Reporting from the Council of Europe meeting on December 19

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is nice to be back in the Riksdag again, and for the second time today.

The European Council met on December 19 last year. The meeting was largely about the war against Ukraine and about the EU's continued support for Ukraine. We also spoke about the EU's further role in the world. No new conclusions were adopted on this, but a broader discussion was held ahead of upcoming meetings. The migration issue was back on the agenda, and I also participated in a separate meeting in the circle of like-minded countries that are pushing forward here. We focused primarily on the question of return for those who have had their asylum applications rejected but who still remain in the EU today.

Mr. Speaker! Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine was once again the main issue at the European Council, and for entirely obvious reasons. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy participated on-site in Brussels this time and accounted in quite detail for his view on the situation on the ground. The discussion, both with and without President Zelenskyy's participation, was very clearly characterized by the known unknown, that is, the factor that we still do not know much about in five days. It concerns the new American administration, which takes office on Monday next week.

Among the EU countries, some place the most emphasis on the fact that Europe will need to adapt to the USA, that we in the EU must strictly adhere to the new reality that may be created by a potential realignment of the American Ukraine policy. Other countries, including Sweden, the Nordics, the Baltic states and quite a few others, agree on the importance of the transatlantic cooperation and the USA's choices, but are at the same time clear that Europe's countries in any case must be prepared to both take greater responsibility for our own military and civil security and be able to say that we are prepared to do more for Ukraine for as long as it is required. Here we stand once again in a somewhat uncertain position, but our position is crystal clear.

We are among those who, together with others, are leading the way with a Ukraine framework totaling 75 billion kronor, which provides long-term perspective and predictability in the support to Ukraine, while we simultaneously arm both our military and our civil national defense.

The discussions in Brussels also revolved around deliveries of advanced air defense systems, ammunition, and other military equipment – all of which are absolutely crucial for strengthening Ukraine's defense in a special and difficult situation. Sweden, together with several others, emphasized the need to support Ukraine's energy sector and the civil infrastructure, which have been hit hard by the conflict. This is especially true when Russia directs its attacks specifically toward energy infrastructure during the winter.

Mr. Speaker! The discussion on the EU's role in the world was, as said, overarching, and it is a very overarching question. What geopolitical role should the EU play in all other parts of the world? It was also not intended to establish a new direction, but it was a somewhat freer discussion where we could lift our eyes from the exact formulations in a concluding text, as it otherwise easily becomes.

The discussion took off in the current security situation. It can perhaps best be summarized with the words economy and cooperation. There is a clear connection between, on the one hand, the European economy, European competitiveness, and the degree of European success, and on the other hand, Europe's collective global impact, and there is a rather self-evident connection between them. Do not therefore underestimate how important it is that Europe's competitiveness is now seen as a prerequisite for long-term European influence in the world. This applies not least in a world that increasingly concerns Asian economies on the one hand and the American economy on the other.

It is hardly surprising that I underlined the importance of the EU's trade agenda, that we stand up for free trade, that this means a lot for economic development, but that it also has great significance for the EU's relationship with completely other parts of the world, including the global south, which we speak of more and more often. The Mercosur agreement is a clear example of this.

When it comes to cooperation with the rest of the world, I highlighted the transatlantic cooperation with the USA and the United Kingdom and that it remains the EU's most important close cooperation partner. After Brexit, there is sometimes a tendency to forget the United Kingdom. It was really not the EU's fault that the British left the EU, but it is in the EU's interest to have as close ties as possible with the United Kingdom. This applies not least now when the new British government under Keir Starmer's leadership so clearly signals a desire for a new start in the relations between the United Kingdom and the EU. We must be strongly in favor of this.

The Swedish line is that we shall cooperate with allies and like-minded countries because alone is not strong, and this also applies to the EU.

Others focused, not entirely surprisingly, on Latin America. There are linguistic and historical reasons for that. Further others focused heavily on the global south, not least for the need to mark that our interest in them is a prerequisite for them to understand our views on Russia's actions against Ukraine.

Everything is connected. The EU cannot do everything everywhere. We know that. The EU also cannot agree on doing everything everywhere. But that the EU must be successful and relevant to have geopolitical significance is completely obvious.

Let me say something about China. The relationship with China could in itself need an entire meeting, and we have had one a couple of times during the time I have been Prime Minister. It has been interesting both times, and the meetings have had known European starting points of various kinds.

This time we focused on some specific parts of the China policy. Partly, it concerned China's support for Russia's war against Ukraine, which is the recurring and by far most critical part of our relationship with China right now. China is an enabler of Russia's war against Ukraine. It is serious, and European leaders point it out repeatedly in various meetings with China. Benjamin Dousa also pointed it out when he was recently in Beijing. Partly, it concerned China's and the USA's trade relations and how they can affect the EU.

