Report from the informal meeting between the members of the Council of Europe on January 22

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! The European Council, i.e., the EU summit, met for an informal extraordinary meeting last Thursday of last week. The discussion concerned the transatlantic relationship between Europe and the USA.

The background was, of course, the American president's increasingly persistent claims to take over Greenland – the easy way or the hard way – and the threats of punitive tariffs against the countries that most clearly back Denmark and Greenland. Since trade issues are the EU's absolute core competence, this becomes an issue for all EU member states.

This was the acute part, but in the background there was also the much broader hostility towards Europe, the EU, and European democracies that President Trump and his administration have returned to time and again during the first year of their second term. It is about an often threatening and mocking rhetoric – a derogatory way of speaking about allied countries that have long been each other's friends. It is a rhetoric that we in Sweden and Europe neither want to get used to nor want to emulate. Our own experience is, on the contrary, that good friends can think differently and still have a respectful relationship, and that neighbors gain more from cooperation than from conflict.

It was naturally good that President Trump in Davos the day before our meeting backed down, both from the threat to take over Greenland by military means and from the announced punitive tariffs, and that the day ended with an announcement that Denmark and the USA will resume discussions on strengthening security in Greenland. But no one takes this as a guarantee of long-term stability or that similar threats cannot return in the future. There is no doubt that the USA's actions have been damaging to the trust in the transatlantic relationship.

At the EU summit in Brussels, there was total consensus behind Denmark and Greenland: Only Denmark and Greenland make decisions about Denmark and Greenland.

Many countries actually have an island located some distance from the mainland and can imagine how they themselves would react if another country suddenly threatened to annex it. Everyone understands that next time it could be about their own country. No one wants to replace the rules-based world order with one based on spheres of influence and the right of the strongest. Everyone also realizes that both China and Russia are closely following the developments right now.

At the same time, different EU countries are very differently vulnerable. This time, the EU was not tested in a sharp situation because we did not need to agree on any retaliatory tariffs. Some countries have very poor public finances and therefore have limited freedom of movement. Others have large unilateral dependencies regarding energy or trade and therefore have limited freedom of movement or are even more security-politically and defense-industrially vulnerable than other countries. For a like-minded but non-European country such as Canada, for example, 70–80 percent of exports go to exactly the USA.

There is, therefore, a very large support for Denmark, but there is also a fundamentally differing attitude among the member states on how we should handle a more confrontational American administration.

Participation in President Trump's initiative Board of Peace was also discussed during the meeting. As is known, two member states have joined, while others, such as Sweden, do not see it as relevant to participate under the premises that have now been presented. Should the forms be changed, there are many EU countries that could imagine making a new decision.

Finally: Europe now has its own homework to become stronger and more independent. We must continue the rearmament that is taking place across European Nato countries, individually but also collectively within Nato. Here, the EU plays an important role in helping countries reach Nato's capability goals and in supporting Nato countries with matters that fall within the EU's competence.

We must also strengthen our economies, because ultimately it is only a strong economy that builds security and geopolitical strength. It is about expanding trade with the large parts of the world that still believe in free trade and about improving the conditions for trade in the EU on the internal market.

It was extremely unfortunate and an unusually poor timing that the European Parliament, including Swedish parliamentarians from both Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet, chose to halt the start of the important Mercosur free trade agreement with countries in South America. For a genuine free trade country like Sweden, which wants to trade with the entire world, this was a destructive action. This decision harms Swedish export industry and raises questions about how firmly the left-wing alternative stands behind the free trade that forms the basis for Swedish jobs and Swedish welfare.

Instead of trying to brake economic growth, the government will do exactly the opposite and continue to push for less red tape and fewer administrative hurdles. We in Sweden, thanks to our work for greater competitiveness, have high confidence in Europe in these matters.

We see now that more and more countries are becoming increasingly active in line with the geopolitical developments. Just take the recent proposal from Germany and Italy regarding a large simplification package for permit processes. This work is yielding results. An excellent example is the free trade negotiations that have now been concluded between the EU and India, where the government has been proactive throughout. It will constitute the largest free trade zone in the entire world and cover more than 2 billion people.

When others turn inward and stop trading, we choose the other, smarter path. It will benefit Sweden, Swedish companies and Swedish consumers.

When the EU leaders meet again in two weeks, the meeting will exclusively be about Europe's competitiveness. Everything that is happening in the world right now only makes that question even more important.

Without a strong European economy, we cannot build strong European security. The same applies to Sweden. A strong Swedish economy is a prerequisite for us to be able to afford to build Swedish security. Almost two-thirds of our exports go to the internal market, and through our membership, we have trade agreements with over 70 countries in the world.

I therefore want to urge, last of all, Madam Speaker, the parties in the Riksdag not to stand in the way but to actively contribute to simplifying rules and creating more trade agreements. It is to stand up for the interests of Sweden and the Swedish people.

I hereby conclude the report from the meeting.

(Applause)

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

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

There is actually nothing that allows anyone to breathe a sigh of relief. It is not possible to pretend that the danger is over and that everything is as usual. It is as Mark Carney said in Davos: Nostalgia is not a strategy.

The tariff threat is temporarily averted. But we know very little about what NATO Chief Mark Rutte's settlement with the Trump administration entails. Trump's claims on Greenland remain. What has the NATO Chief promised?

We also do not know what will happen with the trade agreement with the USA. What tariffs will actually prevail going forward?

At the same time, Russia continues its brutal war in Ukraine in full scale. There is truly no reason to breathe a sigh of relief.

