Reporting from the Council of Europe meeting on October 20-21

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I shall very shortly report on the discussions and decisions from the latest meeting of the European Council, but let me first make an overall reflection on something that you here inside are certainly already familiar with, but which perhaps not all EU-interested listeners know as much about.

The meetings of the Council of Europe are what are most often called the EU summits. There, the prime ministers or heads of state of the 27 EU countries gather, depending on the country's constitution. For me, it was naturally the very first meeting in that circle.

There is, I must say, a palpably welcoming, generous and informal atmosphere in the European Council's discussions. Despite different languages, different national political cultures and different purely party-political affiliations, there is a collegial atmosphere in the room. It should not be underestimated that the discussions continue hour after hour. Everyone in there knows that there are major problems that can only be solved collectively. Everyone also respects that different issues are differently sensitive in different countries.

This naturally also applied to this meeting, when we discussed the European energy crisis that has broken out in the wake of Russia's war against Ukraine and discussed what we can do together to meet extremely high electricity prices in countries with very different energy supplies and different energy policies.

Immediately before the European Council meeting, I had my own conversations with the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, and the President of the European Council, Charles Michel. We naturally discussed, in the first instance, the Swedish EU Presidency, which begins on January 1 next year, and which issues will then be at the very top of the agenda.

I underlined that it is now important that the EU both continues to manage serious crises and manages to maintain the ability to manage serious crises, from the pandemic straight into a war and then into the energy crisis, but that the EU must also return to and once again begin to focus on more long-term common issues.

I therefore look forward to returning here to the Riksdag on 14 December with a report on the priorities of the upcoming Swedish presidency.

Madam Speaker! The meeting of the European Council the other day began with Ukraine's President Zelenskyy on a link from Kyiv. He described, just as he did here a few months ago, how the Russian terror against Ukraine continues and how Russia is now making energy a deadly weapon. The power grid is being smashed, houses become cold and industries come to a standstill.

President Zelenskyy once again asked for more military aid, above all air defense, anti-missile systems and defense against the drones that now more and more frequently spread fear and destruction.

He called for a ninth sanctions package. He called for the sanctions that are already in place to be complied with. He called for Belarus to be included in upcoming sanctions.

President Zelenskyy also described how Russian mining of gigantic water reservoirs with over 18 cubic kilometers of water – we can try to imagine 18 cubic kilometers of water – risks drowning Ukrainian villages and destroying important water supplies in southern Ukraine. Russia has so far destroyed approximately 40 percent of Ukraine's total energy infrastructure. It is a warfare that explicitly targets the civilian population. It is an unacceptable violation of international law.

Last but not least, he underlined that the reconstruction of Ukraine must begin soon and not wait. Yesterday, therefore, my and EU Minister Jessika Roswall's joint secretary of state Christian Danielsson was Sweden's representative at the large reconstruction conference that started in Berlin. Sweden will, of course, be involved when our time's Marshall Plan repairs the damage after Russia's war.

Madam Speaker! The government's position cannot be misunderstood. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is the greatest threat to European and Swedish security since the Second World War. We must support Ukraine politically, humanitarily, economically and militarily. Russia must be isolated. We shall carefully implement and expand the EU's sanctions.

The discussion at the European Council meeting showed that this unity remains. It is important because precisely this unity is our single greatest asset in supporting Ukraine and isolating Russia.

Agreement and consensus on the serious situation led to everyone standing behind powerful condemnations of Russia's indiscriminate drone attacks against civilian targets.

We repeated our support for Ukraine's territorial integrity and demanded that Russia immediately and unconditionally withdraw its military forces. The EU firmly rejects Russia's illegal annexation of Ukrainian regions.

We also repeated the EU's commitment to securing evidence so that those responsible can be held accountable for war crimes committed in Ukraine.

Madam Speaker! Russia's war of invasion against Ukraine has serious consequences for Europe's energy supply. This occurs in different ways in different member states depending on the countries' energy mix, but all are affected. This, in turn, affects Europe's economies at large.

We must also meet this with collective measures. In broad strokes, the European Council agreed to act to lower prices, secure supply, and reduce demand.

