there. That is good. We must stand united against Putin in this. The shadow fleet is a major risk in many ways, and the Chief of Defence describes the situation as both a security and an environmental tragedy. The ship moves daily loaded with several hundred thousand tons of oil products in the cargo, and if the ship begins to leak, an enormous natural disaster awaits the Swedish Baltic coast.

We were also met with information from the Chief of Navy regarding suspicions that Russia is conducting espionage from the fleet. The seriousness of this is evident, and a united response from the EU is required to stop the fleet.

When the Prime Minister was asked before the EU summit, he said that the shadow fleet was not on the summit's agenda. My question must be: What happened at the EU summit that caused one to join the Social Democrats' line? In what way was it a change? Can we now expect that the Prime Minister will drive this issue among the EU leaders moving forward?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I do not want to disappoint the Social Democrats at all, but with all due respect, it was not the case that the European Council joined the Social Democrats' initiative. However, we agree that the shadow fleet is serious.

I have pointed out that the issue is not on the agenda because not all major issues are on every agenda for every meeting. It is that simple. On the other hand, it was taken up at our preliminary meeting among countries that are all involved in the issue, and it was explicitly taken up at the meeting of foreign ministers on Monday to, on a Swedish initiative, move closer to a solution where also this type of activities are sanctioned. That is very good. But as I said – and this is something I often say regarding these meetings: Not all major issues are addressed at every meeting of the European Council. What we are doing today is to report back on what happened at the previous Council meeting.

It does not diminish the importance of this. As I said, I was at HMS Gävle on Friday and looked in detail at how the Swedish Navy monitors the shadow fleet, both the large ship which is practically a kind of oil depot and other ships that from time to time bunker oil from there and which can pose other risks. We therefore have an iron grip on the ships, but that does not prevent this from being a major problem. They are in international waters, and we do not have a legal right to move them from there. But we have a very legal right to monitor what they do.

Just as was mentioned here, they are a great security risk, and there are also environmental risks in this. There are obvious risks that sanctions will be bypassed, and there is a need for us to collectively put pressure on the countries that can be countries of origin, destination countries, or flag states for the fleet.

We are, therefore, completely in agreement on the substance. I only wanted to say for the sake of form that this was not what this meeting was about. However, we did address it with clarity in our circles. In the Nordic-Baltic circle, there is great consensus on this, while those who are at a greater distance for natural reasons do not have the same engagement in the issue. As said: Tobias Billström had this here, very explicitly, at the FAC meeting on Monday.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Prime Minister for that answer.

We naturally welcome that the government is taking on this issue and that it follows the Social Democrats' line, sees how important this is from a security and environmental perspective, and continues to push the issue at the EU level. We need to have a united answer from the EU, and we must stand united against Putin.

Let me also address another issue. In recent days, we have been able to observe that Minister for Enterprise Ebba Busch is dodging EU ministerial meetings where important issues regarding clean, sustainable, and cheaper energy are discussed. For one and a half years, Ebba Busch has consistently chosen corporate meetings and visits to Paris instead of these important meetings.

It should be a priority for the Prime Minister that Swedish interests are protected in Brussels. Ultimately, it is about Swedish consumers' electricity bills and that the Swedes should have a representative on the ground who takes care of the sustainability issues. How does the Prime Minister view Ebba Busch dodging the council of ministers meetings?

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind that the deliberation concerns a report from the meeting of the Council of Europe.)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! Nor did Ebba Busch's participation in meetings in individual council configurations get discussed at this summit. I just want to have it entered into the minutes, so to speak. I suggest that questions be posed to her regarding Ebba Busch's exact priorities between many different council configurations.

The Swedish government always prioritizes Swedish interests in the EU. It is also the case that meetings in Brussels can clash with other important meetings, and in those cases, we have a very simple system to ensure that Sweden is always represented. I can therefore assure the questioner that no minister skips European meetings.

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

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Prime Minister for the interesting account and for many optimistic announcements.

