Report from the informal meeting between the members of the Council of Europe on February 3

Statsrådet Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker! Unfortunately, the Prime Minister has commitments today that he cannot postpone. I am therefore replacing him on this reporting.

The European Council met last Monday for an informal meeting without decisions. The main issue concerned European defense policy, but the transatlantic relationship with the USA and Russia's war against Ukraine were also touched upon during the meeting. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer participated over lunch and dinner respectively.

In the morning before the meeting, the Prime Minister invited his Nordic, Baltic, Polish, and Irish colleagues. They discussed, among other things, Denmark and Greenland. There was a consensus on the importance of Danish territorial sovereignty and that it is Denmark and Greenland that decide over Denmark and Greenland. These were also the messages that the entire summit later stood behind.

The meeting itself was solemn. There is a great consensus on the need to do more in the defense area and that it must happen quickly. At the same time, there is a strong feeling that more should have been done earlier. Not least the Russian illegal annexation of the Crimean Peninsula should have been a wake-up call regarding European security.

There are large economies in the EU that for many years have invested too little in their defense and which now face a steep uphill climb. On average, EU member states now invest 1.9 percent of GDP on defense expenditures, and even though the EU as a whole has no commitments towards Nato, it is still worth noting that it still remains below Nato's old goal of 2 percent. At the same time, there are member states that by far exceed the goal. That is good, but it also means that others are far below 2 percent.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte's message was clear: EU member states must quickly increase their defense spending. He has, as you have surely noted previously, spoken about over 3 percent. It is something that one is told will be returned to at the NATO summit in The Hague this summer.

This is naturally not a question for the EU, and it is also not the EU's task to secure funding for individual countries' defense expenditures - this is a national task. It is, however, obvious that for European NATO countries, it concerns very large resources. Note that an increase of 1 percent of the EU's GDP corresponds to 170 billion euro. For Sweden, which in a few years will be at 2.6 percent, the task becomes challenging but fully possible. Many other countries will face a very large funding need. No decisions have been made, but it is obvious that all of Europe will align towards a significantly stronger defense.

The division between what the EU and NATO are responsible for is both complicated and important. 23 of 27 EU countries are members of NATO. Only Austria, Ireland, Malta, and Cyprus stand outside. 94 percent of the EU's citizens live in NATO countries. At the same time, neither Norway nor the United Kingdom are members of the EU but are entirely self-evident in NATO. The organizations should complement each other, not complicate each other.

Through Nato we defend Sweden and our allies, and through the EU we can strengthen cooperation for this. For example, issues concerning the defense industry are very important. When the conditions for the European defense industry improve, our defense capability is strengthened. Proposals on how this can happen concern things such as joint procurement, increased production capacity, clear and long-term rules of the game, standardization, and openness for cooperation even with partners outside the EU.

The link between a strong defense and the competitiveness of EU member states should not be underestimated. On the contrary, robust European economies are the basis for our collective defense capability and are crucial for our global standing. Competitiveness returns to the European Council's agenda as early as March, and the Prime Minister looks forward to raising this perspective again then.

There are those who also think that the EU can do more in other security-related areas: strengthened external borders, larger joint operations against cyber or hybrid attacks, continuous work against disinformation and election interference. These are good and important issues, and it is possible that the EU will take greater responsibility in these areas moving forward. But it is clear that there is no unified picture of which areas should be the highest priority for the EU to deal with.

Madam Speaker! Even though we are not in agreement on which areas are most prioritized, several EU countries still want to address the funding issue without first establishing what the money is actually to be used for. It is a perverse order that does not lead to good results. The task first, then the resources, and finally, the funding.

It is, however, important to point out that financing was not the issue that took up the most space during this meeting. There are many who are skeptical about prioritizing and doing less of something old when one wants to do more of something new. Should resources be lacking, some argue that new, common debt is the solution. Others argue that the EU's common rules for individual countries' economies must be reviewed.

From the Swedish side, we never start at that end, and the government stands firm on that. Instead, we need to mobilize more private financing. One step on the way is to initiate a new discussion about what are called ESG criteria, that is to say, various sustainability rules. That democracies' investments in precisely the defense industry should be described as unsustainable is, honestly speaking, purely provocative. That trend could possibly be tolerated when many believed that eternal peace had settled over Europe, but not anymore now.

Many raised the issue of the European Investment Bank, EIB, and the need to review its lending policy to allow financing in companies that manufacture weapons and ammunition. We will continue to push this issue, and we experience that there is a great deal of support in the EU circle. It is, on the contrary, a strong defense for peace, freedom, and democracy that is sustainable; to stand defenseless against Russia is unsustainable.