The discussion at the meeting took place on the basis of the energy package that the Commission presented last week. Since different countries with a high dependence on gas are making different assessments of what is the best solution, it became a long and, frankly, quite troublesome discussion among the 27 heads of government. The questions concerned, among other things, the possibility of joint procurement to lower prices, the decoupling of gas prices from electricity prices to avoid high gas prices impacting the marginal cost of electricity prices, and various types of price caps for natural gas. Even there, I believe everyone understands the complexity when 27 countries are to reach an agreement.

No more precise decisions were made regarding new measures. Nor is it the European Council's role. What the Council agreed upon is a kind of strategic direction for the continued work. It is now the EU's energy ministers who take the issue further, and that work began in the TTE Council as recently as yesterday.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to financing issues, I and several prime ministers underlined that further joint borrowing is not an option. The discussion concluded that already available funds can be used for supporting measures. There is money in the system, both in what is called REPowerEU and in recovery funds after the pandemic.

Madam Speaker! The EU's relationship with China was also on the agenda. It became a long and interesting discussion, without details and thus very general - a clear sign of the European concern that exists regarding China's partially new actions, both domestically and internationally.

Russia's aggression against Ukraine also plays a role here because China's stance towards Russia affects the entire EU's stance towards China. We stand stronger even towards China when we act united within the EU and between the EU and the USA. The transatlantic link is completely central for us; many other countries share that view.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I also naturally emphasized at the meeting the importance of the EU continuing to support the release of the Swedish citizen Gui Minhais, as well as our appreciation for the efforts that other countries have made to support Sweden in this important work.

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

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the report! The European Council had many important issues and decisions on the table when you met. I think it is truly pleasing that the consensus within the EU remains regarding the unconditional support for Ukraine, both economically, politically, militarily and humanitarily - but also the consensus that the EU shall be there and provide support when it comes to the reconstruction.

I think, however, it is regrettable, even if it was expected, that we did not see any sharper wording regarding further sanctions against Russia to stop the war. It would be interesting to hear how the Prime Minister approached this and whether the Prime Minister was clear that from the government's and the government's support's side, one actually stands up and says that there should be more sanctions against Russia so that we get a stop to the war.

When it comes to the energy settlement, it seems there is still some way to go before the EU member states can agree on a settlement that ensures we get lower electricity prices as early as this winter. We can still say that the Andersson government foresightfully presented proposals for a high-cost protection here in Sweden, which Swedish electricity customers – both companies and households – can count on being realized. You have already made the promise on November 1st when it comes to Kristersson's high-cost protection.

What is the Prime Minister doing regarding the EU level for the assessment of when a lower electricity price, which the EU's member states have agreed on, could be in place?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I completely share the view that consensus itself is central; the same applies in the matter of reconstruction. There was broad consensus on proceeding with sanctions. There was also a rather scattered view that it should now be ensured that the already implemented sanction packages are actually complied with. I absolutely perceive that we will be able to return to further sanctions in consensus.

When it comes to the energy settlement, I must admit – this was my first council meeting – that I am a bit unsure of the exact precision with which such agreements in highly detailed issues are usually concluded. The impression I got from most of the others is that this is an overall direction, where one is at least in agreement on what one wants to achieve.

But it was completely obvious from the discussion that different countries have very different views on how it should be done - just so that I have said it. There is, therefore, no concrete agreement on exactly which measures and steps should be taken, even if the ambition and the objective are partially shared. It is quite obvious that very large industrial nations like Germany, with large economic muscles of their own, find themselves in a different situation than some Southern European countries. If I said earlier that there was a significant friendliness and a constructive tone, the disagreement in substance was nevertheless palpable. These are, as everyone knows, decisions that are made in consensus.

Many made the assessment that if the energy ministers' council works on this during November, there are good chances of finding some concrete conclusions to agree upon. I do not want to anticipate this and promise great results from EU processes that we do not yet know where they will lead.

It is completely true that national decisions are also required - regarding high-cost protection, which will come, but also regarding long-term energy policy, which will also come.

