Reporting from the Council of Europe meeting on March 19

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The European Council met last Thursday for the annual spring summit, which by tradition usually pays extra attention to various economic issues. That was also the case this year. More specifically, it was the acute energy issue that took up most of the space. As so often, the immediate also took precedence over the more long-term. It was, therefore, more about crisis and war than about climate and competitiveness this time, I fear.

Before the meeting, a preliminary meeting on migration issues was held as usual. We discussed the need for an amendment to the guidelines of the Refugee Convention so that they are not allowed to stand in the way of, for example, sentencing rapists to deportation. Sweden has a recently occurred case where a 16-year-old girl was raped, but where the rape was not considered serious enough to lead to the perpetrator's deportation from Sweden.

It is a completely unreasonable situation that criminals should be able to hide behind the convention's refugee status. Swedish and European hospitality should not apply to rapists. Sweden received support for that view, and we will continue to pursue this issue. It is in everyone's interest that important conventions are not applied in an unreasonable way. It is therefore not about tearing things down but, on the contrary, about securing both trust and legitimacy for international law.

The meeting itself then began with a discussion about Ukraine. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy participated this time via link.

The overriding issue concerned Hungary's and Slovakia's blocking of the support package of 90 billion euro, that which was decided in December. Despite an almost deafening criticism from the rest of us, the Hungarian and the Slovakian prime ministers held out against the decisions that had been needed to get the support in place. We do not know what the long-term consequences of this action will be, but we know that it is harmful for Ukraine and for European credibility.

Hungary said that they will block the loan to Ukraine until the Russian oil to Hungary flows again through the Druzhba pipeline, which Russia has bombed apart in Ukraine. The Commission is now in discussions with Ukraine about sending an expert team to assist with the repairs. Sweden has also offered engineering expertise to this group. We are doing what we can, but it is likely that there is no possibility of making progress before the election in Hungary on April 12.

The discussion on the Middle East was characterized by concern over the ongoing violence and the obvious risks of spillover effects in the region. Iran's attacks against its neighboring countries were condemned, while all parties were urged toward de-escalation, restraint, free passage through the Strait of Hormuz, and respect for human rights.

Many noted the obvious: the EU has very limited opportunities to play a role in the ongoing conflict. What we can and must do, however, is to manage the effects on our own economies and the security of our own citizens. This applies in particular to energy and trade and to carefully monitoring the risk of new migration flows.

There are obvious risks, but there is also a determination within the EU circles that the experiences from the 2015 migration crisis must not be repeated. The Government, together with like-minded parties, has pushed for a stricter migration policy so that we are better equipped now than then, but more will still need to be done.

The second major question was, naturally, Europe's energy prices.

Already when we met at the informal meeting in February, the discussion was dominated by a group of countries led by Italy's Prime Minister Meloni. They argued that the EU's climate policy, particularly the emissions trading system ETS, risks hindering growth and competitiveness.

A benevolent way to look at this is that countries coming from a large fossil dependency have a longer transition journey and may need certain concessions to manage the reforms that are required. But honestly, there has been quite a lot of time to transition since the entire emissions trading system has existed for over 20 years.

The countries, including Sweden, that have come further in the transition also currently have an industry that builds its competitiveness and its business models on, among other things, the green transition. We have already paid a large part of the transition price, and the gains would be lost if we were to turn back now.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen also emphasized that our consumption of natural gas has decreased by 100 billion cubic meters thanks to the emissions trading system. Without it, the current situation in Europe would have been even worse. We would have had a much larger strategic dependence on fossil fuels and thus poorer conditions to manage the price uncertainty that we see today.

No formal decisions were made at the meeting, but the commission is now to present a legislative package with various measures that shall attempt to alleviate the difficult situation prevailing for many countries while the climate framework is maintained.

From the Swedish side, we pushed on both before and during the meeting on the issue of bottleneck revenues. Simplified – everyone might not think about bottleneck revenues daily – it is about explaining why the Commission's proposal to take a quarter of the money that Swedish electricity consumers have paid in and use it for common European projects is not acceptable. It would involve around 5 billion kronor every year, money that has been paid by Swedish electricity consumers due to large price differences between northern and southern Sweden, which in turn is due to the fact that we have introduced the electricity price areas that the EU has required. These are monies that Sweden should retain and use to benefit hard-working families and companies in Sweden and lighten their burden after difficult years of inflation and to expand the Swedish grids.

We put a lot of effort into this issue and succeeded in getting a wording in the conclusions that takes into account our special situation and which gives us very good conditions in the continued concrete negotiations in the council.

Most of the economic issues had been addressed in the preparations for the meeting and were not discussed in detail, but we in Sweden have good reason to be satisfied. The concluding text means that we clearly shift into high gear when it comes to realizing the internal market and Europe's competitiveness as a whole.

It is about, for example, the proposal for a 28th corporate regime, which was presented just before the meeting, and making progress in the savings and investment union – what we previously called the capital markets union – to strengthen Europe's companies' access to risk capital.