Some countries that are now significantly increasing their defense spending want a discussion about the rules in the Stability and Growth Pact. They believe that the regulatory framework punishes them for their defense investments. Here, the Commission has signaled that they are prepared to look at this issue. At the same time, it is important to remember that strong and stable economies and public finances are crucial. It is a prerequisite for maintaining a strong society that can withstand a full-scale armed attack. We must, therefore, be able to strengthen our defense capability while simultaneously upholding basic and sound economic principles.

Sweden now belongs, together with Germany and the Netherlands, to a shrinking group of member states that firmly stand by the position that borrowed money will neither increase nor become cheaper. Our view is that the German election in two weeks will not affect Berlin's stance on the issue, but there will be difficult discussions ahead.

The next step is for the Commission to take these discussions with them and complete the white paper that is to be presented shortly. The European Council is expected to return to the issue in both June and December.

Madam Speaker! The transatlantic relationship was also discussed at the meeting. There was a clear consensus regarding the importance of the EU continuing to engage and cooperate with the new administration. The USA is and remains an important partner, not least in areas such as trade, security, and the support for Ukraine.

At the same time, we need to have a sober approach. We need to have the readiness to act in the event that tariffs were to be introduced against the EU, and we need to continue to be clear towards our American partners that a trade war between the EU and the USA benefits neither of us.

I also want to say a few words about the relationship with the United Kingdom, which was discussed in connection with Keir Starmer participating in part of the meeting. It is very welcome that a British Prime Minister participated in a meeting of the European Council for the first time since Brexit. The ball remains on the British side of the court, and they must themselves consider how close they want to get to the EU, but from the Swedish side, it can be stated that security and defense are areas where cooperation with the United Kingdom works well. We will not close the door to further areas of cooperation. In times like these, we must keep our partners and allies close.

In conclusion, I would like to say a few words about Ukraine, which was not the main focus of this meeting but nevertheless characterized the discussions. The support for Ukraine is very strong, and within the EU, we must now continue to work so that Ukraine is in the best possible position ahead of future peace negotiations. The government has recently presented the largest military support package to date with exactly that purpose. At the same time, the pressure on Russia must continue to increase.

With this, I conclude the report from the meeting.

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Madam Speaker! The EU leaders' informal summit is only a week away. It is not a long time at all. But it still feels like an abyss between then and now.

I hope that the EU Minister and others listening to this understand that I, as a member from Örebrobänken, and many with me, in many ways with our entire being, remain at home in the horrific mass shooting against students and teachers at campus Risbergska, the collective learning center for adult education, where ten people were murdered. They will never come home again. They leave relatives, loved ones, colleagues, and classmates in great sorrow. Several people are also still being treated in hospitals with very severe injuries. On the scene at this horrific moment, students, teachers, police, emergency services, and healthcare personnel did everything they could and more to save lives. Sorrow, fear, anxiety, and anger are mixed with courage, warmth, and strength.

Before the EU summit, I said that Europe's leaders are gathering at a time when the world order we previously took for granted is changing with every passing day. That feeling is even stronger now. The world has tilted a bit further. We have a responsibility to take, because fundamentally, everyone is equally worthy, and we need to take better care of one another.

I will gather myself for a follow-up question. There was an EU summit where much was about how one could increase investments in our common defense, and that is commendable. But at the same time, the member states need to manage welfare and climate change, stop weapons and violence, and rebuild a sense of community. Which strategy did the Prime Minister choose at this summit to try to ensure that more countries unite behind Sweden's line? Before the meeting, we were told that it was only Germany that stood on our side.

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

Statsrådet Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question! I also want to begin by stating that I believe that all of our thoughts are in many ways elsewhere. The Prime Minister and others have also expressed that it is now time to take care of one another, of Sweden, and of all those who have been affected directly and indirectly by the horrific act in Örebro. I understand that the Member, as a resident of Örebro, has it extra close to home. I really want to emphasize how important it is that we all now come together and take care of one another. Nevertheless, we shall return to the question regarding the summit.

To the member's question, I can answer - just as the Prime Minister said before the meeting and as I took up in my speech - that a few countries are resisting very powerfully against those who believe that there are free money available by taking on large loans. Sweden's focus in the discussion was to emphasize the need to mobilize private capital by reviewing the lending rules for EIB, the European Investment Bank, and to have a dialogue about the sustainability criteria which today, in a very strange way, mean that investments in defense materiel are not considered sustainable. I think that dialogue and discussion is important to maintain and also feel that there is broad support among the countries to ensure that we can mobilize more private capital.

