Reporting from the informal meeting between EU heads of state and government on October 6

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Madam Speaker! Since the Prime Minister today is participating in a ceremony honoring the victims of the horrific terrorist attack in Brussels on Monday evening, I am replacing him in today's reporting.

I have, in conversation with the Prime Minister, gained a good understanding of how the relevant meetings for this progress report unfolded. However, for easily understood reasons, I lack knowledge of all the details from the discussions.

Madam Speaker! The European Council met for an informal meeting in Spanish Granada nearly two weeks ago. Much has happened since then, but I am here to report back from that meeting.

Reporting from the informal meeting between the heads of state and government of the EU on 6 October

The meeting was largely characterized by the issue of the EU's expansion. Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine is, of course, a strongly contributing cause to more and more people seeing that a rapid expansion would be in the EU's interest for both economic and security reasons. Geopolitics is clearly back as a heavily weighted factor for the EU cooperation's strategic choices. In that sense, we are all strongly reminded of the reasons why the EU was created in the first place after the Second World War. But if the EU is to grow, some basic reforms are required. That is what everyone agreed on, even if there was no consensus at all on exactly which reforms and how.

Madam Speaker! The Prime Minister put some effort into the discussions to highlight the simple fact that the expansion requires that we maintain focus on the economic issues. A long-term competitive European economy is and remains the fundamental prerequisite for the climate transition, for sustained support for Ukraine, and for the EU to be a strong voice for democracy and justice globally.

At the same time as new countries approach the EU, we must continue to build on the internal market, pursue a globally open trade policy, untangle regulatory red tape by, for example, easing companies' reporting requirements and investing in research and development. This perception resonated strongly in the discussion. Competitiveness is now an important dimension in EU policy. It is binding. Words are good, but action is better. Therefore, it is good and appreciated that the Spanish presidency emphasizes the importance of new free trade agreements.

The Prime Minister also highlighted the Swedish basic principle that there is no automaticity when it comes to expansion. This means that the speed with which a country approaches EU membership is entirely determined by how quickly and thoroughly the country implements the reforms that are necessary for EU membership - merit-based, as it is called in EU language.

In addition to purely economic requirements, at the core of such a reform agenda are guarantees for democracy, the rule of law, media freedom, and the fight against corruption. In other words, we shall apply a certain degree of rigor when we assess the candidate countries' progress. But we shall simultaneously be fair. When countries have done what is required, we must be prepared to make decisions. Merit-based is not a code word for shortcuts and overlooking poor results, but it is also not a way of saying that no one is welcome anymore.

The Commission will shortly provide its assessment of the candidate countries' reforms. This, in turn, will form the basis for the decision that the European Council is to make in December.

Madam Speaker! The leaders also discussed the EU's so-called absorption capacity or ability to take in new members and which reforms were needed to ensure that the EU functions and can act decisively even with more member states. This discussion has only just begun. The core has been identified – it is about decision-making, about the institutions, and about the money. But opinions differ. The assessment is that this is a task that will only gain momentum during the next commission.

The Prime Minister and other leaders from countries that do not want everything to cost more if the EU grows made their voices clear in the discussion.

Madam Speaker! As expected, there was also a long discussion about migration. Many countries are now experiencing high migration pressure. In some ways, it is frighteningly similar to 2015, and this applies to both border countries and secondary final destinations for migration. Progress has recently been made in the negotiations on the migration pact. It is an important part but not a complete solution.

That there are still major differences of opinion between the member states was also the reason why it was not possible to reach an agreement on the migration part of the so-called Granada Declaration. That part eventually had to be broken out of the declaration and instead become a statement by the President of the European Council, Charles Michel. What was clear, however, was that there is a virtually unanimous support for a much stricter European migration policy. It is, one must remind oneself, a quite dramatic shift from just a few years ago. When the Netherlands, Austria, Belgium, Italy, Denmark and Sweden, but also Germany, warn of the consequences if the EU this time fails to protect its outer border from irregular immigration, it means something new.

It was also clear that the high migration pressure is causing domestic political tensions in many countries. Several pointed out that if migration issues are not resolved now, they will eventually become the only issues on the European Council's agenda.