The government has also been proactive in the work to simplify the EU's regulatory framework. Swedish and European companies need simpler rules that are easier to understand and follow. This work is, as we all know, far from finished. So far, we have seen ten simplification packages, or "omnibuses" as they are called in EU language. We want to see significantly more and in more areas. My urge and my invitation to all parties in the Riksdag to assist in that work therefore remains firm.

During the Euro summit, we were visited in the evening by the President of the European Central Bank, Christine Lagarde, who earlier that same day had announced that the ECB is leaving its policy rates unchanged. She explained her view on the economic situation and said that the global situation makes the outlook significantly more uncertain than before. The focus must now be on accurate measures that are temporary, not least when many countries also have public finances in a much worse state than we have here in Sweden.

Her contribution further underlines what I have said earlier, namely that we must now do everything right at home. We have no control over either raw material prices in the world or war and peace in the Middle East, but we must do everything right here at home. We cannot indulge in economic experiments or believe and hope that most things will go well anyway. Now we must hold the course, water where it grows, and focus on getting the economic wheels moving again.

The plan was that we were also to discuss the EU's long-term budget, MFF, at the meeting, but after 14 hours of negotiations on the issues I have just described and a lunch with UN Secretary-General António Guterres, the Council President António Costa chose to postpone just that question to the next meeting.

With that, I have finished the report from the meeting, Mr. Speaker.

(Applause)

In this speech, Fredrik Ahlstedt and Ann-Sofie Alm (both M) concurred.

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Mr. Speaker! There is much important to take up from the EU summit, not least that Hungary's authoritarian right-wing leader Viktor Orbán blocked the money for Ukraine. These are funds that the EU's leaders had already agreed upon in December.

Another thing is the information that the same Orbán has had a direct line to the Kremlin during the EU summits. I assume that the EU must now find some way to bypass Orbán's veto and put a stop to Putin's man in the EU being able to continue to carry out Russia's agenda in the European Council.

This EU summit was supposed to be about competitiveness, but it was once again dominated by new wars and crises. I want to focus on what affects us most here at home in Sweden, namely the rising energy prices which are, among other things, a consequence of the war in the Middle East. At a press conference as recently as yesterday, the Prime Minister said that following the meeting in the Council, it is now clear that Swedish bottleneck revenues shall not be sent to the EU, and that they shall be able to be used flexibly in Sweden.

We are now talking about 85 billion. It is a welcome development, but the Prime Minister's statement seems, at best, very optimistic and at worst, misleading. Does the council's conclusion really mean that we can use these 85 billion as we wish for Swedish households?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I take the question on Hungary first. As I said, there were very harsh words from very many during the ongoing council meeting. Unfortunately, quite few were probably surprised by Hungary's positions. They have changed a decision that they were involved in making earlier and blame a – by Russia – destroyed pipeline.

At the same time, I believe that the vast majority also thought that we do not want to become props in a Hungarian election. No one wants to help play some kind of role in Hungary's domestic policy, and therefore there is a feeling right now that this election must pass before the next position towards Hungary can be taken.

As everyone knows, the treaty is as it is – it is not written for a situation where a country systematically blocks decision-making in this way. One could say that patience is truly beginning to wear thin in many countries. We will have to see what consequences that will have, and we will have to see who represents Hungary at the next summit.

When it comes to the council's conclusions, they are always written in broad strokes, so it does not say exactly that. I also said that we have been given good conditions. The final, concrete, detailed decisions on exactly what countries are allowed to do are, however, made at the council meeting in the energy ministers' circle and only after that when individual countries submit applications to the EU Commission and request to do things that are not self-evident.

What is clear is that the EU will not seize the Swedish bottleneck revenues. Exactly what latitude Sweden will have to use them for purposes other than what the rules prescribe outside the regulatory framework is not yet clear, but the word flexibility suggests that there will be opportunities.

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Mr. Speaker! The Prime Minister often spends his time telling us how things are and what others are doing, but very little about what he himself concretely does and delivers.

The conclusions of the Council in this matter are a welcome development, but even now the Prime Minister cannot quite confirm what he said as recently as yesterday. In this case, it is the fact that the European Council does not legislate, but rather the Council and the European Parliament do so jointly.

Will the Commission submit a new proposal? How has the Prime Minister then ensured that there is a qualified majority in the Council for the Swedish position? What contacts have been made with the European Parliament to ensure that a majority there does not have a different stance?

How has Kristersson ensured that the concrete result will be what the Prime Minister has now promised, namely that Swedish bottleneck revenues will not be sent to the EU and that we can use these 85 billion for Swedish energy supply and Swedish households?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! As I said, there was therefore an acute threat that one would explicitly open up for using national bottleneck revenues – of which Sweden accounts for the lion's share in all of Europe – and take them to other countries that have problems in their transmission capacity, for example Germany and Poland. That threat is explicitly averted.

The next question is: Will we ourselves be able to use part of these 85 billion kronor for things other than what the basic regulatory framework describes, namely to expand capacity, or will we, as last time, be able to temporarily use them to compensate Swedish electricity consumers? That will require further decisions, and I have also never said anything else.

