EUROPE / DENMARK The Danish No to Maastricht THE Danish no vote in the referendum on the Maastricht Treaty on June 2 sent shock waves through the Danish establishment and the entire European Community. The voters rejected the project for European Political Union by a majority of 50.7%. In the days that followed, political leaders both in Denmark and other EC countries were eager to claim that the Danish referendum would have no consequences in terms of the ratification of the treaty by the other EC member states.
Several opinion polls have also revealed a higher level of opposition among women (57% against Maastricht) than men (57% for). This is especially significant given that on the whole racist and militarist views are less popular among women than men. Before the referendum many argued that young people especially were "supporting the idea of a united Europe" and would thus be voting yes. In fact, here the gender division was especially clear, with young women voting no and young men yes.
### Leaders' advice ignored
64% of Social Democratic voters seem to have ignored the recommendation of their party's leaders, thus underlining the fact that working class rejection was a major factor in the result. All the national level trade union leaders called for a yes, but locally several unions joined the no campaign. The chairman of one of the biggest federations, SID, which organizes unskilled industrial workers was strongly criticized for his support for a yes vote in defiance of a union conference statement opposing European Union.
Some 12-15% of the electorate of the two big bourgeois parties that form the government, the Conservative People's Party and the Liberals, voted against, while the two bourgeois parties that urged a no vote, the Christian People's Party and the far right Progress Party, were followed by 64-67% of their voters.
It is of course true that many different opinions and interests went to make up the no majority. However, the following arguments had a major significance in the debate before the referendum.
• The EC and the Maastricht Treaty are felt to be undemocratic. This is partly due to the fact that Denmark, as a small coun try, will have little influence in the EC, but also because there is general criticism and suspicion of the EC as a supernational, distant and bureaucratic apparatus. "The EC is doing something for democracy — abolishing it" according to one of the no campaign posters.
• There is a widespread — although not always accurate — idea that social standards are better in Denmark than in other EC countries and that integration would mean a fall in standards. It was stressed that the only aim of the European Federal Bank to be established as a part of European Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) is price stability, leaving little room for the struggle against unemployment.
• General mistrust of the politicians advocating union. Even before the referendum the government had been weakened by a number of political scandals and accused of deceiving parliament. The referendum may therefore have been used as a means to protest against the political esta-
However, it is already clear that voice to widespread scepticism throughout the EC. BODIL RASMUSSEN T HE attempt by the European bourgeoisie to build a political superstructure to the Single Market has been temporarily braked. New discussions are arising in several countries. But the forces opposing European Union in the different countries are diverse.
In Denmark, a yes vote was urged by most political parties; only 28 of 175 deputies voted against Maastricht in parliament. Most leading employers and trade union leaders and nearly all newspapers were also in favour of ratification. This fact alone makes the no vote impressive. But who were the no voters?
There was a no majority in all the major cities. This urban majority was smaller than in the 1986 referendum on the Single Act - which overall went the other way. The main reason for this was the change in Continued from previous page and so on.
All this will merely reinforce the notion of an EEC operating at several different speeds or in concentric circles. Paradoxically, the twelve, who were planning on becoming fifteen by adding Austria, Sweden, and Finland, suddenly find themselves back to eleven. It is even more paradoxical that this occurs at a time when Greece is preparing to enter the Western European Union (WEU) military alliance and when Paris and Bonn have decided to form a common armed force, inviting others to join. The essential feature of 6 these contradictory developments is the the Danish no has given I about European Union the position of the Social Democratic leadership; in 1986, under pressure from their electorate, they had recommended a no vote, while this year they were arguing in favour of the treaty.
Contrary to 1986, this time there was also a majority against in the departments hardest hit by unemployment. Some of these departments have large populations of farmers and fishers who are directly affected by Community decisions and among whom dissatisfaction with the EC is growing.
In all other departments the no vote was up on 1986.
We can see then that the no vote came from nearly all parts of society, but also that a majority of the working class, and especially those hardest hit by the econo mic crisis, voted against. attempt to resolve the crisis at the expense of the people. The results of the Danish referendum must be used to advance the interests of the European working class.
