Information from the government on the government's priorities and work program ahead of the presidency of the Council of the European Union in the spring of 2023

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Every era has its question of freedom, and safety has become our time's great Swedish question of freedom. We understand it when gang criminals now restrict the freedom of honest citizens in many residential areas, we understand it when threats and extortion affect many small business owners in socially vulnerable areas, and we understand it when the new government has made safety a completely decisive political priority.

In Europe, it is instead security that has become our time's great issue of freedom. In that case, the threats do not primarily come from criminal gangs but from a criminal regime. Russia's illegal and unprovoked invasion of a peaceful neighboring country has stolen the freedom from millions of Ukrainians and cast Europe back to the very darkest chapters of the history books.

The Austrian author Stefan Zweig wrote in 1942 about how the First World War for his generation had burned all bridges to a peaceful Europe and to what he called the world of yesterday. Exactly 80 years later, we can all note with sadness that the Europe we have known since the fall of the Berlin Wall now belongs to yesterday. It is a change that is so great that it is difficult to take in.

When I woke up in Helsinki at 04.00 on February 24, just hours after a call with Finland's President Sauli Niinistö about the war that had not yet started, I realized two things: Now there is war in Europe. Then the EU's most fundamental role will be put to its ultimate test, and Sweden's place is obviously in the EU but also just as obviously in Nato.

We all suffer from the war, but Ukraine pays the highest price. Many have perished or otherwise fallen victim to the Russian aggression. Many more are refugees in their own country or in other European countries. Despite this, the heroic defense continues on land, at sea, and in the air. The Ukrainian soldiers are not just fighting for their own freedom; they are literally fighting for all of Europe's freedom.

In these turbulent times, Sweden takes over the presidency of the European Union. It is very demanding. The union that has become synonymous with peace, freedom, and free trade is today neighbor to the war that once created the need for the EU. The war will, in a decisive way, affect the entire Swedish presidency.

Mr. Speaker! In some respects, we know exactly how. It is about maintaining the European unity in the support for Ukraine, expanding the economic, humanitarian, and military aid to Ukraine, continuing to gather countries and resources for Ukraine's reconstruction, safeguarding international law, ensuring accountability, and closely following Ukraine's progress as a candidate country to the EU. In other respects, however, we have no idea. What will happen one year after the invasion? What will happen in the spring and summer of 2023?

Sweden as the Presidency will be prepared to act quickly and resolutely. Our primary mission as the Presidency will therefore be to contribute to securing Europe's security by systematically standing up for Ukraine but also by underlining the EU's unique geopolitical significance in an increasingly uncertain world. Alongside Nato, the EU must take greater collective responsibility for European security. Sweden will be a driving Presidency to achieve the goals in the EU's strategic compass but also to prioritize internal security and the fight against serious organized crime in Europe.

Mr. Speaker! If the war in Ukraine determines Europe's possibility for a future in peace, European competitiveness will be crucial for our economic future.

Let us take the European automotive industry as an example. The car was born in Europe at a time when European innovative power was the engine of the world economy. For over a hundred years, the car has become a symbol of European ingenuity and industrial capacity, but also of diversity and very friendly commercial rivalry. In the post-war period, the Volkswagen Beetle became the symbol of the West German miracle, the Citroën DS the symbol of French design, and Volvo's boxiness the symbol of safer cars with Swedish innovations such as the three-point belt.

The car also gave millions of Europeans freedom of movement and the chance to easily visit other countries. The car even became a verb in Swedish: *att bila*. We *bilade*, for example, in Europe. I believe that in the period that comes between fully electrified cars and fully electrified aviation, we will *bila* again.

The car is also one of many examples of how free competition in the world's largest single market creates products that make life better for people. Sweden is a small country with large companies that work in a very tough export market. The EU's internal market is the basis for our prosperity and our welfare, but it presupposes precisely the EU's four freedoms - free movement for goods, capital, services and people - as well as fair and equal rules of the game for European companies regardless of in which country one has its base.

European car manufacturers become sharper and better when they are given equal conditions and are allowed to compete with American or Asian colleagues. The EU should safeguard the dynamic drivers that reside in every successful company, not overthrow them with over-regulation. Then European companies can continue to assert themselves in the tough global competition. Therefore, protectionism is not the right way to go. That was not the case yesterday, and it will not be the case tomorrow, either on this side or on the other side of the Atlantic.

A financially strong and competitive EU is crucial for the union's global standing. We know that innovative companies in a free and open market not only build growth and welfare but also lead the green and digital transition. But the truth is that the EU is now actually lagging behind. Therefore, a clear competition policy and better rules of the game for European industry were needed.

Competitiveness also means resilience. Openness must not become naivety or a one-sided dependence on either Russian fossil fuels or Chinese minerals. Therefore, the EU must spread the risk by safeguarding a diversified and mutually deepened trade also with other countries.

Facilitating digital services in new trade agreements as well as digital services in the internal market is an important task for the Swedish presidency, but also increased domestic production to secure supply chains in strategically important areas. Therefore, Sweden as chair will lead the continued work on a European ecosystem for semiconductors. This sounds technical, and it is technically advanced. But it is also absolutely crucial if we are to manage the electrification of, for example, the entire European vehicle fleet.

Mr. Speaker! The internal market is a means for both prosperity and for the green transition. That the EU shall reduce emissions by 55 percent by 2030 is central to the entire world's climate transition. The EU's package, which is called Fit for 55, will play a decisive role, and our ambition is to bring the negotiations on this to fruition.