(Applause)

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

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

Initially, we from the Sweden Democrats would like to welcome the agreement regarding the bottleneck revenues. That the proposal for these revenues to go to other countries' energy is now buried is extremely positive. We would also like to see an opportunity to use these funds more freely and that they could then be used to produce more energy and not solely to expand the grids.

Mr. Speaker! In recent weeks, we have noticed how sensitive the global trade systems are and what can happen if problems arise in one place – and that is the situation we have now. It is obvious that the situation is very volatile. Yesterday, it sounded like a so-called TACO from Donald Trump. Today we have seen new hostilities, and the oil price that fell yesterday is rising today.

It is positive that the government and the Sweden Democrats are showing decisiveness. We now see proposals in the spring budget to lower taxes on fuels, which is to the benefit of both households as well as agriculture, forestry, and many other companies. It is positive. At the same time, Sweden cannot lower the tax more than we have now agreed upon.

Is this something that was discussed at the council meeting and something the Prime Minister expects could enter the toolbox from the commission – that the countries are at least temporarily given increased freedom to lower taxes on fuels?

In this speech, Erik Hellsborn (SD) concurred.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The simple answer is: Yes, there is such an expectation. I do not think there was anything in the commission's reasoning that in any way excluded it.

However, as everyone understands, there are fiscal restrictions in a number of countries. This time, we are talking about the possibility of acting at one's own expense, not at others' expense. A number of countries, however, simply have significant restrictions in their own macroeconomies. I will not go into individual countries, but I believe that some are in very tough decision-making situations. Either they need to increase their national debt even further – it is unclear for how long – or have very dissatisfied fuel and electricity consumers, who end up in a situation that they cannot influence at all. It is, therefore, an incredibly difficult situation.

I believe that most understand that the fundamental problem here is not solely grid and distribution. That the electricity can flow is fundamentally good – if there is sufficient production, of course. And that is the great concern, that is to say that there are too many countries that think that the problems should be solved by expanding the grids and too few that are prepared to themselves contribute to building up a fossil-free, stable electricity production in their own countries.

One thing is that it takes time and does not solve any acute energy crises anywhere, and the other is that in that case, one must make completely new types of decisions. If one removes both Russian gas and oil as well as gas and oil from the Gulf, what remains is basically nuclear power or to invest in very large amounts of renewable energy and hope that it does not create problems when it is not windy and so on. As everyone understands, different countries also have somewhat different conditions for this; it is, after all, different windiness and sunshine in different countries. But building new production capacity is absolutely crucial.

For Sweden's part, it is ironic that we in southern Sweden are now becoming dependent on the price of natural gas, even though almost no Swede has any personal experience of electricity produced from gas. It is not possible.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

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

It is positive if the possibility of larger tax cuts can be added to the toolbox so that we do not end up in a situation where it takes several months. Hopefully, the crisis will not be so long-lasting, but last time the Swedish application took a very long time. It is positive if it can go faster this time.

Another product that is very important when it comes to our agriculture is fertilizers, which are highly affected by both gas prices and the availability of a number of raw materials, and fertilizers are needed if the world's population is not to starve. Here we have new instruments at the EU level. We have new sanctions at the EU level that have driven prices upwards. An opportunity to achieve a reduction would be to make at least a temporary exception when it comes to the CBAM regulation, the so-called carbon tariffs. Is that a question that has been up for discussion?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I agree with the description that the rising costs cause problems. There are a number of things that are truly affected quickly by rising world market prices. That specific question was not explicitly raised, but if Sweden can act in different ways to work for relief during an ongoing crisis situation, it is clear that we shall investigate that.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I want to start with Hungary and Viktor Orbán, who once again have blocked our support for Ukraine – something that several of us members warned about.

At the same time, it has emerged that Hungary's Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó has called Russia's Foreign Minister Lavrov several times during ongoing EU meetings. Hungary's Foreign Minister has also visited Moscow no fewer than 16 times since Russia's violation of international law, full-scale attack on Ukraine. The most recent time was as recently as March 4.

In practice, Russia has known more about what is happening at the EU meetings than I, as a Member of Parliament, have. In practice, Hungary has acted as a spy – a Trojan horse straight into the EU. I wonder what the Prime Minister thinks about Hungary's actions and what measures we should take against this disloyal and, in practice, by serving Russia, hostile country.

I am moving on to the Middle East. I believe we have directed far too little focus toward what is happening in Lebanon, where Israel's ground invasion is rolling on. Bombs are falling over the country, and it looks like Israel wants to create a new totally destroyed country – obviously in violation of international law. Just as it was claimed that all Palestinians in Gaza support Hamas, the image is now being pumped out that all Lebanese support Hezbollah, even though that is not even close to being true.

Point by point in the conclusions, we see that the language towards Israel has been weakened or even disappeared. I wonder why the EU leaders have such an incredibly difficult time criticizing Israel's government for its violations of international law. It becomes even worse when one looks at the USA. Despite the fact that the country is responsible for and has started the war against Iran, whose consequences the Prime Minister is now worried about, no criticism of the USA can be found in the conclusions or in the Prime Minister's statement.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Several different matters were raised, and I will begin with Hungary.

