The Swedes Vote No...

mike65

Not a great suprise except for the margin which is curently
56/42%, yes I know where's the other 2% gone? Unless they were spoilted which is'nt very Swedish.

The result won't make any difference to the €uro of course though it may dip tomorrow, but it does kill of any chance of the UK joining in the near to medium term. Which is'nt very good news for the economy here as far to much is still imported from the Sterling Zone which we all pay for....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3108292.stm

Mike.

sceptre

Originally posted by mike65
56/42%, yes I know where's the other 2% gone? Unless they were spoilted which is'nt very Swedish.

98% counted.

(yeah, yeah, I know it still doesn't make sense but I suppose it's "we've counted 98% of the 100 and 56 of those hundred have voted no so far." Or something similar.)

dahamsta

Prodi's such a sore loser.

Prodi sees Sweden losing influence after euro "No"
Reuters, 09.14.03, 4:48 PM ET

STOCKHOLM, Sept 14 (Reuters) - European Commission President Romano Prodi predicted on Sunday that Sweden would lose influence in the European Union after voting "No" to swapping the crown for the EU's single currency.

"Certainly, yes," he told Swedish public television when asked if Sweden would lose influence by staying out of the euro.

"Last week I was in the euro group (of finance ministers) and they were discussing the future of the European economy and Sweden was not there."

He said the ministers had hoped Sweden would join. But he held out hopes for closer cooperation, saying: "There is a possibility of working together and knowing each other much better."

With all votes counted after Sweden's Sunday referendum, the "No" side had 56 percent versus 42 percent for the "Yes" camp.

Copyright 2003, Reuters News Service

Man needs a slap.

adam

therecklessone

An exit poll mentioned on RTE's 9 o'clock news said that a significant number of ballots were handed in without being completed...some sort of protest maybe? IIRC they said it was 2% (from the exit poll).

T'is a pity, but then much like our last two referenda, I suspect most people considered more issues than the single currency when voting. Isn't it ironic that so few countries give their electorate a chance to judge developments within the EU (I don't consider the Euro elections to be a real chance to influence EU policy by the way). Maybe if national governments paid more attention to the concerns of their electorate regarding European issues when it didn't matter too much, those issues that did matter might be accepted by more people.

I'm surprised the EU mandarins aren't demanding another referendum, like they did with us.

Calman

Why does Sweden's result stop the UK from changing to the euro?

Lukin Black

Because obviously it will put a thought along the lines of "well, if the Swedes thought they shouldn't do it, why should we" into the minds of the UK people. It will be really played upon by the Save The Pound mob over there.

bonkey

Yaeh - its not that it stops them per se. It was more that a Swedish "Yes" vote would have seen the UK increasingly isolated.

Its currently one-of-three non-Euro'd members. With a Swedish no vote it would have been one of two.

Conversely (as pointed out), this will also be seen by Europhobes in Britain as justification for remaining with a seperate currency, although that logic strikes me as somewhat empty.

jc

ai ing

One of the biggest reasons that the sweedish vote will have pushed back a british vote on the euro is that in sweeden the yes campaign had the ful suppport of all the goverment and the media behind it . It is very unlikely that the yes camp in Britian will get anywhere near such unanimious support

dathi1

They should go to Berite / Dick Roche for some consultation on re running it to get the desired result. Prodi helped them out the last time too!

The Corinthian

Originally posted by bonkey
Conversely (as pointed out), this will also be seen by Europhobes in Britain as justification for remaining with a seperate currency, although that logic strikes me as somewhat empty.

Unlike Sweden, who’s europhobia is as a result of her vehement neutrality - she last went to war in 1814 - Britain’s has always been based on a “we will fight them on the beaches” type of nationalism. Logic becomes accidental where jingoism is the driving force.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from The Corinthian
Unlike Sweden, who’s europhobia is as a result of her vehement neutrality - she last went to war in 1814 - Britain’s has always been based on a “we will fight them on the beaches” type of nationalism. Logic becomes accidental where jingoism is the driving force

I can't say I've ever agreed with you more in my life.

Though the Swedes did have an Imperial phase, expanding eastwards into Rus and then Russia even so far as taking the old regional capital of Novgorod. Then came Napoleon. I think neutrality was born of failing in war more than anything else.

markisevil

Originally posted by mike65
56/42%, yes I know where's the other 2% gone? Unless they were spoilted which is'nt very Swedish.

