Reporting from the Council of Europe meeting on October 23

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I begin by apologizing for my somewhat raspy voice – and even so, one should know that it is substantially much better now than it has been!

Mr. Speaker! The European Council met in Brussels two weeks ago. The meeting was primarily about the frozen Russian assets following the informal meeting in Copenhagen and about the support for Ukraine. Much focus was also placed on the combination of competitiveness and climate.

The meeting itself began with Ukraine's President Zelenskyy describing the situation in the ongoing war. He did so on site in Brussels. Russian attacks are now directed to a large extent towards the Ukrainian energy sector and towards other civilian targets. This is a brutal, cynical warfare with the goal of freezing the Ukrainians into submission during the winter. But Ukraine, as we know, does not give up, and our support stands firm.

Now we must do what we can to ensure that Ukraine's air defense becomes as strong as possible overall. The day before the meeting, I had received Volodymyr Zelenskyy at Saab in Linköping to sign a letter of intent that Ukraine will purchase 100–150 Swedish Jas 39 Gripen – the world's best fighter jets, which I have had the chance to say a few times internationally since then. This would be good for Ukraine, it would be good for Sweden, and it would be good for Europe. A strong Ukrainian air force is the most important part of the security guarantees that all of Europe is now discussing on behalf of Ukraine.

We all know that Ukraine's needs are enormous and that American support has diminished. At the same time, the public finances in many European countries are under pressure, and we see that the levels of different countries' support to Ukraine differ significantly. Sometimes the levels of the actual support differ more than the verbal levels.

Sweden, together with the Nordic countries and the Baltics, is at the forefront, while many other European countries provide significantly less. When I received my Nordic colleagues here in Stockholm last week, I could state that we have together contributed over 380 billion Swedish kronor, and that from a region with fewer than 30 million inhabitants. We do it for Ukraine's sake, but we also do it for our own sake.

More countries must, however, do more, with their own money or with Russian money. Ahead of the informal meeting in Copenhagen in October, the commission presented ideas on how the frozen Russian assets could be used beyond just providing return contributions to Ukraine. That discussion continued during this meeting.

At the core, there is a continued will to move forward with frozen Russian assets. Not least, the total turnaround in this issue by the two large Euro countries, Germany and France, has been completely decisive. They have gone from strictly advising against any such effort to now being clearly pushing for such an effort. At the same time, there is a partially understandable concern, primarily from Belgium, where 90 percent of the European frozen Russian assets are located.

From the Belgian side, one desires technical clarity and EU-wide solidarity in the form of all countries participating and sharing the legal risks that could exist. This, in turn, leads to the fact that more countries need to receive answers to the same questions. This is quite complex in legal terms, and many questions must be sorted out with very high precision. From the Swedish side, we respect that, but these are therefore questions that need to be answered – not questions that can be allowed to continue standing in the way.

At the meeting, we all agreed that the commission shall now develop different alternatives for how we can continue to provide strong support to Ukraine moving forward, but that one alternative concerns frozen Russian assets, which is completely obvious to everyone. As a colleague expressed it: We effectively have three choices. Either we use the frozen Russian assets, or each country contributes individually – or else there will simply be no support for Ukraine.

It is now up to the Commission to continue working on all the details ahead of the European Council meeting in December. It is clear that from the Commission's side, the frozen Russian assets are consistently seen as the main track for the financing of Ukraine in the coming years. This is also the Swedish government's main track. I do not, as usual, guarantee any successes in advance, but I hope that at the meeting in December, a concrete decision can be reached on the issue. It is also what the Commission in practice says they are now working on.

Mr. Speaker! The discussion on competitiveness and climate was conducted in a very broad context. We have a worrying geopolitical situation. We have increased American pressure in trade policy and a China that does not hesitate to use its economic strength also as a security policy instrument.

Sweden and several like-minded countries were clear that the EU's climate goals must remain in place. If we back away from our goals, it would lower the credibility of the EU's collective climate policy and furthermore hit the companies that have been at the forefront and invested in the transition on the premises that have been given.

Before the meeting, the Commission's President Ursula von der Leyen wrote a letter to the members of the European Council which, among other things, described what the Commission is now doing to facilitate for the member states to reach the set goals. Among other things, the letter touched upon the forest's role in the climate work. Sweden and several other countries have pointed out the unreasonable commitments and levels for the forest's carbon sequestration that now exist. In practice, they would mean that our forest industry would have to pay the price because other countries are not doing their part of the task.

The Commission has taken note and will take this into account when it comes to the implementation of the 2040 goals, but also try to find pragmatic solutions here and now regarding the 2030 goals. This is positive and a testament to the fact that not least Sweden's and Finland's persistent advocacy regarding the importance of our forestry has paid off. If Sweden does not stand unequivocally for the Swedish forest, no one else in Europe will do so either.

After a longer discussion, the conclusions could be adopted unanimously and without changes. This is a great success for us in several respects: the climate goals remain firm, the Swedish forest is protected from unreasonable and improper influence from other countries, and the political weakness that has previously been shown towards the EU regarding Swedish forest is now definitively broken.

At this moment, Mr. Speaker, the EU's climate and environment ministers are sitting in Brussels negotiating the EU's 2040 targets. There are, simplified, two camps. One group thinks – somewhat sketchily, that must be allowed – that ambitious climate targets could have negative consequences for established European industry, for growth, and for competitiveness. Equally sketchily, the other group, which Sweden belongs to, sees the importance of high European climate ambitions and that a successful green transition very well can be a growth engine in the EU. We are therefore pushing for an ambitious 2040 target and for it to be adopted today.

The ministers on site in Brussels will also negotiate the EU's contribution ahead of the negotiations at the COP 30 conference, which begins on Monday. Sweden acts during the climate negotiations as part of the EU, as the EU negotiates jointly. The EU's delegation on site will be led by the Danish presidency.

During the initial high-level meeting at COP 30, Sweden is represented by the King and Queen as well as by EU Minister Jessica Rosencrantz. During the negotiations, a couple of State Secretaries, our climate ambassador and chief negotiator, as well as a large group of officials from the Government Offices and other agencies will also participate. Sweden is very well represented.

