Reporting from the Council of Europe meeting on March 23-24

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The European Council met on Thursday and Friday last week, with a rather mixed agenda. As always, Russia's invasion of Ukraine was discussed, as always with President Zelenskyy on a video link - this time directly on a train heading towards the front. In addition, the Council dealt with trade, competitiveness, energy, and migration.

It may be worth mentioning that the days before the formal Council meeting were also dedicated to Brussels - first the large donor conference for those affected by the earthquake in Turkey and Syria, which Sweden as chairing country organized together with the Commission, and thereafter the EU's meeting with social partners, that is, the European trade unions and employers' organisations, which meet during every presidency.

Reporting from the Council of Europe meeting on March 23-24

We began the council on Thursday with a lunch with UN Secretary-General António Guterres. It became a good discussion with a focus on Russia's war in Ukraine, of course, and the global climate work, in two roughly equal parts.

The UN plays an immensely important role, not least when it comes to humanitarian support but also when it comes to prisoner exchanges, nuclear safety and grain exports. Not least the latter has received much attention in connection with the short but nevertheless extension of the agreement that is achieved this week.

We also discussed the need for a different European approach to China, given that the Chinese-Russian meeting took place just moments before the European Council meeting.

After that, the formal meeting began with a discussion on Ukraine. President Zelenskyy participated via link during part of the discussion. He welcomed the EU's decision on the tenth sanctions package, underlined the importance of compliance with the decided sanctions, and welcomed the ammunition support which, at least partly on an Estonian initiative and with strong Swedish support, could be decided last week. He also emphasized the value of the Swedish presidency's work on accountability, both the strictly legal and that surrounding frozen Russian assets.

President Zelenskyy spoke about the utility that the Leopard tanks are now providing on the battlefield - also a good reason to be proud of the Swedish decision to join the alliance that was primarily created by Germany.

It was a good signal regarding the EU unity that has been so important throughout the entire Russian aggression that the council conclusions could be adopted without a single letter being changed - total unity once again.

It is also worth mentioning that more and more people realize that this could turn into a very long war. For the Western democracies, it is just as important as for Ukraine that Russia does not win the war. Much suggests that it is equally important for China that Russia does not lose the war.

After Ukraine, we moved on to issues of trade and competitiveness. Here, it is about strong Swedish profile issues in the EU since a long time ago. Ever since we became members in 1995, Sweden has pushed for open and free trade and a well-functioning and ever-widening internal market with everything that entails of internal market for services and a digital internal market, but also for strict competition rules and as little red tape as possible at the European level - competitiveness, quite simply.

We have done it because we know that strong European growth and competitiveness is fundamental for Europe's future, for our common economy, for European security and for European influence in the world, but also because all of this is really good for a small, open economy like the Swedish one.

For almost a decade now, EU cooperation has largely been characterized by acute crisis management - from the financial crisis and the euro crisis via the refugee crisis, to all the crises of the pandemic and into the crisis that Russia created with the invasion of Ukraine. This capacity for acute crisis management is obviously important. I believe that many think that the EU has managed this better than one could have suspected, both in the pandemic and during the current war.

Our message from the Swedish presidency's side, however, has been that the EU must not lose sight of the long view. We must be able to have two thoughts in our heads at the same time. We must be able to do two things at the same time – both act as crisis solvers and crisis managers and solve truly long-term problems that require long-term reforms.

Therefore, the first thing the new government did was to identify precisely competitiveness as a clear Swedish European priority. A clear and long-term agenda for Europe's competitiveness has since been one of the main priorities that we have taken with us into every conversation in an EU context.

During these first three months, we have raised the issue again and again - with the Commission, with Ursula von der Leyen, of course, with the Council President Charles Michel, with France's President Emmanuel Macron, and with Germany's Chancellor Olaf Scholz. I also raised it when I gave a guest lecture in Berlin at the Hertie School in the middle of the month. Competitiveness must not be forgotten.

This is both simple and difficult. It is simple because no one is against it. No one says they are against increased European competitiveness. No one denies that Europe's companies have fallen behind American and Asian ones. No one denies that European competitiveness, especially in the tech and cleantech sectors, is lagging behind. No one denies this, and it is, after all, a good start.

But it is also difficult because it is long-term. It requires deregulation and debureaucratization, and it sometimes conflicts with some member states' will to, in practice, protect their own country's industrial sectors.

Now we have had a breakthrough. Based on the Commission's communication on competitiveness, the European Council provided guidance on how to proceed in seven different tracks.

To continue developing the internal market, not least for services.

Regulatory simplifications such as shorter permit processes at the EU level and fewer reporting requirements. This is absolutely crucial because nearly half of all such legislation comes precisely from the EU and is layered on top of the national ones.

Greater investments in research and development.

To reach the three percent goal and then go further than that.

A better functioning European capital market for increased private investments.

Ensuring a workforce that meets the labor market's needs, as well as higher female labor force participation in many countries.

Last but not least, to now push forward the EU's trade agenda and complete the free trade agreements that have been started and are far advanced.

I think it is a success for Sweden that we have put the spotlight on areas that are completely crucial for Europe's and Sweden's competitiveness.

Crisis management is now joined by issues of truly long-term importance. For example, the entire internal market could never have been created in Europe without precisely the ability for long-term thinking.