In the discussion, many also highlighted the need for joint initiatives in the migration area in the ongoing revision of the EU's long-term budget. Such initiatives were needed, it was argued, to protect the EU's external borders as well as to strengthen cooperation with countries of origin and transit countries in order, among other things, to get order on returns and readmissions.

Sweden is naturally in favor of focusing on more power to protect the EU's external border but questions that it should lead to a larger budget. Redistribution of existing resources should be the natural approach here.

Madam Speaker! The day before the informal summit, the third meeting of the European Political Community EPC was held. During the meeting, the Prime Minister led a discussion on digital transformation and artificial intelligence together with Albania's Prime Minister Edi Rama. Among others, France's President Emmanuel Macron, the United Kingdom's Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, and the Commission's President Ursula von der Leyen participated in the discussions. It became an interesting discussion that highlighted the enormous opportunities contained in the technological development but also potential risks and security threats. The need for transatlantic agreements was the strongest impression - important in itself because it is the American West Coast and the Chinese East Coast that are currently dominating AI development.

Madam Speaker! Last night, a video meeting was held between the leaders of the European Council in view of the ongoing and very worrying developments in the Middle East. State Secretary Christian Danielsson informed the EU Committee before the meeting.

The discussion confirmed the balance in the statement adopted by the 27 leaders of the European Council on Sunday. There was agreement on the condemnation of Hamas's despicable acts of terror as well as on the fact that Israel has the right to defend itself in line with international law. At the same time, Hamas is not synonymous with the Palestinian population. Great concern was expressed regarding both the large number of civilian casualties, many of them children, and how the humanitarian situation is worsening when water, electricity, and supplies are cut off. The great need for humanitarian aid was underscored by many. The discussion also pointed out the importance of the EU staying united and maintaining dialogue with countries regarding Lebanon and Egypt to prevent the conflict from spreading in the region.

The impact of the conflict on the EU's internal security and the risk of new migration flows were also raised by many, as well as that the pursuit of a peaceful two-state solution must not be abandoned. Even though it looks bleak now, a peaceful coexistence is a hope among many Israelis and Palestinians.

No decisions were made at the meeting, and the discussions will continue, primarily at the meeting of the foreign ministers at the beginning of next week. Certainly, the issue will also be discussed at the meeting of the European Council on 26-27 October. The Government will therefore return to the Riksdag on this issue at several occasions in the near future. With this, I conclude the reporting.

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for EU Affairs for the report on the two informal EU summits that Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson participated in. I will begin with what the Minister for EU Affairs concluded with.

It is truly important that the EU's leaders gather and together condemn the horrific acts of terrorism that Hamas has committed against civilian Jews in Israel. It is important that the women, men, and children who have been kidnapped are released immediately. Israel has a right to defend itself. At the same time, it is important to work immediately to allow unrestricted access to humanitarian aid to meet the most basic needs of the people in Gaza and an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. It is urgent that the EU takes an active and leading role so that there is no regional escalation of the conflict and to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. Palestinian children must not be punished for Hamas's acts of terrorism, and international law must be followed.

We all agree that no aid should go to the terrorist organization Hamas, but while the EU allows aid to healthcare and schools as well as support for civil society to continue while evaluating the development aid, Sweden has completely stopped that type of aid. The EU triples the humanitarian aid while Sweden cannot give a clear answer. Is it not reasonable that Sweden at least follows the same line as the EU when it comes to that issue?

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

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Madam Speaker! We are in complete agreement regarding the condemnation of Hamas's actions, and the developments we are seeing in the Middle East are deeply concerning.

What the government has done regarding aid is that we will pause the aid to Palestine, and we have also tasked Sida to review the aid to Palestine to ensure that no Swedish funds go to actors who do not unconditionally condemn Hamas, which exercises violence, threatens, or encourages violence against the state of Israel and its population. This also means that the humanitarian aid governed by humanitarian principles will not be affected.

Then I completely agree with Matilda Ernkrans that it is important for the EU to make joint efforts together with other international actors, for example the UN, to avoid a further increase of the conflict and avoid a strong spiral of violence.

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Madam Speaker! The EU Minister does not answer my question regarding the aid. Is it not reasonable that Sweden follows the same line as the EU?

