Politik-arkiv - Page 4 of 5 - Ambition Sverige

President Donald Trump's speech at the UN was astonishing in many ways. With a clarity of language rarely heard from a politician, he reinforced a conflict that affects Europe and Sweden deeply. It is time to ask what the US has done to Sweden.

By: Ulf Gabrielsson, spokesperson for defence and security policy for Ambition Sverige (A).Previously published on Elsa Widdings' blog.

An economic disaster

Since the explosion of Nord Stream 1 and 2, Europe's economy has been plagued by recession. There are many indications that the US was involved. Joe Biden was clear when he said:

”If Russia goes into Ukraine, there will be no Nord Stream 2.”

Six months after Russia entered Ukraine, the gas pipelines were blown up in September 2022. The detonations were so powerful that they were recorded by seismological stations around the Baltic Sea as a minor earthquake.

The official explanation, that five men and a woman from Ukraine, on a rented sailboat, carried out the blast, seems absurd. Yet we in Europe have bought this explanation without further ado.

One wonders whether our leaders are acting in ignorance or whether they are steadfastly loyal to a United States that now sells natural gas to Europe at a price several times higher than Russian gas. The result is a weakening of Europe's industrial competitiveness due to sky-high energy prices.

The trade war against Europe

The US has also launched a trade war against Europe with high tariffs on European goods, further destroying one of our most important export markets. President Trump is encouraging companies to move factories to the US and with it, ”USA is open for business,” he reinforces the divisions between us.

With a nationalist agenda, President Trump's willingness to protect his own country is honourable, but it is strange that European leaders accept this without resistance. How can the US act in a way that harms its main ally in this way?

US conflicts of interest

Since the early 2000s, the United States has taken a keen interest in Ukraine, with involvement in the Maidan revolution and subsequent regime change. During the civil war, which started in 2014, the US has helped build Ukraine's military into one of the most powerful in Europe.

The strategy against Russia has been to use sanctions and a protracted war to destabilise and divide the country in order to access its natural resources.

But now, as President Trump seems to realise the failure of this strategy, he is changing tactics and shifting the costs of the conflict to the EU.

In an agreement between the EU and the US, signed by Ursula von der Leyen, EU countries commit to buy €750 billion worth of US weapons and also LNG (Liquefied Natural GasThis is yet another reminder of how disastrous the US behaviour is for Europe and will put future generations in debt.

A dangerous future

President Trump makes the astonishing observation that European leaders, who seem convinced of Ukraine's victory, no longer need US support. First the US creates the conflict and then passes the buck to Europe. Europe's leaders have themselves helped build the myth that Ukraine can emerge victorious from its conflict with Russia by constantly distorting the truth and talking about Ukraine's coming victory.

It is Europe and Sweden that will pay a heavy price for this capitulation to President Trump and the US agenda. A continuation of the conflict benefits no one and only risks exacerbating the situation with further loss of life on the Ukrainian battlefield. The EU and NATO have once again proven to be a disaster for Europe and Sweden.

An alliance in crisis

Now President Trump is also demanding that we do not buy cheap Russian oil from third countries. He has not succeeded in destroying Russia, but he is well on his way to destroying Europe. By imposing a war we didn't cause, making it harder for us to buy cheap energy and imposing high tariffs on our exports, he is undermining our economic stability.

Meanwhile, President Trump is trying to normalise US relations with Russia, while the EU and Sweden continue to isolate themselves and wage an unforgiving and provocative war of words against Russia. This is creating a deep rift between our countries that will be very difficult to bridge. With the current regimes in Europe, it seems almost impossible.

Russia is one of our closest neighbours and will not go away no matter how much our leaders would like to see this happen.

It is now high time for our politicians to realise that Sweden's interests do not coincide with those of the United States. Their interests do not benefit our country and therefore we must never let ourselves be ruled by external powers.

Leaving the EU in its current form, where the EU has taken over the legislative power of the Swedish Parliament on many issues, should be a battle cry that unites all Sweden-loving patriots! In Sweden, the Riksdag governs through legislation, but the Riksdag has transferred important parts of its governing legislative powers to the EU. The EU therefore makes binding laws through EU regulations and EU directives that apply to us in Sweden. The Riksdag has thereby relinquished some of its sovereignty to govern the country and instead given such legislative power to the EU on many important issues.

The Riksdag is not authorised to do this under the Constitution, which deals with the form of government. Article 1:1 of the Constitution states that all public power emanates from the people and that this popular government is based on the right of the people to vote in elections to Parliament. This is the important starting point for our entire system of government! But the Riksdag ignored this when it handed over significant parts of our sovereignty (including issues relating to the environment, electricity, competition, trade, agriculture, forestry and labour law) to the EU. This is particularly serious because it concerns our constitution, i.e. the basis for the Swedish state and its existence. The Riksdag must not hand over its power to make laws to the EU because the link to the Swedish people is lost. That link is the basis of our representative democracy.

