Broken Promises The Sweden Democrats first year in the European Parliament
Philip Lerulf
Broken Promises The Sweden Democrats first year in the European Parliament
www.oeiceurope.com
ŠOrganization 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.
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 1
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
2
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.
3
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 4
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/wpcontent/uploads/2014/05/eu-manifestet2014.pdf
5
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 (20102014) 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
6
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 Jรถnkรถping 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.
7
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
8
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-europeanparliament
9
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 EFDDgroup 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 6
http://expo.se/2014/sds-eu-grupp-kollapsar_6676.html http://www.svd.se/nyheter/utrikes/sd-grupp-ateruppstanden-i-eu_4027429.svd
10
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 EUgroup. ”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
11
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
12
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 questions 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,
13
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-overlastbilschaufforer#sthash.ZbEUflR2.dpuf
14
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 15
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.” 16
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 17
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.
18
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 19
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 20
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 EUparties 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.
21
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 yesvotes 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.
22
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 EUbudget but once in parliament the party’s MEPs, chose to blindly watch the other parties vote yes to increased compensations to themselves. 23
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.
24
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 impotence 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 Â
www.oeiceurope.com ORGANIZATION FOR EUROPEAN INTERSTATE COOPERATION