Mr. Speaker! Energy issues were also touched upon during the competitiveness discussion. Several Member States highlighted the importance of nuclear power for achieving the green transition. This is, as we know, controversial in some Member States.

Sweden's position is crystal clear. We need all fossil-free electricity production to manage the transition. Each country decides its own energy mix. But the common task, to become fossil-free and manage both the climate and security policy, means that nuclear power needs to be included in the important energy transition. It was not entirely surprising that France was driving that issue. Sweden naturally agreed.

Work is also ongoing to review the EU's unified electricity market. Therefore, it is good that the Commission has put a proposal on the table. It is being discussed today between the energy ministers at the EEC Council, after which detailed negotiations will be taken forward by the Swedish presidency during the coming months.

The question is not entirely simple, which I believe most understand. Different countries have completely different energy dependencies and see completely different risks in major changes. Sweden is working hard for solutions that will limit the impact of gas price peaks on the electricity price in the parts where gas-generated electricity is consumed.

Mr. Speaker! The ban on internal combustion engines by 2035 was not part of the agenda at the European Council, which I said in the EU Committee last week. But since it has raised many questions, it is good to raise the issue here today and to point out that it was resolved on Saturday. As chairing country, we have acted in different ways and at different levels for such a solution, that is to say that the Commission and the German government should find a suitable compromise within the framework of the preliminary position that already existed.

I raised it with Olaf Scholz during my visit to Berlin before the European Council and with Ursula von der Leyen at the beginning of the week. That a solution has now been reached is an important step forward and something that the Swedish government has pushed for.

Mr. Speaker! We are beginning to approach the end. As I told the EU Committee last week, my role as government chief for the presidency is also to report at the table on how the Council work is progressing. The detailed information on and the follow-up of the migration issues after the summit in February will take place by correspondence. But the consensus on a stricter migration policy at the European Council was once again very large.

Many countries are currently in situations similar to those we in Sweden and not least Germany experienced in 2015. We are talking about countries such as Austria, Belgium, and the Netherlands. Denmark is also clearly driving for a common European migration policy where Europe holds the border, in the sense that we can control the irregular immigration into Europe.

It is about a large and unregulated influx. In the vast majority of cases, asylum grounds are lacking. Together with a lack of return and willingness to repatriate in the countries of origin, it leads to an unsustainable situation in several countries. That picture was confirmed by Belgium's Prime Minister Alexander De Croo, whom I met bilaterally the day before the summit.

This meeting was not a decision-making opportunity. The migration issues shall be on the agenda again at the meeting in June. Given how things look, I assess that they will also return at the meetings during the autumn.

On Friday, the European summit finally met in an inclusive format, as it is called in Brussels-Swedish. This means that even we who are not in the euro participate in the talks. At the meeting, the President of the European Central Bank, Christine Lagarde, in a very interesting review, accounted for the economic situation in Europe. She focused, of course, quite a bit on the recent financial unrest with struggling banks in, among other places, the USA and Switzerland.

Christine Lagarde described the EU's banking sector as significantly more resilient than the American one, partly due to higher capital adequacy requirements and because many more European banks than American ones have implemented the so-called Basel III framework. Lagarde urged to decide as soon as possible on an updated stability and growth pact as well as to prioritize the work on a capital markets union, a banking union and the value of very stable and robust public finances.

Mr. Speaker! With that, I conclude the report from the meeting last week.

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank the Prime Minister.

As the Prime Minister has accounted for many important issues, not least the support for Ukraine, which were discussed at the summit with the EU leaders. But the big talking point before, after, and during the summit was, as said, a completely different issue: the EU's decision to phase out internal combustion engines for new passenger cars by 2035.

The European Commission has now produced a new agreement that will dilute the one that was already fully negotiated. The new agreement also runs counter to what the Swedish automotive industry has committed to, and it is worse for Swedish jobs and for the climate.

Even though a compromise may be better than nothing, I want to ask how the Prime Minister views the proposal for a new agreement. It would also be interesting to know how and to what extent the Prime Minister pushed the original Swedish line.

As late as last Wednesday, the Prime Minister wanted to hide behind the fact that the question was not even on the agenda and did not want to tell how Sweden is acting. When we have asked questions, one has so far referred entirely to the EU Commission.

Now the Prime Minister gives a somewhat different picture from the rostrum. It would be interesting to know how far Sweden pushed the Swedish line, which was better for the climate, better for Swedish jobs and better for the Swedish car industry.

If all the presidencies have been involved in the compromise, can one not feel a certain concern that the Swedish presidency is opening up for a negotiating order within the EU where the large countries can say no at any time and the other countries are simply to submit and agree to something that is actually worse than the original, negotiated proposal? How will it affect the EU cooperation?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I do not know exactly how the German Social Democrats or Liberals have thought when they have pushed the German line on the issue. Possibly, party cooperation can solve that issue in a simpler way.

What we know is that Germany came in late with views on exactly how the commission responded regarding the original compromise. As many here, but perhaps not all, know, it concerns a transition to completely emission-free new cars. For the vast majority of us, that means electric cars. But there was also a description that said if they were internal combustion engines, they would be completely emission-free, e-fuels. That was the original agreement. It was nothing new at all.

