In her summer talk, Elsa Widding, leader of the Ambition Sverige party, delivers a scathing critique of Swedish security and foreign policy, the EU’s influence and the political debate in the Riksdag. She describes how Sweden risks being drawn into a major war with Russia and argues that the government and the Riksdag have capitulated to supranational agendas.
Elsa Widding begins with a brief personal note. She refers to previous summer programmes where she spoke about her husband's death from cancer and her time with her sons, but states that hope for her family is now gone. She speaks of a long-standing grief over the estrangement of her adult children and believes more people need to dare to talk about it. She then moves on to politics.
She describes her path into the debate after the books The climate carousel (2019) and Common sense on energy and climate (2022) as well as YouTube films. The topics have broadened from climate and energy to freedom of expression, Covid, geopolitics and the power of supranational organisations. She believes that censorship is increasing and that freedom of expression is being eroded in Sweden.
Criticism of the EU and supranationalism
Widding argues that Sweden is gradually implementing EU legislation that reduces national self-determination. She describes the EU as a socialist project where decisions are made behind closed doors and voters' influence is shrinking. Agenda 2030 is described as a driving force behind the government's and parliament's actions, along with the UN, WHO, and World Economic Forum. She claims that power over Sweden has been taken out of the people's hands for the benefit of these organisations.
Security policy and the risk of war
The bulk of the discussion is dedicated to security policy. Widding criticises The DCA agreement with the USA, which she claims means that Sweden has relinquished territorial sovereignty. The USA has the right to use 17 large bases and areas, potentially install nuclear weapons and wage war from Swedish territory – something she believes will provoke Russia.
She views the war in Ukraine as a proxy war in which Sweden and NATO are escalating the conflict in a way that risks dragging Sweden into it. She points to corruption in Ukraine (citing figures in the tens of billions of dollars), previous peace efforts in 2022 which she claims the West thwarted, and the fact that Russia views NATO’s expansion as an existential threat.
According to Widding, the government and NATO are mistakenly believing that Russia will remain inactive while the West re-arms until 2030.
Minister of Defence Pål Jonsson, Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard, and the Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson called ”jelly rats” who give in to the defence industry, vaccine industry and excessive climate policy.
She warns parents of soldiers, especially elite soldiers, amphibious soldiers and units that can be deployed in the Baltics or Finland, as the risk of war is imminent. The government has been granted the mandate to send soldiers without parliamentary approval, which she views as serious.
Widding quotes herself from a parliamentary debate: If Swedish sons fall in a NATO-Russia war, the government will have their blood on its hands. She urges soldiers not to trust politicians.
Democracy, party discipline and migration
She harshly criticises parliament's working methods. Members are described as ”clueless button-pushers” who are controlled by party and group leaderships, which in turn are controlled by the EU and other international bodies. Speaker Andreas Norlén receives criticism for maintaining the facade of democracy and for expensive private flights at the taxpayer's expense.
The offset debate in spring 2026 is highlighted as an example of how the system works – or doesn't work.
Regarding the Sweden Democrats, she says the party abandoned its ideology for power: they have accepted EU supranationalism, climate goals, WHO health policy, CBDC, and warmongering against Russia. Migration policy, according to her, has not delivered, despite higher demands for citizenship, many new citizenships and residence permits were granted.
Ambition Sverige wants a pause in immigration, focus on self-sufficiency, order and control of exclusion areas, and a census.
Sweden as an alternative
Widding presents her party as the voice of the people for common sense and a free, sovereign Sweden without coercive agendas. The party will consist of experts in various fields. She urges listeners to read the party platform at Ambitionssverige.se, to help with ballot papers, and to realise that time is short before the 2026 election.
”As you make your bed, so you must lie in it.”, "she says to those who vote for the established parties. She concludes by hoping she is wrong about the risk of war, but believes the government is gambling with Sweden's security and that diplomacy with Russia would be preferable.".
Transcription, photo and summary: Torbjörn Sassersson
An ongoing constitutional amendment could make it virtually impossible for Sweden to leave the EU – even if a majority of the people and a majority of MPs so wish. If the decision goes ahead, it means that, in matters of constitutional law, Sweden risks being transformed into an undemocratic minority government. Ambition Sverige is now mobilising public opinion to stop this decision.
The first of two parliamentary decisions for this constitutional amendment was made on October 1st. The next and decisive decision is planned to be made immediately after the upcoming parliamentary election.
In 1994, 52.3 % of voters voted in favour of EU membership. In 2010, Sweden’s EU membership was enshrined in the Constitution. To date, such a constitutional amendment has required two simple majority decisions in the Riksdag.
This means that if a majority of the Swedish people later change their minds and wish to leave the EU, this enshrined EU membership must first be voted away. So far, this has been possible with precisely the two simple parliamentary majorities that in 2010 decided to enshrine EU membership in the basic law.
The idea behind constitutional laws is that they should form the backbone of a democratic rule of law. This is now about to change through a government bill in Parliament entitled Enhanced protection for democracy and the independence of the judiciary(2024/25:165). It proposes that a qualified majority should be required for the second and decisive parliamentary decision on a constitutional amendment.
This means that, in future, a parliamentary minority of just 34 % will be able to block such a decision. Even if a majority of the Swedish people and/or a parliamentary majority are in favour. Thus, in Sweden we have moved from democratic majority rule to undemocratic minority rule.
In practice, this means that Sweden's EU membership would likely be cemented forever. Given the current and expected future parliamentary situation, a two-thirds majority for leaving the EU seems unreasonable. Not least when considering the leverage the EU has over Sweden.
Likewise, it ought to be perfectly reasonable that the same simple parliamentary majority that enshrined EU membership in the constitution should also be able to remove it.
The government's stated reason for this proposal is to prevent ”a suddenly inflamed public opinion from questioning otherwise established fundamental principles.” Critics argue that this reason is difficult to believe, given that a constitutional amendment including two parliamentary votes with a general election in between takes many years to implement, something that can hardly be driven by a ”suddenly inflamed public opinion.”.
This constitutional amendment alone has so far taken five years from directive to the first parliamentary decision. Several critics therefore argue that the proposal is instead intended to protect those currently in power and not the citizens.
The final decision on the bill will be taken after the 2026 election. Ambition Sverige is now mobilising to stop the proposal. We point out that, according to the latest opinion poll by Statistics Sweden (May 2025), up to three million voters are Eurosceptic, and that their ability to influence the outcome could be lost if the electoral threshold is raised. Under the new rules, a third of the Riksdag could thus determine whether Sweden will continue to uphold the constitutional principle of popular sovereignty or not. That is the very crux of the matter.
Text: Ulf Ström, independent spokesperson on EU affairs, Ambition Sverige | Image: Ulf Ström and the European Parliament in Brussels | Photos: Ambition Sverige and Andrijko Z, CC BY-SA 4.0
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!
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.
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.