The EU Minister also presented a report from the summit in Granada. It was a well-deserved and very interesting report, and it was absolutely important issues that the EU summit handled. But I missed something essential, namely that we in Sweden over the last two weeks have first seen how gang violence has claimed new innocent victims and that two Swedes on Monday lost their lives in a terror attack aimed at Swedish football supporters. This should not happen. Terror must not triumph, and neither must violence.

At the same time, we know that the actors behind gang crime are borderless, and so too is terrorism borderless. Many are outside Sweden. The EU must prioritize its work against the activities of criminal networks, and Sweden should take every opportunity to raise the issue. The Spanish presidency prioritized this issue, in contrast to what the Swedish presidency did. Did the Prime Minister raise the issue of gang crime at the Granada summit? In what way was it discussed how we can jointly stop cross-border crime?

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

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Madam Speaker! This is a priority issue for the government, domestically and within the framework of EU cooperation. During the Swedish presidency, it was a priority issue. As Matilda Ernkrans is well aware, we had the issue high on the agenda, and we succeeded in reaching many agreements.

This is an issue that we must handle together. The Prime Minister raised the issue at this meeting, which he also said at the open consultation before the summit. He raised the issue when the leaders discussed the upcoming strategic agenda. One of the issues we prioritize there is the work against organized crime. I am proud that we succeeded with this during the Swedish presidency.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! Last week, Sweden was forced to witness some of the most repulsive scenes I have ever seen. After a completely unprovoked terrorist attack directed against Israeli civilians, thousands of Swedes, in the absolute loosest sense of the word, celebrated the attack with, among other things, fireworks displays and a hundred cars in a motorcade through Malmö. Where else? Unfortunately, this is not unique to Sweden's so-called city of the future, but similar terror parties have been seen across all of Western Europe.

This is to the highest degree linked to the issues that were discussed during the summit. The Hamas supporters have, in fact, come here as so-called asylum seekers and chosen to thank Sweden by turning against precisely everything that Sweden stands for. It probably also concerns people who have lived here their entire lives, perhaps even for several generations, who have been the subjects of the world's most generous integration policy, but who mentally live on in the same dysfunctional, violence-oriented Islamism that many of them claim to have fled from. Everything also indicates that it is not about a small minority of the so-called Muslim civil society but rather its core.

The conclusion I draw from this is that the migration pact can become a devastating mistake for the union because it is based on the idea that integration of these groups is possible. But, Madam Speaker, integration of these people will never happen – not because of us, but because of them.

I therefore want to ask Minister Roswall about, and if so how, the events we have witnessed have affected her attitude towards the migration pact.

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

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Ludvig Aspling for the question.

Let me first begin by saying that I agree that the tributes are a stain on Sweden. It is deeply unworthy to go around and celebrate acts of terrorism with hundreds, perhaps thousands, of civilian casualties.

As I said in the report, this meeting was a meeting with a great focus on migration, given the domestic political situation and the flows we see in many of the member states. It is clear that there is broad support among the member states, and also in Sweden, that a migration policy involving a significantly reduced migration is needed. The Migration Pact will not provide answers to all problems or challenges, but it will be an important part of the solution. From that meeting, I think it was clear that that ambition exists among the member states' leaders and among the migration ministers.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer. I am naturally in agreement that this is a stain, and it is unworthy. I believe that all sensible people in this chamber agree.

But if it is a stain of shame and unworthy, why should we continue to import a problem that we will never be able to solve? These are people who see our goodwill and our humanism as a weakness, who are not prepared to compromise a millimeter with their own so-called culture in order to be able to live in a normal way here in the Western world, and who cynically exploit the asylum system for completely different purposes than those it is intended for.

If this is a stain and unworthy, the question is why we should keep this door open. I see it as obvious that what we need is a total stop to migration from these areas. So my question remains: Has the Minister's position on the pact changed in any way after the scenes we witnessed last week?

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

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Madam Speaker! My view remains: In order for us to achieve order and clarity, a migration pact was needed. We need to get order on the EU's external borders, and we need to get a better order regarding the asylum and visa system and ensure that it is not abused. My impression is that when the leaders and migration ministers meet, there is a broad consensus that we need to have this part in place, and I believe that it is very important. It concerns both the external and the internal dimension and our external border.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

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

Vänsterpartiet does not, of course, stand behind the new migration pact since it takes the worst of today's refugee policy and turns it into EU law. We believe instead that more legal pathways are needed.

