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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The European Council met on Thursday and Friday for an informal summit in Budapest. Competitiveness was the main issue on the agenda, but the dinner discussion was not entirely surprising to focus primarily on the American election and the transatlantic relations.

Let me first say a word about the meeting in the European Political Community, EPC, on Thursday, with migration primarily on the agenda. It is clear that the growing consensus among the EU countries on the need for a stricter migration policy is now leading to a genuine interest in doing significantly more, both individually and collectively, than until now. To achieve and maintain a sustainable migration policy is in the interest of all EPC countries.

I emphasized that we must get the migration pact in place, of course, but that more than that must be done – that we must improve the return work and use more policy areas to ensure that those who have received a rejection also leave Europe. In Sweden, a large majority of those who are rejected in their asylum application are now returned, but we also have problems with countries that refuse to accept their own citizens.

In the EU, on average, the situation is almost catastrophic. Of those who are denied their asylum application, 70 percent stay anyway. This means in practice that the entire system is collapsing and that, in practical terms, it has no significance whether an asylum application is granted or denied. It is completely devastating for legitimacy, but it also fosters a dangerous shadow society that we know more about than several other countries.

I emphasized that the EU's cooperation with countries outside the union must be built on both requirements and incentives. If one, for example, wants access to Schengen, this is tied to a clear responsibility. If one wants the EU's benefits in various ways, one must also take its own responsibility as a country.

My assessment is that things are now moving quickly in the migration issue in the EU, not least regarding what has until now often been called return hubs. We intend to return to that question.

Before the EPC meeting, I also had a meeting with Moldova's president Maia Sandu. I congratulated her once again on the victories, first in the referendum on the country's future in the EU and thereafter in the presidential election. I expressed my and all of Sweden's support for her and the Moldovan people's endeavor to belong to the democratic community.

President Sandu expressed his very strong concern regarding new Russian attempts to sabotage the democratic process ahead of the next election, that is, the parliamentary election, by means of pure vote-buying. What is now happening in both Moldova and Georgia reminds us that Russia has a much broader arsenal at its disposal than merely military violence. I was clear that Moldova has continued strong Swedish support in its endeavor to move closer to Europe and further from Russia.

Mr. Speaker! The informal council meeting began on Thursday evening with a dinner on the theme of transatlantic relations. It became a good discussion, completely without formal conclusions or positions. One thing I do take with me is the consensus in the EU circle on how important the close relationship between the EU and the USA is. It remains important regardless of who is president in the USA and regardless of who governs in our respective EU countries.

In the room, the uncertainty that now prevails on many different levels was also naturally expressed. It concerns the continued commitment to Ukraine and the domestic political situation in Germany. There is currently great uncertainty in many important places.

This leads us to the self-evident conclusion that Europe must take greater responsibility for security on our continent – for our own sake but also to be a strong, reliable and attractive partner to precisely the USA in the transatlantic cooperation. At the same time, this is fundamentally nothing new; we know that here. Both Republican and Democratic presidents have for a long time urged all European countries to increase their defense spending and to a greater extent bear their own defense costs. This is fundamentally no unreasonable American position.

It is worth reminding in this context - and you can rely on the fact that I also did so - that Sweden already today fully reaches NATO's goal of at least 2 percent of GDP for defense. This has increasingly come to be regarded as a floor rather than a recommendation or, even less, a ceiling. It is a strength for Sweden that we have broad agreement both on NATO membership and on investing more in Swedish defense capability.

The same applies to the support for Ukraine. It is in Europe's interest to maintain our strong support for Ukraine, but it also benefits us in the relationship with the USA. If we show that we are prepared to take a large, even greater, responsibility for Ukraine, this in itself increases the possibilities to also maintain an American commitment.

We also discussed the potential economic consequences in the wake of American politics. The protectionist tendencies have grown among both the Republicans and the Democrats for quite a long time. Increased trade conflicts with not least China can also spill over onto Europe, and this we must now prepare for.

At the same time, half of Swedish exports to the USA consist of service exports, which are not affected in the same way by the tariffs that are currently being discussed. Furthermore, many of our large Swedish companies already produce in the USA and are therefore not affected by tariffs either. This does not mean that we should underestimate the risks of tariffs and protectionism. We are, as we have known for a very long time, a trade-dependent country with very extensive global contacts with large parts of the world. We can, however, state that Sweden likely has better conditions than several other EU countries.

Sweden will continue to push for free trade in the EU, and we will continue to cultivate our bilateral commercial relations with the USA. It is strongly in our national interest that we can trade with other countries. Almost every third employee in the Swedish business sector produces goods or services for export. Every fifth employee in Swedish companies works in foreign-owned companies. The USA is our third largest market for goods exports. We are, as we all know, a trading nation.

I also raised the climate issue. The uncertainty surrounding continued American commitment to international climate work also makes it even more important for the EU to stick to made agreements and, with successful policy, try to inspire more continents than our own. It requires effective climate policy, and it requires good economic growth that makes the costs reasonable to distribute in connection with the green transition.

What can be said about all these aspects is that we in Sweden are well prepared for shifts in American politics. At the Government Offices, we have long worked for different scenarios and different developments.

