Reporting from the informal meeting between the members of the Council of Europe on June 17

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! For quite obvious reasons, the report this time will not be as long as it usually is.

The European Council met on Monday last week for an informal discussion on the results of the elections to the European Parliament and the various leadership positions within the EU's institutions that are to be appointed now that a new mandate period is beginning.

The meeting began with two short remarks by the President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola, and the President of the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen. After that, there were rather long and often interrupted discussions without any clear conclusion. It was, in itself, also not formally possible at an informal meeting, despite eager rumors in the media about various names and positions that could have reached, in any case, some kind of de facto agreement. But that was not the case.

However, it became an opportunity to mark different starting points and expectations for the continued process and the decision on the leading jobs that hopefully could be made at the meeting at the end of this week. The next meeting of the European Council is, as is known, on Thursday and Friday.

I emphasized at the meeting partly the importance of the EU showing decisiveness and quickly making decisions regarding the new leadership for the various institutions, and partly the starting values that were also anchored in the Riksdag before the meeting: political and geographical balance, balance between men and women, and not least well-respected and experienced leaders who can also, nota bene, cooperate well with one another.

In just a few hours, I will visit the EU Committee again, and we will meet again to anchor the government's position ahead of the continued work at the summit on Thursday and Friday. It is then that I hope we can reach an agreement this time. I cannot, however, issue any guarantees for this, but the conversations I have had during the past week with other heads of state and government suggest that more see exactly that need. As I have said before, the EU's capacity to act and its decision-making ability are also important for prosperity and security both in Europe and in Sweden.

With that, I conclude the reporting.

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Madam Speaker! The significant consensus that the Prime Minister felt before the informal summit did not prove to be so significant. Although many observers had said that the agreement on the top jobs would be a simple story, it seemed to become a bit more complicated ahead of the meeting in the European Council this week. Not least, it now appears to be the Prime Minister's own party group, EPP, that has thrown some grit into the machinery with the proposal to split the mandate period for the President of the European Council.

I want to repeat what I said at the last consultation. We Social Democrats see the need for a good and fast process, and we have been prepared to contribute to this last week and will do so ahead of the upcoming summit.

At the informal summit, the Prime Minister considered that there was no need to return to the EU committee, which you convened at 17:00 on Monday, to obtain a mandate to negotiate names. According to the Prime Minister's own statement at the consultation, it was this that there could be a need for during the informal summit. The EU committee was ready but was never called upon during the evening.

How did the Prime Minister relate to the discussions held regarding names and the distribution of mandate periods during the informal summit? What was the Swedish position?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! There were many hopes. I believe many shared the hope that we would reach actual, if not formal, agreement already last week. There were no guarantees for this. I also said that at the EU Committee meeting. No one can know, and therefore I asked the EU Committee to be prepared to make decisions, but there were no decisions to be made. It may have been as some said, that it was a bit too simple; it was not quite that simple.

It is a completely incorrect description to say that it was EPP - the party group that the Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna, CDU and others belong to - that threw grit into the machinery. It is a completely incorrect description. I was there.

What happened was that there was an expectation from some that the chairmanship of the European Council would be formalized to five years instead of the two and a half years that are stated in the treaty. That was what happened.

There is almost a practice that one extends. EPP was not prepared - in any case not then - to agree to formalize this in advance, just as little as anyone suggested that one should formalize the Speaker's position in parliament. That question Matilda Ernkrans can take with her own party group in Europe with Stefan Löfven as chairman. I do not know exactly how the discussions have been conducted within the Social Democratic group.

The content was that there were no decisions to be made in the evening. It became clear and distinct. Therefore, I also chose not to ask the committee to participate in making decisions because it would not have been meaningful. It was obvious that there was no decisiveness - not even for an informal decision.

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

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

The Prime Minister usually says that it is the substance that should govern political cooperation, but the Prime Minister knows, naturally, that even personal matters require a political majority. It is a majority that, in this case, can lean towards the center or further to the right.

I want, just like the Prime Minister, to have a settlement that is well-anchored and that can be accepted by parliament. But making everyone happy seems to be difficult. Now the Prime Minister belongs to the largest party group EPP, and it is a party group that demonstrably pulls in slightly different directions. How unanimous is one in EPP regarding the view on who one should cooperate with and who should lead the EU's work during the coming mandate period?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! On that point, I can be crystal clear. The party group to which I belong stated unequivocally that we also in the future want to see Ursula von der Leyen as President of the European Commission. That is a clearer statement than I have heard any Social Democrat say in any context.

