Reporting from the Council of Europe meeting on March 20

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The EU's heads of state and government met on Thursday with an unusually substantial agenda ahead of them.

The meeting was largely about Ukraine and how we can strengthen European competitiveness. That was the subject that was promised from the beginning for this meeting. We also discussed migration and European defense. We had an initial discussion about the EU's next long-term budget, the one called MFF.

We had UN Secretary-General António Guterres visiting over lunch. At that time, we also discussed the Middle East, various maritime issues, and multilateralism, to mention all topics briefly.

Even though many issues were on the agenda, this was not a meeting for major new decisions, but we adopted all the conclusions that were submitted before the meeting without any adjustments.

On the morning before the meeting, I participated in a breakfast meeting where we again discussed migration issues. It has happened quite regularly that a smaller, though now increasingly larger, circle discusses migration issues in order to move them forward. In addition to a fairly large number of heads of state and government, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, also participated in that meeting.

It is clear that the EU is now moving in a direction where more and more people want to get migration in order. This time we primarily discussed return issues regarding those who have sought asylum in various European countries but have been rejected. That 80 percent of those who are rejected in their application still do not leave Europe is a clear sign that more must be done. The corresponding figure in Sweden is 20 percent, so we do not have the same problem. But we have had the same problem, so we understand very well what one is facing.

Sweden participates constructively in these discussions, and the conclusions build upon the consensus we had at the EU summit in October. But, as many said during the meeting, now we are moving from words and ideas to action and reforms.

We are talking about return hubs, where people who are to leave Europe after a rejection are gathered.

We are talking about cooperation agreements with countries of origin to reduce migration pressure, but also cooperation agreements with transit countries to prevent people from passing through a number of safe countries on their way towards Europe.

Just before the council meeting itself, since Sweden holds the presidency, I hosted a meeting with the Nordic-Baltic circle, where also Poland's Prime Minister Donald Tusk and Ireland's head of government Micheál Martin participated. At that meeting, there was once again a very broad consensus that we must do more to support Ukraine in this situation.

The council meeting began with President Zelenskyy participating via video link, as he often does when he does not participate physically. Everyone was in agreement, as everyone in this chamber knew, with one exception: Hungary.

Just as at the previous meeting, 26 countries agreed that we must continue to maximize our support for Ukraine. This is naturally crucial in combination with increased pressure on Russia in the form of sanctions.

The week before the meeting, Sweden sent a large civilian support package to Ukraine. We have quickly reprioritized 1.4 billion SEK in the Swedish aid budget to help Ukraine withstand the Russian invasion. We must strengthen Ukraine's resilience in every conceivable way, and Ukraine continues to defend both its and our freedom.

We also discussed the frozen Russian assets, both at our preliminary meeting and at the larger meeting. Here, as I have stated before, it is difficult to reach European unity. I emphasized to my colleagues from other neighboring countries that Euro countries that stand very close to Ukraine must continue to put pressure on other Euro countries that are more skeptical about using also the assets and not just the returns. Right now, that question is being blocked.

Mr. Speaker! The heads of state and government agree that Europe's competitiveness must be strengthened. Our economic strength is the basis for being able to afford everything from support for Ukraine and our own defense capability to the European welfare and everything else that our continent wants to do.

The unpredictability of American politics is affecting the EU countries' discussions on competitiveness right now. The uncertainty means that many companies and investors are waiting to see where the USA is headed and where American decisions that affect Europe are headed. But the situation also implies opportunities to further strengthen Europe's competitiveness. We fundamentally have a strong economy. We have a large internal market. We have conditions that have probably never in modern times been more important to take advantage of than right now, when the transatlantic ties are being questioned in various ways.

In the discussions, there were a couple of clear dividing lines between my European colleagues that I want to mention here.

Some request more common measures, not least when it comes to the supervision of capital markets and the interconnection of energy systems, with well-founded ambitions to do more together and use the decision-making power at the European level to achieve this.

Others point out, just as Sweden does, that this gains its validity primarily if and when all countries also implement important national reforms.

This may sound like a technicality, but it is not. Many major decisions can only be made on a national basis. Once that is done, common regulatory frameworks become very effective. Having common regulatory frameworks without the power of the national reforms significantly reduces their importance.

For example, the way to secure a strong European energy production is for all countries to produce more fossil-free electricity. Once they do that, the connectivity between the energy systems becomes all the more important.

Here we do our part with concrete and clear steps towards valuing all types of power, including new nuclear power. This week, we are presenting the historic bill that paves the way for new Swedish reactors.

In the same way, the basis for strengthened capital markets is that all countries nationally implement the measures needed to gain deeper and broader access to risk-tolerant capital. Without risk-tolerant capital, common supervision or common regulatory frameworks do not help. One starts at the wrong end if one wants to begin by establishing a supervisory authority in any European capital instead of ensuring that the assets that are currently saved in mattresses and on bank accounts are made available as investment-ready capital.

I also underlined the need for concrete results in the simplification work. It is good that the commission has presented proposals on how we can reduce regulatory burdens and administrative burdens, not least for small and medium-sized enterprises. More proposals will follow, including those aimed at regulations concerning the common agricultural policy and regulations specifically for small and medium-sized enterprises.

This is incredibly important. I underlined the insight that very many, very many times, there have been attempts to reduce the regulatory burden and they have not succeeded. Every rule has an army of lawyers and activists behind it. Every rule has also been created with the best possible intentions. Removing rules and simplifying rules is harder than it sounds. The Commission received very clear instructions to follow up on this extremely in detail so that this will be credible.