We got three choices: Yes, No, or blank. The 2% was blank votes.

The blank vote option is there for people who want to exercise their rights to vote, but who either cannot vote for any of the candidates or, as in this case, think that the question doesn't make sense.

The totals were:
Yes: 42,6% (403674)
No: 55,2% (522465)
Blank: 2.2% (20607)
Voter turnout: 80.4%

dathi1

It looks certain that common sense has prevailed with "Exit Polls" showing a win for the "No" vote. According to Swedish public television's exit poll of 7,000 voters, 51.8 percent said they voted against the euro, while 46.2 percent voted yes. Two percent cast undecided ballots.
Those exit polls were somewhat inaccurate as the official results show a much more convincing win for the "No" vote. In a turnout of a massive 81%, the No camp took 56% of the vote. Such an overwhelming rejection of the single European currency by the Swedes will have repercussions throughout Europe. The Swedes have demonstrated that they can take care of themselves better than Europe can. The underlying message the Swedes delivered is that the political establishment of most European countries, including Sweden, is out of touch with the wishes of the electorate. The vast majority do not want to be swept into a structure that is increasingly seen as decaying, corrupt, bureaucratic and thorooughly undemocratic.

markisevil

In 1994, Sweden voted on whether or not to join the EU. It was 52.3% Yes, 46.8% No.

My guess is that if the same vote were held today, it would be >60% No.

Elmo

The totals were:
Yes: 42,6% (403674)
No: 55,2% (522465)
Blank: 2.2% (20607)
Voter turnout: 80.4%:

We should do this here, we can blank all the politicians (God I am so funny, oh i kill myself)

ringzer

The reason the Swedish No Vote is so significant is because Denmark will most likley follows their Scandanavian counterparts and do likewise. This will then leave 2 outside the Euro with the UK probably following suit and staying outside.

In 1994, Sweden voted on whether or not to join the EU. It was 52.3% Yes, 46.8% No. My guess is that if the same vote were held today, it would be >60% No.

I'm not sure if this would be the case. I have Norwegian friends and they tell me Norway will probably join the EU soon, and this is coming from a very independent and wealthy country. The last referendum on joining the EU was a few years ago and was only narrowly defeated, so next time they may vote yes. Then again, I'm not sure what the effect of the Swedish No Vote will be on this.

Sweden are going to pay quite heavily economically for this. I remember reading an article about how much Swedens opting out of the Euro at the start of it cost Volvo, Saab, Erricson a huge amount of money in exchange rates. Its going to keep hurting them.

Sparks

Originally posted by Elmo
We should do this here, we can blank all the politicians (God I am so funny, oh i kill myself)

No, we couldn't. We don't have a none-of-the-above option.

http://www.noneoftheabove.ie

Originally posted by ringzer
I remember reading an article about how much Swedens opting out of the Euro at the start of it cost Volvo, Saab, Erricson a huge amount of money in exchange rates. Its going to keep hurting them.

I saw a quote in Time last week from the Chairman of Ericson threatening to pull out of Sweden if the vote returned a no vote.

we shall have to wait and see...

bonkey

Originally posted by dathi1
Such an overwhelming rejection of the single European currency by the Swedes will have repercussions throughout Europe.

Out of every 20 people who voted, 10 said "No" and 9 said "yes". You call that overwhelming?

Come on - I know you were massively opposed to the whole EU expansion thing, but classing such a narrow result as "overwhelming" is stretching the english language a bit further than it is generally intended to stretch, wouldn't you agree?

If a soccer match ended 5/4 (an even bigger discrepancy between the two sides) would you say - purely on the basis of the result - that the winners overwhelmed the opposition? Surely not.

Also, if Elmo's figures are correct, I would also find it somewhat disconcerting that in a nation of 8 million or so people, a turnout of less than 1,000,000 constitutes 80% of the eligible vote. Surely that can't be right?

jc

ringzer

I just read an article in The Economist http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2065691 which says that Sweden will have to join it eventually, probably in 2006 when they'll have another referendum. The UK on the other hand have an opt out clause, so they dont actually have to join it. They can stay out forever!

seamus

Originally posted by bonkey
Also, if Elmo's figures are correct, I would also find it somewhat disconcerting that in a nation of 8 million or so people, a turnout of less than 1,000,000 constitutes 80% of the eligible vote. Surely that can't be right?

jc

And there was me respecting the Swedish population for their diligence to national duty.