We talk a lot about the risk of increased tariffs between the USA and Europe, and it is problematic enough. Everyone knows where Sweden stands on that issue. We are, simply put, against tariffs and for free trade. This is a common European competence issue.

The second major question is what will happen in an eventual trade war between the USA and China. It is a question for these two countries, but if this were to occur, it could also have significant consequences for Europe. A large trade or production surplus in China could land in Europe. Here, there are significant short-term and long-term issues.

How we can cooperate with the USA and China respectively where there are common interests – for example when it comes to the climate – is an incredibly important issue. I believe we will have reason to return to China when the new American administration's China policy becomes a bit clearer.

Mr. Speaker! The dreadful situation in the Middle East was, of course, discussed at length and thoroughly, and along the same lines as at previous meetings. The text on the table was adopted without changes, and it suggests quite accurately – almost word for word – what is the common European position.

When it comes to the overthrown Assad regime in Syria, it was too early to draw any firm conclusions. Everyone was cautious. There are some positive signs, but there are undoubtedly also great risks. There are historical signs of this, but I believe everyone is waiting a bit.

Several – including myself – noted that we live in a time filled with disruptive events. One week we have a semi-coup in a stable democracy like South Korea. The next week, a 50-year-old, loathsome dictatorship falls in Syria. In both cases, hardly anyone could foresee this drama.

Many emphasized the importance of a peaceful transition of power in Syria as well as the importance of respect for human rights and the rights of minorities. Several also warned of the risk of new migration flows.

Mr. Speaker! The migration aspect of the regime change in Syria was also touched upon at a preliminary meeting on migration issues that took place just before the European Council meeting began. In this meeting, a number of core countries regarding a new migration policy participated, including Denmark, Italy, and Sweden, as well as Ursula von der Leyen. The focus of the discussion was on how we can better cooperate so that those who do not have the right to continue residing in Europe shall leave Europe and not remain in growing shadow societies, which Sweden, as you know, has more experience of than quite many other countries.

On average, 80 percent of those who receive a return decision stay. I say this to give you a sense. Of those who are denied their asylum application, 80 percent on average still remain on European soil. This is a failure of a proportion that is difficult to comprehend. This means in practice that in many countries it makes no difference whether one receives a yes or a no. It undermines the entire migration policy. It speaks for itself that this is completely unsustainable. In Sweden, as we know, we have much lower figures now.

A decision on return must be followed. If we in Europe want a functioning and orderly migration policy, we must resolve the issue of return.

The Swedish position here is crystal clear. It is clear that several other EU countries have been impressed by Sweden's reorganization of migration policy and by the fact that it is actually possible to reorganize migration policy. There is no law of nature that dictates that one must have a failed migration policy. There are many and difficult questions here, and this is undoubtedly influenced by global events, but it is possible to steer even migration policy.

This increases our credibility in the discussions and ensures that other countries listen when countries like Sweden, Denmark and Italy speak. It is also clear, I think, that the EU Commission is taking note of this. It is a completely different tone both from the Commission and from a large majority of the EU's member states when it comes to this issue right now.

The Commission's chair participated, as I said, in this meeting. She informed us that a proposal for a new return regulation will be presented during the spring, probably during the month of March.

I personally followed up on this meeting and these conversations, partly in a separate meeting with Italy, Greece, and Finland in the days before Christmas up in Finnish Lapland, and partly in a conversation in Vienna with the new EU Commissioner for migration issues, Austria's former Finance Minister Magnus Brunner. Simplified procedures, prioritization between different cases, mutual recognition, and so-called return hubs were on the table in these discussions.

Sweden does not say no to any alternative. We realize that new methods and new solutions will be needed. Let us, with an open mind, try what the EU's countries could agree on.

We are clear that we must work hard and on a broad front to use the fact that Europe's countries are now more united than before. There is momentum in Europe right now.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I request to conclude the report from the meeting.

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Mr. Speaker! In the serious security situation we find ourselves in, EU cooperation is more important than ever. An EU that holds together is crucial for both Sweden's and Europe's security. Cooperation between the forces that want well for the EU is not only necessary but also the way forward to strengthen stability in our region. It would be good for Sweden and for the EU.

Russia's relentless war against Ukraine continues. Just before the EU summit, we witnessed part of Russia's brutal strategy to knock out Ukraine's energy supply and other things before the winter. As the Prime Minister mentioned, the war is truly present and has soon been ongoing for three years. It is palpably present, not least for the people and soldiers who every day fight in the trenches for Ukraine's independence and Europe's freedom.

At the same time, we face a new political reality with a new American administration under Donald Trump. Future American support for Ukraine is highly uncertain. There is a risk of trade wars and that the rules-based world order is replaced by the law of the strongest. I am thinking in particular of Trump's statements about Greenland, which directly concern issues regarding security around the EU's external border. There, the Prime Minister was a bit late in making a stand.

