Reporting from the Council of Europe meeting on February 9-10

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! The European Council met, as we all know, on Thursday last week, and the meeting continued well into Friday morning, if we are to be perfectly honest. On the agenda were Russia's war against Ukraine, various economic issues, and the migration issue.

President Zelenskyy's presence gave an extra strong symbolic framing to the meeting. The visit to Brussels on Thursday was the second time the president has left Ukraine since Russia's attack almost a year ago. He came to Brussels from London via Paris.

Reporting from the Council of Europe meeting on February 9-10

His speeches in the European Parliament and to the Council were both content-rich and emotionally charged. As usual, he was clear and precise regarding what is happening on the ground in Ukraine right now, what is feared will happen on the ground in Ukraine shortly, and not least what Ukraine needs from other countries to meet what is happening and may come to happen. Rarely has the closeness between the EU and Ukraine been so extremely palpable as it was in the room in Brussels on Thursday.

I was given the floor as chair during the discussion with President Zelenskyy, and my main message was, naturally, that Ukraine can continue to count on a united humanitarian, economic, political, and military support from the EU as long as it is necessary at all. I also explained what we as the chair will carry forward in work across several tracks. It is primarily about getting a tenth sanctions package in place. We expect to be able to achieve this very soon.

Furthermore, it is about continued work on issues regarding accountability, so that those who commit horrific atrocities in Ukraine will also be brought to justice, and on finding an internationally respected way to use frozen Russian assets to support the reconstruction of Ukraine.

Ukraine continues its reform work with the aim of meeting the seven criteria to obtain status as a candidate country. The Commission shall this year provide an update on the situation in that work before a collective feedback and assessment is made this autumn on how Ukraine fulfills the seven criteria. It is completely obvious that Ukraine now has its sights set on beginning negotiations on membership in the EU as soon as it is at all possible.

President Zelenskyy was crystal clear when he said "this year" and underlined that he meant exactly 2023, so Ukraine's ambitions on this point are beyond any doubt. The council's conclusions are also clear both by holding to the formalities - "merit based" as it is called in EU-speak - and by being forward-looking with an eye on Ukrainian EU membership.

Madam Speaker! The extraordinary council meeting was held against the background that many countries during recent years have been subjected to a very strong migration pressure. Several countries explicitly compare this to the refugee wave in 2015. The direction is now clear - from right to left, I dare to say - towards a stricter migration policy in the EU.

Above all, it is a matter of seriously protecting the EU's external border. The Netherlands' liberal Prime Minister Mark Rutte and several other leaders have been very clear on this issue. Furthermore, the discussions concerned more cooperation within the EU and between the EU and third countries, i.e., non-EU countries, for increased return and recovery of their own citizens who have been denied asylum and residence permits in the EU but who today do not leave European territory.

A lack of effective control of the EU's external border also means that conditions for internal freedom of movement and an orderly migration policy are missing. As several expressed it: Without a functioning external border, there are no conditions for the Schengen Agreement.

The work to strengthen border protection and to combat organized human smuggling shall now be taken further through, for example, cooperation between the member states' border protection authorities and the EU's own border and coast guard agency Frontex. The discussion also touched upon the question of whether EU funds should be able to be used to finance surveillance and infrastructure at the EU's borders.

My impression after this meeting is that the issue has now moved from being very digital, black-and-white, emotionally charged and principled to a much more pragmatic approach. It is about solving problems that must be solved and helping the countries that are now experiencing an unreasonably large pressure. This, we believe in Sweden, not least with our experiences from 2015, is a much better basis for a functioning cooperation.

Protection for those in need also means that those who lack grounds for asylum should not stay in Europe, and here cooperation with third countries is crucial. There is now an openness to use all available tools, such as aid, trade, and visa policy, to simply get countries that today do not fully want to cooperate with the EU to do so anyway.

Finally, the Swedish presidency will, of course, continue to work on the migration pact in accordance with the roadmap that has been agreed upon between the European Parliament and the presidency in the current and next presidency trio, i.e., the three countries that hold the presidency in turn.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to economic issues, the discussions reflect the well-known dividing lines between the countries that want to open up for expanded opportunities for state aid in light of high energy prices and, above all, in light of the American climate package IRA, Inflation Reduction Act, and the many countries, including Sweden and like-minded ones, that safeguard the integrity of the internal market and want a strict state aid framework that cannot be exploited beyond what is intended. The agreement was that the Commission shall now work further on simplifications and opportunities for temporary support, particularly for those sectors that are specifically affected by the new American policy. Extra consideration shall be taken for small and medium-sized enterprises, and distortions of the internal market between different EU countries shall be avoided as far as possible.

All this is rooted in the dual view of what the Americans are doing now: partly a wholehearted welcome of the fact that the USA is now back in climate work and that the USA has high ambitions for technology and the importance of technology for modern climate work, partly the fact that the USA cannot in the long run allow China to use American and Western markets in a way that Western markets cannot do in China.

There is broad understanding among Europe's countries that the USA is acting. But there is a suspicion regarding the risk that it will systematically lure companies specifically to the USA, with production specifically in the USA, and that it will disadvantage European companies.

In the important financing issues, I and several other leaders clearly signaled against any thought of a new joint borrowing, and no steps were taken in that direction at the meeting either.

