Reporting from the Council of Europe meeting on October 17

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! The European Council met on Wednesday and Thursday last week, and I must say that the atmosphere was grave. Russia's brutal war against Ukraine, the upcoming elections in Moldova regarding both the presidency and the country's future in Europe, as well as not least the serious situation in the Middle East, obviously also affect us in Sweden.

But even before the formal meeting, a few other things happened that I also want to take the opportunity to mention. I began last Wednesday with a somber but beautiful memorial service together with Belgium's Prime Minister Alexander De Croo. We and traveling family members honored the two Swedes who were murdered in Brussels a year ago and the third Swede who was seriously injured. The act reminds us that we live in palpably dangerous times, but also of how important close cooperation between countries is so that dangerous people with terrorist intentions cannot hide in our open societies. There is also a strong connection here to migration policy and the importance of those who are denied an asylum application also actually leaving the EU. That is what we came to discuss the following day.

I also want to take this opportunity here in the chamber to thank all the players in the Swedish men's national football team who signed the fine national team jersey that I could place by the wreath during the ceremony and subsequently give to the son of one of the deceased Swedes.

Before the EU summit, I also visited NATO headquarters and met all the Swedish employees in the growing delegation, and I subsequently had good conversations with the new NATO Chief Mark Rutte. Sweden's first six months as a NATO member have been intense and constructive. We quickly enter into all the issues that we were not previously involved in, and we evoke both respect and interest. We may be a new member country, but we are no small member country, that was the clear message I received from others in NATO.

After lunch, the informal part of the EU summit began with a discussion together with the leaders of the Gulf Cooperation Council GCC. These are countries that, in many and important issues, differ quite a bit from the European democracies. But after the more ceremonial introductions of the preliminary reading, the conversations transitioned into a freer dinner discussion. It became quite clear that the Gulf states also constitute a constructive party in the Middle East and that we have some important things in common, namely the importance of a two-state solution where Israel and Palestine can live in peace side by side, the insight that Iran and those acting as proxies for them are destabilizing forces, a serious threat to the entire region, as well as the importance of free trade, technology, and green transition. There are more similarities than many can believe.

Madam Speaker! The European Council then began on Thursday morning with President Zelenskyy physically present on site this time. He presented his victory plan, which at a very high level has strong support among the EU leaders. The needs for continued help ahead of yet another war winter are enormous: militarily, politically and economically. We in Europe must do more if we want the USA to remain a strong ally in its support for Ukraine. It means that we will most likely need to increase our support even further.

It is only with sufficiently long-term and credible support to Ukraine that Russia can be persuaded to end the war and peace can be achieved on Ukraine's terms. There is still no consensus on this, but Sweden's clear position is that Ukraine's place is both in the EU and in Nato. Otherwise, Russia will remain an acute threat to Ukraine for the foreseeable future.

On the way there, more money must also be mobilized, and at the meeting, the work of getting the G7 agreement on frozen Russian assets in place was discussed.

Sweden supports the Commission's proposal for an extension of the freezing of Russian assets. Unfortunately, Hungary still opposes the proposal, but Sweden's position on the issue is unambiguous. There is also an important moral message here, namely that Europe supports Ukraine with Russian assets.

President Zelenskyy also argues well regarding the limitations that different countries impose on Ukraine's use of the weapons they receive. There are well-known differing opinions here, but from the Swedish side, we have no restrictions. We respect different assessments in the matter, but we will not be among those who are restrained. That Ukraine is forced to fight against Russia with one hand tied behind its back makes it harder to win.

The European Council also discussed a 15th sanctions package and more powerful measures against the circumvention of the already existing sanctions. We continue to push forward on these issues, as well as the need for stricter measures against the Russian shadow fleet, which not only reduces the bite of the sanctions but also entails enormous environmental risks for the Baltic Sea. It was a Swedish success that we got additional wording on measures against Russian agricultural products into the conclusions.

Madam Speaker! This indicates, I believe, that Sweden has both trust and influence in all the issues concerning Ukraine - not only because we are active, proactive and stable, but also because we act ourselves and set a good example.

Sweden has so far contributed over 57 billion kronor in support to Ukraine. We have made decisions on 17 military support packages, and we have adopted a three-year financial framework amounting to 75 billion kronor.

Last week, we presented a joint support package together with the other Nordic-Baltic countries. From the Swedish side, it concerned 320 million kronor to support Ukraine's severely damaged energy production ahead of another war winter.

Madam Speaker! The EU summit also had a long discussion on migration. Many member states in Europe are now experiencing a large and almost unregulated immigration that is having serious consequences.

In Sweden, we are now seeing clear results of a new migration policy, and we appear to be heading towards the lowest asylum-related immigration since 1997. But the pressure is still high in large parts of Europe, and an increasingly stronger unity is now being reached between countries on an issue that was previously almost impossible to agree on. Sweden's experience of changing the migration policy, and our ability to unite countries even on this issue, also arouses great interest.

This overall means that we now see a consensus on migration that I have not seen at any time before during my two years at all summits with the European Council. There is a genuine will from all member states. Before the meeting, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, had written a letter on the migration issue which became defining for the discussions themselves and which I believe will be leading for the way forward.

Ursula von der Leyen is clear that the migration pact is a great success but that it will not be enough. She mentions the need for increased cooperation with countries outside the EU and so-called return hubs. For those of you who have not read her letter, it is worth reading because even Sweden will need to take a stand on new issues in order to protect the EU's external border.

Every country must do its part, and we are doing that now with the decision in Sweden. But the external border and the relationship with countries of origin is also a common European responsibility.

We must continue to increase the efficiency of returns by using all relevant tools more strategically - a, as it is called in English, whole-of-government approach. This means in plain language using visa rules, trade agreements and aid to better achieve cooperation with countries outside the EU regarding the return of their own citizens.