The development in Syria is also included here. We wanted the Prime Minister to express that one supports the democratic forces who want to build democracy in Syria, but also to maintain that the EU implements the migration pact. We do not want a new refugee crisis. Here, we wanted the Prime Minister to call for a common security assessment within the EU.

Did the Prime Minister push for an EU-wide plan for how we should handle our security and trade and secure our external border, not least in relation to the new American administration? And did the Prime Minister push regarding how we should handle the implementation of the migration pact and common security assessments?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I naturally agree with much regarding the importance of the EU staying together. One of the great – but not self-evident – achievements since February 24, 2022, is that the EU countries have held together much better than Russia could have expected. The EU and the USA have also held together much better than many had expected. One should not take it for granted, and probably no one did on February 24, 2022, but there is great value in this.

I can assure you that I pushed very hard both for the implementation of the migration pact and for the fact that the migration pact will not be enough. It is a good basis for doing even more and using the momentum, so I pushed hard. I think we have an incredibly good cooperation with not least Denmark, Italy and Austria in these matters. It is about pushing forward, gathering support and ensuring that those countries that are not as interested or affected by migration flows right now realize the value of this.

It was no coincidence that Finland's Prime Minister Petteri Orpo gathered exactly Sweden, Finland, Greece and Italy to look at the issues regarding the external border. Greece and Italy have for a long time had very well-known problems with their external border towards North Africa. Finland now has quite prominent problems with the instrumentalization of refugees along the long Finnish border towards Russia. I think it is valuable that one understands each other's problems and can cooperate on border issues.

When it comes to Syria, I believe everyone agreed to wait and see what happens there. It is not possible to make any security assessments yet. Everyone is cautiously optimistic but sees risks, and everyone is fully aware that we must make a joint assessment of Syria but that it is too early to do this right now.

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Mr. Speaker! The discussion on the EU's role in the world was on the agenda. We can include another part of the world that the Prime Minister also mentioned, namely the war in Gaza.

According to UN reports, over 45,000 Palestinians have been killed, most of them women and children, and in this situation, Sweden's Prime Minister cannot even bring himself to state that Israel's violence is disproportionate. I find that to be quite weak.

We have long pushed for Sweden to demand an immediate ceasefire and a stop to the killing of the civilian population in Gaza. How does the Prime Minister think the government has acted and taken on this, and how did the Prime Minister act at the EU summit?

In conclusion: Sweden has growth at the bottom of the league, 25 percent of Sweden's young people lack jobs, 70,000 more have become unemployed since the government took office and many ordinary families are struggling to make ends meet. It is quite obvious that Sweden has failed with the economic policy and that a plan for Sweden is lacking.

How does the Prime Minister think he can promote Sweden's interests in the EU against this background?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First, I want to say that the Social Democrats' domestic political bickering in Sweden was not a topic at the European Council meeting, just to have that said. We engage in other things at such meetings.

However, it is, with the Draghi Report and the Letta Report as a basis, absolutely correct that Europe's competitiveness is incredibly important for Europe to have a strong voice in the rest of the world. We do not, however, deal with bickering of a domestic political nature at the European Council meetings.

When it comes to Gaza, it was, as I said, roughly as it usually is. We agree on the broad strokes: that Israel has an obligation to follow international law, that humanitarian support must increase, that the hostages must be released immediately, and that the long-term solution lies in finding a two-state solution.

We also had a long discussion that followed exactly the patterns that the European Council usually follows in all Middle East issues.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

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

Just as the Prime Minister informed, a lot of positive things are happening in the migration area, not only in Sweden but also at the EU level. von der Leyen is now clear in her talking points regarding new initiatives to increase returns, and safe countries are also mentioned in the conclusions.

This has become a controversial issue, especially in Italy, which has signed an agreement with Albania, where they want to send asylum seekers who they consider to come from safe countries - this in order to enable a rapid return.

Just as the Prime Minister reported, the statistics are bleak regarding people who enter Europe but do not have the right to stay here and the proportion who return. One way to accelerate this is to obtain a quick decision directly at the border.

This is what the Italian government is trying to enable, but Italian courts have blocked the plans with reference to a decision by the European Court of Justice from last autumn where it, in short, is ruled that one cannot generally designate a country as safe if the entire country is not safe.

My question to the Prime Minister is: Does the Prime Minister foresee that there will be legislative proposals concerning exactly this and is that how the conclusions' writings on safe countries should be interpreted?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you that this issue is being raised. I should have mentioned it explicitly, because it really is also precisely about this.