Germany was not satisfied with how the European Commission, with Timmermans at the helm, communicated how the Commission intended to work with that compromise. At a late stage, Germany then said that they could not stand behind this. It was a purely German decision. Again – I do not know exactly how they thought in the matter. But formally, they naturally have the right to do so.

The Swedish presidency said, as many countries did, that it is unfortunate if one, very late in the process, even if formally correct, comes with objections. Others probably thought that the commission had likely expressed itself in such a way that it could arouse suspicion in Germany regarding the commission's willingness to fully stand by the entire compromise. I do not know that.

The Swedish presidency underlined the importance of the Commission and Germany reaching an agreement, so that it would not revert to new, fundamental agreements and jeopardize the core idea that all new cars from 2035 shall be electric cars or completely emission-free. The Commission and Germany succeeded in this.

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Mr. Speaker! A compromise is better than nothing, but I noted no answer on how Sweden has pursued the original Swedish line, nor how the Prime Minister views how this procedure will affect future EU cooperation and Swedish interests.

When it comes to who negotiates, it is unfortunately the government that is the chair of the European Council and Ulf Kristersson who is Prime Minister, but if Ulf Kristersson wants me or us to continue negotiating with Germany – gladly for me!

Another important issue that was on the agenda was the energy issue. There are proposals now where important parts are missing for Sweden's part. We must be able to decouple the gas, and we must use revenue caps so that it can be extended. We must also ensure that the bottleneck revenues are used to compensate households. All of this requires EU decisions.

My question to the Prime Minister is how the Swedish government, which now stands behind the council conclusions that have been adopted, will act to change the energy market to make a difference for the better for Swedish electricity customers.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First and foremost, just so there are no misunderstandings: Sweden stands behind the original agreement. Everyone stands behind it. There was no room for anything else. Clarifications were required from the Commission regarding what they meant by reconnecting also internal combustion engines completely without emissions. That was what it was about. Not anything bigger and not anything smaller. But reaching the finish line was crucial, because otherwise, there would have been no decision at all.

The previous government, Mr. Speaker, caused great damage in Sweden by pretending that they could outsource Swedish energy policy to the EU and halve Swedish electricity prices or something of that magnitude. It was a promise taken completely out of thin air. We do not work with such things. Instead, we stand guard over Swedish nuclear power, even at the EU level, and contribute to an electricity market design where ups and downs in gas pricing are not allowed to have too great an impact. That is also what the Commission is doing right now.

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

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

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

I want to delve a little deeper into the subject that was mentioned quite briefly just now, namely China. Last week, Tuesday, March 21, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping met in Moscow. The fact is, however, that these two presidents have met over 40 times in the last decade. This is naturally particularly concerning in these times, because from everything to judge, it was not directly any breakthrough or any serious conversation that China came with. On video, one hears a cryptic farewell from Xi Jinping with the words: Changes are occurring - changes that have not been seen for over a hundred years, and we are the ones who are driving these together.

This, combined with entirely conceivable arms deals with Russia and actual proposals to ease the current sanctions, shows that Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping do not just have common leisure interests – their political ambitions are also obviously not entirely without similarity. Therefore, it is not surprising that China as a topic did not escape the council meeting that took place just a few days later.

The Prime Minister of Latvia described Xi Jinping's meeting with Vladimir Putin as eye-opening for Europe. The Prime Minister of Spain announced that he will fly to Beijing this week against the background of the developments seen between China and Russia. As I understood it, the Prime Minister also expressed some concern that China may assist Russia with war materiel.

My question is therefore what conclusions can be drawn regarding the development of the EU's attitude towards China, more specifically in the context of recent events.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is a large, important and very complex issue. It is worthy of its own seminar. Now we have 1 minute and 55 seconds.

One should not draw too great conclusions from this meeting. One still knows too little. China has a so-called peace plan that probably no one regards as a peace plan. Then one can evaluate perceptions of territorial integrity as either a hopeful or a terrifying conclusion. That these two countries cooperate to some extent is quite obvious. To what extent they also do so militarily is shrouded in some obscurity, even though the USA repeatedly describes that they suspect weapons are being delivered.

What one can say is that it has been an eye-opener for the EU's countries in recent years that China is heading in a direction that is problematic. The old strategy says that in certain areas – for example, the climate – we can cooperate, but in other areas – for example, technological development – we are competitors, and in further other areas, systemic rivals, where we think and feel completely differently about how the world should be organized. I want to venture to say that the latter is becoming increasingly heavy. Russia and China are now united in a view of the world divided into spheres of interest where countries are practically to obey their perception of how the neighborhood should look. All of this is very problematic.

I do not dare to draw any far-reaching conclusions right now. As I said in my introduction, there is probably nothing that suggests that China is fundamentally particularly fond of this war. China wants very little involvement from other countries at all, even where other countries should be involved to fight for democracy. At the same time, we see nothing that suggests that China wants Russia to simply lose, leave, and let Ukraine choose its own path forward. I believe the verdict is still out, but we have strong reasons to be concerned about China. It is obvious.

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

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the answer! Those were very interesting reflections.