But the centre-right parties instead want to make it more difficult to leave the EU by requiring a 2/3 majority for this to be possible. The transfer of power to the EU was illegal in itself and now the centre-right parties (see government bill 1924/25:165) want to strengthen the EU's position of power. Why are the media and opinion formers keeping quiet? The Constitution gives no right whatsoever to transfer sovereignty over Sweden to the EU.

In the current situation, we must nevertheless assume that, in our relationship with the EU, we are bound by EU decisions on legal matters, i.e. bound by EU regulations and directives.

Why do we want to leave the EU?

So the first argument in favour of withdrawal is that our constitution does not allow the transfer of sovereignty because the link to the people is then lost. That should invalidate the whole membership.

It should also be noted that Sweden has very little influence on EU legislation (EU regulations and directives) because Sweden has only 21 representatives of the Riksdag parties in the EU Parliament. Since the EU has a total of 720 members in the EU Parliament, we can only get proposals through that are in line with the views of the majority of the 720 MEPs. This also helps to make the issue of withdrawal important.

Ambition Sverige (A) wants to regain Sweden's sovereignty by withdrawing from the EU. Sovereignty is the foundation of Sweden as a country. We have the right to vote on the legislative proposals that are part of a sovereign state, but we have given up a large part of the legislation that should be part of a sovereign state. This means that when we go to the ballot box, we are voting for a winged state, a state that does not have full control over legislation. Only by returning legislative power from the EU parliament to our parliament can Sweden be a democratic country.

How can we leave the EU?

If we had a Constitutional Court, the non-compliance with RF 1:1 could have been recognised at an early stage. But now we have no constitutional court. There is therefore no body that can declare invalidity with binding effect, even though it is a matter of state policy and a constitution that has been violated. What is the point of a constitution then? And what is the point of a parliament that allows this to happen and ignores the fundamental conditions of our system of government?

We can apply to the EU to withdraw from the EU. For Sweden, withdrawal may not take place until after the parliamentary elections in 2030 at the earliest, but if a 2/3 majority is required then it will probably be impossible to apply for withdrawal.

We win back our sovereignty by leaving the EU; the MPs we vote for are the ones in power and we can vote them out if we want.

Regaining full national sovereignty requires an organised withdrawal that returns all legislative competences to the Swedish Parliament. Only then can we design rules that reflect Swedish values and needs. Sweden can then be freed from supranational pressures and introduce reforms customised for Sweden.

What do we want to achieve?

Ambition Sverige (A), as stated, wants to achieve sovereignty and thus self-government for Sweden. The Riksdag and the government shall, through authorities and courts, govern Sweden. The Swedish Parliament will make our laws. No one else.

It also needs to be established what the main tasks of the state are. Why do we pay taxes? What should the state use them for? This should be set out in the constitution. Among the most important tasks that should be set out in the Constitution are:

Defence with the ability to act forcefully against invasion of our country and the obligation for the state to be prepared for war.
Police power with the ability to stop and counteract crime in Sweden in co-operation with the courts.
Functioning road networks, railways, airports, electricity networks, water pipes and similar basic prerequisites for a functioning society.

These are tasks for the state and, to some extent, for municipalities, because they are tasks that individuals cannot organise themselves. Therefore, the state must take responsibility for this. It is for this reason that we pay taxes. These types of tasks, which are fundamental to the state, should be set out in the constitution to make it clear to Parliament, the government, authorities and the public what the most important tasks of the state are. Our current constitution, the Instrument of Government, instead states that ”welfare shall be the fundamental objective of public activities” (see 1:2 2 st)

Only by returning power to those who live in Sweden and are affected can we build a democracy where every vote counts every day.

Ambition Sverige (A) also wants to increase the democratic element by introducing direct democracy through referendums in Sweden. One country we can take inspiration from is Switzerland. Switzerland is not a member of the EU and with over 327 federal referendums since 1848, Switzerland is a prime example of continuous citizen participation. The right of initiative, which requires 100,000 signatures for constitutional amendments or 50,000 for bills, gives civil society powerful tools to push issues regardless of party affiliation. An average turnout of 50 % in these votes means that politics is never further from the people than a single initiative or referral. The system creates accountability where every politician knows that every law can be directly challenged by citizens and that broad public opinion is necessary for sustainable reforms.

A vote for Ambition Sverige (A) is a vote for a sovereign country without EU membership!

Gunilla Edelstam (A)

Spokesperson for Migration and Swedish sovereignty and the EU

Defence Minister believes he is making Sweden safer

Pål Jonson has repeatedly argued that NATO membership and the Defence Cooperation Agreement (DCA) with the US make Sweden safer. Making Sweden a staging area with NATO troops for an imaginary war of aggression against Russia - does that also make Sweden safer?