During the meeting of the European Council, there was a broad consensus that European industry needs a regulatory framework that promotes innovation and entrepreneurship. The extensive work on regulatory simplification that is currently underway, which I had the privilege of discussing in detail with Ursula von der Leyen and a number of Swedish tech entrepreneurs at a dinner here in Stockholm just a week ago, now has broad support.

It is, however, a fact that every rule – often simultaneously – has many defenders. Rule simplification is therefore, contrary to the name, not at all simple, especially not when parts of the European Parliament do not even seem to want to contribute to the work. This, my friends, is a growing problem. Speeding up these processes is absolutely necessary for Swedish jobs and for our common welfare, but also for the credibility of companies in Europe in a competitive situation.

The security and defense discussion followed up on the talks we had at the informal meeting in Copenhagen. In order to reach the goal that the EU should significantly strengthen its defense readiness by 2030, the Commission has now developed a roadmap, and it received support from the European Council.

From the Swedish side, we have argued that issues concerning security and defense are closely linked to the national states' powers. Therefore, it is the member states and not the Commission that must be in the driver's seat when it comes to those decisions.

The efforts that the EU can make in this area are, however, important. They should be linked to NATO's decided capability goals and help the member states to achieve them. In this way, we avoid overlapping and duplication of work between the EU and NATO. As is known, the vast majority of EU members are also members of NATO, but there are EU members who are not in NATO and NATO members who are not in the EU.

There are still different opinions on whether the EU's roadmap should primarily be directed at the threat from Russia or have a broader and larger political approach. For Sweden and the Nordic countries, it is obvious that Russia is the primary threat, but countries on the other side of Europe do not fully share that position. Despite this, the conclusions could also be adopted here without changes.

Mr. Speaker! We also had a short discussion about the Middle East with a focus on how the EU can best contribute to the work that is now underway with President Trump's peace plan and towards a sustainable peace between Israel and Hamas.

Finally, a short discussion was held on housing. Fundamentally, this is not an EU issue, which was noted by the rather few contributions made during the meeting. The Member States have different challenges, different needs, and different conditions, not least economically. The EU's role is therefore supportive, and so it shall remain. That a growing European economy and high European competitiveness would also be good for housing construction is, however, of course completely obvious.

With this, I conclude the report from the meeting.

(Applause)

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

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

Before the previous informal summit, the Prime Minister himself sounded very hopeful regarding the possibility of reaching a solution where the EU could use the frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine. At the latest meeting, however, hopes were significantly dashed. Belgium's right-wing nationalist Prime Minister has now blocked the entire agreement, and continued support for Ukraine is threatened. Nevertheless, EU Minister Jessica Rosencrantz described the meeting as a step forward. Does the Prime Minister see the result of the EU summit and Belgium's refusal to use the frozen Russian assets as a step forward or, as the media described it, as a fiasco?

The summit also addressed issues regarding Europe's security. The question of a European drone initiative is still very relevant. After the meeting, Finland's Prime Minister issued a new invitation to a summit on the defense of the EU's external border against, among other things, drones. We Social Democrats believe it is obvious that Sweden should be part of these discussions. What does the Prime Minister think?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! If I were to believe everything that was written in the newspapers, I would not have time to work. Instead, I participate in the discussions; it is a bit more meaningful than speculating.

I usually make sure to say both before and after the council meetings that I never pre-arrange decisions. These are quite lively meetings – one does not know exactly how the decisions will ultimately take shape. There are also reasons why Sweden, together with other Nordic countries, with the Baltic states, often with Germany and Ireland and sometimes with Poland, act in concert to be able to influence the decisions in the right direction. This is, therefore, not about any pre-rigged decisions.

Overall, there was no doubt whatsoever that the opposition that, above all, Belgium showed in Copenhagen was repeated in Brussels. This time, it was more countries that wanted answers to their questions. This was due, as I just said, to the fact that it is emphasized that it concerns a collective responsibility. It is therefore more countries that are to share the theoretical legal risks that could exist. Then it is more countries, of very different political colors, that want to know exactly how it can affect their economy. This has nothing to do with right-wing populism – in that case, Germany and France were right up until just a few months ago right-wing populist. That is simply an ignorant point of view.

The fact is that 90 percent of all assets are in Belgium. Euroclear is the major holder, and they see some risks. I do not think we should downplay them, but it does not change our basic understanding. These questions should instead be answered. How do we ensure that it does not become unmanageable legal risks for Belgium in a situation where we have every reason to use the Russian assets for Ukraine's benefit?

The answer to the second question is yes. We will, of course, participate in the discussions with other front states that Finland has invited us to.

(Applause)

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Mr. Speaker! It would be tasteful if the Prime Minister answered the questions that were asked.

Does the Prime Minister see the result of the EU summit, where Belgium's right-wing nationalist leader blocked the support for Ukraine, as a step forward, as EU Minister Jessica Rosencrantz did, or as a fiasco? Is the Prime Minister not concerned that Belgium, with its right-wing nationalist leader, is blocking this issue?

When it comes to the drone initiative, I want to say: Very good! Sweden has everything to gain from participating. We have technical expertise. We also have, with Gotland, a practical border against Russia in the middle of the Baltic Sea, just 30 miles from Russian Kaliningrad. It was an important announcement that the Prime Minister intends to participate in the meeting about the drone wall this time.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! To be honest, these discussions are reaching a bit of a student council level when a person who has not been present at the meeting and knows nothing about the matter speculates freely. But I can, of course, answer the questions anyway.

No one blocked anything, not Belgium either. We reached a unanimous decision to task the Commission with coming back with a proposal next time. It was not as forward-looking as those of us who are most in favor of using frozen Russian assets would have liked, but it was absolutely no setback. Can I guarantee a success in December? Absolutely not. Can I guarantee that the Commission will do everything it can to answer legitimate questions? I can absolutely do that. The Commission wants exactly the same thing.

We must stop taking on debt and stop speculating. Take these matters seriously! These are quite large issues. It concerns a few hundred billion euros that could be made available to Ukraine if we can agree on the terms for this.