From the council's conclusions, it appears that there is a determination both regarding competitiveness and regarding the careful monitoring and limitation of the risk of disinformation through various new technologies, for example artificial intelligence. This applies not least for the reason that the European Parliament election is approaching.

This brings us to the area of digitalization. The world has changed very rapidly in recent years regarding both technological development and the relationship with other countries, and it is an increasingly common insight that Europe must strengthen both its digital sovereignty and its leading role regarding development and competitiveness within the digitalization area as a whole.

Madam Speaker! This will, however, be a balancing act where the EU is to become more independent from, for example, China and defend itself against external influence operations, but at the same time accelerate in order to become more competitive with all conceivable digital infrastructure, which of course entails both opportunities and risks.

I understand that there were many other pressing points on the agenda, but I still wonder if any conclusions can be drawn from the council meeting, beyond what appears in the written report, regarding the digital area and the way forward.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! Those were interesting questions from the member.

I will begin with something that was not on the agenda but still came up because the President of Parliament, Roberta Metsola, explicitly took it up on the spot, which she also did when she visited Sweden just a few weeks ago, and which we had party leader talks about the other day in connection with disinformation risks and the upcoming EU parliamentary election. She was again very explicit about her fear that other countries—primarily Russia, of course, but it could also be others—are trying to influence the election result in an illegitimate way.

This time she met with more response, I thought. It became a spontaneous discussion between many countries who pointed out that they also see such risks at home. It was probably no coincidence that the Belgian presidency the day before yesterday activated the mechanism for information sharing between EU countries to identify such risks. The EU has no intelligence service of its own that does this, but rather it is based on the countries sharing information.

We know that some countries - the large countries, which have more parliamentarians - are more vulnerable. It can also be about countries where there have been strong Russian interests since before or countries where there are Russian-speaking minorities. There are many different reasons that can create this.

This is an important issue, and I perceived that Roberta Metsola received very great support just six weeks before the EU parliamentary elections.

The second dimension was Letta's report, where he identifies the 5G and 6G issues and the telecommunications market. The European market is fragmented and invests much less. We can get a 5G symbol in our phones, but we do not have at all the same 5G networks that both the USA and large Asian countries have today. This is devastating for European competitiveness in the long run. The companies that need 5G and 6G connections will instead be established elsewhere.

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

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Prime Minister for the answer. I hope that we can expect even more in-depth discussions on this subject at upcoming council meetings.

Another issue that I hope the Prime Minister can comment on briefly is the discussions regarding the EU's work with Turkey. We naturally emphasize – and assume – constructive engagement from all involved parties, but I was thinking more specifically about the Cyprus issue and the stability in that region. How does the Prime Minister, based on the Council meeting, view the progress in the negotiations regarding Cyprus? What steps seem to be needed to move the talks forward?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I myself would have been happy if I had had an answer to that question. No one has a sufficient answer to it right now.

One could say that the tone between Greece and Turkey is considerably more cautious now than it has been in a long time, for many different reasons, but as is known, there are significant tensions in the Cyprus issue. It stands as one of many obstacles to a rapid rapprochement.

I believe that everyone is still at the previous conclusions for the time being. Migration reasons speak in favor of cooperation with Turkey. There are no shortcuts, and everything aimed at them gradually becoming a member state is based on them meeting all the requirements set for every candidate country in every way. That is not where we are right now.

Actually, it was only a matter of stating that Turkey is strategically important for Europe. There are reasons to have a cooperation as good as it is at all possible to have, but there are also well-known differences of opinion that have not changed.

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

For the sake of clarity, I would like to draw attention to the current rules of procedure, which have been agreed upon by all group leaders and decided by the Speaker. From these, it appears that clothing and badges with political messages, in addition to customary party pins, may not be worn. Props may not be used for the purpose of conveying or reinforcing political messages.

I give the floor to Lorena Delgado Varas and urge her for the eighth time to follow the established rules of procedure.

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

Lorena Delgado Varas (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the report back!

