Sweden’s ‘no’ to single currency casts dark cloud over EU
The Swedes working closely with the Finns and Danes dramatically changed the face of the EU when they joined eight years ago. The club had already outgrown its original profile as a trade organisation mainly intended to benefit business.
Sweden in particular had developed a particular kind of government, that of social democracy where the good of the workers had to be taken into account with the good of business, and where the state saw its role as dividing the spoils of the country equally between its citizens.
Citizens were happy with high taxes because they saw the benefits in terms of services. They are also happy to be highly regulated and adhere to strict rules of behaviour something that does not sit well with many other nations.
Their holistic approach gave them an appreciation of the environment, and here too they were willing to accept rules and pay the price for maintaining their environment.
As respecters of rules and regulations they also expected their politicians to say what they mean, and deliver on their promises. They operate a very open type of government, with reports, good and bad, being available to the public.
Sweden had already made considerable changes to its business environment, including to traditional state monopolies and other cartels, to qualify for membership of the single market.
They modified their interpretation of their neutrality because of the change in East-West relations so removing one of their main concerns that EU membership threatened their neutrality.
Anybody who thought the Swedes would turn the euro into a memorial to their much-loved Foreign Minister Anna Lindh however was mistaken.
If anything, it confirmed them in their resolve to do the right thing as they saw it and not give in to the pressures of one side or the other on this issue.
They reacted in a similar courageous way to hints that their largest and most profitable industry, Ericsson, would move its gigantic worldwide operation outside Sweden if the vote was no.




