Swedish sovereignty and EU archives

En pågående grundlagsändring kan göra det nästintill omöjligt för Sverige att lämna EU – även om en majoritet av folket och en majoritet av riksdagsledamöterna så vill. Om beslutet går igenom innebär det att Sverige i grundlagsfrågor riskerar att förvandlas till ett odemokratiskt minoritetsstyre. Ambition Sverige mobiliserar nu en opinion för att stoppa det här beslutet.

Det första av två riksdagsbeslut för den här grundlagsändringen togs den 1 oktober. Det nästa och avgörande beslutet planeras att tas omedelbart efter det kommande riksdagsvalet.

År 1994 röstade 52,3 % av väljarna för ett EU-medlemskap. 2010 skrevs det svenska EU-medlemskapet in i grundlagen. Hittills har en sådan grundlagsändring krävt två enkla majoritetsbeslut i riksdagen.

Det betyder att om en majoritet av svenska folket framöver ångrar sig och önskar lämna EU, måste det här inskrivna EU-medlemskapet först röstas bort. Hittills har det varit möjligt med precis de två enkla riksdagsmajoriteter som 2010 beslutade att skriva in EU-medlemskapet i grundlagen.

Idén med grundlagar är att de ska vara en stomme för det demokratiska rättssamhället. Nu är det på väg att förändras genom en proposition i riksdagen med titeln Stärkt skydd för demokratin och domstolarnas oberoende (2024/25:165). I den föreslås att det ska krävas en kvalificerad majoritet för det andra och avgörande riksdagsbeslutet för en grundlagsändring.

Det innebär att en riksdagsminoritet på bara 34 % framöver kan blockera ett sådant beslut. Även om en majoritet av svenska folket och/eller en riksdagsmajoritet är för. Således har vi i Sverige gått från ett demokratiskt majoritetsstyre till ett odemokratiskt minoritetsstyre.

I praktiken innebär det att Sveriges EU-medlemskap torde cementeras för alltid. Som det parlamentariska läget ser ut idag och som det förväntas se ut i framtiden, ter sig en tvåtredjedelsmajoritet för ett EU-urträde som orimligt. Inte minst om man också beaktar de hållhakar som EU har på Sverige.

Likaså torde det vara fullt rimligt att samma enkla riksdagsmajoritet som skrev in EU-medlemskapet i grundlagen också ska kunna ta bort det.

Regeringens uttryckta skäl för det här förslaget är att förhindra att ”en hastigt uppblossade folkopinion ifrågasätter annars vedertagna grundprinciper”. Kritikerna hävdar att det skälet är svårt att tro på givet att en grundlagsändring inklusive två riksdagsvoteringar med ett riksdagsval emellan tar många år att genomföra, något som knappt kan drivas fram av en ”hastigt uppblossande folkopinion”.

Bara den här grundlagsändringen har hittills tagit fem år från direktiv till det första riksdagsbeslutet. Flera kritiker menar därför att förslaget istället är till för att skydda de sittande makthavarna och inte medborgarna.

Det avgörande beslutet om lagen tas efter valet 2026. Ambition Sverige mobiliserar nu för att stoppa förslaget. Vi pekar på att upp till tre miljoner väljare är EU-skeptiska enligt den senaste opinionsmätningen från SCB (maj 2025) och att deras möjlighet till påverka kan försvinna om spärren höjs. Med de nya reglerna skulle en tredjedel av riksdagen således kunna avgöra om Sverige fortsatt kommer leva upp till det grundlagsstadgade folkstyret eller inte. Det är själva kärnfrågan.

Text: Ulf Ström, oberoende talesperson för EU-frågor, Ambition Sverige | Bild: Ulf Ström och EU-Parlamentet i Brüssel | Foton: Ambition Sverige och 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!

Gunilla Edelstam (A)

Spokesperson for Migration and Swedish sovereignty and the EU

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.