Here, Sweden has also previously been unreasonably weak and accepted that countries that we help do not themselves help us. My experience is that our new line commands greater respect, and von der Leyen's letter also contains similar thoughts. Also, other parts of the letter are areas where Sweden is already acting, such as humanitarian aid to address the situation in the Middle East.

The government's work against cross-border crime is also worth mentioning because von der Leyen specifically addresses the fight against smuggling and trafficking networks.

Another migration issue that concerns Finland and Poland in particular concerns the Russian and Belarusian instrumentalization of migrants for the purpose of destabilizing the EU's internal security. In practice, Russia and Belarus are now exploiting vulnerable people to abuse international refugee conventions. It is completely unacceptable, and Sweden stands behind and understands both Finland and Poland.

On Thursday morning, I had breakfast with Poland's Prime Minister Donald Tusk, who described exactly this situation in more detail. We understand his concern and his desire to do something about the matter. Ultimately, this is a fundamental national security issue.

Madam Speaker! The summit also discussed, of course, the dreadful situation in the Middle East. For Sweden's part, we have some guiding principles for how we approach that conflict.

Firstly, Israel has a self-evident right to defend itself after Hamas's terror attack on October 7 last year and after Hezbollah's constant shelling. It is important to remember that when we talk about a country that is repeatedly forced to defend its right not to be wiped out by its neighbors. It is also worth reminding of the 101 people who are still being held hostage, where we do not know how many are actually alive. It is absolutely necessary to emphasize that Israel must exercise its right to defend itself in accordance with international law and international humanitarian law.

Secondly, we must act against the human suffering in Gaza. It is heartbreaking to now see how civilians, especially children, are being hit very hard. Israel must do more to protect the civilian population and secure access to humanitarian aid. The transports into Gaza with food and medicine must be multiplied. Here, Israel has a great responsibility. Sweden also stands behind the roadmap for a ceasefire that has been presented by the USA.

For the third time, the settler violence on the West Bank must cease. It is absolutely crucial to eventually enable a negotiated two-state solution. We welcome the sanctions that the EU has adopted against extremist settlers who commit acts of violence against civilians.

For the fourth, it is my and the government's firm opinion that conflicts in other parts of the world must not be allowed to move onto Swedish streets and squares. Now, all political parties have a responsibility to sweep clean in front of their own door and seriously demonstrate that zero tolerance towards antisemitism applies to everyone, always, and regardless of which flags it currently drapes itself in. Terror romanticism, hatred towards journalists, hatred towards Jews, and tomato-throwing inside this chamber is completely unacceptable, and I note - do not take it personally - that there is a net at the gallery now.

If we do not stand up for a sane democratic conversation, even if difficult international conflicts occur, we make ourselves part of this problem. Sweden has a partial responsibility to contribute to the best of its ability in other countries, but we have full responsibility for what happens in our own country. I will act systematically to ensure that not all conflicts also become Sweden's conflicts.

Among the EU member states, the usual differences in views on the Middle East remain. But there is actually also a consensus. The violence must stop, humanitarian aid must arrive, the hostages must be released, and the two-state solution must be back on the table.

Iran's role in the Middle East conflicts was raised by me and many others. I argued that the arguments for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard to be blacklisted are becoming more and more numerous and stronger. I did not expect any immediate agreement, but there is a consensus that Iran's actions constitute a national and regional and increasingly global problem. This is clearly stated in the conclusions, and the European Council condemns both Iran's attack on Israel on October 1 and the country's cynical use of partners in the Houthi rebels, Hezbollah and Hamas.

The Swedish Security Service protects Swedish interests against Iran, but we also continue to act internationally and within the EU.

Madam Speaker! The issue of competitiveness was raised, but only for a brief status update ahead of the informal meeting in November together with Italy's former Prime Minister Mario Draghi. At that time, a joint competitiveness declaration can be adopted.

That competitiveness is now a common priority must be seen as a remaining great success for the Swedish presidency. Now it is a matter of also winning the content behind the concept of competitiveness. The focus must lie on European reforms rather than on European regulations. Here we know that different countries have different starting points. Gathering like-minded people for free trade, entrepreneurship, and technological development is now an important task for Sweden in the EU.

Madam Speaker! Lastly, a few words about Moldova, which was also discussed during the meeting.

For Sweden's part, we draw two conclusions from Sunday's referendum. Firstly, that the Moldovan people have now said yes to a future in the EU and confirmed their role among the Western democracies. That is no small matter. Secondly, that this happened despite very worrying reports of large-scale Russian attempts to undermine the entire democratic process in Moldova by purchasing votes.

Russia will certainly attempt to sabotage the other rounds of the presidential election as well, with the goal of removing Moldova's Europe-oriented president. It is simply completely unacceptable, and we and other democracies must now do everything we can to limit Russia's destructive influence in Moldova.

I spoke myself yesterday evening with Moldova's president Maia Sandu. I conveyed my congratulations on the EU election result and thanked her for so clearly standing up for her country's future. I also promised continued strong Swedish support in Moldova's work for Europe against Russia.

With that, Madam Speaker, I conclude the report from the meeting.

In this speech, Magnus Resare (M) agreed.

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Madam Speaker! At the same time as the Prime Minister traveled to Brussels, I traveled to war-torn Ukraine and Kyiv. Against that background, I want to begin by saying that it is truly a very great strength that Sweden can stand by our support for Ukraine in such broad agreement. I agree that more must be done here and now to increase the Western world's support for Ukraine and ensure that Russia loses the war.

Both the deep gratitude for our support for Ukraine that I encountered and also the desperation over that Ukraine does not see how the people will suffice touched me deeply. The Ukrainians feel very vulnerable in the defense of their freedom in a war that is so much larger than it only affects Ukraine and Russia. The defense of the Western world's democracy as we know it is about so much more than just Ukraine. It is also this we say: The soldiers in the Ukrainian trenches are not only defending their own freedom and democracy but also our freedom and democracy.

