>While a majority of all men were positive to >Sweden adopting the European single currency >only 40% of all women voted “yes” and 58% of >the women voted “no”, according to the exit >polls by the Swedish Television, SVT.

It’s exit polls, fair enough. But if it’s true and the overall turnout was 81,3% and the male majority was in favor of the Euro - how many male voters are there in Sweden? It should be interesting to see some turnout figures split by sex… and why is the perception of advantages and disadvantages so different for men and women.

Tobias,

The polls weren’t much use before the vote, finding the outcome too close to call. So I wouldn’t put much faith in this apparent male/female voting differential.

This is a result without straws for the Europhile camp to grasp. They could pursue the same, second plebiscite course as with the Maastricht vote in Denmark. But my guess is that they will recognise the dishonour in this and accept the will of the Swedish people.

Who’s the next brave ’phile to trust the people?

Tobias,

Looking for excuses for the ’yes’ failure. Maybe the Ladies have more sense than the Men!.

Personally I think that Swedish people showed a great deal of common-sense in voting ’no’ to a system that is vastly inferior to the one they already have, and Lord knows, that is bad enough!.

Voting ’yes’ to supporting and financing the Franco-German CAP would seem to be the height of insanity.

Bottom line, they could not see any advantage to joining a ’ship of fools’, especially when it is so obviously sinking.

“So I wouldn’t put much faith in this apparent male/female voting differential.”

No but there is something there. I bet the breakdown of people who lost money in the internet stock boom would show a heavy male bias too. We find it easier to convince ourselves of the latest ’sexy idea’ - in all senses. Sometimes this is good and creative, sometimes it leads to disaster. Certainly it makes us easier to manipulate.

Women are different. That is why we - the men - need them so much. They are much less likely to be going crazy over todays ’flavour of the month’. Unfortunately, all too often they cave-in, and let us have our way. But then maybe it’s due to the secret pleasure of being able to help get us out of a mess of our own making, and showing us that ’told you so’ look.

On the more substantive point, I wouldn’t be speculating at this stage about future votes in Sweden. This will depend on the euro itself, and for that we will have to wait and see.

The implications are quite big though. What we should be looking at is how this will affect the aspirations of the new ’accession’ members. If they too decide to adopt a ’wait and see’ approach, then numerically the euro countries will be a minority in the EU. If they then are the ones who do worse economically (this is only a ’what-if’ thought experiment, though my understanding of theory makes me imagine that this is perfectly possible) this will have important consequences, not least for the euro itself.

Of course, this was always ’Mad Maggie’s’ dream when she pushed for the expansion. Which is not to say that she was right on other topics.

Sweden’s rejection of the Euro can be seen as an advantage to the US, as it will contribute to capital flight and braindrain from Sweden, some of which will end up in the US (and quite rightly so, considering the market penetration of Swedish products in the US).

Estonia’s accession - and that of the other eastern European states, - on the other hand, will mean that the EU will have to bear a lot of the costs of modernization for states that are politically seen as more friendly to the United States.

Which is all very well, considering how long Europe has been freeloading off of the United States in the past.

Bearing the cost of modernization? I wonder… Europe is far less generous to its new Eastern affiliates than the US was to her in the Forties, and I would not underestimate the cost the accession countries have had to bear themselves (compliance with the Copenhague criteria, as it is so nicely called). But then, it is not at all about money, is it?

Quote”Guessedworker raised the issue of another referendum. During the campaign, the prime minister and the leader of the second largest opposition party made a joint statement, explicitly ruling out another referendum in this parliament or the next, which means 2010 at the earliest. They’re not likely to go back on it, which means that Sweden will not join the eurozone until 2013 or later”

Why have another referendum at all they voted no. If they had voted yes would there be a chance to change their minds? If not why not?