I have had several conversations over a fairly long period, both with Italy's Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and with Albania's Prime Minister Edi Rama, about exactly how they have envisioned their cooperation. I think it is incredibly interesting that they are doing this, and I believe there is much to be gained from such an attempt.

Sweden, of course, does not interfere in the internal Italian legal processes, but it is important to point out that Sweden, together with several other countries, has intervened in Italy's favor regarding the relationship with the European Court. It is important that Italy is given the opportunity to review its legislation in its own way, so we have supported them in this.

I believe that this will be an important part that will be partially resolved with new legislation, which will come later. It is an important principle issue that entire countries cannot be excluded totally because certain parts of a country cannot be considered safe. That was the answer to the question.

Then I share the view that we are in a situation right now where more and more people see that one must do things that have not been tested before. This shall take place in an orderly manner, and it shall take place on a legal basis. I also believe that the conditions for obtaining a legal basis for that kind of work are much better in the new EU Parliament.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the answer! It is of course pleasing that the government takes a stand for Italy in this matter. It is very positive, we think from the Sverigedemokraterna side.

Another question that is being debated in Europe right now, partly in light of the election in Romania, is the social media platforms. This also has to do with the discussion about the owner of X, Elon Musk, and the exchanges of words that he has been involved in. My question to the Prime Minister is: How do we ensure a high degree of freedom on the internet while we can stop illegal content and also prevent foreign actors from forming opinion in an inappropriate way?

The risk is simply that we do not get the right balance here, and many citizens in Sweden and other countries in Europe are worried that one will go too far.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is easy to say: Do not go too far in any direction, that is to say, do not challenge fundamental values of freedom of expression! This is easy to say, but I do not say it to downplay the issue, on the contrary!

Something else that is easy to say is: Do not allow genuinely illegal threatening things that would never be allowed to flourish freely in other ways! Something that is also quite easy to say is: Do not let platforms use unregulated opportunities to recruit children for murder missions!

The difficult part is finding what lies in between. Where is the serious regulation that honors freedom of expression and stops outright abuse?

I believe that in my previous report I described in quite some detail how Romania's president described the interiors from TikTok and Russian influence on the Romanian election. There is an obvious risk that this happens once again when they have a new presidential election, which I believe is now in May. It is about pure hostilities from Russia, which tries to interfere in an illegitimate way. It is not freedom of speech.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

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

Today, Sweden's and the EU's ally Turkey is waging war in Syria, primarily against the self-governing Kurdish areas. In Turkey, there are also refugee camps that the EU finances and which are largely populated by Syrian refugees.

In the Council's conclusions, I see nothing about Turkey's role in the developments in Syria, and I would like to know if this was raised in the Council. There is every reason for the EU to react to Turkey's actions and interests in Syria.

The Council expresses deep concern over the UN agency UNRWA's ability to fulfill its mandate and emphasizes the crucial role played by the organization in providing vital support to the civilian population in Gaza and the region at large. The Council believes that continued implementation of UNRWA's action plan is very important. But already the day after the Prime Minister was involved in expressing this deep concern, Sweden decided to withdraw all support. From one day to the next, the Prime Minister therefore changed his mind. The Left Party views this with great concern and wants to urge the government to follow the EU and continue with the support to UNRWA.

Perhaps we will soon see an end to the killing in Gaza and a release of the hostages, but so far the Israeli government has not responded to the proposal for a ceasefire that is on the table. The EU must do everything within the union's power to end the killing. Every day, an average of 25 children are killed in Gaza. What we see in Gaza with all the killing and all the destroyed infrastructure is inconceivable. I will return to Gaza in my next post.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! We all want an end to the suffering. I believe many of us hope for a ceasefire and the release of all those held hostage. Hopeful signals came these past few days from both Jake Sullivan and outgoing President Biden. It also sounded hopeful from other parties in this. I have no other information regarding the probability of success. There was none at the EU summit either. That is why I did not elaborate on it but kept quite strictly to reporting what was discussed.

When it comes to Syria, it is quite obvious that Turkey has been very active. There are good opportunities but also some risks. Other neighboring countries are also watching. That Iran and Russia have lost their foothold is something the vast majority of us think is very good. However, it is too early to say if this will end well. I would not dare to proclaim any major victories for the time being. Some seem to almost take it for granted that it will end successfully, but I think there are diametrically opposite signals. That said, it is only good that the Assad regime has fallen. We did not go into this more closely at the European Council meeting.

There is in no way a new, finished Syria policy from the EU's side, but everyone probably realizes the extent of the developments both for the Syrian population and for the broad geopolitical puzzle that is now changing at a fairly rapid pace. We are pleased that Russia and Iran have lost a great deal of influence and fear completely different things. That is how it is sometimes. It is good that we cooperate with others, and my strong conviction is that the EU's new foreign commissioner is on their toes and will report back as soon as it is at all possible.