Elmo, have you a source for those figures?

Elmo

Out of every 20 people who voted, 10 said "No" and 9 said "yes". You call that overwhelming?

It doesn't matter how big the majority is the majority win in a democracy but I suppose its a good enough reason for the yes side to get them out to vote again.

plus the government said that it was good enough for them that 56% vote no.

I was quoting another board member, thanks markisevil you are my source. Should I trust you?

bonkey

Originally posted by Elmo
It doesn't matter how big the majority is the majority win in a democracy but I suppose its a good enough reason for the yes side to get them out to vote again.

No question from me on that one. I was just questioning the logic behind declaring this an "overwhelming" victory.


jc

the_syco

THE IRISH JOB
If at first you don't suceed, try again.
We said no to something a few times, but the goverment kept bringing up the referendum, till we said yes.

Typedef

Unfortunately I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if the Swedes were harranged again and again on this issue by their (enlightened) leaders, until such time as Sweden changes it mind, on the issue of the Euro.

By which time of course the issue gets, put, to bed permenantly. That's how European democracy really seems to work.

Certainly in the case of Denmark (on joining EMU) and Ireland on ratification of soveringty affecting treaties, that's the paradigm.

I'm sure somehow, in the mind of the pro-Federalist, such tert manipulation (at least, manipulation as I would see it), is all for the greater good.

Fair play to Sweden for not being intimidated into voting Yes, as Ireland has recently been indimidated into reversing the outcome of one of it's plebiscites (from within and without) and I hope Sweden succeeds where Ireland failed, in standing by the decision of it's people, where Irish politicains sought to change the decisions of their people.

bonkey

Originally posted by the_syco
We said no to something a few times, but the goverment kept bringing up the referendum, till we said yes.

Really? I defy you to name a single thing that the public said no to a few times that kept being brought back up until we said yes.

Just one.

Originally posted by Typedef
Unfortunately I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if the Swedes were harranged again and again on this issue by their (enlightened) leaders, until such time as Sweden changes it mind, on the issue of the Euro.

Well, if you read the article in the Economist that was linked to, you'll see that indeed the issue will be brought before the people again, so you're doom and gloom predictions are already more or less guaranteed to come true.

Of course, to name it "haranguing" would be a bit rich, IMHO.

The flaw comes in assuming that the question is "for once and for all, are we going to do this". It isn't. Without an opt-out clause, that question cannot be asked. The real question being asked is "is it time to join the Euro yet". If the people say no, then asking them the same question again in a few years is hardly "haranguing".

Not only that, but its not like the economic situation of the EU and Sweden both are not going to shift over time, which will have a real and tangible effect on popular opinion one way or the other. Of course, the No-to-Nice brigade will no doubt rear their heads again in this thread (as Type already seems to be doing) about what a travesty it is to ask the same question twice. Strangely, back when it happened to Ireland, leaving a gap of several years was put forward by many as what would be expected of the government. Now, the Swedes doing exactly that is "typical European democracy" like we suffered in Ireland.

Of course, I notice that while the No-To-Nice Irish will be quick to tell us what the future of the Swedes in this respect will be, and will lament loudly the poor state of European politics, not one popular movement has been established to try and prevent the Irish Government from performing the same "travesty" again on a future issue.

Shows what people actually care about. Its not that the system is flawed thats the problen, its that they were on the receiving end of such a flaw, and its something to complain about. If it was an actual problem, you'd think people would look to fix the problem rather than complain about the symptoms.
jc

Imposter

According to CNN at the weekend the vote in Sweden is non-binding which means that the government could decide to opt-in even with the No vote.

I'd imagine that this is pretty unlikely to happen though.

Elmo

Really? I defy you to name a single thing that the public said no to a few times that kept being brought back up until we said yes.

It is called the nice refurendum 2.

Of course you are right otherwise

We didn't get to vote again on the Death Penalty

And we didn't get to vote again to The Council Of Rome

Of course we did vote as the government wanted us to vote on both of those issues even though only 35% turned out to vote.

bonkey

Originally posted by Elmo
It is called the nice refurendum 2.

