Freenations

The Euro and the Nervous Danish Establishment

Thank you very much for your welcome. When the title for my contribution today was suggested, I laughed a bit, because it certainly describes exactly what the position is in Denmark. There is certainly panic in the "Yes" camp - more than ever before, though they have been in panic often. There is a record of uncertainty and panic and the overwhelming fear of another 'No' vote from the people.

Resistance is growing. When the date of the Euro-referendum was announced some 10 days ago (beginning of March 2000), and the date is to be September 28th this year (2000), an opinion poll was published showing a considerable positive majority. Two days later the position changed and there was a majority against. That second poll has contributed to the panic.

The very procedure and timing of the announcement of the date of the referendum was discussed for a long time, and disputed in many ways.

Now to understand all this I will give you two short historical summaries. One on the previous Danish referendums on European Affairs, and deeper down, of course, there is the historical experience of the Scandinavian countries over and against the area of Europe where the pax romana is seen as a positive thing.

The new referendum is the sixth in this series.

On each occasion there has been a considerable amount of cheating. The cheating has always been detected by the people - that they are cheating us. You can perhaps cheat some people all the time, you can cheat all the people some of the time but you can't cheat all of the people all of the time.

That is the situation that we are approaching now, I believe.

The cheating actually began immediately after the publication of the Treaty of Rome in 1957. In the preamble the aim of the whole affair is declared to be the union between the peoples of Europe, that union being incessantly tightened or made more binding. This scared the majority of Danes. We do not and did not ever want a United States of Europe. It is going on and on with still more integration and it will inevitably end in a superstate.

So in the next Danish translation the Foreign Office in Denmark had altered the translation of "union", it was no longer "union" in Danish but "sammeslutne" which is something looser; "association" or something of that kind. The same thing was done in Norway and of course people protested. At that time the organisation of the Scandinavian resistance began.

I remember we got hold of the original version of the Treaty of Rome in a small study circle and when we reached page 40 (or whatever) the 10 or so participants, students and academics and politicians, all looked at each other and said, "This doesn't work at all, it's too centralist. It's no good for us".

Shortly afterwards Denmark began negotiating for membership and that is the next example of cheating.

The Government said "Well, we have got to ask what the conditions for membership of the EEC are, the Common Market as they called it. We have got to have a good debate, of course we are not applying for membership, but we have got to refer to the paragraph in the Treaty of Rome which is about application for membership."

And I said "Good heavens, tomorrow morning they will say that we have applied!" And that is exactly what happened. The morning paper said, "Now Denmark has applied for membership" and from that it was clear that they were going to cheat us.

For 15 years we had built up, slowly, energetically, over thousands of meetings and printing and distributing thousands of pamphlets, letters to the Editor etc., a resistance.

Referendum 1

When we reached the first referendum in the late summer or early autumn of 1972, there was actually a majority against membership.

We had been able to document, by getting the original documents, communiqués etc from Brussels and Strasbourg that it was meant to be a political union. That the Common Market, like the European Coal and Steel Union, the Eurasia Treaty and other arrangements were just motors preparing the way for a political union.

Our Prime Minister, he was a Social Democrat at the time, Jens Otto Kaub, knew that it was very inconvenient that there would be a summit just before the Norwegian and Danish referendums. There might be a communiqué from that summit that would confirm that the whole thing was definitely about a political union, and not some kind of free trade area.

In the first edition of his Diary which has been printed, he admitted that he convinced colleagues in the EEC - the other Prime Ministers that such a declaration would be dangerous because it might scare the Danes who did not want a political union.
He writes:
'When they understood my position, they said that they agreed to postpone that summit and the consequent declaration until after the Norwegian and Danish referendums.'

Also, his wife happened to dine with one of the top British Industrialists in Denmark before the referendum. She told him that her husband was so afraid that the result will be "No", and there were actually three opinion polls which confirmed that was the likely outcome.

Some British businessman understood the 'hint' and organised a collection of money so that millions, some three quarter million Danish Krone were invested in the 'Black September' (as we call it) "Yes" Campaign.

There were whole page advertisements in the newspapers telling us that we would go bankrupt if we stayed outside the EEC, but if we came in employment would be secured almost forever, agriculture and especially the small farms would be protected. (Laughter)

At that time we had 200,000 farmers. Today we have 30,000!

Regarding industry in the northernmost county of Denmark. There would be more jobs because naturally Norwegian and Swedish industries would move in to get inside the European paradise. Danish households would be more secure, you could afford more privately, you could afford to travel to the Mediterranean etc. ...All that kind of stuff.