It is also clear that more countries realize the value of trade with other parts of the world. The EU is a sought-after partner internationally, and Sweden remains perhaps the clearest voice for more free trade agreements. In a situation where the USA wants to raise tariffs against the rest of the world, new free trade agreements are extra important.

It is at the same time important to hold fast to set ambitions and goals, not least in the area of climate. Industry in Europe must be able to rely on that EU decisions apply and are not changed all the time. This applies not least to Swedish companies which are pioneers when it comes to green transition and which have made large investments to become more sustainable.

Mr. Speaker! The day before the European Council meeting, the Commission presented both the announced white paper for the future of European defense – that is, the consequence of the discussion we had at a special meeting of the European Council in February – and the proposals within what is called ReArm Europe, which followed from the same meeting. It is now clear to all of us that Europe needs to strengthen common defense capabilities. This shall occur both in the form of national defense investments and by using the EU more, where the EU has competence or could gain relevance in the defense area.

It is therefore welcome that the Commission has presented proposals for concrete measures to strengthen European defense capability, increase production within the European defense industry, simplify for investments within the European defense industry, simplify for joint procurement of defense materiel in Europe and continue our joint support to Ukraine.

Mr. Speaker! We also had the first discussion regarding the next multiannual financial framework. The EU faces tough challenges, and many want the EU to do more and in more areas. It sounded roughly like what it usually sounds like in a first discussion about the next multiannual financial framework. We need to strengthen our competitiveness, invest more in defense, and continue – and accelerate – the support for Ukraine. This shall take place in parallel with all already initiated priorities. People want to do a lot.

It is much better with high ambitions than low ambitions, but high ambitions in certain areas also require reprioritizations in other areas. Furthermore, starting from the next MFF, we will begin to pay back the joint loans that were taken during the pandemic. Even though we and others mentioned that loans will need to be paid back sooner or later, it is now discovered a bit abruptly that this will dig some holes in the next European budget.

I was clear about the Swedish position regarding the next long-term budget. It applies from the year 2028, so it is not immediately imminent. Ahead of this, we must have a budget that reflects current challenges and the most important priorities. At the same time, new investments must be matched by cuts in other areas. The solution is not a constantly larger European budget at the expense of national budgets.

The Swedish budget-restrictive line remains firm. The Swedish fee shall be kept down. Joint borrowing to provide grants to member countries or new own funds, that is, own taxes, is not the way forward.

These are, as said, discussions that will continue for a few years now. The perceptions will remain different and follow classic patterns. It will be difficult negotiations. It is no secret to this chamber that other countries think exactly the opposite of what Sweden thinks – that an increased budget is the solution to most problems. Those who are used to being net recipients of EU funds find it easier to accept swelling budgets than those countries that are used to paying for the EU budget. The Government will continue to work hard for as good a result as is at all possible for the Swedish side.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, we had a lunch with UN Secretary-General António Guterres where we discussed multilateralism, cooperation within the UN system, maritime issues, and the Middle East. It was a good discussion about important issues. As you hear, it was a bit scattered. The discussion was also characterized by the fact that the rules-based world order – and the multilateral order that many, not least smaller democracies, are accustomed to and value – is now being challenged.

As I told the EU Committee last week, it is and remains a Swedish and European core interest to have an effective global cooperation that is predictable and respected and that has equal rules for all countries. Sweden will continue to stand up for those principles – not least when they are questioned on the world stage. With this, I conclude the report.

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Mr. Speaker! Europe is in the worst security policy situation since the Second World War. Every day we are met with new rounds in the so-called peace negotiations, where authoritarian men from the USA and Russia negotiate over the heads of Ukraine and without caring about Europe. The risks are great for Ukraine and Europe, and the opportunities are still relatively small. The new American administration challenges the transatlantic link, and the EU has realized that more must be done to be able to stand on its own feet.

The EU must upgrade militarily. In this situation, it is important that the EU recognizes the seriousness and that Sweden is no longer a brake but can give its support to EU loans to ensure that the possibility for EU member states to finance increased defense expenditures is increased.

Based on how proud the Prime Minister is to belong to the stingiest, I think however that the Prime Minister may need to clarify how he will ensure that the increased defense expenditures in Sweden and the EU do not come at the expense of investments in other critical social infrastructure, such as railways and hospitals or, for that matter, social sustainability.

We need a stronger EU and a safer world. This may require some reprioritizations, even if it makes one's own core voters a bit angry. Other leaders highlighted during this summit, among other things, that the commitments to finance the EU and the commitments that EU member states took on during the pandemic have not yet been delivered.

I also want to say something about Hungary's actions during the EU summit. Hungary should not be allowed to dictate the terms, but it cannot be ignored that Hungary can block both new sanctions against Russia and the next steps in Ukraine's EU membership. Until now, our questions to the Prime Minister on this have been answered as if this is not a problem, but now the Prime Minister sounds different and now seems to share our concern.

How did the Prime Minister act at the EU summit, and how does he intend to act moving forward to stop these right-wing nationalist and Putin-friendly forces?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! We are now getting used to the fact that the Social Democrats always want to complain domestically at every reporting of the European Council's meetings, and you are free to do that.

