Broken PromisesThe Sweden Democrats first year in the European Parliament

Philip Lerulf

Broken Promises

The Sweden Democrats first year in the European Parliament

www.oeiceurope.com

©Organization for European Interstate Cooperation 2015 Author: Philip Lerulf

Proofreading: Aleksander Pruitt

Printed in Romania

The activities of the OEIC are financially supported by the European Parliament. The

liability of any communication or publication by the OEIC, in any form and any medium

rests solely with the OEIC. The European Parliament is not responsible for any use that

may be made of the information contained therein. The views and opinions expressed are

solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the OEIC, its

members or member organisations. This book is available for free and can be copied for

non-commercial purposes as long as the author and publisher are mentioned by name.

1

Foreword Many analysts predicted that the eurosceptic parties would gain

the best results in the May 2014 European Parliament election. It

was a reasonable observation. By the time of the election the

economy in several countries within the EU had more or less

stagnated. Record high unemployment in Greece, Spain, and

Portugal (15-30 percent), combined with abysmal growth, deep

budget deficits and high levels of national debt appeared to

threaten the whole EU.

One year later we can ascertain that the prediction proved

correct. Additional eurosceptic parties became stronger after the

election. At the same time we should notice that several of the

parties which received support due to their eurosceptic stance

had traditionally been known for other ideas, such as resistance

to immigration and multiculturalism. The Neo-Nazi Golden Dawn

in Greece and French Front National are just two examples of

this.

Studying how the eurosceptic parties acted in parliament during

their first year reveals their criticism of the EU in several cases to

be more rhetorical than factual analysis. Once they were in a

decision making role, several failed to vote in an especially

eurosceptic way. Despite promising their voters to support a

development towards less central control and supranationalism,

the result has far too often been a call for more EU-regulation

with respect to each party’s most important issues. The Sweden

2

Democrats, which we’re taking a closer look at in this report, are

no exception.

Saying one thing in the presence of the election and acting in

another in Brussels and Strasbourg is of course a major letdown

to the voters. Although what’s probably worse is that this sort of

acting risks strengthening the image that euroscepticism and

xenophobia belong together, an idea many enthusiastic

europhiles happily confirm by spreading it.

Both Europe and the EU face a process where it gets clearer and

clearer that increased central control and bureaucratization is

leading us towards ruin. To criticize this does not mean one is or

must be xenophobic. Nor does a rightful criticism regarding the

process of integration within the EU necessarily lead to a

repudiation of the vision of a free and open society.

Philip Lerulf,

President, OEIC

3

Introduction The Sweden Democrats received 9.67 percent of the votes in

Sweden during the May 2014 European Parliament election.

Nearly three times the share of votes compared to the election

five years earlier when the party with 3.27 percent missed the 4

percent threshold and failed to obtain a seat. Since June 2014 the

two MEPs from the party, Kristina Winberg and Peter Lundgren,

have been part of the group Europe of Freedom and Direct

Democracy (EFDD).

But what kind of political party is it that the British UKIP has

chosen to cooperate with? An analysis of the party’s manifesto

gives you the impression of the Sweden Democrats being a

conventional eurosceptic party, but a closer look shows that it is

also a party with a long history of xenophobia. And just how

eurosceptic is the Sweden Democrats?

In this report you will have these questions answered, amongst

more. We will also summarize the Sweden Democrats first year in

the European Parliament and present how the party has acted in

key votes.

4

Why the Sweden Democrats won

The Sweden Democrats success in the 2014 elections was the

result of a well implemented campaign. By promising that the

party would take action on the process of leaving the EU they

successfully profiled themselves as the most obvious eurosceptic

alternative. The attention the party has gained in the national

political debate since entering the Swedish Parliament 2010 also

contributed to gaining more attention than the rest of parties

without seats in the European Parliament.

