Reporting from the informal meeting between EU heads of state and government on February 12

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The leaders of all EU member states met, therefore, on Thursday in the Belgian Flanders, an hour east of Brussels. The meeting dealt exclusively with European competitiveness.

Economic issues are recurring on the agendas of the summits, but there is often a lack of concreteness and willingness to make decisions. In those cases, it is easy to increase the level of abstraction and instead speak in terms of geopolitics and geoeconomics. These are not at all unimportant issues, on the contrary. What happens in our global environment affects us to a great extent.

Right now, we find ourselves in serious times for many different reasons – Russia's war against Ukraine, of course, the USA's confrontational stance towards Europe, of course, even if the speech the other day in Munich was of a softer tone, and a China that wants to dominate its part of the world. The truth is, however, that we in Europe have every opportunity to ourselves strengthen our own freedom of action in this more difficult situation through a growing economy and increasing trade.

Our best tool for economic trade and strong economic growth is the internal market. We have full disposal of it, completely regardless of what the rest of the world wants. There is also very much to be done there.

In practice, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about how we should strengthen the European economies to be able to manage both large investments in defense and security and at the same time further develop the European welfare states. That is, in fact, what a competitive Europe is about. It is about how the economic cake in Europe can become larger so that our societies can bear the cost of many things that are important at the same time. It is about how we encourage entrepreneurship to start, to grow, and to stay in Europe, not just those who are already entrepreneurs but perhaps above all those who want to become the entrepreneurs of the future. It is about how we give better conditions for more children to succeed, completely regardless of how it has gone for their parents.

Italian Prime Minister Meloni, Belgian Prime Minister De Wever, and German Chancellor Merz had invited a preliminary meeting with a larger group of countries that met shortly before the meeting – otherwise an increasingly common tendency in these meeting formats. They called the format Friends of Competitiveness. We were a quite obvious participant in that circle.

The discussions showed that there is now momentum, a full year after the major reports were presented, and that more countries seriously want to move from words to action, while the ambitions are characterized by the fact that different countries have different conditions, not least economically, but also different domestic challenges, for example in the form of political majorities.

We will meet in the same constellation again before the summit in March and see if we can then agree on a number of the proposals that will likely have been put on the table by then.

At the summit with all the member countries, Mario Draghi, former Prime Minister of Italy and former central bank chief for the ECB, was invited to comment on the progress that has been made since he presented his major report on competitiveness nearly two years ago. His main message was, once again, that we must focus our energy on measures that are possible to agree upon and that can yield results now, not fluffy ambitions over a five, ten, or fifteen-year horizon. Long strategies have their place, but now action was needed here and now.

Another former Italian Prime Minister, Enrico Letta, who also wrote a report about two years ago but more limited and more narrowly focused on the EU's internal market, was also invited. His contribution at the meeting showed the great potential that still exists when it comes to developing and completing the internal market because, after 30 years, it is still not completely finished.

It says something about the EU's greatness that we did really big things as far back as 30 years ago. It also says something about the EU's slowness that we have not been able to complete what was started then.

One can summarize Enrico Letta's message, both during the meeting and in the telephone calls I had with him the evening before the meeting, by saying that we should water where it grows.

My main message in the discussions during the meeting was that we must now seriously create better conditions for companies to operate and stay in Europe. It is about tearing down the trade barriers that still exist between European countries and which not everyone is aware of. But it is also about strengthening trade with countries outside of Europe through more free trade agreements.

We need European rules that are easy to both understand and follow, not least for the smaller companies that do not have large departments that ensure just regulatory compliance. It is a common problem in Europe. Some say, more or less jokingly, that they have more people dealing with regulatory enforcement than with new innovations. That suggests the size of the problem. Last but not least, Europe needs a capital market that can provide the financing opportunities needed in Europe so that companies will want to stay and grow here and not automatically turn towards the American financial market.

A good deal of the discussions also concerned Europe's high energy prices. That these energy prices affect companies and people is very well known and a real problem. I know that the situation is difficult for many, not least for families and the elderly, even here in Sweden. But the solution needs to take its starting point in that Europe needs more energy production, not just more cables between countries. Especially more base load is needed. That is why we in Sweden are launching a completely new nuclear power program, building new combined heat and power, and saving threatened hydropower.

If we instead compromise on set climate ambitions, it will affect the companies, not least Swedish ones, that are at the forefront, which have made their transition and are driving the transition and want to see it as a global competitive advantage. At the same time, such industry that lags behind would be rewarded at the expense of Swedish industry.

The discussion on energy is in some ways similar to the discussion on a stronger European capital market. The decisive problem is that there is simply too little capital for investments in Europe. Far too much money is sitting and accruing low interest in savings accounts or is tied up in other ways. There are too few countries that have the tradition of capital market that we have developed in Sweden over many decades.

National measures are now required, and this is something some countries are painfully aware of, which lead to greater private fund savings, roughly like our ISK accounts, and reforms of pension systems that are outdated which would create opportunities for pension funds to operate on the capital market.

There are good Swedish examples here that we do not even need to share, as the report authors are so happy to do so for us. Sweden was a recurring example in this. But other countries are also mentioned, and it is the large countries in Europe that are really lagging behind.

In the discussion, the argument was also put forward that it would benefit our competitiveness and independence if we limited our trade with the rest of the world. Buy European is a recurring such term. Made in Europe often serves as the motto.

I mean, together with quite a few colleagues, that this is fundamentally, as a general policy, misguided. There are absolutely critical raw materials, special products, and special value chains where we need to have more domestic access and production and secure ourselves against unilateral dependencies. There are countries, for example China, that do not give our companies access to their markets on the same terms as they want their companies to have access to ours.