Swedish domestic policy was therefore not up for discussion at the European Council meeting. I understand that it may be shocking, but that was the case. We discussed completely different things. We discussed, without a doubt, what the EU can do jointly to increase defense capability. Those decisions are practically already made. We definitely discussed what each individual country – not least us as NATO members – must do to increase European national defense capability in cooperation within Nato. That is what we discussed.

Then there is the strange historical forgery. I have probably never once said that Hungary is not a problem in European politics – not a single time. On the other hand, I have said several times: Do not make it larger or smaller than it is. When 26 countries unite against Hungary, it is a very clear signal of a very broad European unity, where it is Hungary that is the odd country that stands out.

One should nevertheless not underestimate the problems it creates; for example, it could stop the next sanctions package. One should also not underestimate the need for more countries in Europe than the EU's countries. That we can add Norway and the United Kingdom to the list of European partner countries is just as important as that we cannot include Hungary in this.

I and several others said what we thought about Hungary's way of constantly blocking common decisions. There is therefore no reason to pretend that anything else has happened at these meetings.

I believe those were the answers to the questions that had to do with this matter, Mr. Speaker.

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, Sweden and the EU must rearm. That is obvious. But it must not happen at the expense of other critical social infrastructure, such as railways and hospitals. Nor can it happen at the expense of Swedish jobs and Swedish welfare.

I can only regret and express my concern over how the Prime Minister chooses to respond. I also express concern over Swedish competitiveness and Swedish industry's ability to remain at the forefront now that the EU is beginning to waver on already made decisions. This concerns, for example, what relates to stopping carbon leakage or other sustainability legislation and undue diligence in matters of sustainability. Sweden and Sweden's Prime Minister should care about Swedish jobs first, before saying yes, and that analysis has not been made yet.

In conclusion, I would like to ask if the Prime Minister commented on the arrest of Ekrem İmamoğlu, Istanbul's elected mayor and opposition leader in Turkey, on March 19. Did the Prime Minister take the opportunity to say that the EU must now act against the candidate country Turkey so that Turkey follows commitments on the principles of democracy and the rule of law – the values that Ukrainian soldiers die for every day in the trenches?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is noticeable that Matilda Ernkrans has never been at a European summit. It is not, therefore, an interrogation of individual ministers and prime ministers. It does not work in that way; instead, we cooperate with one another. Sometimes we come to the conclusion that we disagree, and then we usually express that quite respectfully. Sometimes we think very similarly collectively but completely differently nationally, and then we usually refrain from arguing about each other's domestic policy. Different people have different traditions in their work.

I stand up for Swedish interests, and I do everything I can to agree on long-term, vital European interests. Those are the things that are at the center of our actions in the EU.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

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

Just as was discussed in the previous posts, we saw two different communications from the council, one regarding very many issues and one regarding the war. It is a new reality we have in the council.

From my perspective, I can state that 26 out of 27 still implies a fairly broad consensus. I think it is positive that we can continue to have the broad consensus. It is not a given, which one can see if one looks at the opinion polls being conducted around in the member states. It is not in all countries that it looks like it does in Sweden. As long as one can maintain such a broad consensus, one can probably at least be a little happy.

Mr. Speaker! During the consultation, we raised the situation in Syria. From the Sweden Democrats' side, we welcome the tougher wording we are seeing. There is a lot of talk about the rules-based world order, and when it comes to Syria, it seems there are no rules at all. It is very irregular there. Several different countries are involved and conducting military operations in the country. One dictatorship has been replaced by another, and there is documentation of over 60 massacres up in northern Syria. It is positive that there is stronger wording regarding this and also sanctions linked to how one deals with it. We think that is positive.

We heard a little about the long-term budget. It is positive there that there is a broad consensus in Sweden regarding the budget-restrictive line that was established in the EU committee last. In any case, no deviating position was reported from the Social Democrats. Does Sweden still have the same frugal partners in the negotiations?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First and foremost, I want to emphasize what was said here earlier: That Hungary deviates from the common line is serious, but let Hungary not be the defining point in European politics! Hungary is the deviating point in European politics. It is important to say. But if we all devoted all our efforts solely to Hungary, no one would be happier than Hungary, so let us not do that.

I also share the view that there are opinions all around in many European countries that make the unity we have now not at all self-evident, but very well could be tested as we move closer to different forms of peace negotiations. I want to emphasize this and emphasize a good cooperation with European countries outside the EU, which makes Europe's collective work stronger. It is important.

I forgot to say it earlier: Turkey was not on the agenda, but Turkey's actions now raise many questions about the country's view on the rule of law. I am convinced that we will come back to Turkey, not least because Turkey is formally a candidate country to the EU. It raises many questions, and I am very concerned about what is happening there right now.

It is the same thing with Syria; we did not have it significantly on the agenda either, but we have talked about it before. It is quite obvious that it has turned after the hopes that nevertheless existed for a time. Then we all expressed ourselves cautiously optimistic, we can perhaps call it, and now it has turned to that we express ourselves both somewhat less cautiously and somewhat less optimistically. We are quite concerned about what is happening to various minorities, not least Christian minorities, in Syria.

Fundamentally, I would say that the frugal countries are still frugal if one means this of not constantly taking on new tasks. Both Finland and Denmark have definitely shifted when it comes to defense issues and have an explicitly opposite view. My impression is that Germany, the Netherlands and a few other countries still think like we do.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

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

I move on to the issues of competitiveness, where it is evident that there is a broad awareness of the crisis among the Commission and the Member States. That is positive. However, I can become a little concerned when I look at the solutions. For energy-intensive industry, the solution is CFD contracts with state guarantees. That is state aid, which is ultimately to be borne by the taxpayers.