However, I suspect that the countries that did not stand behind what was said regarding migration were countries that want to tighten refugee policy further or that do not want to receive refugees in their country. Can the Minister elaborate on this a bit? Where were the biggest differences regarding migration policy, apart from the budget issues?

I also want to repeat Matilda Ernkrans' question, because while the EU is increasing aid to Gaza, Sweden is reducing its aid. If development aid is now being stopped, why has the government not converted it into humanitarian aid to at least maintain the same amount or, which would be needed, increase the aid?

My third question concerns the enlargement. On Monday, I was in Turkey and was an observer at the Koban trial, a trial aimed at banning a political party and sentencing its representatives, over 100 of them, to life imprisonment. This is truly not in accordance with the principles of the rule of law. When the Council spoke about enlargement, was it only speaking about the new candidate countries, or was it also spoken about the old candidate countries, for example, Turkey? It is a country whose application should be frozen, and all support for Turkey should be stopped.

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

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Madam Speaker! Those were three good questions - thank you, Ilona Szatmári Waldau!

The first question concerned the greatest differences regarding migration. These are known differences; it concerns two member states that do not join the pact, which has been discussed when the migration ministers have met. Then there are also differences in various parts between other member states who nevertheless see the need. I would not say that anything new emerged, but it concerns different positions that are known.

When it comes to aid, I must refer to the Minister for Aid for details. I have nothing else to state other than what I answered Matilda Ernkrans: The decision right now is about pausing and reviewing the aid, but not about changing the humanitarian aid. It is governed by the humanitarian principles, and so it will continue.

When it comes to the expansion and new candidates, the major discussion will take place at the meeting in December, once the commission has submitted its report. At this meeting, the expansion was discussed on a merit-based basis, as I said, but at the same time also EU's own ability to handle new members. The focus was, of course, for many member states, including Sweden, on Ukraine and Moldova, but the Western Balkans were absolutely included in the discussions. Both new and old candidate countries were thus mentioned in the discussion, but the focus this time was on the EU talking about what we need to change to be ready for new members, which I think is important.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Minister, for the answers!

I would like to repeat one of the questions, namely the one about the aid. My question was why the humanitarian aid is not being increased. I know that many of the organizations that receive a share of the aid and are then to distribute it now have difficulties conveying it. Gaza needs more humanitarian support. Even if we condemn Hamas and its attack, the people in Gaza must be given a chance to survive.

I also want to quickly ask a question about the environment and climate. Admittedly, the environment and climate are mentioned in the statement, but given how important it is that we stop climate change, the environment and climate should be given even greater weight. Now those questions are placed after militarization and strengthened defense capability. I would like to know how the discussion about the climate went. I don't think I heard the Minister say anything at all about it during the report.

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

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Madam Speaker! I want to refer back to Johan Forssell when it comes to the details. But at the meeting last night, the leaders had a discussion about, among other things, the aid, where many member states raised, in English, the need for provision of humanitarian aid, i.e., humanitarian support, to Palestine and the opening of corridors and roads, as Ilona Szatmári Waldau points out. That discussion is important to carry forward also at the EU level; I believe it is an important step.

Climate was not included in the Granada agreement. There were writings about it, which we spoke about at the open consultation regarding the EU's competitiveness and growth. The Prime Minister highlighted the green transition as an important part of the strategic agenda.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

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

I actually have nothing to object to regarding what has come out from the meeting in Granada, but rather think it is a quite reasonable and important direction for the EU's work. But as the Minister correctly pointed out, very much has happened over the last two weeks, which also gave rise to the extra meeting yesterday.

I must say that I feel a deep concern over the inability that the world often displays to think about more than one thing at a time. Of course, I agree that we should stand up for Israel and ensure that the humanitarian corridors are established and so on. But the war in Ukraine has in no way subsided. When the support for Israel and the civilian population in Palestine is now increasing, I wonder and, I know, others with me: Will the EU be able to maintain an active support for Ukraine? How does the Swedish government reason, and how will it act when it comes to this?

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

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Anna Lasses, for the question! I share that concern. Especially in these days, which have been very heavy for us all, one can absolutely feel a concern.

When it comes to the support for Ukraine, it was an important part that was worked on hard during the Swedish presidency to maintain unity and achieve a tenth and an eleventh sanctions package and humanitarian and political support. Here we must continue to keep up the pressure.