Furthermore, it is not about any drone wall this time either. Drones are national competence. We shall, however, discuss how Sweden, Finland, the Baltics, Romania and a few other countries should collectively view Russia right now.

(Applause)

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

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

I also intended to ask a few questions about the frozen assets. I haven't delved into what label we should put on the Belgian governing party, but I think both "right-wing" and "nationalist" sound quite good. They are not insults from my perspective.

Belgium's fear is that one can do something that is not entirely legal and that one will then at some point in the future be forced to pay back these funds. If I understand the discussion correctly, one would like to see other countries guarantee that they take the same risk as Belgium.

My specific question to the Prime Minister is therefore: Is this something that other countries in Europe are interested in – or the EU as a whole? Then this would be resolved. This is important because Ukraine is heading towards an alarming deficit if it is to finance all its activities going forward.

Furthermore, the Sweden Democrats welcome the clarity the countries have regarding the simplification work. They not only welcome the Commission's work on simplifications but also urge the Commission to continue with more initiatives in the area. This is important because European growth is far too low. However, we can note that for once, Sweden is at the top with 1.1 percent growth in the last quarter compared to the eurozone's 0.2. But simplifications were truly needed.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me begin with the frozen assets. One must keep in mind that this is somewhat uncharted territory, and there were probably traditional reasons why most Eurozone countries were very skeptical of this just a few months ago, not least as argued by the European Central Bank.

In more pragmatic real life, the world is not so black and white, but there one has to choose between different possible solutions. It then appears absurd that frozen Russian assets in Europe should not be used before one tries already heavily tested European countries' state budgets, or in any case be used as significant security in this. This has probably pragmatically caused the vast majority of Euro countries to change their view on the matter. Principally, everyone has wanted to support Ukraine, but they have seen differently on this matter.

In Belgium, it is partly different, because one has 90 percent within one's own jurisdiction. It is no unreasonable Belgian position that if there are even just theoretical risks in long legal processes, one does not want to be solely responsible. There is a clear political will to have everyone share this probably very theoretical risk. But then questions are also posed that must be able to be answered in many more countries.

We may have different views on right-wing nationalism, but this nonsense is simply ignorant. This is about a Eurozone country that also happens to host this clearing center. We do not share Belgium's view in substance, but I can understand how one thinks. Therefore, I am quite confident that the EU Commission will do everything it can to answer the legitimate questions. After that, the question arises: Were good answers sufficient, or is there, despite good answers, an underlying reluctance to use frozen Russian assets?

I will return to the simplification work in the next post.

(Applause)

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, and it sounds like there is at least potential to move forward in the matter, which is positive.

Another issue that has become relevant in light of the trade dispute between the USA and China concerns critical rare earth metals, and regarding 17 of these, the EU is 99 percent dependent on China. There are many different initiatives at the EU level regarding critical metals. But when it comes to specifically rare earth metals, the problem is different, because here the Chinese have secured a monopoly by making the price so low that it is difficult for other producers to compete. It becomes too expensive to extract the metals regardless of how simple the permit processes are.

My question to the Prime Minister is: Has one started to look into this? It concerns a few important metals where China has secured enormous competitive advantages that are difficult to reach within the framework of a traditional market.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The simplification work is incredibly important, but as I said, simplification is harder than one might think. The resistance to every regulatory simplification is massive, and I am particularly concerned about what the EU Parliament is doing. It is also the President of the EU Parliament, I should say, and she is pleading with the prime ministers to speak sense with their respective parties at home so that decisions can be made.

I am an optimist, but I do not guarantee any decisions in December regarding the frozen assets. I think much speaks for the fact that there are good conditions, but nothing is clear until everything is clear. All countries must be in agreement, and then a neighborly work remains. But I believe that the alternatives are so bad that even incomplete answers to the question will suffice to be able to make decisions.

Last but not least, the USA and China are discussing rare earth metals. When these discussions reach a conclusion, Europe will know a little more about how we should act.

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 report.

Since the fragile peace in Gaza began, Israel has dropped bombs over Gaza, and several Gazans have been killed. Only 25 percent of the humanitarian aid that was to be let into Gaza is getting in, as most border crossings are still closed. The Gazans continue to suffer in what is called the world's largest open-air prison.

The European Council must pressure Israel to provide humanitarian access so that lives can be saved and suffering avoided. Israel's far-right government must be held accountable for the destruction of Gaza and for the settler violence. As long as the settler violence and Israel's acts of war in Gaza do not have any consequences for Israel, we will not be able to reach a two-state solution. What concrete measures did the Council discuss to pressure Israel?

The conclusions welcome that the hostages held by Hamas are released, and I agree with that. But nothing is mentioned about the Palestinians that Israel has imprisoned. Released prisoners testify to torture, and the bodies of several dead prisoners have been handed over to Palestine. Did the European Council, at all, take up the issue of the Palestinians who are in Israel's prisons?

Despite the negative development in Sweden regarding the climate goals, Sweden still belongs to the countries that push for an ambitious environmental policy at the EU level. The Council was able to agree on the conclusions without making any changes. I therefore wonder how countries with an ambitious climate policy could get the more reluctant member states on board. What was said and done, and what can we expect moving forward?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! We could have another long debate about what the EU should actually think regarding the Middle East. Now, this is a reporting back of what happened, and this was a rather small point on this council. Other things were significantly larger on this specific agenda. Everyone knows, however, that we have had long discussions about the Middle East.

Right now, I would say that the fragile peace nevertheless gives a certain hope. The European Council noted mostly that such a process has started. It is sensitive and will require very much from very many.

The European Council also noted that the EU is not a main player in this. One can think what one wants about the American administration, but overall it is they who are currently leading the work, which currently looks somewhat positive. But even there, there is no reason to claim any victories in advance.

When it comes to climate policy, the European Council makes unanimous decisions, as we in the circle here know. This means that the texts are often not extremely distinct, especially not in issues where people think quite differently. If one is to unite a number of countries that now have the lowest climate ambitions, to put it that way, or who see the very greatest industrial risks at home with those who, conversely, see the climate transition as a major competitive opportunity, it naturally results, to some extent, in diluted texts.