In Sweden, parents and young people, many people, are sitting around the kitchen table and are worried about their safety, for their own economy and that Sweden will be drawn into war and conflicts. The Prime Minister has repeated during the past week that Sweden is well prepared for the new reality and that the government has done what can be done to adapt Sweden to the new reality. I am not sure that that picture is shared by Swedish companies and Swedish families.

Is there really nothing that can get the Prime Minister to act now to prepare the Swedish and European economy, so that we are not in the same situation again tomorrow or in two weeks? The actions of the USA show with all desirable clarity that Sweden and Europe must continue to prioritize our own strength.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I sat together with Mark Carney the day after he gave his speech in Davos, and he pointed out quite rightly that nostalgia is not a strategy. But we also noted that neither fear nor hope are strategies either. Now, one must build on one's strengths and reduce one's vulnerabilities.

I completely share the view that nothing is over. It may seem like a small reason for joy that we were no longer facing a military attack from one ally against another. Nevertheless, that was what dominated the news. For my part, the dominant impression was a continued threatening and mocking rhetoric. But I understand that the media's news valuation was that the acute tariff threats were removed for this time. I have all respect for that.

I have many times said that Sweden is uniquely positioned in this new, difficult time and has become so increasingly. It is important.

Firstly, we have a very strong own economy. Many countries have extremely limited freedom of movement. We can act if there is a new recession and a new crisis. There are many who cannot do that.

Secondly, we are now security-politically embedded with 31 other allies in Nato and are not unilaterally dependent on just the USA as a security provider.

Thirdly, we are dealing with the entire world. I feel a great deal of sympathy with Canada in general and Mark Carney in particular. If 70–80 percent of one's exports go to the USA, it is clear that one is in a very sensitive position.

Our situation is not such. But that does not mean we should be passive. We must, on the contrary, do more to strengthen European independence and arm ourselves faster. Competitiveness and regulatory simplification must increase faster. We must also have more intimate cooperation with countries in our own part of Europe, for example, the Baltic countries. Much remains, but Sweden stands firm in this crisis.

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Madam Speaker! Yes, it is completely obvious that the world order we have previously relied on is undergoing a fundamental change. We have demanded that the government, not least after the turbulence of the past few weeks, shall develop a protection plan for the Swedish economy.

Here in the Riksdag today are representatives for the Swedish defense industry – Urenco, BAE Systems, Saab, Nammo and Bofors Test Center. They live in a reality where the Swedish defense industry is being built up quickly and strongly, with the challenges that entails. One cannot get hold of labor, and the working environment is pressured. At the same time, Sweden has half a million unemployed. The number of unemployed has increased by 100,000. Is it not time for a protection plan for the Swedish economy?

We also consider it high time to make an update of our security policy analysis. Does the Prime Minister agree with that?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! The opposition constantly demands new analyses, new action plans and such, because they cannot act. We act instead and do things all the time, but within the framework of the strategic decisions that have been made.

We see the importance of the EU, the importance of Nato, the importance of our part of the world and a Nordic-Baltic cooperation, the importance of the Swedish defense industry, which not everyone fully understood until it was almost too late, and the importance of an open European view, so that the EU can cooperate with other European countries, such as the United Kingdom and Norway, but also with non-European countries, such as Canada. We are already doing all of that. We are, as said, well positioned. It is very good.

However, we shall not act in a way that pushes the USA away from us. We want transatlantic ties, but not on just any terms. We want to cooperate with the whole world, including the North American continent, but not on just any terms.

We must not act self-destructively. We must protect our own interests and stand up for Sweden and for Europe. That is exactly what we are doing.

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

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Prime Minister, for the report! There were many accurate conclusions in it.

It is clear that Europe's strength is to create independence. It is with that independence that we can stand up against Russia and, in this case, the USA or whoever it may be.

Donald Trump has several times previously said that he wants the USA to take over Greenland. He has, among other things, referred to the fact that Russia or China could otherwise take over the island. It is a bit of ironic logic: to threaten with reference to the fact that someone else could threaten.

But there will be no Greenland for Donald Trump and the USA. There will be no more childish games. Europe has put its foot down and has the strength to stand its ground. I will not repeat Jimmie Åkesson's Viking-like behavior, but we see now that the USA cannot do what they want in relation to Europe. I believe they are a little afraid of how decisive we actually are for their economy. I think we should carry that insight with us, of course with the most constructive attitude and with the starting point that the Prime Minister highlights.

I have a question for the Prime Minister regarding independence, in this regard and against the background of what the Prime Minister said about the fact that it is difficult to assert one's independence without a strong economy.

António Costa repeated that the EU is now focusing on strengthening its defense and its competitiveness to build a more independent Europe. Is this approach clear towards the USA even when it comes to our dependence on, for example, their tech giants? Were some concrete ways forward discussed from that perspective?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! It was discussed, of course. In many areas, one is gradually trade-dependent. But a single country like Canada or individual countries that have a specific export industry that is to a very high degree dependent on the American market shows that different countries have different vulnerabilities.

A common vulnerability in the entire Western world is the dependence on American tech platforms. I would, however, like to highlight Spotify as an important exception. It is not an insignificant platform and provides, at least for a part, not insignificant services. Otherwise, the dependence on the USA is enormous.

We must be honest and say that it is not the fault of the USA that major tech platforms have, in all material respects, chosen the USA as a base. We would not have been sad if many of them had chosen Europe as a base. It has been due to systematic access to venture capital and expertise and the environments that create a core for successful tech entrepreneurs. In that regard, we rather have more to learn from the USA.