We think she has done an outstandingly good job. In a very difficult time, she has united Europe. If there are doubts among the Social Democrats about having her as chair, then speak your mind and tell us.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! The question of names is in itself interesting, but I intended instead to ask a small question about the policy orientation.

The Union unfortunately missed a historic opportunity during the Parliament's last term to seriously settle the issue of irregular migration. The migration pact that was decided upon for the Union took some steps in the right direction for certain aspects, but for the Union in completely the wrong direction regarding some others.

The human smugglers' business model is still intact, which is completely obvious. A more responsible policy here at home means that we do not see as much of this right now, but other countries see significantly more.

Ursula von der Leyen, whom the Prime Minister herself mentioned in her speech, has sought a mandate to continue as the Commission's president. A promise she made before the election was to proceed with the proposal to outsource the entire asylum process to safe third countries. That was something she went to the election on. It is a proposal that we have discussed earlier in the chamber and which we, of course, warmly support.

Have any discussions been held regarding the policy issues, for example in this matter, that the new commission is to pursue?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I do not want to be a formalist, but now it is, in fact, a reporting back on what happened at an informal council meeting to discuss the top jobs. That was what was discussed.

I am happy to discuss European migration policy, the strategic agenda, and all other matters, but that is not what happened, and it is not what I am here to report.

I think that Ursula von der Leyen has made a very significant contribution by also being the one who has steered through a very extensive legislative package on migration policy. If one is not satisfied with that, one can of course vote against her, but my party group, in so far as we are to discuss that subject as well, stands behind her. But that is not why I am here now, I am here to discuss what happened at the meeting itself.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! I have no further questions.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

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

I think we all wonder when this will be finished, whether it will be finished by this weekend or later.

I also understand that party groups that have become larger want a larger piece of the cake, and at the same time that groups that have decreased in size want to retain their influence. The election has indeed shaken things up quite a bit, not in a positive way, except that the left-wing group increased slightly.

I intend to repeat what I said at the consultation before the informal meeting:

The EU needs a commission and a president who continue with an active climate policy and who also tighten the climate targets.

The EU needs a high representative who dares to use a firm hand against Russia and who also dares to introduce sanctions against Israel to stop the warfare in Gaza.

Those who receive EU's top positions must close the door to the far-right and not swing the policy in that direction. It is also important that the top positions are distributed in an equal way.

I think it is a bit inconvenient that the Prime Minister meets other heads of state and government to discuss names, but the only name the Prime Minister has mentioned for the EU committee is the proposal for the Commission President. Only when there is a finished proposal is the Prime Minister prepared to talk names with the EU committee, and in that case, I mean that it is too late.

Therefore, I can already state that Vänsterpartiet is hesitant to approve a proposal that involves a re-election of the commission's sitting president. We will definitely not approve a proposal that stands for less climate work and more xenophobia for the EU.

I actually want to ask the Prime Minister straight out: Which names are being discussed, and which groups have nominated them? There are some rumors in the media, but I would like to hear it from the Prime Minister.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! This is formally important. The Government is therefore seeking a mandate from the EU Committee when we know where this is headed, and it is meaningful to seek an exact mandate. It is important.

We are not there yet, and therefore the government does not yet have a position on this issue. It will be created, of course, and I hope that it will be created before the meeting on Thursday and Friday. That is nothing strange in itself.

It is also not strange which names are discussed most often. The three names that have been mentioned most and most frequently are Ursula von der Leyen as Commission President, António Costa as Council President, and Kaja Kallas as High Representative. It is no secret. Other names are also mentioned, and that is also no secret.

These are presented in different party constellations and national constellations. It is nothing strange, and it is not strange that different countries and different party groups pull in slightly different directions. It has happened in every situation. It is also nothing strange that we must reach a compromise on a whole if anything is to be achieved.

I think all of this is quite undramatic. The strange thing was perhaps that for some it looked like everything would glide along very easily and land on an informal meeting already last week. So that did not happen, so I see no drama in this.

However, I completely agree that it is important not to drag things out and important that we can unite around a powerful commission that has a good cooperation with the council and that achieves a good overall result that everyone or at least most can live with, so that we can move forward in important work with Ukraine, with the climate, with migration and with many other things. Then we surely think differently about the content itself.

