Feed aggregator

He called for a Europe 'free from the destructive principles of liberalism'

Peter Hegseth accused of trying to stir up ‘hard line support for the right wing across Europe’

Politiska genvägar för att få ned kostnader för veterinärvård är inte rätt väg framåt. Det kan i värsta fall få svensk djursjukvård att backa kvalitetsmässigt, skriver företrädare för branschen.

Förslag som flyttar makten över hyran från förhandlingsbordet till marknaden kommer vi att fortsätta säga nej till, oavsett vem som driver det. Det skriver företrädare för Hyresgästföreningen i en replik.

Trades unions at the European Economic and Social Committee demand an independent assessment of the EU ombudsman

På torsdagskvällen var jag inbjuden att hålla tal hos konservativ klubb i Bryssel.

Inför ett 30-tal gäster från olika europeiska länder och med olika uppdrag i partigrupper, tankesmedjor, EU-organ eller inom näringslivet gav jag min syn på samhällsutvecklingen under de nästa 50 år som jag nu kan överblicka.

Här är mina noteringar.

Remarks at Conservative Dinner, 4 June 2026 in Brussels

Okay. One big advantage of getting older is that you can use your own memories to review political developments over almost half a century.

So much has happened since the 1970s on every conceivable level. My purpose here tonight is to try to describe how the world around me has changed and forced me to find new allies – again and again.

Politics is like the ocean. It moves with the ebb and flow of the tides, sometimes slowly, sometimes suddenly, like a storm. But I want to claim that I’m fixed as a lighthouse on solid conservative rock, shining a light on the hazards around me. (I had help with that wording.)

I am from a working-class family where no previous generation had more than seven years of formal education. I started working on the state railway during the summers and school breaks. At this accounting office, almost all of the 30 men were born in the 1910s and 20s. They would soon retire. No one had academic education, except for the boss.

They had started working outside on the railroad in their teens. And they were all Social Democrats.

But! They were of an absolutely different kind of political left than today. In the present time we could easily call them conservative. Their identity and view of life and society were completely different from the one that dominates today.

• Instead of being offended, they were proud.
• Rather than demanding benefits, they were concerned about fulfilling their duties.
• Instead of sugar-coating their messages, they spoke plainly
  (if you did something wrong, you were told).
• Rather than complaining about society, they discussed what should be done about the problems.

They belonged to a generation that built our society. As Swedes, they had not been to war. But they had worked hard to create a better community for their children than they themselves have had. At lunchbreaks we had many discussions. I learned a lot about the views and values of an older generation.

Most memorable was how proud they were. I can’t emphasize that enough. For me, that’s the biggest difference I can see between then and now. People with ordinary work were proud, and acted so they could continue to be proud of themselves.

Let me give you a concrete example. One of the guys had lost his townhouse in a landslide a few years earlier. Parts of his residential area were built on mud that had slid down into the river.

When the affected homeowners met with the insurance companies, it became clear that it would take a long time before they would receive the insurance money. They were advised to ask for welfare relief at the social service office.

I had never seen my colleague so angry as when he told me about this advice. “Should I and my family receive social benefits? Over my dead body!”

Since then, I have read that the Social Democrats in the 1960s and 70s had difficulty getting the working class to apply for welfare benefits from the government. It was seen as a problem that Swedes were too proud to ask for support from the government.

This willingness to take responsibility and do one’s duty challenges the left’s view of civil rights. Unfortunately, the Social Democrats eventually succeeded in breaking this work ethic. The following generations have come to see themselves as victims, who must be rescued and provided for by the government.

I would argue that this dependency on subsidies and the worldview that you yourself are helpless, is an important reason why many young people today are confused and become worried, angry, offended or depressed. They don’t understand what life is all about – taking control of once own life and becoming self-sufficient.

*

For my part, I got involved with the Center Party in the late 70s. It was then the established farmers’ party that had managed to overthrow the long-standing Social Democratic hold on power in Sweden – for four decades. I have no ties to agriculture, but Prime Minister Thorbjörn Fälldin, who was a farmer, impressed me.