I still think it was a success that we were able to land on a consensus, that there is a common view on holding fast to the goals and that the Commission shall return with a number of flexibilities. We have requested such when it concerns the forest, for completely obvious reasons. Others have requested them in other areas. It will certainly be able to be described as concessions. I describe it as an opportunity for the EU to hold fast to high-set goals.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the answers! Or the answers and the answers – there were not so many answers to my questions.

I may not be able to ask which concrete measures the Council is discussing this time to pressure Israel, but I can rephrase the question. The Prime Minister says that the EU is not a major player, but we are in that sense as we have the association agreements and Israel's participation in Horizon Europe. We have a lot to play with. Has the Council discussed how this can be used?

When it comes to the unity within the climate policy, I still wonder what it actually means for the future climate policy. I am also concerned about Swedish forestry and how it can contribute to a climate transition if it is not included in the European climate policy. When I say this, I want to add that I myself am a forest owner.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! No, we had no discussion about further positions on the issue of Israel and Gaza. As we know, there was a process underway regarding the discussions on the association agreement. This process stalled in the EU after the American peace effort. Now everyone – the whole world – will probably wait and see what happens and how fragile the peace is before the EU resumes any of its own, new decisions. There are, therefore, no new decisions at all on that point.

I am pleased that we have a consensus regarding climate policy. As I said, the climate council is sitting and discussing much more in detail on this now. There is also no requirement for unanimity there, but rather a requirement for a significant majority. Sweden could agree with countries like France and Poland, but also other countries that raise different objections to things as they are. One should not draw too large party-political conclusions from this, but it is to a very high degree about assessing the risks for one's own business sector.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Mr. Speaker! I will continue a little on the track regarding the frozen Russian assets, mainly because the Prime Minister said one thing in the actual report, namely that three different alternatives had been discussed: One can use the frozen Russian assets, each one can pay for itself, or else it will be nothing at all.

Then I became a little worried. If one now succeeds in unlocking the frozen Russian assets, is it the Prime Minister's assessment that many countries will refrain from contributing on their own? A qualified guess is that both, so to speak, will be needed. It was the Russian frozen assets.

Then we have the decision-making in the EU. There we have Hungary and perhaps to some extent also Slovakia, and who knows which others will sit across the way in the future? Was it discussed, perhaps not at the meeting itself but still in the context itself, how this is to be resolved moving forward? It is, in the long run, unsustainable to have it as it has been during the recent period.

When it comes to competition and climate, I want to thank the Prime Minister for defending the Swedish forest and forestry. It is very important. On the other hand, it is equally important that the EU's climate goals remain firm. Even though we would have liked to see a slightly stronger wording than what Sweden is pushing for, we still hope that it will go well and that it will be those who speak for the climate who secure the majority in the actual decision.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First, so that there is no misunderstanding: These were rhetorical alternatives that a prime minister put forward to clarify that we do not have that many options. The person said directly that one alternative is to give up Ukraine. But that alternative is out, and then there are two left: We can see to it that we get the money out of national budgets, but at least half of the EU's budgets are extremely strained. Or we can use assets that are fundamentally Russian but which we in Europe have frozen.

I believe one should see it more as that there are no perfect solutions. Those who look for flawless solutions will search in vain. If one says no to frozen Russian assets and no to giving up Ukraine, it is about taking massive amounts from every EU country's own budget, larger amounts than would otherwise be required. It is simply not realistic. It was probably a way of saying: Do not exclude the partial solution that is still closest just because it also contains a number of problems. That is how it should be interpreted.

When it comes to the 27 and the 26, I should have said in my reporting that we made all decisions concerning Ukraine with so-called tacit consent, that is to say that 26 agree and that Hungary stands outside but does not block the decisions. Do not ask me why, but that is how it is. This applies to all issues regarding Ukraine except for membership issues, where we will not go any further without Hungary's consent, and Hungary says no. It applies to everything revolving around, for example, opening new chapters for Ukraine's part.

Right now we take what we have. We have the opportunity to act as 26 in the name of the EU, but not when it comes to ongoing membership negotiations. Moldova is suffering from this right now, not least because they are also being blocked because of Hungary.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answers. I understood that it was a rhetorical point, but I would still like to hear the Prime Minister's assessment. I agree that both were needed. Anything else would be unreasonable.

When it comes to the 27, the 26, the 25, or whatever it may become, it is primarily the expansion issues that are the running point. How does the Prime Minister view it? Is there a discussion on how it can be solved in the long term? This is unsustainable, not least for Moldova, of course, which will be squeezed in every way. But we cannot have it this way at all moving forward.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The answer to the question is no, there is no solution. The regulations are unambiguous. Unanimity is required in such decisions. Various pragmatic solutions have been tested. One could imagine that the first decision, which we got through, to open negotiations with Ukraine should be unanimous. Then the final decision and everything in between can take place in a slightly less formal manner. Hungary says no to this.

To be honest, I think most people make the assessment that this is to a very large extent about Hungarian domestic politics. They are heading towards an election, in the spring if I remember correctly, but in any case next year. Before that, there is very little that speaks for a more constructive Hungary in an EU context. We cannot change the rules right now. Ukraine knows that too. Right now, we are where we are, but everything can come to change.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Soon it will be time for the climate summit, and it will take place in Brazil. When one says Brazil, many think of the world's lungs and the importance of the Amazon as an intact ecosystem.

At the meeting, the EU will negotiate with a common voice. Negotiations are ongoing right now, as said. What can be said is that this government has invested a great deal of time and effort into shamelessly and with pride declaring that one will champion the forestry industry's interests in all these negotiations. We hear how the Prime Minister also here in the rostrum justifies this by saying that every country must look out for its industries' interests.

What one must know is that we in Sweden do not appear to be reaching the goals we have set in LULUCF. The Prime Minister has been diligent together with his Finnish counterpart and sent letters and asked for flexibility. But the government has not presented any proposals aimed at actually reaching the climate goals that are linked to the forest.