Several have pointed out that it will not be a simple discussion, but precisely for that reason, I believe it is very important that countries like Sweden, Germany, and the Netherlands are clear that there are no free lunches to be had here. To be honest, it is also about national priorities. Sweden has indeed managed to make record-breaking investments in both military and civil defense while still being able to maintain other important functions in our welfare society. It is therefore possible to find that combination, and other countries must also be persuaded to do so.

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, the Minister for EU Affairs, for the answer! It is important to shed a little more light on how the government and the Prime Minister ensure that there will be an agreement regarding the funding, including regarding defense, that is good for Sweden and the Swedish defense industry. We do not want to be overridden and receive an agreement on a silver platter that is bad for Sweden, especially not now when we need unity and leadership for a Sweden that can manage to build a stronger social cohesion and an EU that gives us support in this.

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

Statsrådet Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker! I believe that defense and security policy will be discussed very much this spring. It will be about both what the EU's common defense policy should look like and how it should be financed.

Financing was not the main focus for this meeting. Sweden's and the Swedish government's point is that one must discuss what the EU wants to do before one starts discussing who should finance it, and how.

The government's position is crystal clear. We believe that national governments must be able to make wise priorities. There is room to do things jointly, for example procurement and standardization, but taking joint loans is not the path the government sees ahead. That is what we are clear about, and we will continue to be.

As mentioned, a white paper from the commission and summits will be held during the spring, where we will return to this discussion. I think it is very important to remind the member states that one has an own responsibility to ensure, through its budget, that one can build up its defense capability.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! There is no shortage of problems and challenges in the area of Europe's common defense. Europe has for a long time not done enough to take responsibility for defense capability. It is completely obvious. Just as the Minister says, many EU countries have for a long time underfunded their defense, and against this background, we naturally welcome the historic investments being made in the area by the current Swedish government.

I also welcome the government's clarity regarding the idea of joint borrowing to finance defense moving forward. Joint borrowing has historically been a mistake within Europe. There is a reason why the Treaty of Lisbon contained an explicit prohibition against joint borrowing when it was signed, but that is another story.

A question that has also been discussed is so-called strategic enablers, which, simplified a bit, means that we are to produce more defense materiel at a better price. One aspect of this that was highlighted was that the EU needs to do more to open the market for private investments in a somewhat similar way as is done in the USA. The State Secretary mentioned it in his statement. At the same time as the EU places greater focus on this, work is ongoing in the area of environmental permits and environmental issues—that is, sustainability, as the State Secretary mentioned. It limits all industries' ability to function and develop, not just the defense industry's, but the effect may become more apparent within a sector such as that where the needs are urgent.

How does the government view the conflict between the sustainability rules, which we consider unreasonable and have criticized very many times, and the need to quickly escalate industrial capacity?

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

Statsrådet Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Ludvig Aspling, for the question! It is a highly relevant question, because it is also where the Swedish government is trying to steer the discussion. We want to look at how one can ensure more investments in our defense capability from the private side.

It is completely obvious that investments need to be made and that European countries need to increase their defense investments. Thus, we land on two very concrete parts. First and foremost, the European Investment Bank should be able to lend out significantly more capital for weapons, ammunition, and defense materiel, but it is currently hindered by its own lending policy. It is extremely important that countries are active in this. Sweden, together with a large number of other member countries, has requested that the EIB see that the bank must review its lending rules.

In this there are also the sustainability criteria, the ESG criteria, which in an unfortunate way cause investments in our own security and defense capability today to be regarded as unsustainable. This view is unsustainable, and this is something we must change.

I perceive that there is a fairly broad support for going that way. It is extremely important so that we can invest in our defense capability, but it is also important towards other countries that primarily scream for the taxpayers' money to make investments in the defense capability. Therefore, we must ensure that we can also mobilize private capital. I have a good hope that we can move forward in this issue.

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

Ludvig Aspling (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer. I believe we have a certain consensus on the issue.

I have no further questions.

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

Statsrådet Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker! I have no further comments.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the report.

Last week I was in London. We did not talk about defense but about financial issues, trade and the relationship with the EU. On Wednesday morning we met British Members of Parliament, who began our meeting with a minute of silence. It felt good that Europe mourns with us. We have much in common with the United Kingdom, and it is good that Sweden continues that cooperation.

In the reports that have come from the summit, there has been a lot of talk about what Nato wants and what the EU wants in defense matters. This time, it seems to be more about supranationality and managing something that is actually a national competence, national defense, at a supranational level. Sweden has at least previously been against a regular EU army, but the joint defense work at the EU level is increasingly moving in that direction. I would like to know what Sweden's position on that is today.