We would like Stockholm to become an even greater central hub for leading tech entrepreneurs. We are already good; it is a strength. But we can become even better. If we could get more capitals – and also other cities, for that matter – in Europe to become truly attractive, Europe could probably stand a bit more on its own feet. Everyone understands that such things take a long time. It is about applications for everything from industry to defense. These are important things.

I think we should do everything we can to ensure that Europe becomes a better platform for tech companies. One cannot constantly have the focus on regulation. The EU Parliament is sometimes obsessed with regulating things that have not even been able to develop yet. Then Europe becomes a less attractive place than the USA.

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

Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for the answer! From the Sverigedemokraternas side, we agree that the EU's main role, the role we believe that one should focus on more, is precisely about trade and increasing all EU countries' economic strength.

I also have a question that is perhaps a bit outside the scope of the meeting and which concerns the fact that the EU and India have recently agreed on a mobility framework intended to facilitate Indian students and Indian labor moving to Europe. Given that my question comes very close to the news, I wonder nevertheless if it is something that has been addressed and if the Prime Minister can say anything about the process moving forward and, above all, whether Sweden's national powers in the migration area remain.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I am not familiar with the details of the agreement, but it is a pleasing piece of news that we have been able to reach it with unusual speed. I believe that speed is partly due to a growing sense that there is an urgency now and that Europe's strength is – and to an even greater extent can become – trade. In that case, we must have faster processes.

It took 25 years to conclude the Mercosur agreement. It is embarrassing – almost as embarrassing as the European Parliament putting a spoke in the wheels at the end, as if to underscore that Europe is a slow force. Now there is a rush to move forward, but I still have no details regarding the trade agreement with India.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by praising the Prime Minister and the government for being very clear towards Trump and the USA, after some reflection. I am quite convinced that in turbulent times in the world, people want politicians to act clearly and consistently. The Swedish officers who were sent to Greenland were an example of a clear action. But Donald Trump's imperialist goals of taking Greenland likely still remain firm.

In her comment after the meeting, the Prime Minister was clear that the relationship with the USA needs to be redefined. Gone were many of the words about a transatlantic link, and instead we heard words like countermeasures and damaging to trust. What analyses does the Prime Minister and the government intend to conduct to find a new USA line?

Madam Speaker! On Friday, we had an interesting debate in this chamber about the popular protests in Iran. Several hundred spectators sat up in the gallery. Many also followed the TV broadcasts from here. In large parts, there was a consensus on expanding the sanctions against Iran and that the Revolutionary Guard IRGC must be branded as terrorists. Tomorrow, the foreign ministers are to have an important meeting where those questions will be discussed and decisions will be made.

Madam Speaker! I am very concerned about the developments in Syria, where fighting has broken out again. Previously, Druze and Alawites were attacked, and now it is the Kurdish group that is being attacked and driven out. The world must act against al-Sharaa's rule, and a humanitarian corridor must be established to reduce the human suffering we see in Syria. As a consequence of the fighting, IS risks re-emerging, as thousands of IS terrorists have been able to leave the prisons they were held in when the Kurdish forces had to withdraw because they were attacked. What is being done to protect areas such as the city of Kobane, which is once again threatened by Islamist terrorism?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! I share the concern regarding Syria. Just as was hinted, that topic was not on the agenda at all at the EU summit, because it was convened specifically due to the transatlantic cooperation. The only thing that was done was the obvious connection to what was simultaneously taking place with the search for signatures for the Board of Peace issue. That is why I mentioned it.

The question of Iran was also not raised, in any case not at the formal meeting, but I note that more countries are now joining our view that a terror designation of the Revolutionary Guard should occur. I believe it will take some time before we have that majority, but the coming days could be very formative in this. There is a readiness that the USA might come to act. There is no such knowledge. There are quite a few different opinions on whether it would be good or bad, I can say. Many countries in the region are quite afraid of a general collapse. But we have incredibly strong reasons to be very concerned about the massive oppression that the regime engages in and that so many have been killed. It is unclear how many, but it is many in a short time.

Madam Speaker! When transatlantic cooperation is threatened, as it is now – by the USA, not by us – we shall stand up for our interests. We shall stand up for our ideals and our values, speak plainly and protect our own interests but not wave about in general. We shall not do anything ourselves to worsen transatlantic cooperation. There are a lot of good American companies that want to cooperate with European companies and that have nothing to do with this at all. We shall reduce our vulnerability and our dependencies but not ourselves break well-functioning cooperations.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Madam Speaker! I also believe that the new trade agreements that are now being concluded are very important, but also that trade with the USA will continue to be important, as the Prime Minister is touching upon. I want to be clear that Vänsterpartiet stands behind the Mercosur agreement and thinks that the agreements with India are good. It is moving in the right direction. But the work must be carried out according to legal principles and through democratic processes, especially in this situation when Trump and others question most things regarding international law.

I think that the Prime Minister, instead of throwing dirt at opposition parties in Sweden, should look at his own party group. It was de facto the case that in all party groups there were plenty of politicians who voted for a judicial review. That option also won the majority, by a margin of ten votes.

I am a bit surprised that the Moderaterna are pushing for a new vote on the USA agreement in the situation we find ourselves in now. It was a very good decision by the European Parliament to pause the vote on the trade agreement with the USA. That should also be the Swedish line going forward.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! It was completely natural to pause another agreement when the USA suddenly threatened to tear up the entire agreement. Now that the tariff threats are gone, Europe must be a reliable, stable partner that stands by entered agreements – nothing else. For the same reason, it is incredibly bad timing to be formalistic now, and for the same people and parties who are most often against or at least skeptical of free trade to want to cite legal obstacles against an agreement that has taken so long to negotiate.