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Madam Speaker! The Prime Minister's Minister for Energy was not as optimistic after that meeting on Tuesday as she was when she participated in it. So my question remains: In what way did the Prime Minister act during this meeting to push the process forward? The Prime Minister was very hopeful that something could be landed when the Prime Minister met the EU Committee last week.

You also mentioned the Swedish presidency; you did so as well in the EU Committee. It would be interesting to know if the Prime Minister, in the talks with the Commission President, brought up the EU's fundamental values, namely the principles of the rule of law and equality. This has been something that Sweden has pushed very strongly, and it is also included in the priorities that the previous government has already, in some form, anchored here in the Riksdag. It would be interesting to hear if the Prime Minister raised precisely the principles of the rule of law with von der Leyen.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! First, I want to say that I was absolutely not in the EU committee regarding such ragingly hopeful expectations for quick, concrete results from the EU summit, on the contrary. I believe everyone who was there noted that. We share the opinion that it would be good if one could solve this and that there are common denominators. But I was the first to say that it is completely obvious that it is difficult to get 27 countries with different energy policies and different degrees of gas dependency to agree on measures whose consequences will hit differently in different countries. It was not my government, but the previous one, that in practice promised quick results from EU processes. I have never done that; I just want that to be said.

Of course, I raised all the Swedish priorities before the chair. I said that this transitions seamlessly. We have cooperated well with the outgoing government, and we look forward to continued good cooperation. All of this is completely fixed, and I raised all these matters in the discussions.

I also underlined that the long-term competitiveness issues are important for all of Europe and for Sweden. And I underlined that if we can achieve some progress in the Ukraine issue, it would be very good.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the report! This meeting centered, just as the recent meetings have done, on Russia's illegal acts of war and their consequences. From the Sweden Democrats' side, we welcome the council's conclusions in this regard – that Russia's acts of war are condemned in the strongest possible terms. I cannot overemphasize the importance of the council remaining united when it comes to the support for Ukraine and the Ukrainians' right to liberate and regain control over their country.

One hope from our side is that new sanction packages will be introduced. A question to the Prime Minister is whether there is a point in perhaps not proposing specific sanctions before an agreement has been reached. It is indeed important that the Council can demonstrate unity outwardly - it could be part of a strategy for how the Council wishes to work.

Madam Speaker! The consequences of the war affect several different areas. The foundation is energy, and it then spills over in turn. From the Sweden Democrats' side, we are positive towards all measures that can contribute to lowered prices in our country without affecting Swedish finances in any way.

A question to the Prime Minister is what we can actually expect regarding this. The previous Social Democratic government went out just before the election and promised the voters that they had secured a deal for lower electricity prices.

Did the Prime Minister notice when he arrived at the council that the table was set? Has the previous government fixed the deal that is supposed to be able to lower electricity prices? Should we believe that this is going to solve the problem?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! Two things: I agree that further sanctions are needed and that there must be agreement on further sanctions.

What is being discussed now is primarily different financial assets, even freezing Russian assets in other countries in a rather dramatic way. That it will obviously require significant consensus is clear, but it would be a way to move forward.

As I said, when it comes to the energy issue, I would not dare promise that the EU will reach decisions in unanimity or near unanimity that have a dramatic impact on Swedish electricity prices. I think it would be to promise more than anyone from the Swedish side can keep, so I will not do that.

On the other hand, I would welcome all changes that in practice lead to lower prices. If we can bring down the gas price, we can also bring down the marginal price on electricity production driven by gas. Then it can have an impact, primarily for southern Swedish households. That would be good. Therefore, we have every good reason to argue for and participate in this and in every way ensure that the countries that may in other ways are slightly in disagreement can become united. That was exactly what I and several other countries did. But none of us can force countries that think quite differently to become united, so in that sense, I want to moderate expectations that this will be the great solution to the Swedish electricity prices.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

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

Against the background of the extreme weather events that are becoming increasingly intense and more common, including heatwaves, uncontrolled forest fires, floods and an unprecedented loss of biodiversity across the entire world, the European Council emphasized that it is extremely urgent to strengthen global efforts against the climate emergency and the biodiversity crisis.