For my part - it is not the government's position yet - I can say that I am very much in favor of Ursula von der Leyen being re-elected as Commission President because she has proven herself capable of doing a good job. But I will return to that issue with anchoring.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! During the exchange between the Prime Minister and the Social Democrats' Matilda Ernkrans, the Prime Minister argued that the Social Democrats did not really want to say who they themselves proposed.

I do, however, remember a Social Democratic Prime Minister who, quite exactly five years ago – I remember standing in Almedalen – took quite a few consultations with the EU committee in Almedalen regarding names. That Prime Minister, Stefan Löfven, said: These names are being discussed. These names I intend to support as a representative for Sweden. What do you think? Then we had to have a new meeting because new names appeared as they went along. But it was not the same silence as it is now from the Prime Minister.

I note that there is a difference between governments and governments.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I can live with the fact that the Left Party prefers a social democratic government. I can live with that.

The silence is simply due to the fact that there was nothing to take a position on. The names being discussed are well-known. The Council has not yet formalized the nomination in order to make a decision.

It would have been quite pointless to ask for a mandate to listen to different names. This is a whole, and if that whole is to go through, one must be able to reach a very broad agreement in the European Council between 27 different countries.

When it begins to approach a conclusion and I need a mandate to be able to say yes or no to different names, I promise that I will return to the committee. It is my hope that it will occur somewhere between Thursday and the night of Saturday.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! We joked a bit before we entered here: Now there will be about ten questions about how it is going.

It is actually that which is the basis of the entire issue, and I understand that the Prime Minister does not have much more to report than what has already been said.

I naturally want to begin by establishing the starting values that we from Centerpartiet submitted. It is primarily about the climate, democracy, the principles of the rule of law and competitiveness, but also about what the Prime Minister himself highlighted, namely a stable and capable leadership.

As has been said, there are rumors in the media. One of the rumors is that there were two names and that they were to sit for two and a half years in the presidency of the European Council.

It is absolutely as it has been said that formally it is two and a half plus two and a half. But I still wonder how the Prime Minister and the government view exactly this. In the time we are in now with the situation that is in Europe and the unrest that there is, would it not be good to at least have a thought that it should be a person who has the possibility to sit for five years even if one does not formalize it? It is a question.

Then the question is precisely how it is going.

I would also like to take this opportunity to wish the EU Minister and the Prime Minister good luck in the negotiations currently taking place regarding Ukraine's and Moldova's application for EU membership.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I really appreciate the last point. It is incredibly important and critical right now.

I truly sought a mandate for the political starting points but also for the personal qualities in the committee. I also perceived that we are very broadly in agreement on this. We can, of course, place somewhat different emphasis on different political issues; that is part of the nature of the matter. But there I perceive that we have broad agreement, so there is no doubt about that.

Of the various names that are also being discussed but are not even close to being formalized, I perceive that all of them, in any case, fulfill this. I am not at all concerned about that. It is more about putting the whole together.

Then different party groups and different countries will weigh different names differently. That is, of course, natural. But if one thinks that a high representative is brilliant, perhaps one can accept that one has one opinion or another on someone who has been mentioned as council chair or commission chair. It is quite natural. No one will get exactly their own will through.

When it comes to the terms of office, it is a bit precise, I think. The rules are very simple. One is elected as council chairman for two and a half years.

The discussions that were in the air but never landed in concrete decision-making situations were whether one should promise not to use two and a half years but promise five years at once. There were different opinions there; no doubt about that. The party group that I belong to thought that one should stick to two and a half years but obviously with the possibility of choosing again in two and a half years. The Social Democratic group wanted to formalize five years at once. One can think differently there. I am quite sure that it will become part of a final agreement on names, different positions, and duration.

The treaty's formalities will, however, always apply. It applies to the rules of procedure both in parliament and for the European Council.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

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

My comment must then be that what has been said is two and a half years in purely formal terms, but that I still want to include and really emphasize the idea of stability.

Otherwise, I have no comment.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! If there is anything in the fact that we have previously chosen to re-elect the council chair to achieve long-term stability, it is a point that can, of course, be very well utilized. This does not change the formalities, but I believe it is something that will eventually be part of the discussion regarding an agreement—I am quite convinced of that. We did not reach that on Monday, however; that was my point.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to the Prime Minister for the report!