The forest in Sweden can be a climate hero, but it is moving from being a hero to emitting more carbon than what needs to be stored. There are a number of different proposals concerning increasing rotation periods and working with forest owners to achieve a more sustainable and clear-cut-free forestry. Of all the carbon bound in the world's forests, 60 percent is in the boreal forests, so this is extremely important.

My question to the Prime Minister is: If all governments and all countries justify their diluting work in the same way – Germany has its car industry, Slovakia has its fossil gas – how then can countries cooperate to reach the Paris Agreement?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! So this was not up in the European Council, but we only noted that the Commission has listened to the Swedish and Finnish demands. We think it is an unreasonable policy that other countries should be able to have our forest as a carbon sink to avoid doing their own work.

This was a policy that the previous government actively accepted. Swedish interests were mishandled in Brussels in a way that is completely unacceptable. No other country would mishandle its own national interests in that way.

Even worse, which the poster politics in this proves, is that the parties in Sweden themselves do not live up to this – 70 million tons are missing to live up to the requirements that now exist in what is called LULUCF. No one is even close to this, so this sham policy – that everyone should live up to something that one then does nothing for to live up to oneself – does not impress anyone, least of all other EU countries.

Now we are speaking plainly about this and stating that we do not intend to halve or intentionally decimate an incredibly important Swedish industry, which can also contribute to climate benefits in completely different ways. There were reasons why we voted no to the package from the beginning. We have stood up for that position the whole time. We have not requested any new concessions, not in any way at all. We have stood up for what you did not have the strength or did not want to stand up for, Rebecka Le Moine.

I also note that the Social Democrats never want to talk about you in this issue, because the Social Democrats also do not want to pretend that Swedish forestry is up for grabs for other countries. It is only you who sound that way. One can have respect for the fact that you think it should be done in that way. No one else thinks so in Sweden. Your party is an outlier in these issues.

Regarding the risk of drainage, we agreed despite everything. Now we will see what comes out of today's meetings, where there are more qualified majorities, and not least what emerges as the EU's common contribution to the COP 30 conference in another week. That is when this will be seriously tested.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to Ulf Kristersson for all these compliments about us standing up for our politics!

We have seen that these are tough challenges, and therefore we have been consistent in being at the forefront. We have put forward proposal after proposal and idea after idea, and it has been up to any other party to take it from there. We have been alone in this, but we will not give up. We will try to produce policies that can benefit both Swedish foresters and the climate.

My second question, Mr. Speaker, is this. Now, one travels to Brazil, which the deforestation regulation has targeted so that we Europeans do not consume at the expense of the Amazon. Consequently, requirements are set regarding transparency and sustainability. Can the Prime Minister tell me what distinguishes the Brazilian forest from the Swedish one? Why should we set requirements on how Brazilian forestry is to be conducted but at the same time work for exemptions for all European forestry in the same law?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The answer to the second question is simple: We in Sweden have for a few hundred years proven that we are capable of maintaining sustainable forestry. We have managed that, and we intend to continue to manage it. We do not need to give other countries the right to benefit from it by having lower conditions at home.

Then we can agree that we disagree, Rebecka Le Moine. I am happy to stand up for that. We can agree that we disagree on much of the politics. We have different views on forest policy, we have different views on immigration, and we have different views on energy policy. You stand up for your position, and we stand up for our position.

But, with all due respect, what makes your position interesting is not that it is your position. We can all live with that. The big question is what influence you would have on a potential Social Democratic government after an election if the left side in Swedish politics won. That is a question that very many want answers to. Then there will be increased immigration, decommissioned nuclear power and a stop to Swedish forestry – bad for Sweden!

(Applause)

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

Erik Ottoson (M)

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

I did not intend to ask about the differences in the ecosystem between taiga and rainforest, or if the Prime Minister believes that it is the participation of the Flemish socialists in the Belgian government that has led to the fact that we have not yet been able to get the frozen Russian assets in order. I intended to ask about Jas.

This deal, which hopefully can be finalized, is not without influence from the European level. There are different views on how much European content must be in a fighter jet in order to practically be able to do business within the European framework – not least considering that there is a possibility to manufacture parts of the Jas 39 Gripen in Ukraine, which unfortunately still lies outside the European Union.

Could the Prime Minister help us get a clear picture of where this issue stands right now? Was it discussed in any part of the cabinet meeting? How can we imagine that progress might possibly be made in that issue?

The Prime Minister also mentions the recurring issue with the different amounts of support from the national budgets of different countries and that the rhetoric does not always quite match the sometimes rather low level of the support provided. Now we are entering the rather extensive negotiations on the MFF. Does the Prime Minister see that there are opportunities for us, within the framework of those negotiations, to in some way condition that some form of minimum threshold is achieved from the national side in any case, or is the MFF a tool that will be ineffective in this regard?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The second question is interesting. I suspect that there are already so many different demands on the MFF that only a fraction will be able to be met in the end.

We think, for example, that the distribution and reprioritizations in the long-term budget are quite good, while the volumes are far too large. It is also a fairly common Swedish position. This will become a long night of the knives eventually. We are not there yet.

Jas 39 Gripen is an example of what we mean by a kind of open European production. That is to say, it is an obviously Swedish aircraft, but it is also an obvious industrial cooperation with very many successful defense industry companies in the USA, in the UK, and in Central Europe.

We are pushing – not least with the tip sometimes pointed towards French interests – that European does not mean exclusively EU. It is important to remember. Great Britain is a very European country. Norway is a very European country. To exclude parties because they are not members of the EU would be a very narrow view. There are also good reasons regarding the long-term transatlantic link.

France does, however, have some good points. We need to develop more defense industry in Europe. This provides a less one-sided dependence on the American defense industry. We agree with that.

We are often in disagreement when it comes to starting to put percentages on things. If we were to be very narrow on this now, we would not be able to give things to Ukraine because the things they need right now are primarily American. It is therefore quite obviously a bad idea.

Let us in the long term develop a broader defense industrial base in Europe, but let this industrial base, for reasons of competitiveness, cooperate with the other companies that are best in the world. The Jas 39 Gripen is the world's best fighter jet. It is not because one first chose which countries to cooperate with and then products, but one chose the best suppliers who can create the whole we need.