Mr. Speaker! The discussion on competitiveness the following day began with Italy's former Prime Minister Mario Draghi presenting his now well-known report on European competitiveness. The President of the European Central Bank, Christine Lagarde, also participated and accounted for the EU's economic situation right now. The discussion thereafter was characterized by the fact that it is urgent to change Europe's current course. We are falling behind both the USA and Asia, and we have done so for a longer period of time. New things are added all the time, which makes the question more acute.

This is, in principle, nothing new, but everything from the American IRA legislation to the risk of increased protectionism and the increased geopolitical uncertainty makes the geopolitical issue more pressing.

There is still no clear consensus on the prescription for increased competitiveness, I want to emphasize. We are more in agreement on the diagnosis than on the prescription. As usual, our discussions were also not held at a particularly detailed level.

Without falling into the slightest tendency toward Swedish boastfulness, I can still say that it was quite easy to sit in the Swedish chair during the discussions. Sweden was described, not least by Mario Draghi, several times and in very important matters as a pioneer country when it comes to precisely competitiveness issues. Our capital market, our pension system, our sound public finances and our general political reform capacity were highlighted as good examples of the kind of reforms that more countries must undertake, while we make joint European efforts.

Just take the number of stock market listings in Sweden: 500 in the last ten years. That is more than Germany, France, the Netherlands and Spain combined. It does not mean that we lack problems in Sweden, but it suggests that in these specific issues, we have come further than others. It is good when I, as Swedish Prime Minister, can highlight our successes in Brussels, but it is even better when others highlight our successes in Brussels.

I emphasized the need to cooperate on competitiveness but even more that member states also have their own responsibility. The European level must not become a kind of graveyard for reforms that are politically too difficult to implement nationally. That was my primary message.

My second message was that we have unique, common European tools that the EU still does not use fully. The internal market is perhaps the best example. It accounts for 17 percent of global GDP, and here there is an enormous untapped potential. Just look at the entire service sector! 70 percent of the trade in the internal market now concerns services, but we still lack an internal trade in services. Look at the digital internal market! There is a great potential to be gained here.

The internal market, which has just celebrated 30 years, is still, despite its age, in a kind of developmental stage. There are energy, telecommunications, and capital market areas where the common approach has not been fully tested. And it requires, as has been said, both national reforms to make it meaningful and common reforms to create a framework.

An ambitious free trade agenda is another tool that we already have but can do more of. Not least, we must now complete the negotiations on free trade agreements that are still ongoing. Let us water where it grows.

At the meeting, the declaration on competitiveness issues that had been prepared was also adopted, and it was adopted without amendments.

Finally, Mr. Speaker: The Dragherr report will now become an important input, not least in the new commission, which appears to take office on December 1. Such a readiness exists. Ursula von der Leyen was clear about that. We have also seen high ambitions within the area of competitiveness in the letters of instruction that she has given to all the incoming commissioners.

With this, Mr. Speaker, I conclude the reporting from the meeting.

(Applause)

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

Alexandra Völker (S)

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

The EU leaders met in a least said uneasy time. In light of the presidential election in the USA, support for Ukraine has also become an even more important issue. This war is, after all, bigger than just Ukraine and Russia. It is to the highest degree an existential issue also for us Swedes. For the security of Sweden and the Swedish people, it is absolutely crucial that Ukraine can be guaranteed concrete and recurring support.

In these turbulent times when support for Ukraine is being questioned, Europe must be prepared to take greater responsibility to support Ukraine. We Social Democrats therefore believe that an action plan is required to guarantee support for Ukraine if the USA delays it.

Did the Prime Minister take up the need to formulate a plan to specifically secure support for Ukraine? That is my first question.

Mr. Speaker! It is now more important than ever that the EU stands united and cohesive and that we stand up for cohesion against the fragmentation of authoritarian forces. I therefore want to follow up on the question that we Social Democrats raised during the consultation before the meeting: What initiatives did the Prime Minister take to ensure that the EU holds together against fragmentation in these turbulent times?

I also want to say a few words about the competitiveness declaration that was adopted. We truly agree with the view that it is incredibly important and that we really need to strengthen competitiveness through, among other things, innovation and investments in education and research. But we believe that a very important perspective was missing, namely increased employment.

We see growing unemployment. We have the EU's second highest youth unemployment. Is it then not important to build a competitiveness agenda that also has the perspective of increasing employment? In what way did the Prime Minister raise that question? We can see in the declaration that it is not included. In what way did the Prime Minister act to advance the question of increased employment?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First, I want to say that in these restless times with great uncertainties globally and also in various countries, both European and American, it is important not to pre-determine any upcoming decisions. Be prepared for what may happen and create scenarios, and ensure that Sweden stands ready for different alternatives, but do not pre-determine decisions that have not yet been made, whether they are positive or negative. Do not assume that the USA continues to finance European defense. Do not also assume draconian cuts of the American support to Ukraine.

We respect that the American people have chosen their president. We will cooperate well with all presidents who are elected in the USA. We have the same respect for them making their decisions as they have for us making our decisions. Then we may disagree on different issues, and in those cases, we use our voice as effectively as possible. But do not sign any such things.

The chairman speaks about an action plan. That is not quite how it works in the EU; rather, it is about the fact that the more unity we can show and truly have, the better it is.

I perceived continued manifest support, with well-known exceptions, at the European Council summit. There is strong support for Ukraine. There is a strong will to maintain the transatlantic link in that work. There is a strong awareness that Europe may need to do more. There is a strong awareness that we must convince the USA that they are important in this work, but also a respect that the USA may draw other conclusions. We are prepared for all of this, but have signed no decisions so far.