The EU is a world leader in climate work, and Sweden wants the EU to strengthen this position during our presidency. That the EU's institutions have agreed to phase out all fossil-fueled cars by 2035 is a big step in the right direction.

The climate transition begins and ends with the energy issue. It concerns transport, and it concerns industry. Furthermore, Russia's invasion of Ukraine has made the phasing out of fossil fuels even more acute and even more urgent. Getting rid of all fossil fuels began in the 70s as a pure price issue; oil became expensive. Then, in the 80s and 90s, it also became an environmental and climate issue, and now it has additionally become a major security policy issue.

During a cold winter, the EU must stand united to manage both the energy transition and the task of heating European homes. Therefore, Sweden will prioritize the work of accelerating the EU's electrification, for example through work on a new battery regulation and continued negotiations on increasing fossil-free energy production. We will continue the work on the proposals in the gas market package to replace Russian fossil energy with other low-carbon energy sources, while those EU countries that themselves wish to continue take responsibility by also building entirely new nuclear power.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden shall be a proactive chairperson and offer constructive leadership to deepen the EU's strengths and find compromises in the European Council. We will look to the common European interest and show humility towards the inherent diversity of the EU members.

Just as here at home, the new government's goal is to unite, not to divide, to bring together, not to split. This will require us to sometimes place some limits on ourselves and to mediate and broker a bit more than we just preach to others. It also requires a measure of unity here at home, Mr. Speaker. Just as was the case both in 2001 and 2009, I both hope and expect that the entire Riksdag feels responsibility for Sweden's joint presidency in the EU.

In return, the government will be very active in seeking a very broad Swedish consensus. Not everyone will, of course, be able to agree on everything, but the government will want to discuss with everyone. And I hope that everyone will also be prepared to discuss with one another. In that case, both firmness and pragmatism are needed, firmness in values and pragmatism in concrete solutions.

To the fixed European values belong respect for democracy, individual freedoms and rights, and the principles of the rule of law. Worrying reports now show how the level of democracy has decreased in various EU countries. But when I simultaneously see how the blue and yellow EU flag is a symbol of freedom alongside the blue and yellow Ukrainian flag, I am convinced that a blue and yellow Swedish presidency has an important task in upholding these values throughout Europe. Therefore, during the presidency, Sweden will in a constructive manner carry forward the Council's work in Article 7 procedures and stand up for the EU's right to condition payments of common funds on rule-of-law principles.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden now begins in January its third presidency since we ourselves became EU members. Swedish ministers and Swedish civil servants will lead a couple of thousand different meetings in Brussels and Luxembourg. Many more thousands of European colleagues, politicians, experts, journalists and curious citizens will visit Sweden for the more than 150 meetings being organized in our country. Of these meetings, 55 will take place across the entire country, from Malmö in the south to Kiruna in the north. Let all of us who meet these arriving Europeans show our curiosity, our sincerity and our will to almost always be able to find good compromises. That is exactly what the EU needs right now.

We will begin in January in the somewhat bitter but very beautiful darkness at the Icehotel in Jukkasjärvi, and we will end in June when the early summer greenery transitions into the bright summer nights. Both things are quite exotic for many people. And for the first time in many years, there is no European summit on Midsummer Eve.

Both France and the Czech Republic have, as chair, worked in an exemplary manner to meet Europe's multiple crises, first the pandemic and the lockdown and then the war, the energy crisis, and inflation. Now Sweden takes over with respect and great humility towards all the difficulties that face not primarily a chairmanship, but primarily Europe, but also with determination. Sweden is involved and takes responsibility when it is difficult in Europe.

My entire government will work hard on this, with strong confidence in the unifying capacity that exists in other EU countries and in all of the EU's institutions. We will be a constructive negotiating partner for both the Commission and the European Parliament, whom we met in Stockholm just a week ago.

We are different countries. We sometimes have slightly different perspectives. But I believe that this diversity is fundamentally a strength. Together we can overcome the crises. Together we can build a better Europe. But we can only do it together and only if we in Sweden now do our part.

(Applause)

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Prime Minister for this presidency program. We have waited for some time to hear what the government actually thinks and intends regarding the presidency program. So it is good that it is here now. It is quite obvious that it is about Ukraine, green transition and competitiveness. It would have been astonishing if this had not been included in the government's presidency program.

There are many beautiful words. But what will it become in practice? The Government has chosen the Sweden Democrats as its cooperation party, and it is the Sweden Democrats who will also be governing this policy. Nothing will leave the Government Offices without the Sweden Democrats having approved it, a party that deeply dislikes the EU cooperation and which does not even recognize the climate crisis. And I must say that the government there has given itself an uphill battle, not only by allowing itself to be governed by the Sweden Democrats but also through the policy that it has pursued at home, where it has now left the climate leadership behind.

So, there are many beautiful words. But what is the policy that this government will pursue during the presidency? Who is the person holding the reins? What, for example, is the policy that the government will pursue when it comes to the Fit for 55 package?

It is good that the government does not repeat the mistake from the government statement, where the principles of the rule of law were forgotten. Now they are included, and that is good. But it feels, honestly, actually a bit squeezed in. Therefore, again, words are not enough. We Social Democrats will scrutinize how the government does not just preach but also actually truly fills the issues of both the climate and the principles of the rule of law with active action and drive.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I know that the Social Democrats are a bit obsessed with the Sweden Democrats and in every issue, whatever it may be about, always want to talk about the Sweden Democrats. I intended to stick to the Swedish presidency and common European problems. I am happy to engage in a domestic debate with the Social Democrats about their favorite opponent every day, but I had not intended to do so primarily just today.