A broad application of buy European would create major problems. It would probably worsen competitiveness, create inferior products, create more administrative hassle and send a completely wrong signal to the trading partners we are now concluding agreements with. We view all of this as a surgical issue and very specific problems, not as a general solution to create protectionism in Europe.

The Swedish experiences are quite the opposite, that prosperity is built with openness and trade with the rest of the world. One can look at Volvo's latest car model with parts from all over the world; brakes from Germany, glass from France and door locks from Japan – largely owned from China, produced in Sweden.

Or look at the Jas 39 Gripen – what we usually call the world's best fighter jet, completely neutrally – which is manufactured in close cooperation with companies in both the United Kingdom and the USA. This also applies to the EU's other vehicle exports, which consist of 20 percent of parts coming from countries outside the EU.

We know through Nato that alone is not strong, and we know through free trade that alone is not successful. Rather, the rest of the EU should learn from Sweden and be inspired by our idea made with Sweden or made with Europe, that is to say that we have central values to contribute but that we are open to business with others.

There are also those who believe that Europe's economies would benefit from politicians spending more with increased taxes as a result, especially for us in Sweden. I do not believe in that path either. France's favorite idea of common borrowing and eurobonds was naturally mentioned, but it does not evoke much response in the circle.

I usually point out to my colleagues among the heads of government – and I also say it sometimes to my colleagues among the party leaders in Sweden, who also would like to raise taxes – that if we make it more expensive to run businesses in Europe and in Sweden, we lose both in competitiveness and in geopolitical strength.

Mr. Speaker! This was a so-called informal meeting, and therefore no decisions were made and no conclusions were adopted. Instead, it will take place, at best, when we meet again for the next summit already in March. In the preparations for that meeting, we from the Swedish government's side will push for a high level of ambition and concrete progress. My impression, but it is no promise, is that the President of the EU Commission has the same ambition, especially in matters concerning the internal market and the ongoing simplification work.

In other words, we will have the opportunity to further discuss growth issues in this circle when we meet again in the consultation before that meeting. It will largely be about providing better conditions for the business sector to make Europe grow, and these are issues that I look forward to discussing with representatives from all parties. My invitation to the other party leaders regarding a partnership for Sweden in the EU remains, of course, firm.

Let me finally say that it is good that we have such a clear urgency to get things done for a stronger Europe. What is happening in the world right now, both in the east and in the west, gives strong reasons for European determination. That feeling was also present in Munich last week. Let us seize upon this sense of urgency, and let us also seize upon the strengths that we carry with us into this problematic time.

Firstly, we are arming our own defense at a historical pace and aim for the 3.5 percent already by 2030.

Secondly, Sweden is a member of Nato, and we have 31 other allies who help defend our part of the world.

Thirdly, we have total political unity on the support for Ukraine, on our EU membership, and almost unity on Nato. It reduces our vulnerability to others' attempts at influence.

For the fourth, we trade with the entire world, and we have done so for 150 years.

For the fifth, we have strong public finances, which gives us room for maneuver if it should be needed.

For the sixth, we have one of Europe's very best capital markets, which means that Swedish companies can start, grow and stay here if they so wish.

Let us take the situation and the world situation seriously, but let us not forget our own strengths in these very difficult times. With that, I conclude the presentation.

(Applause)

In this speech, Fredrik Ahlstedt, Ann-Sofie Alm and Gustaf Göthberg (all M) concurred.

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Mr. Speaker! Ahead of the EU summit, the Prime Minister repeatedly stated that Sweden is well-positioned in the uncertain times we live in and that the government is already, as the Prime Minister himself expressed it, doing everything right. Furthermore, the Swedish economy is Trump-proof.

This is not a picture shared by Swedish companies and Swedish families, not when the electricity bill hits the ceiling again, when the Swedish automotive industry is bleeding, when nearly half a million people are without work, and when only Romania has higher youth unemployment than Sweden in the EU.

The Prime Minister hardly had time to leave the circle of Europe's leaders before his own Finance Minister called a press conference to announce that the room for reform is exhausted for the coming four years. These are not welcome messages for Swedish companies and Swedish families.

The Fiscal Policy Council released a report yesterday that gave a historically sharp criticism of the Åkesson and Kristersson government. They have lowered the tax for themselves and other high-income earners by 6,000 kronor per month, and it has been done with borrowed money. It is hardly a policy that Sweden needs to build long-term growth and hardly an example for the rest of Europe.

The Prime Minister said before the EU summit that every member state must do its part. Is this Kristersson's and Åkesson's way of doing their part, that is to say, emptying the barns? How is this about safeguarding Swedish interests and competitiveness in Sweden and in Europe?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! For the sake of order, I must first say that the EU summit did not focus entirely on the Fiscal Council's report that was released the other day. I understand that it is a major shortcoming of the EU summit, but they had other things to do. I do not reproach them so much for this.

Mr. Speaker! I also know that the Social Democrats are happy to speak ill of Sweden abroad. I note that. It is a free country, and one says what one wants. I think that we should stand up for Swedish successes and solve the problems we have. They are really not lacking. But we shall stand up for Swedish successes that have made Sweden strong internationally. If the Social Democrats want to speak ill of Sweden, then continue with that. I will continue to stand up for everything that is good in Sweden.

I further note the criticism from the Fiscal Policy Council, which the Social Democrats now seem to be enormously enthusiastic about. From that, one can well conclude that the Social Democrats either do not want to invest in defense – want to remain in a weak defense during the most dangerous time since World War II – or want to raise taxes dramatically instead of having, as now, an orderly form where we grow into new defense appropriations successively.

The question remains: Do you now want to reduce the defense investments that you have been completely in agreement with us on previously, or do you promise to raise taxes before the next mandate period?