The Director of our National Bank sent a telegram, from New York I think, saying that he was very afraid for the Danish economy, he wouldn't be able to take the responsibility for the Danish National Bank if the referendum result was "No".

The Danish Exchange was closed, - no more dealing with currency or investments until after the 'Yes' was secured.

Now the result was, of course, some 63% voted "Yes" and some 37% voted "No", a two third majority in favour. The very next day Jens Otto Kraub appeared on TV and said with a smile that he had done what he had hoped to do therefore by noon he resigned! People could not understand why he was not going to stay on to enjoy the fruits of his victory. The explanation was that three weeks later when his replacement was sent to Paris to sign the Communiqué saying that in 10 years it was intended to establish a Political Union on the basis of the European Steel and Coal Union etc.

This of course caused anger! Although we had been beaten we became very angry, and anger at a defeat is a good motivation for continuing to fight. Like Dunkirk.

So, the resistance grew. Unfortunately for the "Yes" side, an oil crisis combined with a much less profitable membership (of the EEC) than expected, which led to farmers borrowing money not only on the basis of the real subsidies that they got, but also on their expectations, which were much higher.

All this meant that within a couple of years there was a crisis in agriculture. It became obvious, you could see that they had no money for maintenance of their buildings and the result was that small farms were bought by the larger, richer farmers. Unemployment grew and anger in the population grew. Within a few years there was a Danish majority against remaining in what was to become the European Union.

Referendum 2

The next crossroads were in 1986 when we had to vote about the Single European Act. It was called the Christmas Box or Present, because the vote was scheduled just after Christmas. And then we had a parliament that didn't really agree that we should sign up.

According to the Danish Constitution there should be a 5/6ths majority to give away sovereignty. And by the way, the Constitution also stipulates that sovereignty can only be given to an organisation for international co-operation, not to a Superstate. That became important later.

Well we had to have a referendum and the Danish Prime Minister at the time was conservative, Paul Scholar, and he made radio and, I believe, a TV speech in which, believe it or not, he said, "If you vote 'Yes' again this time it means that the idea of a European Union will be as dead as a doornail."

That, of course was nonsense. That sentence has been rebroadcast time and again in variety shows and cartoons etc. "If you say 'Yes' the Union will be dead." It meant, of course, exactly the opposite - a few more steps in the direction of a political Union.

Referendum 3

In 1992 there was yet another referendum on 2nd June, this time on the Maastricht Treaty. Fearing a "No", the text was altered a bit, and there was a bit less integration than originally had been the idea, but nevertheless we voted No! We had had enough of the lies and deceit and enough of the unstoppable train towards a Federal Europe.
Shortly after there was a French referendum which very nearly resulted in a "No" also, they had to call in some Pacific Island's votes to secure the last minute "Yes".

Referendum 4

That "'No" shocked the Danish "Yes" side. Being in Europe had become a religion and being outside it was heresy. And so a compromise was concocted called the four opt-outs, a conference in Edinburgh was part of the procedure, and then it was suggested that we should have yet another referendum on these opt-outs.

q 'Would you agree to Denmark staying outside the military dimension?'
q 'Would you agree to Denmark staying outside the common police and judicial arrangements?'
q 'Would you agree to Denmark staying outside the Single Currency?'
q 'Would you agree to Denmark staying outside the Common Citizenship?'

Many people said well, "Yes" we would prefer less than Maastricht to which we voted "No". Actually it was a vote about Maastricht - when the 'Yes' result was achieved on the 18th May 1993 the politicians immediately signed the Maastricht Treaty.

British experts, Leoline Price QC and Martin Howe QC with whom I have discussed this vote both here and in Denmark, have said, "Well these opt-outs are not worth very much actually". We of course, time and again, documented the process in pamphlets, articles and books.

It was a "Yes", a narrow "Yes" but still a yes to the Treaty of Maastricht, The opt-outs were not put into the Treaty, but later they were put into the Amsterdam Treaty. The "Yes" vote caused unrest in Copenhagen, even violent riots. Some young people, calling themselves 'the Autonomous' sealed off an area of Copenhagen and intended to defend it and declared it a 'European Union Free Area of Denmark'.

My wife and I happened to be quite nearby, at a restaurant mourning the result of the vote. When we came out we saw things burning in the street, we saw they young people and got into a taxi thinking that this might be a difficult situation, and a few moments later the Police opened fire with live ammunition. Fortunately, they didn't kill anybody, but they wounded a lot of youngsters and others. Fortunately, my wife and I had left two or three minutes before.