I am responsible for Sweden. That is why I spoke about how Swedish parliamentarians have voted to not implement the Mercosur agreement but instead send it to a court process that can take 18 months. I honestly think that is irresponsible, especially in the time we live in where we should all be more open to the rest of the world and less dependent on the USA.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! I too would like to begin by paying tribute to the government and the Prime Minister for the immense clarity. I think it is excellent that the Prime Minister is angry – if I may put it that way – and determined in this situation. It is very important to use clarity in the right way. Let us call a spade a spade. I do not need to be particularly diplomatic, so I can call Trump a rude and spoiled old man who sits in a very dangerous position.

I agree with what the Prime Minister has spoken about when it comes to the immense importance of competitiveness. We really must take action on this. This also applies to the agreements that must be concluded so that we can trade with the whole world.

In connection with this, with trade, I must ask what readiness there was to use the bazooka that has been spoken about. Was there an agreement to use it? It would be interesting to know, not least for the future.

In addition to the questions about trade and security, we must unite the EU faster. It is becoming increasingly important to unite the EU quickly when it comes to statements and positions. One thing that we in Centerpartiet have pushed for for a long time is to review the requirement for unanimity in foreign policy. Was that question discussed, and how does the Prime Minister view the question now given the situation?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Madam Speaker! There are many interesting questions.

Let me start with the questions about European competitiveness. There is no doubt that there is more on the agenda. There is a perception that the issue is truly important. Everything is just good, no buts – but it is still going too slowly.

Germany and Italy have taken a number of initiatives ahead of the next summit. To be honest, they are close to the issues we pushed forward during our presidency, so they count on Sweden, Finland and Denmark being self-evident partners in this. Now they are bringing in a number of even larger economies.

There is an impatience. If we wait for unanimity, we will wait for too long. It already appeared in the Draghi report – coalition of the willing. It sounds simpler than it is, when one has to make decisions that formally require unanimity but where there is no unanimity. It is enough to see what Hungary has created for problems when unanimity is required to support Ukraine.

The trade tool bazooka, this popular expression for going further than just using tariffs, we have never tried before. It was created from the beginning in a situation where China would potentially act in a dangerous way towards Europe.

We were never tested in a live situation this time either. But without making too much of it, I want to mention that just as the unanimity was for Denmark, just as nuanced are the expressions when it comes to how hard one can push forward with tariffs, even more so with the bazooka. I believe that there is some disagreement hidden right now, but it will be interesting because we must be able to act faster.

Finally, we have the question of qualified majority. It is a well-known position that we think one could have less unanimity in the area of foreign policy specifically. Other countries think exactly the opposite. I think that just that question is extra important, but I would gladly see less unanimity in the area of taxation and in other areas. Therefore, I believe that the disagreement is permanent there.

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

Anna Lasses (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer. I would then like to add that Sweden is pushing to speed up the consensus, to be able to act quickly and decisively, and also to review the requirement for unanimity in foreign affairs. Somewhere, the rest of the EU countries must also realize that we must be able to make decisions quickly, and then perhaps one cannot always be unanimous.

Then we have the Board of Peace. There, I would like to once again really thank you for the clarity. It is extremely important that we absolutely do not stand behind the advice with anything less than that it truly becomes some kind of incredibly far-reaching difference. The absolutely most important thing is that it must not compete with the UN. How did the discussions go, and what is the Prime Minister's position on this issue?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It was, as said, two countries that had chosen to sign – Bulgaria and Romania. All countries naturally do as they wish, but the vast majority of countries shared our view, namely that it is good that there is a UN resolution and a support, even if for an unconventional action to create peace in Gaza specifically. But it is not possible to take that framework and freely translate it to a lot of other areas, furthermore, purely institutionally in a way that no country would accept.

The line here was rather that if it more closely resembles what we agreed upon after the decision in the UN Security Council, a new decision can be made. But now I do not perceive that any country other than the two countries was prepared to act. It was not a complicated discussion.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

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

I will begin my contribution with praise and where we can agree. It concerns the clarity that the government has shown towards the USA.

I also want to thank the government for succeeding in keeping Ukraine high on the agenda, despite all the rhetoric coming from Trump's side. Continue to keep the focus on Ukraine!

I also want to thank the government for being clear regarding not participating in the USA's so-called peace council.

Mr. Speaker! One thing that worries me and many others is the rhetoric in this uncertain situation. The USA and Trump reason that if the USA does not take Greenland, there is a risk that Russia or China will. It actually does not matter whether there is or is not evidence for what Trump says; these statements lead to fear. They create a fear that the rules-based world order is being sidelined when great powers make deals over the heads of democracies. This applies to both territories and natural resources. In the fear, there is a risk that different values are thrown overboard in order to be able to be part of the game.

How does the government view and believe that the EU can contribute to a different rhetoric that specifically safeguards the rules-based world order?

Mr. Speaker! Another question concerns the balancing mechanisms that have been criticized regarding the Mercosur agreement. Since we have previously touched upon the Mercosur agreement, I wonder if the Prime Minister views the balancing mechanisms with concern.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the kind words. I appreciate that we are in agreement on major geopolitical issues. That is good.

I also share the concern that Ukraine is falling into the media shadow. A journalist told me that the country is falling into shadow, but then I said that they are letting the country fall into shadow. We are not doing that. We are working with Ukraine in the same way as we did before all the media focus landed on Greenland and Denmark. It is about systematic work and perseverance.