If not before, it is NOW high time for the Swedish people to wake up to what is happening.
The question that must now be asked is: What has Russia done to Sweden that justifies our participation in a campaign against this nuclear superpower? Is it because Russia attacked Ukraine? How many countries has the US attacked without any action from our governments? Is that reason enough to put the whole of Sweden and its people on a war footing for a war that cannot be won?
With these decisions, the government has grossly failed in its primary task - to protect the country and its people from conflict and war. This is not only irresponsible, it is national suicide.

Nuclear weapons - the biggest threat

Many people still believe that the US has the most and most advanced nuclear weapons. This is not true. Russia currently has the most modern nuclear arsenal in the world. Despite this, the government seems to believe that Sweden is now safe under the so-called nuclear umbrella of the US and NATO. But that security is illusory - a nuclear war cannot be won, only lost.
NATO leaders claim that Mr Putin and Mr Medvedev are bluffing when they have talked about the possibility of using nuclear weapons in certain situations. Now it seems that our leaders are ready to call that ”bluff”.
It only takes one missile to make the escalation unstoppable. The result? Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD).

Sweden - a proxy in the great powers' game

The government has given the US and NATO a free hand to use Swedish territory for a military build-up. Sweden is becoming a proxy in a conflict we cannot win. We only have everything to lose.

Since the end of the Cold War, Russia has not dismantled its defence industry - it was mothballed. Today it is rebuilt and modernised. New weapon systems have been tested in action during the war in Ukraine.

Russia can now produce three times more artillery shells per year than Europe and the US combined, a fact that should not be underestimated when artillery has proved crucial in a stand-off.
Russia has also refined its methods to neutralise NATO weapons such as drones and missiles, including through advanced electronic warfare.

Western military superiority is a myth

Sure, the US and NATO have superior air and sea power - but that is not enough. In ground combat, we will find it difficult to hold our own against a tank and modernised Russian military.

In recent wars, the US Air Force has had the privilege of operating in a state of total air superiority where the enemy's air defences have been knocked out first. This is something that will not be possible against Russia, which has the world's most effective and modern air defence systems in the form of the S-300, S-400 and the ultra-modern S-500.

Hypersonic weapons have changed the game

A frightening game changer is Russia's hypersonic missile systems. These weapons, such as Kinzjal, Tsirkon, Avangard and Oreshnik, are virtually unstoppable with today's Western air defence systems. They travel at up to 8-12 times the speed of sound, can manoeuvre in the atmosphere and take out targets with surgical precision - including aircraft carriers.

Oreshnik, a new hypersonic system developed for a medium-range missile and capable of reaching targets across Europe. The missile can have up to 36 sub-warheads, each capable of hitting individual targets. This is not science fiction. It's reality - and it's already in use and being mass-produced.
These systems can be equipped with either conventional or nuclear warheads.

Sweden has become a catchment area

Now the Swedish government has gone so far as to declare our territory a deployment area - a military term for a place where combat forces gather for a military offensive. In other words, Sweden is becoming the launch pad for a war against Russia.

The United States has never fought a war on its own territory. Sweden is now next in line to become a potential battlefield, if the government's unrealistic analysis takes hold. Neither NATO membership, nor the DCA, let alone the decision to make Sweden a deployment zone, has been debated or even mentioned in any election campaign. A shame for a country that wants to see itself as democratic. To be prepared to throw a country's population into a war by pushing through a number of decisions behind closed doors is nothing short of dictatorial.

Let go of illusions - choose relaxation

We must stop closing our eyes to reality. Russia's nuclear doctrine is clear: if its territory is threatened, nuclear weapons will be used. Yet the Swedish government continues to act as if we are invulnerable - as if a war against Russia can be won.

The playing field has changed. The West's military advantage is no longer self-evident. To think that we can militarily penetrate Russia without consequences is not only irresponsible - it is downright dangerous.

If we want Sweden to have a future, we must change course now. The only reasonable response in this situation is détente, diplomacy and Sweden returning to being a force for peace - not a tool for the wars and strategic interests of great powers.

Unlike the United States, Europe has a huge border with Russia - a country that will be there for the foreseeable future, regardless of what our and other European leaders think.

Ambition Sverige wants to live in a society where everyone who works in the service of the people, from administrator to director general, has a clear personal responsibility. A society where every decision is made with respect for the law, for the mission and for people.

Today, we see something completely different.
Decisions are taken arbitrarily, often without a clear legal basis, without transparency and without accountability.

In 1976, the criminal liability of public officials was abolished. Although the law on official misconduct still exists in the Criminal Code (Chapter 20), which also covers gross negligence and neglect, its application is in practice non-existent. The requirements for conviction have become so high that even serious errors, abuse of power and neglect rarely lead to prosecution, let alone conviction.

The result is a system where, in practice, no public official can be held legally accountable even for gross negligence. We see children denied help, elderly people raising the alarm without getting answers, and life-changing decisions that cannot be legally challenged, all under a culture of silence where accountability is dissolved.