Ultimately, the government and the government's mandate will follow exactly the legislation that we have in Sweden. The government receives its mandate in the EU committee. I see very good conditions for the entire Swedish Riksdag to agree on almost everything in this regard. I see very few reasons why we would be in disagreement about these four priorities. What would we be in disagreement about in the fight to help Ukraine? What would we be in disagreement about in the fight for a common European climate policy that does real good, in safeguarding the principles of the rule of law, and in increasing European competitiveness? There are many things that can be discussed here. But I believe there is a fundamental broad Swedish consensus on most of this.

The government will have a very open mind. We realize that our task now is to be of use to Europe and ensure that the EU can reach an agreement so that we can get something done in Europe. It is the presidency's task. We will not enter into this to argue in the Swedish Riksdag about individual details. That is not my ambition, and it will not be my ministers' ambition either. If we can reach a broad agreement, that is very good. Should the majority of the EU Committee decide on a different line than the one the government wants to pursue as chair, the government will, of course, respect this majority.

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

Matilda Ernkrans (S)

Mr. Speaker! I note that the Prime Minister did not answer the questions regarding what kind of policy it is when it comes to, for example, the climate and Fit for 55 that the government will pursue. What kind of policy is it when it comes to the principles of the rule of law that the government will actively pursue, so that it does not just become beautiful words but the policy is actually filled with content?

When the government speaks about arguing in Sweden's Riksdag, it is a low point from the Prime Minister. It is about the fact that it is the government that is responsible for the chairmanship and that it is the government that has chosen its cooperation partner in Sverigedemokraterna, which is a deeply EU-critical party. So how is one to solve common EU problems with a party that is deeply EU-critical?

I can also note with some surprise that migration, but also the fight against gang crime, is hardly even mentioned in what the Prime Minister says. These are indeed problems that we need to solve together in Europe. But here, the government has obviously decided that the issues of migration and gang crime shall be solved together with SD in Sweden. Then one asks again: Who is the master holding the leash?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I believe those who listened to my speech noted exactly what we are going to do within the four different priorities that I described. I believe it was quite obvious. And regarding the climate policy, it is crystal clear.

When it comes to Fit for 55, several things will be finished, at best, to be driven forward during the Swedish presidency. That is exactly what we are going to do.

If the EU issue were broader, I would have had reason to discuss it with some of the European Parliament's group leaders when they were here. At that time, I pointed out that eight of Sweden's eight Riksdag parties are now in favor of EU membership. For a long time, it was a bit shaky on that point. One could probably say that there were five parties that were in favor and three that were against. Now all eight are in favor. Two of the old ones were on your side in politics. One of the old ones is now on our side in politics. Let us instead welcome that eight out of eight parties see value in Sweden cooperating in Europe.

(Applause)

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

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Prime Minister for this. He explained in a meritorious way how the chairmanship during the coming year will be characterized by the war. It is also noticeable when one reads the work program.

From the Sverigedemokraterna's side, we want to thank the government for good cooperation regarding the work on the work program. Sverigedemokraterna will, of course, continue to act as a responsible partner to the government during the chairmanship and show understanding for the responsibility that comes with it.

When it comes to the work program, I want to particularly point out the importance of competitiveness and trade being highlighted. These are priority issues for the Sverigedemokraterna, where we see that there is great significance in EU-common policy. And there is rather a need for more focus on the EU in this area.

Then there are also important writings, which we appreciate very much, regarding secure supply of fossil-free energy. This is a clear reference to both hydropower and nuclear power. And it is positive that this can finally be clearly stated in a work program from a chairship.

Mr. Speaker! The Prime Minister mentioned common interests and those of themselves. At the same time, we know that there are important issues for Sweden that will be addressed during the Swedish presidency. It is about the Swedish forest, and it is about migration policy. How do the Prime Minister and the government view the challenges of us somehow acting as Europe's speaker while we have our own interests here? How will the government tackle these challenges?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I will begin with the first part. Crisis management we have learned from the pandemic and the war. It is an absolute core competence for the EU. If you cannot handle crises, you cannot handle anything. But crisis management is not enough, we must do the truly difficult things. We must have a steady eye on the crises and a steady eye on Ukraine, but also have an eye on long-term competitiveness issues, such as things we know will take a very long time for Europe itself to transform. There are fundamentally different views in Europe on that, where it is important that our views when it comes to free competition, free trade and openness are given space at all times.

This will be difficult, as everyone who has ever worked with crises knows that crises - on good grounds - consume you. But we cannot be completely consumed; instead, we must have double full focus on both Ukraine and on long-term economic issues.

Then it is exactly as Martin Kinnunen says, difficult when one is to be chairperson, lead negotiations in many different councils and broker the best that the EU can achieve. Let us then speak plainly and say it as it is: We will put in a lot of work to ensure that the results that can be realized become as good as possible. It is a necessary task for a chairperson.

It does not, of course, mean that one abandons one's own positions. We have well-known ones; there is not a single European country that does not know what Sweden currently thinks on the forest issue. It may have been a bit shaky for a while – I agree with that – but now I believe it is very clear what we think on the forest issue. The presidency, however, means that other countries that share our view can probably push a bit harder, while we try to gather this together as well as possible.

There is a similarity there with domestic policy: It is only if one can reach an agreement that anything gets done. The alternative is disagreement and not getting anything done.

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Mr. Speaker! Recently, Hungary has compromised. Support for Ukraine has been blocked in order to force through a decision on its own recovery plan. Now, the Council has reached an agreement where Hungary says yes to the Ukraine loan and the Council says yes to the recovery plans. This does not, however, mean that the support to Hungary will be paid out, as an assessment against the principles of the rule of law is still to be conducted.