In connection with the EU election, it became clear that the climate was one of the absolutely most important issues for all those voters who chose the parliament that will work on the issues during the coming five years. There, the forest will play a key role, both for biodiversity and for the climate issue.

The EU has taken many good initiatives. To my great joy, the restoration law, among others, has been passed, despite the government's strong opposition on the issue. The EU has also taken initiatives concerning the gradual phasing out of clear-cutting in the long term. This has sparked very strong reactions from the Swedish government.

Shortly before the election, Ursula von der Leyen visited Sweden to meet the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, and also representatives of the forest industry to talk about forests from the perspective of the Swedish clear-cutting model. In an article in Aftonbladet, a journalist asks if the Prime Minister in some way conditions the support for Ursula von der Leyen on her highlighting advantages for Sweden in the forest issue, to which the Prime Minister responds that the support is not conditioned; Ursula von der Leyen is judged on her own merits. But the Deputy Prime Minister interrupts and argues that it must be a chairperson who moves in a forest-friendly and Sweden-friendly direction in these issues.

My question is: Is this a question that is so important for the Prime Minister and the government that you have included it in the calculations in some way and want to use the direction for the forest policy going forward as a condition for whom you want to see as chairman?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I shall begin by being a bit formal: None of this was up for discussion at the council meeting, where it was about the top positions in the EU system - just to have that said. Then I am happy to have a discussion about both climate issues and other things that were up in the election campaign: the war, crime, and many other things.

I am happy to speak about the nature restoration law, which risks threatening Swedish forestry. We had an unfortunate vote just the other day, where we stood on completely different sides. The Swedish government thinks one thing, and the Green Party thinks something completely different. We believe that this seriously threatens vital Swedish economic interests and natural values in Swedish forestry. But this, either, was not up for discussion during dinner, where it was about the top jobs.

Regarding the last question, one could say that everyone has expectations of the people they want to hold various top jobs; it is in the nature of the matter. If one has no expectations, there are no reasons to support a person.

The Swedish government does not think in terms of conditions and such things, but it is about which people we believe can do a good job, who fundamentally have the right compass, who can cooperate and who have shown stable leadership. I believe this is a much more fruitful basis than to say that if a council chairman or commission president does not take exactly our position on a certain issue, we shall condition and vote no. Other parties engage in such things, I know, but the Swedish government does not engage in such things.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the answer! In that case, I intend to take the Prime Minister at his word and rely on his statement instead of the Deputy Prime Minister's - very good.

Then I also want to say that it perhaps was not about climate or nature restoration, but nothing happens in a vacuum when you add items in this way. Everything has a context, and I therefore think that the question was still relevant.

Otherwise, I hope that this will be a quick process, as many have underlined. I hope that it will be a cooperation that seeks towards the center. I also believe that it will be decisive for the climate and environmental transition that must be carried out.

I also think that the government should be as open as possible towards the EU Committee. If one means that one should only return when there is a yes or a no to take a position on and provide an answer regarding, I mean that there is more potential.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I just want to say first that I believe everyone understands that if one is to find a unified leadership for the EU's institutions, which is based on political anchoring, national anchoring among 27 heads of state and government, geography in Europe, gender balance, the right experience and ability to cooperate, this is not an entirely simple puzzle to piece together. I believe that most understand this and can have respect for it. I have respect for that matter.

Then I think that the names that have been discussed so far, which of course are incompatible as a combination because there are many more names than positions, in all respects correspond to the requirements specification.

There is no point in coming back to the EU Committee to speculate in general. When there are different things to take a position on - it does not have to be three finished names, but proposals to say yes or no to - I will come back to the EU Committee.

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

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker! The theme for today is, as said: How is it going? There will be several variants on approximately the same question.

I think most understand that it is difficult to reach an agreement on these top positions. Perhaps it was as the Prime Minister said, that the expectations were somewhat too high for an informal summit at a rather early stage. But we will have to keep our fingers crossed and, in some cases, work hard to make it possible to reach an agreement during this week's meeting. This was also, to some extent, the formal intention: to make decisions at this week's European Council.

The Committee has given the Prime Minister a mandate to work based on certain established criteria, which I feel very confident that the Prime Minister will pursue in the ongoing process. If there was anything that I personally included during the last consultation, it was the importance of reaching a conclusion fairly quickly because Europe faces incredibly decisive and important issues, which we want to start working on instead of spending too much time on personal issues – even if they lay an important foundation, so to speak.