In summary, the Commission shall now continue to work on the proposals in the industrial plan for the green transition as well as on a strategy for long-term competitiveness and productivity. Those discussions will continue when the European Council meets again at the end of March. Not least, specifically the long-term issues must now be put on the agenda. The ability for short-term crisis management is a necessary and well-proven core competence in the EU, but it is not sufficient. Long-term perspective is crucial, and few issues are as long-term as precisely competitiveness issues, productivity issues, and issues regarding how Europe stands in competition with Asia and the USA - not least.

In conclusion, the initiative from Sweden and the Commission to organize an international donor conference in March in support of the millions of victims after the earthquake in Turkey and Syria last week was welcomed. We all know that the figures are being revised hour by hour. There are tens of thousands dead. There are nearly countless families who are homeless, and there are infinitely many who are injured. Parallel to Sweden's and other countries' immediate and bilateral efforts with, for example, search and rescue teams, a joint international effort is absolutely necessary. We expect to issue calls for this joint effort during the coming week.

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the report! I want to begin by saying: all support for Ukraine and full backing to the government and the EU for that.

I would like to take the opportunity to raise one of the important issues that was on the agenda. The Prime Minister mentioned it briefly. It concerns the EU's response to the American inflation package or climate package. In substance, we seem to be in agreement so far on how the EU should handle this issue. We need to transition the European labor market so that we have the right skills for the jobs of the future. We need to make it easier to quickly expand green energy, and we shall maintain good trade relations with the rest of the world.

But not least the question of competence, that we have the right trained workforce for the new green jobs that are emerging, is absolutely crucial for us to keep our green industries in Europe. Even in Sweden, we need to conduct an active policy that creates and retains jobs for the green industry.

Sweden now has the worst growth forecast in the entire EU, and the warning figures are breaking records. In the conclusions from the European Council meeting, it states that the Council wants to see bolder and more ambitious measures to strengthen the competence of Europe's workforce. How does Kristersson view that wording concretely, and what measures does the Prime Minister envision?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! The Council did not, of course, discuss specific Swedish efforts, nor the efforts of any other country in that regard. One stays, of course, at a common European level. But it is quite true that one explicitly points out precisely the competence issues, the long-term competence issues, and the transition issues. Not least, one probably thinks overall that Europe is ahead of, for example, just the USA on that point. And not least, Sweden has a good and proud tradition of long-term competence development and also has high ambitions forward in this.

But one does not need to go further than to any Swedish export company to see that it is obvious that digitalization and the entire technological transformation will require completely different competencies. This should perhaps more be regarded as a potential competitive advantage for European industry if we see to it that we have a very high rate of transition. Then everyone knows that legislation regarding labor law and such things in all essentials is domestic competence and shall remain domestic competence.

For Sweden's part, I would still like to say something about the structural transformation. It is quite true that we have very high inflation right now in Sweden and very poor growth. Taste that – high inflation and very low growth, currently the lowest in all of Europe. There are reasons to reflect on that. What has led Sweden to the worst growth forecast in all of Europe, and what is it that makes Sweden have such high inflation now?

I would say that combating inflation is a core task for this government. High inflation is every wage earner's worst economic enemy. Nothing can compensate for it. If you add low growth, we are back to the stagflation risks of the 70s. This requires an economic policy that is truly united and truly focused on combating inflation and on increasing growth with structural reforms.

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer. But I think I can give the Prime Minister one more opportunity to actually answer the question. It concerns the wording that the Prime Minister himself has been involved in negotiating and signing, which concerns bolder and more ambitious measures to strengthen the competence of Europe's workforce. How does the Prime Minister concretely view that wording?

Then I can only note that here at home, the government has made billion-kronor cuts to both adult education and universities of applied sciences, contrary to the policy and skills development that it appears Kristersson has signed off on regarding the European level and which one says they defend as the chairing country in the EU. The same applies to the climate transition - high ambitions for the EU but low for Sweden. How does that add up?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! Again: We had no council conclusions regarding specific Swedish domestic policy issues. We did not have them last time and we do not have them this time either, I want to emphasize. No other country had them either. I am happy to have a domestic debate on all these issues any day. But that was not what the council was about. I just want to emphasize that, so that we do not talk about the wrong things.

We can look at really important structural reforms. Lower taxes for people who work are incredibly important if more people are to come to work. It is about a major benefit reform so that it never pays to live on benefits if one could work. It is about ensuring that integration works so that the very many people who have come to Sweden and who live here but do not work enter the labor market. It is a completely crucial structural reform. The transition, which the parties have now agreed upon, is an important part for those who have a job but who want to acquire new skills in a new working life.

All this, I would say, are important structural reforms that this government has a majority in this chamber to also implement.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! The council's conclusions on the migration area are fundamentally good, so is the government's position, especially regarding what is called the whole-of-government approach, which is something we have nagged about for a long time. I think it is obvious that this government, unlike the previous one, takes the issue as seriously as it deserves.

But now I do not think we should just stand here and agree with each other, even though it is Valentine's Day. Because if we are to be honest, Madam Speaker, the fact is that we have heard much of this before.

One can, for example, read: comprehensive approach to migration which combines increased external action, more effective control of EU external borders, and internal aspects, in compliance with international law, EU principles and values, and the protection of fundamental rights. The year could just as well have been 2017. Not much has happened since then.

There is, Madam Speaker, an obvious risk that even this will remain mere beautiful words. Therefore, I think it is important to lift one's gaze to see if anyone else has managed this better or to be curious about the outside world, as the Prime Minister himself might express it.