I would primarily like to turn our attention towards Gaza. Yesterday, we from the Palestinian network here in the Riksdag met one of UNRWA's representatives who works in Gaza – including in Rafah – and returned last week. This person described the situation as a total humanitarian catastrophe, with 1.4 million Palestinians in a city that is actually adapted for 300,000 while the bombs are falling and there is a threat of a ground invasion. There is not enough water, and they have never seen famine spread as quickly as here.

I would really like to hear the Prime Minister's opinion regarding standing up for an immediate and permanent ceasefire and that the EU should introduce sanctions against Israel to stop the war and open up for deliveries of supplies, food, and water, which those starving in Gaza need.

Another thing that unfortunately was not mentioned by the Prime Minister is the agricultural sector. I wonder how the discussions went regarding ensuring fair competition globally and on the internal market. The trade agreements are designed to continuously increase the volumes of imports of certain food products produced under other conditions and favor monocultures and large-scale farming. This, of course, creates obstacles for small-scale farmers here in Europe. I would really like to encourage the government to see the consequences that arise when one does not include those aspects of this.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! Parts of this were raised at the European Council, even if it might not have been from the angle the questioner would have desired. We naturally discussed the terrible situation in Gaza. We repeated the positions that the European Union countries agree on. These are quite significant matters, but they are sometimes obscured by all the things we do not agree on. It is about the need for a ceasefire, much greater humanitarian access, the immediate and unconditional release of the hostages, returning to a two-state solution, and that the violence from Israeli settlers in parts of the territory ceases.

All of this was up as it usually is up. So there was nothing new there. I do not think that we can count on the EU right now to unite on more than these, in themselves important, matters. These are not small matters that the EU is completely in agreement on.

I believe, as I have said many times, that the more we can act in unity and together with the USA with the unambiguous, albeit long-term goal of achieving a negotiated two-state solution, the better it is.

We - not least Sweden - must accept that we do not own the decision-making power in these issues. We do, however, own the ability to bring the EU together on some common positions.

Agriculture was brought up indirectly through the free trade issue. This is one of many examples of how the free trade issue causes debate. On one hand, we want free competition so that we can get lower consumer prices; on the other hand, we want to be careful that the conditions that apply to production in Europe are not bypassed through imports. Then it is about what conditions one sets in free trade agreements, as if they are burdened with too many details in practice they cannot be used. This is a well-known balancing issue, I would say.

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

Lorena Delgado Varas (V)

Madam Speaker! I would really like to hear Sweden's voice on the Gaza issue. Even though we are a small country among many countries within the EU, we are a country that has been known to be at the forefront when it comes to human rights and peace issues. I would like to hear the Prime Minister's thoughts on a permanent ceasefire and the imposition of sanctions against Israel.

I know that the EU has taken steps regarding the settlement violence and so on, but I believe we all realize, after more than 200 days, that more is required. Israel has not responded to any of the demands from the international community.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! Sweden has a number of very clear positions on this issue, and we present them every time in European contexts. Then we do what we can to achieve an EU as united as possible that can act geopolitically together with the USA and countries in the region for maximum effect. That is what it is about. We are not primarily engaged in demonstration politics in the EU; rather, it is about making the EU a relevant actor in a very difficult geopolitical situation. There, we do everything that must be done. But it is also important to try to achieve consensus on the decisions that the EU can then be able to execute, otherwise, it will mostly be talk of it all.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Prime Minister for the report. It is always tricky to be a bit further down the list because many questions have already been asked.

But I have a question about Iran. Earlier today, we had a good interpellation debate about the IRGC between the Foreign Minister and several members. It is clear that the Riksdag is united and in favor of a terror listing, and it appears that there is probably also a majority to look at the regulatory framework. Was the question about the IRGC raised at the council meeting?

Regarding Gaza, I am reflecting on making the EU and the USA relevant actors. Based on the discussions that took place at the council, how does the Prime Minister perceive the progress? Is it moving forward? Can one notice that the pressures being exerted internationally are leading anywhere?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! The first question is easy to answer. Yes, the IRGC was raised, and it was noted for I don't know how many times in a row that there is no consensus for what Sweden and others are pushing for. But the question was explicitly raised, and the disagreement is the same as before. It obviously does not prevent Sweden from continuing to push its position.