What I would like to know is how the presidency will work concretely with the countries that do not fulfill the Union's fundamental values. New blackmail-like situations can indeed arise when it comes to the principles of the rule of law.

I also have a question about the climate. The Prime Minister mentioned Fit for 55 and how important it is to work with it. The Prime Minister also said that the EU is a world leader in the climate transition, but I noticed that the Prime Minister did not mention Sweden as an example. Sweden has always been seen as an example both in the world and within the EU, and what I would like to know is how Sweden can lead the work with the climate transition when the rest of the world – and now also the Prime Minister – no longer sees Sweden as a pioneer country.

I mean that it hampers our ability to be leading in the climate transition in the EU that not even our government thinks this is important but argues that we succeed if we succeed, and if we do not achieve the goals – yes, then we do not achieve them. Is it an attitude that the Prime Minister will take with him into the presidency? The Prime Minister did not mention Sweden as a leading country, as said.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I will begin with Hungary. Almost every time a single country decides to block a decision that could be unanimous on a completely different issue, it naturally causes a degree of displeasure among other countries.

It is formally completely correct to do it in that way, and it will surely happen again. We saw some time ago that Cyprus blocked a completely different issue - it concerned a sanction against Belarus - because they wanted to achieve success in yet another issue. It is perhaps not mentioned as often as Hungary's blocking, for some reason.

I believe that this will happen again, because it is possible to do so. I think just like the questioner that it is fundamentally unfortunate that it happens. The alternative, however, would have been to not have unanimity, but that the majority can always decide, and I believe that would be a much worse situation for many countries - including Sweden. One must therefore expect that such things happen, but the fewer times it happens, the better.

I fully support the agreement that was made. We ensured that Ukraine receives the economic support it needs. Sometimes one also has to decide what is truly most important right now, and in that regard, 27 countries were able to reach an agreement.

When it comes to the climate, I do not share the picture being painted here at all. The EU is a world leader, for the simple reason that we can make collective decisions across an entire continent. Imagine if others had the same emissions trading system that the EU has! Imagine if the EU could negotiate with the USA, India, and China on similar systems! The EU is a role model in this.

Sweden should ensure that the EU functions better in what is cross-border. That is much more important than Sweden punishing motoring out of existence by raising petrol prices by 9 kronor per liter - much, much more important.

(Applause)

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

Ilona Szatmári Waldau (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the Prime Minister for the non-answer which nevertheless received applause.

I asked questions about how to ensure that countries do not block decisions or create blackmail situations when it comes to the principles of the rule of law. It did not concern the times countries have used the same method in, for example, the accession process or similar, but now it is about the principles of the rule of law. How will the presidency work with that?

My second question concerned why the Prime Minister does not see Sweden as a world leader in the climate transition. How is Sweden to work with the climate transition? My question was not that the EU is a world leader, for we know that the EU is.

My last question, briefly, concerns stopping organized crime. It is a focus point that has disappeared when the list was shrunk from five to four points. I would very much like to hear a bit more about that from the Prime Minister.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I will start from the end: I explicitly mentioned the fight against organized crime in my speech - explicitly. It is a part of internal and external security. Right now, perhaps our collective focus lies heavily on Ukraine, but organized crime definitely belongs to security issues because it is cross-border.

My speech was about the EU, and I am here to discuss the EU. I am happy to have a discussion about Swedish domestic policy any day, but that was not where my focus lay today.

Every time I meet European colleagues, I perceive that Sweden has a very good reputation as a driving party in common European solutions, not least within climate policy, and so it shall remain. We shall also remain a powerful party when it comes to the principles of the rule of law; I had as one of my four priorities that we push forward precisely the work that is currently ongoing, including the Article 7 procedures. But we also note that it is good when one can reach an agreement despite disagreements in other areas.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Mr. Speaker! The Government highlights competitiveness as a priority area during the chairmanship, as well as the green transition. This is welcome.

Recently, the US Inflation Reduction Act has caused a lot of concern in Europe. It involves a massive investment with state support in the climate area, but it only covers things that are American-produced. The signal that the package sends about the importance of the climate transition is, of course, welcome after the US's climate work had long lain dormant, but the market-distorting effects are more problematic. Immediately, demands are coming from several sides in the EU to respond in kind. There is talk of "buy European" and that we should subsidize our way to the same level as the Americans.

What is the government's view on how the EU should act in light of the IRA? Does the government see any opportunities for deepened trade between the EU and the USA, for example in the climate area, and if so, which ones?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Fundamentally, I completely share Malin Björk's description of the situation, including the many risks that exist in this. I actually have no reservations at all regarding the description.

We will have to see how much of this falls on our presidency, but there is no doubt that it will be addressed in the discussions; I would believe it will be addressed as early as tomorrow, when the European Council meets again. I will, however, say a few words about this, which are not entirely uncomplicated.

Just as Malin Björk says, it is very good that the USA is back on track when it comes to a common climate policy and a climate commitment. It wavered precariously for several years in the USA, so I think we have strong reasons to welcome it. We appreciate that the USA wants to cooperate on this in different forms, in the same way as we appreciate a transatlantic cooperation on security issues and regarding the aid to Ukraine.

But if this means new trade barriers or new protectionism – and there are undoubtedly elements in this that bear that kind of hallmark – it could become a really big problem. One must also appreciate that a kind of high-level dialogue has now started between the EU and the USA to discuss the implementation. Europe will warn against the risks of this becoming a protectionist policy, which in the worst case starts a wave of European protectionism where the countries that can afford it want to do the same in Europe or – in the worst case – where all of Europe wants to build walls around itself. That would be bad for everyone.