This was a quote from the Council of Europe's conclusions ahead of COP 27. But what efforts is the Council referring to?

In Sweden, we see a new policy that several assessors believe will increase Sweden's emissions. Within the EU, one chooses to stockpile and continue using fossil gas. The transition to renewable energy has gone all too slowly and makes us vulnerable to the shortage of fossil energy during Russia's war of attack in Ukraine.

My question to the Prime Minister is therefore what measures Sweden will take to meet the 1.5-degree goal, what proposals for powerful actions in the EU member states were discussed, and when the promise to collectively contribute 100 billion dollars annually to poorer countries for their climate transition will be fulfilled.

I also want to bring up the world's food supply and how Ukraine can export grain. This has been a recurring question at the European Council. To a lesser extent, it has been discussed how the increased prices affect the ability of aid organizations and poor people to purchase sufficient food.

I therefore want to ask the Prime Minister what was said regarding aid and other opportunities to get food to those who are starving in third countries.

In conclusion, I would like to highlight that it is very positive that the council condemns Iran and that the council specifically addresses the violence against Iran's women.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! All of this that is being raised is important. But my tedious answer is that it was not discussed at the meeting. There are council conclusions, but the discussion that was held at the meeting, and which I have reported back, revolved exclusively around everything to do with Ukraine, everything to do with the energy crisis, and everything to do with China. It was these three issues that were discussed. There is nothing else to report back from the meeting than what is stated in the council conclusions.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

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

I noticed that the Prime Minister, in his report, did not mention either the climate or food availability. The answer is therefore that it was not mentioned at all. But it is still included in the conclusions. In that case, I would like to know why it is included in the conclusions. Something must have been discussed. It is also the case that the reports we have received are that there were very many discussions precisely regarding the climate issue and that compromises were required to move forward, so something must have been said about these issues.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! Just as I said, all the discussion revolved around these three questions. Then there were council conclusions that did not cause any discussion. That does not mean that people did not underline that these are important questions. But since I perceived this as a report on what was handled and discussed, I stuck to the questions that were actually discussed.

These questions will surely come back and be discussed in terms of content at another meeting, but this time there was no discussion about them.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! I share the concern over the very serious situation in Europe that Ulf Kristersson, our Prime Minister, expresses.

Putin's energy warfare has had incredibly large consequences. Households' electricity bills are skyrocketing and companies are being forced into bankruptcy. European competitiveness is seriously threatened and being eroded.

Sweden is not the worst hit. We have to a very large extent exported electricity to the continent in a very solidary spirit, one might say, at a great cost, not least for southern Sweden, in the form of higher electricity prices.

That is why I and the Center Party note with considerable concern that the council conclusions we are now seeing do not deliver any concrete proposals. The discussion that the Prime Minister highlights is not made any more precise than that one has a number of requests to be forwarded.

We heard the Prime Minister answer a previous question that the energy ministers will meet and discuss further in November. That leads to my first question: When can we, according to the Prime Minister, have concrete measures in place? It is just another meeting in November. What is it that says that it will actually lead anywhere? When can we believe that there will be concrete measures in place?

My second question concerns the extended energy solidarity mentioned in the council conclusions. Given our very large exports, with the associated imported prices that we have seen, I wonder what the energy solidarity means for the Swedish part in actual action and what consequences the electricity consumers can expect.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I think all these questions are very justified to discuss in both Sweden and Europe. But since I am sticking to reporting what was said at a European summit, there are no answers to the questions.

You who were possibly awake at 02:30 on Friday night and listened to the press conference I held probably noted that I in no way exaggerated the concreteness of the conclusions, because they were not concrete. It was a clear direction of intent, and it was agreed that energy ministers should be able to solve problems more concretely within the framework of what is called a strategic guidance. It is probably exactly as open as it sounds, but with a clear common insight that it would be very good to be able to reach an agreement and that these are common problems.

I believe that was as far as we could get in this meeting. And it was not Sweden that stood in the way of more concrete results, but we are different countries that simply have dramatically different views on how to best solve these problems. Many legitimate national views were presented on how solutions could affect individual countries, which limited the willingness to compromise.