When it comes to regulatory simplification, the question is whether it is sufficient. We see here in the Riksdag that there is protest from the Social Democrats and others as soon as virtually insignificant rules are removed from CBAM, and I understand that it may be the same situation in the Council. What I wonder is why the goals are still sacred and cannot be discussed. We can discuss rules, I think we should also be able to discuss goals.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to simplifying rules, they are important. It is quite obvious. I believe that all countries are self-critical in a healthy way – there is probably no European country that says: "We have just the right amount of rules surrounding small and medium-sized enterprises in, for example, the agricultural sector!" Everyone is appropriately self-critical. Then we all know that in politics it is much easier to create rules than to repeal rules.

I think, therefore, that regulatory simplifications are important, but they must be proven before they become credible. Now, I think that the commission has a high and clear objective for this and is pushing themselves hard to succeed in achieving it, so let us at least give the commission the benefit of the doubt, as it is called in English, and a chance to tackle these matters.

When it comes to the objectives, I am only concerned that we should not change the goals all the time. It would be devastating for the business sector. Companies make long-term investments, and they must dare to trust that the rules they invest under also apply for a long period.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Mr. Speaker! When I read the conclusions from the council, I can state that the council, as usual, does not see Israel as a subject. It deeply regrets that the ceasefire has collapsed but says nothing about who broke it. It reminds of the importance of unimpeded access and uninterrupted distribution of humanitarian aid on a large scale to the entire Gaza, as well as that the electricity supply should be resumed, but it says nothing about who it is that is stopping the humanitarian aid and the electricity supply.

Israel's government is the one that has broken the ceasefire, stopped humanitarian access, and shut down the power supply. The Council must dare to say this, and the EU must condemn Israel's actions. It is time to pause the association agreement with Israel. What pressure measures did the Council discuss regarding the situation in Gaza?

My second question concerns the omnibus and, among other things, the "stop the clock" mechanism and simplified rules for the transition to fossil-free.

Many experts argue that several of the regulatory simplifications being proposed will lead to lower requirements in areas such as the environment, climate, labor law, and human rights. The Prime Minister has previously stated that the government is for simplifications but not for lowering ambitions. Therefore, it would be interesting to hear how the regulatory simplifications that were discussed could affect the ambitions and how Swedish companies, which have come far regarding, for example, sustainability reporting, are affected by the fact that the implementation is being postponed.

The conclusions also address energy. One talks about – and even advocates for – low-carbon solutions. I would like to know what low-carbon solutions are and how this aligns with the goal of climate neutrality.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The European Council was by no means more or less united on the Middle East than at any time before. I believe that in connection with every EU committee and every reporting, I have said that we stand roughly where we stand. In individual matters, the Council can agree, for example when it comes to criticism of a broken ceasefire and that the hostages have not been released, but in the large, overarching questions of who bears the blame for various things, the European Council will not get any closer to a solution. It simply must be sought elsewhere.

This does not prevent us from expressing what we think and believe from the Swedish side, but we will not be able to achieve agreement in the European Council on any other conclusions than those that are currently there. I believe it is important to say this.

If one fundamentally believes that every simplification of rules is a loophole for lower ambitions, one will always be against rule simplifications. There is certainly such a suspicion towards some people – they always want more rules and believe that this is the only way to get a business sector that acts in a climate-friendly manner. It can also be turned around and said that the business sector is often better than politics on the "how" questions. Politics must have stable goal formulations to reach.

The jury is probably still out, I would say. I believe that regulatory simplifications are necessary for Europe, not least in relation to Asia and the USA. This is known as a complicated place, not least if one takes the regulatory frameworks of 27 different countries and places them side by side and then layers common EU regulatory frameworks on top of them. There is potential for simplification here. I am, however, mindful of saying that this must not mean that decisions in climate policy that we have reached in broad agreement are being repealed by the back door.

I believe that the coming months will reveal what the EU Commission will propose.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Prime Minister for the answers, even though I did not quite receive an answer.

I can state that no pressure measures were discussed to achieve a new ceasefire in Gaza. Neither did we discuss what I asked about regarding the omnibus. Furthermore, I received no answer regarding Swedish companies that have come far and who could lose out if one pushes back on sustainability reporting.

Vänsterpartiet wants to see Swedish prices on electricity. We have low production costs but still have high electricity prices due to the EU electricity market. It is time to demand an exemption so that we can use the electricity we produce and so that the price is linked to the cost of producing it, not to other countries' dependence on the expensive gas.

It is positive that the Commission has spoken about the need for more renewable energy in order to be able to lower prices and that the Commission intends to continue to support the EU countries so that they can produce more renewable energy faster. This is something that the Council welcomes. I would, however, like to hear which practical measures were discussed.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to energy, what is new is rather that all fossil-free types of energy are welcomed. This is something Sweden has fought hard for. Previously, there was a strange exclusion of nuclear power, which Sweden, France, and several other countries have fought against. Renewable energy is produced in very many countries – often successfully but sometimes very volatile. The new thing is a kind of neutrality towards this, and we think that is good.

I may have mentioned it too quickly, but I explicitly said that Swedish companies benefit from stability in the rules and should not be disadvantaged by the fact that the regulatory frameworks have been taken seriously. I believe I said this explicitly. It is also a way of saying that one must be very careful about changing important rules that companies have as a basis for making decisions on very large investments.