Therefore, I want to thank the Prime Minister for the report from Brussels but also ask the question what measures the Prime Minister has taken to ensure that the EU is united. What initiatives has the Prime Minister taken to prevent Orbán's Hungary from repeatedly undermining the EU's support for Ukraine and instead acting in Russia's interests? How does Sweden act on the EU stage regarding this?

To this, I also want to ask about what Ukraine most desires in order to be able to push back Russia, namely an invitation to NATO membership. It is easy to see the value for Ukraine in this. But how does the Prime Minister view this in the near term, and how does it look within the circle of EU leaders when it comes to this difficult but for Ukraine so crucial issue?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me first give a distinct answer: the EU is not united. That is the brutal truth. There is a crushing consensus in the EU with the exception of two countries - unfortunately not just one: Slovakia and Hungary stand on the other side of this issue. That is my observation. I can guarantee that these countries will also be told this at European summits. There is no doubt about what other countries think about two countries making it harder or even impossible to reach full consensus, but it is nonetheless a fact.

In the Natokretsen, it has been resolved a bit more simply. There, one accepts that Hungary simply does not act, but Hungary also does not limit others' opportunity to act. But at EU summits, there is a requirement for unanimity on the decisions made in the European Council. This is showing now when it comes to the length of sanctions and when it comes to frozen assets. There, we hope that an American flexibility will still allow us to get more assets to Ukraine.

But the brutal answer is, then, that Hungary and Slovakia do not agree with the other countries, and that causes problems. It causes no insurmountable problems, and all of us others are acting to make the problems as small as possible, but it would undoubtedly have been better if both Hungary and Slovakia stood on our side.

When it comes to the path for Ukraine into NATO, we have very recently, just three months ago, in the NATO circle agreed – with difficulty, as it was – on a formulation that is far-reaching but still not as far-reaching as Ukraine would like, namely an "irreversible path to NATO membership". These are no small words. An irreversible path to NATO membership is clear language, but what is currently missing is an invitation to become a NATO member. There we are simply not in agreement, and this requires consensus in the NATO circle.

As I said in my introduction, Sweden belongs to those who will push as far as possible for Ukraine into Nato.

(Applause)

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the answer! Perhaps a little more elaboration than what can be given here might be needed.

I also want to put the question into perspective given the fact that the European Council was very short this time. How does the Prime Minister interpret that? For those of us who see the whole thing from the sidelines, it might seem a bit strange. When the EU leaders meet at a time when the world is on fire - there is war in Ukraine, there is war in the Middle East with increasing escalation, there is war in Sudan, it is restless in Venezuela, North Korea is reinforcing with troops to support Russia against Ukraine, China is mobilizing, the world is literally being set on fire with droughts, floods, and hurricanes as a result of climate change, inequality is increasing, which we saw not least in Oxfam's latest report, unemployment is increasing and growth is decreasing - the EU leaders have a very short meeting. What is the Prime Minister's comment on this? How are we to understand this?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! It is an interesting reflection. When someone requests a topic of conversation that is not on the agenda, I sometimes point out here in the chamber that not all EU summits can be about all things. It is naturally a triviality to say this, but that is how it is. Not all meetings are about all things. There is an agenda. The major question of competitiveness was touched upon but intentionally postponed to another meeting.

I believe the practical background to why we were going on from Wednesday after lunch until quite late on Thursday evening but not on Friday was that President Biden was on his way to Germany - there were other meetings the day after that several of the EU's prime ministers were going to attend - and that the Euro summit did not take place. That is my own guess.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the report! Initially, I would like to express that it is pleasing that there still seems to be a very high degree of unity when it comes to the EU countries' support for Ukraine. There may be one or possibly two prime ministers among the EU countries who express other opinions, but it is still evident that they are not being heard and that the decisions are largely moving in the completely right direction.

Madam Speaker! We are heading towards winter, which may possibly complicate the Russian offensive in Ukraine. At the same time, however, it means that attacks on the energy infrastructure will become extra challenging. In this context, it is important that the European Council emphasizes the needs in this very important area.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the Middle East, the consensus is not as great. That is perhaps natural and not particularly dramatic either. The central point is that the EU can in some way contribute to being a positive force that clearly marks against acts of terror while simultaneously working for a peace that, in the long term, must be built on a two-state solution.

When it comes to the writings about Iran, one can, however, have some points of view. It is positive that the Council strongly marks against the Iranian attacks and against Iran, through its actions, seriously contributing to destabilizing the region. But we lack in this context writings about sanctions, for example when it concerns the Revolutionary Guard. We also lack writings that clearly condemn the hostile acts committed in other countries, for example in Sweden.

My question to the Prime Minister is: What response do we get from the other countries when these problems are raised – is one willing to broaden the view on Iran's hostility to also include countries outside the region?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin with electricity production. The Ukrainians themselves say that somewhere in the magnitude of between 70 and 80 percent of the electricity production capacity is destroyed or damaged. It goes without saying that this will have enormous consequences, especially as the cold approaches. This is simply completely unacceptable Russian warfare.

I often return to all the lessons that we unfortunately now draw from the war in Ukraine when it comes to the importance of civil defense efforts. It is about being able to defend energy supply, water supply, healthcare and such things - all of this that we have always known but in practice dismantled for a long time in Sweden.

The latest effort from the Swedish side, together with the Nordics and the Baltics, also concerned trying to repair energy systems before the winter. It is likely just as important as many weapon deliveries.

When it comes to Iran, there is, I would say, a very broad consensus that Iran is an incredibly destructive force. There is no disagreement in the view of Iran itself. On the other hand, there have been different opinions for a long time about what is the best medicine. Most countries remain in the view that the sanctions of other types that exist are sufficient and are better than a terror listing. We, however, think that Iran's actions globally underscore that a more American view on this is needed.

We also had long discussions with the GCC states about this. They also express quite openly that Iran is a very great concern, but Iran is their immediate neighbor, so even they are relatively cautious in that respect.