The Prime Minister has pointed out on several occasions in the committee that, despite differences of opinion between member states, there has been a good will to reach an agreement and cooperate on important issues. Have I understood correctly from the Prime Minister's side that he is, despite everything, optimistic and believes that by the end of this week we will have an agreement on these key positions?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! It is a good and difficult question. Fundamentally, I am optimistic. But that depends somewhat on the fact that I completely share the view that it would be bad for the EU as a whole if we were not able to reach an agreement. I believe that, in that case, would imply other cooperation problems, so it would be bad.

At the same time, I absolutely do not want to promise anything. It depends entirely on whether it is better prepared than it was on Monday and whether one has progressed further in own discussions. I also believe that it builds on being able to see a whole without evaluating every individual part in this too narrowly.

This is not entirely simple. There are party-political, national and geographical interests in all of this, and furthermore, an emphasis on different specific issues.

I would say that I am fundamentally optimistic, but I would absolutely not dare to say here that I feel certain that a solution will be reached. If a solution is not reached now, we therefore cannot even theoretically make decisions in parliament in July, but then this will be postponed until September.

Stranger things have happened before, so it would not be a catastrophe. But I also think that we are currently in a situation where it would be much better to have some clarity. It is not least about the fact that all countries will then have to nominate commissioners and want to know which Commission Chair they will, in practice, be discussing with in order to see the whole picture.

Everything indicates that it would be better, but I do not dare to give any guarantees.

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

Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker! I have no follow-up question.

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

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the report! To stick to the theme, I looked back at the consultation that took place before the meeting. It concerned the results of the election and the appointment of the leading positions. I shall try to ask two questions linked to these two topics.

The first concerns the election. We are pleased that the EPP, the group we both belong to in the Christian Democrats and the Moderates, increased while some other party groups in the center decreased. Even the outer edges increased partially. My question is: Was the result discussed, or did one arrive at some form of analysis or conclusions regarding the election result?

Regarding the nominations, I wonder: Did the Prime Minister bring to the consultation any requirements regarding competence, experience, decisiveness, and also the ability to cooperate as important prerequisites for doing a good job, along with some balances? There, Ursula von der Leyen has been a very stable president for the Commission. She has navigated safely through difficult challenges such as the corona pandemic, the war in Ukraine, and also other difficult crises. She has done it in a very good way. Therefore, we also stand behind her continuing. But how was it discussed regarding the other specifications, or what one should call it, that the Prime Minister brought with him?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I divide the answer into two parts.

To be consistent: I am not here to discuss the different party groups' different perceptions but the government's position as we enter the next round. Then, it is quite obvious that different party groups in parliament will emphasize different things. Ultimately, the nominated commission chair must also survive a vote in parliament. But what we are dealing with in the council is to unite the 27 heads of state and government behind a unified proposal as far as is possible. It is incredibly important to say this. Then we shall have all respect for what happens in the parties in parliament, but that is not my task here.

Formally, a qualified majority applies. It is therefore not required to have complete unanimity, as is often the case in the Council. But it is clear that the vast majority want to see a broadly anchored proposal that the vast majority of member states can not only accept but even stand behind. That is the goal of the whole thing.

Speaking of the specifications, we have said that the names most often mentioned – Ursula von der Leyen as Commission President, António Costa, Portugal's former Prime Minister, as Council President, and Kaja Kallas, Estonia's current Prime Minister, as High Representative – are three people whom most probably perceive as fully meeting the requirements. But even the names that were discussed as possible alternatives meet the requirements. They are, therefore, experienced and seasoned individuals.

If I am to give a glimpse of something that I thought whizzed by a few times in the discussion, I can say that it was the state and government leaders' strong demand for a good climate of cooperation. I do not intend to go into detail on what that means, but that a council chair and a commission chair can have a good cooperation, preferably with parliament as well, means very much.

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

Yusuf Aydin (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the answer, which I think provided a good guidance! It was also mentioned earlier that one would try to reach an agreement in the near future. We are still in a rather uneasy time with difficult challenges, and it would be a very great reassurance if one could get this across the finish line before the summer. How does the Prime Minister view those possibilities? With this, I also wish you good luck in the negotiations to come.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I gladly accept the well wishes. It is good. One can need that sometimes.