However, it is not obvious that every sustainability report in itself solves the big problem. Many companies probably think that there is too much focus on reporting and too little focus on good results.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Mr. Speaker! This issue of competitiveness is extremely important, especially right now. I think it sounds very good that the Prime Minister is pursuing the line that we should have a reduced regulatory burden but that we should stick to high goals, and that the focus is on small and medium-sized enterprises.

I intended to focus primarily on the lunch held with Secretary-General Guterres, where the future pact and multilateralism were discussed. It is, as said, crucial that we truly stand up for and stand firm by the UN. The UN actually upholds the rules-based world order that we cherish. I am considering the consequences of the USA pulling back. What will this mean? It is not enough that we just stand by. We must stand up for our values, and we must also stand up with means.

Now, an armament is underway in Europe; this is natural and extremely necessary. I must admit that I am concerned about the reprioritization that can be seen from certain countries, which are taking UN funds for national defense. This is understandable, but given the rules-based world order, it also involves a risk. Was the balance discussed between, on one hand, European defense and on the other, maintaining the world order and the means for the UN?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! This was quite much in line with the discussions, sometimes with some specific details. It was, for example, about what the consequences for the UN system will be when the USA significantly reduces its funding. Sometimes it was also discussed a bit more broadly about how one should view different UN resolutions and such things. A few weeks ago, we received a somewhat odd combination of countries that supported a resolution where Europe's countries made a clear statement in another direction.

There is a risk of a slippery slope. We have always said that the UN becomes quite paralyzed when the UN Security Council cannot make powerful decisions. In the Ukraine issue, the UN has in practice been completely sidelined and has not been able to do any good. It also absolutely does not get any better because of the American actions. I think there are reasons to be concerned about this.

I understand that the UN must be able to demonstrate results to be relevant. One easily ends up in a kind of Catch-22 situation where one cannot demonstrate results, which leads to many countries thinking that the UN is not as important as it was before. I very well understand the dilemma in this.

The issue of money was also raised. The UN Secretary-General took the opportunity to describe a tightly stretched UN budget. It was not the case that all of Europe's countries raised their hands one by one and said they had money to replace lost UN funds with. That is not how it is, and we must have respect for the fact that in all countries, money is a scarce resource for both national and international purposes.

No, there were no clear answers on this. That Russia has been very destructive in the UN context is obvious. The new American policy is not yet fully clarified, but what we see right now does not suggest that we will be able to do more through the UN system.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Mr. Speaker! No, and that is exactly where the question of the future pact and increased efficiency comes in. But it also means that we must not withdraw too much, because it will become an automatic efficiency requirement when the USA backs out and those funds perhaps largely disappear. It is at least good that the discussion is underway, and it will continue.

This I pass on to the budget, which you also discussed. One of the things that has been discussed to potentially cut is precisely the aid, and that is linked to what I took up regarding the UN. And if so, how was the aid discussed in light of the new situation we find ourselves in?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It was not done. The UN chief nevertheless emphasized the importance of the programs that different EU countries are involved in financing, in a situation where the USA is withdrawing. He also asked countries to look at how they can contribute in different ways in a sensible way so that the consequences do not become catastrophic. But no single country has even remotely the possibility of covering for this, especially not in a situation where one is also supposed to cover for other things.

This is a big problem, but as is often the case when the USA does rather brutal things, there is a grain of truth in it. The USA has long said that the rest of the world cannot expect the USA to be the obvious largest donor to many different UN programs. One has heard how it can sound in the UN General Assembly when the USA is asked not to interfere but instead to pay. In the long run, it is not a sustainable line. What the USA is doing now is also not constructive, but there have been signs in the sky for quite a long time.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

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

I will first dwell a little on the omnibus, which has also been raised in previous speeches. The omnibus proposals create a great amount of volatility for companies and the business sector. In Sweden, there are relatively few companies affected by a large regulatory burden, but they are still at the forefront in these areas. It concerns due diligence and sustainability reporting, and it is relatively new legislation. This means that those who have invested a lot and who are already at the forefront will also be affected by this volatility.

Before the meeting, I made a joint submission that perhaps one should look at regulatory simplifications when it comes to specifically strengthened preparedness and resilience, because here I believe there is much to do, not least when it comes to the common agricultural policy – CAP.

Mr. Speaker! I will also raise the section on the oceans. There are two important processes underway, one within the EU and one within the UN. Regarding what is happening within the EU, I have received signals that Sweden's government has not taken an active role. Why is the government not pushing for legally binding agreements? There is a strong demand for this, not least given the condition of the Baltic Sea.

Regarding the UN's work with the oceans, all member states are urged in the council conclusions to promptly ratify the agreements before the meeting in Nice in June. Will Sweden act on this request and promptly ratify the agreements before the meeting?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First, a small side note. EU terminology is sometimes a bit incomprehensible. Not everyone may know what omnibus is. The EU is, after all, an expert at creating such terms.

I believe that at its core, there is a serious will for regulatory simplification. It is not about low ambitions, but about the fact that the EU Commission, just like most national governments, has received a great deal of feedback from companies that it is too complicated – regarding competitiveness and growing companies in Europe. One does not need to be conspiratorial. There are many good intentions in many different rules, but they all result in every company having to report one more thing. Most MEPs have not been small business owners, and it shows. Therefore, it is easy for them to make decisions without taking into account what consequences it will have. I understand those who are a bit distrustful of whether these regulatory simplifications will actually come to fruition. That also has to be proven. I take them at their word, but I also want to see evidence that it is possible to simplify the rules.