(Applause)

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Mr. Speaker! We highlighted two expectations ahead of the EU summit that we felt Sweden and the Prime Minister needed to convey. The work simply had to be done. It should be to secure private capital for long-term investments in European industry, green technology development, and new technology. This strengthens Europe's independence and is crucial for Swedish competitiveness in an increasingly tough global era. Additionally, Sweden should stand up for the fact that Europe's competitiveness is built on order and clarity, and that new establishment regimes and regulatory simplifications must not become a backdoor for social dumping or environmental dumping. This is what we need to stand up for Europe's security.

The Prime Minister went to the EU summit with the usual high-handed attitude, and I would like to know what concrete initiatives the Prime Minister pushed for at the EU summit. Which measure is Kristersson's? What is the Swedish victory at this EU summit, now that it is time to move from words to action and there is a momentum? It is not about speaking ill of Sweden, but it is about the reality that the Prime Minister is responsible for.

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First, I would like to remind – everyone may not remember – that there was a consensus when I reported on what I would push for at this informal meeting at the EU summit. I heard no objections to the focus on capital markets union, internal market and free trade. On the contrary, there was a consensus on that.

If the Social Democrats had any strong, original views of their own, you would have raised them then, Matilda Ernkrans. Instead, you sit and complain on the bench next to you, as usual. You can do that. But it does no good at EU summits.

I can say, in a slightly more formal way, that this was an informal meeting, meaning that no decisions were made. We raised the concerns we see and the ambitions we have. Now the commission will try to use the implied consensus that exists and come back to the next European summit.

I believe that Ursula von der Leyen takes those signals very seriously. There is not agreement on everything. It could very well become more of a coalition of the willing in quite a few areas. But as long as it goes in a Swedish direction, I am happy.

(Applause)

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

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

High up on the Swedes' agenda, I believe, are energy prices right now. It is an issue that was discussed at the council's informal meeting. From a Swedish perspective, we have, just as the Prime Minister explained, a focus on secure energy supply and the expansion of energy production rather than a more one-sided focus on lines between countries and between different electricity areas.

My question to the Prime Minister is whether it is a perspective that Sweden also has support for from other countries. The Commission has a proposal that aims to try to distribute the money that arises when electricity flows between electricity areas as effectively as possible from a European perspective, but it may be as bad as possible from a Swedish perspective.

I want to know if there is an understanding of our perspective across Europe. Or is Sweden seen more as a region up there in the north? Do power lines from Africa to Southern Europe stand significantly higher on the agenda?

Mr. Speaker! A European capital market is an important priority. My question to the Prime Minister is how the consensus seems to be in Europe regarding this. There are certain countries that have strong self-interests, for example, Luxembourg and Ireland. Are they on board, or are they resisting? If it is to become truly good, everyone must be on board.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! There were many questions. I will begin by saying that one should have some respect for the fact that the countries that have traditionally had a bad dependence on Russian fossil gas and oil have made an enormous journey in recent years. One can say that they put themselves in a bad position – I also gladly point that out – but they have to a large extent made themselves independent of the Russian gas and oil. It is a great journey in itself, and we should have respect for that.

At the same time, the one-sided focus that many countries have on wanting more transfer capacity instead of own production is unsustainable. We have learned that the hard way.

Speaking of Swedish successes, which I believe we dare to talk about, we became independent of fossil fuels early on for ordinary electricity production. Hydropower and nuclear power complemented by some renewables is an enormous success for Sweden. But we know what happens if you decommission half of the production in southern Sweden. Then very large problems arise, which cannot be solved with transmission speeds. Europe also has this to a large extent right now.

I am, of course, strongly in favor of building more reliable, affordable energy production. I also see that an increasing number of European countries are now showing great interest in nuclear power. This takes time. We know that better than most. Shutting down nuclear power happens quickly, but building new power takes longer. But you cannot conjure energy production out of thin air. That is what I think is one thing.

The second thing is that we firmly say no to ideas of moving the money from the bottleneck charges from Sweden to other countries, because they think it would be convenient to receive a portion of those resources. We clearly say no to that.

Lastly: A capital markets union is probably one of the points where I would say there is an emerging consensus, including the countries that have been mentioned. All countries will, of course, monitor their special roles in this. Sweden also has a number of such things; we do not want to contribute primarily to moving capital from Sweden to other countries, but we would benefit from doing things together. There, I perceive a fairly large emerging consensus.

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

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

I believe that we here in Sweden also have much to gain from a European capital market. It is bad that one looks towards just the USA when one needs to gather capital.

In the written report, which is on the council's website, it is a bit unclear what was discussed, precisely because it was an informal meeting. In the European newspapers that have monitored the meeting, a lot of focus lies on the fact that it was discussed that certain countries in Europe should go first and that others perhaps do not need to be involved in everything. Does the Prime Minister see this as a conceivable scenario?

There is also speculation that there is a certain disagreement between Germany and France. The French want borrowing and a large focus on buying European. At the same time, Germany and also Sweden want to promote international trade and do not want to see increased borrowing. Is there a beginning of a disagreement there?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is probably not a nascent but a rather established disagreement. It is well known that France generally pushes for more common loans; eurobonds I believe were the latest that the French president came out with shortly before this meeting. It is equally well known that Germany, among the large ones, and also quite many of us others are very skeptical of those kinds of ideas. It is thus a rather established difference in views. There I perceive that we and Germany represent the vast majority.

When it comes, however, to some going ahead, it was one of Mario Draghi's recommendations. If not all 27 can agree on a number of things, the countries that really want to launch something, for example a common capital markets union, can go ahead of the others with the support of the EU system. But one cannot force the countries that do not want to join to be included. I believe we will approach a point where the countries that have higher ambitions go ahead but keep it open for others to join.

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!

For Vänsterpartiet, it is important that the EU's strength, the internal market, continues to be a way forward to strengthen the EU's competitiveness. But at the same time, it must be fair and just competition between companies from different countries. We fear that the introduction of the 28th regime not only risks the Swedish model but also restricts national sovereignty over company law, bankruptcy, labor law, and taxation.

