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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! The European Council met, as we all know, in Brussels on March 21-22, and the discussions were initially characterized by Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine and the acute need for continued European support. The second major issue was the Middle East and the conflict between Israel and Hamas, not least during the lunch with UN Secretary-General António Guterres. The European defense industry and the conditions for European agriculture were also discussed during the summit.

Madam Speaker! The EU's continued support is absolutely crucial for Ukraine to be able to meet Russia's invasion and, ultimately, win the war. In recent months, the EU has agreed on several large economic support packages - first the 50 billion euros in the budget decision and then an additional 5 billion euros for training and military equipment within the framework of the European Peace Facility. At this meeting, we were also able to agree that returns from frozen Russian assets within the EU's member states can be used to provide military support to Ukraine.

This was not obvious from the beginning, and this first agreement on how frozen Russian assets shall be used is a success - not least for Sweden, which has been an initiator and pushed for further support for Ukraine through the possibility of also using frozen Russian assets. We will continue to do so. The message to Ukraine is that we in Europe not only stand firm in our support but also strengthen it. It is a particularly important message also to the US Congress right now: Support for a Ukrainian victory is and remains our most important task in European cooperation in this time.

The support for Ukraine is also closely linked to the discussion on the European defense industry. The ability to scale up production of defense materiel, not least ammunition, is central to meeting Ukraine's needs for military support. So far, it has not been enough, and the Swedish government - like many others - now supports the Czech initiative to procure ammunition on the world market. The report from the Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala shows that this mission is moving forward.

The Commission also recently presented a proposal to strengthen the European defense industry, for example through joint procurement, joint action on the world market, and joint planning. It was received fundamentally positively by the member states, but the negotiations are only in their infancy. That the devil is in the details is, as is known, true, and it is true here as well. The Government will participate actively in the work, and from the Swedish side, we will stand guard to ensure that more European cooperation does not mean less cooperation with, for example, the USA and the United Kingdom.

A question that is not a detail is that of financing. Europe's defense industry needs access to capital, and in the long run, a well-capitalized defense sector is crucial for us to be able to produce the materiel needed so that it is possible to send materiel further to Ukraine. The European Council tasked the Commission with investigating different financing models and reporting back to the summit in June.

From my conversations in the margins of the meeting, it is evident that in several different places, joint borrowing is seen as an alternative to finance further military support to Ukraine. Sweden and our like-minded countries, as is well known, oppose that issue and instead point to good opportunities to use the resources that already exist.

At the meeting, we agreed that the European Investment Bank, EIB, shall be tasked with reviewing its lending to defense industry projects as well as reviewing the definition of dual-use goods, so-called dual use. If EIB broadens its lending to more defense projects, it also sends an important signal to other actors.

Madam Speaker! Even the EU's political support is important. Ukraine's rapprochement with the EU is absolutely crucial in this context. Following the historic decision to open membership negotiations in December, discussions are now taking place regarding the so-called negotiation frameworks for both Ukraine and Moldova. The goal is to be able to decide on these frameworks this summer.

At the meeting, it was also decided that membership negotiations shall be opened with Bosnia and Herzegovina. The next step will be to establish and negotiate a negotiation framework to be adopted as soon as the country complies with the Commission's recommendations from October 2022. It is, as always, one step at a time in these processes.

Madam Speaker! The humanitarian situation in Gaza can hardly be described in words. The same applies to the horrific suffering that women, men, and children are now forced to endure, literally speaking, in the line of fire between Hamas and the Israeli army, and it applies to the completely inhuman situation for the hostages and their families in the uncertainty regarding the hostages. The war in Gaza was the given main issue during the lunch with UN Secretary-General Guterres. He accounted for the efforts to get food and water to civilians and for the ongoing investigation regarding the UN relief organization for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA.

As I have pointed out several times before, we are in agreement on much within the EU, but not on everything. The EU member states also have increasing consensus with the USA. Views on Israel and Palestine differ between member states for various historical reasons, which also shapes today's concrete positions. I did, however, experience a greater consensus at this meeting than previously. Children must not starve to death. Imports of food and medicine were needed, and therefore a humanitarian ceasefire was needed. All hostages must be released immediately and unconditionally. A negotiated two-state solution must be put on the table again.

In the session, the discussion revolved primarily around how the European Council should formulate requirements for the violence to cease. We were finally able to agree that conclusions could be adopted, unlike in the two previous instances. As I have said before, unity is crucial if the EU is to be able to play a common role in this terrible situation. That we succeeded this time is, of course, a step in the right direction for the EU's opportunity to contribute constructively. I also had a separate conversation with Germany's Chancellor Olaf Scholz about how both our countries could contribute constructively.