The reporting requirements are often overestimated. It is a politician's way. One places a burden on someone else to report one more thing and believes that it does not entail any cost. But it does entail high costs, and many different industries employ masses of people just to produce reports that one is sure very few read. To feed consultancy firms and law firms with those kinds of reporting requirements is not what builds European competitiveness in the long term.

It is quite true that France urged countries to take a position before the conference in Nice and report back on how they view conventions and ratification, and Sweden will also do so.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! If the Prime Minister does not believe so much in the reporting requirements, it still sounds like we can have a common view on, for example, the issue of ecocide. We have brought this up for discussion a number of times previously.

In the chapter on energy, it states in the council conclusions that one urges an intensification of all efforts to secure cheap, clean energy with an ambitious electrification and investments in grids, storage, and interconnectors. When I read this, I interpret it as meaning that for Sweden's part, it could mean financing the connection of offshore wind power to lower costs and bottlenecks and make electricity cheaper in price area 4. Does the Prime Minister share this view?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! No, the Council did not discuss the Swedish electricity price areas. We do not usually discuss at that level of detail.

This is about connecting countries for an efficient transmission capacity, and a prerequisite for this is a very efficient energy production in many places. Right now, many eyes are turned toward Germany, as German energy policy affects many other countries. No one questions Germany's right, just like everyone else, to make its own energy policy decisions, but it has major consequences for everyone if some of Europe's most industrial countries have an energy production that is too small, reliable, and weather-independent.

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

Erik Ottoson (M)

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

I have lost count of how many times we have said that we live in a changing and restless world. But that the EU meets the American pursuit of protectionism with a European pursuit of free trade and openness is relatively hopeful, also linked to the regulatory simplifications that have been discussed here earlier today. I believe it is important to remind oneself of the insight that regulatory simplifications also simplify achieving the target vision and do not at all need to mean lowered ambitions.

I am thinking about the conditions for us to conduct trade with the rest of the world. When the EU is now engaged in trying to achieve more free trade agreements, an internal regulatory complexity within the European Union is something that complicates the drafting of agreements, diminishes our competitiveness against others, and possibly also reduces the willingness to invest in creating products that can be exported to the EU.

I am thinking of the Swedish Member of the European Parliament who went to Brussels with the determination to reduce the European Union's greed. To the question of what they had achieved, the answer was: Yes, one would introduce a regulatory framework for these screens that sit on top of the cabin on trucks to reduce air resistance. Under Swedish conditions, the electric motors did not work. Therefore, I have now succeeded in introducing a rule that there must also be a manual crank to crank up the screen and reduce air resistance.

Again: Everything is done with good intentions, but this means that one cannot export trucks to the EU as easily, with the same standards, without following all these small rules.

Is the issue of free trade discussed in this context, regulatory simplifications, at the meetings that the Prime Minister attends, and if so, how?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, so free trade is also discussed. For one thing, Ursula von der Leyen was careful to point out that she perceives that the interest in concluding free trade agreements with Europe is rather increasing. In an unstable world, where it is not obvious that the USA is the primary engine for international free trade, the interest will increase for the internal market and thus free trade agreements with Europe. There are several such examples.

I believe that the rest of the world is not the problem there, but rather sometimes it is we ourselves. Everyone wants so many special rules in the free trade agreements that they are difficult to then get through in each individual country. I think that is a problem.

Then there are also protectionist tendencies in Europe, which are sometimes hidden under free trade agreements. This can be very sensitive, not least in agricultural sectors. Furthermore, before every election in some European country, there is always some country that finds it difficult to vote through a free trade agreement. We are, therefore, far from perfect.

The second thing mentioned was, naturally, the enormous importance we attach to the internal market. Both the Letta Report and the Draghi Report also point to the need to expand the internal market. It concerns services, the defense industry, telecommunications sectors, and financial services – all of this. It is clear that, fundamentally, it would be the entirely correct path to take. The internal market has been an unparalleled economic success for 30 years, but it is far from finished. To dig where we stand or water where it already grows is a fairly good point, but difficult enough.

Finally – I forgot to mention in my introduction – ECB chief Christine Lagarde was also present and gave an overview of the euro, the currency's strengths and weaknesses, and the European economy right now. She also agreed that we have great opportunities from Europe's side when the USA is more bound, so to speak, but she also pointed out that it is up to be proven when it comes to doing the things that are required to be the natural center of attraction in the world.

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

Erik Ottoson (M)

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

We are changing the subject a bit quickly and moving on to Ukraine. In some ways, it is very positive that Sweden, together with the Nordic and Baltic countries and countries like Poland and other European countries, is providing enormous support to Ukraine and the Ukrainian war effort. But it is equally concerning that there are also other countries that do not quite live up to their share of the commitment and, despite their size, do not quite deliver, at least not at the level of the rhetoric that is often heard. Weapon packages are usually exchanged for a high tone, one could say.

Are there any tendencies in the discussions among the heads of state and government towards an awakening and an increased delivery in the situation we now find ourselves in, which is indeed to the highest degree worrying?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is a highly relevant question, not least just now when we face a situation where there could be a ceasefire – we do not know. There could be peace negotiations – we do not know. They could be reasonably good, but they could also be very bad. There is total uncertainty.

