Danish resistance to continue?
International Viewpoint #256 May 1994 others which were not particularly convincing (for example emphasising "that which unites us more than that which separates us"). A number of times he made a somewhat puzzling reference to Puerta being the most intelligent choice. He did not explain why and we cannot speculate on his reasons. But the main arguments in favour of Puerta's candidacy are: (1) To head the list with a supporter of the majority position in the debate on Maastricht gives the IU a democratic and pluralistic image; (2) Puerta appeals to PSOE voters; (3) Puerta is a symbol of the IU's openness to future agreements with the PSOE.
Only the third argument has any kind of consistency. Whether this weighed upon the decision will be seen after the Andalucian elections which will also take place on 12 June; in which the PSOE will lose its absolute majority, the PP will increase while probably remaining in second place, and the IU will be faced with difficult questions around the
In any event, the official list was approved in the face of considerable opposition. While eighty-nine voted in favour, only thirty-five of these came from the ex-majority. Twenty-eight voted against and thirty-three abstained.
Angry words were spoken. While it is true that pluralism is one thing and democracy another the Andalucian who spoke against Puerta has been dismissed. This is exceptional, but far from unimportant.
In short, IU is putting forward a list for the European parliament in which its machine counts for more than whether it is "red" or "green". Internally, a good election result - and IU improve, if in 1989 it only obtained under one million votes and four deputies - is likely to favour the supporters of the list and can strengthen those "recentred" who perhaps are incubating within the IU leadership. However It 1s unclear whether a bad result would produce the opposite.
Nevertheless, the internal seem in this case to be minor. As things are, on 12 June most of the people will vote for symbols, not candidates nor programmes. The most important result will be the relationship between what the PSOE loses and IU wins. In other words, whether with or without Puerta, on a national level IU will be the most visible alternative to the left of the
Its vote should be the largest possible. Whatever happens, after 12 June we will enter a stormy period. *
"HE "no" vote in Denmark's
1 0r72 une 1on sent um
on 2 June 1992, sent tremendous shock waves through the country's establishment and that of Europe's as a whole too. After the vote however, the leftreformist Socialist People's Party (SF), which had been initially opposed to Maastricht, emerged as one of the architects of the so-called "National Compromise" which led to a "yes" vote in the second referendum on 18 May 1993. The National Compromise reflected a change in the SF's politics - a change which had been underway for some time -and this was highlighted in particular by the party leaderships hope that they would become part of a new Social Democratic led government. When the bourgeois government fell in January 1993 their hopes were dashed. The Social Democrat's leader, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, instead chose three minor bourgeois parties as his coalition partners. The SF was, once again, left in opposition.
• For the Red-Green Alliance however, the situation after the 18 May had actually improved. As a reaction to the SF's manoeuvres, opinion polls indicated that the Alliance had now passed the magic two percent limit required to win representation in the Danish parliament. Despite this, the Alliance is not running an independent list for the European elections. Instead it will run both its own campaign and propose support for two other anti-Maastricht
• The People's Movement Against the EEC, which currently has four European deputies, split following the 2 June 1992 referendum. Those that left formed the June Movement. From day-to-day, the difference between the two organisations is difficult to see, but while the People's Movement demands that Denmark should leave the EEC (and not just reject Maastricht), the June Movement is only opposed to Maastricht and not the EEC as a whole.
Members of the Red-Green Alliance will head the lists for the European elections of both organisations. Since both movements consist of bourgeois and left-wing forces there have been some strange positions taken. For example, the People's Movement will talk in one sentence about employers and employees negotiating with common interests, and in the next sentence declare how strong trade unions are required as the only protection against attacks on social rights.
The Social Democrats are trying to put the welfare state at the forefront of their campaign, while at the same time attempting to ignore the content of the National Compromise — a "compromise" which the SF is still trying to maintain. Amongst the bourgeois parties the Liberal Party and the Centre Party will promote further Danish integration with the European Union and also membership of the West European Union - a question which will probably be at the top of the agenda of the governmental conterence in 1996
There is little doubt that the coming election will be seen in the light of June 1992 and May 1993. The Danish people will interpret the election as a "yes" or "no" to the European Union. In May 1993 forty-four percent still voted "no" to Maastricht. The results of these elections will indicate the extent to which Danish resistance to the European Union continues. Jan Jensen ©
21