Israel's friends must demand things from Israel's government. The USA's focus on alleviating the catastrophic humanitarian situation and at the same time ensuring that the hostages are released and that a future Palestinian state is not governed by Hamas must also be Europe's focus. Sweden has told both Germany and the USA in various conversations that we stand ready to help if other countries perceive that we have a role to play.

Madam Speaker! The European Council returned once again to the conditions for European agriculture. As many may remember, the summit in February was characterized by extensive and sometimes violent agricultural protests. Many farmers are now being squeezed from several sides simultaneously. We have new legislation with stricter conditions and requirements that sometimes lead to regulatory complications and new reporting obligations. At the same time, many farmers have been affected by inflation and high energy and fuel prices, and certain countries by a large influx of Ukrainian grain and other agricultural products.

Overall, these issues must be taken seriously. Smaller family farms on a few hectares do not have the same administrative conditions as large companies. In meetings with representatives of Swedish agriculture, they have several times conveyed that many farmers feel that they sometimes drown in both Swedish legislation and EU legislation and, even worse, in the combination of Swedish and European legislation. We had such a round-table discussion with Swedish agriculture shortly before the Council of Europe's meeting.

That is why it is good that the commission has proposed a number of measures aimed at increasing the freedom of action for farmers without, for that matter, backing down on our high European environmental, climate, and animal welfare ambitions. Particularly welcome is that it now looks as if Sweden, together with Finland and other countries, has succeeded in stopping the so-called Nature Restoration Law. The great differences between forests in different EU countries mean that decisions must be made that take into account national conditions. The Nature Restoration Law would have implied an unreasonably large restriction on the member states' agriculture and forestry, not least in Swedish and Finnish agriculture and forestry. The Government stands up for Swedish forestry. This also shows that hard and consistent work pays off.

We also discussed trade concessions towards Ukraine. Poland pushed for wording clarifying that issues regarding the trade relationship with Ukraine shall, in the long term, be regulated in the association agreement between the EU and Ukraine, which could be included in the text by consensus since it does not go against the extension of the temporary trade concessions that the Council and the European Parliament have agreed upon.

Regarding these issues, the discussions are still ongoing in Brussels. Since a number of countries did not approve the agreement on the table, the Belgian presidency will continue the negotiations with the European Parliament. Sweden continues to act to achieve the best possible solution for Ukraine as soon as possible. The Government stands on Ukraine's side, and we will remain there as long as required.

Madam Speaker! With this, I conclude the report from the meeting of the Council of Europe.

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin where the Prime Minister finished, with the support for Ukraine. As long as we have a full-scale war of invasion in Europe, nothing is more important than holding firm on Sweden's and the EU's support for Ukraine so that Ukraine wins the war and Putin's Russia loses. This is about Ukraine's freedom and our common security and safety. This is what we hear being said, not least in the festive speeches.

My questions concern what is perceived as a failing support for Ukraine's free trade agreement with the EU, that which since the beginning of the full-scale war has been without tariffs and quotas in support of Ukraine. How did it happen when Sweden changed its line from previously supporting a free trade agreement without tariffs and quotas to now supporting a free trade agreement with reintroduced tariffs and quotas for Ukraine? If we are to believe the EU Minister, one is also pleased by this. How, if at all, did and does Sweden do the work so that Ukraine can instead keep an extended free trade agreement without reintroduced tariffs and quotas? There are other ways to improve things for European farmers than to let Ukraine pay the price in the middle of a burning war. How does this square with the solemn speeches about putting Ukraine first?

This is also happening in a situation where Ukraine, because of the right-wing nationalist Orbán, has already been left in uncertainty regarding new funds from the EU, and when there is a concern for the American support and Trump's right-wing populist supporters are already putting spokes in the wheels. Is the Prime Minister not worried about how right-wing nationalists and right-wing populists can already now influence the EU unity? This is particularly highly topical given the new revelations about Russian influence on right-wing nationalists in the EU.

I think it is obvious that Ukraine needs all the support it can get and that the Prime Minister must choose the path of cooperation and cohesion over the path of division.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I note that even in the chamber, the Social Democrats are looking for disagreement where I have perceived that there is Swedish unity. The support for Ukraine is compact, long-term, and stable. Still, the Social Democrats are constantly looking for something to create disagreement. I do not understand why. The Swedish position has been crystal clear: maximum freedom of trade with Ukraine to support them in a very difficult time.

We managed to reach an agreement to continue this support, however not unreservedly, because there simply was no consensus. It is not about any right-wing populists in general, but it is about the fact that many countries see problems for their farmers for many different reasons - some completely legitimate, for example over-regulated agricultural sectors at the national and European level where regulations must be removed for agricultural entrepreneurs. Others take the opportunity to see concerns with Ukrainian grain or Ukrainian products entering the European market, but here we want maximum openness towards Ukraine. A third problem is that some of the grain that was only supposed to pass through Europe to the world market has remained on the European market, which was not the purpose.

