Josephine Wicklund, a member of the board of the Moderate students in Stockholm, sweden, writes in a letter to the editor of the DN Opinion that Annie Lööf in violation of the law if the Centre party does not vote on the Ulf Kristersson as prime minister.
There is an opinion that is difficult to justify, either if you go on the election campaign, or the law. It would appear that Josephine Wicklund has the right is also Ulf Kristersson in a bad way.
to Annie Lööf, and thus the Centre party shall have breached the principle that agreements should be kept. Because we assume that either Wicklund or MUF is the galloping rättshaverister may we assume this is an attempt at a joke, but let's still messing aside the law:
• the Agreement should not always be held. Agreements can be invalidated on certain grounds, according to 36§ of the contracts act. Few jurisdictions make so great a departure from the concept of pacta sunt servanda as the Swedish.
• the contracts act is obviously not applicable to political elections.
• however, If we assume that the law of contract against the existing law would be applicable and a politician committed to doing something, but not been able to do this, and that the agreement is reasonable according to the conditions – then begins the real problems. Then we are forced to tear-up would, in order to determine which constituents which have concluded agreements with the Centre party. Then we also had to tear up the constitution, which states that our elections are free, secret and direct (RF 3:1 §).
ask if the Centre party actually betrayed their voters? Then we have to remember what C went to the election on: together with the Alliance's other parties, in order to replace the Löfven government, and form a Alliansregering.
But the party also went to the election on its green liberal policies and to be a counterforce against both the left-wing politics and right-wing extremism. C wanted to break a situation where the Left party through the budgetary cooperation with the social democrats had influence over the state budget, but also promised the voters not to let a right-wing populist sweden democrats gain influence over policy.
Despite a historically good choice for the Centre party won the Alliance is not the choice. 143 mandate is not enough to beat the red-green 144.
C has tried all of the solutions to find a way to break the deadlock which means that the Alliance can hold together, that we get the liberal reforms that we so desperately need, and that ytterkantspartiernas influence is minimized.
C has wanted to find the blocköverskridande solutions within the framework of the Alliance, but the other parties, not least the Conservatives, have closed the door. In a time when Sweden needs a government, and when all of the less bad solutions blocked chose C to compromise.
It means that C does not get out of this the formation of the government, but it also means urgent climate action and the great liberal reforms, that the V may not be a central influence over the direction of american policy and to högerpopulisterna in SD may not be a utpressarroll against the government.
against the C-voters. Everything is not about who is the prime minister.
It may happen that I am wrong. But if I have it, and Annie, therefore, should “face the consequences of a rule of law provide”, then it should probably the Conservatives and Ulf Kristersson face the same consequences. He promised, after all, in the election campaign not to go forward with a M - or M/KD-government “if not the sky is falling down”.
the application may be submitted to the Stockholm district court.