As I have understood it, the government has welcomed and is pushing forward this development. My first question to the Prime Minister is therefore what was said at the meeting. Are all states equally positive about this? Is there any way to coordinate the rules without the national right of determination being restricted?

Vänsterpartiet is in favor of the trade agreements that we are discussing now. It is a good way to become more independent of the USA. Vänsterpartiet also believes that a trade agreement with the USA cannot be approved as long as the USA threatens Greenland. Therefore, I wonder if anything was said about that at the meeting. Does the government still want the agreement to be approved without the USA withdrawing its demands regarding Greenland?

Finally, I want to ask about what also came up in the previous exchange: the joint loans, which were taken up in the Council. Sweden's position is well known. We are usually in complete agreement across party lines that no EU joint loans should be taken up. Are there more countries than France that advocate for EU joint loans, or does France stand alone here?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First, I want to answer this somewhat tricky point regarding the 28th regime. It might not be common knowledge for all Swedes. We have 27 EU countries. One thought that exists in the reports is: If one cannot agree on compromises on a mass of rules, can one then introduce a 28th regulatory framework that companies can choose instead of each country's own regulatory framework?

I belong to those who believe that this sounds a bit better than what it would be in practice. It is a somewhat elegant way of saying that, for example, a newly started tech company should be able to get slightly simpler rules upon the establishment of the company and slightly simpler ways to report. It is fun as a thought model. But then one starts to approach taxation issues and labor market laws in different countries, and then I think one quite quickly sees that in practice it will probably be quite limited areas where the 28th regime would be possible.

Both report authors think that the possibility of this should be investigated. I know that at least the digital industry and the tech companies think it would simplify things. It would provide a somewhat larger market at once. They think it is quite difficult to apply 27 different regulatory frameworks for a new company, and then it is easier to try to establish oneself somewhere else in the world instead. There is, therefore, a thought behind this that one should not dismiss. But I am just as skeptical as the questioner.

We did not speak significantly about the USA this time, only about the need for more free trade agreements. The more we can trade even with the USA, the better. We must not drive the USA away from us. We speak out when the USA behaves badly, but we must not drive business away from the USA and Europe.

Regarding joint loans, this is a fairly established French view from a long time ago. Then we have sometimes made exceptions ourselves. Joint loans for Ukraine is one example. There is no doubt about that, rather we stand up for it wholeheartedly. Some countries are more generous than others. But primarily it is France that is driving this.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Prime Minister for the answers. It was positive that the Prime Minister raised some problems with a 28th regulatory framework. I believe we agree that simple rules are good. We all want simple rules. But few of us – at least here in Sweden, I hope – want rules that mean that workers' rights are worsened, that one can disregard climate and environmental rules and so on. Something that is very important for us in Sweden is that we monitor the Swedish model and that one does not introduce federal rules at the EU level that threaten our labor market model. I hope that we can also agree on that.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Exactly, Ilona Szatmári Waldau! There were reasons why, a few years ago, we were somewhat skeptical of overly cumbersome ways of thinking regarding the social pillar in Europe. For many, it is about labor market legislation, and we had no plans whatsoever to abandon the Swedish model in favor of a more politicized model. I therefore agree with the analysis.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

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

Energy production is truly completely central to the competitiveness in the EU. We see what the prices look like now in Sweden and in those parts of Europe where it is very cold.

The other day, a report was released warning that we need to prepare for a three-degree temperature increase due to climate change.

These two things interact in a very fine way. We need to have an energy production that is fossil-free. We also need to ensure that our competitiveness is built on a long-term thinking that starts from the climate. Was this something that was discussed? The Prime Minister mentioned the question of more electricity production and more fossil-free production, but it would be interesting to hear more about this.

Slightly loosely connected to this is the visit that Marco Rubio made to Hungary the other day. The USA was very clear that they support Orbán. They discussed, among other things, oil and gas but also economic support. How do the Prime Minister and the other leaders in the EU view this? It must be seen as a divisive factor, when we in the EU try to pressure Hungary purely economically.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Those were important questions that I appreciate.

We begin with the difficult energy issues. It is quite obvious that there are long-term reasons – we must manage the climate transition and competitiveness – but also very short-term reasons. People in many countries think that energy is terribly expensive. We think it is expensive in Sweden, but we are among the very lowest in Europe. Europe has four times higher prices than the USA and ten times higher prices than China. That suggests the differences for the wallet and households and for the companies' competitiveness. This is, therefore, a huge matter.

Speaking of Swedish successes: Hydroelectric power and nuclear power, with renewables as a supplement, have created an almost entirely fossil-free Swedish electricity system. It is a magnificent success that we should talk more about. Not all countries have hydroelectric power, and many will not be able to establish such. Some countries refuse to have nuclear power even though they should. In those cases, gas and fossil fuels, sometimes even coal in some countries, remain as base load, which can then be supplemented with renewables.

The enormous volatility that we are now seeing in many countries is incredibly harmful. I like Germany in many ways, but German energy policy is not good. We should not follow it. But it is making an impact in different countries. Right now, Finland is also making an impact in northern Sweden. It is quite obvious that more must build more stable base power. Our recommendation to them is to build nuclear power to get fossil-free, almost emission-free, and stable power. But every country must make its own decisions.

Let us then look at the business situation – now I come to Anna Lasses' last question. In some countries, the steel industry and the automotive industry are now disappearing at a rapid pace. I believe that Hungary and Slovakia are two countries that are mentioned. It is remarkable that the US Secretary of State first gives a rather friendly speech about Europe in Munich and then travels to the two countries that most of all oppose everything we are trying to do together in Europe.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Mr. Speaker! I believe we are very much in agreement – we must get fossil-free power in the EU, and that can involve nuclear power, wind power, solar power, and so on. Does the Prime Minister experience that this is becoming any workshop in the other countries? Will it move from discussion to something happening within a near future? This really needs to be done within a near future if we are to manage both competitiveness and the climate.