Australia has in practice solved this problem by reaching agreements with third countries to outsource the entire asylum process. The person who seeks and needs international protection also receives it in accordance with international law, while the life-threatening boat traffic has in practice ceased because there is no incentive to make it to Australia specifically. The human smugglers' business model has been crushed, lives have been saved, and order, clarity, and basic rights in migration policy have been established, while addressing almost all of the problems that this causes.

Sweden does not support this model being tested in Europe, even though many other countries have raised that issue. Why?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! First, I shall agree that there are different ways to celebrate Valentine's Day. We choose this method.

That question was not up for explicit discussion and has not been in an EU context. Then, it is no secret that quite a few countries are now raising this fully seriously, absolutely. I believe there is a growing awareness that in the long run we have a major problem with the way we process asylum in Europe today. Denmark raises this very systematically.

Now, one must be honest and say that there is a bit of a difference when it comes to Australia. Geographically, there are different conditions, so Europe and Australia are not entirely comparable. I believe that we will test all conceivable questions regarding this within the framework of international law and within the framework of conventions that the EU countries, and the EU itself, are bound by.

I still want to emphasize that this was a major step forward. The tone of the discussion today is, without any doubt, very much shaped by the experiences from 2015. Now it is other countries that are very strongly affected, and when the highly respected Dutch Prime Minister brings up and describes in detail what is now happening in the Netherlands, it is absolutely clear that it is being taken very seriously. When Ireland mentions the same thing, it is also taken very seriously.

More and more countries know what happens if one does not have control over the external border. More and more are tired of us having regulatory frameworks in Europe that we ourselves do not even comply with. One might think it is a low bar that we should comply with the rules we already have, but it is still a sobering reality in the discussions.

I perceive, therefore, that there is a new balance point, a new consensus, and the writings are currently much more in that direction. I think that one should place great value on that.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

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

It is obvious that the discussion has shifted. Even we who are looking at this from the outside can see that it is a different tone now, and people are talking about this in a completely different way.

There is, however, an inherent conflict in this that I believe one still cannot get around, and that is that today's regulatory framework creates a conflict between countries with an external border, where migrants often pass through, and countries that do not have an external border, especially in northern Europe, where migrants want to go. This inherent conflict is very difficult to get around without fundamentally redesigning the system. That is my opinion.

The approach that is now being moved towards is actually based primarily on two things. One is a kind of transit procedure, where migrants are received and where their applications can be examined quite quickly. The other is an increased repatriation to ensure that people return.

Can the Prime Minister say if any country was willing to have these transit centers on its territory? Was there anyone who volunteered for this?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! We did not quite reason in those terms. How the reasoning proceeded is quite fully recounted in the conclusions. So, it was not reasoned that way, and we must start at a much more basic level.

The prerequisite for being able to have openness in Europe and, above all, to be able to conduct a common migration policy between countries is that we have control over the external border. It is the absolute prerequisite. If one does not help each other to maintain the external border and ensure that those people who are denied entry also leave European territory, then everything collapses.

I would therefore say that this is some kind of minimum common denominator. Then everyone understands that the countries that have an external border need help with this. It is easier for us to say as those who do not have that kind of direct access, at least not in that way. I therefore think that there was a new understanding that one must help each other, but that it must start with the fundamentals – to maintain Europe's external border.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the report and especially regarding the incredibly important work being done so that Ukraine can receive continued support and help!

Regarding the victims of the earthquake, I have raised the Kurdish autonomy in Syria and that the people there must not be forgotten. Therefore, I am pleased that the Council now declares that aid shall be given to all victims of the earthquake in Syria, regardless of where they are located. I hope that it also means that the EU will ensure that emergency aid is not blocked due to the conflicts in Syria or the oppression of Kurds in Turkey.

We must also keep a watchful eye on Turkey's despotic president Erdogan. He has long led Turkey in an authoritarian direction and shrunk the democratic space. Now, due to the earthquake, he has introduced a state of emergency for three months, all the way until the election. While this may lead to a mobilization of resources, it can also lead to him strengthening his own power during that time.

This is something that we all must take into account in negotiations and contacts with Turkey. Was this something that was discussed in the Council? If not, I assume that it will be included on upcoming agendas.

Many EU countries have individuals within their borders whom they want to deport. In some cases, it is refugees who, for inscrutable reasons, are not granted asylum; in other cases, it is people from poor countries seeking a better life. In order for the countries of origin to accept them, the EU wants to use reprisals such as visa requirements, withdrawn aid, and so on.

We in Vänsterpartiet believe that this is completely the wrong way to go, and I want to ask the Prime Minister if the humanitarian aspects were also raised in the council. Did the council discuss the importance of poverty reduction and that withdrawn aid could have the effect of even more people choosing to seek their way to Europe when their countries of origin become poorer?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I will take the questions in turn.

It is very clear that the support is to go to people who have been affected both in Turkey and in Syria. The support goes to disaster relief. As I said earlier, we did not discuss Swedish domestic policy in the council. We did not discuss Turkish domestic policy in the council either, but we discussed literally how we can jointly and bilaterally help during the most terrible earthquake in a very, very long time.

There were no other aspects of that geography or of those countries, but we stuck strictly to this, and I think there are very good reasons to do so. There is time to have views on other issues, and there is time to stop and focus on helping people in acute distress. That is exactly what Sweden with our team is doing now, and this evening we could see on Sveriges Television how they, with the help of dogs and together with teams from many other countries, searched for people in the rubble. Now we are also doing it in a joint international effort. That money will, of course, reach its destination in the way that organizations with experience know works.

