By Sally Low
COPENHAGEN — By voting on June 2 to reject the Maastricht treaty on European political, economic and monetary union, the Danish people have thrown the whole treaty into question.
Although the margin was narrow (1.4%), the vote was a grassroots revolt. Workers voted against the recommendations of their national union leaderships. More than 40% of supporters of the main opposition Social Democratic Party rejected the leaders' call for a "yes" vote.
The "no" case was especially popular with women. Research indicated that around 66% of women aged between 30 and 49 and 51% of younger women were opposed.
Two days before the referendum, thousands here attended a "vote no" rally and concert called by "Denmark 92, the People's Movement against the EC" and a group of rank and file workers and lower level officials called "Unions against the Union".
While the event was fairly laid back — many seemed to have come more to enjoy the unusually hot weather than to express strong sentiments about anything — a random survey of the crowd showed people to be well informed about the issues. One Denmark 92 activist told me that over half a million people had bought complete copies of the treaty in order to study it for themselves.
Many women at the rally said they feared political union would increase moves to restrict Denmark's relatively generous social security, child-care and pensions schemes. They pointed to the German system, which links old age pensions to time spent in the work force, and stressed they do not want this model, which discriminates against women.
Even without Maastricht, it is clear the conservative government of Prime Minister Poul Schluter plans to cut back some social services. But, said one woman, "It will be easier to fight to keep our present model if we are not bound by Maastricht".
"The main problem for us is that it will weaken democracy", said Klaus Lorenzen, a spokesperson for Denmark 92 (whose campaign slogan was "Yes to Europe, no to Union"). "So far the Common Market has not had a democratic element and really, with 350 million people, we don't think it can. Increased powers for the European parliament would not solve the problem. We would just end up with some kind of American system where very few people participate in elections and there would be an even greater distance between politicians and the citizens than already exists."
The fact that only Denmark and Ireland (and, it has subsequently been announced, France) will allow their citizens to vote on the treaty highlights the "democratic deficit" that has become a feature of the European unity process. "They are really just trying to set up a giant Rotary Club that will be
able to dictate to the whole of Europe", commented a woman at the rally.
Despite lip service by many EC officials to the idea of decentralised decision making, developments during the '80s have all pointed in the other direction, said Lorenzen. Denmark has been forced to weaken environmental protection and workplace safety laws because they were judged in breach of EC regulations. A special tax on industry which raised a lot of revenue was ruled illegal.
In 1986, when Danes voted in favour of the single market, they were promised it would create jobs and that there would be no such watering down of standards. That these promises were not kept — unemployment has grown and is now around 10% — has led many people to oppose any further steps towards union, said Viggo Bensby, of the Left Socialist Party.
Although Denmark is one of the only three countries to already meet the tough economic convergence criteria for monetary union, these could still, in Lorenzen's opinion, severely restrict future governments. "If for a couple of years we wanted to have expansionary job creating policies, we would not be allowed to."
He pointed to the treaty's emphasis on controlling prices and its scanty mention of the need to tackle unemployment. Maastricht would give governments no choice but to continue the harsh monetary policies that many had already adopted during the 1980s — policies that will keep unemployment high.
An active trade unionist himself, Lorenzen scoffed at the idea that political union would assist European-wide labour cooperation. It would be wrong, he said, for the labour movement to rely on any supra-national state body to grant it such a role. Unions "would become as dependent on that state as they were in Eastern Europe.
"The only way we can get greater influence in European development is to build strong trade unions in all countries and organise our cooperation based on that strength. It's no use trying to jump over the basics and say we will make some kind of centralised trade union body to negotiate with the Common Market. Without a strong base, what mandate could we have?"
Maastricht claims to deal with EC environmental policy, yet it recommends no action, said Lorenzen. Development would take priority over the environment. The Danish Greens called for a no vote.
While the right-wing Progress Party also opposed the treaty, the opposition movement appeared to have been based on progressive themes. Lorenzen said he had been very pleased that racist and anti-immigrant arguments had hardly featured. Before the poll Schluter attempted to label all the "no" campaigners as communists.
After their initial shock — the Danish government, backed by opinion polls, had confidently predicted a "yes" majority — EC leaders quickly closed ranks and declared the other 11 members will press ahead with Maastricht regardless.
To do so, however, they will have to find a way around the Treaty of Rome, which says that all changes to it must be agreed by all EC members.
They will be sweating on the outcome of the June 18 referendum in Ireland. And, while the French referendum is tipped to pass easily, President Francois Mitterrand wants to use the referendum as a vote of confidence in himself; with his popularity rating at 37%, this could backfire.