In light of what was just said about the fact that Russia's war against Ukraine could potentially be a reference project for China and that China is heading in a problematic direction – are there any concrete measures that may have been discussed, such as plans for reduced dependence on Chinese raw materials or possibly the opposite, that one wants to move closer to China, in order to avoid a continued negative development? Regardless of how it is, there will certainly be reason to return to the subject.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Yes, absolutely - without a second of hesitation. This is a central part regarding both the critical raw materials act, which I believe it is called in Swedish - I believe the Chamber knows what I mean - and the American initiative Inflation Reduction Act. It is about becoming less dependent on China as a supplier of completely central technologies and raw materials.

This also applies in Europe, to a very large extent. It is also the very spirit of what Sweden is now finally introducing – better late than never – namely investment screenings where one looks at which investments in sensitive infrastructure or in companies that can affect national security interests we should simply accept. There we are now finally establishing a regulatory framework also in Sweden, just as in many other European countries.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the report! It is good that the Council continues to discuss Ukraine, both how this violation of international law war can be stopped and how aid for Ukraine's reconstruction should look and be financed.

But in the council's conclusions, there is a sentence stating that the council condemns sexual and gender-related violence in the strongest possible terms, and I would like the Prime Minister to elaborate on this. It is an important sentence, but what does it actually mean? Words do not help. What does this mean for the women who are raped and for the women who are forced to give birth to children resulting from rape because the Ukrainian healthcare system cannot prioritize abortions? What does this mean for the Ukrainian women who are deceived or forced into prostitution in the rest of Europe and who are subjected to human trafficking? I would very much like to get a bit more substance there.

We can also observe that there are still loopholes in the sanctions against Russia and Belarus. I would therefore like to know when the Council will close the trade that is currently taking place with Russia, for example in Iran and when Russian ships dock in Swedish and other European ports. And how can we stop the import of Russian raw materials that are repackaged or processed in a third country? These are some areas where Russia can still conduct direct or indirect trade with the EU's member states.

Finally, I would like to ask in this round about Iran. It was not included in the basis and neither in the council's conclusions, but it has been included in the European Council's discussions the last few times. I would therefore like to ask: Did Iran come up, or is it now a forgotten issue in Europe?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! These are very important issues.

First, I want to agree. That was exactly how the reasoning went regarding the conclusions and regarding rape, abducted children, and everything we have read about. The reasoning was about exactly what was described here and what is happening. These are crimes for which someone must be held accountable, and this was the basis for why we included it in the council's conclusions.

There is no new information other than that which was just described here and which is horrific enough: systematic rapes, children born after rapes and abducted children. No one knows how many, but that it appears to be a systematic phenomenon is absolutely clear. All of this is a crime that tribunals, both the Ukrainian justice system and international tribunals, shall judge for after the war.

When it comes to the sanctions, there are actually two problems that remain, and both are important. One is to get further between the EU countries. We have from Sweden, both the current government and, dare I say, the previous government, been very careful that it is unity on the sanctions that creates the strength. But it is not possible to get unity on everything. We would, for example, like to have sanctions against Rosatom, but we are not succeeding with that in the entire EU right now.

There are other things as well. The sanctions are still very broad, but there is a lot that could be done that has not yet been done. We will always work to go even further, but that requires unity.

Then we have the second problem, namely finding the countries that systematically bypass the sanctions. Europe should act against the third countries that do not follow European regulations. This is naturally difficult, but there is a list of the countries that are suspected of violating the sanctions the most.

Iran is not taking it up at all this time.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

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

If I interpret it correctly, the gender-related and sexual violence was raised because it should not be forgotten when it then comes to tribunals and trials.

I hope that the Prime Minister pushes for continued sanctions against Russia, which also applies to, for example, Russian boats. Previously we have heard that Sweden cannot push for this and that it must come from the EU level, but then no one pushes for it. I therefore hope that the Prime Minister will push for this.

I hope that the Prime Minister raised the issue of national electricity pricing in the talks on energy. It is important that we reform the EU's electricity market, and in that regard, national pricing is an important path to take.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I answer with a yes and a no.

Yes, we are pushing for all forms of sanctions. We have been systematically driving this and are doing everything we can to achieve as broad a consensus as possible on new sanctions.

No, we did not at all push for any kind of energy nationalism. On the other hand, we pushed strongly for national electricity production of all fossil-free types of energy, including nuclear power. There we may differ slightly, but different countries also differ.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Mr. Speaker! It is positive that so much space at the council meeting was devoted to how competitiveness shall be ensured in Europe and within the EU. It is positive, as the Prime Minister mentioned, that there are provisions in the conclusions that we shall achieve less red tape and fewer reporting requirements.

There are also a couple of question marks that I would like some help in clearing up. One of them is the proposal from the EU to meet the IRA from the USA through the Net-Zero Industry Act. The Prime Minister received a question from our side before the EU summit regarding this and answered then that one was not quite finished with the analysis of the proposal.

There are positive things in the package, but there are also some parts that are more problematic, namely setting goals for market shares for specific sectors. I would like to know a bit more about how the discussions on this went and what the government's direction is in these parts.