But electoral successes obviously cannot be fully explained

without mentioning the crisis atmosphere that prevailed in the

EU and Eurozone at the time of the election. All the television

images of angry demonstrators on the streets of Athens, which

was broadcast months before the European elections,

strengthened the public’s perception that something was not

right in the EU, sealing the deal for the Sweden Democrats.

The party’s message

During the election the Sweden Democrats presented the

message ”Less EU, more Sweden!” to the voters. In their

elections manifesto the party criticized the attempts of reducing

the importance of the nation state and the development towards

more and more political decisions being made by the assemblies

in Brussels and Strasbourg rather than by the member states

national parliaments. The Sweden Democrats criticized the other

5

Swedish parties for voting for a continued shift of power and

therefore promised the voters to be an advocate for

euroscepticism in Brussels. 1

The party entered the election campaign with five concrete

election promises:

1. Demand a renegotiation of the Swedish EU-membership

followed by a referendum on membership.

2. Demand a significantly reduced EU-budget and also that the

Swedish EU membership fee, which in 2014 was about 37 billion

Swedish Kronor (4 billion Euro), be reduced.

3. Call for greater transparency in the EU institutions, tougher

actions against misused tax money and corruption, and a strong

principle of public access to official records.

4. Further strengthening of border controls and the opportunity

to refrain from giving visas to some citizens. The Sweden

Democrats believed that the open borders within the EU were

being misused and had led to crossborder criminality, weapons

and drug smuggling, terrorism, trafficking and organized

begging. The party wanted to limit the time that EU-citizens

could be in Sweden unobstructed without reporting their

intention or how they might support themselves.

1 The Sweden Democrats (2014), ”Less EU, more Sweden”. Election manifesto European Parliament election 2014, www.sverigedemokraterna.se/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/eu-manifestet2014.pdf

6

5. The party called for a halt to all supranational control over the

Swedish labour market and a legally binding guarantee for the

protection of the Swedish model. The party was highly critical of

the EU attempting to gain influence over the Swedish job market,

which they believed contributed to wage dumping and poorer

working conditions.

The party’s MEPs

The Sweden Democrats electoral success gave them two seats in

the European Parliament, won by Kristina Winberg and Peter

Lundgren, who got 43 643 (12.15 percent) and 27 628 (7.69

percent) votes respectively. 2

Peter Lundgren, who is a professional truck driver, has been a

substitute of the party’s board since November 2013. Peter

Lundgren became an active politician in the Sweden Democrats

during the 2010 national election. In Gnosjö he led an active

campaign that resulted in three seats in the city council. He

represented the Sweden Democrats in the city council (2010-

2014) and was also president in the local party organization. Peter

Lundgren is a member of the Committee on Transport and

Tourism and a substitute in the Committee on Agriculture and

Rural Development. He’s also a member of the delegation for

relations with the United States, delegation for relations with

2 Valmyndigheten (2015), Election result European Parliament election 2014, votes, www.val.se/val/ep2014/slutresultat/E/rike/personroster.html#idSD

7

Canada, and a substitute in the delegation for relations with

Australia and New Zeeland.

Kristina Winberg, who worked as a nursing assistant, has been a

member of the Jönköping city council since 2010. Kristina

Winberg is a member of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice

and Home Affairs and a substitute in the Committee on

Constitutional Affairs. In addition she is also a member of the

delegation for relations with the Mashreq countries and a

substitute in the delegation for relations with the Maghreb

countries and the Arab Maghreb Union.

8

A tumultuous start

The Sweden Democrats could have got off to a better start in the

European Parliament. Prior to the election, and particularly when

the opinions polls indicated that the Sweden Democrats would

get a seat in the European Parliament, there was speculation

about which political group the party would choose to join.

According to information in Swedish news media the choice was

between the conservative group European Conservatives and

Reformists (ECR) or the nationalistic group Europe of Freedom

and Direct Democracy (EFDD). 3 It was judged to be less likely

that the Sweden Democrats would be offered a position in the

same group as the British ruling Tories (Conservative party), but

the EFDD didn’t seem to be an alternative because of Nigel

Farage, the leader of UKIP, who had said the Sweden Democrats

weren't welcome.