I will return to UNRWA in my next post.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

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

I believe it is important to remember that Turkey, unlike other countries that have had interests and been involved in Syria, is a candidate country to the EU - even if the process is frozen right now. Turkey receives quite significant amounts from the EU, primarily for the refugee camps. Therefore, there is reason for the EU to keep an eye on Turkey. It is, after all, a country that participates in various EU meetings.

I am now returning to Gaza. Sweden's government has been very clear regarding Hamas but not as clear towards Israel. Now it should be time to use the tools that exist to stop the killing in Gaza. There is, among other things, the possibility to freeze the association agreements until Israel agrees to an immediate and permanent ceasefire and begins the reconstruction of Gaza. I would like to hear a bit more about what was said at the council meeting regarding that.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I will keep it brief and point by point.

Turkey of course participates in the EPC meetings. Many other non-EU countries in our neighborhood do as well. I personally have close contacts with Turkey and spoke with President Erdogan at the last EPC meeting, not least because we have cooperation regarding security issues, police matters, and intelligence matters concerning PKK funding in Sweden and gang criminals from Sweden who are located in Turkey. These are incredibly important collaborations.

When it comes to UNRWA, I think we have been extraordinarily clear. Strong and clear criticism has come from both the Swedish and EU sides against Israel making UNRWA's work impossible in a way that is simply bad. Of course, it is so. That is what we have also said. The consequence of this is that we doubled the support but gave it to other humanitarian organizations in a situation where UNRWA cannot secure funds in the same way as before. We have increased our support to the civilian population in Gaza for that very reason.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

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

I will begin with a reflection. It is very pleasant to hear about Sweden's and other countries' positions when it comes to the important cooperation with the USA and Great Britain, but we must not forget ourselves in this. This applies in particular considering the rather lavish but oh so effective so-called negotiation technique that Trump seems to display. We shall have to see how it turns out in the future. I just want to continue to encourage that we really stand firm on the fact that we absolutely must have a very close cooperation. But it must happen on Europe's terms. Everything is naturally connected regarding the EU's role in the world and Europe's competitiveness and not least self-sufficiency, for example when it comes to energy and food. It is extremely important.

I imagine that it was discussed in the corridors outside the meeting, even if it was not directly addressed in the report, that the EU now has a new presiding country: Poland. It is a country that has great economic growth and which provides very strong support to Ukraine, which is very positive. It is also something they will push for during their presidency. It feels good to be in agreement on this.

The Centre Party wants to increase the support to 1 percent of GDP to Ukraine. As has been said, it is important to support them. But there is one thing that worries me a little, and that is what happens with Fit for 55 and the climate work. The Prime Minister and Sweden have really pushed that we should be leading in that work. How will it look in the coming half-year, when Poland is chair?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Anna Lasses questions are justified. I agree with much - both the fears and the conclusions. I will take up some of them here.

Regarding the USA and the UK, we as a principle must be careful to maintain and develop the transatlantic and British relations. There is always a tendency in the EU to become self-sufficient. It is certainly unintentional, but either you are in the club or you are not in the club. That is how it must be, but we have strong interests in good relations. Sweden is a clear voice for this.

We must stand up for our own interests. That is also important. I often say here in the chamber that one can express differences of opinion in a civilized manner. One can genuinely think differently and express it with respect for one's own and others' positions. One does not have to fall for the simplest rhetorical figures; it is also important in the EU cooperation that we do it in that way.

I spoke with Mette Frederiksen, Denmark's Prime Minister, on the same day that the views on Greenland were issued. I emphasized to her that I think her fundamental attitude toward the issue is entirely correct, objectively speaking. It is Denmark and Greenland that make decisions about Denmark and Greenland. But it is also a matter of lowering the tone, meeting each other and discussing things such as whether there is room to increase cooperation in different areas. In that case, one should strive for it. I expressed our very strong support even when I met her again the other day.

It is important to say that the Polish presidency is wholehearted and dedicated. I have met Poland's Prime Minister Donald Tusk several times just in the last few weeks now before and after Christmas. It is incredibly important that they create legitimacy and strength in the presidency. I believe that they will continue to take even Fit for 55 seriously. There is sometimes a tendency for new things to take focus. Legislatively, we have put this behind us, and now it is to be implemented. Therefore, we talk less about it. I myself raised exactly this with Ursula von der Leyen in Brussels just before Christmas.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you to the Prime Minister for the answer! I still interpret it as that Sweden will continue to push to ensure that Fit for 55 is actually implemented.

I was in Poland last week and got a bit of the feeling that one, not least because of the presidential election, wants to keep a low profile when it comes to the climate issue specifically, because it is an issue that divides the country very much. In that case, it really matters that we who want to push forward on the climate issue also do so. It becomes even more important.