Another thing established in the council's conclusions is that an important area to work on is skills supply. There are great challenges when it comes to skills shortages and difficulties for companies to fill their vacancies. This applies to a great extent in Sweden, where industries across the country are crying out for skills at all levels. I had this confirmed when I was at Svenskt Näringsliv's business days this week. There, many agreed that we must achieve fast and simple processes in order to be able to supply skills.

How does the Prime Minister view this issue, and how is it that the government presents proposals that make it impossible for Swedish companies to employ labor migrants with the right skills?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I truly share the view that these are very important issues. What was not said but which perhaps emerged is that at this level in the European Council, they become like guidelines. I would never say that it is fluffy, but it does not become so concrete. That is quite often the case in the European Council. Then it is to be concretized in much more detailed regulatory frameworks in the various ministerial councils and in the Commission's further developed work. One has to live with the fact that it is so.

Just that this is on the agenda, that these are important issues and that we cannot continue as we have for the last ten to twenty years in Europe, I think is a useful reminder.

I also visited the same company days, and there was no issue that so many entrepreneurs raised as that the competitiveness dimension in Europe, which is one of Europe's absolute cornerstones, must be put back on the agenda. So far, so good. However, it is not finished with this, but rather on the contrary, it is a starting shot.

IRA, Inflation Reduction Act, is worth a seminar of its own. I have taken note that it is good that the USA is back in the climate work, that it is a systematic encouragement of cleantech companies, that the aim is directed towards ensuring that China does not dominate the entire world market and that Europe shares that ambition but does not want to break its own internal rules of the game or end up in a state aid race.

I think the compromise, which we fully stood behind and which we ourselves have been involved in developing, is good. Not least, it is good that the commission has succeeded in negotiating with the American administration in a way that means that, in more cases than at the beginning, Europe will now be treated as if we had free trade agreements with the USA. It is also fundamentally good.

I agree that there are risks in this, without doubt, not least when it comes to setting specific rules for market shares, for example.

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

Malin Björk (C)

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

I want to latch onto this regarding the supply of skills, which is an issue where many business owners expressed that they are seriously concerned about how it will go. They see a danger that their companies simply will not be able to manage the competition because they cannot obtain enough skills.

Another question connected to this is the seasonal work immigration, which in Sweden is regulated through an EU directive. When there is regulation at the EU level, there are limited possibilities for Sweden to make changes at the national legislative level. Despite this, the government has stated that it wants to review the wage requirement for seasonal work immigrants. What does the government want to achieve with this?

Is it the government's view that, in the long term, it will push for changes to the directive that would mean that the possibility of working as a seasonal worker in the EU is restricted?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I did not have time to answer in the previous round, so I answer now instead. I regret that.

It is two different things.

When it comes to limiting, above all, the abuse of Swedish labor migration, the government stands very firm in its position. This is not about the EU, but about third countries. We think it is unreasonable that one should be able to come to Sweden at wage levels that are so low that they almost invite abuse of the regulatory framework. We do not think that is good. Therefore, we will tighten the rules without making it harder for companies to hire people in shortage occupations where it is obvious that we need labor migration. We are fundamentally for labor migration, but we are against the abuse that exists today.

When it comes to the European [aspect], we stand behind this. We think it is good with both the general labor market within Europe and the seasonal labor market, which, therefore, is not included in the government's change of labor immigration.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

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

On March 20, the IPCC released its latest report, in which it emphasizes in the strongest terms the importance of us rapidly reducing all greenhouse gas emissions before 2030 as well as the need for nature-based solutions that increase carbon sequestration in forests and land so that we can avoid catastrophic consequences for people's lives, health, and property.

The conclusions from the EU summit highlight climate change as part of several complex challenges that the EU has to manage, as well as the EU's internal market as crucial for a successful green transition. The Council conclusions also emphasize that high environmental standards within the EU have been beneficial for the EU's citizens and have made the EU a global norm-setter when it comes to the environment and climate. The Prime Minister is welcome to elaborate on how - and if - the IPCC report was discussed during the EU summit in the corridors and so on.

That the government in this situation chooses to oppose the LULUCF regulation in the EU, which aims to increase carbon sequestration in specifically forest and land, is extremely serious. It goes against what the EU took with it to COP 27 regarding climate goals.

In light of the latest IPCC report and the conclusions from the EU summit, I would like to ask what the Prime Minister did during the EU summit to step up and accelerate the green transition within the EU and the internal market.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First, a bit of formality: No, these questions were not up at the European Council meeting this time. I believe there is a very high probability that they will come up, but it did not happen this time. They were, therefore, not on the agenda at all. Then, of course, the climate issues were touched upon, not least when we discussed with the UN chief. But here they were not up at all. In that sense, I cannot answer what the council conclusions would be. I will nevertheless say something about some questions that are implied.

The Government's firm view is that the climate transition is about electrification and the transition to fossil-free. In that case, doubling Swedish electricity production of all fossil-free types is absolutely crucial.

The second thing is that we have a broader view of the Swedish forest than what some of the EU's decisions now show. These limit Swedish forestry in a way that is not reasonable for Sweden. This is not a unique Swedish position, but it is shared by other countries that have a long tradition of active forestry. It is about sustainable products, economy and the labor market, and there are also climate reasons. We do not want to place all that power in the hands of the EU without reserving the right to manage the Swedish decisions on forest policy. Therefore, we have not stood behind this.