Military and civil defense are linked. Crisis preparedness in peacetime can be about natural disasters but also about what happened in Örebro. It is the same personnel and the same materiel that are utilized in both military and civil defense. I would like to know to what extent this was discussed when the EU discussed defense. From what has appeared in the media, it only seemed to be about expanding the investments in military defense and in defense materiel.

My questions are: Is civil defense and crisis preparedness part of the work that the EU will do? What is Sweden's position on the issue?

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

Statsrådet Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the questions.

That one discussed Nato in relation to the EU is not actually strange. Nato is the defense alliance that the vast majority of EU member states belong to. I believe that many are keen to try to find a good balance between them so that it in no way is about the EU replacing Nato, but rather that the EU should complement Nato.

As I have already touched upon, the discussion revolved a lot around how this is to take place. What should the EU invest in when it comes to common defense policy? Just as the member says, we are coming from a situation where the EU has devoted relatively little to this compared to other areas. Fundamentally, it is good that the EU takes a larger grip on the defense area, but discussions are still ongoing about what exactly that entails.

The discussion concerns joint procurement, standardization, and things that in different ways can ensure that we can make the investments that are required but perhaps at a better price. Perhaps we can get more for the money when we make similar and more standardized procurements. This is, however, an ongoing discussion. Sweden's point is that we should not start by discussing money before we know what we want to do.

Just as the member says, there is the background of all other security-related challenges that we face in all of this. It is about the protection of the external border, so that we can be sure of who is moving within our union. For example, we see how Russia and Belarus instrumentalize migrants. The whole point of the Niinistö report is actually to take hold of the broader defense, including civil defense and what the whole society can do.

I am completely convinced that the discussion moving forward will not only concern the military, and it did not solely do so now either, even though it was obviously the main focus for this specific meeting. Generally, we will need to take a very large grip on the security issue.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer, even though I perhaps did not directly receive an answer to my question. I asked, among other things, about Sweden's position on an EU army. We are moving more and more in that direction, even though we in the Swedish Riksdag have said no to such an army.

Civil defense is about healthcare, energy supply, rescue services, transport, food and water – things that we need in both peacetime and wartime. One of Ukraine's successes has been that they have actually managed even the civil defense during the war. But for countries to manage even the civil defense, one cannot have excessively large budget restrictions. Here, there is talk of easing budget restrictions when it comes to military defense, but what does it look like for civil defense?

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

Statsrådet Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the question.

The discussions at last week's summit were not about whether we should have an EU army, but rather about what we can do in terms of standardization, joint procurement, and how we can in different ways strengthen our defense industrial base. That was where the focus of the discussions lay.

NATO is our primary military alliance. In addition, we as individual member countries have a responsibility to build up our own defense. What the EU cooperation is about is to find further opportunities for cooperation, not least regarding standardization and procurement.

Civil defense was, as mentioned, not the main focus of the meeting, but it is part of the broad picture of things that we need to do. The Commission has indicated that it will look at the question of relief in the individual countries' budget frameworks, but we do not know what such a proposal will ultimately entail. Sweden's view here is that one must take responsibility for the taxpayers' money and have order and clarity in one's budget.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

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

When it comes to financing and that the nations must take greater responsibility for their own budget, the Center Party agrees. We could even imagine going even further than what the government has done today in terms of financing of the defense.

I would like to ask a few questions which are linked to defense but rather to security. I wonder a bit if these topics came up. Civil defense has already been taken up here, and the EU Minister himself mentioned the external border. But there are two other things that I wonder if they have been discussed.

One thing is aid. Aid is not just a matter of solidarity but to the highest degree a security issue - this is also something that the government usually emphasizes. Given what has happened, that the world's largest aid donor seems to want to reduce by an enormous amount, a greater responsibility is left to the rest of us. Is this something that was taken up in this context? How does the EU think, and what does Sweden's government think about this?

The second thing, which is obvious, is that the climate and climate change are also a very large security issue. Is this something that was taken up among the other security issues?

The EU Minister mentioned the ability to act forward both when it comes to, for example, Greenland and when it comes to trade tariffs. Has a plan been started to lay out how to act jointly in the EU regarding these types of issues, so that we are not surprised every time?