I take the answer as that we will now during the spring see that Sweden pushes forward the climate work so that it continues at the speed that is required given the serious situation that is.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I think it is a correct interpretation. Not least Sweden and Denmark, to mention Denmark once again, usually emphasize the importance of not losing sight of this now just because the immediate, complicated negotiations are concluded.

As I sometimes say in this chamber: Not everything is in focus every time, and new problems tend to draw all the oxygen to themselves. Poland will undoubtedly place a very large focus on the support for Ukraine - because they truly feel that way and are completely united on it, but also, as is implied, because they are in disagreement on other issues ahead of a presidential election.

National elections and national democracy are also significant for the EU. That must be respected, and therefore one should not put all eggs in the presidency basket. One should not underestimate the presidency in the slightest, but other countries are also important.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! In the council conclusions, it is stated very clearly regarding the importance of UNRWA. At the same time, Sweden is represented by a government that is scrapping the support to UNRWA. The Prime Minister says that they are doubling the support, but UNRWA has a key role in making a difference on the ground.

Therefore, I am, firstly, curious about how this position is discussed and received in the European Council.

Secondly, I wonder if the Prime Minister is pushing to achieve a weapons embargo against Israel within the EU as a response to the war crimes committed.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that in the incredibly difficult situation in the Middle East, regardless of what one thinks politically about the root causes and whatever one's heart is closest to, one must be able to have two thoughts in one's head at the same time. One can direct criticism at Israel for almost making impossible UNRWA's important work, even if one may have views on UNRWA in other contexts. One can simultaneously do what one can to ensure that the support we want to give to the civilian population in Gaza arrives. Then we concluded that Swedish money - increased Swedish money - does more good if it is channeled in a different way.

Different countries make different assessments in that matter. No criticism whatsoever has been directed at Sweden's actions in the council constellation. The future will have to show where the money does the most good. Every krona that can now reach the civilian population, in parallel with demands on Israel to facilitate access to humanitarian aid - all of this is right at the same time.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! One point that was included in the council's conclusions concerned the EU's role in the world. I am curious about what strategic discussions filled that point, not least from my perspective as a member of the Green Party.

I mean that there is a need and a vacuum regarding who or which parties take a leadership in the green transition for both the climate and the environment. In that regard, the EU has a great responsibility but also a great opportunity to lead the way. I mean that the EU has the opportunity to find and demonstrate various win-win solutions that can be beneficial for both climate and nature and people together with economic development.

If this were something that filled the headline of the EU's role in the world, I would like to hear how that discussion was conducted.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It was quite a lot like that, I would say. We certainly differ on many issues by a fair margin, but I think it was described quite a lot like that. I agree with that description.

Geographically speaking, there was a great deal of EU's role in the world in relation to the USA, EU's role in the world in relation to China, and EU's role in the world in relation to the global south, this somewhat broad concept. There was a great deal of that.

In terms of focus, it revolved much around the need for the EU as a successful economic engine - competitiveness, innovation and being perceived as a strong partner in this.

The second was the EU's ability to defend itself. It is absolutely crucial, not least now in a situation where we have good reason to believe that the USA expects European NATO countries to finance their own defense rather than American taxpayers doing so.

The third was, of course, a credible and successful climate policy so that we can assert with force, not least towards the USA and China and African countries, that climate policy is a genuinely common concern.

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

Erik Ottoson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to the Prime Minister for the report!

Yes, the EU's heads of state and government are meeting in a time that is, to say the least, uneasy. European cooperation is more important than it has been in a long time, and so is leadership in Europe.

Things change over time. I remember reading a book by the Prime Minister's predecessor Fredrik Reinfeldt, which described meetings in the EU: It can be a bit difficult to know when they start and end, but when Angela Merkel is in the room, you know they are ongoing. We perhaps do not have those kinds of personalities in the EU today. Therefore, other opportunities for leadership become all the more important.

Here, the government and the Prime Minister have shown the way in assembling the so-called NB8 group, most recently in Sweden, for talks on which issues we in the Nordic countries and the Baltics can collectively stand behind. This is a cooperation that, in its scope, regarding both the number of countries and the share of the population in the EU, is highly noteworthy and respectable and something that makes a real difference. The closer we can get to each other, the better.

Can the Prime Minister describe how this has affected the conversations around the table, not least when talking about important issues such as the EU's competitiveness and the EU's place in the world, the support for Ukraine and the opposition to the Russian hybrid attacks against the union?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is an interesting and difficult question.

Without going into personal details, one can say that it is true that there is no one who has the self-evident, almost mythical role that it was often described that Angela Merkel had - even if some policies have not aged well, as is often the case in politics. Then one should not underestimate the large countries. They are naturally still important.