When it comes to competitiveness, the answer is quite simple: Employment comes from good competitiveness, not the other way around. If the member is actually pursuing social pillars and labor market models at a European level, the answer is no.

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

Alexandra Völker (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the answer! It is clear when one hears the Prime Minister's answer that more must be done to strengthen Sweden's voice for a united Europe in the support for Ukraine. I can also state that the Prime Minister is not interested in including writings about employment in the discussion on competitiveness.

I would like to take the opportunity finally to raise the situation in Gaza. We are fully aware that it was not the focus of this informal meeting, but given the situation we see in the Middle East, we wonder if it is truly possible that the question is not discussed when the EU's leaders meet. The situation risks escalating into full-scale war.

What exactly is the Prime Minister driving in the meetings with the EU leaders to work for peace in Gaza, for a ceasefire, for a fire truce and for children to stop being killed? Did the Prime Minister raise this?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I have respect for the fact that not everyone knows how these meetings work. I have all the respect for that. But let me just say that the Swedish voice on Ukraine issues is extremely strong - very strong - together with a few other very strong voices. I thank you for the good advice. But we are, frankly, a number of countries that have been extremely stable. Sweden belongs to the countries that have given the most of all to Ukraine. We, the Nordic and Baltic countries together, come in second after the USA and before Germany. We have a strong voice in these issues.

From the conversations that I personally had at the meeting with President Zelenskyy, Emmanuel Macron, Olaf Scholz, Mette Frederiksen and Donald Tusk, I perceive that there are many besides Sweden who are very keen on maintaining the strong support even if it falters in other parts of the world.

Gaza was not on the agenda at this meeting. As I often say: Not all major issues are on the agenda at every meeting.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the report! Initially, I would like to welcome, on behalf of the Sweden Democrats, that we now have a discussion at the European level on how the migration pact can be developed. Just as the Prime Minister underlined, it is an unsustainable situation, even if we can reduce the number of asylum seekers who do not have the right to stay in Europe. The fundamental problem is that people who do not have permission to live in Europe do not leave. It is an unsustainable situation.

Mr. Speaker! The focus of the meeting was competitiveness. We saw a Budapest Declaration. I think one can zoom out and state the following: About 15 years ago, the economies of the EU countries, including the United Kingdom, were 10 percent stronger than the American one. Today, Europe's economies are 25 percent weaker. We can see that the economies both here in Europe and in the USA are very indebted. But the big difference is that the American economy is growing by nearly 3 percent while our European economies are growing by 1. According to the forecasts, this is expected to continue.

I can think that this situation must be significantly more important than who currently inhabits the White House. From the Sverigedemokraterna side, we definitely do not want more tariffs; we want to see free trade. But regardless of tariffs, it is Europe itself that must resolve the problems. These are problems with over-regulation. These are problems with an energy policy that does not work. These are problems with a failed migration policy.

My question to the Prime Minister is: Does the Prime Minister assess that there is an understanding that this is the main problem? It is not the American tariffs that are the basis of Europe's problems, but it is Europe itself. Is there any kind of consensus on how to resolve this?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is an interesting question. There is probably an emerging consensus, as I said, regarding the diagnosis. It is about the fact that tariffs are bad, but that it is not tariffs that create the problems. Tariffs perhaps highlight the problems. If Europe no longer has the same access to other markets, it underlines our own problems. It also underlines that Europe in many respects is still a fragmented market.

It is 27 countries. It is a huge market but in many areas still not a large market, because we do not use it. It is 27 different regulations. There are reasons why we talk about the 28th regulation. Could one introduce such a thing? Then one either follows every regulation in every country or a golden regulation that applies to all countries. That kind of idea also flourishes in Draghi's report. There are reasons for that, because many companies think it is difficult to invest in a market where one has to meet 27 different national regulations.

To this, one can sometimes add a certain clumsiness even at the European level. Then one can get a patchwork of rules that are almost impossible to oversee, especially for smaller companies. Large banks with compliance departments can surely manage it. But smaller export companies, not least tech companies, have it very difficult. Therefore, they tend to be lured to the USA instead of to Europe. This is, therefore, a major problem.

I still want to emphasize that it is a long way from problem awareness to solutions. To be honest, we feel that too in Sweden. They are different traditions. Think of something like changing saving and pension cultures in different countries! One certainly doesn't make simple decisions about that, least of all in another country.

Then I still want to say something about the migration policy. It is about the countries of origin, what makes people not flee, about transit countries, what makes countries not just let people through, and about the return policy. I had personal discussions with both Giorgia Meloni, who is Italy's Prime Minister, and Edi Rama, who is Albania's Prime Minister, about their cooperation regarding asylum processes located in Albania. It will be interesting to see how that develops. In Europe today, there is also a discussion about return hubs.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Just how the cooperation between Italy and Albania develops will be very exciting to follow.

But back to the Budapest Declaration. I note that at the end of the declaration there is a focus on new instruments, new own resources. The wording about new own resources is something that has remained since when we negotiated the long-term budget, when we had a Social Democratic government that accepted that wording. It has, therefore, lived on.