It would also be bad to end up in long-term WTO discussions with the USA regarding this. The more we can find consensus on the good and limit the damage of the bad, the better I believe it is.

I do not think perhaps that we will reach a sharp position regarding this during the Swedish presidency. Sweden will, however, as one of the rather many countries in Europe that value free trade, free competition, and strong competitiveness, push these issues, with respect for the fact that it is done together with other countries that want to go in roughly the same direction during Sweden's presidency.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Mr. Speaker! I heard the Prime Minister say in his speech that better rules of the game were needed in the EU in this area. I would very much like to hear more about which rules of the game are intended in this context.

The EU's competitiveness is, of course, affected by the IRA, just as large-scale subsidies in, for example, China and elsewhere affect it. What measures does the government see the EU being able to take to strengthen its own competitiveness, regardless of which paths other actors choose?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Time limited my previous answer, but now I have been given a new chance - I really appreciate that!

It concerns, among other things, continuing to work on obvious things that already exist. One such thing is to get the internal market to function fully as intended; there is much more to do in this area. Other such things are the internal market for services and digital services.

Now, I am not going to only speak about Swedish interests. It is obvious – and everyone knows – that there are large Swedish tech companies that would have great pleasure in much larger European competition regarding digital services, but other companies in Europe would also have that. I am afraid of a development where the tech industry is increasingly dominated by the American West Coast and the Chinese East Coast and where Europe becomes a place in the middle that becomes less and less significant. I believe those types of competitiveness issues are important.

It is also about education, research and development as well as infrastructure for long-term innovation. That is where Europe lags behind today.

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

Per Bolund (MP)

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

The Prime Minister said in his speech that the climate transition begins and ends with energy, but the truth is that the climate transition begins and ends with climate policy. There, the government has now shown its true colors, and one can calmly say that those colors are not green.

This government is subsidizing fossils for billions. They are presenting a budget that leads to many millions of tons more in emissions. They are removing the electric car bonus that has made Sweden lead the way in the EU when it comes to electrification. If the Prime Minister gets to decide, we will drive fossil rather than electric, as the Prime Minister said earlier.

People talk about a green transition, but those words echo very hollowly. This government is now making itself known for one thing both in the EU and nationally: One says one thing but does another. One says that one stands behind the climate goals - both the EU's and Sweden's - but one does the opposite.

Even at the EU level, it is clear. The Prime Minister says that Sweden makes the EU function better, but in practice – for example, when it comes to the law on deforestation, an EU directive on reducing consumption's impact on deforestation – the government has engaged in weakening instead of strengthening. This has been done in favor of short-term self-interests.

Sweden is the only country in the EU to have opposed the law on the restoration of valuable nature, which will be handled during the presidency. It is astonishing.

Miljöpartiet will be a green thorn in the government's side and scrutinize how they work with these issues.

I sincerely wonder how Ulf Kristersson and the government believe they will be able to have any success whatsoever in getting other EU countries to transition to reducing emissions and reducing interventions in our nature when Sweden, as the only country in the EU, puts itself in the corner of shame and opposes and says no when the EU tries to sharpen the ambitions.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I do not agree in any way with Per Bolund's description of Sweden's misery. There is a kind of bitterness and resentment over having lost an election that makes Sweden now, point by point, described as a country that can't manage anything. I think that is a misconception. I am happy to debate Swedish domestic policy any day, but that is not why I came here today.

It is well known that opinions on nuclear power differ - we are for; you are against. Opinions differ when it comes to the Swedish forest industry - we are for; you are against. Opinions differ on whether people should be able to fly. We are for flying, but we are against the emissions. You seem to be against people being able to fly.

We have different opinions on this – let us accept that! This is not what the Swedish presidency is about at all, but rather it is about how Sweden should unite Europe to get something done, including when it comes to the green transition.

I also do not at all share the view that the climate transition would not begin and end with energy. I think it is obvious. If we do not get rid of fossil energy, there is no climate transition to talk about. It is A and O; it begins and ends there, in roughly the same way as it geographically begins and ends in the really large emitting countries.

Everything that Europe can do collectively to ensure that other large emitters reduce their emissions through common rules of the game has a value of immeasurable magnitude. Take just one such simple thing as the fact that we now collectively in the entire EU are banning fossil-fueled vehicles from 2035. This would never have worked if a single country had done it. It would have worked to stop just that country's car industry, but that is not my ambition. My ambition is to achieve results.

Think if we can help Poland get rid of coal! It would have an enormous value for Europe's collective climate policy.

I do not at all share the gloomy attitude that Per Bolund displays here.

(Applause)

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

Per Bolund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! It is worth noting that Ulf Kristersson does not answer the question at all and pretends as if this is a question of general opinion and that one can think one way or the other. It is time to remind that there is knowledge, facts, information, research, and science to lean on, and there the picture is unambiguous.

What the government is doing is the exact opposite of what the government says. If one acts in that way, one naturally gains no credibility, neither in Sweden nor in the EU. If it were only me saying this, I could understand the Prime Minister's position, but it is scientist after scientist and expert agency after expert agency. It is also not just about Sweden, but there is also a very great concern in the EU about what it will mean that Sweden is now taking over the presidency with the attitude that the government has and with the support that the government has – the Sverigedemokraternas influence will be great.

Climate Commissioner Frans Timmermans has expressed concern about what will happen to the EU's climate and environmental work when Sweden takes over. The negotiations are now being expedited so that as much as possible can be completed before Sweden takes over, so that it cannot be ruined.