It is now possible to assess the significance of the signature of the Single Act in relation to its current stage. The formal aspects of monetary and political union can be rejected while remaining within the free-change zone and the "big market" along with all the trappings of the EEC. Capitalist reorganization cannot be avoided through a simple set-back to one of its aspects. The correct rejection of Maastricht will only have an impact if a coherent, internationalist, subversive and radically democratic alternative is developed. *
International Viewpoint # 230 • June 8, 1992
DENMARK blishment, responsible for tricht without provoking major
Referendums on the European Community in Denmark severe austerity policies in sectors of the treaty's opporecent years. An opinion poll recent years. An opinion poll after the result indicated that
1972
40% saw it as about European Union, 13% as a pro-
1986 test against the government and 32% as a protest against
1992 nents.
Yes
No
Yes
No nents.
This may be very difficult,
(EC membership)
63.4%
36.6% both because of the attitude of other EC governments and the
(Single Act)
43.8%
56.2% political situation in Denmark.
Shortly after the referendum
50.7%
49.3%
(European Union)
the political system as a whole.
### Arrogance of politicians
To this must be added certain declarations by top politicians and bureaucrats such as the Danish Foreign Minister (known for his arrogance), the Danish EC Commissioner Christoffersen, the Danish Secretary of the EC Council of Ministers, Niels Ersbol and by European Commission President Jacques Delors himself about the catastrophic consequences of a no vote, which only irritated people further.
• Specific attention was drawn to the some appeal for people who wanted international solutions to today's problems.
The no was a rejection specifically of the Maastricht Treaty, but at the same time it expressed a wider repudiation of the majority of Danish politicians. This will pose serious problems for the current minority government.
Danish involvement in the Political and Economic Union has been one of the bourgeois government's main political projects in recent times and has also to a certain degree formed the basis of cooperation betseveral newspapers, trade union leaders (who campaigned for a yes) and the Social Democracy proposed new parliamentary elections. Other trade union leaders have called for the government to resign. But the government has rejected both proposals, able in this case to count on the support of all other bourgeois parties whether for or against Maastricht. Thus, it seems that the government can survive for a while, but only on the basis of a parliamentary majority including the Progress Party, which is against Maastricht and is unlikely to approve any new negotiations about any form of European Political Union. Without agreedefence policy. tedly played a role. • Finally, fear of an "invasion" of poor people from Southern Europe was also raised by right wing opponents of the Union. If we pay social welfare to Portuguese workers coming to Denmark, there will be less for the Danes, they argued.
Thus the Danish no was not exclusively the expression of progressive sentiments. On the one hand, it expressed elements of social protest against the ruling politicians and demands for more democracy and a more open Europe than is envisaged in Maastricht, and on the other there were also elements of nationalism, a narrow outlook and even racism behind the majority.
There were three main arguments for a yes: Improved possibilities to take environmental measures; the goal of a united Europe as a factor ensuring peace and developing international cooperation; and, finally, the economic necessity of being a part of Europe — and the terrible consequences of not being.
The Social Democracy underlined in particular the need for solutions to environmental problems and the fight against unemployment. Although the Social Democratic vision is more dream than reality, it certainly has ween the government and Social Democracy. Initial reactions by the yes politicians to the voting down of this project have been marked by confusion and insecurity.
ment with either the Progress Party or
Social Democracy, the government will be without a parliamentary majority and a new political crisis will be in the making.
A majority in parliament agreed to postpone the decision shout Denmark's future ne the decision about Denmark's future relations with the other 11 EC countries until the autumn. Meanwhile, the bourgeois government is trying to find a way to get Denmark affiliated to parts of Maas-
Main anne Main no aroups
Problems for the Social
Democrats
The Social Democracy faces new problems as a result of the referendum result. In April this year, frus- dum result. In April this year, trustration in the party after ten years out of government led to an internal struggle and the election of a new chairperson, Myrup-Rasmussen. This struggle weakened the party campaign in favour of a yes, which would have been difficult anyway given the party electorate's traditional strong opposition to the EC.
The new leader has promised to get more Social Democratic influence in coming negotiations with the government. After the referendum, however, this promise will be hard to fulfil. For instance, some of the small bourgeois parties that sometimes cooperate with the Social Democracy have reacted very negatively to the Social Democratic call for new elections.
The broad and diverse movement for a no was united around one thing only: Vote no! This was enough for this campaign, but there is no common view on alternatives to Maastricht or a common attitude to the EC in general.