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

Erik Ottoson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The Prime Minister is pointing out a rather central point: Great Britain is a very European country too – just don't say that so that Nigel Farage hears!

This is, of course, something that needs to be pointed out when one talks about Europe and our common interests overall. The European Union is a cooperation forum for several of the European countries. Several want to be part of that community. One country has, admittedly, chosen to leave but has for that matter not changed its geography significantly.

Does the Prime Minister see opportunities for success here? Is there an ear for this specific perspective among other European heads of state and government, or do they turn a deaf ear and constantly allow national interests to prevail?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! National interests exist at all times. In the same way that we fight for national Swedish interests, others fight for their national interests. One cannot accuse a country of being a country, so to speak. I think that is completely obvious, so we should be neither naive nor stubborn there.

However, there is a tendency to describe an increased European independence as sometimes a bit too narrow. I usually speak rather of an EU plus and an EU minus. In some contexts, we are now clearly an EU minus. We are EU minus Hungary in everything concerning Ukraine. It is sad, but it is a fact right now.

It is going quite well nonetheless. We are undoubtedly an EU plus in everything related to geopolitics, security policy, and defense. It is the EU, it is the United Kingdom, it is Norway, and quite often also other countries that cooperate with the EU. The EU is the core, but we do many things beyond the core itself. That is where we shall remain.

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 the account and for the answer to previous questions regarding the European Council meeting, where 26 leaders gave support to the conclusions on Ukraine. This was done after a discussion with Ukraine's President Zelenskyy.

It is an important and strong message in a time when Russia has once again escalated its robot and drone attacks against civilians and against Ukraine's energy system. Europe's support for Ukraine must be long-term, regular and predictable – politically, economically and humanitarily as well as militarily – so that the EU can help Ukraine reach a just and lasting peace, to survive the winter and to be able to defend itself.

Ukraine needs more air defense, more drone defense, and more ammunition. Europe's own capacity must be strengthened. Furthermore, the EU shall increase investments in Ukraine's defense industry and to enable production here in the member states.

In light of that, I would like to ask the Prime Minister both what needs to happen between the meetings and how Sweden intends to use its voice in the EU to ensure that the member states actually deliver the air defense and the ammunition that Ukraine so urgently needs – so that the promises do not remain on paper. In view of the fact that the EU now wants to strengthen the defense industry and enable Ukrainian production in the member states, I also wonder how Sweden can take an active role in that work and build collaborations that allow Europe to deliver what Ukraine needs more quickly.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! This is complex. I first just want to confirm that there is a worrying tendency that all countries that are verbally generous with things that do not cost budget funds – their solidarity, their wholehearted support and their grand speeches – do not always live up to this when it comes down to it, i.e., when it comes to delivering tangible things, money and things that can explode.

This is a problem. No one is more eager than NATO's Secretary General Mark Rutte to point this out at every meeting with the coalition of the willing, as it is called. We last had a digital meeting on Thursday, a little over a week ago, with London as chair. There are too many countries talking and too few countries also doing things. The EU cannot do so much more about this than to make decisions on the common European. Therefore, the coalition is at least as important.

Now to what worries me most right now. Much is going well in Ukraine, and it is going well in the sense that it is going badly for Russia. One gets nowhere with schadenfreude, but that things are going badly for Russia in so many ways is quite obvious. Nevertheless: In February, the money runs out. This should be an alarm bell for very many and it probably is. If we do not agree on ways to refinance Ukraine – both for defense and budget-wise so that society itself functions – the money will run out in February.

I do not think everyone has understood the extent of such an event. It simply must not happen. Individual countries cannot solve this alone; it must happen collectively. Furthermore, it will increasingly occur with diminishing American support. We may think that is bad, but it is the USA that makes American decisions. It is also in that light that one should see the importance of us reaching a decision on frozen Russian assets later this year.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I share the picture the Prime Minister gives. For Europe to manage to both finance the daily state apparatus in Ukraine and develop in other areas, even for the European part, we must go even further regarding Europe's competitiveness. We have fallen behind, and it is very clear. The Swedish presidency set this as a goal.

It is clear that the world faces very many challenges, but we must not forget this one. We must move forward with the issues of competitiveness. Those of us who come from a country with a lot of industry that is very export-dependent know immediately what this implies. I hope that the Council, despite all the worry in the world, will also move forward with the issues of competitiveness. I want to give the Prime Minister total support in continuing to work on those issues.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I think there is a momentum, as it is often said, in the competitiveness issues. There has undoubtedly been this actually since the Swedish presidency – many countries also tend to point that out – and then Mario Draghi's report. This is good. What is sometimes less good is that it goes too slowly. The EU Parliament was now a good example of it going too slowly.

Sometimes the concept of competitiveness does not impress that much, but one can put it this way: If Europe's mature welfare states are to afford welfare of an average European standard, green transition, support for Ukraine and strengthened own defense – and all this in a much more concerning trade situation – Europe's competitiveness must be strengthened. Otherwise, we will not be able to afford it. Most understand this rationally. It is sometimes a long way to go from that insight to also changing the rules that make companies start, grow and remain in just Europe.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Prime Minister for the report and the answers given so far.

In the conclusions from the meeting, it is emphasized that the EU shall significantly increase its defense readiness by 2030. The purpose is that Europe should be able to handle military threats faster and collectively. This is familiar to everyone here in the chamber. But the homework is clear, namely that the European defense industry shall be strengthened.

For me as a liberal, this is an important issue. Sweden should actively contribute to strengthening the EU's common defense capability in every way we can. Without weapons, we cannot defend our freedom, which perhaps unsurprisingly is not far from my thoughts regarding the defense industry here in Örebro County, specifically in Karlskoga, and also what the Prime Minister said about more countries having to do more.

I move around a lot in the woods and fields at home outside Mullhyttan, which is a stone's throw south of the shooting ranges in Villingsberg. When one moves in the forest, one often hears the rumble from the shooting ranges – it is a bit unclear whether it is the defense's shooting ranges or the defense industry's shooting ranges. But when it comes to the defense industry's shooting ranges, the order books are full for a long time to come. This is something they often talk about as a bottleneck for the production itself. If you cannot test, you cannot produce, and then you cannot deliver.