Will the government's position be the one we have heard from government representatives and from the Sweden Democrats, that is to say "If we do not reach the goals, we do not do it"? And how will this, in that case, affect the EU's work?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I cannot force Per Bolund to want to believe that Sweden can be of use in the major European issues; if one does not want to, one does not want to. My government will, however, do everything to achieve this benefit.

I meet with the leaders of the European Council regularly. There is no concern at all regarding Sweden's ability to lead the work or for Sweden's climate ambitions. Much less is there any concern for Sweden's ability to unite Europe's countries in very difficult negotiations, where countries have different opinions and different dependencies.

It is enough to look at the gas negotiations, which once again stalled yesterday because the countries are so differently dependent on gas. This would not make me condemn either Germany or Belgium, for they have their situation.

The more we can agree on common positions, the more we can get done. One is either involved in this work or stands aside and complains.

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

Hans Wallmark (M)

Mr. Speaker! I think we can thank the Prime Minister and the government for the presentation of the EU Presidency program. The program itself and the exchange of remarks that has taken place here indicate that the government stands for optimism and that the EU is - and the presidency will become - a tool to solve real problems. I hope that the Prime Minister carries this optimism with him throughout the presidency.

Mr. Speaker! Today, December 14, as the program is presented here in the chamber, the sirens are sounding again over Kyiv. People are running down into shelters and taking cover from yet another day of aggression against the free, independent Ukraine. This means there are reasons to believe that the war will characterize the coming six months to a very large extent.

It is good that the Prime Minister emphasizes the blue and yellow leadership and that it is a dual leadership, both in the long term and here and now. Here and now, it will to a very large extent be about Ukraine. Therefore, I believe it is good that the Prime Minister prepares to, together with colleagues from the other European countries, counter the political fatigue that exists and can be noticed in Europe. We must constantly remind ourselves of this terrible war that is tearing apart our continent and threatening our values.

I think we should therefore emphasize the unity that exists. The government presented the proposal for the winter package to Ukraine a couple of days ago. It was met with great unity here in the Riksdag. I believe it is good for the Prime Minister to tell other European leaders about that unity. We must stand united behind Ukraine against Russia.

It is also important that we focus on the EU expansion track that exists towards Ukraine, towards Moldova and towards Georgia.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is good that Hans Wallmark emphasizes hopefulness in a difficult time. Nothing is easier for us as individuals, as a country, or as a continent than to be drawn down into an experience of that what is happening is so terrible that one becomes despondent. I think that Europe until now has demonstrated that we are not despondent. We are concerned - that is an understatement - but we are not despondent.

It also leads the thought more correctly. It leads the thought to look at what unites and can lead to collective action rather than to becoming blinded by what does not unite and therefore does not lead to collective action. That is fundamental for me. I do not know what percentage Sweden has in the collective Europe, but it is not very many. But if one sits in one's own chamber with one's own percentages and decides that we shall do either in our own way or nothing at all - there are those in this chamber who think that way as well - one gets nothing done.

If, on the other hand, we see that we can unite and achieve something, which does not solve all problems but solves some problems and takes us a bit of the way during our short time, not here on earth but as president, we can achieve something that others can then build upon. We inherit something from Czechia and from France, and we pass something on. I think one should see it in that way. I do not say it because it is easy. On the contrary, we too will experience that it is very complicated. It will consume enormous amounts of time, mine and many others'. But let us then truly make it worth that time, so that we leave behind an EU in slightly better condition than the one we received.

Finally - it is obvious that the cold winter can very well risk the warm heart. Now everyone in Europe is engaged in Ukraine's cause. But a truly cold winter with sky-high prices can risk much. Let us maintain that unity!

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

Hans Wallmark (M)

Mr. Speaker! I hope that we in the EU Committee, where I am chairman, can contribute to this unity and breadth and to signal that there is a Swedish line on European issues. I therefore think it was good that the Prime Minister underlined that eight parties still stand behind the EU idea. It gives hope for constructiveness.

Mr. Speaker! Later today, I will meet the Ukrainian ambassador, who will tell me something about how his country is now preparing for the possibility of becoming an EU member in the long term. It is an important meeting.

In the winter package that the government presented, and which has the full support of the Riksdag, there was also a small part for Moldova. It is also significant. It is easy to forget the other countries. Therefore, I believe it is important that one speaks about the trinity. Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia are different, but they all have an EU perspective.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I want to say two short things. The first concerns what I said in my introduction. The Government will want to speak with everyone in the Swedish Riksdag with an open mind and thus with everyone in the EU Committee regarding these issues. My hope is that everyone in this chamber is prepared to speak with everyone. If one decides that there is someone one cannot speak with, it becomes difficult to find agreement. But if one decides that the issue at hand is important, there are extraordinarily good conditions.

If the government should at any point be in the minority and the majority of the EU Committee wants something else, the government will also have respect for that.

The second thing I want to mention is the candidate country Ukraine. If there are conditions for Sweden to notice and be part of confirming successes that Ukraine has achieved already during our presidency, we will of course seize that opportunity.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by thanking the Prime Minister for the account of the priorities ahead of the Swedish presidency. I want to emphasize that it was right and reasonable that the Prime Minister focused heavily on the security area, due to Russia's unjust and illegal war in Ukraine. I also want to thank for the clarity in the support for Ukraine which, as said, is now fighting for all of Europe's freedom. The unity and clarity from the EU is extremely important to preserve. I am glad that this was also mentioned.