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

Statsrådet Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Anna Lasses, for the question! It is a very broad discussion when we talk about defense and security policy. The main focus was, of course, that which I have been focusing on a lot: What can we de facto do with our defense industrial base, and what can we do with joint procurement and standardization? As a background to all of this, there are other aspects, such as civil defense, migration, and aid; everything is interconnected. But it was not the main focus for this meeting; rather, it was the defense industrial aspects that were looked at most. It is clear that even in other contexts, many are discussing what the EU can do to fill certain gaps that have emerged because, for example, the USA is stepping back in some areas, but it was not the main focus for this meeting.

However, the transatlantic relationship was largely pervasive. It is quite obvious that the USA and the EU have a mutual interdependence, and this is also Sweden's point – to maintain the good relations without being naive, regarding the member's last question. There, I think the commission has been very clear even if they have not gone into any details. We stand ready to take countermeasures if the USA introduces tariffs, in plain terms. I also perceived many of the leaders' comments after the meeting as indicating that the tone had sharpened further after the talks during the informal summit.

So that is where we find ourselves. There are no exact proposals on the table, but the commission and the EU stand united - that is an important point - and are ready to act if that should be required.

Also when it comes to the climate aspect, I experience that there is a very broad consensus that the USA's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement rather means that the EU must show greater leadership, not less.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answers! It will be very interesting to follow and also comment on how the transatlantic relationship develops. I just want to add that it is important that these other security aspects are truly addressed and not forgotten, even though, when it comes to defense, it is naturally very urgent to get production started and increase security in that way.

Then I must naturally ask about the immobilized Russian assets – a question that still exists when one talks about financing and Ukraine. There should be a greater consensus now when one sees that money is needed. Is this something that was taken up, and what does it look like?

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

Statsrådet Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker! When it first concerns the overall picture, I truly agree. That is precisely why the Niinistö report is very welcome. It is absolutely crucial that we take a broad approach, just as Sweden has now also done with record-breaking investments in civil defense. We see Finland's previous investments as a good example. That discussion will continue.

When it comes to the frozen Russian assets, Sweden is really pushing forward. Poland is another country doing so, and there are also other countries advocating for us to simply use a larger bulk of the frozen Russian assets. There are different views here, clearly. There are countries that very clearly signal that they believe this is legally complicated and violates international law provisions and a number of other things, which is, of course, complex matter. We have said that the Commission needs to provide us with a full analysis of the legal conditions for doing this, which is fundamentally the right thing to do – to ensure that Russia pays for the damage it has caused to Ukraine. We have not reached a consensus on that issue, but we are pushing forward with full force.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the report back! It is welcome that there is a lot of talk about the transatlantic relationship and that there has been a focus on security. That is very good. But security is not built only on military and civil defense but also largely on common rules of the game, a rules-based world order, international law and so on. Everyone knows this, and it is something that we often raise in this chamber – how important it is with a rules-based world order.

But there is now a great threat to the rules-based world order and the view of the multilateral system, and it is primarily the new Trump administration in the USA. It welcomes, in defiance of the UN Charter, Israel's strikes against UNRWA. It withdraws from WHO and the Paris Agreement. It cuts back on the aid organization USAID. It imposes sanctions against the ICC, which is one of the courts that stands up for these rules and is to ensure that they are complied with. And there is a very large and widespread skepticism towards the UN system plus a craze for trade tariffs, which has come up here earlier.

At the same time, the EU has been somewhat in flux in the wake of Brexit, and some European governments do not always stand behind the democratic and international rules of the game themselves.

I therefore wonder a bit how this part of international security is discussed. How can Sweden and the EU step up to partly fill the economic vacuum that arises but, above all, also put pressure on the USA to make them understand that the USA also benefits from a rules-based world order? The USA benefits from having multilateral organizations and, above all, a functioning UN system. It is not only protectionism that benefits a country, but everyone benefits, above all, from being able to cooperate with common rules.

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

Statsrådet Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question and the comment! To begin with, I truly agree that security has very many different dimensions. It is not just about the defense industry but about many different parts. I welcome, for example, that the Polish presidency in the EU prioritizes the security issue in all areas, which in a fairly good way shows how this is about everything from the environment and food to civil defense and our regular defense. It is many different parts - I truly agree with that.

The transatlantic relationship is, as said, pervasive in much of what the EU is discussing at the moment. An important point to emphasize is that we, as everyone knows, do not have full control over the choices the USA makes, to put it mildly. On the other hand, we have full control over what we ourselves do, regarding, for example, the Paris Agreement, which was mentioned earlier. It is unfortunate if we see a diminished climate commitment from important, large countries like the USA, but that does not mean that the EU should do less; on the contrary, the EU should show greater leadership. This applies to area after area where we have full control over what we ourselves do.