This meeting was held two weeks ago - a lot has happened. But this was an important part, and the war against Ukraine affects, as I said, the discussion about the expansion. It is also why that discussion has gained a new momentum.

On Sweden's part, we are working intensively to continue the support both bilaterally and through the EU. Our greatest focus in the near term is the discussion on the review of the long-term budget, where we want to secure and maintain long-term support for Ukraine. There, we are working hard with many like-minded people to ensure that this becomes the largest and most essential part of the review.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! I also have a slightly different question. It concerns precisely the expansion and the discussions that have taken place regarding it. One of the questions we posed before the meeting concerned exactly the timeline that exists and which speaks of the year 2030. The question was whether this is truly realistic. When I listen to the report, I still interpret it as that it will take as long as it takes. But how did the discussions go regarding the timeline when it comes to the expansion, with all the aspects that exist in the current situation?

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

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Madam Speaker! I was not part of the discussions, but there are different statements from different leaders regarding different years. From the side of Sweden and many other member states, one does not want to set any exact point in time. It is about a merit-based accession process, and there one cannot say at what time it will be completed. It can, of course, be different for different countries as well.

The discussion has not been about any exact date. I believe this will be one of the most important issues for the next commission. Some have already called it the expansion commission. A lot is happening in the world, as was said, so it is difficult to say. But the next big starting point is at the December meeting, when we have the commission's report. Then we will see what the future looks like.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Madam Speaker! My question concerns the informal meeting that was held yesterday evening.

On October 7, as we all know, the terrorist organization Hamas carried out a brutal attack against Israeli civilians. Nearly 1,300 people have been killed, of which hundreds were children. Nearly 200 people have been taken hostage, and Israel's response has been both immediate and severe. During the ten days that have passed since the attacks, Israeli bombs have killed over 3,000 Palestinians, of whom over 1,000 were children.

The Hamas attack will go down in history as one of the most hair-raising acts of terrorism that has been committed. That Israel has the right to defend itself is beyond any doubt. Nor is there any doubt that the laws of war must be respected and civilians protected even under these fearsome circumstances. It is a responsibility that lies with every warring party, both Hamas and Israel.

Nevertheless, we now see, ten days later, how civilians - women, the elderly and children - are being killed by the thousands in a population caught between one of the world's best-equipped armies and a dictatorial terror regime that uses its own people as human shields.

My question to the Minister is therefore how the Swedish government has acted in the European Council to not only condemn the violence but also stop it and protect the civilian Palestinians and all the children who have nowhere to flee and who are now dying in hundreds every day.

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

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin by saying that I believe it is important that the EU speaks with one voice. That was already done the day after, when a statement was made. Then the foreign ministers met digitally, and the foreign ministers will meet again this week – now I do not remember the date. Yesterday, the leaders met. I also believe that it will be an important part of the next European Council.

Just as Märta Stenevi says, Israel has a self-evident right to defend itself against terrorism. It is also self-evident that this occurs in accordance with international law. This is what we point out in Sweden in our contacts. This is also pointed out by the EU. Here, it is important that Sweden works together with the EU to monitor the situation and act together. Therefore, it was good that this meeting was held yesterday and that we spoke with the EU committee before that. It is also important to focus on ensuring that the conflict does not spread and that we act jointly.

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

Märta Stenevi (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is important that the EU speaks with one voice, but Sweden has a voice in that assembly and should act forcefully to stop the violence. Violence against civilians can never be justified. The government's expressions of sympathy are not sufficient to stop the violence.

We demand that the government now acts urgently in all available diplomatic and unofficial channels to achieve an immediate ceasefire, that the hostages be returned to their families, that a humanitarian corridor be established so that humanitarian aid can reach those affected, that Swedish humanitarian aid be strengthened, that Swedish development aid be immediately reinstated, and that Sweden takes a leading role so that the international community can now achieve peace negotiations for a sustainable two-state solution.

The violence cannot continue in this way, and violence against civilians can never be justified. How will the government act to stop the violence?

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

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Madam Speaker! No, violence can never be accepted. The Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister have at different times – at the meetings I mentioned and in various statements – and during other contacts spoken about the importance of making efforts to find a peaceful solution. These discussions are ongoing in many different contexts that Sweden is very engaged in, but it is important that we do this together with others – the EU, the UN, and so on.