Energy issues have, as a result of the war in Ukraine, become linked to security policy. We have a Swedish business sector that is at the forefront of the transition to a fossil-free future. They know, in fact, that if they do not transition, they will not be able to sell their goods and services within a number of years.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity at the EU Committee's open meeting to ask a question about the Inflation Reduction Act. I am grateful that the Prime Minister also highlighted the Swedish business community.

Mr. Speaker! My question to the Prime Minister, for which I would like to receive an answer, is: Will the Swedish presidency use the Swedish business community to demonstrate what is possible, i.e., to transition to a fossil-free future while the country can develop as a welfare state?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I begin with the unity and the concerns regarding the Ukraine issue. I completely share the view that the unity has been a fundamental strength. I was among the many who were worried about it in the beginning. I sat and spoke with leaders in Finland about it the day before the war: If this happens, will we be able to keep Europe's countries together, and will the EU stay together with the USA?

Until now, we have proven that we have that ability. We should be happy about that. But we must not take it for granted and believe that it will happen automatically, regardless of what trials we are subjected to, just because it has been so until now. I really want a focus on this. I believe it is important, without casting suspicion on anyone – on the contrary.

The Swedish business community is, just as the questioner says, a central part. We understand that if the business community is not part of the journey, nothing will happen. Consumers must be involved, investors must be involved, and the business community must be involved.

Politics has a very important task: to set good conditions, long-lasting and credible rules of the game, and guarantee fundamental conditions, such as energy production. For me, it is a mystery that a country and a government can abdicate from the country's collective energy supply. One cannot demand that individual companies take responsibility for that. The companies want to know what applies in the long term. They want fair, reasonable rules of the game and competition neutrality. All of this is what the companies want. The rest they are good at themselves. There, we should keep our paws off.

The more of that perspective we can get in Europe as well, the better, with respect for that countries, as said, have incredibly different conditions. If one comes from almost exclusively nuclear power, almost exclusively coal power, or almost exclusively Russian gas, one has completely different conditions. But it is an incredibly important perspective.

Fossilfritt Sverige is currently gathering 22 industries that show the way to complete fossil-free status. They are remarkably good role models for other countries and other industries.

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

Magnus Berntsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The debate in the EU tends to often swing between two extreme positions. Either it ends up in the ditch where EU cooperation is reduced to technicalities, or one hears calls for the EU to take larger and larger steps towards a European superstate that can replace Europe's nations. Right now, we hear quite a lot of demands for constitutional changes and the like.

I think it is important that we can find a middle ground that allows the EU to do what the EU is best at: being just right, quite simply. My question to the Prime Minister is: Is this a work program that ensures we get a just-right Europe?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Our ambitions will be a bit higher than "moderate," but otherwise, I believe I understand what the questioner means. It is clear that the EU should do the right things.

The EU should not be shy where it does the right things. In what is cross-border, the EU must be bold and forward-looking. If we are to solve the climate crisis in the world, we must have international cooperation where all countries do roughly the same, which everyone understands. The EU is a good role model in that area. If we are to solve the migration crisis, we must have control over our common borders in order to be able to have open internal borders. If we are to handle organized crime, the police must cooperate as closely as possible. It is obvious.

In many other areas, EU legislation is not needed and, on the contrary, reduces the legitimacy of the cooperation. If all this is thought slightly differently by different institutions. Sweden will remain a clear voice for the EU to do the right things in the right places.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! Now Sweden is in the process of taking over the presidency of the EU in the midst of a burning war in Europe. It will be an important but also, in parts, difficult presidency. The illegal Russian war against Ukraine continues. The suffering that the Ukrainian population endures is difficult to grasp. The reports are completely horrific.

We can assume on good grounds that the presidency will be dominated by the war, inflation, and the energy crisis. We need to remember that the EU has shown its best side since the war broke out. Large and previously quite unthinkable but very important decisions have been made.

Mr. Speaker! If one reflects for a moment on what Europe would look like today without strong EU cooperation, one soon understands the importance of a strong and united Europe. Unity provides hope. In the situation we find ourselves in now, it is very important that we continue to stand up for Ukraine and show that the EU is the true peace project that was the entire idea when everything began. That can become a very important task for the Swedish presidency. The Liberals look forward to being involved and contributing forward-looking and constructively to the Swedish presidency.

My question to the Prime Minister here today is what he assesses we can do further for Ukraine during the Swedish presidency.

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I completely share Elin Nilsson's description that it will be difficult - not primarily for us but for Ukraine. But when it is difficult for a country in our immediate vicinity and we are to maintain unity in support, it is also a difficult task, even if we are talking about different dimensions of the degree of difficulty. The war will be defining for the presidency, even if we, as said, will also be talking about other important things.

For my parents' generation, it was obvious that the EU was a project founded on the horrors of war. There was an intuitive legitimacy in this – never again war. Then the years have passed and the EU has become good at many other things. Free movement has been created, freedom from roaming charges – all possible big and small things. Now we are being reminded in some way. We are reminded again that ultimately it is about life and death. I believe that has been the basic premise for the great unity that has existed during this time. We would naturally have wished that it wasn't necessary, but when the EU is truly tested, the EU survives the test. I think that is important to keep in mind.

Then one can ask what else will happen during our presidency. I think it is difficult. Some things we know will occur. In other cases, we will be so well prepared that we can improvise. Supporting Ukraine is partly about individual countries like Sweden leading by example. That must be done in these cases, because it is obvious that the EU financially has a rather small common capacity now. There are very large resources, but when it comes to weapons, it is individual countries that contribute. There, we lead by example.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden opposed the EU's initiative on nature restoration. Fortunately, Sweden was overridden in this matter.

Sweden opposed a forest strategy at the EU level, but was overridden by a majority that welcomed the proposal.