Of course you are right otherwise

No - that is somethign teh public said no to once. You claimed that they said no a few times.

There's enough to be complaining about without resorting to exaggeration. it only weakens your case.

We didn't get to vote again on the Death Penalty

And we didn't get to vote again to The Council Of Rome

Whats your point Elmo? Either we should have voted more than once (in which case, stop complaining about Nice), or there is absolutely nothing wrong with the fact that we didn't get to "vote again" on these issues (in which case, why did you mention them?)

Look - I'm no fan of the way our government handled things, nor indeed of many of the decisions made by the EU. However, I respect that unless the system is changed, then we must abide by it. If the Swedes left themselves with no opt-out clause, then it is not the fault of the EU if they have to hold another referendum in due course - it is the fault of the Swedish government for putting themselves in exactly this position.

One can level the same criticism at the Irish governmetn regarding Nice - but unless we seek to have the law changed to prevent continuing abuse, then complaining that they acted legally but wrongly is pointless.

jc

Elmo

Whats your point Elmo? Either we should have voted more than once (in which case, stop complaining about Nice), or there is absolutely nothing wrong with the fact that we didn't get to "vote again" on these issues (in which case, why did you mention them?)

My point is that. The government and main opposition party (who really know how to appose this government!!!!) said there where three reasons for going back to the polls

1. Confussion on the Nice Treaty (Someone explain The Council Of Rome, do you even remember voting for it?)
2. Having 3 refs. on at the same time
3. A low turnout

All of these reasons could be made for the other refs. thus we should go back to the polls just in case we got it wrong. The Government and Opposition (All sides included) agree with the other two refs thus we didn't go back to the polls.

Prehaps their was no confussion over The Death Penalty but the other to reasons still apply.

Now is that a good enough point for you.

Typedef

Originally posted by bonkey
Really? I defy you to name a single thing that the public said no to a few times that kept being brought back up until we said yes.

Just one.



Well, if you read the article in the Economist that was linked to, you'll see that indeed the issue will be brought before the people again, so you're doom and gloom predictions are already more or less guaranteed to come true.

Of course, to name it "haranguing" would be a bit rich, IMHO.

The flaw comes in assuming that the question is "for once and for all, are we going to do this". It isn't. Without an opt-out clause, that question cannot be asked. The real question being asked is "is it time to join the Euro yet". If the people say no, then asking them the same question again in a few years is hardly "haranguing".

Not only that, but its not like the economic situation of the EU and Sweden both are not going to shift over time, which will have a real and tangible effect on popular opinion one way or the other. Of course, the No-to-Nice brigade will no doubt rear their heads again in this thread (as Type already seems to be doing) about what a travesty it is to ask the same question twice. Strangely, back when it happened to Ireland, leaving a gap of several years was put forward by many as what would be expected of the government. Now, the Swedes doing exactly that is "typical European democracy" like we suffered in Ireland.

Of course, I notice that while the No-To-Nice Irish will be quick to tell us what the future of the Swedes in this respect will be, and will lament loudly the poor state of European politics, not one popular movement has been established to try and prevent the Irish Government from performing the same "travesty" again on a future issue.

Shows what people actually care about. Its not that the system is flawed thats the problen, its that they were on the receiving end of such a flaw, and its something to complain about. If it was an actual problem, you'd think people would look to fix the problem rather than complain about the symptoms.
jc

I think it's quite convienent to dismiss arguments as being "No-to Nice" reactionary nationalism.
The fact is Sweden is being manuvered (currently against the wishes of demonstrated plebiscite) into further EU federal integration, because between pro-Federalist Swedish politicains and the large wealth of pro-Federalist politicains Europe wide, the wishes of the Swedish people are thought to be ancillary to the 'great European project' so Sweden must be convinced of it's supposed "error" on this topic and if necessary multiple votes will be held until Sweden gives forth the desired result.