The second question is more difficult. Is it leading anywhere? That can truly be discussed. The situation is worse than before, so in that sense, it is not leading anywhere. Neither the EU nor the USA has had success in achieving a dramatic increase in humanitarian access. No success has also been achieved regarding the long-term discussion on a two-state solution or the release of hostages. In that sense, one can say that it is not successful.

If one is to look for success in this terrible situation, it is that it does not currently appear to be escalating after Iran's very massive attack. Quite a few countries seem to have acted very unitedly and sensibly in order not to escalate the situation further.

Sometimes one really has to look for successes in a rather dark situation, and right now I honestly see very few optimistic signs. Precisely because of that, there is probably no choice, but the EU, USA and many countries in the region must hold up a long-term torch for what could eventually be achieved. But it requires that many actors change both their rhetoric and their behavior if there are to be prerequisites for this.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! The question then becomes what is being done to get the relevant actors to take a step in the right direction.

Regarding the IRGC, Sweden continues to push the issue. The Prime Minister is very welcome to explain how the issue is being pushed between the cabinet meetings and what happens beyond that.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I noted that the Minister for Foreign Affairs was here earlier, and I promise that he can say much more about this. It is in the ongoing conversations within the circle of foreign ministers that one can prepare the ground for what could become a consensus at a later stage. The road is long, but we shall not lose heart. Even difficult issues can reach a conclusion, sometimes for good reasons because countries change their minds and sometimes for bad reasons because such terrible things happen that countries need to change their minds. Within the circle of foreign ministers, an ongoing discussion takes place, and if they achieve success, we will have it much easier to achieve success at the European Council's upcoming meetings.

What is being done then? Well, we raise the tone and the price. Action against extreme settlers is one such example. But at European summits, everything must occur in unity. We sometimes think it is a slow way when we want to do more than others, and sometimes we think exactly the opposite. When many want to introduce common corporate taxes, we think it is good that unity is required to get anywhere. One must probably realize that it works in this way.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

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

Before the council meeting, my colleague in the EU Committee raised the lack of climate and environmental ambitions in the proposal for a new fund for European competitiveness and suggested that Sweden should push for the environment to receive its own heading.

Now I heard the Prime Minister in his speech refer to the green deal, and in the written reporting, one can find words such as climate neutral and bioeconomy. But that is all, and I still miss parts about the environment. It seems that one does not want to build on or build in the successes that have been achieved with the green deal. It is a bit strange because the EU has taken the lead in these issues, and when one is now to take the next step, it should be natural to build on the successes that have already been achieved.

For example, the World Economic Forum identifies environment-related risks such as extreme weather, biodiversity loss, and collapsed ecosystems as the greatest risks in both the short and long term, and the OECD is working on a new report on the three crises regarding climate, biodiversity, and pollution, and on how one crisis cannot be solved individually but all must be solved together.

Can the Prime Minister tell us a bit more about how climate and environmental issues were raised in the discussions, and will Sweden push to let the environment have its own heading in the continued work with the competitiveness agreement?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I notice a certain tendency in the reporting back that one wants every important issue to be taken up at every meeting, but it simply does not work that way.

This time we addressed competitiveness issues, which to a large extent concern economically related issues where Europe today lags behind the USA and Asia. It was the core issue itself, but it was then exemplified with important areas. The green transition generates a lot of economic activity, but it also requires enormous investments, which in turn requires a competitive economy.

Ukraine was also not specifically addressed in the competitiveness issues, but the question of production of defense materiel and long-term sustainability in an economic sense for Ukraine in turn requires economic growth.

One must sometimes accept that not everything can be discussed in detail at every meeting, not even that which one is most passionate about. Green transition, energy issues and climate neutrality were a core part, but it was not the only part. A capital markets union is important regardless of this. 5G and 6G connectivity and better conditions for the tech companies in Europe is important regardless of the green transition, but it is also important in light of the green transition.