At the same time, organised crime is spreading within municipalities and welfare systems, protected by a lack of transparency and accountability. Study after study has highlighted the problems, but no government has acted.

Ambition Sverige wants to reintroduce clear, legally certain and criminal liability for officials.
To reconnect power to responsibility.
To put an end to arbitrariness.
To ensure that law becomes law again and not an interpretation.

When accountability is absent and justice is silenced, we are fast approaching a lawless society.
We are Ambition Sverige. We restore responsibility and we take responsibility.

Elena Malmefeldt (A), spokesperson for the Swedish culture and Health and Wellbeing

Naturopaths (Swedish Association of Naturopaths)

When VAT on food was introduced in 1969, it was to solve an acute crisis in government finances. It was
was intended as a ”temporary” measure in a crisis situation. But like so many others
“temporary” taxes, it stayed. Year after year, government after government, it has been expanded,
defended and normalised.

Today, we pay 12% VAT on the food we buy. That may sound modest. But in
In practice, this means that over SEK 40 billion disappears each year directly from
household coffers, straight into the state's black hole.

For perspective: the state administration thus the bureaucratic apparatus with all
authorities are made up of 367 separate agencies for a country of just 10 million inhabitants.
Bureaucracy costs around SEK 145 billion every year.
By comparison, the Paris region is home to more people than the whole of Sweden, but it does not need
400 authorities to make society work. Yet we still insist on keeping a
oversized machinery that grows every year.

We could have cut down this gigantic machine, cleared away the excess and used
money to something that actually makes a difference: removing VAT on food so people don't have to
go hungry in one of the richest countries in the world. But in Sweden, the prestige of politics and
the self-interest of the state apparatus over the basic needs of citizens.
It doesn't matter that parents can't afford to feed their children or that pensioners
skipping meals. The main thing is that the system gets its due.
Taxes above all. Bureaucracy and the system before people. And when you question
you are told that “there is no room in the budget”.

We have turned the logic on its head: citizens must starve to feed the system

It is as if we have collectively forgotten why VAT was introduced in the first place.

A double tax on people's everyday lives

Think about it for a moment: when you buy food for already taxed money often after paying
some of the highest marginal tax rates in the world, you are forced to pay additional tax/VAT. It is a
double taxation that hits hardest those with the least margins.

For single parents, pensioners and low-income earners, VAT on food is not an abstract
percentage. It is the difference between eating cooked food every day or having to buy it
cheapest rubbish that makes people sick. We are heading towards a class society where some can afford
with nutritious food and health, while others are trapped in poverty and ill health. This gap is growing
for each year.

“Tax expenditure” - a strange word for a tax that should never have existed

When you read the government's budget, it is called a “tax expenditure” that VAT on food is at 12 %
instead of 25 %. In practice, this means that the government counts the missing surcharge as a
lost income as if it were a cost.
Put simply:

If VAT is increased from 12 % to 25 %, the government will receive around 30 billion extra.
When you don't get it, it “costs” the state 30 billion.
This way of counting means that cheaper food is seen as an economic “loss”
while politicians never talk about the bloated budgets of public authorities in the same way.

It does not matter that people are starving or that children go to school hungry. What matters, in
government's logic, is that “net lending” in central government is maintained and that this is done on
at the expense of public health, the state does not care.

Food or rent? Government hunger never ends

For years, households have been squeezed from all sides. Interest rates, electricity prices, rents and food costs
is skyrocketing. More companies are going bankrupt than in decades. Unemployment is on the rise.
Single parents are forced to take out SMS loans to afford the food basket. Older people are skipping out
meals because the pension is not enough.

But in the midst of this, government tax revenues on food are increasing. Because as food becomes more expensive, the
VAT revenue in SEK terms. Did you know that the big food chains in Sweden often have
profit margins of 2-3 per cent, while the government charges 12 per cent on everything? In 2022 alone, the
11.4 billion more than normal, more than the entire grocery sector
total profit.

When your family is forced to choose between rent and food, the government makes more money. It is money that
do not go to you. They disappear into a system that has made itself the number one priority.
When politicians say “we can't afford to remove VAT on food”, what they really mean is: “we don't have
afford to cut back on ourselves.”

There are alternatives:

We can afford it. We just have our priorities wrong. We can do things differently:

We can remove VAT on basic foodstuffs permanently.
We can introduce targeted health taxes on sugar, sweets and snacks, which would both strengthen
public health and finance the transition.
We can support co-operative shops, REKO rings and strengthen local communities that want to
challenge the big oligopolies.
We can slim down the oversized state apparatus that grows bigger year after year
while ordinary people are finding it increasingly difficult.

Because the question is not whether we can afford it. The question is whether we want to continue in a system where cheaper food is seen
as an “expense” but the state's own bureaucracy is never called a waste.

