On the first we can agree. But that certainly isn’t how they behave now.
On the second, I dare say that’s “what if” conjecture. You could easily argue that the de facto monopoly of Windows allowed computers to be on every desk which lead to the world today. I’m not sure that’s the case, but the argument stands on no less flimsy ground than yours IMHO.
I’m the last person to believe in anything paranormal, but I’ve still got a story that one could have interpreted in that way if one was so inclined.
Age 12, lying in bed thinking about how great everything was, starting to get to a point of realising not everything was going to last forever and things sometimes change. Said to myself “I hope nothing will ever change”, had an overwhelming sense to look through my window. Saw a massive shooting star. Next day my parents announced we were moving to a different country.
If he’s travelling on commercial aviation they’d be breaking a whole bunch of regulation by letting someone on without a passport. Sweden isn’t a banana republic, and I doubt there would be any expectation from the minister and his posse that they’d be breaking the rules.
If he’s travelling privately or by military plane, there’s probably more liberty to just ring and ask what the reception arrangements will be.
Edit: Ah, actually RTFA now. Still sounds true to me.
The notion that free* healthcare, free* education, subsidised transport, government provided unemployment supports etc is even labelled “socialist” strikes me as particularly American.
I get the subtext of that question and I can understand this concern.
But what I’m proposing is that in a new constitution to properties of the test is guaranteed and then you’d put a cross-population group of experts together to formulate a test that lives up to those constraints. No doubt you’d end up in a courtroom every now and again to settle whether a specific question was constitutionally sound or not.
I think we could work it out. We can for driving tests.