The diminishing relative focus on individuals is also due to the fact that there are many more domestic political problems in many countries. It is clear that a country like France, which is heavy and important but has a very complicated domestic policy, has a harder time with impact. Germany, which has a government crisis in the midst of all this, has a harder time with leadership.

Poland is emerging in leadership with a stable government that is strongly in favor of EU cooperation and has clear priorities.

I also think that the Nordic-Baltic, without exaggerating, has taken a part of that oxygen. We prepare well and cooperate closely, regardless of national governments. Our national governments mix right and left quite cheerfully but cooperate well in the EU. The war against Ukraine has also caused the focus on issues where we have very strong consensus to increase. This concerns the need to be frugal and prioritize differently sometimes and the view on the transatlantic cooperation.

All this ensures that Nordic-Baltic cooperation stands strong. It is no coincidence that an hour ago I had a press conference with Jens Stoltenberg and presented the Nordic and Baltic prime ministers' joint mandate to him to write a new Stoltenberg report on how we cooperate on security within the framework of Nato.

I think that, without overstating it, we stand strong in this, and it is perhaps not solely a disadvantage that it is not one person who symbolizes the EU cooperation. We also have a strong commission and a strong Commission President in the form of Ursula von der Leyen.

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

Erik Ottoson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is true that a strong union is built of many different components, and the Nordic-Baltic circle is an important one. The more united we are, the better conditions we have to achieve progress on the issues that are important to us. In these times, it is even so that the three crowns are being removed from the Danish coat of arms. That is good news for those of us who have not quite recovered from the Stockholm bloodbath.

But in this, there is something greater. There is a form of unity around things that are important to us. It can also sometimes be that we need an awakening, not least with the information and knowledge we receive from our Baltic colleagues. They know the Russian threat better than many others do because at one time they were on the other side of the Iron Curtain, albeit with the beast that we are now working to defend ourselves against.

What questions will we in Sweden need to reconsider in order to be able to be a part of this cooperation and contribute to the leadership in the European Union?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I must say in the name of justice that not even the Stockholm bloodbath was up for discussion at the meeting of the European Council.

Jokes aside - there are some things to emphasize here. Such an important point was highlighted during the meeting that Finland, Sweden, the Commission, Italy and Greece had up in Finnish Lapland, namely our need to understand Southern European security perspectives. We are, for natural reasons, very focused on Ukraine. So are Italy and Greece. They are solid. But they also have another view. They look south across the Mediterranean towards North Africa, refugee flows and dysfunctional governments in other places.

We do not always pay full attention to that question. We must admit that. We must understand others' perspectives if they are to understand ours. The same applies to the USA. We must understand the USA's security problems in Asia if we are to get the USA to care about our problems in Europe.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking the Prime Minister for the report and for the leadership that the Swedish government has shown regarding the support for Ukraine.

During the meeting of the European Council, issues regarding the world around us and issues of decisive importance for Europe's security were addressed. I want to particularly highlight the conclusions regarding Syria after the fall of the Assad regime. The European Council emphasized the importance of an inclusive and Syrian-led political process in line with UN Security Council resolution 2254, as well as the need to ensure human rights and the protection of religious and ethnic minorities. At the same time, it is clear that Christians and other religious minorities still risk being subjected to persecution and marginalization in the unstable situation that prevails.

Against this background, I would like to ask the Prime Minister: Was the situation for Christians and other religious minorities specifically addressed during the meeting? What concrete initiatives does the Prime Minister see as necessary to ensure the protection of these groups, so that it becomes a prioritized part of the Syrian reconstruction process? Does the Prime Minister agree that the protection of these groups is not only a matter of human rights but also actually a decisive factor for creating sustainable peace and stability in the region?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! In the demands that are now being directed towards the new Syrian regime, many people mention all these things. One sees both the good signs - that there are organized forms and, as far as we can see, a respectful approach - but one also sees the very great risks given the historical context. What is often mentioned is, naturally, the treatment of women, the treatment of the Christian minority, and the treatment of other minorities. Given just Syria's very special modern history, there is every reason to worry about both Christians and other minorities right now.

I would say that the verdict is out. I currently have no other picture than that we must follow this closely for many reasons – both for "reasons on the ground" and because we see the risk of refugee flows in many different directions. These are important issues that everyone was keen to follow, but no one drew any hasty conclusions.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The European Council's conclusions also express deep concern over the situation in Venezuela. Human rights violations, political imprisonments, and electoral fraud have undermined freedom and democracy. Despite this, Nicolás Maduro has now been reinstalled after an election characterized by extensive fraud and oppression of those fighting for freedom and justice.