When it comes to the question of Russia and China, it is quite obvious that the USA is greatly exaggerating what is now supposedly taking place from the Russian and Chinese side. It is very limited. China tried to invest, but some investment was stopped and some was phased out. On the other hand, there is a common view in all seven Arctic countries that also belong to Nato that the Arctic has great security policy significance and can gain even greater significance in the future.

That the USA is fundamentally interested in the Arctic is not strange or illegitimate. There are reasons why the USA and Denmark have had an agreement since 1951 regarding exactly this. Without speaking for Denmark, I can say that Denmark is completely open to cooperating in security policy issues with many different NATO countries to increase security in the Arctic part of the world. There were reasons for us to also participate in the exercise. It is only good.

Then there was the question of the Mercosur agreement, that is, the agreement with a number of South American economies. The assessment was that the agreement is correct and legitimate, had passed the handling process, and should be implemented. In that situation, it is at least those who often express free-trade skepticism who in various ways find some legal issues that they absolutely want to use to stop the implementation of the agreement – and send it to the court. I find it incredibly difficult to believe that there are other reasons behind this.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is important to adhere to the EU treaty. I mean that precisely these balancing mechanisms are problematic in that. It means, therefore, that if there is a Mercosur agreement in place and the EU were to raise the bar regarding, for example, the environment, animal welfare, or workers' rights, other states could sue our democracies because the trade is negatively affected.

I view positively the diversification of trade and making us more independent of individual actors. I view trade positively if it can also contribute to strengthening the values concerning human rights, the environment, climate, and animal welfare. But Mercosur goes in the completely opposite direction. Therefore, we have opposed it, not just to delay anything but also to ensure that the EU treaty is followed.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! We agreed on other things. Here we are fundamentally in disagreement. There are always countries and parties that are against free trade and who dress it up in different arguments. It can be any possible consideration – a specific professional group, a specific environmental reason. There is always a reason to say no to free trade. There is always someone who wins from not having free trade.

Our Swedish experience – 150 years – is that we win collectively on free trade. We have done so for a long time. Swedish export industry is built on free trade.

To oppose free trade is to undermine the opportunities for the Swedish export industry to be successful. To undermine free trade right now is to jeopardize the increased independence from the USA that we all should be able to agree on.

You should regret this decision.

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

Erik Ottoson (M)

Mr. Speaker! We have exchanges of views regarding reports at regular intervals. I amused myself by thinking back: What have I asked the Prime Minister about? What have we discussed during the past occasions?

It has been the EU's role as the democracies' strong bastion. It has been the need for strengthened competitiveness. It has been the need for strengthened free trade around the world. When we last met, we noted that there were cracks in the wall. It is not without one arriving at the conclusion that we have been quite direct about it.

We are now at a point in time that many describe as the time of upheavals. It is a situation where we need to orient ourselves in a changed world order. Some say they are surprised. Others may have seen it coming. I think we have talked about it in such a way that it is perceived as if we have not, by no insignificant margin, been prepared and ready to be able to handle this form of upheavals.

Mr. Speaker! There is an inevitable question that we must now ask ourselves. There are things that have already been identified – things regarding competitiveness, free trade, support for Ukraine, strengthened defense on the European continent and the ability to take care of ourselves. What are the steps that the EU and Sweden must now take, in this new era? What can we do to repair the cracks that are visible in the wall – partly after the EU failed to agree on using the frozen Russian assets, and partly after the EU Parliament, with Swedish parliamentarians from Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet, chose to send the Mercosur agreement to court? How do we repair the cracks that exist in the wall – this fantastic hive that is nevertheless the strong bastion of democracies in the world?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is a difficult question, and there is, of course, no simple answer to it. It is 27 democracies acting together, with 27 individual democratic playing fields, so to speak. Sometimes it is diverging national interests, but it can also be diverging interests within countries.

We should not be ashamed that it is in that way. But when this is to be set against countries that can make decisions by presidential decree, it is different, quite simply.

We want to preserve our democratic institutions, so we should not be ashamed that they are just like this. Then perhaps we can still pull ourselves together a bit more often and find common denominators in Europe. It would probably be an advantage, I think, if we could see a bit more often that there is a common interest that should trump the national interest.

This is difficult. It is one's own voters who have the right to vote, not others' voters. That is how it is in all democracies.

But sometimes when we have been faced with quite tough situations, the EU has still functioned. I am thinking of how it is when the crisis is here – the pandemic, the euro crisis for the countries that have the euro as their currency, and Ukraine. This has forced a quick and resolute decision-making. I believe that this is also of such a kind, because it has been in motion for a quite long time.

When it comes to the issues of competitiveness, it was a problem long before the USA began to sound like the USA does right now. The unilateral dependence on American defense and the American defense industry has been known for a long time. All presidents since Eisenhower's days have thought that Europe must stand more firmly on its own feet and not be as dependent on American security guarantees.

Much of this is, therefore, well known. It is rather a failing grade for Europe's countries that we have not addressed it earlier. But now perhaps we are in a position where we are actually doing things. Then it is about the competitiveness issues, the capital markets union, the internal market and the digital single market, which also happen to be strong Swedish interests.

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

Erik Ottoson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is a wise reasoning, I think. It is not without one recalling the European Parliament election in 2009, when our party colleague Gunnar Hökmark, to deaf ears, tried to hammer home the message about strengthened European competitiveness in a way that now appears completely obvious and completely self-evident.

It is no coincidence that there are quite a few, and more and more, knocking on the door to belong to the Europe that the EU now constitutes. In addition to the countries that currently have formal processes underway, there is, for example, a growing debate in our neighboring country Norway. Consideration is being given to discussing this also in Iceland, which has previously chosen a different path.