The Socialist People's Party (SF — a left reformist party with 15 MPs), factions of Danmark '92 and the People's Movement against the 7 7 EC today accept Danish member- EC today accept Danish member1992 # 230 International Viewpoint
Socialist People's Party (SF): A left reformember of the People's Movement against the EC for many years, but left it a year ago.
The Progress Party: A rightwing party with a populist racist rhetoric and policy. 12 seats in parliament.
The People's Movement against the EC:
Created in 1972 before the referendum on
Danish membership of the EC. After a split last year, the movement is today composed of bourgeois individuals, members and ex-members of the CP, some Stalinist groups and members of the Left Socialists. Four seats in the European parliament. Danmark '92: A broad alliance of individuals against the Maastricht Treaty created after the splits in the People's Movement.
Their main anti-Maastricht arguments have been of a democratic character. One of their main representatives, Drude Dahlerup, is a well-known feminist in Denmark. Trade Unions against the Political Union: Am alliance of local trade unions and shop stewards. Composed of both Social Democrats and the rest of the left in the trade unions. Some of its leading personalities have been members of a Stalinist group which split from the CP some years ago. * June 8, military dimension of European Union.
Denmark is not a member of the West
European Union which will be called on to accomplish military tasks in relation to the
Maastricht Treaty. Even the pro-Union parties have reservations about a common parties have reservations about a common
• National feelings about such things as a common European currency, the future of the Danish language and so on undoubmist party with 15 seats in parliament. Was a
DENMARK FRANCE — Mitterrand shuffles the pack EVEN before the Danish rejection of the Maastricht treaty, the European Union had been an object of intense discussion and debate across the French political spectrum. President Mitterrand's announcement that France too would hold a referendum on the treaty has both complicated this debate and exacarbated long festering contradictions within all the established political parties.
The deep fissures within the French political system are most clearly seen within the principal bourgeois opposition coalition bloc of the Union for French Democracy (UDF) and the neo-Gaullist Rally for the Republic (RPR). While most of the UDF has continued to follow former president Valery Giscard d'Estaing's strong support for Maastricht, the RPR has been sharply divided between opponents of the treaty, its supporters, and those who favour renegotiation.
Some supporters of the treaty on the right fear that Mitterrand intends to use the referendum as a way of capitalizing on the wide support for the treaty to shore up declining support for his presidency and the Socialist Party (SP), at a time of record unemployment and financial scandals.
Many also believe that the convergence between the bulk of the SP and key UDF figures could eventually translate into a centre-left government coalition. These fears were exacerbated several days after the announcement of the referendum when pro-Maastricht forces within the SP and UDF announced a joint campaign in favour of a yes vote.
A similar recomposition is also occurring on the anti-Maastricht left. SP oppositionists like former defence minister Jean-Pierre Chevenement have joined forces with French Communist Party (PCF) oppositionist Charles Fiterman and other well-known figures in signing an appeal in which they attack the treaty for its economic liberalism, failure to address social inequalities and environmental concerns, as well as its anti-democratic character. The treaty, they maintain, must be renegotiated and then submitted to a referendum.
The ecologists also find themselves split over the issue, with the Greens against the treaty and Generation Ecologie in favour.
The French Communist Party (PCF) has likewise been wracked by debate over Maastricht. While the PCF majority around George Marchais have been strong opponents of the treaty from the beginning and had campaigned for weeks for a referendum, several minority currents have joined together to demand renegotiation.
At the party's recent Central Committee meeting, Fiterman caused a stir when he demanded that the discussions include his text as well as that of the majority. For their part, the Marchais leadership argues along two lines; on one hand, they denounce the inadequate social provisions of the European union while on the other they complain that it represents a blow against French sovereignty.
On the far left, the Revolutionary Communist League (LCR - French section of the Fourth International), has long opposed the European Union as a scheme to further the interests of European capital to the detriment of European and immigrant labour. Though the LCR laments the confusion that will arise from calling for a no vote in the company of such reactionary formations as the neo-fascist National Front (FN) and the mainstream right, it believes that the opening provided by the referendum to explain their point of view, however imperfect, must be exploited.
Lutte Ouvriere (LO), another revolutionary socialist organization, has sought to explain European Union as a futile attempt by European capital to break out of the confines of an anachronistic series of nation-states. While the logic of their position seems to support the process as a way of undermining the nation-state, they call for an abstention in the referendum.
