50,000 votes that shook Europe
EUROPE the electorate. The manner in which the union rank and file (the majority of which voted no) and the social movements intervene in this question will be key. If handled correctly, the no vote can be transformed into a social victory. If not, the defeat of the treaty will be merely a pyrrhic victo-
THE rejection of the Maastricht treaty by the Danish electorate is rich in lessons. In particular, it highlights the degree to which West European politics has become interlinked over the last few years. 50,000 Danish votes were enough to set off a chain reaction in several countries, raising the debate on European Union, causing a sharp crisis within some political movements that had already been divided by the issue, as well as a debate on the rights of populations to decide their future. What will happen if, on June 18,
Ireland also rejects the treaty?
CLAUDE GABRIEL
HE other important lesson
T concerns the Danish vote itself.
Was it not the clearest example of the crisis of European parliamentary regimes? The Danish parliament had ratified the treaty by 130 votes to 25. Most parties, including the Social Democrats and the union leaderships, called for a yes vote. The so-called representatives of the people had therefore expressed their will.
It took a simple referendum to destroy these pretensions. At the very least, real democracy should mean that the government would have to resign and new elections be organized. In any event, this centre-right government has no authority to renegotiate the treaty and define Denmark's place in the EEC. However, the same people remain in power as if nothing had happened. It is particularly interesting to see the new proponents of European citizenship upset by the discovery that several thousand Danish citizens can derail the train of European unification.
There were clearly many different motivations at play within the no vote. Several parties of the right and left campaigned against the treaty. Throughout Europe anti-
Maastricht positions are quite ideologically diverse and span the far-left to the far- right. It would therefore be wrong to interpret the defeat of the treaty as such in a nationalist sense or, on the other hand, as having a radical social content. The majority was quite diverse.
The situation in Ireland has some similarities. Some votes against European Union there will represent anti-abortion sentiment while others could vote no for precisely the opposite reason, to protest against the loop-holes that would allow Ireland to
HE EUROPEA OMMUNI escape the European-wide provisions guaranteeing abortion!
In Denmark, several arguments were advanced by various left currents; against political integration, in opposition to European-wide defense system, against the social aspects of the treaty, for the defense of the environment and so on. But these were not the key issues. Rejection of establishment
The Danes rejected the decision of the establishment and the demagoguery of the political cliques. All of which adds up to a serious political crisis in that country. Those on the radical left who called for a no vote now have the possibility and obligation to launch a vigorous anti-capitalist campaign, given that the Danish bourgeoisie has explained that they will make the workers pay for the no vote and that some investments will be transfered out of the country. But the victory over Maastricht will reinforce the institutional and juridical imbroglio without automatically clarifying the social stakes.
It will be interesting to see how a coun try can be simultaneously outside of the Maastricht treaty but part of the Single Act ratified in 1986, which prohibits all barriers to free circulation of capital and goods. The Danish bourgeoisie can now use the rules of the big market to punish
As far as the future of the treaty itself is concerned, Paris and Bonn have announced that everything will go ahead as planned, with or without Denmark. Of course, nothing prevents them from altering the treaty (which required unanimous approval) and proceeding with 11 instead of 12 member states. However, there are other obstacles. Denmark, along with Luxembourg and France, has already met the criteria of entry into the Economic union (EMU) (rates of inflation, budget deficit, public debt, long term interest rate). Thus, the Danes were without doubt those who would "benefit" the most from the monetary union. Even so, Danish respect for the monetarist parameters of the treaty would not exclude the maintenance of austerity policies.
But to justify this, the government could not on the other hand use the pretext of "catching up". This is the opposite of the situation in countries like Italy, Spain, Greece, Belgium, Britain, and so on. In those countries the Maastricht argument will be largely used to justify attacks on social benefits in order to reduce the public deficit, hold down inflation, reabsorb the debt, and so on. Thus the Danish referendum could give a few good ideas to the social movements in these countries.
Hard core loses member
Economic and monetary union is therefore quite fragile politically. The famous "hard core" that was supposed to grow has now lost one of its members. And since Denmark is one of the signatories of the Single Act and the Treaty of Rome, special new rules of association must now be invented. The juridical complexities will become a nightmare, not to mention the fate of the Danish members of the European parliament at Strasbourg, the Danish functionaries in the Brussels commission, the future Danish presidency of the EEC, June 8, 1992• # 230 International Viewpoint
----- photo credits and running heads -----
5