Then I must conclude with the same question as I concluded with last week. It has to do with My Voice My Choice and the right to abortion. How does the Prime Minister view this? Will the Swedish commissioner vote for the proposal? Was there any discussion about this among the leaders in the EU?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First, I will take the important question about abortion. As the questioner knows, I am a warm supporter of the right to free abortion. It is even to the extent that we constitutionally anchor that right in Sweden. But I will admit that the abortion issue was not on the agenda at this informal EU summit on competitiveness. I believe it was reasonable that it was not on the agenda.

Will it result in action? That is the completely central question. I will honestly say that it remains to be proven. The discussions were good. Sense of urgency, as we say even in Swedish nowadays, that is to say a feeling that it is urgent now, was there, and that is good. But it remains to be proven that it also results in action. Mario Draghi explicitly told the assembled circle of prime ministers: Do not communicate anything that has a longer horizon than a year! No one wants to hear about fluffy future plans. What do you intend to do in the coming year that goes in the right direction? Decide on it and tell it! Mario Draghi has a strong point there.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you to the Prime Minister for the presentations and the answers so far!

Before the informal meeting, a letter and an appeal were sent out to all parties here in the Riksdag to stand behind and show unity on a number of different issues. One of the issues concerned the forest. I can only agree with what the Prime Minister wrote. It is a policy area that truly needs greater consensus and a longer perspective.

The profitability for forest owners in Sweden is at the bottom of the league in the EU. We have every opportunity from the government to influence the compensations that go to landowners and forest owners who want to protect their forest. Today, that budget is very small. Many are standing in line and are desperate with a broken trust.

We have what authorities call a market failure. The pulp industry's interest in pushing prices down and buying up forest products and forest at a low price is what prevails. Recently, the Swedish Forest Agency released a power report that is largely built on interviews. It shows that there are a number of actors linked together in value chains that benefit from high volume-based returns.

This is something that affects the Sámi, the environment, and the water. It has also led to our reputation and standing being weakened internationally when Nestlé and also Zalando have withdrawn and do not want to buy from Swedish forestry.

My question to the Prime Minister is: What measures does one want to take to strengthen Sweden's reputation? Is one prepared to, for example, appoint an omnibus that strengthens a green transition and sustainable business models?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! First, I must also say here that the perceived rumors of different countries in different parts of Europe were also not up for discussion at the summit. Then one can worry about different things.

I want to first explain very seriously. When I call for unity in Sweden regarding the EU, I do not do it because I expect everyone to think alike or because I am trying to force them to do so. One can have different opinions in Swedish politics and in European politics. I have all respect for that.

What I wanted to say with this was that other countries have a tendency to agree on their interests in the EU, and that is something we must also do. The EU is about doing things together. But different countries have different starting points. They have different industrial traditions and different things to protect.

We must safeguard Swedish interests in the EU. No one else will safeguard Swedish interests in the EU. It is just as important as standing up for the common decisions that we make in the EU. That was what I wanted to say with the letter.

Then I do not think that one should hide disagreements. We have different views on Swedish forestry tradition and how it should be used in the EU cooperation.

Let us stand up for that. You may think as you wish, we in the government think as we wish, and we acknowledge that there are differences. But if we fundamentally agree on more free trade agreements and more regulatory simplification, we should in different ways ensure that it also becomes a reality.

We can, for example, ask our MEPs to systematically vote in such a way that it benefits Swedish interests in the EU. That is what I meant. Let us not be divided when other EU countries are trying to be united.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is concerning when the Prime Minister more or less jokes away this issue. It is about Swedish competitiveness.

International large companies are beginning to shun Swedish forestry not only because of rumors but also because of established reports that show the problems in black and white. Our expert authorities tell us about the downside of the large clear-cuts that are spreading and what it means for both humans and the environment, for the climate and in the long run. This is something that the market, of course, reacts to.

My question is again: Will the Prime Minister react and take initiative to get Swedish forestry back on track?

When speaking about safeguarding Swedish interests, I want to highlight that 80 percent of the Swedish people think it is important to protect forests with high nature values. 61 percent of the Swedish people think it is important to transition forestry to more considerate methods.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I do not mean to joke about it. On the contrary, I want to acknowledge that we have different views on forestry. As I believe you know, we have done a great deal towards the EU to stand up for what we believe is the core of Swedish forestry. We have done it together with Finland.

We believe that we practice sustainable forestry in Sweden. We have been doing so for generations. Furthermore, we ensure that fossil products are replaced with better products from a climate perspective. We also do this with a growing forest that is capable of being harvested.

We have stood up for all of this. We mean that we also get results in the EU and that they have listened to us. We do not intend to let the EU make decisions about Swedish forests so that they are made available to other countries with lower climate ambitions.

Again: We disagree on this issue. My urging was about that which we agree on. There we should try to get our party friends around Europe to act in unison so that we safeguard Swedish interests.

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

Erik Ottoson (M)

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

These are central and important issues for European competitiveness and Europe's ability to maintain its position in the world in the long term. For me, it raises mainly two questions.

The Prime Minister describes that a possible way forward is a coalition of the willing. Those who are able to proceed with some of the initiatives shall do so together. I interpret it as being in the hope that more will join along the way.

How does the Prime Minister assess the risk that this could create and perhaps also, in the long run, cement an A-team and a B-team in the union?

In the months that those who are not part of the coalition of the willing manage to catch up and gradually join, this risks more, but hopefully fewer and fewer, to end up outside of this form of core.

To create several different circles in the union in that way also carries a risk, I think. I may be wrong, and I am very interested in hearing the Prime Minister's reflections. That is one thing.