Perhaps Sweden will be intimidated with promise of economic collapse, isolation in Europe and a diminution of foreign investment (both from pro-Federalist business and members of the European establishment who are not above stooping to such scaremongering, in order to ride rough-shot over the demonstrated views of in this case the Swedish people, but, in the larger case nationalism within Europe).
Last time I checked, such intimidation could be defined as coercion.
Now whilst some may disagree with the notion of economic scaremongering being used as justification for lexical plebiscites to extract results from electorates (not how a general election works, but, as yet, nobody has provided a convincing reason why an election can't be run this way, with plebiscite after plebiscite until the government wins.. at least I don't see how there isn't room for such a motif, if lexical referenda on issue(x) are ok, for a government to preform, until the goverment 'wins'), I don't see how stating the case or pointing out the error suddenly invalidates one's opinion, as part of some sort of "fringe" anti-European ethic.
The ethic is established, it is simply the case that governments in Europe, don't respect that ethic.

Whatever you do though, don't criticise lexical plebiscites on issues becuase the opposing side will tar your opinions as 'fringe lunatic' and obviously at the same time validate the position that it's ok to rerun referenda on Europe, but, somehow not ok, to re-run elections. Only, I've never seen a convincing argument why.

Quite simply one cannot escape the fundamental fact that governments are taking a lottery of voting that is sure to produce the 'desired' result on the government side, which is to all intents and purposes a diminution of democracy and in fact, in my opinon, makes a mockery of it.

keeaumoku_tofu

Today I just spoke to a friend in Sweden and the euro vote came up. She said one of the numerous problems with the campaign was how the politicians kept saying prices would not go up with the euro, instead of saying they would do all they could to control price increases during the changeover. Her feeling was that the government was treating everyone like they had no knowledge of what happened in other countries after the euro changeover, when clearly they did. I still can't get over how much prices went up on restaurants post-euro.

Typedef

Originally posted by Elmo
My point is that. The government and main opposition party (who really know how to appose this government!!!!) said there where three reasons for going back to the polls

1. Confussion on the Nice Treaty (Someone explain The Council Of Rome, do you even remember voting for it?)
2. Having 3 refs. on at the same time
3. A low turnout

All of these reasons could be made for the other refs. thus we should go back to the polls just in case we got it wrong. The Government and Opposition (All sides included) agree with the other two refs thus we didn't go back to the polls.

Prehaps their was no confussion over The Death Penalty but the other to reasons still apply.

Now is that a good enough point for you.

Elmo, it was nothing to do with any of that.

The real reason is that the supposed supreme protector of democracy (certainly in this country) 'the government', is in fact it's greatest abuse.

Democracy is a farce in this country, a stage show for exponenciation of the wishes of big business and the emergent (or attemptedly emergent) European Union.

If the government looses the next election, is it suddenly ok, to re-run the election since after all "Fianna Fial" governance is in the best interests of Ireland.... if only the Irish weren't so 'confused' as to have missed that in the first general election... perhaps some scaremongering and a second election would balance the scales.

Siezing power would be wrong ... after all, this is a democracy.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Typedef
If the government looses the next election, is it suddenly ok, to re-run the election since after all "Fianna Fial" governance is in the best interests of Ireland....

They might have difficulties convincing the government.

MDR

The fact is Sweden is being manuvered (currently against the wishes of demonstrated plebiscite) into further EU federal integration, because between pro-Federalist Swedish politicains and the large wealth of pro-Federalist politicains Europe wide, the wishes of the Swedish people are thought to be ancillary to the 'great European project' so Sweden must be convinced of it's supposed "error" on this topic and if necessary multiple votes will be held until Sweden gives forth the desired result.

Since when does the existence of an argument in favor of a adoption of a constitutional change in itself constitute under-handily maneuvering of the electorate toward a certain conculsion.

The government of day is entitled to support and convince the people of the benefits of the change it has proposed, to say in doing so it is forcing the people down a certain road is propostereous.

The electorate in turn is entitled to reject their governments proposal as the Swedish and given the huge turn out in Sweden I dare say the decision of the day will probabily be respected for a couple of years. The Swedes can further show there dismay be voting someone in at the next election who doesn't suport the European project, that democracy, however if they elect the same bunch again or a similar bunch of Pro-Euro's they do so under the acceptance that these people they are voting believe in the European project and will probabily try to hold another referendum, it is the right of Government's to propose referendum, thats what we elect them, if they want to hold another one on the same subject, so be it, if that pisses you off vote for someone else next election, but if they get returned, accept the fact the majority don't agree with you.