We are approaching the point when these proposals should come from the Commission. Now we have seen it written a number of times: that proposals for new own resources should come. It feels like we will soon see them. How does the Prime Minister view the discussion regarding new instruments, new own resources? What does the support for and against this look like among the countries, and how is Sweden working for our Swedish priorities?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! That discussion followed well-known patterns, as they say. There are a number of countries - it is often countries with large own debts and little margin in their own economy - that always tend to land on the conclusion that new expenditures are needed and that new expenditures shall be loan-financed. And there are a number of countries, often with slightly better economies, that are austere and who do not think that we should either start or end at that end but rather reform.

Mario Draghi did not involve himself in that discussion, but he said that very many reforms for competitiveness are free. It is important to point out. It is about refraining from doing things that impair competitiveness and about not being world-best at regulating when other parts of the world are good at innovating, for example. Even this is harder than it may sound.

But we held a firm line, and we systematically refused to anticipate the discussion on the next long-term budget, to the manageable irritation of some countries.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the report! A conclusion in the declaration concerns energy policy to achieve climate neutrality by 2050. It is a goal that Vänsterpartiet believes needs to be achieved significantly earlier, and the EU needs to become better at phasing out fossil energy.

As long as Europe's countries have not come further, a common energy market will not function. The Swedish cheap renewable electricity will not benefit the Swedes, as we get higher prices due to European countries' dependence on gas - Russian gas.

In Sweden, we all have the opportunity to produce renewable electricity, but the government chooses to stop and create obstacles for wind farms.

Sweden must ensure that it produces as much renewable energy as is sufficient for Swedish consumers at a reasonable price - Swedish prices - and at the same time alleviate the situation in Europe.

In the declaration, it is stated that measures will be taken to bring down electricity prices and reduce emissions from energy, but nothing is said about what will be done. I therefore wonder what was said at the meeting regarding concrete measures.

The declaration also speaks of a sustainable trade policy. At the same time, the focus is on the EU's interests. All too often, agreements are concluded with third countries without guaranteeing workers' rights or the environment and climate. There are even agreements regarding the export of pesticides that are prohibited within the EU.

The EU also signs trade agreements that risk diminishing and threatening democracy in the country with which the agreement is signed. The EU must take sustainable trade much more seriously and not let short-term economic gain take precedence over the environment and democracy. That benefits trade in a longer perspective.

My question to the Prime Minister is whether this aspect was discussed at the meeting at all.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! We who are strongly in favor of free trade and have been for a long time - it is not everyone who is, either in Swedish politics or internationally - often advocate for more free trade agreements. One reason why it is so difficult to reach new trade agreements in the EU is, if we are to be honest, partly a varying interest in free trade in general, partly that the agreements become so overloaded with many other issues than just trade issues that they simply become difficult to agree on. The Swedish government continues to act for free trade agreements that are as pure as possible. Other agreements must be made in other ways.

When it comes to the energy issue, the common denominator is fossil-free status to meet common climate goals and freedom from Russia to not be dependent on Russia and thereby support the Russian war economy. In other respects, energy policy is national. Everyone has respect for different traditions and different choices, but cooperation still flourishes across the countries, both regarding renewables and nuclear power. I think the new nuclear alliance is a great success. There, EU countries cooperate informally, without binding European decisions. That would not have worked, just as it would not have worked to have binding decisions on the number of wind turbines.

I would also like to emphasize that this government has approved three times as many offshore wind farms as the previous government. But we have great respect for the Armed Forces' warnings regarding a halved warning time for cruise missiles from Russia against Sweden. Those who today wish to disregard military security considerations should take a very close look in the mirror – or change jobs and claim to be a military security expert and contribute knowledge that the Armed Forces obviously do not have.

I am seriously concerned about companies and others who neglect Swedish security interests.

(Applause)

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

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

We do know, however, that in other countries, people have succeeded in combining military security with various wind turbines, for example. There are other ways to work.

I can also state, as I have said, that the free trade agreements must not result in a destruction of nature in the countries with which we sign agreements. The Prime Minister also speaks warmly of free trade in general but at the same time for trade restrictions in migration policy. Trade restrictions and threats of withdrawn aid risk increasing economic migration, which is not what Sweden and the EU want. What is important is that one receives a legally secure asylum review.

When it comes to trade, I also want to point out that it is time to pause the association agreement with Israel and push for a permanent ceasefire.

Free trade may be good, but we need to review the trade policy.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Seriously: The problem is not the legally secure asylum process. We already have that. The problem is that neither a yes nor a no matters when it comes to leaving Europe. That is the problem.

If 70 percent of those who receive a no after a legally sound asylum review choose to stay anyway, the entire asylum review system has collapsed. If countries refuse to take in their own citizens, which is the most fundamental responsibility a country has, it no longer works either.

Of course, we must say in plain terms that we simply do not accept such behavior. We cannot keep people on our land who are so dangerous to us that they should be deported but who must remain in our countries because the receiving countries do not accept them. It is completely unacceptable.

When it comes to the military, I just want to say that for me it is incomprehensible how one can so easily dismiss the risks that the Armed Forces see with building wind turbines in 13 locations and thereby worsening the Swedish security situation - incomprehensible!

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

Anna Lasses (C)

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

When it comes to competitiveness, I can only agree with the description that the Prime Minister gives, and I naturally think it is positive that there is now a consensus on how it looks. I just hope now that one will move forward and actually work with this!