We will have to push on in this issue for a long time. We knew that when I raised it this time. It will not be resolved in one or two meetings, but unfortunately, I believe that Iran confirms that more must be done.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! I also intended to focus a bit on migration, which was discussed at the meeting. It was an important part of the agenda. It is obvious that there are more countries on the same track as Sweden, the need for a more restrictive migration policy.

At the same time as we have a situation in Sweden with reduced asylum applications, which are constantly being written down as a result of the government's and the Sweden Democrats' policy, it is a completely different situation in other parts of Europe.

From the Sweden Democrats' side, we welcome the direction of the migration pact, which was decided quite recently. But we believe that more needs to be done and that the fundamental problems must be addressed. Therefore, it is positive that cooperation with other countries, transit countries, and countries of origin is being discussed, in order to enable return.

We could also read a quite concrete letter from von der Leyen, where precisely the need for what one could call return hubs was pointed out. My question to the Prime Minister is: What response does this receive in the Council? Can clear measures from the countries be hoped for?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! As I said, there is a tangible shift in the tone. There is no doubt about that. The insights that quite a few European countries risk returning to a situation that some of us recognize from 2015 have made this a high-priority issue. There is no doubt about that matter.

There are many countries that today realize that one must both act more powerfully independently and must do powerful things together. Therefore, this was the most forward-looking meeting I have been part of on this issue - and the most unanimous meeting.

One thing that recurred was that we must do more and go further. This applies in particular to relations with countries of origin and transit countries. The other thing that recurred was Ursula von der Leyen's letter, which is very much just around the corner. What do we do after the migration pact or more than the migration pact? It became quite agenda-setting for that discussion.

I think this is an incredibly difficult question. It is nevertheless promising that there is a will to act collectively.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! It is positive that the Council has now taken a strong stance against the settler movement and Israel's military operations in the West Bank and that it wants to see further measures from the Commission's side.

The violence and displacement of Palestinians in the West Bank must be noticed and condemned. But I also note that it is only regarding the West Bank that the Council speaks, in the matter of Israel's military operations.

The Council speaks very sharply about the humanitarian situation in Gaza and Lebanon, about attacks on UN forces, about the UN Secretary-General being declared persona non grata, about UNRWA having a great significance in Gaza, about regretting the unacceptable number of civilian casualties, especially among women and children, as well as about the catastrophic hunger and the imminent risk of famine as a result of insufficient inflow of aid to Gaza. But nowhere in the conclusions does it say anything about who has attacked UN forces, who is stopping aid shipments and who is causing a large part of the civilian casualties - that it is the state of Israel and its military.

The European Council must dare to turn directly to Israel to get a stop to this terrible war. Despite Israel's aggressions, the EU still does not dare to demand a permanent and immediate ceasefire. They demand a ceasefire and a lasting end to the hostilities.

The Council speaks of a two-state solution. One must nevertheless note that a two-state solution or a solution at all presupposes a permanent ceasefire, and we will likely not get that ceasefire unless the pressure on Israel increases.

I want to ask the Prime Minister if there are any possibilities for the council to agree in the near future to demand a permanent ceasefire.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I believe that everyone following this issue knows that there are very few conditions for the EU to agree on anything more in the near future than what we are agreeing on right now. On the principled level, we agree on very large things, but these are things that do not have an impact on the immediate operational management right now.

When we talk about the present and the near future, every word is probably weighed in gold, because different countries have different starting points and the result must be unanimous. That is how simple it is.

Let us also say, before we come to the next step, that the EU is not a major power player in this issue. That can be bad in many ways, not least for the self-image after everything we have done in Ukraine. But the EU is not a major power actor in this issue. The countries also think differently about this.

One should therefore not dismiss what the EU is doing anyway, for example in the long term. There is massive support for a two-state solution, massive support for Israel's right to defend itself against a terrorist organization, and massive support for the fact that Israel must exercise this defense within the framework of international law, and demands are made on Israel regarding humanitarian access, for example. These are no small things. Nor is it this that will determine the situation on the ground. I would believe that different economic supports from the EU countries today mean more.

We continue to act. The EU can only act when we are united. Regarding this conflict, we are united at the most overarching level. We are also increasingly united on the fact that the conflict there creates almost unmanageable problems for many countries here. Every country must think like Sweden, that one has full responsibility for what happens on one's own streets and squares. This concerns more prime ministers than just me.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer. What is a bit strange is that it is not stated anywhere who it is that needs to grant the humanitarian access. I am pleased that the Prime Minister nevertheless did so both in his opening statement and now.

But I want to move to a question where the EU has the power, because it is the EU's own issue. It is about the migration pact. Vänsterpartiet does not stand behind it, because we believe that it makes it more difficult for people to seek asylum. We can also see that the measures that the EU has agreed upon, such as reducing aid and reducing trade, risk making the countries of origin poorer and thus further driving economic migration.

In the conclusions, it was spoken of new ways to prevent and counteract irregular migration. I would like to know what is meant by that. Is it better support for poverty reduction, or is it further reprisals that is meant?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! First, I would like to personally raise an issue that, for natural reasons, was not discussed at the council meeting. Those who are often against the pact are those who want more immigration to Europe. We who believe that there must be regulated immigration, so that we have control over our borders, are in favor of this cooperation. There is, therefore, a logic in different positions.

When Europe's countries now say that they want to use all available means, it cannot be regarded as either carrot or stick, but probably both.

It is clear that with money we can help countries improve the situation in different ways so that fewer people feel they are forced to leave a country where they, by all indications and in essence, do not have grounds for asylum - that is why they are, to a very large extent, sent back. That is one thing.

The second thing is that it is clear that more countries think like Sweden. If we are to help other countries, we expect them to respond in different ways to legitimate Swedish demands. That we should send aid to or contribute to trade concessions for countries that do not even accept their own citizens, I think is quite offensive to many people. I think one probably has to have a rather practical view on this. It is simply a matter of helping in different ways.