What does the Prime Minister believe we can do to review the environmental permits and extend the times that the defense industry is allowed to test its materiel and its weapons? It is actually an existential question.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is an interesting question.

I grew up just outside Strängnäs, and there one could also hear the rumble from the former P 10's shooting ranges and the tank field. Even if not every chanterelle picking becomes extra enjoyable because of the rumble, one must think that it is for a good reason and that we all contribute in our own way by making it possible for them to practice and maintain high quality. I completely share that view.

Then it was the question of the rules. Extensive work is currently underway to review the Swedish permit processes, simplify the regulatory frameworks, and shift the focus. Often, it is completely legitimate interests that stand against each other, for example, building completely different things and the interest in keeping land for training. These are two completely legitimate things. Ultimately, a collective assessment must be made. In these serious times, more emphasis is placed on ensuring the defense's interests in a broad sense.

In the same way, it was when we said yes to a number of offshore wind farms on the west coast and no to some that headed in a direct line towards Kaliningrad – for obvious reasons, so as not to jeopardize the warning that Sweden could receive – even though it was a legitimate interest. It was a question of more offshore wind, which would also be good. Sometimes it is such decisions that a government must make. Some pretend that such difficult trade-offs do not exist, but they do.

It is a misconception that the EU is now going to build defense. It seems that the more skeptical one is towards Nato, the more one hopes that the EU will suddenly emerge as a new defense organization, build drone walls and so on. It is a fantasy; it has over all never been relevant. On the other hand, we usually point out that procurement rules, standardizations, simplifications and permit processes, that is to say genuine EU competencies, can contribute to the defense of the European Nato countries and non-Nato countries becoming much stronger.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

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

When it comes to the permits, there is more we can do, and it could go fast with rapid effect.

I actually have no question, but I want to comment on what the MP from the Miljöpartiet said earlier when she compared Swedish forestry and Brazilian forestry. Sweden has sustainable forestry in almost all parts, and I am grateful that the government stands up for the Swedish forest in the EU. Brazil has, in many parts, unsustainable forestry. That perhaps says something about the misconceptions that Miljöpartiet has regarding the Swedish forest. It is a resource that is so important in so many parts, and we really must remove the polarization in the debate. I therefore thank the Prime Minister.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I acknowledge the thanks, and it pleases me that more and more in Sweden see the importance of this issue – even in the EU.

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

Ulf Holm (MP)

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

What concerns me on an overall level is how the faith in the EU's strength and prestige among decision-makers is beginning to crack. The Prime Minister was hopeful before the meeting that a decision on how to take over the frozen Russian assets could become possible. Now, that did not happen. We do not need to discuss why it turned out that way, but the fact that the Prime Minister is hesitant about whether a decision will be made in December makes one able to doubt whether the EU has the strength to truly stand up for and support Ukraine. The major issues are there. In the same way, it is with the green transition, where it is also argued that the EU is losing momentum in these matters.

Does it concern the Prime Minister that there are fears that the EU cannot stand up for Ukraine and for the green transition? Is that not a concern, Prime Minister?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I appreciate this somewhat philosophical question. Since the members often ask me questions about my assessments ahead of upcoming meetings, I am usually honest enough to give my assessments – almost always with the important reservation that I do not commit to any decisions until they are made. This is something the correspondents in Brussels have heard me say many times, even on the same morning: I do not know where we will land because these are things that are fluid. It looks right now as if there is broad agreement, but things happen.

So, it is not a question of previous meetings. If I were one hundred percent sure that I would never make a judgment that later turns out to be wrong, I would not say anything at all. It is still my judgment that a crushing majority of the EU's 26 countries want a solution regarding the frozen Russian assets. Everyone understands that there will be no solution if we do not also have sensible answers to legitimate questions, primarily from Belgium. Then Belgium will say no. Then there is certainly a certain fear that some other countries are hiding behind Belgium.

My very honest assessment is that this is not a game about a lack of will to help Ukraine. I do not think Ukraine is a good example of deficiency when it comes to determination – on the contrary. Our determination has been astonishingly strong, much stronger than many thought when the war was started by Russia.

However, there are many things on the plate at the same time. There are many different interests that play into different ways in different countries. There are many countries that have weak governments sitting on weak mandates, and there are many governments that are managing a poor domestic economy. All of this affects the freedom of action for individual colleagues in the European Council very much. This is not an excuse but just a statement of fact. If we cannot reach an agreement, no decisions will be made. It also urges us who have a firm opinion to help them reach a sensible decision in December.

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

Ulf Holm (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It was an honest answer, but I still think the Prime Minister does not answer the question.

The view from the outside on the EU depends on how much power the EU has to make decisions. It is a concerning situation when, ahead of a summit, the picture is described that we could use the Russian frozen assets, in significant amounts, to help Ukraine because Ukraine needs the money – and then no decision is made. A non-decision is also a decision.

I believe that the view of the EU is unfortunately worsened by the fact that we are divided, that we do not take a stand, and that we do not do enough. In the same way, I mean that it is with the view of the EU and the green transition. There are a number of discussions, in the conclusions called strategic discussions, which make one doubt that the EU has the lead when it comes to the green transition. It would be needed. The view of the EU around the world is important. We must stand up to both support Ukraine and carry out the green transition.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I agree with much of what is being said here. However, I do not quite agree when it comes to the decision. A decision was reached, and that is that the commission will return in December. I would have undoubtedly liked to see a more prescriptive decision. Sweden pushed for it. But it was not possible to reach a consensus. We reached a consensus as far as it could go. Good so!

I do not pledge, as I have said a hundred times now, any decisions in December either. But if one is a member of Parliament, one must be content with a bit more than evening newspaper headlines. These are real discussions. Someone can say: You promised decisions. But we did not do that at all. I promise what we stand for and work for. I obviously cannot promise any decisions when others can cast their veto.

In this circuit, we can do these things. Let us not be deceived by general click-friendliness. These are complicated matters.