Of course, we are all thinking about the US election, combined with the chaos in Europe, the war in Ukraine, and so on. One of the absolutely most important things is precisely that we stand by the fact that the process, however it proceeds, shall take place on Ukraine's terms. I think that an action plan would have been good. At least there should be a sense of long-term perspective when it comes to how we are to support Ukraine.

Naturally, one should not take anything in advance, but when it comes to it being on Ukraine's terms linked to the USA – how will we relate to this? How was this discussed, that it really must be on Ukraine's terms? How was it discussed that the EU will in the future be a decisive voice when it comes to human rights and actually the entire UN system in the future? How was that role discussed, and how one should dare to take that role and lead?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The UN system was not discussed at all at this meeting, not out of lack of interest, but it was not quite that kind of question. The UN has also not so far had any significant importance for the support for Ukraine other than on a very principled level. The UN does great good in a number of contexts and also shows its vulnerability in other contexts. It is no criticism of the UN but just a statement that there are other things that play a larger role.

When it comes to Ukraine, all of us who stand up for Ukraine want peace. But peace must be defined by Ukraine. No talks about Ukraine without Ukraine is a pretty good way to express it. Ukraine has on several different occasions – the victory plan, the peace plan, and various initiatives – shown what they want to do. It would have been easy for Russia to show corresponding will, if they had wanted to. But that is not the case. On the contrary, it is now escalating with North Korean soldiers and Chinese and Iranian support, so it is undoubtedly going in the wrong direction in many ways.

The long-term vision and the action plan must be grounded in the fact that we act in a way that Ukraine benefits from. The more countries that do as Sweden does, that is, provide long-term financial support that provides planning horizons, the better. Another good example is that countries cooperate in arms deliveries, which we are now doing, for example, in a combination of F16 aircraft, command aircraft, and ammunition. Then, I have all the respect for the fact that Ukraine wants even more even faster. That is nothing new, and there is no reason to question it either.

Right now, the situation is such that we do the greatest good by clearly standing firm with Ukraine and doing everything we can to have as constructive a dialogue with the USA as is at all possible.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Mr. Speaker! I think it is good that Sweden stands firm on the fact that it is about acting on Ukraine's terms, and I hope that the rest of the EU and the USA also remain firm.

In the question regarding the UN system, it is more about the EU's decisive voice for human rights linked to international law and how it will look given what is happening in the USA.

The transatlantic relationship is incredibly important, and we all agree on that. But where do we find the balance so that we do not yield to the USA but still safeguard the relationship? How was this discussed?

I must also, naturally, ask a question about the frozen Russian assets. Was it discussed how to move forward? I am not talking about what has already been decided, but about the next steps.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! There have been no further discussions beyond those that have already been held regarding Russian frozen assets. Everyone knows that Sweden could have considered going much further, but there was nothing new there.

Then it was the question of the EU's importance for upholding human rights and democratic ideals. There, we make an incredibly important contribution, namely by forcefully emphasizing to candidate countries that this is a merit-based process. One must earn a membership in the European Union. These were very clear messages in favor of the current government in Moldova and clear accompanying messages to Georgia; one cannot have your cake and eat it at the same time. Those messages cannot be misunderstood.

Ultimately, the power the EU has to practically halt all negotiations if one does not behave.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

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

We have just heard a report that has focused on the Budapest Declaration, which in turn focuses on competitiveness. I will therefore begin by stating that 50 percent of the world's GDP is directly dependent on the existence of functioning ecosystems.

I also understand that the US election has been discussed during the informal meeting. I am thinking from the perspective of the issues I work with and which the COP meetings have also focused on – COP 16 in Colombia on biodiversity and COP 29 which begins now on the climate – that we need a force within the EU that also steps up in these issues to fill the vacuum that will probably be created given the election that has taken place in the USA and the promises to break away from international cooperation in these areas.

At the same time, we know that the situation regarding the climate and biodiversity is heading in a terribly bad and alarming direction. We have lost 73 percent of all land mammals since 50 years ago. It is estimated that more than one million species are threatened with extinction, that is, can be lost. If we look at the EU, 80 percent of our ecosystems are in poor condition.

I know that what is being discussed has not been an environmental declaration, but that is what has been hammered out in the other meetings as well, where government representatives have also been active. How have the conversations gone, Prime Minister, regarding the fact that the EU needs to step up in environmental and climate cooperation now that the USA has made its choice?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First, I also want to warn against saying that the USA has made its choice. Do not assume any political changes yet. We all know that everything said in heated election campaigns around the world does not become actual policy afterwards, but we are prepared for the possibility that changes may occur. In that case, we are also prepared to act as far as possible so that the USA remains in the global climate work in the same way as we want with India, China, and other continents.

Ultimately, different countries and continents make their own decisions. We must also be astute enough to realize that, and then what we do ourselves must be so successful at home and so inspiring and worthy of emulation for others that we can lead by example. We can truly do that.

Reading Mario Draghi's report, one sees that he is far from disinterested in the climate transition. On the contrary! It is mentioned in many places, though not on every page of the 400 pages because there are also other aspects. But it is mentioned that the transition itself is important for obvious climate reasons, but also that it brings competitiveness issues along with it. Many companies have realized that one is either fossil-free or not on the market at all. There are major competitiveness issues inherent in the green and digital transition. They are also connected.