But there is a country that the Prime Minister has mentioned and which it is interesting to establish closer ties with, and that is Canada. What more can we do to bring Canada closer? EU membership for a country in North America might be a bit of a stretch, at least in the short term. But what can we do to further strengthen our ties to Canada?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Canada is interesting in many ways – truly. It is the most Nordic country that exists in the world outside of the Nordic countries – so I believe some Canadian Prime Minister expressed it.

We are very much alike in many ways. There is no doubt about that. We have a number of natural resources, forest and timber. There are also many such natural similarities. I am thinking of mining issues. Our industry works a lot with Canada in their facilities.

Then, of course, we have an all-too one-sided dependence on American defense capacity. We have had it for a long time. We understand that we should have been more independent earlier. This is shared by European Nato with Canada. They also make enormous decisions there.

We also have a number of very specific bilateral defense industry issues. Some are well known. Global Eye is based on a Canadian aircraft, for example, with Swedish technology. There is much ahead of us that could be realized.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

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

Only Denmark and Greenland decide over Denmark and Greenland. Think that it needs to be said! It is fascinating. But it is also frightening, because it affects the trust regarding the transatlantic link. Trust is an important thing, spelled the same forwards and backwards. That is what I had to learn when I started in politics.

It is very important that we actually try to find ways to rebuild trust. It is difficult to see that the current American administration is prepared to help with that rebuilding. But there are counterforces in Congress, which we have seen very clearly during this process.

What can Europe then do? European competitiveness reduces Europe's vulnerability, and therefore we must diversify our trade. I was one of those who was perhaps happiest that the Mercosur agreement had been finalized. I have longed for it for a long time and became very concerned that the European Parliament made a decision to delay the implementation.

I was equally happy when an agreement seemed to be finished with India. It is an enormous market opportunity that actually makes Europe less vulnerable. In that way, we can concentrate on what we need. It is not about just enriching ourselves, but we will find it easier to defend and help Ukraine, as well as to defend the rules-based world order.

What makes me a little worried is if we go too far in making agreements and developing the cooperation with China. I would like to hear how those discussions were conducted during the meeting.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Formally, China was not mentioned at all, but it was about the transatlantic. Then, everyone understands that this has other consequences. In a situation where one wants to diversify more and feels uncertainty, many countries will also look at others. It is completely natural. Sweden has extensive trade with China. One of Sweden's absolute largest private employers, Volvo Cars, is a listed company but with a large Chinese ownership. We also have very extensive and successful trade with, sourcing from, and production in China. Scania recently inaugurated an extensive facility on the Chinese east coast, for example. This is what we should be for. We shall, however, be both firm in our principles and say what we think and what we stand for, and pragmatic in finding solutions that we think are good for our country.

I have long belonged to those who, like Ursula von der Leyen, believe that one must be both sober and open when it comes to China. We must not be naive. One must recognize technological security risks and not be naive about what they want to do with free trade. They are WTO members, but one cannot say that they manage this WTO membership. Instead, they make extensive use of state subsidies to compete against the European market. There, we cannot be naive in the name of the market economy.

Lastly, I believe very much in concluding common agreements and having a common European approach. China prefers bilateral agreements with each country, and I think even European countries go along with that a bit too easily. It is a rather steady stream of colleagues of mine who travel to China. I have nothing against that, but fundamentally we would be stronger if we jointly discussed the relations between Europe and China.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Prime Minister, for a reasoning that I, of course, agree with in very much!

It is not about banning all trade or all cooperation with China in the trade area. As we have said, we have many Swedish companies in China, not least from Gothenburg, where I come from, but we must not again build ourselves into a new dependency with an authoritarian state. Many European states managed to make themselves dependent on Russia in the energy area, and we have also seen it when it comes to cooperation with China in the trade area. When one puts oneself in a position of dependency, one is not free. Then we become vulnerable again.

I believe that European competitiveness reduces Europe's vulnerability if we do not bind ourselves to another vulnerability.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! We are in complete agreement on this. I should have said earlier when I answered a question about Swedish vulnerabilities and Swedish positioning that the energy supply is a strength for us. Think of the countries that were forced in the blink of an eye to switch from Russian fossil energy to try to find other, still fossil, energy sources! We have many problems, but we are expanding nuclear power quickly and also a lot of renewables. But we are relatively independent of others, which is an enormous strength that others can only dream of.

I would still say that the greatest vulnerability towards China right now is rare earth metals. Ebba Busch had a review of our dependencies at the National Security Council, and without going into details, one could say that when China dominates 90–95 percent of the world market if one adds up raw materials and processing, then it is a very clear vulnerability in the same way that the large tech platforms create a vulnerability towards the USA.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! Like the previous speaker, I will continue on the China issue. It is clear that China is a country that does not act in the same way as we in the democratic world and does not think in the same way either. We easily think of conflict and war as one thing and economy, politics, and diplomacy as something else, but the Communist Party in China sees the economy as a way to wage war. For example, one speaks of the united front, which means that all entities that China considers Chinese should be agents for China, and there are no private Chinese companies in the same way as there are in free market economies.

Right now, China is characterized domestically by power struggles within the Communist Party, economic instability, and instability both on the production side, in the pension system, and demographically. The country is characterized by an aggressive use of military power against neighboring countries and by politically exerting pressure on countries both in the immediate vicinity and countries in Europe. One of the reasons why the Liberals as the first party demanded that we should move away from making decisions in foreign policy by unanimity was precisely that China has previously held European countries hostage when it comes to foreign policy.