Sweden has sought maximum support for maximum openness towards Ukraine, but we need to have unity. I can comfort the Social Democrats with the fact that Sweden's voice has been crystal clear on these issues: maximum support to Ukraine for a maximum long time. But that requires, as said, unity. Now this unity does not exist. It was quite good at the European Council, but it is lacking in the European Parliament and in the council that handles the issues. The Belgian presidency is now working on the issue. Exactly where we stand. If the Social Democrats then want to find disagreement, it is, of course, up to the Social Democrats.

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Madam Speaker! I can see it in no other way than that, as long as we have a full-scale war of invasion on our continent, it should be the Prime Minister's responsibility to unite the parties in the Swedish Riksdag in support of Ukraine. Furthermore, it is his responsibility among the EU leaders to be the one who always stands up for the support for Ukraine, because it concerns our common security and safety. If he deviates from this and negotiates something new that has not previously been on the table, he must speak about why and perhaps even strive for Sweden to remain united in its support.

I have two additional questions regarding the EU summit.

It is very important that the EU's leaders are now in agreement on an immediate and sustainable ceasefire in Gaza. What initiatives is Sweden, together with other EU countries, taking to get the ceasefire in place and to contribute to ensuring that humanitarian aid gets through?

What responsibility does the Prime Minister take now that tariffs and quotas have been reintroduced on Ukraine's export of agricultural products to the EU, which could affect Swedish food prices? What responsibility does the Prime Minister take to ensure that this does not affect ordinary people?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I note a numbing consensus for Ukraine in Sweden, and I note a quarrelsome social democracy that must find something to have a dissenting opinion on. We are talking about the social democracy that, during the first week of this war, could not even decide whether Ukraine should receive weapons from Sweden or not. Let us now cherish the broad cohesion across party lines for Ukraine and against Russia that so many countries have stood up for for so long and save the quarrelsomeness for other issues.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the Middle East, our view is that the more Europe can unite and have a united voice in the issues where the EU fundamentally stands together and jointly with the USA to exert political pressure both on Israel's government and on Hamas to release the hostages, the greater the benefit we can achieve, in addition to, of course, providing money for the humanitarian efforts that are also needed.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! Initially, I also, on behalf of the Sweden Democrats, want to emphasize the positive aspect that we here in the Swedish Riksdag have a broad consensus regarding the support for Ukraine. We can also observe that we have a government that is working constructively to achieve a broad consensus also in the EU.

At the meeting with the European Council, it was pleasing to see that we now have the green light to use the proceeds from the frozen assets to be able to support Ukraine broadly, including with arms purchases. From SD's side, we would also wish that these frozen assets of 200 billion euros could be used in a constructive way, and I know that the Prime Minister is working in that direction. What does the Prime Minister think moving forward about the possibilities of using even the existing funds and not only the proceeds? That is a question from my side.

Madam Speaker! Another positive point in the opinion is the conclusions that underline the need for a vital agricultural sector. We can now also see that concrete proposals will come from the Commission. Perhaps they are coming a bit late, but we should be grateful that they are coming, even though we from the Sweden Democrats hope for more decisiveness from the Commission in these matters. What has come from the Commission now will perhaps above all help smaller agricultural enterprises in countries other than Sweden. We have somewhat larger agricultural enterprises.

A concrete problem is also the targets that remain at the European level in the European food strategy, such as for example 25 percent organic. The question is how that would impact the food supply. We also have the nature restoration law, which we don't quite know how it will turn out with.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! Several important issues came up at the same time. I will begin with the frozen assets. There is a clear counterpoint to the previous question, with strong Swedish unity regarding the maximum use of frozen Russian assets – do as much as possible! There were reasons why this started during the Swedish presidency and that it was a Swedish investigator who led the work of identifying the volumes of frozen assets, identifying different legal paths forward, and creating unity between countries.

There is a difference between those who stand alone and shout into the desert and those who form alliances with others – not to achieve the perfect, but to achieve as much as can be agreed upon. Now we have come so far that we have an agreement to use the proceeds from frozen Russian assets. It is a good start. We in Sweden would like to go further, just as in many other areas, but it would have been bad to stand alongside and block such an agreement because it is not the perfect solution.

Will we then move forward? It is difficult to know. A number of countries are skeptical and afraid of the consequences. The European Central Bank is very cautious and is afraid of currency consequences. Just there, Sweden, as is known, has no influence. But I believe that this is a first step which, if it proves successful, will urge more to want to go further.