The second reflection concerns what the Prime Minister expresses so clearly and which is also very wise. We need to be more focused on made with Europe rather than made in Europe.

Does Sweden have support in this, and what does that support look like? It is also central to whether we should maintain our position in the world. This applies in particular within trade, cooperation, and value chains.

When we close ourselves off, we also lose our foothold in the rest of the world. We lose influence, and we also lose innovative power and the ability to create things that we are unable to do on our own.

I was earlier today in Täby at a company that recycles, among other things, laptops. It is noted that in Europe, there are not even the raw materials to manufacture computers. How will we manage if we close ourselves off?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! This is an important issue. One can ask the rhetorical question: Shall we accept a situation where we either all 27 agree on exactly what is to be done or do nothing at all? Those are often the alternatives.

In the Ukraine support, we realized that it is simply not possible to reach an agreement. Not acting for Ukraine is also not an option. Thus, we have found more or less tricky ways to bypass countries, most recently Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic.

It is much better that we who can and want to do something do something, rather than that we accept a consensus on doing nothing. I just want that to be said. It can be different countries in slightly different issues.

That leads me to the next point. Is it an A-team and a B-team? Those who abstain from participating when we, for example, create a European capital markets union abstain because they do not want to be involved. They do not think they are choosing a B-team. They think they are choosing the A-team themselves, I assume. If everyone is satisfied, it does not matter that much.

Then perhaps it is such that after a while one sees that it works very well. Just Sweden is not in the euro, but the euro has still been in that way. It was a smaller circle of countries at the beginning. We did not say that we were a B-team that chose to stand outside. A number of countries have since successively joined the euro cooperation and think it is good. But it is still a broad coalition of the willing, one could say, even if most countries are now in.

I therefore still think that one can say that this is a way one can try in a time when it is probably more difficult to unite Europe and where it must go faster. We no longer have all the time in the world, and we cannot wait for decades for a consensus to emerge or for a new crisis to force us to agree on what we have until now not been in agreement on.

I think that both what is happening in Russia, what is happening in Ukraine, what is happening in Asia and what is happening in the USA speak for the fact that urgency applies.

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

Erik Ottoson (M)

Mr. Speaker and Prime Minister! It is a wise reasoning. It cannot always be the one who wants the least who gets to brake the entire union. This is part of the problem with the entire structure as such right now, especially if we are to be able to have an open door policy towards new countries that want to become part of the EU. This also means that we get more cooks who are to be involved in cooking the soup, so it is clear that the EU needs to change its way of working. Thank you very much, Prime Minister, for that reflection!

The Prime Minister ran out of speaking time, so I am giving him the opportunity to address the final question. What does the support for Sweden look like in the question of "made with Europe" rather than "made in Europe"? What support do we have in this? Is it a narrative that finds a deeper resonance in a wider circle in the union, or are we fighting here against far too many others who have a different opinion?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! There are two answers to that question. One is what Mario Draghi is hinting at. He says that in surgically narrow issues, it can be a matter of being exclusive and reducing harmful dependencies on other countries, for example for security policy reasons.

It is a problem that we are 90–95 percent dependent on China in everything related to rare earth metals in combination with supply and refining. There is no doubt that it is a problem. There may very well be a number of such areas where, as a general idea, one should be quite cautious.

The second answer concerns which trade tradition one has. Sweden has, however, traded with the whole world for 150 years, and for us, it is an unthinkable thought to be exclusive and cease cooperation with countries and companies that we have had good cooperation with in order to instead find someone who might be good in Europe. Other countries do not have the same diversification at all and are therefore less sensitive, but we are in good company.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the account and the answers to the questions that have been asked so far!

It is exciting that these discussions are truly being taken seriously right now. It is serious, and if we do not have the discussions and move forward with them, Europe will fall behind. If Europe falls behind, we cannot support Ukraine, and we cannot make the investments that we ourselves need. Furthermore, it directly affects Swedish jobs. This is therefore very important.

I am glad that, as I understand it, there have been concrete discussions. It is about creating better conditions for our companies, and in that case, it matters that one ensures that rules are made that are easy to follow. I think that is very important, and I hope that is what we will see in the commission's proposals moving forward.

It is also about removing the obstacles and thus about the continuation of the free trade agenda, which we from the Swedish side have always considered important but where we now see that more people are on board.

I would like to hear the Prime Minister say something about how the discussions are going regarding continued free trade agreements and where we can go further. The single market is the core of the European Union's cooperation. It is directly linked to our own opportunity for supply and the opportunity to create a good life for our inhabitants. It also has the potential to develop further.

As has been said, it is 30 years since the common market was introduced, and we have still not quite seen that all the rules have enabled, for example, a digital common market. It would be interesting to hear from the Prime Minister if he has anything more to say about those issues.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! There is a great interest in new free trade agreements. This is truly the EU's common competence. I have been told that the interest from other parts of the world to start negotiations with Europe has never been as great as it is right now, because we are perceived as a stable partner and a large market. When it shakes both in the east and in the west, our attractiveness increases; that must be kept in mind. It is good.

The most recent agreements are Mercosur and India, both of which have been concluded. Then everyone who has been involved before knows that it takes time before agreements are realized. There we must increase the speed. Trade Minister Benjamin Dousa usually says that it takes 18 months just to translate a trade agreement. One tip: What about using English? We must increase the speed.

Then there are political concerns in individual countries and in the EU Parliament, where they nevertheless try to put spokes in the wheels of entered free trade agreements. Our unity is therefore greater on the surface than beneath the surface. I would therefore like to urge Swedish parliamentarians to stand up for Swedish interests and not oppose new free trade agreements.