The Sweden Democrats - a criticized partner

In the beginning of June it stood clear that in spite of everything

the Sweden Democrats were going to be a part of the EFDD

group together with UKIP and the Italian Beppe Grillos party,

Movimento 5 Stelle, amongst others. These include the

Lithuanian national conservative party Order and Justice, Czech

3 http://www.europaportalen.se/2014/06/sd-ansoker-till-tva-eu-grupper

9

Party of Free Citizens, Latvian Farmers’ Union and an individual

MEP who left the French Front National.

The decision provoked reaction not least in Great Britain. They

were criticised for their choice of partner. Several media outlets

reproduced controversial statements made by representatives of

the Sweden Democrats as well as incidents connected to the

party.

The Guardian, a British newspaper, wrote that UKIP had chosen

to ally themselves with right-wing extremists and informed

readers about the Sweden Democrats first board which included

several members with a background within Nazi groups like the

Nordic Reich Party and fascistic New Swedish Movement. 4 The

paper also reported about the fact that Nazi uniforms were

conventional in the early years of the Sweden Democratic party

meetings.

Readers of newspapers in Great Britain also learned of more

recent events such as the so-called iron pipe-scandal, where

some of the party’s leading figures armed themselves with iron

pipes in central Stockholm. Another story brought to their

attention was that of Marie Stensby, an alternate member of the

Sweden Democrats executive board, who on a hate-website

wrote, “I hope they starve to death” in reference to

unaccompanied refugee children.

4 http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/18/nigel-farage-far-right-european-parliament

10

Holocaust deniers join the Sweden Democrats

group

In mid October the next backlash for the Sweden Democrats took

place. After a Latvian MEP suddenly chose to leave EFDD it

looked as if the group wouldn’t survive the membership criteria

and therefore collapse. 5 Groups in the European Parliament must

have MEPs from at least seven member states and without the

Latvian representation EFDD would only have six member states

represented.

After a few days of floating around in uncertainty the EFDD-

group resurrected itself after the Polish MEP Robert Jaroslaw

Iwaszkiewicz, from the archconservative party Coalition for the

Renewal of the Republic - Freedom and Hope, chose to join the

group. Consequently EFDD now fulfilled the criteria to form a

group in the European Parliament. 6

Robert Iwaszkiewicz quickly showed himself to be more of a

burden than a benefactor. It was shown that Iwaszkiewicz had

defended married men who hits their wives by saying that it’s

necessary ”to bring her down to earth”, a saying he later

dismissed as sarcasm. According to Rafal Pankowski, an expert

on Polish ultra-right politics and member of the antiracist

organization Never Again, he also claimed that there is no

evidence Adolf Hitler knew about the holocaust, a statement

5 http://expo.se/2014/sds-eu-grupp-kollapsar_6676.html 6 http://www.svd.se/nyheter/utrikes/sd-grupp-ateruppstanden-i-eu_4027429.svd

11

made in defence of holocaust denial by his party leader, Janusz

Korwin-Mikke.

Both the Swedish Democrats and the British party UKIP tried to

downplay Robert Iwaszkiewicz and his party’s role in the EU-

group. ”It is a free-standing representative that’s joining, not the

party. We shall hope that this is working. When you’re joining a

group one has to adjust, that’s a part of being in a group. I hope

and believe this will work out fine. We want to keep this group

together in every way.” said the Sweden Democrats MEP Peter

Lundgren to Aftonbladet. 7

That attitude was quickly rejected by Rafal Pankowski. According

to him it’s the Renewal of the Republic as a party that took the

decision of joining EFDD. ”In polish media it has been confirmed

by the party leader Janusz Kowin-Mikke that the party accepted

this. EFDD also accepted a deal with the Renewal of the Republic

as a party and not only with a single representative”, Rafal

Pankowski said. 8

Islamophobia in the Sweden Democrats Brussels

secretariat

In the beginning of 2015 the Sweden Democrats got in trouble

once more. It was brought up that the closest co-worker to the

7 Karlsson, Pär (2014), ”SDs partigrupp i EU-parlamentet återbildas”, Aftonbladet 20 oktober 2014, www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article19726586.ab 8 Vergara, Daniel (2014), ”Ledamot i SD-grupp försvarade Hitler”, Expo 23 oktober 2014, www.expo.se/2014/ledamot-i-sd-grupp-forsvarade-hitler_6684.html

