johaneriksson.se

The EU Observer reports that there has been some debate in Brussels over Sweden’s decision to remain outside of the eurozone and not adopt the common currency, in spite of having signed the accession treaty. The common currency was included in the treaty Sweden signed when they joined the EU in 1995, and unlike countries like the United Kingdom and Denmark Sweden never negotiated an opt-out.

This wouldn’t have been a problem, except for that Sweden also organised a referendum on the issue in 2003. The result was negative, the Swedes voted no. (I actually voted yes, though I’ve since changed my mind.) Even though the referendum was just consultative — as all Swedish referendums are — it has made it politically impossible to adopt the euro. Also, there is no reason to believe that there has been a change in opinion. Given the fairly large differences in the eurozone economies it seems wiser to remain on the outside.

A German MEP has asked the Commission to take Sweden to court for not adopting the Euro. His argument is that since Sweden has signed the treaty it presents a bad example for the new countries if it ignores its obligations and remain outside. The Commission points out that it could indeed take Sweden to court, but that it does not find it desireable to do so for now. One might think that Germany’s and France’s refusal to follow the eurozone rules of not having too large budget deficits would be a larger threat to the euro project than Sweden remaining outside, but even so the German MEP does make a valid point. Why have treaties if nobody is following them?

The reasonable way out of this is for Sweden to negotiate an opt-out from the Euro. Will the new, overly EU-enthusiastic, government do that? I have my doubts.