It is not at all reprisals to force countries that want to cooperate and collaborate with Europe's countries to take back their own citizens. It is, on the contrary, a self-evident matter. There are reasons why we have citizenship. It entails both obligations and rights. We in Sweden have an obligation to do so, and other countries should also have that obligation.

It is not an electable matter where one simply takes advantage of Europe's generosity and willingness to cooperate in some areas and abuses it in others. I think it was completely clear that countries that want to take part in what Europe has to offer in other areas must also be forced to take back their own citizens who have been denied asylum and residence permits.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! I believe we agree that one should take back one's own citizens. It is a matter of how one does it, what requirements the EU sets, and that the EU withdraws aid, which makes it difficult for countries to receive their own citizens.

We can also observe that the disaster relief has not reached everywhere so far due to the conflicts that exist, but that Turkey's domestic policy can also affect how aid reaches across all of Turkey.

I would like to briefly touch upon the energy issue. Sweden today has the most renewable energy within the EU. It was discussed in the Council how more countries should receive renewable energy and how the EU's state aid rules can affect this. From the Left Party's side, we are pleased that the state aid rules are now being discussed. We have wanted this for a long time, and it is good that the Council stands behind the Commission's proposal.

I would like to ask if you are discussing the possibility for countries to introduce what we call Sweden prices, that is, one price for domestic consumers and another price for the electricity that is exported.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! First, we have the question of reclaiming our own citizens. We have tried simply hoping and enticing for quite a few decades. It is probably no one who believes that it will be enough. Now it will be required to put some force behind the words if one is to compel countries that do not want to do what Europe thinks they should do. It is a reasonable development from the previously somewhat more hopeful attitude.

Then it was the question of energy cooperation. No, we did not discuss Swedish prices! On the other hand, the green transition is discussed a lot – in every conceivable way. Since the climate issue begins and ends with the energy issue, we all understand that the energy issue is completely fundamental.

Since the energy mix is a matter of national competence. Therefore, it was no coincidence that I was in Paris a couple of weeks ago and spoke about nuclear power with Macron, and I spoke about nuclear power with Poland's Prime Minister yesterday. Other countries are talking about cooperation in other types of energy.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I also want to begin by thanking the Prime Minister for a comprehensive report, and I want to express a special support for the initiated narrative that the Prime Minister held regarding the Ukraine issue and Zelenskyy's visit. We who followed the meeting IRL online are moved. We are deeply grateful for the reception that Ukraine and the president receive in the EU family.

It is an indescribable scenario unfolding before our eyes. Not least, many municipalities in Sweden are handling refugees from Ukraine.

We have also been handling refugees from other countries in Europe for a long time. I know that before the Prime Minister left, the question of whether EU funds should be used to build physical barriers regarding the migrant situation and the suitability of this was discussed at the hearing. The Prime Minister mentioned infrastructure, and he mentioned that one is more pragmatic in the matter. I would like to know how the discussions went at the meeting and get a bit more content in what the Prime Minister said. How is the possibility viewed of using money from the EU budget to physically shut out migrants from the EU?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me also confirm, if it also appeared through the TV screen, that Zelenskyy's presence shows that this is a matter of bloody seriousness. It is difficult to convey in a fair way. When he describes what they are subjected to, and when he describes what help they have from what we have delivered to them, and even when he describes how what was unthinkable a few months ago is now thinkable in the form of our help, one is truly taken. This includes his perception - of course - that much of our help still comes late. It would have done even greater good even earlier. It creates reason for reflection.

Let us be a bit precise. There are surely reasons why we land on the formulation infrastructure. I believe it is called infrastructure and surveillance in the English version. It is a way of saying that borders are borders literally. Most countries do not speak in terms of walls, even though it is very well imaginable that there are fences in certain places. The border is there so that one is forced to identify oneself when entering a new country and cannot enter as one wishes. That is the whole idea. It is no stranger than that we ourselves have passport controls and physical borders that are there so that people cannot enter Sweden illegally. For me, there is not so much drama in this.

It is still a question of national competence how one protects its own border. It is not EU competence. The new thing now is that the EU provides economic means. We will therefore help those countries that have more difficulty than other countries in maintaining that border. There is probably a reasonable common interest in doing this because it also affects all other countries. No one spoke in terms of fences, but that also does not exclude physical barriers which very well could be fences. I think one should be a bit humble regarding the fact that it looks different.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I agree with the fact that this is a complex issue. It is a national issue, but that is also why it is so important to discuss. It is also why my colleague asked the question before the Prime Minister left.

Should EU funds go to this, via the support that the Prime Minister mentions? The fact is that Ursula von der Leyen has been quite clear about this before, namely that according to the EU treaty, the intention is not for EU funds to go to physical barriers, no matter what they may look like.

The most effective thing is, just as the Prime Minister has explained, an organized reception, an organized and rapid process, where those who are to stay get to stay and those who are not to stay get to go home. It is this that the money must go to, instead of migrants, in the worst case, being met by fences.

I want to clarify this and hope that the Prime Minister can clarify a bit more what the money is to be used for.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! It is entirely correct that this is based on the fact that one cannot enter EU territory without identifying oneself, without being tested as to whether one has the right to be there. It requires some form of stop where one is checked. Then one can call it almost whatever one wants. I think the term infrastructure well accommodates some form of arrangement that ensures one cannot enter the EU and then proceed further without permission. That is what it is about.

