The no side won by a wider margin than expected — 56.2% to 41.8% with 2.1% blank — especially after polls in the last few days showed a dramatic surge for the yes side. It’s clear now that those polled did not want to voice disagreement with Lindh’s views so soon after her murder, but that Swedes ended voting with their pocketbooks, as voters everywhere always doMalmö, Stockholm and a few towns along the Finnish border has yes majorities, as they should, being the communties most exposed to euro economies..
I’m convinced no is the best choice for Sweden at the moment. Prime Minister Göran Persson admitted as much when he said, in the final weeks of canvassing, that should the vote be yes, he would only bring Sweden into EMU when EU finances are in better shape and Sweden’s economy is better aligned with those of euroland.
But where Persson said “when,” I would have said “if.” Had I voted yes, I do not think Persson would really have interpreted my vote as an economically skeptical stance towards an ever-larger EMU. Hence my vote had to be no; this way I retain the ability to choose myself whether the case for joining ever becomes compelling.
Will Sweden lose influence in Europe, as the yes side warned? I think the opposite might well be true, especially given the resounding nature of the result. Watch Sweden influence the debate now, as European leaders ponder why their euro projects do not pass muster in a nation full of conscientious, informed, socially committed people. (This, at least, is the image Sweden enjoys abroad, even if Swedes themselves are often more self-critical.)
The Yes side – in its propaganda – equated a No with (total) withdrawal, (total) exclusion – and therefore loss of influence. “Utanförskap” – the word isn’t even in my dictionaries.
The argument might be valid. But it seemed a little myopic, since it just looked at Sweden
I wondered – but didn’t find time to ask – this: would Sweden really be only land that has an exception from EU policies or agreements?
Obviously not; UK and Denmark are of course not part of euroland either.
But are there more? I seem to remember that UK also has (had?) exceptions from certain agreements about social rights, minimum wages and a few things like that.
Not all EU states were part of the Schengen system, as I recall.
Are there other areas were other countries also have their own special exceptions?
(Yes, I know that France say they want en exception from the stability pact now.)
Or is it just that other countries agrees “on paper” – but then doesn’t really bother to follow them?
Is reality is so black and white, as the argument seem to say? No other countries have any exceptions at all?
I agree with the Swedish electorate, why compromise your internal growth when, free from monetary constraints you can do better. The Euro is the attempt by the southern EU States to
“reign in” their succesful northern counterparts, this cock and bull story about the Euro being the counterpart of the dollar, in order to curb US economic dominance (as Prodi seems to suggest) is pure crap. You cannot begin to compare a truly Federal system as in the US with the patchwork quilt which has been created by Brussels politicians. They are simply worlds apart. I hope Britain rejects the Euro and hopefully the line will be drawn once and for all that this “back door” policy of hegemonisation has finally been stopped.
Philip Mirabelli
The Euro project is generally acknowledged as more of a political than economic union in Ireland. We would have been better off increasing interest rates to cool down the economy over the past few years but could not due to the Euro.
Of course Ireland could also have instigated reforms that would also have cooled down property prices like giving tenants rights but that was politically impossible.
Passing European related constitutional amendments are becoming increasingly difficulut here as the local politicians and media continue to view Europe as some big distant body with which we are associated. It’s a convenient way of blaming others for your problems. Rejection is easier than engagement. Let’s do nothing, it’s safer.
In extreme cases like say the Balkans, the fractured EU is reduced to severly wagging its finger as massacres take place.
Wallet, not pocketbook.
“Watch Sweden influence the debate now, as European leaders ponder why their euro projects do not pass muster in a nation full of conscientious, informed, socially committed people.”
Typo, that should be conceited.
😉
Sweden is not the UK and Stockholm clearly does not have the financial pull the City does. Staying out will hurt foreign investment and Swedish business. Most importantly, Swedes are deluding themselves if they now think they have an independent monetary policy. The Bank of England may have a big enough economy to do it’s own thing, but just as so many little economies were forced to shadow the Bundesbank, the Riksbank is already compelled to follow the lead of the ECB. Now the Swedes have just robbed the central bank governor of the chance of from actually having any input at the meetings.
What is this, open season? A pocketbook is a wallet, as any real English person would know, which leads me to suspect you’ve got the real Charlie Bear tied up somewhere and you are impersonating him online between sessions of making him beg for mercy.
And Xipe, what are you doing batting for the Europhiles? Your supposed to be one of the evil rightwingers Persson warned us about when he told us to vote yes.
Marc, those arguments were trumped early in the debate here. It’s not about absolute interest rates, but about the difference between the euro rate and the kroner rate. That difference changes over time. Swedish rates react immediately to ECB rate changes only so that the difference remains constant just then. Swedish rates are anchored on the euro rate, yes, but they can and do lean against the wind by being at a premium or at a discount. As they should.
As for the perception that this will hurt the economy through by businesses settling elsewhere, the effect will likely be minimal. 45% of GDP is exports, but only 40% of that goes to eurland – so 18% of GDP comes from euroland exports. But less than half of that is from manufacturing – as opposed to commodity exports and services and IP goods, where prices fluctuate for reasons completely unrelated to currency fluctuations. Add to this that Sweden’s comparative competitive advantage is most definitely not in manufacturing (you should build cars in Poland, not Sweden) and that argument basically fizzles away.
You’re arguing that the effect will be minimal but there will still be an effect. And the argument about monetary policy doesn’t fizzle anywhere cuz although the krona wil float here or there, the riksbank is basically forced to shadow the ECB because otherwise there would be these big ugly jumps which would cause all kinds of hell. you’re always keen on firms hedging their fx risk, well, they can’t do that properly unless Sweden defacto gives up its monetary policy. had Sweden been at the ECB table, all the faster growing fringe economies would have had another voice and Germany’s weight would have been reduced. now it’s done fuck all for itself. And if i were a manager at Ford, which owns Volvo, I’d want to have my next plant in the euro zone and then just export a few models back to the Swedes. At the end of the day, Sweden is less attractive to both Swedish and international business. That means less jobs which means less taxpayers supporting that snazzy welfare state.
Compare with UK, does Sweden remain outside the EMU for the same reason as UK?
Sweden and UK do not exactly belong to the same business system. Wonder what is the difference.