It's time to take back the power over food

We are at a crossroads. Either we accept a society where more children grow up in poverty,
more elderly people skip meals and more citizens have to go to social services to ask for help with
food or we say: enough already.
Removing VAT on food reduces the need for benefits. People get back their dignity
and freedom and a sense of empowerment.
Are we to continue fuelling a state apparatus that makes food a class issue, while the state apparatus
swells and ordinary people are pushed deeper into economic insecurity?
Can we afford to accept that the food most basic to our survival is used as a
tools to fill the state's coffers?
Food is not just a commodity. It is a human right. A society that cannot
offer its residents healthy food at reasonable prices has lost its anchorage in what welfare
should mean.
It is time to speak out. It is time to put people first and free people from
the greed of politics.

https://www.tn.se/naringsliv/42013/tn-reder-ut-sa-mycket-tjanar-staten-pa-maten-siffran-finansministern-talar-tyst-om/

Elena Malmefeldt (A), spokesperson for the Swedish culture and Health and Wellbeing

Naturopathic Doctor (ND) (Svenska Naturläkarförbundet)

The EU has once again revitalised the draft law popularly known as ”Chat Control”, which lays the groundwork for permanent mass surveillance of all citizens' private digital lives. Even though previous proposals have already been voted down. And this time, the proposal is even worse.

The latest compromise text makes it explicit that scanning of your content may already take place on your own device, i.e. your own computer or phone, before anything is even sent on - even in services with so-called end-to-end encryption - and that such technology may be centrally authorised. The allegedly good purpose is to use AI-based detection to find and stop child sexual abuse.

It sounds like science fiction, but the EU proposal is a fact. The European Commission, with Commissioner Ylva Johansson (S) in charge, is pushing the issue forward despite the fact that the European Parliament has already voted it down. If the proposal goes through, it will have consequences far worse than Big Brother's surveillance in George Orwell's ”1984”.

The strategy regularly used to push through undemocratic or privacy-threatening ideas is to justify them by their effect on crime. In the case of Chat Control, the proposed regulation is justified by its ability to prevent and combat child sexual abuse.

But Europpol has already pushed for unrestricted and unfiltered access to ALL data collected by Chat Control, so that they can use it against many other crimes. So even innocent private images would be handed over to law enforcement, and could be used against suspects.

There have been previous versions of the proposal that were voted down, and there has been strong opposition to mass scanning and attempts to circumvent encryption. Yet now a version is coming back that makes indiscriminate scanning more centralised - on users' own devices.

Denmark, which has led the EU Council of Ministers since 1 July 2025, is driving the issue by trying to gather a majority for the vote on 14 October 2025. The aim is to be able to force providers to scan all private digital communications using AI, and make them responsible for reporting ”suspicious” material, even on encrypted services.

Proponents claim that it is about protecting children. Using the children's perspective as a stick is embarrassingly transparent because a society that monitors everyone protects no one. It protects neither children nor adults, but becomes a serious threat to both. Even Ylva Johansson should understand that. She also bears a special responsibility - but instead of taking that responsibility, her actions, including her close contacts with Ashton Kutcher's organisation Thorn, have drawn criticism from the European Ombudsman for maladministration and lack of transparency.

The problem of child abuse is real and acute. But instead of strengthening targeted, proven methods, politicians like Ylva Johansson (S) are using the problem as a battering ram to introduce mass surveillance.

The fact that the two private individuals behind Dumpen repeatedly succeed in identifying suspects shows - regardless of how you feel about the methods - that there is plenty of scope for the police's own proactive efforts. With more resources for surveillance, infiltration, digital forensics and international co-operation, effective action can be taken without to monitor everyone for that matter.

When such tools are not prioritised, but a totalitarian surveillance system is, it clearly shows that the will to actually fight sexual crimes against children is lacking. But the will to monitor citizens abounds.

Technology experts, lawyers and human rights organisations have warned that chat control systems are unlawful, technically unreliable and dangerous - not least because they create security gaps that attackers can exploit. The European Court of Human Rights has also ruled that solutions that undermine encryption are in direct violation of the right to privacy, a fundamental right enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The scan is expected to include:

Private messages in apps like WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, Messenger and Instagram (direct message) - text, images, video, links and voice messages.
E-mail and attachments.
Chatting in integrated services such as games, dating apps and social platforms.
Cloud storage: private files, photos and videos in e.g. iCloud and Dropbox.
Direct messages and other social media content.

The Swedish government and politicians in Sweden and the EU must take a clear stand word all forms of general scanning and for the basic protection provided by encryption and reject any attempt to draft legislation that contradicts this.

It is about safeguarding citizens' privacy and fundamental rights and freedoms. This is literally what politicians are elected to ensure.

Also important is media role to scrutinise the process, money and technology. Ask questions about how false alarms, data leaks and abuse will be handled and by whom. Dig into the lobby contacts and follow the money flows. Ask how this threatens the everyday security of families, businesses and society at large? And ultimately democracy and our fundamental human rights?