That Europe has stepped up during the last months is quite obvious, and that is good. Right now, I believe it requires a mixture between immediacy, doing things now that ensure Ukraine ends up in a better position before formative weeks, and a long-term ambition to stand by Ukraine's side after some kind of ceasefire or peace negotiations.

Different countries are slightly differently engaged in different issues, to put it politely. I am going to Paris myself this Thursday and will discuss with what is sometimes described as the coalition of the willing – those countries that in different ways are prepared to act also in the long term to help Ukraine, also after a ceasefire and after a peace negotiation. I do not even dare to guess what will come out of this. But that it is important, I can be one hundred percent sure of that.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for both the report and the answers that have been given so far!

I think, after having read the conclusions, that it is clear that the European countries are gathering together in the very troublesome world situation that we find ourselves in right now. The texts regarding Ukraine feel very relevant and good. The only thing that is bad is that it is only 26 and not 27 countries that stand behind it. The peace, which we hope will come at some point in the future, must last longer than just the current American president's term – we must think long-term and get control over this.

The EU has good conditions. The EU started as a peace project. All thoughts that it is better for us to make ourselves dependent on each other may have felt a bit strange previously. But now it is very clear that it is the big issues, peace and democracy, that we are talking about.

In order for the EU to continue to be a relevant actor, we must move forward with issues of competitiveness. The internal market is the EU's great achievement and that which leads to these effects. If we are to expand this, we must continue and try to secure more free trade agreements with other parts of the world. There should be openings right now, when free trade is being challenged from elsewhere.

Then I think that own regulatory changes are an important and also quite inexpensive step in moving forward in free trade negotiations. This, together with our success in freeing up more risk-tolerant capital, would make the EU, Europe, Sweden and the world stronger.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Magnus Berntsson, for that perspective! We tend to talk about problems and solutions; that is our task. But let us also say that there is momentum for Europe right now. I have always been a warm friend of Europe and strongly for Swedish EU membership, even back when it was considered a threat to Swedish neutrality. Can one imagine anything so foolish? I have been strongly for EU membership – with respect for the referendum, but nevertheless. I have been for the deepening of the internal market – all of this. There is momentum for European solutions right now. Let not the best become the good's enemy!

In a situation where Russia invades neighboring countries of ours that should be EU members, where a country like China takes liberties in our economies that we are not allowed to take in their economy, and where the USA in any case clearly questions the transatlantic cooperation, there is momentum for more European cooperation.

I believe that few countries would benefit so enormously from this as a strong but relatively small, export-oriented country with a great deal of experience in acting internationally. So I do not think we should underestimate the possibilities in all that we now see as major problems. It is a problem that Russia is Russia. It is a problem if the USA withdraws. And it is a problem that China in some respects abuses international trade. All of this is serious problems. But let us see the possibilities in all of this! I believe that the momentum for Europe also implies enormous opportunities for Sweden as a country.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister!

I agree with that perspective, and I see great opportunities. It is clear that the EU needs to play a role even on the global stage, and I appreciate that a meeting was held together with the UN Secretary-General.

The UN is another organization that definitely has its challenges right now. The UN is undergoing a reform agenda and has quite large steps to take in the right direction regarding both its economic conditions and its total relevance.

It is a fact that of the resolutions that the General Assembly has voted on during the last ten years, 173 have dealt with Israel and 77 with the rest of the world. I think it shows that the UN has more than just economic concerns to handle. The UN actually needs to be reformed.

I would like to ask an additional question. When the maritime issues were discussed – were they so concrete that even the shadow fleet in the Baltic Sea was discussed?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I have two concrete answers. The shadow fleet was absolutely discussed during the Ukraine issue, and we continue to list successfully. More must be done. There was nothing new there, but it is still moving in the right direction.

We did not discuss the shadow fleet, but we discussed other, broader maritime issues.

Outside the agenda's formulations, they took up what is sometimes also raised in the EU Committee, namely qualified majorities. The more the EU is expected to be able to act on the world stage, the less relevant the requirement for constant unanimity becomes. Hungary proves this with all clarity. But even in other issues, the EU has difficulty acting with one voice because the requirement for consensus is so severe.

The arguments are the same as always, that is to say that some countries want a qualified majority on foreign affairs in order to be able to act in the world. Others want to get away from trilling countries that do not want EU taxes. We are not as enthusiastic there. Nothing new under the sun!

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, both for the report and for the answers that have been given here earlier!

EU's sanctions against Russia are very important in this situation. Despite extensive sanctions, the sale of Russian oil still supports a large part of the war economy. By reducing Russia's revenues, one could weaken the war machinery, and that is important. Everyone here in the chamber shares the view that the EU must do everything in its power to strengthen Ukraine's cause and for Russia to lose the war.

For a couple of years now, there has been a price cap set by the EU together with the G7 on Russian petroleum products shipped by sea. The Foreign Minister, together with colleagues from the Nordics, has pointed out the need for a lowered price cap – at the beginning of the year, I believe it was. A reduction of ten dollars per barrel would result in a large reduction of the Russian war chest. This is something that has been mentioned several times during the EU Committee's meetings.

My questions to the Prime Minister are: Does the Prime Minister have any idea of how the work with this is progressing? Is any progress being made in the process, and what do any obstacles look like?

I would also like to take the opportunity to ask if there is a discussion about further sanctions to strike at Russian exports of land-based oil.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The exact answer is that we did not have any new sanctions up now. We unexpectedly got through a sanctions package quite recently with Hungary, however at the cost of a number of delistings from sanctioned individuals. I shall be careful to point out that it was not only Hungary that demanded delistings, but it was also other countries that took the opportunity to do so for various reasons. One may have slightly different views on that, but there were therefore no new sanctions up this time.

