Agnieszka Kolek

Europe’s future cannot be held hostage to Berlin’s brandmauer There is a lot of political spin regarding chats and meetings relating to the conservative and patriotic victory on the Return Regulation. Since, Ehrlichkeit währt am längsten, I want to set the record straight and speak plainly about what took place in the negotiations. This is not a question of who texted whom — the focus of German press –- but how politics in Brussels functions when tangible results and political change is the goal. The Sweden Democrats have always prioritized policy change over point scoring. In this spirit I took the initiative and built the bridge between the groups on the right to achieve the policies Europe desperately needs. The WhatsApp group was started by my office. As negotiator for the ECR I pushed for all groups right of centre to be included in the negotiations and shared with them the Council’s compromise texts long before the final position became public. A large share of my 372 amendments form the foundation of the compromise that was ultimately adopted in committee. We ensured that the joint centre-right proposal is compatible with the Council position and reflects the input of Patriots and ESN positions so that we together can deliver the tougher return rules Europe so badly needed. By working together, the ECR, Patriots for Europe, Europe of Sovereign Nations and the EPP secured a proposal that gives member states tools that would increase return rates: hubs outside the Union, extend of detention of illegals to 24 months including unlimited detention for those posing a security risk, mutual recognition of return decisions, and stricter sanctions. We have a model for this type of cooperation in Sweden. Parties on the right cooperate by way of broad agreements across party lines that deliver tangible results. Less gang shootings, more deportations and drastically reduced asylum migration. In the EU election campaign I promised to do my utmost to implement the same successful model in Brussels. I said that we would need to negotiate also with parties where there is major disagreement on important policy issues, to deliver the results voters want. This honest acknowledgement was used by some opportunistic parties, including the EPP, for short-term political gain by launching dishonest attacks on the Sweden Democrats. We are now witnessing a similar political game playing out in Brussels and Berlin. The left and the media try to scare the EPP into submission to stop them from delivering the policies right wing voters want. Voters across Europe remember “Wir schaffen das”, “Atomkraft? Nein Danke” and “Energiewende”. Why? Because they pay the price. When the EPP made a deal with the left on the Migration Pact they sacrificed security interests to appear ‘respectable’. The era of surrenders to the left is over. The return regulation position was all about focusing on good content. The deal in the LIBE Committee gives the German government and all non left-wing governments, as well as the majority of voters, in the EU the legislation they want. Those that now focus on chat groups are the very same people that would not admit that there is such a thing as illegal migration. The CDU and German EPP are powerful players, yet Europe’s policy cannot remain hostage to Berlin’s brandmauer logic. Whether the issue is migration, competitiveness, energy, or security we have a responsibility to deliver. The Brandmauer (German firewall) cannot be allowed to prevent the EU from enacting much needed legislation. We need more chat groups. The CDU leadership knows that upholding the firewall produces inferior policy outcomes. They also know that the SPD can’t and won’t deliver socialist votes for stricter migration policy in Brussels. If they want to deliver serious political change in Brussels, be it on competitiveness, energy or migration policy their only option is to deal with the right. Berlin has its own priorities. For the Sweden Democrats and voters all across Europe, only the outcome counts. The LIBE Committee has approved the proposal and the plenary vote will take place on March 26. Then all voters will know if their representatives have chosen optics and virtue signaling or sound strict migration policy that makes Europe safe again.

Freedom House - the USAID and European Government-funded NGO - has published its annual "Freedom in the World" rankings. Unsurprisingly, it attacks both Hungary and the United States. But what is it measuring? 🧵

🇭🇺 EXCLUSIVE BREAKING: FACEBOOK RESTRICTS ORBÁN POSTS WEEKS BEFORE HUNGARY’S ELECTION As Hungary heads toward a crucial April election, Facebook is reportedly restricting posts from the country’s Prime Minister. The move followed a call by an opposition party (Tisza Party) member, a former Meta employee, urging supporters to mass-report his content. Meanwhile, Tisza leader Péter Magyar has disproportionately high engagement figures, outperforming global figures, despite operating in a much smaller, language-limited country Péter also used a personal “professional mode” profile rather than a political page, contrary to Meta’s long-standing guidelines, potentially bypassing limits on political content. Questions are also emerging around how Meta moderates political content in Hungary. A regional Meta official has publicly shared positions aligned with mainstream European narratives, including pro-Ukraine messaging and content seen as anti-government in Hungary. If Hungary’s largest social platform keeps restricting Orbán’s content while opposition accounts seem inflated before the election, serious questions arise about free speech and democratic integrity. This requires an urgent investigation. I’ve seen political interference by social media companies in other countries, and I really hope this is not happening in Hungary.

‘Whiteness’ and ‘Europeanness’ A Danger to EU, ECFR Report Claims: The European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) has published a report warning of the danger that “whiteness” and “Europeanness” pose to the EU. Titled “Welcome to Barbieland: European sentiment in the year of wars and elections”, the report discussed how many people have become “visibly disillusioned with the European project” in a way that has surprised those supportive of the bloc. Rather than citing economic or energy issues faced by the EU, the report blamed, among other things, how “white” the MEPs elected by EU citizens are following the 2024 European Parliament elections in June. “In most countries, non-white and Muslim people were underrepresented in candidate lists … no more than 20 non-white MEPs were elected this year – less than 3 per cent of the total, and well below the 10 per cent share that racial and ethnic minorities are estimated to account for in the EU population,” the report states. “One might also wonder whether the EU’s normalised xenophobia may not put some young people off the European project altogether while habituating other young people to an ‘ethnic’ conception of Europeanness, and thus allowing them to feel able to vote for the far-right.” Overall, the ECFR warned that there was a public “drift” towards understanding “Europeanness” in ethnic terms, rather than in a “civic” way it viewed as more constructive. Such a drift, it added, was becoming more common amongst the EU’s youngest voters, further arguing that this same drift may stop more liberal-leaning young people from supporting Brussels in the future.