We have been against the Nature Restoration Act the whole time. The previous government was systematically careless with this and could not agree on protecting Swedish forests properly. Now we are doing it together with Finland. No one has missed that. We have also gotten several other partner countries with us, even though they are less exposed to forest economy than we are and can therefore also provide smaller climate contributions than we in Sweden can with our forest. By gathering alliances, we now have a blocking minority, and we will have to see what happens in the matter. So far, our work to protect Swedish forestry has been successful.

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. It is pleasing that the consensus in the Council is so great when it comes to the support for Ukraine and sanctions against Russia. Hopefully, the Council can soon also reach an agreement regarding the stopping of Russian gas and oil.

The EU's defense industry was discussed at the Council meeting. Right now, the focus is that more weapons and more ammunition should be produced. But it is not quite clear how the Council views the period after the war in Ukraine. What will happen to the materiel that has been produced? How will Europe's defense industry transition to peace? I hope that there is also a plan for that and for how weapons should be destroyed instead of ending up in the hands of criminal networks.

The war in Gaza has now been ongoing for almost half a year. Over 32,000 Palestinians have been killed, of which one-third are children, and many have been injured. Israeli military has bombed and destroyed hospitals, which hinders care. Several children have starved to death, and the food crisis results in fights with fatal outcomes at the few deliveries that enter Gaza. Yesterday, seven international aid workers were also killed by the Israeli military while they were bringing in supplies.

The Council has reached several strong and good conclusions regarding a sustainable ceasefire, that the International Court of Justice's decision must be followed, that food transports must be allowed in, about UNRWA's importance for emergency aid, and about how civilians can be protected. But at the same time as one speaks of sanctions against Hamas to get the hostages released, nothing equivalent is said about Israel. That it is Israel that kills aid workers, civilians, and children in Gaza and that causes starvation by not letting in food is not even mentioned in the conclusion. It is as if it happens by itself. It should be obvious that Europe imposes sanctions against Israel to put an end to this horrific war. My question to the Prime Minister is: When will it come up on the agenda?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! We begin with the defense industry. First, I want to acknowledge that I am pleased by the consensus also on this issue: consensus on providing Ukraine with as many weapons as possible so that they can win this war and consensus on that the defense industry is a necessary activity for democracies in order to be able to defend themselves. It has not always been obvious. The fewer weapons we have in the world, the better. That is the long-term ambition, but naturally, democracies must be able to defend themselves against those who have weapons. All of this, I think, we now have a good consensus on in Sweden.

The best way to avoid weapons falling into the wrong hands after the war is for Ukraine to win the war, for democracies to be able to defend themselves against non-democracies, and for those countries to subsequently stand strongly armed against the next attempt by a country that wants to do some harm. That is the very best way to let those weapons do good even after the war. Sweden is happy to contribute to this as a proud defense materiel producer.

When it comes to the Middle East, it is quite obvious that the humanitarian situation is absolutely appalling. On that, the council stands completely united. All the things mentioned now were up for discussion. But as is known, the council must reach a consensus in its conclusions, and this is as far as the consensus in the EU's member states reaches. Let us then see the glass as half full rather than half empty! We went further than before. We have more consensus with the USA than before. There are more countries that want to do something constructive in this very difficult situation. This far we reached in agreement this time. I do not rule out that we can go further in agreement later.

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.

When it comes to the West Bank, the conclusions are very clear in their criticism of the settlement violence but also of Israel. It is written that it is a conscious and stated policy from Israel's government to expand the settlements and the commission is urged to introduce sanctions. I wonder if the Prime Minister can say something about these sanctions. Are they to be directed against the settlers, against Israel, or both? Why can one be so clear when it comes to the West Bank but not when it comes to Gaza?

In the consultation, the Prime Minister said that the EU cannot influence Israel and that only the USA can do so. But that is evading responsibility. Of course, the EU can influence Israel by introducing sanctions. It is the will that is lacking. I note that the Prime Minister's rhetoric has changed. I wish that Sweden were proactive instead of following other countries, for example when it comes to a ceasefire.

Finally, it is nothing to boast about that Sweden has stopped the nature restoration law. Sweden should support environmental and climate measures, not stop them.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I believe that we possibly mean the same thing but express it in different ways. First, when it comes to Västbanken, we urge the commission to come back. That is how it works. Then they produce a proposal which will subsequently, in its details, be developed in other council constellations. It was an important step that the council could agree on this assignment.

When I said that the EU has not played a leading role, it was merely a blunt observation that as long as the EU is so divided in its opinions that one cannot even reach common conclusions, the EU plays a rather limited role on the world stage, while the USA has played the most distinct role.