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

Hans Wallmark (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the reports!

The world is burning. Just as was said here, it is a horrific attack on Israel. So much is happening that we cannot remain indifferent or neutral. We cannot distribute responsibility and guilt equally, because someone is the attacker and someone is the defender. It is Israel that has been attacked.

In the same way, it is Ukraine that has been attacked by Russia. That war, which has been ongoing for 19 months, has so far claimed perhaps over half a million dead, injured, and abducted. Russia is fraternizing with North Korea, and right now Putin has been and shaken hands with China's communist general secretary.

Terror has taken hold of our country through the murders in Brussels.

All this requires action and measures, and it also requires insight into what the underlying factors are. Therefore, it is important that the EU continues to prioritize the work against terrorism, just as this is also a prioritized mission within Nato.

When it comes to the second informal summit in Granada, it is important to have a clear focus on expansion. Sweden is one of the countries that is in favor of the expansion. But I will point out one factor. Today, the EU Committee and the Finance Committee had a joint meeting with the European Court of Auditors and the Swedish representative Eva Lindström.

It is appalling to see that the EU and the Commission do not have control over their own economy. There, the errors have increased from one year to the next. It has increased from 3.0 to 4.2 percent. When it comes to the cohesion funds, it is even more.

It is extremely important that the EU and the Commission have control over the economy if we are to have an expansion now. This is something that Sweden should also push for: there must be order in the books. We are for expansion, and we are for order in the economy.

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

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Madam Speaker! Let me say again that I share Hans Wallmark's view and that the government has been very clear in its condemnation of the terror group Hamas' attacks against Israel. The government is also active regarding the continued support for Ukraine.

I am happy to speak a lot about the expansion issues. Now Hans Wallmark raised exactly this, regarding having order and control over the money. That is obvious. It is an issue where Sweden has long been active and driving. This is something that the EU can do, and I think that one obviously has a potential to become enormously much better.

At this stage, I also want to say that when we talk about expansion, it is important, among other things, given the geopolitical reality that we see. But it is also important given the democratic expansion globally. It is also about the possibility, when it comes to economy and competitiveness, to counter organized crime and make changes in the climate transition and regarding migration.

All these parts are important for the expansion. Sweden, for example, as I said, raises competitiveness in terms of achieving increased growth and productivity within the EU to manage the expansion economically. Here, it is of course extremely important that the EU is orderly and keeps track of its money.

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

Hans Wallmark (M)

Madam Speaker! How fortunate that the Moderate Roswall and the Moderate Wallmark do not shock the chamber by thinking completely differently from one another! It is furthermore a strength if more were to think roughly as the Minister does.

There will certainly be more European councils where both the horrific war that Russia is waging against Ukraine and the attack that Israel has suffered will be discussed. Therefore, I just want to emphasize once more how important it is not to relativize. One must be clear about where the attacker is and where the defender is.

When it comes to the expansion, I fully share the view of how important this is. It is of the utmost interest in the long term that Ukraine and Moldova join, naturally based on a merit-based process. Then it is also important with economics. I will just ask a control question: Does Sweden continue to push that there should be no treaty changes? Otherwise, it is indeed the absolute best way to complicate, prevent, and ruin the process.

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

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Madam Speaker! One could almost call it a leading question, but it is true. This is something that Sweden has agreed upon for a long time and has pushed for. We see, in fact, the need for expansion. We see the need to change the EU. But we do not see the need to get stuck in protracted discussions on treaty amendments. It will only delay the expansion process.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking the Minister for EU Affairs for the introduction and the answers to the questions we have received so far.

I really appreciate that the Prime Minister is in Brussels today and is showing his and Sweden's disgust for the act of terror that took place there, which affected Swedish football supporters simply because they were wearing yellow and blue jerseys. But I also understand that it means that the questions I am going to ask may perhaps be a bit harder for the EU Minister, who has not quite been present at the meetings, to answer.

I would, in any case, like to start with three questions regarding the extra informal meeting with the heads of state and government, which was held yesterday on account of Hamas's horrific and appalling attacks on Israeli civilians just over a week ago.