Ambition Sverige (A) is a new party, but our principles are firm and ancient: a free man should not have to ask the state for permission to speak in private. We can and will fight child abuse without treating everyone as a suspect and imposing permanent surveillance on law-abiding citizens. We protect both children and freedom - if we dare to say no to bad technology and bad legislation.

SAY NO TO EU SURVEILLANCE OF OUR LIVES

Elsa Widding

Member of Parliament and Party Leader, Ambition Sweden (A)

I would like to appeal to all my colleagues in the Riksdag to vote against the government's proposal, which seriously risks undermining democracy when the government wants to give itself more power in crisis situations.

The bill 2024/25:155 on ”Serious peacetime crisis situations” is expected to give the government more power in a crisis situation. This could have devastating consequences for democracy if a broad parliamentary majority supports the government's proposal. The bill should therefore be rejected in its entirety

The new constitutional proposal in Chapter 16 of the Instrument of Government entails a concentration of power that could in practice become permanent - if a broad parliamentary majority so wishes.

The proposal does not define what a “serious peacetime emergency” means or what requirements must be met for something to be deemed a serious emergency. Natural disasters, terrorism or pandemics are mentioned among the motives, but there is no legal test in the constitutional text. This means that a parliamentary majority can arbitrarily classify, for example, a normal climate situation as a serious crisis, with far-reaching consequences for citizens' rights and freedoms.

The crisis authorisation has no automatic end time

The government can keep its extra powers as long as Parliament allows it - in theory for years. The only requirement is that it should end “as soon as it is not needed”. What is “needed” is decided politically, not legally.

In addition, the Riksdag can, by means of an authorisation act (section 2), authorise the government to issue ordinances in areas that normally require legislation. There is no requirement for a maximum period - as long as the majority wants, it can go on. This creates scope for far-reaching regulations without clear limits.

Even the so-called “emergency track” (section 3) has weak bars. While regulations may only be valid for three months and require 3/4 support, new decisions can be taken again and again. Alternatively, move to section 2 and give the government broad tools. There are no legal barriers to this.

Judicial review only takes place ex post, in specific cases. Sweden lacks a constitutional court. Moreover, experience shows that Swedish courts rarely convict the state, which makes control toothless. Personal liability for ministers is in practice non-existent.

We need to ask ourselves a number of key questions:

Can references to climate change be classified as a crisis under the proposal? Answer: YES.

Can ”lockdown rules” roll on for years? Answer: YES.

Could it open the door to coercive measures such as compulsory vaccination? In practice, the answer is YES to this question as well - as long as proportionality and necessity are deemed to be met by Parliament. The Patient Act's consent requirement is not sufficient in itself as a barrier if Chapter 16 is activated.

The bill explicitly states that when 16:1 is activated and the government uses the 3 § track (emergency mode), it may issue regulations in the field of law that may, if necessary, for example, derogate from or supplement existing legal provisions.

This means that a temporary emergency regulation can override e.g. the Patient Act consent rule for a limited time - provided 3/4 support in Parliament.

The Patients Act (Chapter 4, Section 2) states: Health care may not be provided without the patient's consent, subject to this or any other law. Normally “law” = parliamentary law, not regulation.

However, Chapter 16 of the Bill gives the Government constitutional authority to temporarily regulate what would otherwise have to be written in law - and the proposal clarifies that such provisions may derogate from the law. Thus, the main rule of the Patients Act alone cannot be invoked as a stumbling block if Chapter 16, Section 3 is used correctly.

The proposal lacks protection against abuse where everything is based on the good will of Parliament. It is not enough. In a country where cross-party consensus is more the rule than the exception, the 3/4 requirement is no guarantee - you only have to look at the NATO or WHO examples for this to be obvious to all.

We in Ambition Sweden (A) believe that this change should not happen at all. But if the constitution is to be changed, protections must be strengthened:

Time lock of the crisis state (e.g. 30 days).
Narrow and concrete definition of “severe crisis”.
Ceiling and time limits for authorisations.
Constitutional bar to long-term restrictions on liberty.
Impartial preliminary examination by the Constitutional Court.
Without this, the door is opened to permanent states of emergency - completely contrary to the essence of democracy. The proposal should be rejected.

The amendments are proposed to enter into force on 1 January 2027.

https://share.google/m6FQZn97iiNyAMpVg

Elsa Widding

Member of Parliament and Party Leader, Ambition Sweden (A)

What happens to democracy in Sweden when only certain voices are heard?

We often talk about freedom of expression and democratic values. But what happens when, in practice, these values only apply to those already in power?

When a new political party tries to make its voice heard - nothing usually happens.

No press turns up at launches, no headlines, no opinion pieces, no reporting.