However, it is well known – and I completely agree with the Foreign Minister on this – that the more we can push down the price, the less we feed the Russian war economy. That is an entirely separate issue. Precise data shows that Russia is suffering enormously from these things. It is clear that a country that is prepared to use such a large share of its very small economy can still continue for an unreasonably long time. In that sense, time is truly on our side and not on Russia's side. But the exact answer is that no new items were brought up in the European Council this time.

Mr. Speaker! Since I did not say it in my introduction, I should say it now, as the reporting may be starting to draw towards its end. Olaf Scholz, the German Federal Chancellor, had his probably last meeting as Federal Chancellor – so probable that he was thanked. For Sweden's part, I want to emphasize that we have had an incredibly fine cooperation with Germany under his leadership. I have now also met the probably new Federal Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, and we look forward to an equally good cooperation under the new German government.

We have valued Germany in the EU cooperation in very many different ways. An EU with a strong Germany will function better than an EU with a weak German voice.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Many thanks, Prime Minister, for a fine radio transition!

Germany's role in the EU is important and has been so for a long time. The EU's role in the world and Sweden's role in the EU are becoming increasingly important as the global situation deteriorates. I raised this before the meeting that the Prime Minister is now reporting back from. This is something that I and the Liberals know, and I know that the Prime Minister shares that view.

I have seen a measurement showing that more and more Swedes are beginning to notice this and that the positive view of the EU is becoming ever stronger. It is about the EU as a peace project, which we have spoken about here in the chamber earlier today.

The Folkpartist in me naturally hopes that this will turn the opinion on the euro both here in the chamber and among the broad masses, for it is actually time to switch from the krona to the euro.

My question to the Prime Minister is whether it provides an incentive to strengthen Sweden's role in the EU now that the opinion at home is becoming increasingly strong, and if so, how.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let us begin with the difficult question of the EU's leadership. It is constantly discussed. We have a strong commission, and that is good. It is good to have a strong commission that pushes forward, and that is what we truly have now. I think that Ursula von der Leyen is doing an extraordinarily good job in that regard.

And with the war against Ukraine, the Nordic-Baltic and Poland have grown in importance. Our perspectives take up more space today, I would say. Security policy takes up more space, and the need for competitiveness takes up more space. That is also good. The German-French is important in Europe, and we shall welcome it. A Germany and a France that are offensive and that can unite also facilitates for the EU to unite. Sometimes one also unites in resistance, so I welcome a strong Germany and a strong France in this.

Last but not least: Do not underestimate what is now happening with a Europe that is larger than the EU! It is not to underestimate the importance of the EU to recognize that Europe also needs the United Kingdom and Norway, not least for security policy – and we can add Iceland as well.

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

Erik Hellsborn (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for an informative report back!

At the previous report two weeks ago, the Prime Minister and I spoke about the need for a stronger European defense industry. Subsequently, actually as recently as last night, Svenska Dagbladet published an article on this very subject. In that, the Secretary General for the defense companies' industry organization SOFF was interviewed, among others, who spoke about the subject.

He mentioned that most orders placed span two to four years, while the industry considers itself to need orders spanning six to eight years to dare to expand. The problem was stated to largely consist of the fact that Europe's militaries mostly just buy more of what they already have. You replenish the barns after having sent things to Ukraine, while you order new, more modern technology to an all too small extent.

Here we have an obvious problem. The European defense industry is not only hesitating to expand to the necessary extent, but Europe also risks not being as modernly and technologically equipped in a future conflict as we could be. If there is anything history has taught us, it is that in war, it is most often the side that has the best technology that wins.

Through the answer I received from the Prime Minister the week before last, I already know that both the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's colleagues take the issue very seriously. Nevertheless, I would like to ask how the Prime Minister views Sweden's and Europe's opportunities to seriously accelerate the production of high-tech military materiel. Bullets and artillery shells have their place, but the next generation of warfare will require more than that.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! That is a good point. War, in its horror, unfortunately requires both bullets and shells as well as a great deal of high technology. Ukraine is teaching us both things right now – at the cost of a terrible number of human lives, but still.

One should not be too enthusiastic when talking about this. Ultimately, it is about the fact that we have a war on our continent that we would like to avoid. But since we now have that situation anyway, I am quite optimistic regarding Swedish defense industry companies. They are modern, high-tech, and accustomed to collaborations all around the world. There are probably reasons for optimism there.

What the EU can do together is facilitate procurement, try to increase standardization and have fewer separate specifications. Someone said that we have a couple of dozen different tank models just in European NATO countries. It is much of such that creates very long lead times. We are used to incredibly long procurement processes. They can take many years. At the same time, Ukraine teaches us that what one cannot do in half a year, one perhaps has no use of at all. There is much transition that must occur in all of this.

I believe that we are now facing a period where Sweden and many other countries are entering long-term and large-scale upgrades of our own national defenses in order to be able to fulfill our role within the framework of the collective. I also believe then that the defense industry will receive much more long-term orders than they are used to and dare to expand their production capacity.

That, in turn, raises many new questions. Do they get environmental permits to expand their production facilities? Is there competence to recruit to staff the companies? Is there risk-tolerant capital that does not have limitations to invest in defense industry companies? These are just three of the things that we in politics can change – and shall change.

The reporting was hereby concluded.

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