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

Elin Söderberg (MP)

Mr. Speaker! What determines which consequences we will have to deal with moving forward – globally, in the EU and in Sweden – is the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, not how much electricity we have or exactly what we use the forest for. It is about the consequences of emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The IPCC is very clear that we must reduce emissions quickly in the near term. It makes a very big difference if we, for example, halve the emissions by 2040 instead of 2030.

Against that background, I want to emphasize that we need to increase carbon sequestration in forests and land while simultaneously significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is not enough to supply more electricity. We must also have policies that ensure we reduce fossil emissions. I hope that the Prime Minister can also drive this within the EU.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! As I said, this was not up for discussion at the council meeting. But these are important issues under all circumstances.

I believe we differ in two ways. For the first, the government is for all fossil-free electricity production, including nuclear power. The faster we get rid of all fossil emissions, the greater our chance of achieving the climate transition. For the second, we are for Swedish forestry, both for the climate benefit and for the mastery over the Swedish forest tradition that we want to maintain in Sweden.

I think we differ on both of these points, I imagine. I have all respect for that. These issues were not up now, but when they do come up, the government will pursue the Swedish line on both of those issues.

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

Jan Ericson (M)

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

It was undoubtedly a great success for the government that the prioritized Swedish issue during the presidency, the EU's long-term competitiveness, received such significant space despite the fact that other acute issues, such as war, energy supply, and inflation, naturally take up a very large amount of space right now.

In the conclusions from the council meeting, among other things, simpler rules and reduced administrative burden are mentioned as important measures to promote growth and competitiveness. Here, it is important that Sweden also does its part and that, after eight lost years, we are now seriously trying to make Sweden a model when it comes to rule simplification for both companies and private individuals. I am a bit curious if the Prime Minister can disclose a little about what work is currently ongoing within the Government Offices on this issue.

Mr. Speaker! In the conclusions from the council's meeting, the need to strengthen access to important products within the EU and reduce dependence on an uncertain outside world is mentioned in several places. Pharmaceuticals are mentioned as a concrete example. But there are many other things that the EU is dependent on importing from countries that are not always democratic and stable. It concerns both raw materials and key components as well as finished products.

Reducing vulnerability is an important issue for strengthening the EU's competitiveness. I would therefore like to ask the Prime Minister how the reasoning went regarding this and if any concrete proposals were made on how the EU can increase its self-sufficiency and perhaps also its stockpiling of important products.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First, for the sake of form, I must say that the European Council did not discuss Swedish regulatory simplifications either. I would not have had anything against it if they had, but that was not the case. We will have to tackle those ourselves, and it is no secret that in the government bill we have included extensive such work which we will return to.

At the European level, there is a clear ambition to reduce reporting requirements by approximately 25 percent by unifying so that different European authorities do not demand essentially the same thing from companies in different areas. It sounds obvious, but we know, even from Sweden, that it is not entirely obvious. It would be very beneficial if this were achieved.

I have met many European companies in recent months. It is well known that many European companies consider Europe to be much more bureaucratic to deal with than, for example, the USA. This can very well be a driving factor for instead making business deals and investments on the American continent.

The question of dependencies, pharmaceuticals, rare earth metals and so on is huge. It has become increasingly larger as technological development has gone hand in hand with various raw materials suddenly gaining a completely new significance. It is one of the reasons why Swedish mining can be seen in a completely new light. It is a thousand-year-old tradition that suddenly becomes important in a completely new way. This is also a reason why a unilateral dependency on China is dangerous and why, for example, one should not let China alone develop activities on the African continent when many European companies could just as easily have done so. These are good examples of how we are trying to break unilateral dependencies and develop more of those industries even in Europe and in the USA.

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

Jan Ericson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The situation in Ukraine is a self-evident issue at all meetings in the EU. The continued strong and united support for Ukraine that the Council demonstrates was very welcome, and it is also emphasized that the importance of preventing the circumvention of sanctions against Russia is highlighted, and that there now seems to be a much clearer strategy for this and to counter goods finding other routes.

It was also valuable with the repeated support to register, in a structured way, the damages that Russia has caused in Ukraine. This is not least about working to use Russia's frozen assets for the reconstruction of Ukraine. It is something that we have spoken about many times.

My second question to the Prime Minister is whether any new signals regarding openings came from the member states in the rather complicated issue of the frozen assets. I believe that many underestimate how difficult that question is legally and how differently different countries view it.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! That is exactly it. It is difficult. Everyone shares the basic perception that we must act when there are such large Russian frozen assets abroad. Then there are different opinions but also different purely legal assessments of what is internationally legally correct. Some countries also have their own legal complexes that allow for different things.

It was one of the reasons why we, on a Swedish initiative, appointed the ad hoc group with the Swedish diplomat Anders Ahnlid at its head to try to bring international order to what one can at all do and what we can agree to do internationally.

That work is currently ongoing. The Commission has, for example, launched the idea that if one cannot agree on seizing the assets, one can at least seize all the returns from the assets in a first stage. I will not anticipate their work but will let them report back in due course.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking the Prime Minister for his report and for the answers to the questions so far. I want to particularly emphasize that I am very pleased with the work being done for Ukraine and for the continued pressure of sanctions against Russia.