And when they try to get articles in one of Sweden's major newspapers written by one of the many experts who have joined the party - they are met with the short answer:

“We have chosen not to report on the party” So what's left?

Face-to-face meetings, social media and alternative media? However, even these channels are often struggling and risk being shut down on some platforms.

This may sound innocent when you read the Regulation on political advertising:

”On 10 October 2025, a new EU regulation on transparency and targeted political advertising will start to apply. The aim of the regulation is to increase the transparency of political advertising in the EU, thereby strengthening democratic dialogue and countering disinformation, especially in the run-up to elections. ”

Knowing how the word disinformation is applied today, it does not take much imagination to realise that disinformation is defined as any perception that goes against the prevailing agendas, i.e. the narrative.

As of October this year, following pressure from the EU and supported by the new Digital Services Act, political advertising is banned on several major platforms.

SVT reports on 25 July:

Meta, the company behind Facebook and Instagram, ends political advertising in the EU.

New rules make it too complicated and unsafe, claims the US tech giant.

Adverts with political content, as well as election advertising and what are described as social issues will not be allowed within the Union from October, Meta announces.

”This is a difficult decision - one we made in response to the EU's upcoming regulatory framework,” writes the tech giant, referring to a transparency regulation on political advertising called the TTPA.

According to Meta, the regulatory framework adds an unreasonable level of complexity and legal uncertainty for advertisers and platforms operating in the EU.

Incidentally, the public service closed the door a long time ago.

There are, of course, exceptions - for example, the choice to allow the Muslim party Nyans to emerge, which has attracted some attention.

Jamal El-Haj's plans to start a new party have also been reported in the established media - in Sydsvenskan, on Omni, in Bulletin, and briefly on SVT. Jamal El-Haj is sitting in the room next to me on floor 9 of the Riksdag. He left the Social Democrats and, like me, is a so-called non-party member of the Riksdag.

It is regrettable that new smaller parties are being excluded from the media - not least because the established parties are largely united on the big, heavy issues: such as NATO, Ukraine, the new WHO directive, the climate agenda or the devastating consequences of the COVID-19 vaccines that no party is following up on.

Why is there no reporting when there are peer-reviewed studies based on recent data showing, for example, that the chance of getting pregnant is 30 % lower for a woman who has taken the COVID-19 vaccine than for a woman who has not? Why is there no investigation into why the birth rate is down so much? Already in 2023, 12.9 % fewer children were born in Sweden according to Statistics Sweden.

The four per cent threshold makes it difficult for a new party to enter parliament.

But when the media refuses to take adverts, refuses to publish opinion pieces - and TV closes the door - how can a new party reach out?

The established parties are of course helped with the distribution of ballot papers to the 6000 polling stations. A new party does not get this help but has to create a large organisation to get the ballot papers out - a rather hopeless project because the ballot papers also have to be distributed early in the morning before the polling station opens. It is not a question of money but of organisation.

It seems that our entire electoral system is designed to cater for the survival of the established parties and make it impossible to bring in a new political force with a different orientation.

Today, many people rely on alternative media, but we are increasingly seeing YouTube channels being shut down, bank accounts being frozen or financial accounts being blocked.

The government has even commissioned an investigation by the Swedish Security Service (Säpo) - which identifies alternative media as a threat to liberal democracy. Whatever the hell that is. Either it is democracy or it is not democracy. Surely liberal democracy is more about limiting democracy? Anything that does not please the powers that be is a THREAT to liberal democracy.

Believe it or not, there are more ways to silence democracy. Organisations like EXPO dig up anything that might cast suspicion on people who do not support the agenda; those who have not stepped into the ”consensus hole”.

If nothing is found - then attacking a relative will have to suffice. But is it really democracy - if only certain voices are allowed? Isn't it starting to look more and more like something we associate with old Eastern Europe - where power controlled both debate and the media?.

A one-party state where the opposition can only exist - if it agrees. So what do we want Sweden to be? A vibrant democracy - where all voices are heard? Or a so-called liberal democracy - a system where only certain people have access to the media, to meeting rooms, to the debate pages of newspapers, to advertising space and social media.

This is not fundamentally about whether you agree with a particular view or not - whether you sympathise with a party outside Parliament. The issue is much bigger than that. It is about whether you believe that different opinions should even be allowed to exist.

Democracy does not disappear overnight. It is being dismantled - piece by piece - in silence.

Please support our party - Ambition Sweden. We have built a good machine to get a proper people's movement going and we will stand in the parliamentary elections in 2026. It is of course an uphill battle but if enough people get on board, we have a chance to make a real difference. We cannot afford not to try. There is too much at stake now.

By: Ulf Gabrielsson, former fighter pilot in the Swedish Armed Forces and spokesperson for defence and security policy for Ambition Sweden (A).