One must not have an overly narrow view of this. When we talk about competitiveness, we are talking about everything from green transition and economic reforms to economic agreements with other continents. Everything is important. It is a bit like property rights: a bundle of different things. There is not one competitiveness issue and all focus should lie on that, but instead, one must do many things right at the same time.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! One has a naive attitude if one does not note the track record that Donald Trump has in these agreements. The vision he has declared has not only been part of an election campaign but has also been a question of the decisiveness he has shown in withdrawing from the international and very important collaborations. Therefore, one needs to be prepared.

Let us look at this at a national level. It is clear that Sweden does not have a particularly credible voice, as the country misses all of the EU's climate goals. I know that we have different views on this, but I wonder how Sweden can go from being a naysayer in the transition to being a constructive voice. How does the Prime Minister intend to find ways forward that also benefit, for example, Swedish forest owners rather than primarily the pulp industry in the transition that the EU requires in the forestry area?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I think the description is completely incorrect. Throughout our presidency, it was incredibly well known that Sweden was a genuine "yes-sayer" in trying to bring countries together to agree on the EU's major climate work Fit for 55. It was an absolutely necessary, real, and successful task. That does not mean that we do not also see genuine Swedish interests where we are skeptical.

We do not share the view that many countries have on forestry. I know that Miljöpartiet does, but we stand up for the Swedish forestry tradition. And that is where we will stand firm, even if other countries think differently. I do not think at all that it is a correct description. Sweden is perceived as constructive and exemplary, and that just like other countries, we guard our own specific interests. Otherwise, we would be naive.

We are well-prepared in terms of security - Nato, Ukraine, climate, competitiveness - and we are well-prepared for shifts in American politics, but we do not sign any decisions in advance.

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

Jan Ericson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The meeting in the European Council had competitiveness as the main theme. I want to begin by giving the Prime Minister a commendation for the Swedish presidency of the EU last year. Sweden succeeded with energy and persistence in raising the issues of the EU's competitiveness. If Sweden had not succeeded in getting the issues onto the EU's agenda, this meeting in the European Council would probably hardly have had competitiveness on the agenda at all.

This shows that a successful presidency leaves clear marks in the EU for a long time, and the hard Swedish work continues to drive development forward in the union. It is truly crucial that the EU takes the issues seriously.

Unfortunately, the EU is lagging behind in terms of competitiveness. The wording in the adopted Budapest Declaration is vague, but hopefully, the EU's member states realize that concrete measures are needed if the EU's competitiveness is to be strengthened. The EU has 450 million inhabitants and 30 million companies, and it is time to seize that potential.

The report from Mario Draghi on the EU's competitiveness is a good basis to build upon, and it is very pleasing that Sweden is presented as an example in the report.

At the same time, there is a risk that one will again imagine that one can solve all problems with more EU bureaucracy and new borrowed EU funds. But competitiveness actually cannot be bought with borrowed money. It is also usually not politicians, neither at the EU level nor nationally, who are best at deciding which new companies, industries or innovations it is worth investing in for the future.

The most important role of politicians is to create good conditions for entrepreneurship, productivity, and growth. The EU can do a lot, not least in relations outside the EU, but if the EU is to succeed, the EU member states must, above all, carry out national reforms and not expect the EU to solve everything that is difficult to reform nationally.

I wonder if the Prime Minister notices any change among the member states' heads of state and government regarding how to strengthen the competitiveness of the member states and the EU. Are more people beginning to realize how serious this issue is for Europe's future, and can the election of Trump as president in the USA directly influence the EU's leaders to realize the gravity of the situation?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! One must always be careful when being a bit cheeky, but I believe that the Swedish presidency had significance. It was quite few who spoke systematically about it. There were many who noted our consistent stance on competitiveness issues, so it had significance. Then I shall be honest and say that we received a pull - 20 years of lagging behind is starting to be understood. One begins to understand it seriously.

The American IRA legislation - a somewhat strange name - we can describe as positive in the sense of more climate work in the USA but negative because it systematically subsidizes industries that establish themselves in the USA. It shed light on the issue. Chinese trade policy sheds light on the issue. Geopolitical tensions and twice-interrupted value chains around the world also show the weaknesses of a global trade that creates unilateral dependencies. To this is added an American protectionism that seems to have wind in its sails. All of this, I believe, contributed to creating momentum for competitiveness issues in Europe.

Again: Without it, nothing happens, but just talking about it will not be enough. We must see it as a good start and a good investment, and after that, things must happen. Then the threat is that one can agree to make new regulations at the European level or borrow new money but not do the hard work. That is the threat. Then we could get even worse rules and no benefit at all.

The second image is, of course, to encourage countries to, despite complicated domestic political situations in many countries, carry out reforms that are short-term unpopular and difficult and which perhaps break with a tradition they have had. We ourselves have tried that – many of the Swedish 90s reforms were completely impossible until they became completely necessary. So it is in other countries as well.

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

Jan Ericson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The election in the USA is, of course, of great interest, and I think it is very wise that the Prime Minister has signaled our understanding that in the USA, it is expected that the countries in Europe take greater responsibility for security on our continent. The USA has for all too long had to bear an unreasonable burden.

As said, Sweden today is one of the countries that is an example. We are already reaching, with ease, NATO's floor, let's call it from now on, of 2 percent for defense.

I want to ask the Prime Minister if he perceives that the countries that are lagging behind express any desire to increase their defense spending and if the election of Trump as president might possibly be a wake-up call for these countries.