I do not intend to try to interpret the concept any further because I have understood that it is loaded. Some absolutely want it to be a question of fences, and others do not want it to be a question of fences. I believe that the lawyers will sort this out. It is a unanimous text from the European Council, and it applies. Then it is each country that has the task of maintaining and protecting its own border.

Furthermore, it becomes other countries' problems if one lets migrants through without checking, who then travel on to completely different countries. It becomes a large common problem.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Initially, I also want to express my thanks to the Prime Minister for having, together with other EU leaders, expressed strong support for Ukraine and the Ukrainian people's right to continue to exist.

Latest today we heard further terrible news about how children have been torn from their parents to be relocated into Russian families. These crimes must be prosecuted.

Madam Speaker! At the EU summit, the management of people on the move was also discussed. Europe has shown that Europe can receive and manage also large flows of refugees as well as provide people on the move with protection, housing and a roof over their heads and integrate them into our societies.

At the same time, we could read in the Swedish press that the government has stated that it wants to carry out a paradigm shift, which means that the focus in migration policy moves from pious hopes to order and tidiness. Is the pious hope one wants to leave behind, Prime Minister, the respect for human dignity and human rights, or is it the right to asylum?

I am concerned that the talk about combating organized human smuggling could instead lead to the fighting of the vulnerable people who are fleeing.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! At the council meeting, we did not speak at all in terms of "handling" people, much less in any contemptuous terms about the people who come to Europe – absolutely not. There was nothing close to such reasoning. There was a very respectful tone in issues that the vast majority of the countries have experienced more or less as very problematic.

That is why I said in my introduction that we carry with us the lessons from 2015 in Sweden and Germany. We do not intend to repeat it once again. These are also lessons that other countries have taken to heart, not least the countries that now see violently fast-increasing migrant flows. One must be able to talk about that. It is a major problem in Austria. It is a major problem in Belgium. It is a major problem in the Netherlands. It could become that in more countries, and then one must discuss how to help each other.

It is a genuine common concern if one does not succeed in identifying people, vetting those who are to have the right to stay and getting those who do not have the right to stay to leave the country. All of that is obviously a common problem; thus, one must be able to discuss it together—not least now when many countries also have very large groups of Ukrainian women and children who have fled the war and feel a very great responsibility for this. It is not strange at all. Countries all around the world have always felt responsibility—that people in one's immediate vicinity, one has an even greater responsibility for than others. It is not strange. Ask the Poles! There are 100,000 Ukrainians in Ireland. I think it is quite obvious that it is that way, so for me, it is no contradiction. We must have a strict, functioning migration policy.

Then I shall say again that we did not discuss Swedish domestic migration policy at the council meeting. The Swedish government is implementing a reorganization of the Swedish migration policy. It is a paradigm shift, and we stand by that fully. I think it is well in line with the current trends in Europe, but we did not discuss the Swedish immigration policy at the council meeting.

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

Annika Hirvonen (MP)

Madam Speaker! Across the EU, we have seen pushbacks at several of the EU's external borders in defiance of the right to asylum.

Late last week, I received a testimony from a Swedish doctor about how people's lives have become pawns in a game where perfectly healthy people, young people, are dying on the border between Poland and Belarus, where the Polish border guards, instead of helping these people to medical care and providing their right to seek asylum, repeatedly push these refugees back to Belarus.

Will the government, as EU chair, take a clear stand against illegal pushbacks from EU countries and clarify that no pushbacks may be carried out by Frontex?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! The government does not need to clarify this, because it is already the prevailing law. It is the prevailing law, and it was also explicitly stated at the council meeting. There is legislation that applies and conventions that govern this, and all countries must comply with them. No country said that it did not intend to comply with the prevailing law.

With that said, different countries naturally have different levels of concern regarding these issues, and it is clear that those who have a long external border and, in addition, a large maritime border have very large such concerns. But that does not excuse breaking the rules, and there is nothing that says EU countries have the right to simply ignore those regulatory frameworks.

When it comes to these smugglers, I think one should be careful before praising them too much. These are cynical people who let people die at sea. They trick people into boats that are not seaworthy. These smugglers are not people who help people to a better life. They endanger people's lives.

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

Jan Ericson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for a clear report!

It can be said that Sweden's presidency of the EU is being carried out during a very difficult time, perhaps the most challenging and dramatic since the EU was formed. In this serious situation, there is a great need for leadership with the ability to bring the EU's 27 member states together to reasonable compromises.

So far, the EU's collective determination has actually impressed many and shown that the EU seems to be at its best when it really matters. At the same time, I believe everyone realizes that the serious situation places extremely high demands on Sweden to try to safeguard this relatively good unity. I think the Prime Minister's account shows that Sweden's government truly takes the important and difficult task seriously.

The war in Ukraine is the worst conflict to have hit Europe since World War II, in any case if one counts the number of dead. In addition to this, the destruction of Ukrainian cities is catastrophic. For Sweden, the EU, and the entire democratic Western world, the most important task now is primarily to help Ukraine with everything from humanitarian support to weapons to throw out the occupying power from the country as quickly as possible.

It is pleasing that the new Swedish government has so clearly declared, both in the government statement and in other contexts, that it wants to increase Sweden's support for Ukraine and that there is also political support for this in the Riksdag. So far, the government has truly delivered what it promised. I also want to agree with the Prime Minister's clear message the other day to Ukraine's President Zelenskyy that Ukraine belongs to the European family. It warmed many Ukrainian hearts and has also been greatly noticed in Ukrainian media. It is very welcome. But the day Ukraine has retaken its territory and the war is hopefully over, the larger task of helping Ukraine to rebuild the country arises, and then the question is how it shall be financed.