In addition to what has already been mentioned, I wonder if the Palestinian Authority's lack of condemnation of the attacks was discussed.

I also wonder if the celebrations in the streets and squares in many EU countries, including Sweden, of the despicable terrorist acts were mentioned at the meeting.

Finally, I ask if Iran's connection to Hamas and Hezbollah was raised at the meeting.

If these questions were discussed, I wonder if some measures were also discussed.

(JESSIKA ROSWALL (M): May I just ask about the last question?)

It concerned Iran's connection to Hamas and Hezbollah.

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

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Madam Speaker! I apologize for not listening attentively enough to the three questions. I also apologize for not being able to answer exactly how it was discussed.

I know that, among other things, the horrific terrorist attack in Brussels the day before yesterday was raised by several other member states, in addition to our Prime Minister. As I said, different parts of this were raised at this meeting. The humanitarian situation in Gaza was raised. The importance of engaging with partners to, as we have spoken about previously, ensure that one has roads and connections was raised. They also spoke about – and that is my point – the EU's internal situation. What consequences does this have for internal security in the EU?

When it comes to the loathsome celebrations in the streets and squares, I unfortunately do not know. I actually do not know either if Iran was brought up, so to speak. But one could listen to Charles Michel's press conference afterwards, and I perceived it as that it is now important to focus on dampening the conflict and not having ripple effects. There, the EU leaders obviously had a discussion.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Regarding the discussions in Granada, I am pleased that Ukraine is still in focus in the future discussions and that work is being done for a forthcoming expansion of the union. It is a window of opportunity right now that must be seized, and the merit-based process is extremely important for the inhabitants of the candidate countries already today.

I therefore want to ask the EU Minister if she, after having spoken with the Prime Minister about these talks, sees any risk that the process could be hijacked by those who wish to see treaty amendments and that the focus would thereby be shifted from the necessary, namely making the candidate countries ready for the EU and the EU ready for them.

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

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Magnus Berntsson, for a question that I can answer! No, I do not see that risk. This has been discussed among EU ministers, and now it was the first meeting for the leaders to discuss it.

We know that there are different views in different member states on the question of treaty amendments or not. And there are discussions about the size of the parliament, the size of the commission and so on. But there is also a, I would venture to say, common understanding about not getting stuck in the treaty amendment discussion but rather focusing on how we prepare ourselves. We know that otherwise it will take a long time. I therefore do not see that risk at this moment in any case.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the report! At the meeting, it was taken up that we must strengthen the EU's competitiveness and resilience. One step in that is, among other things, to reduce the dependence on, for example, China.

There is a fairly broad consensus among the member states on this, but it presupposes that we have the same understanding of what is a threat, what constitutes a threat, and how we handle the threat.

Hungary's president was, as we heard here, among other things earlier this week in China and shook hands with high-ranking representatives for both China and Russia. Slovakia is moving towards an increasingly pro-Russian policy. Germany still has its naive attitude towards China.

At the same time, we must safeguard free trade, and I think it is positive that the government continues to push for it.

My question to the Minister is: What are the EU's conditions for continuing to stand up for, or beginning to stand up for, a reduced dependence on China and other countries that threaten our interests? And how far does the Minister consider the EU to be willing to go to achieve this?

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

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Martin Melin, for the question! It is evident that trade policy is becoming more and more a matter of security policy and a security agenda. That is also why there are so many parallel discussions regarding China, but also our own ability to manage the climate transition and future crises. This became evident, among other things, during the pandemic.

Right now, discussions are ongoing, among other things, regarding economic security. How far is the EU prepared to go? I do not know; there are very many different viewpoints on this. One issue that was raised at the Granada meeting, which is also in the declaration, is open strategic autonomy, and I really want to emphasize the open part. But it is an important discussion to have, given how the world around us has developed.

On Sweden's part, we highlight the need to still have a global trade policy and to ensure that we obtain more trade agreements. But one must not be naive either – we must also manage to be resilient and have that competence ourselves. It is a balance. How high should the fence be for us to manage, so to speak?

As I have said, I do not know how far the EU is prepared to go, but from the Swedish side, we are very strong when it comes to also having open, global trade.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Madam Speaker! I received an answer to my question earlier, so I will be satisfied with that.

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

Statsrådet Jessika Roswall (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much!

The reporting was hereby concluded.

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