I said at the same time that I wish for the EU to be able to play a stronger role, but then we must hold firm on everything that we actually agree on. At the council meeting, however, important steps were taken towards signaling that there are not small matters where the EU stands united and can thus make more of an impact, hand in hand with, for example, the USA.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! Maintaining the border against Russia and standing up for Ukraine is completely paramount right now. In order to do that, we within the EU need to be self-sufficient when it comes to food production, both in war and - in the long term - in peace.

The existing agricultural policy is, as we all know, complicated, not particularly profitable, not sufficiently competitive, and not sufficiently sustainable. Therefore, it is extremely welcome that this is now being reviewed and, among other things, that the administration is being reduced, which is urgent.

When it comes to Swedish food production, I believe we are very much in agreement that it is among the most climate-smart in the world and, not least, that we are good at animal husbandry and have a low environmental impact. Now, it is a matter of really trying to bring the EU up to our level, not just for our own sake and for our competitiveness, but for the sake of all of Europe and development.

At the same time, we have the hope that we will be expanded with Ukraine and Moldova, and then the question arises: What is the Prime Minister's view? How is this going to fit together, and how are the discussions going after the meeting? It doesn't say very much in the minutes. There is a small embryo at the beginning, but it is not enough. We will need to reform more.

Does the Prime Minister feel that there is support for the Swedish will to have a sustainable agriculture, where Ukraine is also included in a sustainable way?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! As Prime Minister, one must be careful about reviewing questions, but this was an incredibly good and difficult question.

We can start with some different conflicts of interest. What is described very well are a number of very legitimate interests: a country's self-sufficiency, not least now that we know that war is not just a theoretical risk but a highly tangible, practical risk, our common will in Sweden and the EU to have strict and stringent environmental requirements, climate requirements, and animal welfare requirements, and our common will, at least in Sweden, to have a lot of free trade to benefit competition and consumers.

All of this represents very legitimate demands that can also conflict with one another. Let us acknowledge that. This is truly no simple mathematics, and right now it is being tested very strongly here. If one also adds the will to temporarily support Ukraine for a specific reason, it clashes with these things. Let us, based on all of this, be mature enough to realize that these are difficult trade-offs that we are making.

When it comes to Ukraine's long-term path, one must distinguish it from the temporary. Everyone understands that in many ways it would be good to include Europe's granary in the European market. It would increase our collective capacity for good food production, but everyone understands that this will challenge European agricultural policy and its funding models quite a bit. It will also challenge quite many countries' perceptions of what is a sufficient level of self-sufficiency even within Europe.

I have no good answer to the question right now. When we subsequently take new steps in the membership negotiations and lock in the frameworks that I mentioned in my introduction, agricultural policy will undoubtedly be one of the absolute biggest and hardest nuts to crack.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer. I still want to send both the question and also that matter of truly standing up for our Swedish system and the laws and rules that we have, while at the same time, Ukraine and, as the Prime Minister himself said, the contribution that Ukraine can give when it comes to agriculture is very welcome.

I must follow up on what concerns the frozen Russian assets, because it is undeniably very good that Sweden was the initiator. The Prime Minister also said earlier that one is prepared to take the next step and have maximum use. I do, however, know that disagreement exists. Does the Prime Minister experience that Sweden stands alone, or are there others who, together with Sweden, can push the issue further so that it becomes more than what it is right now?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! Fundamentally, we see the same thing here in like-minded countries. It is approximately the same countries that are always maximally firm towards Russia and that have a maximal will to help Ukraine.

Then there are complications. The Eurozone countries, which have a common currency, will need to have a common position on many of these issues, which can limit the freedom of action for a number of countries, in any case a little. I do not perceive that they have yet taken a final position as a euro area, but the European Central Bank has signaled that it wants to be cautious for partly other reasons. It is not a lack of will to help Ukraine - so it should not be seen as such. One cannot take every critical stance on something as a lack of will to help Ukraine, but one can make different assessments of what risks lie in something.

I believe the jury is out, as they say. I believe that the first steps are important as a basis to see if we can then move forward.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

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

I will begin by faithfully repeating some of the points that I, in the role of the opposition, usually bring up. This naturally concerns the ecocide issue, where I had as a side objective to try to bring it up at least in coffee breaks and in the corridors. It would be interesting to hear if there was any kind of exchange of words on that issue, even though it was formally not on the agenda.

The second point concerns the loopholes that exist. The EU has imported Russian energy for more than 200 billion euros, and Sweden has imported for just over 1 billion Swedish kronor. This is something that we must address quickly. All imports of Russian energy must be stopped. We must stop financing this dreadful war.