My question to the Prime Minister is therefore how the discussions are going regarding China-securing the Swedish and European economy. I believe it is time that we specifically China-secure our economy, because it is not the case that China is a stable country to lean on when the transatlantic link shakes. On the contrary, dictatorships are characterized by the fact that they appear stable until they are not stable at all, and then they are the most unstable one can imagine. That is how China's economy and political rule look right now.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! For the sake of form, I shall first say that this was not on the agenda at the meeting in Brussels. We talked about the transatlantic. But China is in the extension for many reasons, so it is not at all irrelevant.

China is not like us and will not become like us. That must be remembered. That is to say, one must have both a principled and a pragmatic approach at the same time. Principally, we stand on the side of democracy, enlightenment, and legitimacy. They do not. That is how it is. At the same time, we cannot pretend that China does not exist, neither economically nor geopolitically. They also have a great significance for other parts of the world.

I therefore think that one should speak plainly but at the same time be able to find areas where one actually cooperates and benefits from each other. Our companies derive great benefit from the Chinese market and great benefit from China when it comes to sourcing, but they have also realized that they do not want to be unilaterally dependent. They talk more and more often about China for China, for example. It is a large market. One must have respect for that, but one cannot have it as a basis for many other markets.

We will also demand reciprocity, as they say, when it comes to trade exchanges, and in that regard, I think the EU has increased its clarity in recent times. It was controversial when some tariffs were introduced against electric vehicles because it was obvious that China manufactured and subsidized them in a way that does not align with our rules. We do not want a state-subsidized industry that uses European state aid to then be able to compete abroad, and we also do not want to be subjected to that kind of competition. We are now following extremely closely what happens with the Chinese surplus that cannot or may not be sold to the USA as much as before. Where does it go on European markets?

I think, therefore, that there is an emerging consensus. Then, it remains the case that different countries have such different interests in China that many still prefer to go there and make agreements on their own. Two times we have had a strategy discussion about China. Both times it landed on the fact that this is very important, and both times it landed on that each one subsequently acted individually.

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

Joar Forssell (L)

Mr. Speaker! I have a couple of questions about things other than China as well.

Firstly, I wonder how the government and the EU intend to work to strengthen the relationship with those parts of the USA that are not Donald Trump.

Secondly, I wonder if the government has pushed to ensure that the EU countries consider that Article 42 should also cover territories that lie outside the EU. I believe it is very important that territories that belong to EU countries but lie outside the EU, such as Greenland – there are other examples as well – are covered by Article 42.

For the third, I wonder if the government has pushed to clarify for Greenland, but also countries like Norway and Iceland, that the door to the EU is open if they wish to join. I believe it is a very important signal to send in this situation.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I will take the questions in order, but from the back.

When it comes to Norway and Iceland, I think it is exciting with the discussions that are now being held in both countries. We are careful not to interfere in Norwegian or Icelandic domestic policy, but I find it difficult to believe anything other than that they would be warmly welcomed if they were to land on wanting to become EU members. I believe that many other candidate countries cause greater headaches when it comes to consensus. As said, we do not interfere in the matter, but it is interesting with the discussions being held and that there is such an attractiveness in the EU system.

For us EU nerds – maybe not everyone deals with Article 42 daily: Do the security issues in Article 42 also cover territories that belong to EU countries but themselves are not members of the EU? It is an interesting question. One probably has to be an EU lawyer to sort that out. I have noted that there are different opinions on the matter. I cannot judge this, but right now it would be a strength if it turned out to be so.

Texas is an interesting example of a part of the USA that very many companies are very interested in. As it happens, Sweden is opening a long-planned consulate there.

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

Ulf Holm (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, Prime Minister, for the report! I also want to express my praise to the Prime Minister and his ministers for the clarity after some back and forth. There was some hesitation at the beginning, but I think you have now acted completely correctly and very clearly and firmly and stood up for Denmark and Greenland and against Trump's way of expressing himself. Very well done, Prime Minister!

I think the Prime Minister highlighted very important issues in the report. He exposed a certain upcoming problem, namely what the consensus will look like in the EU circle further ahead when a sharp decision is to be made. It will well be the traditional north–south conflict – or tension – in the EU. But how does the Prime Minister assess the possibilities of achieving success further ahead in time? It is very difficult to say, given that we do not know the exact issue. I see that we must expand our cooperation in the Nordic-Baltic circle, both within the EU and within Nato, in order to strengthen the position that we, after all, seek, with unity within the EU on these issues. What strategy does the Prime Minister consider necessary moving forward in this work within the EU, but perhaps also within Nato, to strengthen our position and ensure that the outcome becomes as good as possible?

I also want to praise the Prime Minister for raising the issue of Ukraine. It must not be forgotten in all this media noise. But can one really rely on security policy guarantees to Ukraine if the USA were to provide such, given how fickle the president is?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! There are many and important questions that are all, so to speak, seminar-long. I will have to be somewhat selective.

There is an underlying concern about what happens with the unity when it is tested. I have mentioned it several times. Do we feel secure that the EU will hold together in the long term for Ukraine even in a situation where Europe must provide a much larger share of the support? There is a recurring uncertainty here. When it comes to Hungary, it is obvious. Now Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic were together, but there were many more countries that meant we, for example, could not reach an agreement on frozen assets.

I have tried several times to be transparent and said that there is an underlying concern in this. I also thought it was evident when it came to the customs issues. Now this was not tested in a sharp way. I have said that there may be very understandable reasons for some countries – the stronger the security policy dependence one is on the USA, the less one wants to be faced with such difficult choices. Time will give us more answers.