Therefore, I would like to ask the Prime Minister to tell us a bit more about how the discussion went in the EU regarding the use of frozen Russian assets and whether any openings emerged in that matter. It is, after all, quite complicated.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I just want to agree – it is a time for unity, I would say. It is enough to look out at our world to understand it. It is a time for unity. It is not a time for division.

If one has said that, one must also say that every presidency has a task to gather. Otherwise, nothing gets done, namely. And it is not entirely simple when 27 different countries, often with well-known differences of opinion, are to agree on positions. Then it is easy for the best to become the enemy of the good. One has one's own best view, and if one does not get it through, nothing will go through.

Our task now is to, as far as possible, within the frameworks that we in Sweden consider reasonable, steer towards unity so that we achieve results in the different areas we have talked about – migration, the climate, and the economy – and not least maintain unity in everything surrounding Ukraine.

There is a consensus that membership is a completely decisive matter. It is no secret that there are different views among the EU's member states about how fast this should go. Now we have received formulations that I think make it possible to say in good conscience that it should occur on good merits but that it should occur as soon as possible.

I also want to mention the crisis management capability. Managing serious crises has truly become a core EU competence in light of the euro crisis, the pandemic, and the war. That is good. The EU has passed the test when the EU has been tested. However, it must not overshadow the fact that we also have long-term matters that are not crisis-focused but which require years of work to achieve results. Competitiveness issues are one such thing that we easily forget when we manage crises.

There is a very great interest in the question of frozen assets, as they are called in English. Everyone understands that it is complicated. Sweden is now appointing an ad hoc group together with other countries to precisely analyze the legal conditions and much more. We have taken that initiative, and I perceive that there is a very great interest in participating in this.

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

Jan Ericson (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Prime Minister for the answer. It was indeed a pleasing piece of news that there is actually movement in that matter. Different countries have different laws and regulatory frameworks, and as a lawyer, I see that it is extremely complicated to get this done.

Another question that is being discussed a lot is the possibility of setting up a special tribunal or court to examine the suspected war crimes that may have been committed during the war in Ukraine. The Prime Minister also touched upon this in his progress report.

I am a bit curious if the Prime Minister can mention more about how the conversation went on this issue – whether there is a consensus among the countries that they want such a court or tribunal, or if there are different views on that matter.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! This reminds me a bit of the question of frozen assets. There is, I would say, an agreement that something must be done. We are palpably forward-looking in that matter. When it comes to frozen assets, we are talking about very large amounts. Then everyone understands the complications; international law and national legislation can place obstacles in the way.

When it comes to court proceedings, there is probably also a very broad consensus that people who have committed those types of crimes should be brought to justice. However, there are quite different views on how this should take place - in hybrid courts, by using the Hague, by using a separate tribunal. Discussions are still ongoing there.

I am convinced that we will reach a point where the EU's countries can agree even on that issue, as everyone sees that this need so obviously exists.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by thanking the Prime Minister for all the work being done by Sweden as the chairing country, for Ukraine, and for maintaining unity in the EU, which we know is extremely important for the ongoing situation.

When Ukraine has been on the agenda, which unfortunately has been the case throughout the past year since Putin's full-scale war began, the situation in Moldova has also often been discussed. Their EU-friendly government announced its resignation last week, probably quite shortly after the European Council concluded. Moldova's president Maia Sandu nominated Dorin Recean on Friday, who is also positively disposed towards European integration, as the new prime minister.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine has created an uncertain situation for Moldova, which is one of Europe's poorest countries, and makes the country very vulnerable to Russian influence. Moldova has made great progress in the fight against corruption, and the EU granted the country candidate status last summer.

My question to the Prime Minister is therefore: Was Moldova discussed at the Council meeting, and does the EU plan to do anything specific to support Moldova so that it can stay away from Russian control?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! Moldova was absolutely discussed. Almost always when we talk about Ukraine, we come to Moldova, for many reasons - not least because they are in an extremely vulnerable position. Everyone knows that they are also exposed to various forms of Russian propaganda; we can return to the suspected coup d'état. They are also taking an enormous responsibility for Ukrainian refugees right now. They are a candidate status country, as was pointed out.

Many are also very impressed by the leadership. I met the Speaker here in Stockholm the other day, and I will meet Maia Sandu at the security conference in Munich in just a few days. We keep in touch.

There is a great interest for Moldova. They do not feel forgotten. On the other hand, they feel very pressured.

This was precisely before information emerged that there had been plans for a Russian coup in Moldova. It was instead about many other events. We naturally take this very seriously. I suspect that I will receive a much more detailed description in just a couple of days. I will therefore gladly return with a sufficiently detailed account when I have also spoken with the Moldovan president.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I am really looking forward to hearing that report. I have discovered that we in the Riksdag have a largely common view even when it comes to Moldova and not just when it comes to Ukraine. We have had visits from various Moldovan and Ukrainian delegations almost every week during the recent period.

It is very important for us in Sweden that the development in Moldova is moving in the right direction. I hope that the Prime Minister can convey that signal also during his upcoming meetings.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! Right now, everything is overshadowed by Russia's war against Ukraine. The EU maintains a framework of rules that must be met for a country that wants to become an EU member, and many are very impressed by the work that is taking place in Moldova right now – without any doubt. I perceive that they, in an extremely difficult situation, consider themselves seen and appreciated by the EU countries.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the report! The importance of the EU's heads of state and government now once again having signaled powerfully against Russia is great. It is important on very many levels.