The internal market is incredibly important. It is 30 years old, and it is the world's largest market for goods. One should not underestimate how important it has been, but also do not underestimate how much trade has changed in 30 years! Goods are decreasing, and services are increasing. Digital services are increasing. On the services side, it is not at all the same levels of freedom; there, there are a lot of trade barriers, intentional and unintentional, that still have not been resolved.

There are also a lot of activists who stand behind the idea of not removing the trade barriers, because they think it is a bit convenient with protected markets. The big task now, regarding watering where it grows and picking low-hanging fruit, is to really make the internal market ready for service trade and digital services. It is more important than arguing over individual percentage rates in tariffs with other countries.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I appreciate what the Prime Minister says regarding free trade. We are in a situation where we really need to diversify European trade, and we would like to see that happening in many more places.

I have also previously raised the question of the risk that we bind ourselves in a new unilateral dependency and, in that case, with China, which I would see as very unfortunate. That is why the diversification is very good.

I also think that the signals that came after the meeting show that the issue of China was raised seriously and that the concerns were discussed in a good way. I feel secure with that. As said, it is important that we manage both parts, that is to say, being able to trade and not being naive when we are exposed and vulnerable.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! That is an important point. Even we, who are warm supporters of free trade and believe in global trade, must look ourselves in the mirror and ask: Are there unilateral risks in this? Do we become too dependent on someone? Can disruptions in value chains create major problems? This is something very many companies are thinking about today, for corporate economic reasons, and it must also be something states think about for security reasons.

One really must not be naive about globalization, but the answer cannot be that different countries close themselves off from one another. We should trade with countries that we dare to trust, that are stable, that keep agreements and that do not insult one another, I said somewhat off the cuff. Then there are very good opportunities.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the answers so far and for the report! I would especially like to thank you for the marking against the European protectionism that we see. It would truly disadvantage the entire EU, and particularly Sweden.

I agree with what the Social Democrats said about Europe's competitiveness being built on order and clarity, but I don't think we quite agree on what the term means. The reduced regulatory burden and the regulatory simplifications being made are precisely what create order and clarity. Right now, it is far too regulation-heavy, which creates major problems.

Just as I raised before the meeting, it is important that one prioritizes and focuses and ensures that one actually makes a workshop of the simplifications that are now being discussed. I think it sounds very wise to have high speed in this. One must talk about what is happening here and now and show that one is making decisions and that simplifications are actually being implemented.

At the same time as we simplify, there is also a need for and space for new regulations. I sat in a meeting with the Committee on Environment and Agriculture before lunch and spoke about PFAS, an area where common rules are truly needed for a common problem.

Simplification is difficult, but how do we ensure that new regulatory frameworks decided jointly do not result in new over-regulations? There, of course, we have a national responsibility not to over-implement. The Prime Minister has touched upon that, but what is the reasoning regarding how we develop new joint regulatory frameworks so that we do not find ourselves standing here again in ten years' time having to do the same thing?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! That is a very good point. There is no doubt that in area after area there are rules that are honestly made with the best of intentions, but after a while, no one has any idea what the collective result is. No one in Sweden ordered that we should have decade-long permit processes. No one said, "Let us create a regulatory framework that makes it take 20 years to get anything through!" It has just become that way. We have received endless processes instead of asking the question of how much time is reasonable. One year, two years, three years – fine, then we create regulatory frameworks that support this!

Europe is a sickness right now, I would say, and I think therefore that there is much that speaks for this.

I sat with a Swedish CEO in a very large European automotive group. We do have Swedes in a few places around Europe, at all the major ones actually, so you have to guess who it was. He pointed out that it is good that large regulatory simplifications are being made, but new rules keep coming all the time – stop them, establish a moratorium on regulations so that one gets a chance to start untangling all of this! I believe there is a lot in that.

In some way, expectations have been raised that we will come forward with a number of concrete proposals in March. As I said just now: I do not dare to guarantee this. Had Sweden decided, things would have certainly happened, but now we must agree on a number of things moving forward. I hope that the impatience that was present at the meeting in Belgium will also be present at the meeting in Brussels in another part of Belgium in a few weeks.

Regarding over-implementation, we have really addressed that issue. We in Sweden have had a tendency to implement EU rules with such precision that we cause problems for ourselves, while other countries do it a bit more pragmatically.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for a very smooth radio transition to my follow-up question!

Miljöpartiet reflected on profitability in Swedish forestry and mentioned market failure and the need for an omnibus in that area. Forestry is indeed such an area where Sweden has over-implemented EU regulations, and there are many clear examples of how previous governments have not guarded Swedish interests strongly enough in the EU.

Does the Prime Minister share the view that the most important thing we can do for the competitiveness of Swedish forestry right now is the work we are doing to ensure that Swedish forest owners affected by land encroachments will actually receive compensation? There is a connection to EU regulations here, so I think it is a relevant question. Can the Prime Minister say something about that?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The short answer is yes, absolutely. We also prove to other EU countries that we take this seriously in our own regulatory changes. We do not only demand it from the EU, but we also do such things that we ourselves control.

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

Ulf Holm (MP)

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

It is certainly easy to agree that we need regulatory simplifications and to mock some of the over-implementations. I agree that tariffs should be removed and so on.

At the same time, the Prime Minister must surely agree that the problem is that behind this simplification work lies a goal to actually lower and weaken necessary climate transition – just look at the Prime Minister's own moderate EU parliamentarians who, in their work to simplify rules, hit exactly those American lobby organizations that stand close to Trump and whose purpose is to counter and crush the EU's work for a better climate transition. That is the fundamental problem. I find that very sad, and it is poorly aligned with the Swedish interests where we actually stand up for the EU to have the lead in the climate and environmental field and also sell this.

Mr. Speaker! When one reads the government's position before the EU summit, one actually has to look for the green transition and that climate issues are important for Swedish business. It is only when one moves over to the position paper that you have written together with the Finns that one finds the green transition and that it is very important.