12

parliamentarian Kristina Winberg in the Brussels secretariat had

been inciting against Jews and Muslims online. ”Islam and its

people are an invention of hell that should be driven back to the

desert, with weapons if necessary”, is what he wrote among

other things.9

The exposure aroused attention and dominated the Swedish

public debate. Even in foreign media the scoop was of interest

and in the newspaper New Europe the Swedish MEPs Cecilia

Wikström, Marit Paulsen and Fredrick Federley requested that

the European Parliament should investigate the matter. The

accused co-worker refused to comment on the matter and while

the Sweden Democrats claimed he would be fired however he is

still employed by the party in Brussels at this time.

9 Aschberg, Richard (2015) ”jobbar för EU på dagarna - sprider hat på kvällarna”, Aftonbladet 10 februari 2015, http://www.aftonbladet.se/se/nyheter/article20265585.ab

13

The EU-critic that disappeared

In the presence of the 2014 European election the Sweden

Democrats promised the Swedish voters to stand up for

Sweden’s sovereignty. They demanded a renegotiation of

Sweden’s EU-membership followed by a referendum, a smaller

EU-budget and that the EU would stop interfering with ques-

tions concerning the Swedish labour market. On several

occasions during central votes the party has surprisingly chosen

to refrain from highlighting the continued shift of power to the

EU.

New EU registry the most important issue

After one year it is hard to see which election pledges the party

has lived up to. Instead of opposing supranationalism the party’s

MEP Peter Lundgren, who is the EFDD-group coordinator in the

Committee on Transport and Tourism, requested new EU-rules

and demanded the making of a special EU-register overlooking all

truck drivers working in several member states. The registry is

supposed to help the police check the truckers driving licenses.

The Swedish road carrier industry is in danger, according to

Lundgren, because of unfair competition from foreign drivers

who often use fake diving licenses. ”A tool must be created for

the police to use, and it must be the same tool in all countries.” 10

10 Lindstedt, Henrik (2015), ”Sverigedemokrat vill ha europeiskt register över lastbilschaufförer”, Europaportalen 8 april 2015,

14

What Peter Lundgren seems to have forgotten about is that by

working for a registry of truck drivers he’s also authorizing all

sorts of registration on a EU-level. What today is a record of

truck drivers is maybe tomorrow a record of road carriers, ships,

and their crews. Where will we draw the line? By his action Peter

Lundgren and the EFDD are contributing to extending the

borders of the European Union’s reach of power.

Promised cuts - now demanding more money to

administrative authority

But even Peter Lundgrens party colleague Kristina Winberg has

had some trouble keeping up EU criticism. It wasn't long before in

a debate, about how the EU should act on the bigger and bigger

numbers of refugees coming through the Mediterranean, she

requested more money to Frontex, the European Union’s

administrative authority for border checks. This may seem to be a

typical proposition according to Sweden Democratic politics, but

by arguing for giving more money to Frontex Kristina Winberg is

asking for the opposite of her promise to cuts in the EU budget.

By her action she’s now also legitimizing the EU to interfere with

other political areas regarding peoples safety, such as other

questions related to border control but also defence and police

matters, which one would think a eurosceptic party would

obviously be against.

www.europaportalen.se/2015/04/sverigedemokrat-vill-ha-europeiskt-register-over-lastbilschaufforer#sthash.ZbEUflR2.dpuf

15

More money to the EU

Prior to the 2014 election the Sweden Democrats promised

voters to act for a smaller EU budget. The party’s representatives

made clear that the EU had gained too much say and power over

taxpayer money. In Fall 2014, when the European Parliament was

about to vote on the budget proposal for 2015, amended by

them in the Gardiazabal Rubial/Hohlmeier-report (A8-

0014/2014), ”General budget of the European Union for the

financial year 2015 - all sectors”, the natural thing for the Sweden

Democrats would have been to vote no and take a clear position

as the EU will have to cope with fewer resources in the future.