He beat the hero of the left, the internationally known Olof Palme. Not in one election, but two. Of course Fälldin was accused of aligning with right-wing extremists and his victory was called a coup d’état.

Being down to earth was his success. He talked about everyday problems instead of grandiose utopian promises. He focused on how things actually are: not how intellectuals believe they should be. That is why people trusted him. He spoke about the importance of manual labor, the kind of work that gets dirt under your nails. And he always began his annual speech at the party congress by stating that the Swedish society is built on a Christian foundation.

When the party nominating committee, years later, asked him to step aside, he responded with a line from the King James Bible: “Thy will be done.” Although he uttered these words sarcastically – he wanted to continue as party leader – they reflected a politician still grounded in Christian values.

When Fälldin resigned in 1985, his successor moved the party to the liberal left.

Looking at today’s Centre Party where I had many of my friends as a young adult, I sometimes think: they never grew up. They abandoned responsibility in favor of posturing.

I left party politics and worked as an economist and accountant for NGOs, and later independently. My role was simple: to ensure that money was spent properly. In many ways, that is also what I do today – as a member of the European parliament and of the Committee on Budgetary Control: Examining how funds are used and misused.

But I couldn’t keep away from policy and politics. I became involved with the business think tank Timbro. At that time it was portrayed as extremist by mainstream media. Sweden was heavily regulated and market solutions needed more space. Personal freedom was something that in Sweden came to be seen as an economically liberal stance, but in the United Kingdom and United States, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were conservatives who challenged both an overgrown government and defended individual responsibilities.

The neoliberal wave in Sweden was refreshing in its criticism of state supremacy. I had no problem working with classically liberal opinion leaders when it came to free the people from overwhelming regulations and excessive power from the state.

At Timbro, I focused on a growing imbalance as the left constantly spoke about rights but rarely about duties. Benefits were emphasized. Responsibility was neglected.

I wrote an essay in the middle of the 90s, “The Morality of Weakness,” arguing that a society which disconnects rights from duties ultimately weakens itself. That essay became a bestseller among Timbro-publications.

I don’t know if you know the author Johan Norberg? He is now a senior fellow at the American libertarian think tank Cato Institute. At Timbro, thirty years ago, we had many discussions about what freedom was. We didn’t agree on everything, but we were both in opposition to the “one party state” as we called the long legacy of the Social Democratic rule.

At its best, Timbro defended not only market freedom, but the value of the individual—not just as an economic actor, but as a moral agent.

Here I came into contact with many sharp thinkers throughout history. For example the German economist and longtime minister of industry, Ludwig Erhard. He was once asked whether small private vegetable gardens managed by ordinary people should be discouraged in the name of efficiency. He replied: no. Because society is not only an economic system, it is a human one.

Figures like Aristotle and Bismarck understood that a functioning society requires more than markets: it requires structure, responsibility, and shared norms.

Here we have a difference in perspective between libertarians and conservatives. But we could still discuss and agree about the faults of socialism.

*

Then 9/11 happened.

For many, the end of the Cold War and the fall of the wall had marked the end of ideological struggle. The West had won. But that conclusion was premature.

The conflict was no longer primarily economic. It was civilizational.

For me, Islamism and its war against our Christian civilization became the new dominant contradiction, not the Cold War and the struggle between communism and capitalism.

In my view, liberals, and Timbro, remained trapped in the “end of history” mindset, a form of neoliberal utopian globalism. After ten active years, I left.

My liberal friends refused to acknowledge that Islam, or religion in general, had any significance for us in the West. They dismissed criticism of Islam as racism and xenophobia.

I became a columnist in “The World today” a leading Christian newspaper, owned by the Pentecostal Movement. It was associated with its famous pastor, Ulf Ekman and portrayed in the media as extremist. Here I was able to discuss the Western world’s moral roots in Christianity and how big the differences are to the Muslim world. It was – and is – a Clash of Civilizations, as Samuel Huntington wrote.