When can there be results then? I dare say that there was a broad consensus around the belief that one will be able to land on something during the month of November. But again: It lies outside of this reporting. The question will surely be able to be answered much better when that council has met not just once immediately after the European Council but some or several more times.

The question of solidarity, finally, was one of many questions. Different countries can show solidarity in slightly different ways. Reducing energy consumption is naturally an obvious way; financing each other is another. The willingness to jointly finance with loans was very limited.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! In this chamber, both the Moderates and the Centre Party have been clear that impact assessments are important when we are to make decisions. I am therefore concerned when the Prime Minister says that there are no answers as to what things entail. Have no impact descriptions been presented before the council conclusions that Sweden actually signed? I and the Centre Party are concerned that we do not know what this entails. It has been signed that we shall have solidarity with other countries from an energy perspective, but we get no answers as to what consequences this actually has for Sweden.

An example was given: that we might have to finance other countries' measures. Should we interpret it that way? What are the concrete measures that have been discussed regarding energy solidarity? There have been many proposals brought up for discussion that would have very far-reaching consequences for Sweden and Swedish consumers.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I must have expressed myself unclearly. I only wanted to describe what the council did and did not do, nothing else. I am happy to have an energy debate with the Center Party every day, but that is not the subject now. I reported what happened, nothing more and nothing less, and then there is no other conclusion than the one I have described. Then we certainly think differently about what it should mean, and I am happy to have that debate any day.

What I underlined both initially and here is that Sweden clearly signals that we do not intend to engage in any further joint loan financing of anything, and we were far from alone on this point.

I am happy to take any other disagreement regarding energy policy in a debate another time.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

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

It is positive that the EU is now urging all member states and parties during COP 27 to accelerate the phasing out of coal power and fossil fuel subsidies.

Miljöpartiet has previously pointed out that it is very worrying that there is a lack of a definition of what an inefficient subsidy of fossil fuels is. It jeopardizes the credibility of the commitment. We would have liked to see a stronger text, which not only promises to fulfill the promises in the Glasgow Climate Pact but also acknowledges all countries' shortcomings and weaknesses regarding the phasing out of fossil fuels, not least the subsidies.

My question to the Prime Minister is therefore: When is Sweden, according to the government's timetable, to be completely fossil-free?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I am happy to return to Swedish politics in an energy policy debate, but now it is not about that at all. I did not present any national Swedish views on Swedish energy policy at the meeting. No one else presented their national priorities in their own domestic energy policy either.

It is obvious that some countries are dominantly dependent on gas, that others use large amounts of coal, that some do everything they can to import oil, and that some use a lot of nuclear power. I am only saying this as a description of how the different energy situations look in Europe, which I believe is also a reasonable explanation for why it is difficult to agree on a number of concrete conclusions.

I am happy to take the debate on Swedish energy policy and exactly when we will become completely fossil-free, but it was not on the agenda at the European Council.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is somewhat remarkable, because one should have seen what the consequences for Sweden are for what is decided in the EU.

It is also positive that the EU emphasizes the importance of climate financing from rich countries to poor countries. It is absolutely central that the countries responsible for the largest historical emissions at COP 27 show that they are prepared to pay for the damage that has already occurred due to climate change, especially in poor parts of the world.

Unfortunately, the member countries have failed to mobilize the 100 billion US dollars over the recent years, so the investments should be even higher in the coming years to compensate for that.

My question to the Prime Minister is therefore: What is the government's plan for how Sweden, as a wealthy country, shall meet its commitments within climate financing and lead by example?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! This issue also lay completely outside every discussion at the European Council. I just want it to be said, but we can obviously talk about it anyway.

My answer is that the government's view is that we do the greatest global good by ensuring that Swedish energy production is totally fossil-free. It is one of several reasons why we will prioritize the expansion of nuclear power in Sweden. If this, we probably think differently.

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

Hans Wallmark (M)

Madam Speaker! The Prime Minister asked if we followed the press conference at 02.30 during the night between Thursday and Friday. No, Madam Speaker, I did not, at least not the undersigned; I saw the replay at 05.30.