Peter Lundgren and Kristina Winberg should also have given their

support to the critical amendments designed to limit the EU

budget.

The EU Commission had before the budget vote requested a

budget of 142.1 billion euro for the year 2015. The member states

of the Council had wanted to see a marginally smaller budget of

140 billion euro. It was natural in a situation where many

governments were forced to make cuts to their national budgets.

The European Parliament on the other hand wanted the budget

for 2015 to increase and had been demanding an increase of 8

percent compared to 2014. The proposal that the MEPs had to

consider on October 22nd was 141.2 billion euro.

During the vote five amendments were presented which sought

to limit the budget, but above all else were to set the framework

16

for how the funds were used. Paragraph 4 of the draft resolution

from the Committee on Budgets read as follows:

”Reiterates the complementary nature of the Union budget to

national budgets and the impetus it creates to promote growth and

jobs and underlines that given its very nature and limited size it should not be checked and curbed by arbitrary reductions but on the contrary targeted areas need to be reinforced.”

The ECR-group wanted to change the writing (amendment 31) to

the following:

”Reiterates the complementary nature of the Union budget to

national budgets and the impetus it creates to promote growth and

jobs and underlines that the principle of EU added value must represent the cornerstone of all EU budgets.”

Peter Lundgren and Kristina Winberg voted no to this

amendment. Apparently, they don’t believe that the EU budget

should be reduced but that it must be reinforced within selected

areas.

With amendment 40 the leftist group GUE/NGL added a new

point with the following text:

”27a. Recalls that EU funds, including Commission research grants,

must not fund military projects; stresses that the concept of dual-use

technology must not be used as a loophole in order to fund projects

with a de facto military aim, such as drones for high-tech warfare and

security surveillance.”

17

In this vote the Sweden Democrats chose not to participate

which indicates that the party does not have a problem with EU

funds being used to finance military projects. This is also to be

understood as a consequence of the party being for the

European Unions’ border control agency, Frontex.

Another amendment that should have supported by the Sweden

Democrats was amendment 46 from Rina Ronja Kari, MEP for the

Danish People's Movement against the EU and the leftist group

GUE/NGL:

”43a. Recalls that the Structural Funds may not be used in a way that

directly or indirectly supports the relocation of services or production

to other Member States.”

Although companies operating in Sweden, which is a net

contributor to the EU, have chosen to move their operations from

Sweden to other EU countries thanks to EU subsidies, the

Sweden Democrats, strangely enough, abstained from voting on

this issue.

Amendment 11 from the Green/Regionalist group was a proposal

for a new point saying:

”45d. Considers export refunds to be trade-distorting and in

contradiction to the EU development goals; therefore supports their

complete elimination.”

Even in this poll, the Sweden Democrats abstained. Apparently

Khristina Winberg and Peter Lundgren had no opinion on the fact

18

that the EU through the help of export subsidies dumps

agricultural products in other parts of the world and drives out

local food producers.

Finally, the Sweden Democrats chose to vote no to an

amendment 65 from the leftist group GUE/NGL alluding to

limiting the EUs militarily ambitions:

”75a. Considers it extremely important to put an end to much of

military spending and spending on external representation, clamping

down on migrants (in particular through Frontex) and propaganda.”

The party’s MEP chose to vote no to the proposal, a natural

decision according to Kristina Winberg’s expressed support of

Frontex but remarkable according to a party that claims to be

highly eurosceptic.