It is important to increase our own investments in our defense capability. Several American administrations have pointed out to us in Europe that we should take greater responsibility. Regarding that part, we do what we can. We have an increased discussion about competitiveness, which is also intimately associated with our ability to then make the investments that are required, both for our own defense capability, for the support for Ukraine, and everything else it may be.

We also have an ongoing dialogue with the American administration. This is important, not least in connection with the support for Ukraine, where we really want the USA to have a continued commitment and provide continued support. It is therefore a matter of, on the one hand, acting where we have jurisdiction ourselves, and on the other hand, continuing a good and important dialogue with the Trump administration.

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

Jacob Risberg (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! It is of course welcome if the EU now truly takes increased leadership in many of these issues, above all the climate issue. It is in some way also obvious that we have a dialogue with the USA when it comes to the support for Ukraine, given that we are all so involved and the USA has been the largest donor regarding that conflict.

But this is not just about Ukraine, it is about the entire rules-based world order - the entire UN system, one could say. There, I would like to see that we do not just take an increased leadership, but that one also in various ways puts pressure on the USA so that they understand that even they benefit from and are in need of a functioning UN. Regardless of how skeptical one is towards WHO, WHO performed miracles during the pandemic. One would get significantly greater spread of infection if it were not for those types of organizations and those types of common rules.

How can Sweden and the EU put more pressure on the USA to understand these issues?

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

Statsrådet Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker! Of course it is so. Right now, a lot of conversations are taking place, and dialogues are being held between different parts of the EU as an organization and between the member states and the new American administration. I believe this is incredibly important, because there is also a lot that is up in the air right now, and we do not know exactly where it is heading from the American side. In that case, it is very important – even if one may not always conduct that dialogue from the chamber's rostrum – that we from the EU's and the member states' side are very close and clear, and we should also stand as united as possible. It is also an important message from the summit that it is important to keep the EU together in this situation.

Not least on the trade side, when it comes to tariffs, we are very clear from different sides that there is a mutual dependence here. It is not a favorable position for the USA if one were to start introducing tariffs against the rest of the world or against the EU, but we have everything to gain from working together. There are, of course, also other areas where it is important to emphasize that we need the USA's continued presence, participation, and commitment.

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

Erik Ottoson (M)

Madam Speaker! School shootings in Örebro, full-scale invasions of Ukraine, American presidents claiming the territory of allied states – we can continue the list. The question one would actually want to ask the Minister is: What is wrong with the world we live in? I understand that it might be a somewhat broad question for the Minister to answer in two minutes, so let me try to boil it down to something.

Both I and the Minister began engaging in politics during a time when free trade was something self-evident to fight for. It was the self-evident direction. It was during a time when it was perceived as an eternal peace that had settled over Europe. Much has been turned upside down since then.

As was also mentioned, the rules for EIB's lending that were written in that era were very much shaped by how the world was viewed then. It was not considered sustainable to defend oneself against those who want to undermine and destroy our peace, our freedom, and our democracy.

What was the outcome of the meeting on precisely this area? It is a rather important principled question how we allow ourselves to defend ourselves. How do we view precisely that task in a time when our democracy is being pressured from several different sides? This is something that both I and the Minister are deeply engaged in, but it appears increasingly as a fateful issue for the rules-based world order.

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

Statsrådet Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Ottoson, for the question and the comment!

Yes, it is a gloomy world in many ways. We in Europe face greater challenges than we have in a very long time, everything from security issues and war on our continent to competitiveness and the climate issue. We have very many big challenges ahead of us.

I believe it is important that we have reached a kind of awareness of the illness in many of these areas from the European Union's side. We have problems that we must handle. Take not least the competitiveness issue, which we are now finally talking about. Now it is a matter of moving from words to action, even in the security policy area, where we have now spent quite a lot of time discussing that Europe must do more. Many countries have also done more, but now we must increase the pace and the build-up further.

Then we come to the question of the European Investment Bank. Sweden's position is that it is very important to mobilize private capital. I actually perceive that there is very large support among the EU's member states to move forward in this matter.

After the letter that Sweden and several other countries wrote to the bank, it is now important to proceed with concrete action to ensure that one also conducts a review of its lending policy. In the era we find ourselves in, it cannot be that investments in our own security are seen as something unsustainable. It is definitely not unsustainable for the taxpayers to invest in it. It is an investment in our own defense capability when we do it nationally, and it should also not be considered unsustainable when private capital contributes to strengthening our defense capability.

I have good hopes that we can make progress in this part, and I have received even greater hopes after last week's meeting.