One must still accept that we cannot talk about every single thing at every meeting. The meetings have thematic focuses, and this time the theme was competitiveness. But that did not exclude in any way also discussing the green transition.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the answer! One obviously cannot discuss everything at every meeting; we certainly know that in this chamber.

But the environmental issue is a hygiene factor even when it comes to competitiveness. We cannot continue if we are not within the planetary boundaries, because then we bite our own tails and lose competitiveness.

I would like to exemplify with what is currently happening in the agricultural sector, where they are quickly changing the regulatory framework in a so-called urgent procedure. They are simply removing several regulatory frameworks that have taken five years to develop and negotiate. They have existed for a year, and now they are being removed without any impact assessments.

Even here, the environmental and climate ambitions are conspicuous by their absence, and that is what my second question to the Prime Minister is about. Here we have an example. Will Sweden ensure that the rapid changes being made do not compromise the transition to a more climate- and environmentally friendly agriculture or competitiveness?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! It is truly the ambition to be able to make simplifications and improvements in competitiveness without compromising on many other things. We shall not compromise on climate ambitions, not compromise on European security ambitions, and not compromise on individual security issues. It is about all of this. Then everyone understands that it is easier said than done.

I think agriculture is a good example, because there are so many legitimate competing interests there. National self-sufficiency is important. Small business interests are often important. Trade across borders, both for those who can sell and for the consumers, is important. Climate ambitions are important. Sometimes they stand against each other, and it becomes difficult trade-offs. Let us acknowledge it; politics is filled with goal conflicts. Not everything can be taken into account in every single issue. But that agriculture is also an important part of the climate transition, I think, is beyond any doubt.

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

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker and Prime Minister! Let me first welcome that the European Council so clearly emphasizes the continued support for Ukraine through humanitarian aid, air defense, ammunition, and increased pressure on Russia. It is, of course, extremely important, because Ukraine's struggle is also our common struggle.

Simultaneously with the acute situation in Ukraine, it is important that the EU manages to keep its focus on the long-term issues. The EU needs to take greater leadership for security in Europe, for the rule of law and democracy, as well as for green and digital transition. A prerequisite is that Europe strengthens its own position and competitiveness. It will determine where the jobs, companies, innovations, and economic strength of the future will emerge. The EU shall be a growth engine, not a museum.

It is good that the EU's leaders have now agreed that this is a priority. I know that the Swedish government has been one of the strongest drivers behind placing competitiveness high on the EU's agenda.

It is welcome that the council's conclusions do not just contain fine words but are actually quite concrete. It is about removing barriers in the internal market and about more research and innovation, less bureaucracy, and so on.

At the same time, there are those, as the Prime Minister pointed out, who would like to see increased state involvement in the economy. They want new EU funds financed with EU-common borrowing in order to practically subsidize individual industries. But what we need now are measures that truly create growth.

How does the Prime Minister see that Sweden can move forward to ensure that strategies on competitiveness do not just become shelf-warmers but actually lead to action in reality?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! It is a well-founded question. When agreements are made at a very high level of abstraction at summits, there is sometimes a risk that it is perceived as beautiful words rather than concrete action. Sometimes the individual council constellations are better at actually making tangible decisions.

Now we will return already in June to the issue of competitiveness. I still think that this implies that there is a kind of internal accountability in this and that it does not just pass by. I believe that many still realize that these are serious matters, on the same level as the war is serious and the climate transition is serious.

Europe must, as was said here, be a growth engine and not a museum. Emmanuel Macron was recently in Sweden on a state visit. We had long discussions both about things that unite our two countries and about things that sometimes divide us. Those of you who have had the chance to listen to his Sorbonne II speech, which was held yesterday, may have noted that he said roughly this: It is a paradigm shift, in roughly the same way as Enrico Letta is on when he describes what has happened during these 30 years with the internal market. Macron has a somewhat different take. He says that it is a paradigm shift. Europe can no longer just outsource trade to China, energy to Russia, and security to the USA.