It was the Prime Minister's first EU Committee last week and also my first EU Committee as chair. Let me say that there is a great consensus between what the Prime Minister said at the EU Committee and what was subsequently reported back, especially in the areas that Matilda Ernkrans, vice chair of the EU Committee, highlighted, namely the view on Russia and Ukraine.

It is central that we have this unity both in Sweden's Riksdag and Sweden as a country, as well as in the EU. It is Russia alone that is responsible for the consequences of the war: the food shortages and the threat to our global security. It is an escalating war of aggression.

The European Council also supports the idea of making greater use of the International Criminal Court, just as the previous government said and as the new government says.

Madam Speaker! It is important that one does not only express beautiful words but also takes action. Therefore, I would like, in line with my colleagues, to pose the question: Can we see more action from Europe when it comes to support for Ukraine and marking against the Russian Federation, not least in light of the cooperation between the EU and Nato?

I believe I know that the Prime Minister met NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, and I believe it is important that the EU and NATO go side by side when it comes to confronting Russia and supporting Ukraine.

In conclusion, I also want to say as a foreign and security policy politician that it is extremely valuable that the government's representatives both in the government statement and today mention Gui Minhai by name, the publisher imprisoned in the People's Republic of China who is a Swedish citizen and therefore also an EU citizen.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me start from the end. I met many nodding heads of agreement when I brought up Gui Minhaj's fate and both asked for further support and thanked for the support that has been given. There are many who know the case well and who have their own corresponding cases. No one dares to promise quick results, but I experienced great support in this matter.

For the sake of form, I should say that NATO issues were also not discussed at the European Council meeting, but since the overlap is great between the EU's countries and NATO's countries, many countries see the support for Ukraine in terms of the EU's activities and what NATO can do.

I perceive an incredibly strong unity. It is numbingly strong, and it has influenced many countries' national policies in terms of aid, defense spending, and willingness to contribute with defense materiel. It is noted that this also applies to Sweden.

There was nothing new on this point. The new thing was possibly to include Belarus more clearly in upcoming sanction regimes and to go further in the willingness to freeze assets abroad in a much more extensive way and link these frozen assets to a long-term reconstruction work.

There was a great deal of pessimism in the view of where Russia is headed, a great deal of consensus in the view of helping Ukraine, and a very large understanding that Ukraine is clearly requesting more help. One could not misunderstand President Zelenskyy's message. He was grateful for what they have received, but he was even clearer about what they need.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson, for the report on the talks at the European Council meeting!

Many important points were raised, including the situation in Ukraine and its consequences. I can state that there is agreement, condemnation, and sanctions against the unjust violence occurring in Ukraine, but also against the brutal violence directed at peaceful demonstrations in Iran. It is pleasing that this agreement exists to change the situation.

Many speakers here today have asked about the energy situation, which is being raised both in Europe and here in our country. Sweden and Europe are in a situation where the energy supply is uncertain. This raises fears and anxiety regarding the upcoming winter but also in the longer perspective. It is important to meet and seek common paths, as was done now during the consultation.

Even though Sweden is not primarily dependent on Russian gas, we see the effects on Europe's energy supply when Russia's unjust war creates an energy shortage in Europe, with raised price levels affecting families, companies, and civil society in Sweden.

My initial question, even though the Prime Minister touched upon it earlier in his answers, is: What is the Prime Minister's assessment and analysis of the discussions taking place at the European level? Is there a common perspective that enables paths and solutions forward to ensure the energy supply for Europe in the shadow of the terrible war that Russia is waging against its neighboring country Ukraine?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I give an answer in several parts.

Yes, there is absolutely a common view that free democracies in Europe cannot make themselves dependent on authoritarian states for something as fundamental as energy supply.

They blamed each other very little, but it is quite obvious that decisions have been made that have been bad for individual countries and for the common energy supply. This everyone has experienced in a very bitter way. It cannot be compared with Ukraine's suffering, but still. There is a numbing consensus there.