(Applause)

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the report! I want to start by praising. I believe, in any case, that the Prime Minister said that he raised precisely the issue of the terror listing of IRGC. I really want to emphasize that it is very good. I also hope that the Prime Minister received a good answer on that.

Then it concerns migration. The Prime Minister mentioned the migration pact. Either one is against it because one wants more, or one is for it because one wants fewer. But there is another approach, and that is the more pragmatic approach. One wants a broad consensus between the countries to be able to work on this issue. That is perhaps the main reason why we from Centerpartiet stand behind the migration pact. We need to cooperate in these matters.

We see now, as said, that Russia is exploiting asylum seekers in a completely appalling way. The climate is deteriorating, and conflicts around the world are increasing. I therefore absolutely agree that we will need to do more.

Then aid is an important tool, but I perhaps do not think it is in the way that has been highlighted here earlier. It is rather about investing in development, democracy, and education in the countries that receive the funds. It is therefore not about return migration specifically, but rather the focus should be on education and so on. How were these issues discussed? That is my first question.

Since then, I have a very concrete question. I have raised it previously, and I know that it was also posed to the Prime Minister last week. It concerns the association agreement with Israel. How is it going? Will there be a meeting, and has the date been set? If so, when will it be?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I agree with this with broad consensus. Besides the fact that it generally increases the EU's ability to achieve something and that it is definitely a prerequisite for every position at the summits, broad consensus is very much desirable in other cases as well. This applies, for example, when countries that are front states with an external border are to cooperate with countries that bear the consequences when the external border is not properly maintained. There are, therefore, many reasons for this.

As I said, there is a new tone of unity in these issues, and that is among the most important things here. I believe that this is largely shaped by what is happening, of course, but also by national politics in many different countries. Despite different political orientations in the countries, we can today agree in a way that we could not before. I place a great value on this.

If this can become a difficult question that we can discuss in sensible ways, I believe it is simply an advantage for problem-solving ability.

When it comes to Poland, it is what we are talking about a Polish north-south border towards Belarus. I have not measured it exactly, but it should be 40-50 miles or something like that. It has, in principle, to a large extent been unguarded, and one has been able to instrumentalize refugees or asylum seekers who would receive asylum to a very small extent and who mainly come from countries that Poland does not have agreements with to be able to send them back. This is quite deliberate, and I understand that it causes enormous anger in a country like Poland in the same way it did in Finland earlier.

One must remember that aid issues are, in all respects, national issues. All countries have their own aid roles and rules. Democracy and education are an important part of aid in many countries, but they may not be operationally useful in these specific issues. I believe that what one has greater immediate benefit from instead is such things that enable countries to better ensure that migrants do not want to leave the country in question or that they want to return to their country in the event of a rejection.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! But if one looks at it in the long term and wants to address the root causes, it is about building up these countries, which are often authoritarian and lack democracy and where women often have a very vulnerable situation. In that case, education, especially targeted at women and girls, is something that we really know works. The same applies to initiatives on democracy. I know that the government is investing in this, but one could also raise it to EU aid and perhaps focus more on it.

I want to remind [you] of the question regarding the association agreement and the meeting.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I actually forgot it. There is a date – I believe – but I don't have it in my head. It was probably mentioned in the EU Committee, so I can check it up immediately after this.

I agree; it is clear that if more dysfunctional countries, from which many large migrant flows originate, could live in peace and democracy and have a well-functioning economy with free trade and wealth creation, it would naturally have been much better in every way. We are completely in agreement there. But that is not how the world looks right now, and a major problem we have is that in many countries there are strong forces that do not want it that way either.

We must also be realists, but when we are realists we must also dare to set hard against hard sometimes and not believe that these countries will automatically act correctly just because we ask them to. Pressure on these countries will also be needed.

(Applause)

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the report! These are major issues and much misery, one might say, that is occurring in the world. We heard the Social Democratic member list many of the different things that are happening.

I intended to move on to how we can try to solve some of these issues: the climate crisis and the crisis for biodiversity. It was up at the meeting, and I read from the council conclusions number 55 that the council emphasizes that one should have ambitious measures given the damage and disruptions due to climate change and loss of biodiversity, and that one sees that it is necessary to achieve the financing goals. It is pleasing to see that there is such a strong pressure from the council in this.

I will personally travel to COP 16 on Friday and participate in the Swedish delegation for the meeting.

This has been in place for two years now. We are to protect 30 percent of all nature types we have, both on land and at sea and in water. We are also to restore 30 percent of the damaged ecosystems.

Despite this, the Swedish government at home has not always lived up to this. It has also opposed, for example, the restoration legislation. A prerequisite for achieving the objective that one says will be the milestone is to have the national action plans in place so that one will have something to work towards. Here we see that Sweden has not delivered any action plan, and there is also no timetable.

I would therefore like to ask the Prime Minister: What has Sweden done to push this forward in the EU? It is, therefore, about accelerating the work on a deadline for when the action plans should be submitted so that we have something to base our efforts on when we are to ensure that this is achieved. 2030 is just around the corner.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! It was, as I said, solemn. The entire tone of the meeting, which in all essential respects revolves around those kinds of major geopolitical issues, was solemn. I think that is something one should take in. We live in times that are dangerous in the world, but there are also great risks towards our own country. That is something one should take in when we discuss various political issues in Sweden.

As I said, we have a partial responsibility to help in the world, and we take that seriously. But we have the full responsibility for how things go in Sweden. We must also take that seriously.

I perceive that the EU summit stood behind the rather concise but nonetheless [important] conclusions during the COP meetings. It was a way to emphasize that even at the prime ministerial level, one cares about these issues. They are essentially present everywhere. The EU negotiates jointly. We did not take a position on individual details but agreed that these are important issues in the world. I think that one should note that. Then there was no discussion at all about this at the summit.

It was all the less a discussion about the actions of some individual countries. I know that you are dissatisfied that Sweden is trying to defend Swedish interests in this. One can have different opinions on that. But I can say that all countries defend their national interests in these issues, and Sweden should also do so. This government will not apply different European rules that are bad for Swedish forestry, for example. I know that we do not have Miljöpartiet with us on that journey, but it will not change our position.