I would also like to devote my speech to the issue of agriculture. Just like the previous speaker, I believe there is great consensus in the Riksdag and in Swedish public opinion in general that we are at the forefront when it comes to the environment, nature, and animal welfare. There are things we could do much better, but I think we should look at this with pride and also as a competitive advantage.

It is a difficult situation for the farmers, who bear the great risk when food is produced. Until now, the policy has focused heavily on minimizing the risk for those who invest, and 80 percent of the agricultural support goes to the largest farmers in the EU. Is the Prime Minister and the government interested in looking at a redistribution to support the smaller and medium-sized farmers?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! We can begin with the question of ecocide, that is, environmental crimes in a very broad sense. It is mentioned astonishingly often. It is mentioned, if I am to be honest, when various types of crimes that Russia has committed are brought up, from what is on everyone's retinas - explicit war crimes directed against women, men, and children - to infrastructural destruction and such things. It is mentioned almost always there. But just as the questioner said, it was not explicitly at the Council of Europe meeting just this time.

When it comes to the sanctions against Russia, I have said many times on the same theme as before that they should be maximal, but that the unity must be maintained. Therefore, we intend, just like the previous government, to adhere to the principle that we stand up and push for sanctions, but that we stick to them. It should not be a patchwork of different sanctions and sanction regimes.

Right now, I would say it is most important to ensure that the sanctions we have introduced are also complied with, both within the EU and via third countries, in different ways. There are far too many other countries that are taking advantage of this in a bad way.

When it comes to agriculture, I completely share the view that there should be a very high standard regarding environmental requirements, climate requirements, animal welfare and so on. At the same time, I believe that everyone realizes that if one wants free trade and competition within food production in Europe, the rules must be as similar as possible, otherwise countries with different requirements will take advantage of them at the expense of the countries that have tougher requirements. I believe that everyone understands that.

Lastly - there is a lot of focus on the smaller farms. I learned that 10 hectares is the average size of European family farms. Much focus is placed on regulatory simplifications precisely there.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Prime Minister for the answer. We do not agree on the facts regarding the agricultural issues. The free trade agreements that the government speaks so warmly about are hundreds, sometimes thousands of pages long. The Prime Minister mentioned in a previous post that the agricultural sector has been deregulated, and that is exactly what is being done with these free trade agreements. Farmers need resilient ecosystems more than very complicated free trade agreements that are not written to facilitate their cause.

My next question concerns a ceasefire, which is something that the UN Security Council requires. Is the government prepared to push for a pause of the EU's association agreement until Israel complies with the UN's resolutions?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! We stand fully behind the many different demands that I mentioned. A humanitarian ceasefire is one of them, naturally combined with the unconditional release of all hostages and many other things. Sweden has pushed forward on all these issues with the ambition of letting the EU stand as united as possible. If the EU is to be able to act together with other leading actors in the world, not least the USA, and constructive forces in the region, the EU must be able to speak with one voice. As long as we speak with 27 different voices, in practice, individual EU countries will be counted individually. I think it is important that we, together with among others the USA, actually use the unity that practically exists and that it gains traction.

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

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

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

It has probably never been as important as now that the EU stands united and strong against the background of a restless world with war in Europe and as an important signal to our friends in the USA, not least regarding the support for Ukraine. I am pleased that the Swedish government is clear that the support for Ukraine is the most important security policy issue in Sweden and also in the EU.

As was said, several important decisions were made at the meeting, such as that proceeds from frozen Russian assets can be used to provide military support to Ukraine and that the European Council now urges the European Investment Bank to review its lending policy towards the defense industry to secure access to financing. It is also important that Sweden supports the Czech initiative to procure ammunition on the world market. Made in Europe is not the most important thing, but rather ensuring that Ukraine receives the ammunition it needs.

I am, of course, curious about the Prime Minister's assessment of how quickly several of these measures can be implemented and have a real effect when it comes to securing support for Ukraine. But above all, I want to thank the Prime Minister for that Sweden is pushing forward to secure the support for and the financing of Ukraine's important fight, which we know they are also fighting for all our freedom.

Finally, I want to state that in a broader sense, a stronger and more capable EU is needed in the area of security and defense. It will contribute to global and transatlantic security and can also complement Nato in an excellent way.

I welcome that several good things are now highlighted in the conclusions, for example defense industrial collaborations, reduced bureaucracy, addressing bottlenecks, research and development, and joint procurement. No EU army, so, and no double work with Nato, but rather that one builds upon the EU's fundamental strengths and ultimately secures what is most important: peace on the European continent.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I will begin with the concrete matters. I think, as I have said, that judging by the reporting from the Czech Republic, it is going quite well with the initiative to vacuum the world market. This also applies to those countries that do not actively signal that they are contributing to helping Ukraine. That is good. We contribute with both money and commitment. Other examples are what is called the Ramstein format, where many countries are now joining forces to support and coordinate arms deliveries, and that Nato as an organization takes a stronger grip on this so that more countries can do completely coordinated things at the same time. We have current discussions about aviation capacity and many such things.