The information is not confirmed, but it is worrying; there is no doubt about that. I do not think anyone knows exactly what has been done. Most of us usually do not comment on things before we know they are true. That Donald Tusk notes that he for his part tends to be quite cautious about what he says can perhaps give a hint as to what he at least suspects regarding what information can be passed on.

This in itself was not brought up at the EU summit itself, but already when Hungary, during the early days of its own presidency, traveled to Moscow, many countries pointed out that the presidency has no mandate, in any respect, to speak for the EU there. Before the election in Hungary, however, I do not think anything more will happen in this issue. Rather, one sees the risk of being drawn in and becoming a punching bag in Hungarian domestic political debate, which would not benefit us.

When it comes to the Middle East, we have talked about this before: We are no more united on broad Middle East issues than we are, and that is reflected time and again in the concluding texts. Right now, it was also Iran that was at the center, and when it comes to the consequence issues – that is, the risks to world trade, energy prices, and the spread of security threats – one can well say that there is a great consensus. When it comes to the fundamental question, I perceive that many countries stand roughly where we stand, that is to say that one considers that Iran's regime is dangerous for its own country's population and for other countries. Few will mourn it, as the saying goes.

At the same time, this is not compatible with a traditional view of international law. How the war ends will in practice determine how we will view the legitimacy of this, and right now there is a risk that this will drag on significantly longer than had been hoped.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! International law is being challenged now, and it is being challenged by leaders who want to do so without facing any consequences. Therefore, the Prime Minister and Sweden must stand up for international law. We cannot relativize based on who is committing crimes against international law, but we must stand up for international law regardless of which country it concerns, how the war ends, or what other phrasing one uses.

The attacks by the USA and Israel are not compatible with international law. Neither is Iran's response. Both parts affect the civilian population in the region. International law is about standing up for the civilian population against these acts of war in all situations, and we must manage to do that.

Mr. Speaker! If Viktor Orbán wins the Hungarian election, in which case likely with the help of a Russian influence operation, heavy measures must be taken against his government. Like the Russian regime, the Hungarian regime is a kleptocracy that benefits itself, as the Financial Times noted. It is not enough with a pleasant exchange of letters between Brussels and Budapest, but now one must actually take serious measures against Viktor Orbán.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is very few – almost no one – who say that this is compatible with international law. Nor is there anyone who thinks that the Iranian regime is compatible with international law. It is very few who want to condemn those who are now hoping for a change in Iran.

There are competing interests here, and one can draw the pragmatic conclusion that it is very difficult to achieve the results that one would like to see – even if one accepts them in this way. That is probably what we are seeing right now.

There is a great risk of spread to other places and for broader conflicts where Europe once again becomes collateral damage in all of this. There are very large risks with this; it should not be downplayed in any way.

When it comes to Hungary, I believe that we are currently doing the wisest thing by awaiting the Hungarian election on April 12. I say it once again: From the Swedish government's side, we obviously never interfere in other countries' domestic political elections; they shall be decided by the country's population. After April 12, we will know which Hungary we will have to deal with going forward.

(Applause)

In this speech, Ann-Sofie Alm (M) concurred.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is impossible not to comment on this matter regarding the oil pipeline that Russia blew up. The EU is now sending technical personnel to help repair it. It naturally needs to be repaired, but the reason it is being done is that Hungary demands this in order to approve the 90 billion that must be paid out to Ukraine.

How do we ensure that Ukraine receives these 90 billion if this falls through and Hungary still does not agree that the money goes to Ukraine?

Sweden is doing this with the Refugee Convention. I hear what the Prime Minister says about it not being about tearing it up but about securing legitimacy. My question is: How do the other countries view this? For example, Hungary also wants to tear this up, though perhaps not for the same reasons as Sweden. I would like to hear how the discussions are going there.

I move on to the view on the war against Iran and on international law. That it violates international law, we have established previously. We can also observe that the wording is very different – they are strongly condemnatory towards Iran, which is naturally correct, while at the same time they are very vague when it comes to the USA. One still stands up for international law.

I agree that we will see what happens afterwards regarding this. I do wonder, however, if the Prime Minister considers that we are about to cement a double standard.

The war in the Middle East will sooner or later lead to a larger migration. What does the preparedness look like for that migration?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! One must be careful to say that it concerns legal oil that flowed and will flow again. It is not that the EU is trying to achieve deliveries of illegal oil. This is important to have said.

Hungary and Slovakia belong to the countries that are still very dependent on Russian fossil energy, which all of Europe should stop being.

There is a paradox here. The dependence on Russia is bad and now leads to these special consequences, or the excuses. At the same time, there is a much broader dependence on oil and gas from the Gulf countries which has completely different, more price-related, consequences.

What would happen if the money were not paid out right now? Without wanting to diminish the issue in the slightest, I can say that 8.1 billion US dollars via the IMF means that we, as far as I understand, are not facing a precipice when it comes to Ukraine.

The election in Hungary is held on April 12. It is a milestone. I am not a pipeline engineer, but it is said that it is expected to take five or six weeks to repair the pipeline. It should be able to work, but if it does not work, we have the same big problem as if we had not made the decision on the 90 billion at all. This is the main financing for Ukraine from a long-term societal perspective.