This morning, media have reported on new information regarding obvious war crimes in Ukraine. Several hundred children have been taken from their parents and transported across the border to Russia.

Madam Speaker! It is important that the EU's law enforcement agencies can now truly contribute to investigating war crimes and that an international tribunal can be established. I would therefore like to ask the Prime Minister how he views the political possibilities of establishing this type of tribunal and what the conditions are for achieving an effective tool for the prosecution of Russian war criminals.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I just want to start by agreeing. The descriptions being given right now are absolutely horrific. I do not know more about them than the media reports I have seen, but we are talking about hundreds of kidnapped children who have been taken from their parents against their will. All of this must, of course, be investigated to the bottom - it is completely appalling. Much of it probably cannot be investigated in any other way than by conducting real criminal investigations and bringing people to justice.

I do not think there is a lack of political will right now, on the contrary. Then everyone understands that it is difficult to do this right now. There is a strong interest in holding those responsible to account.

As I said just now, a discussion is ongoing about what kind of tribunal it should be. Should it be a tribunal or an existing court? Should it be a hybrid between the Ukrainian and international legal systems? There are many such things, which may sound a bit trivial but are probably quite important to agree upon before anything such can be established.

Then, I suppose everyone understands that the most difficult part will naturally be to be able to bring the right individuals to justice. This, in turn, is greatly influenced by the way Russia loses the war, naturally.

I do not underestimate the enormous difficulties here at all, but the constant threat from Europe's countries that one wants to create a judicial proceeding and bring people to justice is the only reasonable message we can send to Russia right now.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the report back! I also want to express support for the work you in the European Council do for Ukraine and emphasize the importance of unity.

When it comes to climate policy, it is important that the EU now maintains the course for the green transition. This is absolutely crucial for the planet, and it is also good for both European and Swedish industry.

Sweden cannot be passive behind the EU's climate policy, but we must do everything we can to highlight the advantages it entails even for the new industrialization. It is important that Swedish industry receives clear signals in this area, and the right conditions.

As the Presidency of the EU, it is extra important that we are proactive and send the right signals. It is also about us practicing what we preach. I would therefore like to ask what role the Prime Minister took to highlight climate issues, but also how he intends to counter the current ambiguities for Sweden's part on that point.

After the government's first 100 days, the Minister for Climate and the Minister for Enterprise held a press conference on climate and energy issues, where the Minister for Climate and her department head accounted for the work. The ministers then described how they would strive towards net zero 2045 but immediately received criticism from here in the chamber, namely from SD's environment spokesperson who said that this is not correct and claimed that the Tidö Agreement is paramount to climate policy and its goals. The Sweden Democrats also say that they will be involved in developing the climate action plan, but the Minister for Environment opens for there to be broad support in the chamber for this.

What actually applies here – the EU's climate law with the climate action plan, negotiations with us in the Riksdag, Sweden's climate law or the Tidö Agreement? This is important for clarity even in the European Council.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! There is much that one does not have time to speak about at the European Council - the Tidö Agreement did not come up. It may seem like a shortcoming in the European Council's work, but that is actually how it was. It was not discussed, and neither was any other country's internal energy policy or climate policy, for that matter.

On the other hand, we discussed the common issues very much, such as a common need for an energy transition. There is no climate policy measure from this government that is as important as transitioning the Swedish energy supply to a complete and unified electrifiable energy supply. It is absolutely crucial. Climate policy begins and ends with energy policy, and this government takes that as its core principle.

We also discussed, among other things, Fit for 55, that is to say the entire legislative package that we are pushing forward exactly as intended. There is nothing strange about that; it is traditional legislative work. As many in here know, it takes time, but it follows a timetable. We also discussed all the climate aspects that exist in the IRA, Inflation Reduction Act, which is an important part of this, not least when it comes to the importance of technology for both production, digitalization, and the energy transition.

I also want to mention that the evening before the Council's meeting – it just so happened – I gathered a large number of business leaders in Sweden who live very close to these issues – in the middle of the green transition or in energy issues or with strong American competition – for a substantial conversation about what is the right way to now both cooperate with the USA on the climate issue and meet any negative effects of the USA's subsidies. There is very strong support for cooperating with the USA and for free trade and the internal market in the long run being the right way to go for Sweden as a small and export-dependent country.

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

Erik Hellsborn (SD)

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

I would like to repeat a question that I have asked at a previous reporting. I did not think I received a completely clear answer that time. It concerns the various European countries' arms deliveries to Ukraine. Modern warfare is a complex undertaking with many different weapon systems for different situations and with different functions. It would be a very unfortunate situation if Ukraine were to be left with a surplus of one type of weapon but a shortage of another.

I therefore wonder if any discussions have been held between the countries on how we best should complement our deliveries with different weapons systems?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! This is an important question. If I am to be fair and accurate, I must say that this question was not discussed in the council either – it is not an EU issue how different countries choose to provide weapons to Ukraine. Then I must still say that it was undoubtedly brought up during all the coffee breaks, since almost all of Europe's countries are involved in this in different ways, not least Sweden, as is well known.

So, it is discussed all the time, and I would like to say that it is an ongoing process where almost every country looks at three or four things: What does Ukraine need most right now? These are fairly well-known wish lists, if I may use this somewhat improper word. What do we ourselves have access to in our own country that we could relinquish or manufacture anew - if one, like Sweden, has its own defense materiel production - without jeopardizing our own defense capability? And how do we coordinate this with other countries' materiel deliveries so that it becomes a whole? To this are added such self-evident aspects as: How long does it take to train soldiers to be able to use and utilize these different pieces of materiel? All of this is a constantly ongoing process.