I think it is moving forward, but I still have great respect for the fact that Ukraine will always think it is too little and too slow. I have great respect for that position.

While I am on this topic – we have so many things we disagree on in this chamber, on completely legitimate grounds. We disagree on domestic policy, nuclear power, taxes, and all sorts of things. Let me nevertheless point out that we have a fundamental agreement when it comes to security policy choices.

I think it is important to say that Ukraine's situation in all its horror has brought us to a consensus on many other things. We have overhauled Swedish security policy. Sweden is a member of Nato. That would have been unthinkable for many before the war in Ukraine. We have a new view on the Swedish tradition of having a defense industry, which some treated as something the cat had dragged in. Now we think it is a pride of the country and use it actively for Ukraine's sake.

We agree on providing military, economic, political, and humanitarian support to Ukraine. I therefore think there are very many areas—within the framework of it being a terrible situation—where unity is manifested when we are seriously tested. And that is because the vast majority realize that what happened in Ukraine could affect any democracy.

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

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the answer! With war in Europe, it is natural that the focus is on Ukraine, but I think it is very good that the EU also has the situation in the Middle East high on the agenda. I welcome that the European Council managed to agree on conclusions on stopping the violence - despite some, known division that the Prime Minister touched upon.

It is a strength that one can agree on the basic things: that Hamas's terrorist attacks on October 7 are condemned in the strongest possible terms, that Israel has the right to defend itself and that the hostages must be freed, but that a friend of Israel must also be able to criticize Israel, as the Prime Minister said. The humanitarian situation in Gaza is absolutely appalling, and it is good that the EU demands an immediate humanitarian pause and also marks that a ground operation in Rafah should not be carried out. I think it is good that the government pushes to hold two thoughts in mind at the same time in this very complex issue.

The Prime Minister mentioned that the question of a two-state solution was returned to in the discussion. Many may feel that this is something remote. What is the Prime Minister's message to those who doubt, and what fundamentally needs to be done now to eventually reach that point?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I have two answers. One concerns the immediate and one concerns the long-term.

Humanitarian access must increase dramatically immediately. Now there is an attempt being made by sea from Cyprus, and it is very commendable. It is happening with the help of many, including Sweden's. But much more must happen by land. Reports say that about 150 trucks arrive per day. It should be upwards of 500 trucks per day, at least. It is only a hint of what a monumental task it is to provide Gaza with supplies. All international pressure there is absolutely necessary.

The long-term issue is about the two-state solution. Those who do not believe in it, I think, are to blame. What do you believe in instead of a negotiated two-state solution, where a democratic Israel can live side by side with a democratic Palestine? I understand all the problems on the way there, but there is no other path that has greater credibility when it comes to creating long-term peace in the Middle East.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I want to start by thanking the Prime Minister for the report and for the answers to previous questions. I am very pleased with the EU's work for Ukraine and that the pressure of sanctions on Russia continues, now also with the use of frozen assets. It is more important now than ever.

A little over a week ago, I left Lviv in Ukraine after having driven down together with other members of parliament from different parties in the blue and yellow car and handed over seven ambulances, or rather medical transport vehicles, to those who need them most, namely those who are fighting for their own and for Europe's freedom and democracy at the front in Ukraine. On the last night, we experienced a number of hours in a shelter when Russian missiles and drones were sent towards Lviv.

We were received by soldiers who were to further transport the ambulances, but also by the deputy mayor who spoke about local challenges, such as housing administrative units even from other municipalities in occupied areas, as well as the fantastic work being done in the rehabilitation field. I emphasized from our side that the entire Swedish Riksdag shares a common view in our support for Ukraine and that we make all decisions regarding military, humanitarian, or economic support to Ukraine in full unanimity.

My question to the Prime Minister is whether the Prime Minister thinks that what was discussed and decided at the European Council leads to a continued long-term and united approach in EU circles regarding the support for Ukraine's freedom, and if there was also a dialogue on how the dialogue should be conducted across the Atlantic, where we hear that there is a bit of grit in the machinery.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! It was another difficult but interesting question. I believe that all of us who are passionate about helping Ukraine and who have been on site have seen something with our own eyes that is almost difficult to describe to people who have not been there. I, of course, have all respect for the fact that not everyone can be in Ukraine; it would do more harm than good. But it is a completely life-altering experience to see it with your own eyes and have it confirmed.