(Applause)

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I find it difficult to see how one can have different opinions on how important biodiversity is, because it is a necessity. It is actually one of the things we must have regardless of how things look. If we do not achieve the climate goals and the goals for biodiversity, we are biting our own tails, and then we can stand there without both food and forests. I believe that the government needs to think about that one more time.

I am nevertheless grateful that the EU and the European Council stand behind the conclusions that have been reached. Something that is also being emphasized are the financing goals. If we are to achieve this, we must help other countries, and we must do our homework at home. We cannot go to other countries – as I am doing this Friday to the Amazon in Colombia – when we cannot manage to protect our own mountain forest, which is our Amazon.

How does Sweden address the issue of funding and ensure that the EU reaches its funding goals? Have we taken the lead in this in any way?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! That question was not at all on the agenda at the summit. One must discuss in the relevant ministerial councils exactly how Sweden acts. It was not up for discussion now. I therefore cannot answer that. On the other hand, the funding is important, and we are in agreement about achieving the funding. Then, different countries naturally take a position on this individually.

I do not share the implied description that Sweden would clear forest in the same way as is done in the Amazon. It is a completely incorrect description. Sweden has a sustainable forestry.

One can have different opinions on forestry. One can think that it is better for the forest to stand and not be used, but that is not the government's view. Sweden will also not pursue a position that intentionally undermines Swedish forestry; on the contrary, we will, together with Finland and other countries, act so that sustainable forestry is permitted even according to EU rules.

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

Erik Ottoson (M)

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

The European Council meets once again against a backdrop of a global struggle between the Western, free democracies and what stands in contrast to them: dictatorships and autocracies where the right of the strongest is what rules. Not least, the Prime Minister describes how they, through various influence operations, attempt to instrumentalize migration in an effort to destabilize and show that democracy cannot handle such difficult issues. The Migration Pact is an excellent example of how we are taking a different path. I myself had the opportunity a couple of weeks ago to sit down with Poland's Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski, who is at least clear about what motivations lie behind this.

I want to ask the Prime Minister about the view on influence attempts within the group of EU leaders, not only regarding the instrumentalized migration at the Polish and Finnish borders but also the way of trying to use migration policy within the EU to destabilize our Western democracies from within. Does one have enough decisiveness in the European Union to endure this and use the migration pact we have and the things that need to take place after this to show that democracies are capable of handling even these difficult issues, which can evoke many emotions?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! One way to answer is to say that either the EU and the EU countries have control over our external borders, or other countries have control over our external borders. It is almost a binary question.

I perceive that there is a completely different light on the issue today. Even we who do not have the EU's external border are extremely affected by this. Very often, migrants who make their way in—instrumentalized or not—want to proceed to other countries. It is here, therefore, an incredibly important question.

One can broaden the question and say that there are countries that are quite sensitive to cheap Russian propaganda of the most trivial kind. There may, for example, be large Russian-speaking minorities. It works quite poorly in quite a few countries. Sweden is probably a country where such things have rather low credibility.

Another modus operandi is simply to do things that have consequences. It can involve instrumentalizing migrants, creating security problems and violent crimes, and connections between terror-like organizations and domestic criminals. Things can therefore happen on the ground that create great unrest. It is a completely different way to achieve the same effect. I am much more concerned about the latter, where countries with hostile intentions enter our countries, act, use proxies—that is, agents, consciously or not—and cause damage. It is truly serious.

The answer is, of course, that countries should have a close cooperation, including regarding intelligence cooperation, but also that countries must jointly ensure that the people who enter our countries and who should not be here leave the country. That was one of the fatal lessons from the events in Brussels. They were individuals who should not have been in either Sweden or Belgium at all.

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

Erik Ottoson (M)

Madam Speaker! This is undeniably a very complex matter. There are very many things that overlap.

As the Prime Minister mentioned, we recently received reports from Moldova, where the European line has been successful. But this also occurs in clear contrast to the attempts at influence that exist in a country that is to choose a path. Georgia faces a similar question within not too distant future. At the same time, an axis of countries with Russia, Iran, North Korea and to some extent a number of other countries within the BRICS cooperation is being created, which tries to establish an alternative world order. It is something that we as Western democracies, of course, must try to counteract.

May I ask the Prime Minister if there is the strength to mobilize to clearly signal from the European Union against the form of influence attempts that come from external actors in the European Union?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! If Moldova fundamentally is the light, then Georgia in many respects is the darkness. There is no doubt about that. It is not a law of nature that it should be that way, neither one nor the other. We will have to see what independent evaluations show regarding the election, but when I spoke with Maia Sandu yesterday, it was completely obvious that they are convinced that extensive fraud has occurred in the sense of vote-buying. Cash funds, not infrequently in rubles, have been used to buy votes. It is done in a way that is impossible for election observers to identify, for example, at polling stations. It is absolutely appalling. We have also seen information wars earlier where they have systematically disseminated disinformation about the EU's intentions regarding Moldova.

Democracies are sensitive. One must be aware of that. Democracies must defend themselves, sometimes with rather tough methods, because they are sensitive – and must be sensitive – to the will of the people. But they must not be sensitive to what the Russians want.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking the Prime Minister for both the report and the participation in and organization of the ceremony in Brussels. It feels very good that one started with that part.

There were many items on the agenda for the meeting of the European Council. I intend to mention two of them.

Regarding Ukraine, it has been very important from the Swedish side to maintain long-term perspective and unity. We see that the unity is becoming tougher and tougher, especially now when the implementation of the G7 agreement was mentioned. Therefore, I want to ask the Prime Minister if there are other ways to proceed with that issue if it perhaps is not done via the European Council. Can one proceed anyway so as not to lose time? It is not particularly much of the immobilized resources that exist in either Hungary or Slovakia.