Does the Prime Minister not realize that he is actually betraying Swedish companies and Swedish business which have worked to become leaders in the climate area, reduce climate emissions and so on, and use that as a selling point? Are we not ruining it for them if the government does not include them in this important work to make the EU more competitive?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is difficult to draw any other conclusion than that the one who by definition sets simplification against climate ambitions also considers that every rule that exists is absolutely necessary, has been added for good reasons and therefore must be preserved. No rule can be removed or simplified, and if one still wants to, one is closest to a climate denier.

I believe that is an incorrect description. Ursula von der Leyen was the one who took the initiative for these major simplification efforts. She has stood up for the green transition, for the Green Deal, and for much of the work we did during the Swedish presidency more than most EU leaders, but she realizes that if competitiveness becomes so poor in Europe and it is so difficult to do business here, then the companies driving the green transition will not choose Europe as a base.

I think on the contrary that it is a bit strange to always find reasons to question the attempts to simplify and increase the speed. Then one is essentially saying that every thing we change is a betrayal of environmental efforts. I simply believe that it is wrong.

Then we can disagree on what constitutes good climate policy. I have respect for that. But we should be able to see the problem that Europe has become slow and is perceived as complicated in many different ways. Other parts of the world are running faster, and that perhaps was not the purpose of many of the rules we have introduced.

From a Swedish perspective, it is obvious that processes for permits are required, but it cannot be an intrinsic value that it takes year after year. There may be legitimate conflicts of interest, but then judge them instead of just waiting for them to eventually resolve themselves, which they do not.

I believe we have reason to be self-critical. Europe is perceived as complicated. There is a potential to simplify – without turning our backs on the climate ambitions.

In this speech, Rashid Farivar (SD) agreed.

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

Jytte Guteland (S)

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

I believe we all in here agree that we should defend and boast about Sweden outside the country's borders. But it was considerably easier to do so at the time when we also had successes to boast about.

With this government, we get a situation where the Fiscal Policy Council says that it has not been so bad with the public finances and the management previously during the entire time they have examined them. And the unemployment is the third highest in the entire EU. That is not much to boast about.

At the time the Social Democrats were in power, we had policies that delivered. But with the small explosion regarding what my colleague received as an answer, I would like to say that something very big is happening right now, namely a far-right advance in Europe but also in the USA and in many places in the world. Fascist forces are moving forward and seeking support from each other. Trump is a leader for this.

A question was put to the Prime Minister that I would like to answer. How can a Moderate colleague of the Prime Minister be allowed to travel and receive advice from a network of Trump activists and then base EU climate policy on that? In what way are Swedish companies' interests protected by what Trump's supporters want?

Great leaders such as Alexander Stubb, Finland's president and colleague to our Prime Minister, have said that it is time to wake up. The MAGA movement is anti-EU and anti the values we stand for, both economically and climatically. It is time for us to wake up and stand up against the far-right. Therefore, my question to the Prime Minister: How does the Prime Minister do it?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I just said that it is remarkable that the American Secretary of State first gives a relatively friendly speech about Europe in Munich, only to then travel directly to Hungary and Slovakia to meet the two leaders who, more than others, try to sabotage much of the European work, for example for Ukraine. We genuinely think poorly of that.

It is quite true that there is a growing right-wing and left-wing extremism in European countries, in the EU Parliament and in, for example, Germany, where both the extreme right and the extreme left are celebrating great successes, especially in eastern Germany. I am very concerned about that development.

I understand that the Social Democrats are reluctant to talk about how we have moved from an inflation of 10 percent to 2 percent, that we have moved from the bottom of the league to the top tier when it comes to growth, and that we now have falling unemployment. You would rather boast about 10 percent inflation and the bottom of the league in growth.

I just don't understand why we shouldn't talk about the things that have been good in Sweden and that we can take with us out into Europe. Why shouldn't we stand up for those things? Why shouldn't we take our good experiences of fossil-free energy, of a stronger defense, and of all sorts of things that the rest of Europe is now looking to Sweden for? Read Financial Times, read The Economist! There was a time when it was only about shootings in Sweden. Now it is about Sweden showing the way for other countries.

Say it as it is: You do not like that this is happening under our government. I understand that, but I do not intend to worry about that matter. We have good reasons to stand tall and defend major, important Swedish successes, and reasons to be humble in the face of all the problems we still have left to solve.

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

Erik Hellsborn (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to the Prime Minister for a review that is always informative!

The Prime Minister mentioned the need for trade agreements for European competitiveness. Such a trade agreement is the Mercosur agreement between Europe and a number of countries in South America. It is a comprehensive and very important agreement.

The Mercosur agreement could have been in place here and now but has unfortunately hit a snag down in Brussels. It is not because of opposition from the members from the Tidö parties, for we are all in favor of this agreement, but unfortunately from the red-green opposition. The members from Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet have chosen to send the agreement to the European Court of Justice for evaluation and review. It is a process that risks taking up to two years. I wonder what the Prime Minister thinks about that and how much Swedish and European competitiveness and prosperity has been damaged by this very important trade agreement being postponed for two years.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is somewhat remarkable that those who have now sent this to the ECJ for formalistic reasons happen to be those who also quite often are against free trade agreements in substance. I think their explanation is a bit hollow. I truly regret that there were Swedish members from Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet who contributed to this at a time when it is completely obvious that Sweden is in need of more free trade agreements here and now.

It took 25 years to negotiate this agreement. When it is almost finished, there are some who do everything they can to sabotage the work. I do not yet know if the commission has decided, but my suspicion is that they will apply the agreement anyway, provisionally, pending the court's decision. It is the commission that makes such a decision in that case. I hope that they do, because we cannot let any individual members who are against free trade set the framework for all of Europe's future trade policy.

The reporting was hereby concluded.

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