I move on to the question of migration. It is about twenty countries that are participating in these meetings. I am very certain that it is about ensuring the legitimacy of the conventions and the reasonableness at home. It is not reasonable that a person who is convicted of serious crimes according to the European Convention is allowed to remain because the criminal's connection to the country is valued higher than the respect for the crime victim. It is also not reasonable that someone who has refugee status should be able to commit rape against a 16-year-old girl without the crime being considered serious enough for one to be able to decide on deportation. I believe that this contradicts people's perception of human rights, and it also diminishes the legitimacy of the conventions.

(Applause)

In this speech, Ann-Sofie Alm (M) concurred.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Mr. Speaker! Rape of a 16-year-old is always a horrific and heinous crime – there is no doubt about that. It is nevertheless interesting to follow the developments when it comes to the Refugee Convention.

The Prime Minister mentioned the dependence on oil and gas. I can only agree. It is remarkable that more have not managed to transition any further.

The budget was not discussed now, but I still want to remind of the incredibly important issues concerning equality. It is partly about My Voice, My Choice and the right to abortion, as well as the fact that this will eventually enter the budget so that there is secure funding for it, and partly about that we maintain equality as an important factor when it comes to looking at aid.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! In the later questions, we have not changed our opinion at all – we just didn't have time for it at the meeting. It will guaranteed return at the next meeting. To Cyprus's undivided joy, the long-term budget, which always creates long discussions, will take up the next meeting.

What can be said about the energy issue, which I think is somewhat underreported in Sweden, is that the shortages regarding permanent capacity in southern Sweden cause gas prices to affect Swedish electricity. It is absurd that it is in that way. We early on created a system with hydropower, nuclear power, and other renewable energy sources that made us practically nationally energy independent, but now it is gas that sets the price of electricity in southern Sweden. It does not happen all the time, as in Italy, but for far too large a part of the time. Consequently, it becomes more expensive. So we cannot have that in Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

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

As I have mentioned a few times earlier, I think the UK's report, which links environment, security and preparedness, is becoming increasingly clear and central to our conversations. This is shown, not least, in what is reflected in the council's conclusions. A Russian attack against a hydroelectric power plant in Ukraine has resulted in oil contaminating the large river Dniester, which also flows through Moldova. Now this threatens Moldova's primary source of fresh water, which provides drinking water to millions of people. This water, which is now contaminated, usually supplies 80 percent of the population in Moldova.

It says in the council conclusions that the European Council condemns this, which is good. It also says that they are prepared to support Moldova, which is good. My question concerns the mechanisms for this, and here the issue of ecocide becomes relevant once again. It is something that is receiving growing support. I also know that the government has a positive view on this. Who is to take the initiative to push forward and raise the issue to the Rome Statute?

This is a way to work with security proactively, before the damage has occurred. Who is legally responsible, and who should pay to remediate and restore security for the population?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The question is interesting. I will say for the sake of form that this particular issue was not raised at the summit. This time, we also did not discuss the war against Ukraine in the sense of long-term criminal responsibility for war crimes and the damages inflicted on Ukraine. We will have very strong reasons to return to that, in one way or another. Once it has become somewhat clearer whether the peace negotiations led by the USA lead anywhere at all, this question will be brought to the forefront. I will gladly return to that question then.

To broaden the question further: That this with the oil has consequences is a bad thing, but something else we have also learned from Ukraine is how incredibly well different installations must be protected. I saw a combined heat and power plant in Kyiv that was completely knocked out, and thus also the power supply to half a million people when the winter was at its coldest. This also suggests the importance of civil defense in order to be able to maintain all other defense.

We will return to the other questions.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Prime Minister for the answer and look forward to continued discussions on this subject.

The Prime Minister also mentioned the security of our own citizens, and in that regard, I want to highlight the environment again. The foundation of our security is that we have drinking water and an infrastructure that functions. It is therefore important to take action at an early stage to try to curb the climate crisis and preserve nature, which is so important for our food production.

Here the question about Vättern actually comes in. I can imagine that it was not at the top of the agenda at the summit, but I still want to raise it proactively in an attempt to create awareness. Vättern is indeed Northern Europe's primary drinking water source. How is the government working, and how are the discussions in the European Council going regarding the importance of securing drinking water sources and keeping them free from contamination?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I can confirm that Vättern was not mentioned at the EU summit. Not even Mälaren was mentioned, which one as a person from Småland might find even more remarkable.

Seriously speaking, when it comes to drinking water supply, energy supply, the ability to maintain healthcare even in very dramatic situations, and the protection of installations, there is a completely different, albeit belated, awareness now compared to before. It also concerns how vulnerable all of this is as well. Carl-Oskar Bohlin often says that war is the dimensioning factor also for all of civil defense. It is for war's terrible logic that the civil sphere must be managed. This is something we must take with us, and Ukraine unfortunately teaches us very much on this point.

(Applause)

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

Erik Ottoson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Prime Minister for the report on the EU summit.

After the Second World War, the European nations united and decided "never again; we need to take care of each other," and the regulatory framework has served us well for a long time. But we are constantly faced with new challenges, and in the new era, these new challenges mean that one also needs to review old regulatory frameworks.