I also want to comment on the very late and rather surprising actions of the German S-led so-called traffic light government in the issue of car engines. I understand that they mean they are doing the German car industry a favor, but I am not so sure about that.

All EU countries have now approved the agreement between Germany and the European Commission regarding exemptions from the ban on internal combustion engines after 2035. This means that cars with internal combustion engines will be permitted even afterwards if they are powered by synthetically manufactured fuels, so-called e-fuels.

The question is handled in a much larger context. This is particularly relevant given Europe's global competitiveness, where Europe can consolidate its position of being at the forefront of the green transition.

I want to ask a question based on the situation of the Swedish automotive industry. The Prime Minister does not understand the great impact, not least on the economy of western Sweden.

It is incredibly important that we can have a continued automotive industry in Sweden and that Swedish workers can go to their jobs in the factories in Hisingen and in other places. In order for them to be world leaders, common regulations as well as public investments in charging stations and the expansion of hydrogen stations are needed, even at a European level.

I want to ask the Prime Minister if the government is concerned that there is a risk that the EU Commission, with the new agreement, will shift the focus away from electrification and instead allocate resources to e-fuels.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is good that we have now brought this issue to port. We have now agreed in Europe that no new cars with petrol and diesel engines may be sold from 2035. That was exactly what we wanted.

One of many good reasons for it was the West Swedish automotive industry. There were many good side effects. For Sweden's part, it was a very important reason, but perhaps not in all other European countries. We shall rejoice over this.

It has been good that the Swedish automotive industry has been so unambiguous. It is electrification that matters. I stand completely behind this. But it was no new exception that Germany introduced here.

I do not intend to defend Germany's actions. Like everyone else, I think they were very late in their final reaction. But even the original compromise contained a clear exception for internal combustion engines if they completely lack emissions.

Then I believe that the vast majority of car manufacturers understand that it is electrification that is the broad path. That is where the large resources are being invested. This applies in particular to those car companies that are especially close to our hearts.

I see no risk in this. It was a late reaction where both the commission and Germany have to take a bit of the blame for the uproar that arose.

It was good that it was resolved. Now everyone knows what applies. It shall be totally emission-free. That means in all practical senses electrification of the vehicle fleet from 2035.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Prime Minister, and for the work that has been done! It sounds very good that we now have long-term rules of the game in place. Our industry was early in that. It was important that the rules were established. For that, I thank you very much, and for the work that has been done.

I am, however, a bit concerned about the new arrangement of entering late in the process. When it happens once, it is very easy for it to be used as practice in the future. Is there any way to prevent it, so that we do not continue to have both small and large countries coming late? It could become very difficult, not least as the chair, to handle the issues further in that case.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I share that concern completely. There is no doubt about it. A good deal of the criticism that Germany has received in recent weeks has been directed at exactly this. What example is set when one acts in that way? Then the burden of guilt has rested somewhat differently. I do not intend to try to be a judge in that matter. But I share that concern fundamentally.

If one, so late in the process when it was actually only a formality left, puts a stop to the machinery, it can cause serious problems. There were quite a few who – not at the council meeting, I should say for the sake of order – during the coffee breaks pointed out that this is not a good example for the continuation.

I also want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that as it happens, an EU decision was also reached last night regarding charging points. The conditions for electrification will now become even better along the road network.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

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

In May, a unanimous Riksdag decided that the government should clearly and forcefully pursue the line in the EU that the European dependence on Russian energy, and not least fossil energy, should cease as soon as practically possible. Among other things, the Riksdag wanted Sweden to pursue the issue that the EU should develop a regulatory framework for the origin labeling of fossil energy.

I therefore wonder if the Prime Minister can say something about how the discussions went, what measures have been taken generally, and also if any steps have been taken regarding the regulatory framework for the origin labeling of fossil energy.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First, I must immediately admit my ignorance regarding precisely the issue of country of origin labeling. The question of country of origin labeling was not raised at the council meeting, so I can take that as my defense. I must ask to be allowed to return to that. I have not followed up on that specific question.

What we all know, however, is that we have dramatically reduced our dependence on Russian gas and oil. It is quite obvious. It is the entire foundation for everything we are doing.

I sometimes say that there is nothing good that the war has brought about. If one is to search with a candle and a lantern for something, it is a dramatic reduction of fossil energy, especially from Russia.

It is, of course, good in itself. Countries have shown themselves capable of an energy transition that few thought was possible, but not without bad side effects.

It is still a lot of gas, albeit in liquid form instead. We who want total electrification want fossil-free types of energy. It is still a lot of coal, albeit not from Russia. There are therefore still many shortcomings, but a dramatically accelerated energy transition is occurring across all of Europe. It is actually very good. If we can also agree to make it completely fossil-free and emission-free, that would be even better.

Mr. Speaker! I shall ask to return to the issue of origin labeling, as I am not completely up to date on that.

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

Louise Eklund (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answer, and I appreciate it. I have also heard how the question of the sanctions has been raised in the chamber and how Sweden has been a driving force in these. I believe that is the key, and I appreciate that we are leading in this.

I look forward to following how we work with the country of origin marking.

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

Ulf Holm (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, Prime Minister, for all the work at the EU summit to refocus on the fact that the EU and Sweden must support Ukraine! Russia must not win the war.