Lastly, I want to say that the EU has shown significant ability regarding the euro crisis a long time ago, the pandemic and Ukraine, but a more shaky ability when it comes to the Middle East, China and competitiveness.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

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

My question will concern the climate. But I want to start with democracy. Because in order to be able to ask questions, it is important that the democratic foundations function. I noted that my colleague was told that she did not have knowledge of the meeting because she was not there and was therefore ignorant. She was also told that it was student council manners to ask the type of questions that she, as a representative for the largest party in the Swedish Riksdag, asked to the Prime Minister.

For the sake of order, I want to say that I think it is unacceptable to address Members of Parliament in that manner when one is a guest in this house. It is absolutely not okay. I want it to be recorded in the minutes.

In that respect, it is also offensive towards the student councils.

With that said, I want to say something about the climate. It is unclear how the EU wants to act regarding COP, the 2040 targets, and the revision of the Climate Act. Unfortunately, the European Council does not seem to have resolved that issue; instead, there have been very broad formulations, as we heard in the feedback report. We also heard from others that it was vague what the heads of state and government actually want. Much else is left to be desired in the process.

Unfortunately, the Swedish government has chosen an unclear line. It is not only we in the opposition who say this. The technology companies also demand clarity when it comes to climate policy.

If the government and the Prime Minister do not listen to the opposition, I and the Socialdemokrater wonder why one does not listen to the technology companies and be clear about which goals one wants for 2040, without exceptions with Article 6 and other things that undermine climate policy at the EU level.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! To begin with, I think the Social Democrats received the answers that their questions deserved, neither more nor less. One can have open, honest discussions or have discussions in that manner. I think it yields quite little to ask those kinds of questions, which obviously do not aim for a constructive discussion but for something else entirely. But members ask their questions, and I give my answers. We can agree to disagree on that matter.

When it comes to the second, I do not know exactly what is meant. We are talking about reporting back from a meeting of the European Council, which took a unanimous decision on matters that are then forwarded to the environment council, which is sitting with it right now.

I do not think there were any oddities. All of this was based on the letter that the commission wrote to the member states in advance. One may think somewhat differently about the content of it, but it is essentially based on the fact that the commission wants us to uphold the European objectives, which have been confirmed since before, but also shows a bit of flexibility and responsiveness toward different countries' views, not least Sweden's and Finland's views. I think we should just be happy about that.

If one wants to complain about it, one can do so. But then one should also follow it up with politics that show that one can personally achieve those goals for Swedish forestry to the benefit of other countries that the government does not intend to reach, because they are bad for Sweden. But it is constantly this poster politics, Jytte Guteland, where you pretend to live up to things and matters that you yourselves do not live up to. You do not even make an attempt to live up to them. But I cannot sort that out for you. You have to sort it out yourselves.

I think it was good that the EU could agree on a common line, which now proceeds to the environment council and, in the best-case scenario, lands as a clear European contribution to the climate conference starting next week.

(Applause)

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Mr. Speaker! I will continue with my climate questions. But I want first, for the sake of democracy, to say that we all benefit from having a respectful tone in the chamber. The Prime Minister is a guest here, and all of us who ask questions have the right to ask questions. None of us are the Prime Minister and therefore were not there. We deserve a polite response. We are the people's representatives. It is also about signals that go far beyond this house.

I waive a reply to the Prime Minister's next speech. I will, in fact, not be able to answer it.

With that said, I want to go into climate again. It is unclear what line Sweden is pursuing and what is happening at the EU level. On one hand, the Commission talks about 90 percent and that it should be that figure. On the other hand, some vague agreement is reached. Now the environment ministers are sitting in some kind of limbo and are supposed to concretize. But there are major exceptions. Article 6 is one such.

If the Prime Minister does not listen to us, I wonder if the Prime Minister wants China to come first when it comes to the business sector and the jobs in the future.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! We still have to sort this out. I have not questioned a single member's right to ask any question he or she wants. But I answer as I personally believe. I do not need any review of that either. If one asks questions that obviously aim at nothing other than to provoke a quarrel, one gets the answers one deserves.

When it comes to climate policy, I still do not understand what the problem is. It is well known that there are different views in the EU. I also just reported that. I described in quite some detail what differences exist. If the European Council is to be able to make a decision, we must have a common position based on the lowest common denominator. It just so happens that this is not the Social Democratic parliamentary group's view, whatever it might be.

One wonders, for example, about the forest. You pretend to think one thing, Jytte Guteland. But you do not budget for that thing. You pretend that Miljöpartiet is out cycling when they want to push that Swedish forestry should help all other countries. You have no coherent policy at all.

(Applause)

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! If there was anything I missed in the report, it was perhaps a few words on the migration policy issues that we know from the written report were discussed.

It is obvious that Europe in the foreseeable future will need a very restrictive and strictly controlled immigration policy. I am pleased that Sweden's government agrees with this conclusion. So do many other European governments. Unfortunately, there is not total agreement on this. We see it perhaps most clearly in the socialist-led Spain, where they view immigration policy completely differently and encourage more immigration. We cannot deny that Spain is a large country and thus a rather heavy player in Europe.

Could the Prime Minister say a few more words about this?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I can always say a few more words. But both your time and my time are limited.

The fact that I did not mention migration in the conclusion is because it was actually not a topic for the discussions, in any case not at all in the way it had been at previous council meetings.

I could, however, have mentioned that as usual I met with Denmark's Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, Italy's Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and a number of others and discussed a common view on migration issues ahead of upcoming meetings. We do this at almost every meeting in the European Council. This time the focus was on return issues, cooperation with countries that do not want to take in their own citizens, deportation decisions and such things.

There is a growing group of European countries that think this is functioning poorly in the EU. Ursula von der Leyen often says that overall in the EU, 80 percent of those who receive a deportation order refuse to comply. They stay. In Sweden, it is exactly the opposite. It is 20 percent who stay here. We have therefore come much further than others and are now, unlike before, seen as an example in these issues.

It is interesting that countries such as Sweden, Denmark and Italy, which have quite different types of governments, can cooperate well to improve the European migration policy.

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

Erik Hellsborn (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Prime Minister very much for the clarification. I have no follow-up question.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you yourself, Erik Hellsborn! Thank you for today!

The reporting was hereby concluded.

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