The positive side is also implied, with Nordic-Baltic, Nordic-Baltic-Polish and Nordic-Baltic-Polish-German cooperation. We also have strong bilateral cooperation that works quite well. It is no coincidence that we in the Nordic countries, the Baltics, Germany, Ireland and the Netherlands meet before every European summit to discuss jointly. We do not agree on everything. But it is important that we seek like-minded. We realize that our voice alone will not be enough. When we can agree with many countries, and preferably some large countries, it is of great importance. To take the obvious for granted, I want to mention the Baltic Sea cooperation, not least within Nato. The Baltic Sea has never been in better hands than just now, but the challenges are admittedly also greater than before.

Can we trust the USA? The security guarantees are expected to be codified in Congress. That is what it has sounded like all along. It is an important basis for Europe to dare to give its own security guarantees.

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

Aida Birinxhiku (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Prime Minister for the report. I would like to follow up on some of the questions that have been asked earlier.

I want to start where the Prime Minister concluded during last week's consultation. It is not enough to get stuck in the problem description, but one must also be able to demonstrate decisiveness in this uneasy situation. That was also the message from Canada's Prime Minister Carney in his speech. We need a new strategy, not just in words but in action. For Canada's part, this has led to new measures within trade, investments, and AI.

Mr. Speaker! This leads me to what is being done in Sweden. We Social Democrats stand always ready to support the government in a difficult situation. It means that I and my party will always welcome the work that is right and proper, but that we will also voice criticism when what is being done is not sufficient. We will do so in a constructive manner. That is why we Social Democrats have presented several concrete measures to support households, jobs, and the economy in this global situation, Mr. Speaker. This includes, among other things, new initiatives in trade policy to be able to reach new markets and strengthen export support, a national analysis of our economic security and vulnerability, and a reformed system for short-term work in order to be able to protect Swedish jobs.

Mr. Speaker! We find ourselves in a situation that places entirely new demands on political decisiveness. Therefore, I would like to ask the Prime Minister what new initiatives the government plans to take to protect Swedish jobs and companies in this global situation.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! The comparisons with Canada are both right and wrong. They are right because we are like-minded. We think similarly when it comes to the world order and geopolitics – power does not precede right. There were reasons for us to sit together.

But we are different in so far as we are in completely different positions. They are so dependent on the USA that it is a massive dominance, and they have been that way for a very long time. That is not the case for us. The situations differ considerably. For them, it is a dramatic shift. For us, it is a less dramatic shift in substance – perhaps greater in the rhetoric. Nevertheless, it is important. Therefore, we shall act.

That is why I emphasize that we are so well positioned regarding all these matters. The European strategy – more Europe, more together, more single market, more cooperation – is one part. It was started before this American rhetoric but becomes even more important. It is also about new trade agreements. Trade is the EU's core competence – there is no single issue where the EU is stronger. Sweden does not have the right to conclude its own trade agreements. Every trade agreement we want to see concluded, we must help the EU to reach. We do that successfully, but unfortunately, it is sometimes blocked by a part that exists on the left. I also want to mention the defense cooperation – within the EU, within Nato, within European Nato.

I see no need for a new strategy. We shall continue to fulfill the strategy we have, and we shall systematically ensure that our unilateral dependencies on the USA are not harmful to our part. That is the strategy.

This is also Canada's strategy, but they come from a completely different position. The USA is, for natural reasons, much more dominant there.

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

Jan Ericson (M)

Mr. Speaker! There is much to say about the US President Donald Trump. My well-known restrained and nuanced personality, however, means that I do not wish to express here, from the bottom of my heart, how I view some of the things that have been stated by him recently and which have damaged relations with Europe. I choose to look forward.

The bonds between Europe and the USA have been shaped over several hundred years through trade, entrepreneurship, research, culture, education, tourism, defense cooperation, diplomacy, and politics. Even within Nato, strong bonds between Europe and the USA have been built up over many decades. Not all of these bonds will be broken as easily as some believe. The USA is very much more than Donald Trump.

There will come a day after Donald Trump. My question to the Prime Minister is therefore: How can we, while awaiting a new government in the USA, best promote the contacts between Europe and all the many pro-European forces that exist in the USA?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! This is the right attitude. We shall not ourselves contribute to anything that becomes destructive for us and break well-functioning cooperation in the heat of the moment because we are rightly irritated by the way one expresses oneself from the US side. Of course not! We shall obviously be long-term in this. We shall stand up for what we think is right and proper. We shall agree on the common ground. It is only such a language that I believe works in the USA. But we shall be long-term. That, I think, is the obvious conclusion.

I believe that companies are important. The companies do not want to be unilaterally dependent either, especially not on whims in trade terms and tariffs. It creates completely hopeless conditions if they have no idea whether the tariffs are 0, 10, 25 or 50 percent. It is incredibly destructive for companies that want to make long-term investments.

Sweden is the ninth largest investor in the USA, if we are talking about companies. Enormous amounts of money go to the USA. They could go somewhere else. I believe that the companies' ability to speak plainly with each other is very good. I have met one or another annoyed American corporate leader who has realized that this is not favorable for our completely different contacts that we want to maintain.

We shall also stand guard in other matters. Those who were in Sälen and listened to the American general who goes by the abbreviation SACEUR in Europe heard him express wholehearted, solid support for all the structures that have been built up within Nato over a long period.

We ourselves shall not throw away anything that works well.

The reporting was hereby concluded.

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