EMU question...

Factual Questions
1

I’m doing a powerpoint presentation about the EU and EMU. You know there are 15 countries in the EU. Of which 12 use the euro. The other three, Britain, Sweden, and Denmark did not choose to and all with their reasons.

I have found the reasons for Britain and Denmark, but am having trouble with Sweden. Google searches etc only bring up results that they voted “no” and goes on and on about the impact of this decision. I want to know why they don’t want to use the euro in the first place.

For instance, Britain fears that using the euro will compromise it’s monarchy due to the euro’s constituational rules which will have to be abide by. Other reasons include the fact that Britain has a large export market outside of Europe and switching currencies would greatly affect it negatively. Denmark has its reasons too.

So whats the deal with Sweden??? Also is it true that Sweden WILL use the euro in 2005?

2

Joining the EMU compromises the monarchy? I thought I’d heard a lot of arguments against the EMU, but that’s a new one.

Sweden, as you know, held a referendum on whether to accept the euro which resulted in a victory for the No campaign.

I do not think you can find a single unifying reason for why so many people voted no. The answer you get will depend on who you ask.

My guess is that a lot of people are afraid of change and voted for what they believed was the safe alternative.

3

There’s probably a lot of reasons, but certainly among them would be the perception that the economies of those countries in the eurozone aren’t doing so well at the moment, while those of the EU countries outside it are. Not so much a case of being afraid of change as of believing that, where this change has occurred, it hasn’t been for the good.

4

For the sake of completeness note that the UK hasn’t had a referendum on this issue yet (unlike Denmark & Sweden). So up to now it has been our government(s) - of whatever persuasion - who have taken the decision not to join the EMU.

I think ruadh’s right, it seems mainly to do with not locking our economies together, at least not right now. Bear in mind that we have had quite a lot of change already (and will probably have more to come). We also have quite a lot of European law enshrined in our own laws (human rights, working time directives, social chapter, the list is long).

I can’t personally see any way that this will happen. Sweden has only just voted no, and 2 years is not enough time (imho).

5

Coil is right, there were a lot of reasons. The local pundits have all concluded that it was a vote against politicians as a whole group. The ‘Yes’ only got a majority of the votes in two single regions of the country.
I guess I could write something long about this, but trust me when I say that emotions won over facts. Problem was - emotions were running higher for the ‘No’ camp, but both sides were as guilty of running a sloppy campaign.

6

Gaspode: I looked at the facted and voted no and I don’t think I’m the only one. The stability pact is not followed by the major countries. Another reason is that it’s harder to set a good rate for the whole of Europe than a country since people don’t move to the country where the jobs are unlike the US.

7

I don’t think the problem is with the monarchy, but with sovereignty. BIG difference (look 'em up).

Personally, the only valid reason I can see is a lack of control over interest rates - in a comparative historical graph of ECB vs. BoE interest rates, they move in parallell, but the UK interest rate is between ~.25% and ~.5% higher than the ECB. To alter this would mean greater inflation and more overheating of things like housing. The pound sterling is also currently overvalued wrt the euro. To join would mean a fundamental shift in the UK economy, and currently they don’t want this to happen.

8

Juggler. You might have looked at the facts, but the post-election analysis was pretty clear that many who voted no did so out of emotional reasons, the main one being not trusting the politicians of the parliament.
And as for the campaigns - When I hear people from the ‘yes’ camp say: “Why vote yes? Because it’s more fun!!!” And pople from the ‘no’ campaign saying: “Yes to democracy, no to EMU!!!” I get very tired. This is, and was, serious stuff, but the campaigns didn’t treat it as such.

It’s also intertesting to note that the ‘no’ vote won by a landslide in rural areas, in towns and communities where unemployment is high and many people are dependant on the welfare system to survive. For them, any change might mean a change for the worse. I don’t think that would happen, but they obviously did. When you’re living on the margin, the unknown can be scary.