It is, however, a bit sad to see once again that the sanction packages from the EU do not fulfill what President Zelenskyy has demanded, namely a ban on the import of Russian uranium via Rosatom. The Prime Minister promised a month ago that he would work during the EU summit to get this company onto the sanctions list, but it was not included when the sanction package was presented.

There are also quite a few holes when it comes to the import of fossil fuels from Russia. As recently as a month ago, Russian gas was unloaded in Nynäshamn harbor, which means that the Prime Minister has not even been able to stop the import of Russian gas and fossil fuels to Sweden. There are many companies and countries in the EU that unfortunately still import this and thereby feed the Russian state treasury, which allows Russia to continue to wage war.

When does the Prime Minister, as well as the President of the EU Council, intend to put a stop to imports from Russia?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I share the questioner's ambition. If it were so simple that the EU presiding country could just decide this itself, it would have already been done; I can say that. But that is, as is known, not the case. In that case, we would do this any day.

Everyone knows that Sweden has been strongly pushing, not least together with Nordic-Baltic countries, to go as far as is possible at all in the sanctions. At the same time, we have seen a very great value in that there is unity regarding the sanctions that we eventually introduce. I share the frustration, but I still think that we have come a long way.

I would say that the great frustration now, not least from President Zelenskyy's side, has been that there are a bit too many countries that, despite everything, manage to get around the sanctions. I am absolutely not against an eleventh sanctions package, but at least as important is to plug the loopholes that exist in the already implemented sanctions packages.

I would also like to include Rosatom. We can help each other in that matter.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you to the Prime Minister for the report! We heard from the Prime Minister that competitiveness was on the table and that much of the focus was on innovation, increased investments in research and development but also digitalization. That is very good.

But the green transition is allowed to remain in the periphery, which has been raised here in the debate earlier. This is a broad issue, and the latest IPCC report shows how serious the situation is. The green technology also brings opportunities for Europe. Then the question is: How much is the EU actually doing for this? The Inflation Reduction Act from the USA is very large, but there is also broad support when it comes to the EU.

How much of this actually goes to the green investment, and how much goes to fossil industries? What is the Prime Minister doing to clarify that question and ensure that we invest correctly in the EU?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I do not think at all that green transition is in the periphery - not in any way. It is rather the opposite, I would like to say.

In two important areas, it was instead in the center at this council meeting. Everything revolving around what we call the Net Zero Industry Act, a bureaucratic name to match the American one, revolves entirely around green transition. Investments in that kind of technology, the cleantech companies, are about both energy and technologies for climate transition. The question is, therefore, instead absolutely in the center, I would like to say.

When it comes to the energy transition, it is also to a very large extent a question of precisely green transition, even if it sometimes takes somewhat strange paths when one moves from Russian oil to other gas as an intermediate step. That is something Sweden would preferably want to avoid. Every country, as they say, has its own energy policy, but that an enormous energy transition in a green direction is happening in Europe overall, I think is quite obvious.

I share the impatience, but I do not think one should say that the issue is in the periphery. I think, on the contrary, that it returns to the center all the time.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you to the Prime Minister for the presentation!

Before the meeting, I submitted on behalf of the Green Party a point concerning trade agreements. It concerns how we can implement both the Paris Agreement and the global nature agreement, as well as all the various conventions concerning human rights. The question is how we are to implement these so that it does not just become fine words and objectives.

When I had made the submission, I received a response that all trade agreements are by definition fair. This is something that I truly oppose. I wonder if the Prime Minister still holds to this assertion. If so, I really want to mention that when the agreements are concluded, there is an enormous power imbalance between different parties. It is known from experience that very large companies are those that receive the most benefits from the agreements, while at the same time there are documented cases of land grabbing and violations of human rights where indigenous peoples pay an incredibly high price.

In the report we have received, it states that a strategic discussion was held regarding trade agreements. Therefore, I wonder if the Prime Minister can elaborate a little bit on what the strategic discussion contained. I am also curious about whether there was anything in the discussion regarding justice, human rights, the global nature agreement, and the Paris Agreement.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The discussion was raised to such an extent that it was part of the competitiveness discussion. It was also at a rather overarching level, I must admit, when it came to the value of taking further steps in the free trade agreements and completing those that have been started. The Commission's President also underlined the importance of countries ratifying the agreements that are already concluded so that they are actually implemented in practice.

It is a matter of judgment whether the agreements are fair. They are fair in the sense that if one does not want the agreement, one does not sign it. In that sense, it requires two parties who are both satisfied for it to even become a free trade agreement, and it often requires years of negotiations. Now, there is a large number of such agreements in progress that can be completed relatively soon, and we think that is very important.

My view is that it is, among others, countries that are economically slightly less developed than European countries that are keen on free trade agreements, while it is sometimes European countries that in practice want to protect sectors that would benefit countries that could come to be covered by the free trade agreements.

There are surely a thousand problems with the free trade agreements. But the alternative of not having free trade with each other is much, much worse, not least for people living in poorer parts of the world. We will do everything we can to get more free trade agreements, because it is good both for our country, for Europe, and for the countries that Europe concludes free trade agreements with.

The reporting was hereby concluded.

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