Therefore, it was particularly interesting that the Prime Minister included the perspective of how the specific formulations of the European Convention and the Refugee Convention can strike when one tries to maintain law and order as well as common sense. This was experienced during the refugee crisis in 2015, and now there is a broad consensus from the Swedish side to avoid this being repeated, with all the problems and all the human suffering it entails.

Can the Prime Minister elaborate on whether there was any deeper resonance within the circle of heads of state and government regarding the proposals for openings and changes that he took to the discussions to create more sense and reason in this system? Does the Prime Minister share my concern that large Swedish parties, such as the Social Democrats, are unable to hold the line on migration issues in the EU Parliament and that a rift is arising in how the credibility of the Swedish perspective in the implementation of the new way for the EU to handle the refugee issue stands long-term?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! If one is to be a bit precise, it was a formal council decision. The experiences from 2015 have led us to the conclusion that this must not be repeated once again when the world is shaking. There is a huge amount that the EU can do and that individual countries can do in cooperation with others, but 2015 must not happen once again. Simply establishing this and not saying "it will be what it will be" was an incredibly important conclusion from the EU summit. This decision can then have a lot of different consequences in the relationship with, for example, transit countries regarding what we can do on site and in the surrounding area.

The second was not formal council conclusions, but I mention it because there were about twenty countries at the pre-meeting in a kind of coalition of those who now want to see a broader proportionality test of the migration policy. Two things are at the center. One is the European Convention, that is, the one that first gained attention after a number of cases in many different countries where people were convicted of crimes and were to be deported because of that crime, but where the connection to the new country was then considered to weigh more heavily than the consequences of the crime itself. This can be very offensive, because one is not easily sentenced to deportation in Europe.

The second is the Geneva Convention. We pointed out to the participants that it makes it impossible to deport someone who has refugee status unless a court determines that it involves an extremely serious crime, and obviously, rape of a 16-year-old is not sufficient, which is an entirely unreasonable conclusion.

On both of these points, I believe there can be a broad popular understanding and a sense of reasonableness. But it is also about safeguarding the legitimacy of important conventions in the long term. Otherwise, I am afraid that countries will start to leave conventions if these can never be changed.

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

Erik Ottoson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is common, classic constitutional economy that basic rules that do not keep pace with their time and are not perceived as relevant become irrelevant – even though there must, of course, be a long-term perspective in matters concerning human rights.

Mr. Speaker! So to another question about long-term perspective. Ukraine is now in a very difficult situation given what has been mentioned earlier regarding Hungary's way of acting. In the Hungarian constitution, it takes somewhere between four and eight weeks after an election to form a new government and get it in place. But the questions that many are asking are probably: How long can Ukraine endure waiting, when it is truly burning, and what room for maneuver do we have to best mitigate the consequences of what could happen after the election in April?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I perceive no panic in the system regarding the weeks leading up to the election. Furthermore, there is money from, among other things, the International Monetary Fund. In the long term, however, one can imagine very problematic scenarios, but we are not there yet.

As I said, the treaty is as it is, and unanimity is required for a number of major decisions. This has long been considered self-evident, as individual countries should not be able to be overridden. But it was never intended to have these consequences.

I will wait for a few more weeks and see how things develop. But I find it very difficult to believe that 26 EU countries would remain silent and accept that the EU cannot do anything.

We do not interfere in how individual parties vote, but it would be a great advantage if the Social Democrats also stood up for a really strict immigration policy in the EU Parliament.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Prime Minister for the report and for the answers to previous questions, and I naturally agree with the Prime Minister's assessment that we shall not become a pawn in domestic politics a few weeks before the election in Hungary.

One can however note that the demands placed on Ukraine by the Hungarian government are remarkable. They do not even offer to send engineers from the Hungarian side themselves to repair the pipeline.

Iran was discussed a lot, for natural reasons. It is a state that does not follow any rule-based world order or international law at all. Iran has truly made use of proxy groups that have ensured to set the world on fire. This applies in particular to everything we see in the Middle East. We also see how Iran has had Hezbollah send rockets into Israel in order to once again get Lebanon into a war that no Lebanese person, not even the Shia Muslim groups, want. It is about demands from a fearsome regime.

I think the reasoning in the conclusions is good. It is clear that this affects us very much in Europe; we notice the effects on the energy prices.

It was very important that we got the way of viewing the bottleneck revenues in order. It was a totally unreasonable proposal from the Commission's side, but now we will hopefully be able to ensure that it becomes a good use of the money for Swedish interests.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I share the member's assessment. Then we shall see what happens ahead. There is, in the end, a lack of patience also from other neighboring countries in the Gulf, who are now being pressured very heavily by Iran. My view is that they fundamentally want to de-escalate the conflict, as they realize that the region's future can be shattered in this way. We do not, however, have much control over this ourselves, but we are forced to deal with the consequences right now.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Before the Prime Minister's participation in the European Council meeting, we had a discussion about the so-called 28th corporate regime. We have concerns from the Swedish side, but we also see advantages with the reasoning.

Is there anything further to say regarding these issues? What can be read in the conclusions does not say very much.