These are no small things. These are fundamental changes that have taken place over the last few years, actually in quite a short time, from which we must draw conclusions.

For Sweden's part, we do not conclude that Europe should withdraw. For Sweden's part, we conclude that we shall try to cultivate the transatlantic relations. Keep free trade going as far as possible! But do not be naive, but realize that things can happen that cause trade chains to simply be stopped. This applies in particular to such things as are defense-related.

I think we should stand firm on our fundamental ideals, but we too must realize that great changes have occurred that we must learn from.

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

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker! I withdraw my second contribution.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Prime Minister for the report. Just as was said here earlier, many questions have had to be cut when one gets far down on the speaking list, but despite that, I have two questions remaining.

Before the council that the Prime Minister has been attending, my colleague Magnus Berntsson raised the issue regarding Turkey's role and the signals Turkey is sending in the Middle East conflict. Was that something that was taken up at the meeting, and do you see any common path for how one can act there?

As a member of the Committee on Environment and Agriculture, I could not help but notice that the Prime Minister brought up the forest and the forest's great potential. There we unfortunately see how we have a huge struggle within the EU, where not least this commission has sprayed out proposals that are purely counterproductive. These are proposals that are not at all anchored in reality. One does not see the forest's role in the green transition. One only sees the forest as a carbon sink and does not see how it should be managed.

The forest is our great competitive advantage in Sweden in the transition. There is no doubt about that. Does the Prime Minister notice any difference in the view on this, or does the major line of conflict remain that the forest is a carbon sink and not for the transition? If we do not transition from CO2-intensive materials such as steel and concrete to products from the forest, we actually have no transition.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! It was truly not two small issues but two important issues that remained. That pleases me.

I take Turkey first. International action, foreign policy, and security policy is such an obvious thing that often distinguishes Turkey from the EU countries. The fundamental view of fundamentally accepting the EU's common foreign policy position is a fundamental issue, and there we are absolutely not. It does not prevent us from still being in agreement in individual matters and that Turkey can make important contributions, for example when it comes to the trade flows of Ukrainian grain. There, important things have happened. One must see the opportunities, but it is also quite obvious that there are very large differences of opinion – which is also spoken about in plain text.

I completely share the view that the EU does not see the forest for all the trees. It is exactly so. I am a warm supporter of what is common in the EU and of solving large and important common problems such as crime, terrorism, the climate, and security. It is quite obvious that it should be so.

But there are also things where Sweden has a completely different view than many other EU countries and pushes it very hard. The forest is one such thing. Many countries have no experience of Swedish and Finnish forestry at all. They see trees. One can get entertaining questions of the type: How many trees do you have? They don't really see this.

On the question of whether any improvement is occurring, I can answer that it is. Petteri Orpo, who is Finland's Prime Minister, and I had Ursula von der Leyen on a joint visit to Stockholm on the sole theme of forests to try to make her understand the depth of the forest's importance for Sweden and Finland but also the extent of the climate benefit that the forest, growing forest, forestry and even logging can provide for the climate. I believe that things are starting to happen in the EU.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for a positive angle on the answer!

I have told this before in the chamber: When I was going to COP 27 in Sharm el-Sheikh, I had the dubious pleasure of ending up on an overbooked flight, and I then got an extra day in Istanbul together with a representative from Finland's equivalent to LRF Skogsägarna. We had quite interesting conversations, and the question that etched itself into my memory was: Where has Sweden been in the forest issues over the last eight years? It was very clear.

I have noted that people are now starting to build alliances anew in forest issues and therefore want to ask: Is Sweden actively working to build even larger alliances? We often talk about Sweden and Finland as the great forest nations, but there are more countries. I also know that we have cooperation bodies. But is work being done so that we can get even larger and stronger alliances in forest issues so that our view will come forward even more clearly and win smoothly?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! To be consistent, I should say that nor was the question of where Sweden has been for the last eight years raised at the meeting of the Council of Europe.