The vested interest never lies

On Wednesday the 29th of April 2015 the European Parliament

voted about the freedom of liability for various EU-institutions

regarding the implementation of the budget for 2013. A report

about the counting of the European Parliaments budget for 2016

was also brought up. A briefing of the votes that were

implemented through roll-call (ONU) that day presents a sound

image of the MEPs opinions regarding the EU’s handling of

spending and EU-institutions transparency, amongst more.

19

The question about MEPs accounting of the general monthly

expense compensation was mentioned in the Pargneuax report

(A8-0082/2015). Every month all MEPs get 4 320 euro. This

amount shall cover expenses such as stationary, mobile phone

invoices and travelling within their own constituency/country.

With the current rules though, there is no actual insight in how

the MEP is really using the money. The precise writing that was

suggested says:

”42. Stresses the need for greater transparency as regards the

general spending allowances for Members; considers it advisable for

every Member to submit an end-of-year public report on these

allowances.”

But the two dominating party groups, the Christian democratic

EPP-group and the social democratic S&D-group, got cold feet

and together submitted an amendment that undermined the

demand of expense reviewing. Instead they suggested that the

question should be further investigated. The amendment 21 said:

”42. Stresses the need for greater transparency as regards the

general spending allowances for Members; calls on the Bureau to

work on the definition of more precise rules regarding the

accountability of expenditures authorised under this allowance,

without causing additional costs to Parliament. (If adopted,

paragraphs 43 and 44 fall.)”

The amendment gained big support, 576 of the MEPs voted yes.

Only the Green/Regionalist group and the Italian Five Star

20

Movement voted no. The leftist group GUE/NGL didn't

participate. Also the Sweden Democrats Kristina Winberg and

Peter Lundgren voted yes to undermining the demand of

expense reviewing. The EU news website Europaportalen

considered Winberg’s and Lundgren’s yes vote to be so

extraordinary that they called the Swedish MEPs asked them

about their motives. Both Peter Lundgren and Kristina Winberg

claimed to have voted wrong. Whether or not the Sweden

Democrats would have corrected their voting if Europaportalen

hadn’t contacted them we don’t know. But this is a good

illustration of how careless MEPs can be on various issues and

blindly following other members of their group. There is always a

possibility to back out and change ones vote.

The same day the Perganeaux report was brought up for vote the

Deprez report (A8-0144/2015), about estimating the European

Parliaments revenue and expenses for the budget year 2016 -

segment 1 - the parliament, was also going to be processed. The

leftist group GUE/NGL suggested an amendment (amendment

31) to the report saying:

”6a. Considers, in the context of the current budgetary efforts, that an increase in the allowance parliamentary assistance does not constitute a priority.”

Everywhere in the public sector there is very little money but

increased appropriations to the European Parliament must be

prioritised according to its MEPs. The Treaty of Lisbon increased

21

secretarial allowances for MEPs to hire a third assistant. Some

parliamentarians are good at taking advantage of their staff's

skills, but unfortunately there are also assistants who have

nothing to do during the day due to bad management and

amateurishly handled organizations at the MEP offices.

The leftist group’s proposal about not increasing the assistant

support was of course overruled, but with a surprisingly small

margin - 313 yes-votes, 347 no-votes and 23 abstentions. The

conservative ECR-group, leftist group GUE/NGL, Non-Inscrits

(MEPs without a group) and the Green/Regionalist group voted

yes whilst the liberal ALDE was split between yes and no. Also

the EFDD-group was split. The Sweden Democrats chose to

abstain.

The same vested interest became obvious when amendment 3

was about to be discussed. In response to the European

Parliament proposal about appropriation applications to the EU-

parties the Italian Five Star Movement submitted a critical

proposal:

”9a. Deplores the huge increase of funding for European political

parties and foundations; considers this budgetary line not a priority

but only a way to waste EU taxpayers' money.”

The second part of the proposal was overruled by 214 yes-votes,

442 no-votes and 34 abstentions. Kristina Winberg and Peter

Lundgren chose not to participate in the vote.