And I published chronicles about how individual freedom is intimately connected to responsibility and duties, something liberals ignore and – on this point resemble the left.

*

Then came the wave of refugees in 2015. And while Christian circles were carried along by shifting political currents, I remained anchored to the same conservative principles.

I criticized the open borders when even religious institutions wanted to help all the migrants and let everyone in the world come and stay in Sweden. My last article had the topic: Christians should not confuse the government with God.

You’re supposed to save people from drowning, of course, but that doesn’t mean you’re supposed to take responsibility for their livelihood for the rest of their lives.

There is a difference between immediate compassion and permanent obligation. That distinction disappeared.

And there is a big difference between receiving a small number of migrants – like Sweden has done in hundreds of years – and taking in millions in a decade or two. Volume plays a crucial role for society. Neither Christians, liberals, nor socialists understand this.

The welfare state is based on a social contract with rights andobligations. A large number of people cannot suddenly appear from abroad and demand rights. Then the social system collapses. Only conservatives have understood this.

Sweden developed a kind of moral overreach—the belief that we have the whole world in our hands. That is not faith. That is a political illusion.

And now we are paying the price for our naivety. Shootings, bombings, rapes, gangs and corruption are dissolving our social structures.

*

After being outside party politics for 15 years, I had to engage again in 2015. The only voice of clarity during the migrant crisis was the Sweden Democrats. The party was, and on the left still is, regarded as extremist.

I had dinner with Mattias Karlsson, a member of the party leadership and offered to write reports and materials for the party. But he offered me to take over the online newspaper that the party had begun to be dissatisfied with.

I managed to increase the unique daily visitors from 3,000 to 20,000. Since I was fairly well-known in the media world, I was invited to numerous live panels on TV and radio.

Suddenly I was one of the most recognizable Sweden Democrats in the country. And after eight years in social media I was elected as one of the party’s three Members of European parliament in 2024.

*

So, to conclude, my journey have let me participate in different political and ideological environments, from workplaces with social democratic blue-collar workers, to agrarian down-to-earth politicians, to neoliberal freedom fighters, to Christian sermons in defense of our civilization and finally to a new conservative movement fighting against establishments who don’t understand what happens when globalization runs amok.

The strange thing is that I have felt at home in every one of these environments – as long as their topics were focused on what to me was common sense. Over time, as new perspectives have come to dominate politics, our interpretations drifted apart about which values should be prioritized.

Unfortunately, there are man who don’t realize how complex our human societies are. It is only with conservative views you are able to have a pragmatic outlook which allows your values to meet reality. As it is.

And those who are pragmatic (in the long term) have absurdly been called extremists by those progressives who now tear everything down.

I think the reason for this is that for a long time, since the Enlightenment, progressives were right in many ways. About democracy, equality and science. But in the last half century it has passed its zenith. To continue in the direction of the tangent no longer leads to progress but to destruction of our civilization.

Conservatives have the audacity to point this out. In that sense we become extremists for those with a progressive outlook. We want to return politics to reality. How can we be so horrible?

Thank you!

The country's eurosceptic government and public opinion still firmly reject adopting the EU's single currency

Personer som blir föremål för misstanke om fusk och bedrägeri inom EU kan vända sig till fristående Controller med klagomål. Denne Controller lämnar årsrapport till Budgetkontrollutskottet och utfrågningen av henne låg på mitt bord.

I Sverige skulle vi lägga denna funktion som en del av arbetet hos justitieombudsmannen, JO. Inom EU är det en Controller som tar hand om klagomål mot antibedrägeribyrån OLAF:s arbete.

Jakten på fusk får inte ta åratal

EU:s byrå för bedrägeribekämpning, OLAF, gör framsteg, men alltför många utredningar drar fortfarande ut i åratal. Det behövs skarpare tidsgränser, bättre resurser och tydlig uppföljning av varje rekommendation.