Sweden is today closer to the frontline of war than we have ever been in modern times - not because we have to be, but because our politicians have chosen to put us there. Through our NATO membership, through Swedish arms factories in co-operation with Ukraine, and through unconditional support for US military strategy, we are making ourselves a legitimate target in a future escalation between great powers. It is high time to say: Sweden must leave NATO - for the sake of peace and our security.

Sweden builds weapons for war

We now have Swedish components in weapons that can reach Moscow. The Taurus cruise missile - made partly in Karlskoga - is openly discussed by Germany for delivery to Ukraine. Meanwhile, Europe plans to finance US deliveries of weapons such as the MQ-1C Gray Eagle and JASSM, with ranges that make them capable of reaching Moscow.

This is no longer in defence of Ukraine. It is about provoking Russia - threatening its nuclear deterrence and war-fighting capabilities. Attacks have already been carried out inside Russia: against airbases, bridges and even the strategic bomber programme. Missile defence warning systems have been attacked. How much more will it take before the line is crossed and people demand retaliation?

On the road to disaster

The US is now putting advanced long-range weapons in the hands of Ukraine's leadership. If they are used against Moscow, there is a very real risk that Russia will respond with hypersonic missiles - perhaps against military targets in Western Europe. Perhaps against Sweden. Saab Bofors in Karlskoga and Saab Aeronautics in Linköping could be among the first targets.

And our Defence Minister Pål Jonson, along with Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson, have been among the most aggressive voices across Europe. Who has given them the mandate to turn Sweden into a frontline state? When did the Swedish people's will to make our country a potential target of retaliation in a world war become a reality?

A bloody high stakes game

The war in Ukraine has already cost hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian men their lives - or their futures. Those not killed will carry the trauma for the rest of their lives. But Mr Jonson says: “They are paying in blood and we should be grateful for that. It is a deeply undignified way to talk about human life.

And while this is going on, we hear the same scaremongering that “Sweden is next”.

Time to call a halt

We must start speaking plainly. Sweden's entry into NATO was hasty, undemocratic and deeply risky. We must demand a referendum on our future - and whether our children should grow up in a country built on peace or in a war alliance that risks dragging the whole of Europe into a global conflict.

Sweden has become a warmongering state. It is remarkable that Sweden's defence minister and prime minister have become the most aggressive warmongers in Europe. What drives them? Do they want to impress their European and American colleagues? Or what is behind it? It is now high time that Sweden once again becomes a country that stands for peace and not war. Leave NATO - before it is too late.

Mr Pål Jonson, our Defence Minister, is now opening the door to Ukrainian arms factories to be established in Sweden. The justification? That Ukraine needs continued military support - perhaps in for years to come. One has to ask: why are Mr Jonson and the government so convinced that this war will go on for many more years?

Have we already given up hope for a negotiated solution?

The reality is brutal: Russia's military goal - to demilitarise Ukraine - is very close to being achieved. Ukraine's air defences are largely depleted. Daily attacks with hundreds of drones, cruise missiles and artillery shells destroying the country's infrastructure, communities - and above all people.

A generation of young Ukrainian men sacrificed

The Ukrainian army is suffering huge losses. An entire generation of young men is now literally being sacrificed - for what? A war where the prospect of military victory is virtually non-existent. Even the US, which has been the largest donor, has increasingly cut back on arms supplies.

But Sweden is choosing to go the opposite way. We will now act as a base for the Ukrainian war industry, despite the fact that we have no experience of large-scale war, despite the fact that our own defence industry has been heavily dismantled for decades, and despite the fact that the Swedish people have not given their express support to prolonging this war at all costs.

What is the objective - to keep the war going at all costs?

We are told that we should be “thankful” that Ukrainian men bleed for our security. But should our gratitude really mean contributing to a war that cannot be won militarily - but only leads to further destruction, death and loss?

When Mr Jonson says we should help Ukraine to “resist”, he should ask himself whether this really helps Ukraine - or just postpones an inevitable end, at a terribly high price. In practice, it is the Ukrainian people who are paying the price - in blood, in ruins, in a shattered nation.

Sweden is also bleeding - economically and morally

While we spend billions on arms exports and new military infrastructure, we close hospitals, cut back on health and education, telling the Swedish people that there is no money for elderly care or healthcare.

But to arms - there it is unlimited. Those who benefit from this are not Ukraine. It is the owners of the war industry, large companies like Investor and other industrial players with strong links to both politics and arms exports.

Go down yourself, Pål Jonson

If Mr Jonson is so convinced of the necessity of this war, he can personally go down to Ukraine. Let him sit in a trench, without air defences, under constant fire from Russian artillery, fighter planes and drones. And if he were to die there side by side with his Ukrainian comrades-in-arms, that is also something that ”the Swedish people should be grateful for”?

Or is it time to shifting policy - from military escalation to negotiation and peace?

It is not only Ukraine that loses from this war. We all lose. And if no one says stop, we will soon be another country that has built its future on perpetual war.