As for Nice, the public knew that FF and PD's where going to run the Nice referendum again before the last election, and they still voted for them, that in and of itself was permission for them to run the referendum again. It is quite clear the majority didn't feel it was undemocratic, they came out in numbers far in excess of the first referendum to support the treaty. Where is the abuse of democracy ?, the majority have spoken, statistically the second referendum reflected much more accurately the view's of the wider population than the first.

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
I think it's quite convienent to dismiss arguments as being "No-to Nice" reactionary nationalism.
The fact is Sweden is being manuvered (currently against the wishes of demonstrated plebiscite) into further EU federal integration,

No, its not. Its not being manouevered anywhere.

When the question of teh Euro came up, the British insisted on an "opt-out" clause, giving them the ability to remain outside the Euro forever should they choose to.

The Swedes did not.

They therefore have already agreed in principle to join the Euro, and it is simply a question of when. To say they are being "manouevered" is ridiculous - they are (at best) being asked to live up to agreements that they have already made.

Now, if you want to say they screwed themselves when they made that agreement, I'll stand up right beside you and agree 100%. If you can show that they were unduly pressured into making that decision at the time it was made, I will agree that they were unfailrly treated back when they made the agreement.

so Sweden must be convinced of it's supposed "error" on this topic and if necessary multiple votes will be held until Sweden gives forth the desired result.

No. The Swedish government has no option but to periodically repose the question, because it has already agreed to do so in the manner in which it accpeted the Euro's inception in the first place.

There's no "error", or "wrongness" in question. The Swedes have signed an agreement that says they will join the Euro at some point.

Now whilst some may disagree with the notion of economic scaremongering being used as justification for lexical plebiscites to extract results from electorates

Hold on....there's two seperate issues here.

1) The referendum
2) The tactics used to get the populace to vote one way or the other within the referendum.

Item 1 is a non-issue, no matter how you may wish and insist otherwise. The Swedes have already comitted themselves - they have no choice but to continue seeking ways to implement the Euro, and that will require a referendum.

Item 2....I don't think economic or political scaremongering as tactics to gain votes are anything new. God knows both the Yes and No sides of both Nice referenda used such tactics.

as yet, nobody has provided a convincing reason why an election can't be run this way, with plebiscite after plebiscite until the government wins.

Because the law says that the government's term of office extends to a maximum period of time. Once that time elapses, said government has no authority.

With a referendum, however, rejecting the new proposal leaves the existant law in effect until somethign else changes it.

I'm actually 99% sure that this was explained (repeatedly) during the Nice discussions here, but I guess "convincing" is in the eye of the beholder. Ask yoruself this though....if you're arguing that re-running referenda is a common European mindset/occurrence, and that there is no fundamental difference between re-running referenda and elections.....explain why we don't see re-run elections!!!! The only possible explanation is that there's a clear difference that you're not seeing.

Quite simply one cannot escape the fundamental fact that governments are taking a lottery of voting that is sure to produce the 'desired' result on the government side,

You're saying that every single divorce and abortion referendum in Ireland was because the government wanted both things permitted by law?

Yes, the wording in each successive referendum was changed, but the underlying intent remained the same. Furthermore, as I pointed out for Nice, its trivial to change the wording of a referendum, so where will you draw the line - at what point does "rewording" become "different" ?????

In Switzerland, where "direct democracy" allows the public to call for referenda, we see the same topics introduced time and time and time again. As with divorce and abortion in Ireland, the exact wording may differ (not even sure it always does, or is required to), but the underlying intent remains largely the same.

Are you going to maintain also that it is an abrogation of democracy for the public to call for the same issue twice where they have the ability to do so? Will you tell me that a major failing of the Swiss system is that the public can force a referendum on the issues they want decided - regardless of when that issue was last considered?

If not, then how can it possibly be an abrogation of democracy for elected representatives to do likewise in a system where the public cannot call for referenda for them in the first place, but must have their elected representatives do it for them???

jc

ringzer

I think we're losing sight of the thread title - The Swedes vote no. To summarise all they did was vote against joining now, which may be wise considering their economy is out of sync with the rest of Europe. They'll have to join by 2010 at the latest, according to The Economist.

markisevil

Originally posted by ringzer
[Sweden will] have to join by 2010 at the latest, according to The Economist.

So, I have just over six years to build up some capital and ensure that I'm not left poorer when the euro is introduced, eh? Or how have you all experienced the transition from púnt to euro?