I also want to emphasize that I believe the decision regarding the energy support for Sweden and NB8, which was made this week, was very important.

The second question I want to raise concerns the Middle East. I think the conclusions we have before us are very well balanced, but I would have liked to see that Iran's role was emphasized even more, as well as their proxies Hamas, the Houthis, and Hezbollah. Hezbollah has sent over 12,000 rockets since October 8, which is the day after Hamas's terrorist attack against Israel. We also see that there are weapons depots and tunnels within sight of the UN posts. I want to ask the Prime Minister if this was also mentioned during the meeting.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! First, I just want to say a few words about the ceremony. I forgot to mention that I had the opportunity to speak with the taxi driver who drove the Swedes, as well as the taxi driver's wife. They tried to help when the deed was finally a fact. It was incredibly moving to get to speak with him.

I would not say that it is becoming tougher and tougher. It is obvious that Hungary and Slovakia are the two countries that are now systematically opposing European unity. It is quite obviously a problem - I think everyone understands that - and we have done everything we can to limit that problem as far as is possible.

When it comes to frozen assets, it is also a bit about how far we can agree with the USA that with the limiting sanction periods we have now, six months, we can still release American capital. There seems to be a certain flexibility there, but I do not dare to guarantee how far it will extend.

From the Swedish side, we would gladly go much, much further; now we are talking about the return on capital, but fundamentally we have no limitations and could imagine taking all the frozen money that the Russians have and using it to save, help, and rebuild Ukraine. However, that requires unity, and there are quite a few Eurozone countries that are skeptical and see other risks with this. We do not control the Eurozone countries, as is known, but we are pushing to have as broad a definition as possible of frozen Russian assets.

When it comes to the Middle East, the only UN issue that was touched upon was, naturally, that of standing united behind the UN Secretary-General's right to act in his institution. It is legitimate for countries to sometimes have different opinions on the Secretary-General's actions – it has happened many times and will happen again – but it is important not to limit his, or for that matter her, ability to function in her role.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to dwell a little more on Iran's destabilizing role. I appreciate that the Prime Minister has truly tried to bring up the issue of listing the IRGC, that is, the Revolutionary Guard, which is involved in almost every conflict in the entire Middle East and which is also trying to target Swedish citizens in Sweden. We also see similar things in other parts of Europe.

I had the opportunity to visit the USA a couple of weeks ago and spoke with some colleagues there. It is very difficult to understand why we cannot achieve a consensus in the EU regarding a terror listing of the IRGC, even though we see how they behave not only in the Middle East but also towards our own citizens. Do we have any way that we can move forward with this issue? Because it feels very important.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! As so often, it is persistent work and persistence that matters - and unfortunately, that one sometimes receives confirmation of one's own view, which I think we are receiving now. I also perceive that more and more people now, in contrast to at the beginning, see Iran not just as a domestic problem - that they simply terrorize their own population, which is bad enough - but as a growing regional problem and also a growing global problem with its various outward points of contact, with Hamas and Hezbollah as the two extreme examples. They are now powerfully decimated, shall we say, and no one knows where it will take Iran.

So, permanent unrest is being created, which we in Sweden, as is well known, have had to taste ourselves, with the exchange of two kidnapped Swedes as one part of this. We also see Iran's turmoil with criminals in Sweden, which could have completely devastating consequences. Now we are on them around the clock, literally, so we know very well what they are doing. But these are risky things, so I believe we have to nag about this. And the more countries that have their own experiences, the more will also be able to agree on listing the Revolutionary Guard on the terror list.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

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

The Prime Minister mentioned Moldova in the report and has addressed that subject previously. This weekend, both a presidential election and a referendum on EU membership were held, and just as the Prime Minister said, the people have spoken - that they see a future in the EU - albeit by a very narrow margin.

It is also clearly stated that the incumbent president will now face his pro-Russian rival in a second round, despite polls showing a landslide victory for the incumbent president, and it is far from certain who will win. The president also claims that there has been extensive vote-buying and other fraud, which the prime minister has been involved in. I think it shows that Moldovan democracy is very fragile and subject to heavy pressure through Russian influence, something we have never witnessed before and which is very worrying. There are reports that Russia is spending enormous amounts on various influence campaigns.

I would therefore like to ask the Prime Minister if he can elaborate further on how Sweden can support Moldova and how the EU can contribute to this. It is partly about building resilience against the methods of influence, and partly about strengthening Moldova's position ahead of future membership in the EU and Nato, which I would say is crucial for security and safety on the European continent.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I actually asked exactly that question to Maia Sandu last night on the phone, and I asked: Can we do anything more?

One can actually say that Russia lost the first round and is now betting on the second round. They lost the referendum - 50.4 percent is, after all, a majority, even though Russia had hoped for 49.4 percent. It is, after all, a majority, and now I believe one should count on the fact that they will try to ensure that the second round of the presidential election turns out to the detriment of an independent Moldova.

So I asked this, and she answered basically: You are doing so much already. We do what we can in terms of money, in political support and with election observers - all that - and I really hope that it is enough. We cannot know that; many of these operations are carried out in a country that Russia unfortunately has more experience navigating in than many Western diplomats and election observers, and that buying votes in a relatively poor country can sometimes prove to be uncomfortably successful.

I hope, therefore, that we do what we can. I see incredibly solid support in the EU circle, and I see very solid support also among our Ukrainian friends. They know that all eyes are now on them, but that the next victim, so to speak, could without doubt be Moldova. I, therefore, feel an enormous respect for them, and I feel a great respect for what she is doing. She is an incredibly stable force in this, and I understand why Russia does not want her as the Moldovan president. She, in fact, stands for the exact opposite of what Russia stands for. Therefore, we shall do everything we can to help her and them.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! I truly thank the Prime Minister for the answer. I believe we all need to do what we can, in all the channels we have, to support Moldova.