The lesson, I think, is nevertheless that one must be persistent and push the same issue for a long period, form alliances with other countries that think sufficiently similarly so that something can be achieved, and stand up for one's position very distinctly when one sees that there is a risk of something harming our national interests.

We work in the EU for our common good, but we also work to guard Swedish interests in the common. The forest's role in the economy for employment, as an export generator, and in the climate transition is a Swedish core interest. This government will not yield a millimeter in standing up for those interests.

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

Malin Danielsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the report! I have already had the privilege of asking you a few questions in the KU this morning, but now they will have a slightly different character.

I thought we would talk a bit about democracy and the rule of law. These are the foundations of European cooperation. Unfortunately, however, there are forces within the EU that question that value base and, for example, challenge the support for Ukraine. We see a development in Slovakia where they are trying to control the media, hinder the work of the courts, and have a very pro-Russian rhetoric, even though we have previously taken a number of measures against Hungary and Poland when they have acted in similar ways.

Even though the Council's conclusions continue to express strong and united support for Ukraine, Hungary has delayed the negotiations. That Slovakia could act in a similar way in the future is not impossible, especially considering how Ukraine-critical the Slovak presidential election campaign has been this spring and how Prime Minister Robert Fico has tried to stop weapon deliveries to Ukraine.

That is why I wonder how the Prime Minister views, for example, introducing qualified majority on several of the EU's areas so that individual countries cannot dictate, for example, the European support to Ukraine.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! One part I think is simple, even though it is also a difficult question: Democracy and the rule of law are fundamental parts of what the EU rests on. Therefore, it comes up all the time. Then it does not enter into every discussion. When we talk about competitiveness, we talk about competitiveness, not individual countries' views on media and courts. It is not because this is not important, but because it is not the subject of the day. As we all know, there are also ongoing processes that handle such issues, conditions for the disbursement of funds, and so on. I trust that those institutions function.

Sometimes one must, without compromising even the slightest bit on what one considers important, still be able to agree on other issues. That is how the EU works.

This leads to the much more difficult question of qualified majorities. The Swedish position has long been, regardless of government, that the EU in foreign policy could act more powerfully if we had a bit more of qualified majorities. We think that is good. Some would say that we do it because we are a fairly small country and experience that our own position may not always sound the highest in the world.

Other countries think exactly the opposite. They want to be able to act as an individual country, a large individual country, and absolutely do not want to bow to majority decisions that go against them - in the same way that we absolutely do not want to bow to majority decisions in the tax area, in the welfare area, or when it comes to the parties' model in wage formation.

This is a double-edged sword. If one pushes for qualified majorities also at the top level, at European summits – there are qualified majorities in other decision-making structures – quite strong Swedish interests would risk being outvoted. I think one should think carefully before going that way.

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

Malin Danielsson (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer. It is clearly a complex issue, but we are also in a complex world where democracy is more threatened than it has been in a long time. The EU also plays an incredibly important role in upholding democracy.

The development we are seeing in Slovakia has been noted, for example, by the Commission, which has warned the Slovak government that the country risks losing up to 3.5 billion euros from the recovery fund if it does not act on the rule of law principles. That is good. But it would also be interesting to hear: What is the line of thinking in the Council? How is the conversation going between the member states' heads of government regarding the concern about Slovakia and that the country may potentially challenge the EU's fundamental values of democracy and freedom in the future?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! We are quite careful in the European Council to avoid discussing the domestic political situations of different countries. It simply would not work. There, we trust that when domestic dynamics come or risk coming into conflict with fundamental European values, we have institutions that take care of this. I also think that different processes show that it actually works.

Then we can also have different perceptions about, for example, the rhetoric regarding Ukraine during the election campaign or that one sometimes experiences a wavering long-term will to stand up for Ukraine - sometimes because there is simply domestic political dynamics that favor it, sometimes, one can suspect, for entirely other reasons.

Reporting from the Council of Europe meeting on April 17-18

At the European Council, however, we stick quite strictly to the issues where we can make joint decisions as guidelines for more operational action at other levels in the EU system.

The reporting was hereby concluded.

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