We should also be honest with ourselves that we in Sweden have had a tendency to be very quick to over-implement things. If one is to be the best in the class, it is not about over-implementing, so we need to learn. I would very much like to hear a reasoning regarding this.

I am glad that Sweden stands up for ETS and the development with ETS 2. It is the most effective climate effort the world has witnessed.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Standing up for European climate policy is right in itself. But it is also right for all those pioneers in Sweden and in the Swedish business community who are making large investments because they want to and because the regulatory framework encourages it and creates competitiveness for it. We cannot betray their work. I was incredibly clear about this at the European Council meeting, and it really came across.

The 28th regulation is an incomprehensible expression concerning the fact that one should be able to have regulatory frameworks that override all others in certain areas. Those who are most optimistic believe that this is going to have major consequences, and it may turn out to be so.

Otherwise, it is simply about facilitating the registration of companies in different countries and about sending information to one place instead of to all places. But it does not, of course, affect fundamental issues such as tax policy or labor law in different countries, which are not changed by this.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! Many thanks for the report, Prime Minister, and for the arguments that are presented!

It is completely absurd, Mr. Speaker, that one and then two stragglers are blocking 24 member states from proceeding with the payment of these 90 billion euros to Ukraine when we see how the situation is in the country. The countries that are blocking this are not taking any financial risk either.

It is clear that this raises the question of being able to deviate from unanimity in more decisions in the EU, but I understand that this was not raised at the council meeting.

Mr. Speaker! The Prime Minister says here that there are likely no opportunities to move forward in the issue before the Hungarian election, which I believe takes place on April 12. But even if the opposition wins and there is a change of government in Hungary, other countries remain. Slovakia can continue to block the process. How do you view this?

In light of what the Prime Minister says about the fact that there are likely no opportunities, I feel as a Liberal that there might be a small gap somewhere here to somehow bypass the blockage. Is that the case, or is it assessed that this is not a viable path?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I must lean on Ursula von der Leyen's assessment, and it was no more precise than that we must, in one way or another, be able to solve this.

It opens up for both optimistic and less optimistic signals. I believe she imagines that the first is that words are actually kept this time and that the support can be paid out as soon as the management is repaired. It could also be about other legal solutions. I am not a constitutional EU lawyer to a sufficient extent to be able to judge if there are other ways in this.

However, one can probably say that this, if it were to continue for a long time, will raise the constitutional question in Europe. It might be raised under all circumstances, as it has been somewhat dormant for a longer period. This, however, puts the question on edge. But I do not dare to venture into any deep legal waters when it comes to what other possibilities could exist, but now I think we have to wait a few weeks before decisions are made.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! I am not a constitutional EU lawyer either – thank goodness, because then the opportunity cost would have been that I would not have been able to serve in this fantastic assembly for the last 20 years!

Another area that has been highly prominent in the meeting is, of course, what is happening in the Middle East. We hear that the discussion, which previously has been about what is happening in Iran with all the massacres that have occurred and so on, is increasingly shifting to being about the region as a whole. It is now about Hormuz, energy flows and so on, and it is clear that it becomes so when the whole world is now being drawn into this.

At the same time, I note in the council's conclusions that it is only the last point that concerns those who have nevertheless been hit the hardest, namely 90 million inhabitants in Iran. I just want to point out that this issue must continue to be addressed even as the conflict becomes regionalized. The Iranian population deserves freedom.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I agree with the member. The focus at the meeting was very much on the consequences for Europe, but I believe that there are very many who are also thinking of all those people in Iran and all the exiled Iranians, not least in European countries, who wish for nothing more than just freedom.

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

Ulf Holm (MP)

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

I want to express great praise for the work to secure the money for Ukraine. I believe, however, that the EU should consider some kind of plan B if Orbán – God forbid – wins the election, even if we do not want to talk about it. It would not be so good if that happened, given the possibilities of influence from other countries that are in debt of gratitude and so on.

I also believe it is important that we ensure that rogue states like Russia do not receive more money. I am therefore very concerned about the talk that we must lower gasoline and oil prices to ease the burden on household budgets. I believe there are better and more accurate ways, because we must ensure that the oil states do not receive more money. It is primarily Russia and other countries that profit from this fossil dependency, which we unfortunately have done all too little in Sweden and Europe to escape.

I think these were very good council conclusions. It says that we should accelerate the expansion of renewable energy sources – great! It also says that the simplification work must be accelerated. It should be much simpler to expand the offshore wind power. Building solar cells also takes far too long. There, I hope that we make progress so that all of this can go much faster.

I can add, Mr. Speaker, that no permits were granted for wind turbines in Sweden last year. There is therefore much to be done even at home if one wants to favor renewable energy sources.

Under point 47, the reduced strategic dependence regarding critical capabilities is also mentioned, but then it does not say much more. I think this is a very important issue that one must work much more on. We could perhaps hear a little about whether there was any discussion at the council meeting about this and how it can be done. It is a bit ambiguous what this will mean in reality.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the energy issue, it is quite obvious, even if different countries express it slightly differently, that the future is fossil-free with more nuclear power and more renewables. More and more countries are signing on to this, even those that have a long journey there.