Finally: Sweden is a rather small country, but with determined Swedish politicians, one can still move Swedish positions forward internationally. We see it when it comes to the EU and in Nato, where Sweden has already, after a very short time, become a very respected member.

I would like to conclude by wishing the Prime Minister continued success in the ongoing important work of representing Sweden in international contexts and strengthening Sweden's positions both in the EU and in Nato.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I believe that the combination of humility and self-confidence is quite good, especially if one means business with both. That is to say, we must have humility – we are not the largest country in the world and do not function like all other countries, but we have things to contribute – and self-confidence where we know that what we have done has worked. I think that combination works well even on countries that we individually and partially think differently about.

When it comes to defense spending, there is no doubt whatsoever about this. I noticed already this summer at the NATO meeting in Washington D.C. that the countries that are lagging behind most clearly were very keen to describe in detail how quickly they are now approaching 2 percent. And the countries that are clearly above 2 percent were keen to describe that a new figure that we will soon need to agree on is likely the new floor in the geopolitical reality that we now live in. It has undoubtedly served as a wake-up call.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you to the Prime Minister for the report on the European Council!

I still want to assert that the fact that we have the competitiveness issues on the table is a great victory for the Swedish presidency. Even if we have had help from other parts, it is extremely important.

I would like to highlight an aspect. I would like to highlight the importance of free trade agreements between the EU and Mercosur, which is the largest area being discussed right now. It is a subject that I had the opportunity to discuss with Latin American colleagues in Mexico City last week. Our partners emphasized that an agreement would counteract China's growing influence in the region and that it would create a stable and democratic basis for trade between two regions that share values.

After the American election, an uncertainty is approaching, especially with the increasing isolationist tendencies that we have seen for a long time from the American side. In this time of global upheaval, the EU must take greater responsibility for its own competitiveness and deepen its strategic collaborations. A free trade agreement with the Mercosur region would strengthen not only Europe's economic position but also our geopolitical freedom of action.

My question is therefore how the Prime Minister intends to act to increase the pace of these negotiations and ensure that we soon reach an agreement. Based on the meeting that took place in Budapest, can we expect to see concrete steps for the EU to strengthen its competitiveness and its independence through an agreement with the Mercosur region?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! There are many good reasons for precisely that free trade agreement. It has come a long way and should be able to be decided.

We had a separate meeting with those countries just a few months ago. It went very well in many ways. There is a lot there where we are like-minded that can be built upon.

It requires consensus. We were earlier in on the point that the more one puts into different agreements, the more difficult it can be to agree on them. Those who are fundamentally less free-trade oriented than Sweden also tend to find problems in almost every free trade agreement. One can always find some group who, all other things being equal, would be losers in the short term – while our experience is that all other things being equal and in the long term, we are winners with free trade.

Here the perspectives are genuinely different. Some countries would say: Yes please, a small country with large global export companies - thanks a lot that you are for free trade! They might not see the principled altruism in our argument but see self-interest.

We have never denied that it is a combination. If you are a small country built on large innovations where the home country is too small a market, you need the rest. That also does good. We have also been quite principled and have been equally open to incoming trade as to outgoing trade. We have realized that this will eventually even out.

Other countries are a large market in their own right and have never thought in the same terms of free trade. They may also have strong interest groups that want to guard just that specific industry and fear competition from other places.

This is a classic contradiction, and it has not changed. But I can guarantee that we are doing everything we can, together with quite a few other countries, to harvest the free trade agreements that have come the furthest and that could yield fruit right now.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

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

Sweden is, as has been said, an export-dependent country. I come from Gothenburg myself, which has an industry that is extremely export-dependent. It is clear that we are speaking in our own interest. But I still want to highlight another interest here, and that is the geopolitical interest.

Unfortunately, it is the case that democracy has regressed in many parts of the world. But we have a majority of democracies in Europe, and we have it in Latin America and not least in South America. Reaching such an agreement would also mean a lot in the larger discussion, where we see that the rules-based world order is being challenged by countries such as China, Russia, Iran, and Venezuela. Unfortunately, we can also bring in several others.

This question should also be discussed from that perspective. I would like to hear if it did so or if we should raise that perspective more.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! That is interesting. During my two years as Prime Minister, I have had quite a few conversations, not least with Emmanuel Macron himself. We do not agree on all issues, but he thinks systematically in these types of matters. Last Thursday, we had a long conversation that primarily concerned how we are now to ensure that all who are truly stable friends of Ukraine work together and maintain the support for Ukraine in a situation that could be partially new. There, France will be a key player, and I said that from Sweden's side, we will do everything we can to help in such a process.

In a very French way, he recently said in a speech - and there is something to it - that in the long run we cannot outsource security to the USA, trade to China, and energy to Russia. That does not mean that we should not cooperate on security with the USA or cooperate commercially with China. It does, however, definitely mean that we should not outsource energy to Russia. To become more independent and less unilaterally dependent is very important.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

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

It has now been nearly three weeks since the parliamentary elections in Georgia. According to the official results, the governing party Georgian Dream was the winner of the election. At the same time, it is well known that the entire election process was characterized by blatant electoral fraud and various forms of influence from the Russian side, as well as that the election result was manipulated.

I spoke a few weeks ago with a liberal colleague with roots in Moldova who compared the Russian influence operations ahead of the election in Moldova with those that took place in Georgia. He summarized the whole thing somewhat mockingly with how smartly Russia has acted against Georgia through long-term work with pro-Russian narratives and compared it with Moldova. There, they pumped in large sums of money in more chaotic forms to literally buy votes on election day. I believe there is quite a lot of truth in that.