I thought I would take the opportunity now in the second round: The Prime Minister mentioned Ukraine, and now the European Parliament has actually voted yes to the proposal in the report on frozen Russian assets. Even that question has been raised here earlier today. The Prime Minister mentioned something about a broad definition of the assets. My party has repeatedly raised the question earlier, that is, whether any discussions are being held at the EU level about using not only the returns but also the actual assets. The answer is usually that it is difficult, but I am a little interested in hearing more about that broad definition.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! With the broadest definition, one would simply use all the assets that are now frozen. Then we are talking about several hundred billion dollars or euros - likely euros - and we are truly completely open to this.

So: discussion - yes, decision - no. There is no consensus right now. There are more or less understandable reasons among those who are against this, such as consequences and such things. There are also more or less understandable reasons among the Eurozone countries for not going further than this, such as that it would affect the currency's credibility. I think that all of that combined weighs less than forcing Russia and Russian taxpayers to bear the cost of the reconstruction of Ukraine. We are therefore pushing on that line.

We have good support from the USA, for example, but the USA is, as is known, not a decision-maker in the EU, and this requires consensus. We are therefore pushing forward, but there is still no other consensus than the one we have now, regarding the return. It is, in any case, a good start.

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

Kadir Kasirga (S)

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

The worrying development in the Middle East - with Iran and its Islamic Revolutionary Guard, IRGC, as a central actor - is something that should concern us all. I want to inform the Prime Minister that IRGC's activities have been known for a long time in Sweden. Their first act of terrorism in Sweden took place in 1990 against a native language teacher in Västerås. One can google this.

IRGC has a destabilizing effect not only in the region but also in Europe and here in Sweden. It is known that they have been involved in terrorist actions on European soil. Their threats have also been directed towards Swedish citizens.

We know that Iran has mapped out and established death lists of Swedish citizens, including the chairman of the Jewish Council, Aron Verständig. Iran also has links to criminal gangs in Sweden, which are used to carry out attacks against Israeli targets. This is also a direct threat to Sweden and the EU.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats have been clear that the IRGC should be designated as a terrorist organization. That is why it was pleasing that the Riksdag agreed on a motion urging the government to pursue this issue. The government has now – for the first time in a year – begun to act based on the motion, and we truly welcome that. I would, however, like to hear from the Prime Minister why this is not mentioned in the conclusions from the European Council. What is the Prime Minister's analysis and assessment? When could a terrorist listing of the IRGC take place?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I completely agree with the analysis and think it is accurate. If I am to add something that is still somewhat new among the atrocities, I can mention the direct link between terrorist activities and a kind of operationalization of organized crime in Sweden. Not all countries have seen this, and it is extremely alarming. We are talking about people with enormous violence capital. They may not be politically motivated at all, but they take great risks, have a large violence capital, and are prone to doing extremely dangerous things. These people receive resources from a terrorist movement in various ways, and it is truly dangerous. I think the arguments are very strong.

There was nothing new in the European Council. There is no consensus that this is the right way to go. Some claim that it is better with precise sanctions against precise individuals, or that it is sufficient in any case. We do not share that view, and we are holding our ground.

Linguistically, I believe there is an increasing awareness - unfortunately due to what is now happening in the Middle East - that this is a problem that is also growing on our continent. Shame on those who give up.

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

Kadir Kasirga (S)

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

My party and the Social Democrats' hope is that the government, with the Prime Minister at the helm, continues to prioritize this important issue. Time is short, and every day that passes without measures from the EU means that the IRGC can continue its destabilizing and hostile actions, not only in the Middle East but also here at home in Sweden and in Europe.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I completely agree. We will continue.

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

Jan Ericson (M)

Madam Speaker! It is clear that the issue of terror-labeling resonates strongly in the Riksdag. I also intended to devote some time to it.

The Prime Minister's clear statements recently regarding the importance of terror-branding were very welcome. This line, as mentioned, has very strong support in the Swedish Riksdag. It also has very strong support from the Iranian diaspora in Sweden, who have long been driving this issue.

I think there is reason to remind that there are a number of reasons for this terror-branding. As several have mentioned, there are suspicions that one hires gang criminals and has contacts with them to attack both Iranian regime critics and Jewish interests in Sweden. One actively participates in disinformation campaigns against Sweden and Swedish authorities. One also tries to fuel violent actions in Sweden as revenge for various activities. One actively supports Russia in the war against Ukraine and destabilizes the entire Middle East with its support for various terrorist organizations. One is also actively working on developing nuclear weapons, with support from the regime. Then we have not even touched upon all the abuses committed against the own population in Iran; unfortunately, we talk very little about that.

The question of terror labeling was, as mentioned, not on the agenda as a formal point at the Council of Europe meeting. I had initially intended to ask if this was potentially discussed informally. The Prime Minister has already confirmed that it was discussed, which is perhaps quite natural given the situation.

Many of us are curious about the situation among the EU countries. I interpret the Prime Minister's words as meaning that there is generally increased support for a terror branding. I wonder if the Prime Minister could tell us which countries openly support the Swedish line and possibly – this may be more sensitive – which countries are very strong opponents of this. Above all, I wonder what the critics' primary arguments are.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I think I shall avoid pointing out individual countries. However, I can say that many countries, in a very broad sense, expressed themselves very critically about Iran's actions both there and here. This happened, not least, of course, in connection with an informal and quite candid discussion with the GCC, i.e., the Gulf states. Then they have their geographical location; they have Iran in their immediate vicinity.

I think the most common argument is that what we have is good enough, or that this would not improve the situation. I am aware of all the arguments that I think speak against it being that way, but there is a journey to be made in terms of convincing more countries.

It is also the case that every change in phrasing in everything related to the Middle East is complicated when one is to have consensus. Every word is weighed on a gold scale. This underscores that the EU does not quite have the strong delivery capacity when it comes to making decisions and acting geopolitically that one may have learned the EU has when it comes to Ukraine. This is no argument for not continuing, but perhaps it says something about the reason why we are not moving further right now.

The reporting was hereby concluded.

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