När EU-pengar missbrukas måste… pic.twitter.com/LgCmPdKhIq

— Dick Erixon (@DickErixon) June 4, 2026

(Under utskottsmötet var Jonas Sjöstedt (V) ordförande så som ålderman i utskottet då ordinarie ordförande hade förhinder.)

His threat to table a no-confidence motion could alienate his conservative voters and further strengthen the radical right-wing Vox

The Commission’s sovereignty package is ambitious. But ownership is not the same as control: China’s and India’s different experiences show why

Starka public service-företag och livskraftiga kommersiella nyhets­medier har tjänat våra länder väl. Vi behöver en gemensam verklighet med en saklig och allsidig journalistik, skriver cheferna för public service i Sverige och Finland.

Pontiff admits that more young Spaniards this weekend will flock to see Bad Bunny, a singer, but says, ‘I think there will also be a few here to see the pope’

Zelenskyy is to meet with British, French and German leaders in London on Sunday

Vi firar vår nationaldag 6 juni eftersom Gustav Eriksson Vasa denna dag år 1523 valdes till Sveriges konung. Jag gjorde inför 500-års dagen en 40 minuter lång dokumentär för Riks om denne färgstarke upprorsmakare som blev kung.

Tycker den håller än. Håll tillgodo.

Both Moscow and Brussels are closely watching the vote

Kosovo has been trapped in a rolling political crisis, leaving it with only partially functional institutions

Nya regler börjar idag gälla som förändrar förutsättningarna att vara svensk medborgare. Vissa människors tillhörighet blir alltid villkorad – det är en riskabel väg, skriver Fredrik Malmberg.

Brussels is increasingly viewing economics as akin to warfare. Does it have to?

Det pågår en gränslös upprustning och mycket tyder på att vi rustar på fel sätt. Nato-medlemskapet bidrar knappast till Sveriges trygghet då alliansen leds av en president som konsekvent bryter mot folkrätten, skriver Pierre Schori.

Fem år efter det att Nato och dess mäktigaste medlem USA kördes ut ur Afghanistan av en påvert utrustad men fanatisk motståndsrörelse stod Sverige för för första gången värd för militäralliansen.

 ”Hedersgästen” på detta första Natotoppmöte i Sverige, utrikesminister Marco Rubio, påminde oss med sin närvaro i hamnstaden Helsingborg om Trumpregimens bistra budskap vad gäller den internationella havsrätten.

Flyganfall mot civila båtar på internationellt vatten ska upprepas närhelst det passar, var Rubios budskap, efter det att amerikanska attacker dödat ett antal venezolaner i en fiskebåt.

Så skedde också några månader senare, den 25 november i fjol, då kollegan krigsministern Pete Hegseth meddelade jublande: ”Detta är bara början. Vi ska döda dem alla”. Inget bevis har visats om att det rörde sig om knarkbåtar. Militära experter i USA menar att dessa attacker utgör ”ett olagligt dödande”.

Olagliga avrättningar till havs

I slutet av maj i år rapporterade New York Times att över 200 förmenta smugglare hade dödats till en kostnad som närmar sig 5 miljarder dollar enligt Brown Universitys’ Costs of War project.

Och inför sin resa till Sverige hotade samme Rubio att starta ett nytt krig, nu mot Kuba, ett land vars brutala historia i mycket präglats av långvarig amerikansk ockupation och ekonomisk imperialism.

Att dagens amerikanska krigshandlingar mot civila kan utgöra ett brott mot folkrätten påpekades av FN organet OHCHR: s experter.

FN:s generalsekreterare Antonio Guterres fördömde den 20 maj i år länder som ostraffat bryter mot folkrätten. Samtidigt har militärutgifterna kraftigt överträffat det globala biståndet med förödande konsekvenser för de mest sårbara i världen, påpekade han. Guterres underströk att det inte är FN som är problemet utan det ligger hos de supermakter som kränker folkrätten och ibland själva skapar konflikterna samt använder sin vetorätt i Säkerhetsrådet för att garantera straffrihet.