22

The question about transparent accounting of the MEPs general

expense compensation became current again in a part of the

Deprez report. In amendment 14, presented by the

Green/Regionalist, more transparency was requested.

”18a. Requests that Members should justify 50 % of their expenditures

from the General expenditure allowance by providing supporting

evidence; believes that this would give an indication if the current

level of this allowance is justified.”

The amendment was defeated by 362 no-votes against 276 yes-

votes and 50 abstentions. Virtually all groups were divided over

the matter. Again, the Sweden Democrats refrained from

requiring better documentation of how taxpayer money is used.

23

Conclusion

The Sweden Democrats went into the election based on the

vision of Sweden leaving the European Union, but has instead

during their first year in parliament reinforced the EU’s influence

over Swedish politics. By requesting new laws that serve their

own self-interest the party is running the centralists errands.

Instead of devoting their time to developing a consistent

eurosceptic policy, Peter Lundgren and Kristina Winberg actively

supported the EU’s continued expansion through their votes and

actions.

The party’s MEPs have also renounced their role in opposition by

not supporting crucial amendments brought up in votes about

both the EU’s budget and transparency regarding different sorts

of expense compensations for MEPs of the European Parliament.

This creates an image of hypocrisy, a party saying one thing but

acting in a completely different way. The pattern is clear. In the

2014 election it was promised that they were going to counteract

further concentration of power to Brussels, but once in

parliament the party’s MEPs voted yes to giving the EU’s border

control agency, Frontex, more money. In the election campaign

the Sweden Democrats promised to push for a reduced EU-

budget but once in parliament the party’s MEPs, chose to blindly

watch the other parties vote yes to increased compensations to

themselves.

24

The party’s voters have reasons to feel disappointment. In the

2014 Swedish election the Sweden Democrats appeared as the

clearest eurosceptic alternative. Lots of people that had earlier

voted for Junilistan (the June List) chose to vote for Kristina

Winberg or Peter Lundgren. It was obviously a mistake.

Unfortunately the Sweden Democrats behaviour brings

consequences to legitimate euroscepticism, which constantly

needs to be nurtured and cared for. Before the 2014 European

Parliamentary election there were many of us who tried to explain

to the voters that parties like the Sweden Democrats wanted

seats in favour of a political agenda based on building walls

against the surrounding world and not a political agenda seriously

challenging the eagerness of centralisation pushing pro-EU

spokesmen. In spite of our efforts the Sweden Democrats

succeeded in winning a large share of the voters sceptical of the

EU’s great ambitions for power. The voters confidence in the

eurosceptic movement risks being cast adrift as long as the

Sweden Democrats continue to break their electoral pledges by

adopting the kleptocratic and intrusive nature of the very

institution they sought out to reform in order to further their own

xenophobic and self-interested agenda.

The third book published in the Europe Deserves Better series takes a closer look at the Sweden Democrats, the party that won two seats in the European Parliament in May 2014. By examining their voting record and activities in the European Parliament, the author hopes to contribute to better knowledge of the party and its policies that in turn may facilitate an understanding of why this party is gaining ground and how it should be met.

Over a period of 25 years the Sweden Democrats have grown from irrelevance to seemingly threaten the established left-right blocs. Dissatisfaction with immigration and integration, government impo-tence and increased distance between politicians and the electorate have driven voters towards the Sweden Democrats. In the election to the European Parliament in May 2014 the party established itself as the prime EU critical force in Swedish politics. But can the Sweden Democrats deliver on its EU sceptical electoral pledges? This booklet describes what the party has done in the European Parliament since first elected in 2014. The results are not impressive.

Published in early 2014 part one of the Europe Deserves Better series examines the Hungarian Jobbik party, the Dutch Party for Freedom and the Danish People’s Party, part two which examines the French National Front was published in late 2014. The entire series of books are available for free at:

www.europedeservesbetter.com

www.oeiceurope.com 

ORGANIZATION FOR EUROPEAN INTERSTATE COOPERATION