When it comes to the long-term perspective, I think one should look at it optimistically. We finally got the entire support package through - not without problems, everyone knows that, but we got it through. We got through the membership negotiations with Ukraine, and we got through the peace facility. There is, therefore, fundamentally a very strong support for this, I would say.

Then one must also say, so that it has been thought through various scenarios, that democracies are vulnerable. Many other things are happening - recession, energy problems and all sorts of other things. Democracies have many things to think about at the same time. Russia believes that the inherent vulnerability of democracies works in their favor, both in Europe and in the USA. That is why many fear that they will interfere and spread disinformation during the EU election campaign, for example. I discussed this with Roberta Metsola when she was here last week. It is a serious risk that they will do everything they can to destroy the EU election.

Many are also afraid regarding the USA following the experience from 2016, even though the USA itself believes that they are better equipped this time. There is an obvious risk that the USA enters a period of more isolationism. We have seen such periods earlier in the USA's history. Then Europe must be prepared to shoulder a greater responsibility entirely on its own – to maintain the transatlantic link but be prepared to do more themselves. Most European countries are prepared for all of this but hope that we will be able to go hand in hand with the USA when we do it.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Prime Minister for the answer to my question. I understand that only the future can show how we can keep Europe together and also keep the transatlantic link very close to us.

I would like to ask a question regarding the meeting with UN Secretary-General António Guterres about the Middle East, which I understood the discussions primarily concerned. I understand that much was discussed in terms of the acute situation, but we must also manage to talk about the future. Was that also discussed with Guterres? Was a two-state solution etcetera discussed? It is clear that there are many prerequisites: Hamas can never be part of a two-state solution, the hostages must be released and everything else that the Prime Minister enumerated. Was that also included in the discussions with Guterres?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! It was up, naturally. It is no secret that the UN's role is not entirely simple right now when its most important weapon is not really usable and is paralyzed by other conflicts, not least the ongoing war against Ukraine. It is probably no one who has any kind of dreamy confidence that the UN will be able to solve these problems. That is not the case. However, that does not mean that the UN is unimportant – on the contrary, it is, after all, a meeting place for all countries. As someone said: Had the UN not existed, we would have had to create the UN, because we must be able to meet and discuss even with countries that think very differently at times. That is something I myself felt I experienced on-site during the General Assembly.

As a description of how things look on the ground, it is probably the UN that has the best overview, as well as UNRWA, of course, including the problems that have existed and which they have now certified that they take very seriously. I have great respect for their work.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

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

I thought I would start by staying a bit on Ukraine. The duty-free status with the EU is now unfortunately off the table. As a liberal, I would have, perhaps not surprisingly, preferred a continuation of it. Lifting the tariffs was very important for the Ukrainian economy. Now that we will probably once again introduce tariffs, one can reason that we are taking with one hand and giving with the other, but now we are where we are.

It is very important that we stand firm in our support for Ukraine. I would especially like to thank the Prime Minister for the clarity the Prime Minister expressed in his report. We must continue to stand on Ukraine's side. We will remain.

I also share the Prime Minister's surprise at the Social Democrats' attempt to paint a picture of disagreement here in the Riksdag. It is actually incomprehensible.

This was mostly a reflection. Now to the question I intended to ask: At the open consultation before the council's meeting, I raised the issue of the UN's report on sexual violence that was to be discussed at the meeting. Sexual violence is unfortunately used more as a rule than as an exception in armed conflicts. Absolutely horrific information is contained in this report. I wonder if the Prime Minister can tell us something about what was discussed in connection with this point and how the issue will continue to be handled.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the duty-free status, it is a bit difficult to assess what is happening now. What we find easy to assess, however: We will stand firm and do everything we can to stand by Ukraine's side. Then, as is known, unity within the EU circle was needed for it to be possible to reach a common decision. It will be a tough nut for the Belgian presidency to take up that thread once again.

Sexual violence was also raised by another questioner here. It was only mentioned—it was not a separate discussion point of its own. I therefore unfortunately have nothing to report from the council meeting itself regarding this, but it was mentioned as one of several heinous examples of abuse that occurs and which we, of course, have an international responsibility to combat, but also to hold accountable for afterwards and everything that is required to be able to map out and prove things much later. But it was therefore mentioned mostly as an example.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! I have a short follow-up question. Does the Prime Minister have any idea how the report will be handled further? Will it be taken up again? It is important to keep the issue alive.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! It will certainly be done. If not, we can ensure ourselves that it is kept alive. There are often quite a few issues that are up at the same time. There are quite few things that one goes into in detail at the European Council. In other council configurations, things can be discussed a bit more in detail. Let us return to that either at the European Council or, for example, at the Foreign Affairs Council.

The reporting was hereby concluded.

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