Against this background, I would like to ask how the EU now intends to act to ensure a powerful response. I also wonder what additional sanctions can be introduced and what support to Venezuela's civil society that Sweden and the EU can contribute to provide hope and support to the Venezuelan people in its pursuit of democracy and justice.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I do not believe that Sweden has taken a position on its own bilateral matters, in any case not yet. We can return to that question.

This was, as is known, at the meeting of the European Council, and strong criticism was expressed. However, there was no long discussion. When we spoke about large parts of the world, we only noted that very much is going in the wrong direction here. But as was evident, strong criticism was directed at how Venezuela is now acting.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

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

Now we celebrate that Sweden has been a member of the European Union for 30 years. It is significant for a liberal. When we became members, Sweden was strongly divided between yes and no, but now the Swedish people's support for EU membership is at a record high, higher than in many other countries. The reason is, of course, that membership has become a real winning lottery for Sweden in many areas. But it is not just that – I believe that the global situation makes many realize how important it is that our country is part of something larger, especially when we live in such an uncertain and restless time. Just as has been said here today, EU membership is more important than it has been in a very long time.

Today, there are many countries working hard to become members of the union and who actively choose to seek entry to the EU. We have at previous occasions discussed both Moldova and Georgia in this context, as well as not least Ukraine. I am truly proud of the work that the Swedish government is doing on that front. But there are more countries to mention, and Montenegro and Albania are those that have come the furthest. Great progress is being made there regarding the rule of law, fundamental rights, and the fight against corruption, but more is required.

I would like to take the opportunity to ask the Prime Minister how he assesses the possibilities of getting new EU member states during the coming years. I wonder if there are any serious discussions being held within the government leadership regarding how the EU needs to be reformed ahead of a continued expansion. There are things here that we need to do.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It was good that this was highlighted. We are sometimes a bit sparing with such celebrations in Sweden. I was actually in Vienna myself to, together with Austria's Federal Chancellor Karl Nehammer, highlight Sweden's and Austria's entry into the EU. We sent our greetings to our Finnish friends, who entered the EU at the same time. All of this was supposed to take place together with Ursula von der Leyen. However, she suffered from pneumonia, so we had to manage without her that time.

This is big and important. It is clear that one is never better than right now. That we should celebrate the 30 years, I think, is right and proper. But how good we are is being tested now. Then, different countries are somewhat differently disposed towards celebrations of different kinds.

When it comes to new members, there is no doubt that there are strong candidates both in the Western Balkans and in Ukraine and Moldova. We all have close contact with Ukraine. I also have close contact with Maia Sandu in Moldova. Moldova is currently making incredibly impressive progress, slightly in the shadow of Ukraine. It is extremely vulnerable to constant Russian attempts. Now, Russia has failed twice.

Russia failed to win the referendum against the EU, so to speak. It failed in the presidential election. Now it will surely exert its efforts on the parliamentary election instead. The Moldovans are an incredibly brave people. They truly give Russia's hybrid war a geographical face. A lot is happening there.

It is no secret that we can currently agree that we have a merit-based process. We see the progress. We also see why the progress must be made. I believe there is a rather limited desire to include countries if one does not feel quite sure about the stability in it.

For historical reasons, there is a varying degree of enthusiasm regarding the expansion policy, sometimes for practical reasons. If one were to immediately enter the cohesion policy and the agricultural policy, it would have major consequences. But so far, I think it is going quite well.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

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

My second question is on the same theme. I agree with the Prime Minister that it is important that it is a merit-based process. We have seen examples where it has not turned out well in countries that have become members and have not done what they should have done before membership.

On that theme, I have a question about Serbia. Negotiations are still ongoing there. But one can also see that the Serbian government chooses to approach Russia, and no real progress is being made in the negotiations. Are there any discussions about terminating the negotiation process? It would be interesting to hear a bit about that. That is my question.

And then I just want to say, before I hand over the floor to the Prime Minister, that we can actually celebrate the membership all year round.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! We shall celebrate all year round, especially if we also succeed in doing good things during the year. Then we have extra good reasons to celebrate both the 30 years and the current year. It is absolutely true.

If one looks at the Western Balkans, one sees that Serbia is an incredibly important country. It is difficult to look at the Western Balkans and think without Serbia. At the same time, there are some rather concerning things happening in Serbia.

It has a worrying relationship with Russia. It has a worrying rhetoric towards its neighbors. There is much that is concerning there. But we have not discussed terminating the negotiation process.

Different countries again, as is often the case in Europe, have different relations to others for historical and geographical reasons. We sometimes think it is so obvious. Now, Norway is not an EU country, but we have the relationship to Denmark and Finland. It is so tight and self-evident.

In other parts of Europe, one has the same relationship even with other countries, or conversely because of neighborhood and historical grievances between countries. It is complicated. But the process is not being interrupted right now in every case.

The reporting was hereby concluded.

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