I would recommend an interpellation to the Minister for Defence; he can provide a level of detail on this that I cannot.

But this is difficult and important, and all different countries do it. It is no secret that President Zelenskyy—it became clear when we sat with the president in a small group—has very specific requests and knows exactly what different countries have at their disposal and what they manufacture. There is, therefore, a very high level of transparency in these matters. Then all countries will always ask themselves: Is it possible for us right now? We could, for example, decide that the Archer artillery system should be delivered, as well as a large number of CV90 vehicles. But it is careful analyses that lie behind this before one makes such a decisive decision.

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

Ulf Holm (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for a solid report from the EU summit!

Let me first and foremost agree with the conclusions of the EU summit regarding a condemnation of Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine, which constitutes a clear violation of the UN Charter and has caused enormous suffering for the people in Ukraine. We shall, of course, stand up for Ukraine and support them in every way.

Ukraine's president Zelenskyy attended the EU summit and also delivered a speech before the European Parliament. One of the things Zelenskyy was very clear about is that he wants the EU to impose sanctions against the Russian nuclear power company Rosatom, which has, among other things, been accused of kidnapping both Ukrainian personnel and children. The Russian state-owned nuclear power company Rosatom builds, among other things, nuclear power plants in European countries. My question to the Prime Minister is therefore whether the Prime Minister raised this demand at the meeting and whether the Prime Minister will work to accommodate Ukraine.

Sweden has so far stood very clearly for tougher sanctions against Russia - does this also apply to sanctions against Rosatom?

I also want to take the opportunity to ask whether it was also raised in the discussion about further sanctions against Russia how the EU will get more countries to introduce sanctions against Russia? We know, among other things, that China and India are buying more oil and gas from Russia, and in the media, information recently appeared that Russia is trying to sell more to the countries in Africa. I personally believe that the best effect of sanctions against Russia is achieved if more countries join these. My question to the Prime Minister is: Was this raised in the discussions at the European Council?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First, I must say that the sanctions package is ultimately owned by the Commission, under guidance from the Council.

We had a long discussion about this, including the question of Rosatom. It is important to say that Sweden almost always belongs to those countries that can imagine going almost as far as possible in the sanctions, with as few exceptions as possible. They have been taken in stages: new banks, new individuals and so on. Sweden will absolutely not stand in the way of this.

Rosatom was explicitly mentioned. We will have to see what the commission includes when they come with their final package in probably not too many days. For almost every sanction, there is some country that has some problem with it. Sometimes it is quite obvious and legitimate problems, sometimes it is general caution. I cannot promise this, but we will not stand in the way of such sanctions, that is quite obvious.

It would be good with more countries - that is completely correct. When it comes to some countries, it is currently completely impossible, as one understands. Some countries are explicitly on the Russian side in the war. Some countries take a troublesome supporting role without explicitly standing on Russia's side. We also have quite a few countries in "the global south" that are lagging behind. They seem to have an understanding of Russian claims, do not like the Western world interfering, and want spheres of influence in different ways. It is a terrible development. I therefore completely agree that it would be much better if more countries could join the sanctions regimes. Right now we see no large flow of countries joining, but it is not too late to stand on the right side of history.

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

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the report. Migration was indeed a very heavy topic during the last cabinet meeting. It is naturally understandable. It is, after all, a matter of destiny for the people of Europe, and the outcome of the EU's migration policy must therefore not be left to our faith and hope. There must be a predictability in what results we can achieve with this.

Even though some sub-points remain unresolved, it is very pleasing that there is an agreement that one wants to increase control over who enters the EU and that one works to send back those migrants who do not have the right to stay. The council conclusions present a number of concrete measures to achieve this. That is very good. But the conclusions also state that reduced pressure on the EU's external borders will be achieved through what is called mutually beneficial partnerships, that is to say, mutually beneficial collaborations with outside countries.

It is obviously a good basis for this work, but given the critical situation, I assess the risk to be great that the EU will not be able to present sufficiently strong incentives for the non-European countries to act in a way that is needed to address the current situation.

Therefore, my question is: Is the government ready, in addition to the cooperation intended in the council conclusions, to work towards providing further incentives to the countries of origin and transit to improve their management of migrants, for example through more negative consequences?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! As I said a short while ago, it obviously does not work to simply have the hope that countries that, for example, do not take back their own citizens will start doing this because we wish it. And to cooperate with countries on the EU terms that they appreciate without setting counter-requirements does not work either.

I therefore think it is completely reasonable to use a whole government approach, or whatever one should call it in Swedish, and to use the different tools that the EU's countries have to increase the pressure on those countries that today do not do what we think they should do. It is also completely reasonable.

This does not exclude the possibility that one can also have carrots in other respects and that one can reach agreements with other countries and, for example, make investments there. There are, for example, energy supply issues in some North African countries that I believe both France and Italy could be interested in. One can contribute to mutually improving living conditions in other countries. This is not at all in conflict with taking a rather tough line if people try to enter the EU without permission.

I think that one should have both the stick and the carrot and, as far as possible, cooperate with countries so that they get better living conditions so that fewer people want to flee or leave these countries. At the same time, one should have a clear message to those who come to Europe and who do not receive residence permits that the European rules cannot be bypassed.

The reporting was hereby concluded.

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