Sweden voted no to the proposal that products on the EU market should not contribute to deforestation or forest degradation but was overridden.

Sweden voted for halved protection periods for the critically endangered eel. Fortunately, we were overridden once again.

Now the government has paused the incredibly well-elaborated measures to ensure that hydropower is modernized. This is a direct implementation of the EU's Water Framework Directive that has been agreed upon with all involved parties. A solution has been found for the 90 percent of dams that lack permits according to today's legislation. They were about to start at the end where the ecological benefit of the measures was greatest but the dams' contribution to energy was zero or negligible. Instead, the government now continues this environmental catastrophe, where endangered fish are ground up in water turbines.

Mr. Speaker! Ulf Kristersson says that the green transition is a priority during the chairmanship but has, through his actions in government, placed Sweden in an extreme position regarding biodiversity. All political tools are being used to accelerate species extinction and stop proposals that could benefit nature.

My question is: What initiatives does the government want to take as the presidency in the EU to strengthen biodiversity and the protection of endangered species and endangered nature?

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! As I said a short while ago, it is obvious that we domestically think very differently on fundamental issues, and I have all respect for that. Is Swedish forestry sustainable or, on the contrary, an abomination that should almost be phased out? We think differently about this. I am not ashamed for a moment. I stand up for Swedish forestry fully. We have significantly more forest now than when we started with large-scale forestry industry. In Swedish forestry, we have the world's most modern methods, a broad ownership, and a broad anchoring. In many countries, this is difficult to understand. They see the forest either as a park or as a plantation. That is not how we see it. We have respect for that other countries think differently. I will not mock other countries for this. I will not say that they are against Sweden. But as Swedish Prime Minister, I will stand up for Swedish interests in important issues. That we domestically think differently in these issues, I accept.

The same applies to the energy supply. We have different views on it. I am for hydropower, nuclear power, wind power, and solar power. Without hydropower and nuclear power, we have too little dispatchable power. Other countries - to return to the EU - have a different energy mix. For them, it is coal or Russian gas that provides the dispatchable energy. I do not moralize over these countries. I understand that they are in a tough situation. They are doing what they can to break the dependence not only on Russia but also on fossil energy sources. If we can help each other there, for example with more Swedish green bioenergy, that would be good.

The reason why we are stopping the review of hydropower is that in the extreme situation that Sweden now finds itself in, it is irresponsible to deliberately shut down Swedish water-driven electricity production.

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

Håkan Svenneling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I usually get the last word. I am always happy about that. Now it is the Prime Minister who will get it.

I would like to begin by thanking the Prime Minister for the clear support for Ukraine and emphasize the value of the unity that both the Prime Minister and the Chair of the EU Committee point out regarding Ukraine.

It is incredibly important that we understand - and we see this now also during the winter - that military support was needed. But resilience is built with more than military support.

That is why it is incredibly important that we financially stand up for Ukraine so that the economy does not collapse. Their welfare also needs to function through economic and humanitarian support. That is how we build resilience, and that is how the Ukrainians manage to withstand Russia's unforgivable invasion and war.

The Prime Minister also speculates in his speech about what is the next crisis or event that will affect the presidency. I intended to take that thought further.

It is obvious that Putin is a despot and practically a dictator who does unexpected things. One thing he sits on is the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons. That means that the risk of nuclear war has unfortunately perhaps never been as close as it is now.

Should Putin, in his perhaps brutal desperation over losing the war, resort to nuclear weapons, it will have incredible humanitarian consequences for our contemporary era but, as Japan shows, also for many generations to come.

I therefore wonder about the perhaps not so simple questions: How is Sweden and Europe preparing for such a crisis? How can we best counteract Putin's use of nuclear weapons? How can we contribute to a more peaceful world in the long run?

How can we support the Ukrainian people so that they have the resilience and fortitude to withstand drones from Iran but also, in the worst-case scenario, a nuclear attack?

(Applause)

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

Statsministern Ulf Kristersson (M)

Mr. Speaker! I want to start by saying that we have some disagreement in this chamber. I completely share Håkan Svenelling's view. I would gladly give Håkan Svenelling the last word in just this debate, but perhaps not in all debates. It is not a general free pass for the future. I completely share both the description and the fears,

It is completely correct that it is not just about military support. That is also why the EU's joint economic support package is so vital now. Then everyone understands that it requires some compromises. That was what happened just yesterday to achieve total unity on this. I stand fully and completely behind it. I believe that very many Europeans do as well.

The political support is invaluable. If we can move further with Ukraine as a candidate status country, it would be a great success. We all respect that there are rules of the game for this. There are no shortcuts. But it is of great importance that we in the EU live up to our own expressed promise.

Those who live up to it and want to enter the community are welcome. Whether we can confirm large or small progress during the Swedish presidency or otherwise during 2023 would be very valuable for Ukraine.

Before I come to nuclear weapons, I finally want to say that it is also very much about the broader civil cooperation. The entire strategic compass is not so much about military cooperation. We have Nato for that primarily. It is about civil defense cooperation and strengthening our resilience together in different ways. There are common European tasks there.

So finally to the question of nuclear weapons. We had some weeks when it stood even more on its edge. I do not say that to now downplay the risks. No one more than Putin knows what he is prepared to do. But I completely share the picture that we have probably not been closer to a nuclear catastrophe than we are right now in many decades.

One can weigh different world-renowned events. But it is very serious. It is clearly about ensuring that the threshold becomes so high for Putin that it simply is not worth the consequences. That is the best that Europe and Nato can do together.

(Applause)

The information was hereby concluded.

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