When "no" means "yes" AFTER the June 2, 1992, Danish referendum which rejected the Maastricht Treaty on European union the initiative passed into the hands of the political parties and the government. The grassroots campaigns came together for the "no" vote but were not united on an overall alternative or even on a political response to the situation created by the "no" victory. ÅGE SKOVRIND - October 9, 1992 A LTHOUGH the referendum result also to a certain extent reflected a rejection of the government as such, the position of the latter was never challenged. The Social Democracy called for new elections but did not make this a central issue.
In parliament, the "no" majority among the population was represented only by the Socialist People's Party (Socialistisk Folkepartei - SF) with 15 seats and the far right Progress Party (Fremkridtspartiet) with 12 seats. The government called for collaboration and unity of all political parties to reach a solution to the "extremely difficult situation Denmark is facing in the forthcoming negotiations with the EC", as the government put it.
The Progress Party responded by sticking quite firmly to its "no" position arguing, along narrowly nationalist lines, that there is nothing to negotiate, while the SF favoured a "positive" interpretation of the reasons for a "no" majority -an interpretation that should legitimize a new agreement between Denmark and the EC.
Outside parliament, the People's Movement Against EC split at its national conference in September. Three of the Movement's four members of the European Parliament, together with its best known spokespersons have gone over to
DENMARK / TRANSPORT the newly created June Movement. Remaining in the People's Movement -a majority of the delegates — are many of the grassroots activists, several far left groups (mainly Stalinist) and hardcore nationalists.
However, neither the People's Movement nor any other of the "no" campaigns are really mass campaigns and relatively few activists are involved. This is very different to the situation in 1972 (and to that now emerging in Sweden and Norway).
There are several issues involved in the split, including personal disagreements and the movement's finances, but basically the division goes back some years and was evident up until the referendum. Top leaders of the People's Movement initiated "Denmark '92" which was renamed the "June Movement" after the referendum. Unlike the People's Movement, "Denmark '92" was not against the EC as such. It only opposed the Maastricht union and was consciously formed as a broader movement. There is also a real change in orientation towards accepting the EC institutions and pursuing a "realistic" policy there.
Over the summer, everyone was awaiting the result of the French referendum. However, the general situation did not become clearer after that, with big problems for Maastricht appearing in Britain and the crisis of the European Monetary System.
The June Movement demanded to be included in the discussions with the political parties, but the government refused.
This Movement insisted that the Maastricht Treaty is dead and and if there are any new agreements between the EC and Denmark, they must be open to countries now applying for EC membership. *
Rail privatization or a rational transport policy?
PRIVATIZATION of the railways — planned in many
European countries — will bring profits for some but losses for many more.
German Marxist economist
Winfried Wolf who has written many books on
### UPDATE
Danish parties agree compromise on Maastricht ON October 27, seven of the eight political parties represented in the Danish Parliament agreed on a national compromise about Denmark's future role in the European Community (EC). The agreement is now the mandate for the government in forthcoming negotiations with the other EC countries.
According to the agreement, Denmark will not participate in the parts of the Maastricht accords concerning 1) common defence policy 2) the third phase of the economic union, i.e. common currency and a European central bank, 3) European citizenship and 4) common police and asylum policy.
Now the two big questions are: can the agreement be turned into a concrete proposal by negotiations with the other EC contries? and, would such a proposal be accepted in the next referendum set for 1993?
Both are quite possible. The compromise may look like a rejection of the main ideas behind the Maastricht accords, but it should be remembered that Denmark had, even before the June 2 referendum, expressed reservations about participation in the (military) West European Union and about the third phase of the economic union.
In short, the compromise can be characterized as a formula which can avoid a break with the EC as such but leave Denmark back in the last wagon - at least for the time being. European integration will continue in other areas, such as economic policy (second phase of economic union); indeed, the Danish compromise underlines the single market.
In parliament only the rightwing Progress Party is against the compromise, standing firmly on the "no" , but so far the party has not criticized the details.
Of particular importance is the position of the left social democratic Socialist Peoples Party (SF) which recommended a "no" on June 2. Now it is behind the national compromise, which, indeed, was drawn up by SF, the Social Democracy and the Liberals and then accepted by the government.
Among other things this is a sign of new parliamentary alliances in Danish politics and probably of the coming of a new Social Democrat-led government quite soon. SF's position in negotiations over the compromise was determined by its nopes tor intluence on, or even participation in, such a government. Age Skovrind - October 29, 1992 * written Many Cooks On transport questions looks at the reality behind the claims made by those promoting the privatization of rail in his country. WINFRIED WOLF*
N JULY 1992, the German government took a crucial decision for the future of German railways. On January 1, 1994, the two railway companies — the Deutsche Reisenbahn (DR) from the former German Democratic Republic (GDR — East Germany) and the Deutsche Bundesbahn (DB) from the former West Germany will be transferred to a newly created limited company, the Deutsche Eisenbahn Aktiengesellschaft (DEAG).