There is also a great consensus, regarding the short term, that if we can do things jointly that facilitate things, then we should do so. However, there is no consensus on a unified European energy policy where all countries are expected to do the same. I believe this is a completely unrealistic idea. Energy policies and energy systems are dramatically different in different countries, and I believe they will remain so for a long time to come.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

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

As I mentioned, Swedish households, companies, and many of the actors we have within civil society are also affected by the uncertainty and price increases that are occurring regarding energy. Many are worried about how they will manage their everyday finances, and both companies and Föreningssverige, for example sports clubs and churches, see a risk of having to change, pause, or even shut down their activities.

Does the Prime Minister see that what is being discussed and what appears to be what is practically possible to implement at an overarching EU level creates conditions for Sweden's population, companies, and civil society to be able to feel less worried about the approaching winter with its increased energy needs?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! As I said: If what we agreed upon on a principled level leads to concrete agreement on concrete changes, which in turn leads to lower prices also on the electricity that enters Sweden, it will be a relief.

No one can know how large it is today. No one can know how long-lasting it is today. No one knows how it will happen either today. Therefore, I do not intend to oversell the message. But it would be good, and therefore it is good for Sweden. Together with the high-cost protection, it will cushion and make the damage less, but it does not, of course, replace a long-term energy policy where Sweden regains stable, low electricity prices.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

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

I note with pleasure that the newly appointed government has raised the ambitions regarding Ukraine in the government statement, where the Prime Minister spoke of more qualified weapons and increased financial support.

I also note with pleasure the part in the report concerning frozen assets linked to the reconstruction of Ukraine. The Liberals have long advocated that we should confiscate the frozen Russian assets that exist and use them in the reconstruction. It is actually nothing strange, as it has been done previously in similar historical stages.

I want to take the opportunity to emphasize the importance not only of Ukraine winning the war but also of Russia losing the war. Russia needs to lose the war economically, militarily, culturally and politically - in all dimensions. It is about the Russian economy having to pay for the reconstruction of the Ukrainian one. It is about Russia's military having to lose. It is about Putin and the regime ultimately having to go. It is also, of course, on the cultural level, about cultural creators who have historically been called Russian due to Russia's colonialism and imperialism starting to be called Ukrainian. It is important on all fronts that Ukraine wins and that Russia loses.

At the same time, there has been a worrying tendency from some politicians around the world to try to pressure Ukraine into peace talks where the conditions are not set by Ukraine itself. I wonder if there were such tendencies in the discussions and what the government will do to ward off these tendencies, so that such a situation does not occur.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! Even here, the answer is two-sided. I note that there are voices internationally that are keen on peace agreements on terms that Ukraine can neither nor should ever accept. There was nothing of that nature at the Council of Europe meeting – nothing at all. That does not mean that this discussion does not risk coming back. It will certainly be influenced by what Russia does in the coming period.

The threat has, as is known, increased dramatically. One can imagine that this threat has many addressees, not just Ukraine. I believe that one should take the question very seriously, but nothing of the sort shone through in the European Council.

When it comes to frozen assets, I shall be a bit formal and read from the conclusions: ". urges the Commission to submit alternatives in accordance with EU law and international law aimed at using frozen assets to support Ukraine's reconstruction". This is the mandate of the European Commission, and they will report back on it.

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

Erik Hellsborn (SD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to ask the Prime Minister about the future arms deliveries to Ukraine and whether there are any conversations taking place between the EU states on how they could complement each other through their respective deliveries.

Ukraine has submitted a wish list showing what types of weapons systems they are requesting. It would be unfortunate, in my opinion, if many countries send identical or similar systems so that Ukraine is left with a surplus of these while they have empty barns regarding other types of systems.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! First, I want to say that the question of how individual countries choose to support Ukraine with weapon systems was not up for joint discussion. However, the need for more weapons for Ukraine was touched upon. This was addressed, not least by President Zelenskyy, with a clarity that could not be misunderstood. Several also touched upon the need to coordinate this.

My very firm view is that an informal coordination is taking place between countries. Not least the USA, which is by far the largest aid donor, is very keen that Europe's countries contribute according to capacity and expertise. Coordination is ongoing, but it was not raised in the talks at the European Council.

The reporting was hereby concluded.

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