When we made ourselves independent of oil for electricity production in Sweden, it was because the oil crisis at that time drove up prices. Then we added all the climate reasons to become fossil-free, and now we are adding all the security policy reasons for fossil-freedom.

For us, the conclusion is crystal clear. However, many countries are still much more fossil-dependent than one might think. The absurd situation where gas-generated electricity impacts across national borders is provoking, I would say. We, who made such wise decisions in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, are affected today by expensive electricity for entirely different reasons. I am very much in favor of international cooperation, but Swedish energy policy should not stand or fall with Italian or German gas imports.

Then I want to be a bit precise: The Swedish government does not interfere in the domestic politics of other countries. I think that is an important principle. It has become increasingly popular in other countries to do such things. We do not intend to change our policy. We let the populations of other countries make their decisions in democratic elections. I therefore do not intend to have any opinion on the Hungarian election.

But just to speak plainly: These 90 billion are plan B. Plan A was to use frozen Russian assets. We did not get support for that. This was plan B, which only makes the matter even more serious.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

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

The British intelligence service points to links between natural risks and security. In a recent report, it is described that we risk a system collapse within five years if we do not act differently.

We also have a number of authorities, councils and others that make these connections. Even Svenskt Näringsliv points to various connections between security and climate.

Still, the Prime Minister begins rather resignedly in the chamber by speaking about how we have once again had a discussion about crisis and war and not about climate and competitiveness. One could think that the Prime Minister himself was an actor at the meeting and could therefore have connected these.

The Climate Policy Council stated in a report presented in 2026 that they want to see an active policy for Europe's security and competitiveness when it comes to climate policy specifically. They belong together, therefore. One needs to secure the EU's climate policy and its integrity to meet security requirements.

Svenskt Näringsliv has also expressed a very strong connection between the EU ETS and the importance of it benefiting the business sector and leading to investments and emission reductions.

With that said: How actively is the Prime Minister working to link climate and security? And how is the EU ETS being protected, which is now the next piece of legislation in the crosshairs?

We heard here that the Prime Minister felt confident about the discussion on ETS at the European Council. But then I would like, like my colleague Matilda Ernkrans, to point out that the legislative institutions will soon start and perhaps grind down EU ETS into a mass of exemptions and loopholes.

What is the Prime Minister doing to secure the integrity of the EU ETS?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I will start from the end. This was, therefore, the European Council's decision, nota bene – no more and no less. Then there are legislative processes that include significantly more institutions.

The European Council stands behind the basic idea and architecture behind ETS, i.e., the emissions trading system. It was not conflict-free, but the European Council does. Then there will be many processes where this is to be detailed and specified ahead of the review that was already to be carried out since earlier. It is important to have said. Sweden was also very driving for it.

Then there were the security threats. What has happened in recent decades is that the security threats have become much more multifaceted – environment and climate, social cohesion in different countries, immigration and migration, industrial espionage and hybrid activities. It is a much broader palette of security-threatening issues that a modern country today must be able to address in various ways.

That is why the British report was good. It underlines that even those aspects are important in this regard. I think it is just good.

We are working much more broadly with these issues in Sweden today than we have done previously. Just the fact that we marry civil defense and military defense in a completely different way and reactivate the civil obligation creates entirely new opportunities for young boys and girls to be of use to the Swedish total defense, which can include very much more than being in uniform with a weapon in hand. All of this is good – for boring reasons, one should add.

Since then, I was not the least bit discouraged. I merely noted, by reason of previous discussions we have had in this circle, that short-term – albeit important – crises tend to take all the oxygen at European summits. Long-term issues such as the reforming of the internal market and competitiveness issues do not take as much immediate oxygen, even though we in Sweden really did our part to ensure they would take oxygen in this discussion.

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

Erik Hellsborn (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for a good overview!

The war in Iran risks leading to a new wave of refugees similar to the one we saw in 2015. Some large migration flows have not been seen yet, but this could change if the conflict becomes prolonged – something that, among others, the Swedish Institute for European Studies has pointed out. It is obviously nothing that is in the interest of Sweden or Europe.

The Prime Minister mentioned this briefly during his review, but I wonder if the Prime Minister could elaborate a bit more on what the Swedish government, together with other European governments, wants to do to prevent a migration chaos like the one in 2015 from being repeated.

I wonder, in particular, what the situation is regarding the consensus between the different EU countries. We know, for example, that the socialist government in Spain has a view on asylum migration that differs drastically from the view of Sweden and many other EU countries.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Spain is probably the country that deviates most clearly from the new norm in Europe. Every country naturally has the right to its own opinion, but to the extent that it has consequences for other countries, it is a common issue.

I think that the decision we made at the European Council this time should be seen more as a kind of portal paragraph. Whatever happens, 2015 will not be allowed to be repeated once again. That does not mean that Europe stands helpless in the face of this and cannot do anything. There is much that Europe as a community and individual countries can do to help in the surrounding area and help transit countries in different ways.

It is absolutely not the case that we ignore what is happening in the Middle East. But the answer to the question cannot be a repetition of 2015.

The reporting was hereby concluded.

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