It is no use guessing. I have spoken with quite a few during this week. I perceive that everyone is obsessed with this being solved this time. Then, it depends on everyone being obsessed with a measure of flexibility. To be obsessed with exactly the solution one wants oneself is quite simple. It is harder to be obsessed with a solution that also meets the needs of others. I cannot guess this, honestly.

There have surely also been a huge amount of discussions within the various party groups. I have some insight into the party group that we both belong to, but I have no insight at all into the discussions of other party groups. It is therefore no use speculating. In the EU Committee in a few hours, I will present what I believe. Then we have to wait until Thursday and Friday to see if we reach a result.

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

Gulan Avci (L)

Madam Speaker! I did not intend to dwell on the top positions to be appointed, but rather on the shift in the chairmanship of the Council of Ministers that is to take place in barely a week. Then, Hungary will take over the chairmanship.

With the slogan "Make Europe Great Again," Viktor Orbán's ministers will lead the work in the EU during the coming six months. It has now been 14 years since Viktor Orbán took office as Prime Minister in Hungary. Before the eyes of all of Europe, he has since implemented reform after reform to build his illiberal democracy.

The independence of the judiciary has been restricted, the rights of LGBTQ+ persons have been curtailed, women's right to free abortion has been restricted, and the freedom of the press that existed in Hungary is today a chimera, as the majority of the media are under the control of the governing party.

The constituencies have been redrawn to favor the governing party. In Freedom House's latest index, Hungary is the only country in the EU that is currently classified as "partly free." Hungary thus places itself in the same category as countries such as Serbia, Morocco, and Tunisia.

Over the last half year, Viktor Orbán has portrayed the EU as the enemy of the Hungarians. After the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, Hungary has attempted to block or delay every new support package or sharper sanctions against Russia. The EU grants to Hungary that have been withheld have been used as bargaining chips to get Hungary to finally say yes to various EU decisions.

How long are we going to accept that Hungary is allowed to act in this way? There have been six inquiries regarding Hungary, and another discussion is being held today.

Against this background, I would like to ask the Prime Minister if there are discussions within the circles of the State and Government Chief regarding gathering support to once and for all establish that Hungary seriously and persistently disregards the EU's fundamental values.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! Nor was this question up for discussion at the informal summit, which dealt with the EU's work. The question was not up at all, I must say - not because it is not an important question, but because the meeting dealt with other matters. Therefore, it is a bit pointless to raise it in just this context.

However, it is well known that among the EU's heads of state and government, there is very broad criticism of Hungary's view on Ukraine and Hungary's reluctance to participate in and make important collective decisions. We all remember this from decisions on sanctions and economic support packages and membership negotiations. The criticism is very well known, and it is entirely undiminished.

It is also well known that there are very strong objections against Hungary's way of managing the principles of the rule of law. There are also legal procedures against Hungary. All of this takes place according to the treaty, and one simply cannot invent other methods along the way.

Since then, it is clear that there is a concern about what this means during a half-year with Hungary as the chair. But even there, we simply follow the letter of the treaty. The views are therefore undiminished, but they were not what we were talking about on this particular occasion.

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

Gulan Avci (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Prime Minister! Even though the question was not raised, it is incredibly important, because the coming six months will be formative for Europe's, Ukraine's, but also Sweden's future.

I nevertheless want to emphasize how grateful I am for the clear and tireless commitment that exists both here at home and in the EU for the continued support for Ukraine – the military, economic, political, and humanitarian support. I am completely convinced that this line will be equally firmly anchored during the next six months. But one naturally becomes worried when it is a country like Hungary that, since the war began, has repeatedly tried to delay both support for Ukraine and sanctions aimed at Russia.

With this, I would like to wish the Prime Minister good luck in the upcoming negotiations. I am convinced that the Prime Minister will achieve good success.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I say: Many thanks for that! One must nevertheless remember that the European Council, despite Hungarian opposition, has managed to unite for completely decisive decisions. That must be remembered. The result, I think, is still an incredibly strong cohesion for Ukraine against Russia.

When it comes to the rotating presidency in the various council configurations, there is a very strong expectation among other EU countries - there is a worn concept: honest broker - that one uses their presidency to steer towards consensus as broadly as possible. That expectation is just as strong now as it was before, I must say.

Last but not least: There are always many important issues. But as it is often said in the EU Committee, not all important issues can be discussed at every meeting. It is that simple.

The reporting was hereby concluded.

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