För den press och allmänhet som i Nato-mötet såg en viktig säkerhetspolitisk framgång för Sverige, är det upplysande att ta del av vad framstående internationella analytiker anser om en organisation som i verkligheten styrs av Donald Trump och hans devote generalsekreterare Mark Rutte, som dessutom hyllat USA:s olagliga krig mot Iran.

Gränslös upprustning av Tidöregeringen

En av dem är Timothy Snyder, professor i historia vid Yale University i USA, ansedd som en av vår tids mest inflytelserika historiker. Han har i dagarna drastiskt sammanfattat Donald Trumps hot mot USA och omvärlden under rubriken Den amerikanska supermaktens självmord: ”USA spenderar miljarder dollar genom att förlora ett krig i Iran som berikar oligarker, utarmar sina egna medborgare, saboterar sina allianser och stärker sina fiender. Kriget avslöjar en ledande princip i den amerikanske presidentens utrikespolitik: Supermaktens självmord. Och som rättfärdigande av denna självförstörande hjärnlöshet hänvisar Vita huset till Jesus och folkmord”.

Och som en livsviktig upplysning angående den till synes gränslösa militära upprustning som Tidöregeringen igångsatt – bland annat fyra krigsfartyg med leverans på 2030-talet till en kostnad av minst 10 miljarder styck enligt vår försvarsminister Pål Jonsson – fortsätter Snyder:

”Trump-administrationen fokuserar på gårdagens rustning likt den nya klass av krigsfartyg som ska bära Trumps namn. Planen är ren fantasi, sådana fartyg är totalt olämpliga i det moderna kriget vilket har avslöjats i det högtekniska kriget mellan Ryssland och Ukraina”. Sveriges förre utrikesminister Tobias Billström, numera expert hos ett vapenrelaterat företag, har läst Snyder och instämmer.

Ledarna i Tyskland och Frankrike, Merz och Macron, har likt sina företrädare Kohl och Mitterrand, mot denna bakgrund insett den oundvikliga konsekvensen av att underställa sig en Kung Ubus egensinniga vansinne. *

Vad sa Pål Jonsson till Pete Hegseth?

I stället för att underkasta sig mannen i Mar-a-Lago måste även vi i Sverige ta ansvar för vår egen utveckling, att både tänka på ”ett efter våra förhållanden starkt försvar” i stället för det bisarra, ogenomtänkta 5 % -målet som Trump vill ska öka ännu mera.

Och var det så smart att göra Östersjön till ett Nato-hav – som Ulf Kristersson triumferande sa när han spelade pingis i Lidköping i stället för att delta i FN:s åttioårsfirande i New York?

Och vad sa vår försvarsminister Pål Jonsson till krigsminister Pete Hegseth i Pentagon som beslöt att bomba de civila fartygen i Karibien precis under sin svenske kollegas besök?

Och hur kan Sveriges ÖB, också han en flitig gäst i Pentagons värld, vurma för en svensk atombomb utan att någon i regering och riksdag reagerar?

Snyder uttrycker avslutningsvis sin syn på vad som den amerikanska demokratin måste fokusera:

”Att regeringen ska tjäna de ultrarika, är inte förenligt med att vinna krig eller upprätthålla de sociala insatser som får ett modernt samhälle att fungera. I stället för att försöka återgå till det förflutna måste nu krävande ansträngningar till för att i grunden förändra den amerikanska politiken så att medborgarna får större makt att skapa en rättvisare framtid”.

 

Pierre Schori, författare och tidigare diplomat och politiker

* Kung Ubu  var en sniken, feg, elak och krigisk figur, skapad 1896 av den franske författaren Alfred Jarry i teaterpjäsen med samma namn.

 

Inlägget Är vi verkligen säkrare nu? dök först upp på Dagens Arena.

Unilateral measures would "not be justified," says EU health chief