Though French workers, like the Danes and the Irish, will have the opportunity to vote against the bosses' European plan, the failure of the Social Democratic and Stalinist parties and their various opposition currents to provide a principled opposition to Maastricht, coupled with the character of the referendum, (which will merely ask voters to approve or reject the treaty) and the limited resources of the LCR, means that it will be difficult for a coherent, class-based alternative to Maastricht to be put forwaro - Keith Mann * 8 International Viewpoint # 231 • June 22, 1992 ship of the EC, and are calling for a renegotiation of the Maastricht Treaty. According to a pre-referendum motion from SF, Denmark should reject the parts of the Maastricht Treaty on economic union and the common foreign and defence policy. With some reservations, they want to accept or negotiate a common consumers' policy, environmental policy and social charter. Similar proposals have been raised by the two big no organizations, who add that they don't want any common EC policy on internal security, police force or citizenship.
At the other end of the political spectrum, the Progress Party and other bourgeois opponents of Maastricht want Denmark to stay in the Single Market but without Political Union, and they reject all proposals about new negotiations.
SF, the Progress Party and in part the small Christian Party are the only parties to represent the no voters in parliament. Accordingly they are in the best position to interpret the no majority and react to government initiatives. However, it is a problem for no voters and the left that the SF's chairman, Holger K. Nielsen, a few days after the referendum, started talking about "interpreting" it. Despite the fact that the vote had been on the Maastricht Treaty as a whole, he has started to indicate parts of the treaty to be rejected and parts to be kept. This kind of talk can very easily be used by the government in its attempts to get a majority for a "Maastricht minus 10 percent".
•
At the same time, SF, but above all Danmark '92 and the People's Movement against the EC, have been influenced by the popular response to the Danish referendum in Norway, Sweden and the other EC countries. During the campaign, there has been some collaboration with movements and parties in other countries, and this will continue after the referendum.
The Unity Slate!, parts of the People's Movement against the EC (mostly some Stalinist groups) and parts of Trade Unions against the Political Union (Stalinist groups again) have rejected the idea of new negotiations over the Maastricht Treaty and stand firm on resistance to the EC as such. While the People's Movement forces offer a narrow, nationalist alternative to the EC, the Unity Slate try to give some international answers.
The internationalist no
In the pre-referendum campaign, the Unity Slate argued against the Maastricht Treaty because it is undemocratic, would lead to a lowering of social and environmental standards, involves a racist immigration policy and was a step towards a European army.
The Unity Slate also explained that a
The SAP and the no vote
THE Socialist Workers Party (SAP - Danish section of the Fourth International) took part in the Unity Slate campaign. But the SAP also launched the Campaign against Fortress Europe, which argued for a no on the basis of anti-militarism, anti-imperialism and anti-racism.
Although the campaign was very modest compared with those of the big no organizations, it was able to gather several young people around its activities, especially in the
Copenhagen area. The campaign's main activities were:
A conference in February with 100 participants, mostly young people, discussing the exploitation of the Third World by Western Europe, racism and militarism in Europe and so on.
• Distribution of 20,000 copies of a leaflet with arguments against the Maastricht
Treaty.
Several events highlighting the EC's military and Immigration policies.
• A bicycle tour through
Denmark against Fortress
Europe with meetings and activities in seven cities. * Danish ratification of the treaty would mean worse conditions to fight for socialist and ecological solutions to big problems such as pollution and unemployment.
As an alternative, the Slate proposed that Denmark develop relations with countries outside the EC: in Scandinavia, Eastern Europe and the Third World. And they also offered some rather vague perspectives of a "voluntary cooperation between countries all over Europe" and a "Europe without frontiers".
With many people voting no for social and democratic reasons and with the political establishment in crisis, new opportunities are opening up for the left and in particular for the Unity Slate. The latter can realize these possibilities if it acts on the basis of social and democratic protest, maintains its resistance to the EC and develops a coherent international policy. * 1. The Unity Slate is a left-wing coalition created in 1989 composed of the Left Socialists (VS), the Communist Party, the Socialist Workers Party (SAP - Danish section of the Fourth International) and other left groups. The Slate got 1.7% of votes in the last parliamentary elections.