The fight went on.

Referendum 5

On 28th May 1998 we voted on the Amsterdam Treaty. Again, the politicians said that if you voted "Yes" there would not be any more integration for a long long time, there may even be less union if you vote "Yes". I don't know how many believed them but it was an even more narrow vote in favour.

There are now indications that this tactic is not going to work in the future, and the "Yes" voters are showing definite signs that they are not going to continue voting yes. The very Minister, a Social Democrat, who negotiated our entry into the EEC in 1972, recently stated that he would not vote for the abolition of the Krone for the Euro. That wouldn't be right for the Danish Economy he thought. And the son of the Danish Foreign Minister who was in charge of our Foreign negotiations in 1972 wrote an article a few days ago saying, "This time I have got to vote 'No'. …… .. his father was …….."

24% of the Conservative Party in Denmark is now against and 23% of Social Democrats are against too. Within both parties they have formed opposition groups and they intend to go out fighting against the Euro.

Almost every week, sometimes more than one a day, we see opinion polls from various bureau's and astonishingly different results are elicited.

But the answers very much depend on what you ask and how you ask it:

If you ask, "Are you are in favour of Danish/European co-operation?" people think, "Well yes, European co-operation, why not, co-operation but not integration". And so they say "Yes", and there is a majority in favour.

If the question is 'Would you like the Krone to be abolished in favour of the Euro? it is much more likely to be "No".

As a matter of fact we had, on the very same day, two very different results which proved that the outcome depended on the way the questions were put.

Now recently the Austrian affair, in an unexpected way has influenced opinion in Denmark, and in other countries I know. There are very few Nazis in Denmark, a couple of hundred perhaps, young people of the extreme right who wear the swastika etc. But many people are saying that although we don't sympathise with Jorg Haider and the so-called Freedom Party, the EU should not interfere because what will be next?

Shall we take the risk that one day they will interfere and impose sanctions on Denmark because there is a large movement wanting to get out of the EU? And also will they send in Europol or the European Army someday in the future?

There was a Swedish film some years ago about the European Army invading Sweden in order to keep it in the EU.

It is not likely to happen in my lifetime but my grandchildren might have that experience. People thought things like that and said them.

Our Prime Minister said, "Well when we send out the communiqué banning Austria and imposing sanctions, it wasn't really the EU, it was just 14 Prime Ministers that met informally." Then the critics said, well at least you should have asked our Parliament or our government according to the Danish Constitution, you can't make decisions on foreign policy without at least reporting to Parliament. He said "We didn't have time for - it was a very informal meeting - and we hadn't been warned beforehand of the agenda."

A few days later it was revealed that there was a fax sent out by the Portuguese Chairmanship suggesting sanctions against Austria because of the Freedom party taking part in the Government, and our Prime Minister said, "Well, I didn't see that fax." Some newspaper got a copy of the fax and it showed signatures of some six or seven influential civil servants in various ministries, so his whole administration had seen it. Is it likely that they had not shown it to him?

Later it was revealed that the whole thing stemmed from the European Union's Helsinki Conference some months earlier.

Now this and other affairs - which is another story and would take an hour to tell - has produced a situation where our Prime Minister is one of the least credible people in Denmark. The Gallop organisation has asked people to name the most credible and the least credible of 45 Danish politicians. They placed our Prime Minister at number 40 of the 45.

When he became Prime Minister he was at the top. There have been other instances where he said one thing one day and the opposite a fortnight later. That is a part of the cause of the panic of course.

I'll just say that behind all this political panic, which means that the "No" side has a chance of winning, there is a set of historical experiences in Scandinavia that may not be in the consciousness of everybody all the time, but deep in the subconscious we know that peace in Scandinavia was created from below. The people did not want to fight any longer. You know, for 400 or 500 years the Scandinavian people had Balkan like civil wars between Swedes, Danes, Norwegians, mostly in Denmark, and with the Hansa League and other German interference. But there was a long series of actions from the grassroots where women's groups, Trade Unions and other groups decided that they had no interest in the wars and wanted to stop.

In the same connection we got another type of nationalism, we call it patriotism to distinguish it and it allows you to have your identity, self-rule in order to avoid xenophobia. If you have the keys to your own door - your own constitution, your own soil, your own language there is no need for xenophobia. You will than accept that in East Timor, or Tibet, or Austria, wherever, you accept that they deserve their own freedom to do as they wish.