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

Erik Ottoson (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister, for the answer! I share the picture completely and fully. It is not an uncomplicated maneuver to change this, as I understand. It is complicated regulations and policies that must be reviewed for this to be put in place. There are, as I understand, also different opinions on whether this should happen. Even though there is strong support, there are always, in some strange way, political forces who think that everything that involves us defending ourselves with weapons in hand is unsustainable, despite the fact that many times in this era it has been shown that this is the only way to truly defend our peace, our freedom, and our democracy.

A final question to the Minister: Are there any identified elements within the circle of heads of state and government that actively oppose this, or is there at least at that level a broader consensus on this issue?

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

Statsrådet Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker! We do not usually point out countries – not always in all cases, but sometimes we do. But here, I do not believe there is any country that is obviously in the way. Rather, I perceive that there is a fairly broad consensus that this is the right way to go. I am not entirely sure that the problem lies in politics every time.

Then it is a matter of convincing the European Investment Bank that this is a wise way forward. But when it comes to this, there is also a commitment from the countries in the bank. Precisely in this issue, I actually see with confidence that there is a great consensus.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister Rosencrantz, for the report and for the answers to previous questions! I agree with what has been said, not least regarding the horrific act in Örebro.

Just before the meeting for which we now have the report, Sweden presented its largest military support package to Ukraine ever. I know that there are several countries doing the same, and I hope that more presented such during the meeting. If there is anything to say about this, it would be interesting to hear.

Let me also say a few words about the transatlantic link. It is very unfortunate if, over the next four years, we will always have to comment on the sitting president's latest move. Some of them we will think are good, some we will think are much worse, and some of them it will take time to analyze just to understand at all. But we must have our own agenda from the European side, so that we do not just get stuck in this.

It is, after all, Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela with several others that constitute the real big threat and the real big challenge to the rules-based world order. Therefore, the transatlantic link is important, and we must find places where we can hold it together.

We need to take responsibility for Europe in a more comprehensive way than before. It is important that we discuss how we can develop our defense industry. Then we cannot end up once again where the EU easily ends up, namely in over-regulation, instead of creating long-term rules of the game. I believe this is very important, and I would very much like to hear what the meeting concluded here.

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

Statsrådet Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the questions!

Just at this meeting, the support for Ukraine was not the main focus, but the support for Ukraine is always included in the discussions. It is, as we usually say from Sweden's side, our primary foreign policy priority. We know that we share that priority with several other countries, which truly place the support for Ukraine at the very top. There is a broad consensus around that.

It is also a point that we, from the Swedish side, are now presenting our absolute largest military support package since the war began. We are also doing this to show other countries that it is now the time to increase their support, not in a year. Things are moving very fast now, and we do not know what will happen in a month. It is now that countries need to step forward.

Right now, it is also the anniversary of the outbreak of the war. There are many countries stepping forward, but as we usually say: There is room for more, not least larger countries, to increase their support both to Ukraine and to investments in their own defense capability.

Since then, it is exactly as the member says. The question of Russia and Ukraine must also be seen in light of North Korean involvement as well as forces in Iran and in other parts of the world. It is something that we in the EU are careful to emphasize when we engage in dialogue with our American counterparts: that all of this is interconnected. There are many regimes that cooperate with Russia and which sometimes even participate in the war themselves, speaking of North Korea.

The question of rules is extremely important and is now recurring in several areas. It was, of course, to the highest degree linked to both the EIB's lending rules and sustainability criteria. I believe that we will return to that discussion.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer.

Even if one discussed more long-term strategic issues, it is not possible to drag out this discussion because we in Europe and in other parts of the world are burdened by the situation already now.

If we look back at our immediate surroundings, we see issues where we must act together. We have the issue of cable damage – this concerns different types of cables in the Baltic Sea. We see a shadow fleet operating. All of this is already having major consequences for how we should act. Therefore, I am very grateful to hear that there was talk of a long-term unity. I believe that is crucial for us from Europe to be able to have a strong position even in the future.

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

Statsrådet Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker! It is exactly as the member says. We can discuss what we should do jointly in the EU generally regarding our defense capability and security policy capability. There are, therefore, common EU matters and perhaps to some extent specific ones when it comes to the Baltic Sea, for example. There, we countries around the Baltic Sea must really take a special responsibility and do so as well. We are careful to have a tight and close dialogue with all countries around the Baltic Sea regardless of whether we meet in a Nato format or in other contexts. There, the focus now is really on having an increased presence in the Baltic Sea, so that we can in different ways detect and prevent any sabotage. Even though we know that accidents occur in the Baltic Sea, it is of course important to see what occurs against the background of the security policy situation and not to exclude anything. There are, therefore, several parts where we must work on our security and defense capability.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you to the Minister for the good answers so far!

