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
Top Related