We can now see how the long-term influence work from the Russian side has paid off in Georgia, a country that - just as the Prime Minister has mentioned - is a candidate to become an EU member. There, a completely illegitimate government with strong ties to Russia is now in power. It is very serious and a very concerning development.

After the election result had been announced, one of the first to congratulate Georgia's incumbent government on the much-vaunted election victory was Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Prime Minister for having so clearly distanced himself from Orbán's completely unacceptable flirting with the Georgian regime.

My question to the Prime Minister is what Sweden and the EU can do to actively support the democratic opposition and civil society.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I completely agree with the description of what is happening. It is a kind of Russian divide-and-rule technique that works better in some countries than in others. We ourselves have learned that rather banal Russian messages do not work for a Swedish audience, but here one must resort to other methods. But if one has a large domestic audience that listens to those kinds of messages, it is difficult. Moldova has managed twice. Now they must manage a third time, but they are seriously concerned.

One difference is that the government in Moldova stands up for what is right and proper. In Georgia, it is instead very clear that the prime minister proclaims himself the winner, while the president questions the entire election result.

There were clear messages from the EU leaders regarding Georgia. There were more than just me who thought that from the side of a presiding country, one must be incredibly cautious when acting in a way that can be perceived as speaking for others. Therefore, I made my mark, and others made the same mark.

These are serious matters. One must keep in mind that our toolbox is somewhat limited, not least when there is a government that wants to go this way. A government like the Moldovan one, we can actively help in various ways. It is much more difficult in Georgia.

The message back is quite harsh: There is no way into the EU in this way. Do not deceive your population into thinking that you can do as you do in the elections and that the EU's embrace is simultaneously open! This is to punish the population in a way that we do not actually wish to do, but one cannot both have the cake and eat it. That message, I believe, came through with great clarity.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

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

Now we see large protests in Georgia against the election result. The opposition is there, and they are working to achieve a new, legitimate election. We hope, of course, that it will be so and that there will be an election where the people's voice actually gets space and is listened to. But what happens if it doesn't happen that way and the current regime remains? It would be interesting to hear how the discussions are going in the heads of state circles at the EU level and how the Prime Minister views the current situation. It would also be interesting to hear something about how this affects the situation in the region. If both Georgia and Moldova are excluded from the EU, Armenia stands completely cut off from the union.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! What we in the EU primarily have at our disposal are our common tools when we face a candidate country. It is primarily about being clear and saying: On these terms, you will not be admitted. Then we cannot make Georgian decisions.

I also had talks with the President of Georgia. We do not know what will happen, but the President said in practice that she may be faced with a situation where she has to ratify a result and may refuse to do so. This could mean that opposition parties refuse to take their parliamentary seats. It could mean a completely deadlocked situation in Georgian politics. I have all the respect for the fact that one can end up there, but it could mean a great deal of uncertainty ahead.

I do not think we really have any tools there. I am currently most concerned that we do everything we can to ensure that Moldova continues to have fair elections, continues its rapprochement and does not fall under the threats and the pressure that Russia subjects the country to. I believe that is where we can do the greatest good.

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

Erik Hellsborn (SD)

Mr. Speaker! On the topic of defense readiness, I would like to ask the Prime Minister about the previously adopted Versailles Declaration, where Europe's heads of state and government agreed to increase their countries' defense spending. Since it was adopted in 2022, many countries have increased their defense spending, but it naturally varies greatly between different countries. I understand that this is not a NATO forum, but many EU countries are also NATO countries. NATO's two percent target can therefore be seen as a relevant factor in this context.

Since the treaty was adopted two years ago, more European countries, including Sweden, have begun to live up to the two percent goal. However, not everyone is doing so. I would like to ask the Prime Minister: Have any discussions been held with the countries that today allocate an unreasonably small share of their budget to defense appropriations, and have any requests been made for these appropriations to be increased?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I suppose I must say for the sake of form that we did not discuss NATO's requirement of 2 percent of GDP in defense spending at this summit. If I am to look for a connection, it is quite natural, namely that issues of competitiveness and growth are important for many reasons. One reason is so that one can afford things. If one wants to strengthen its defense, stand up for the aid to Ukraine and manage the climate transition, growth in the economies is required. If one also has extensive welfare ambitions, growth in the economies is also required.

Sometimes we tend to talk about everything we are going to do with the money we do not yet have. It is also sometimes a Swedish sickness that we like to distribute the money before we have even collected it.

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

We are facing very large transitions geopolitically, climatically and in terms of international competitiveness, which mean that our economies must be competitive, have good growth and generate wealth that we can then use in a sustainable and fair way for all the tasks that lie ahead of us.

There is the connection.

The pressure from the USA and other NATO countries is great on those NATO countries that are lagging behind; there is no doubt about that. Many NATO countries have in practice thought that they do not need to do this and have seen other tasks as more important or are located geographically so that they do not have the war on their doorstep in the same way. We can guess what Poland says to other countries when Poland is now over 4 percent and is discussing 5 percent. No one wishes to spend such enormous sums on military defense, but I would not dare to gamble and not do it.

Swedish growth continues, and we are prepared to do significantly more than we do today.

The reporting was hereby concluded.

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