I also have a question about this matter of the common debt, which worries me and many others with me incredibly much. Increased taxes always lie downstream from increased debt for a state. That money has to go somewhere. Milton Friedman once said, I believe, that one cannot measure the weight of a state by its tax revenues, but rather one must look at its expenditures – that weight always ends up in some link on us taxpayers.

Indebtedness never creates the stable common competitiveness that we want. Therefore, indebtedness is always something that should be avoided. I know that the government shares that view. At the same time, it is important with increased support to Ukraine - even though we have just given the largest support ever, it needs to increase - and increased investments in our defense capability and in the defense industry.

Then there are a number of other things that can be looked at. The frozen Russian assets have been up for discussion earlier regarding Ukraine. One could also imagine that one re-regulates the corona fund, where far from all the money has been used. One could imagine that one re-regulates the cohesion fund. Investing in infrastructure that the defense forces in different countries use is not so far from the purpose that the fund has today. From there, one could go even further and use the money for other things. Draghi highlights the need for the common capital market and the resources that such a market would release in Europe.

What other alternatives have been raised in these discussions? What has the government backed, and what can be imagined of the alternatives that are on the table so that we can avoid joint borrowing?

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

Statsrådet Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Joar Forssell, for the question!

The financing issue was not in the main focus at this meeting, even though very many undeniably tried to bring it in. From the Swedish side, we instead tried to stick to first identifying what we want to do with the financing. It is therefore about starting with what we want. Then one can start discussing the financing. This was, so to speak, not in focus at the meeting. But it is clear that countries are pushing for everything from joint borrowing to other measures. We are very clear in that we oppose this and do not see it as the way forward.

We rather highlighted the need to mobilize private capital. It concerns many of the parts that the member himself raises regarding the common capital markets union and the European Investment Bank's lending rules. I believe it is important that every time someone calls for public funds, we also discuss how we obtain the private capital.

Somewhere in there was the Swedish line in this discussion.

I believe it is important to say this: We must be humble in the fact that we are currently a small group of countries that are holding out very stubbornly, albeit in the good company of a large country, Germany, which is absolutely not unimportant. But this makes it even more important that we are clear in our position from the Swedish side that we do not want any joint borrowing. Being few is not a reason to let things through, but perhaps a reason to be even clearer and louder in that part. But there will be difficult discussions ahead.

The issue of Ukraine has always held a special position - so I believe that is also the case for many of us parties in this chamber. There has always been a desire to look at new solutions. We will return to that discussion. I believe that it will be a spring that, as this discussion becomes more concrete, will be difficult in many parts. This applies in particular to the funding issue, where we stand very far apart.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Madam Speaker! Yes, it is clear that it is always better if there is private financing. We obviously share the government's view that it is sustainable to invest in defense and the defense industry. There can surely be nothing more sustainable. It is not possible to have any climate measures or any policy in any other area either if one does not first ensure that we are not invaded, i.e., that we can maintain our democracy. It is a basic prerequisite.

But then one must look at money that exists and money that does not exist. It is clearly better to use money that exists in these funds than to use money that does not exist, that is to say, to take out new loans.

I have a question about the Russian assets. A discussion exists regarding whether the duration of the sanctions should be increased from 6 to 36 months, for example. Can the government comment on that?

My second question concerns the private individuals who have lost property in the war in Ukraine. Swedish aid money has been used, among other things, to establish registers of them. We believe that frozen assets could also be used to compensate private individuals, not just the state. How does the government view that?

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

Statsrådet Jessica Rosencrantz (M)

Madam Speaker! One can have many discussions regarding existing funds, and proposals on how more of the cohesion funds can be used for various types of direct or indirect defense-related measures are also raised in different contexts. There are already funds today that look at, for example, connectivity and mobility. These are also issues that indirectly become decisive for how troops or the military can move. The discussion in this instance was not so detailed, but we will return to those parts as well when we go further into discussing financing.

It would have been very good if one could have increased the duration of the sanctions. Not all countries share that view, so we are not there yet. When it comes to frozen Russian assets, I believe, however, that these should be used in precisely that way, that is, to assist in the reconstruction in Ukraine. One must return to exactly in what way.

Now our main focus is to get a larger part of that capital released at all. We do not have all the countries with us yet, but we will continue to hold onto this.

The reporting was hereby concluded.

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