Denmark reads the writing on the wall

Date: 18/09/1997

Ole Ryborg reveals that, given the lack of interest in EU issues among many Danes, the outcome of the country's referendum to rafify the Amsterdam Treaty is far from settled FEW people outside Scandinavia know what the letters 'UD' stand for. In Sweden, it is the well-known acronym for the foreign ministry - Utrikes Departementet. In Danish, the word means 'out'.

That tiny word 'UD', placed on small round signs at Webers Hotel in Copenhagen to mark the fire exits, has without doubt been the dominant theme of Denmark's internal debate on the European Union and the Treaty of Amsterdam.

The signs have generated heated arguments, involved key political players, such as former Foreign Minister Uffe Ellemann-Jensen, and sparked an avalanche of letters to the editors of all Denmark's newspapers.

The furore erupted after a bank director went on television to complain that the Union was meddling in too many areas of day-to-day life and alleged that a Danish hotel had been forced by EU regulations to spend thousands of kroner changing all its fire-exit signs because they did not comply with Union standards.

EU rules stipulate that fire exits should be indicated by square signs with the symbol of a running man, so that they are instantly recognisable in hotels anywhere in Europe.

At Webers Hotel, the signs took the form of a circle adorned by the Danish word for 'out'. Nor did they contain the necessary EU approved symbol - omissions which forced the hotel to replace them at its own expense.

The government has made available grants totalling millions of kroner to political parties, the various EU movements and to sundry other organisations requiring financial support to host debates on the draft Amsterdam Treaty in the run up to next year's referendum on its ratification.

But the way arguments on the pros and cons of the UD signs have dominated the debate until now shows all too clearly that, even after 25 years of EU membership, it takes a piece of Euro-folly to involve the average Danish Jensen or Nielsen in a debate about the Union.

Given the total lack of interest among many Danes in discussions on the EU - let alone on more complex issues, such as the contents of the Treaty of Amsterdam and its likely consequences for the future shape of European cooperation and integration - the outcome of Denmark's ratification referendum will depend closely on the lead given by key political figures and their ability to get their arguments across to voters.

The country's unexpected 'no' to the Maastricht Treaty on 2 June 1992 showed that Danes are uncomfortable with the EU when it becomes involved with issues other than trade.

When, 20 years earlier, a clear majority of the electorate voted for the country to join the then European Economic Community (EEC), the debate essentially focused on economic concerns such as the importance of membership in order to keep Danish exports of bacon and butter flowing to the UK.

September is traditionally the month for party conferences in Denmark. With next year's EU referendum looming, the internal political discussions are attracting even more media interest than usual.

To date, the spotlight has largely been on the Socialistisk Folkeparti (the Socialist People's Party) which played a key role in securing a 'yes' in Denmark's second Maastricht referendum in 1993, when its leadership - after arguing for a 'no' at the first referendum - switched sides.

It did so after the Danish government secured pledges at the Edinburgh summit that the country would not join economic and monetary union or the Western European Union and would only participate in the Union's 'third pillar' judicial and home affairs activities as long as these remained intergovernmental.

The Treaty of Amsterdam has split the 13 Socialist People's Party MPs right down the middle. Originally seven argued for a 'yes' in the referendum, while six, including party leader Holger K Nielsen, said that they would campaign for a 'no'.

The split led to an extraordinary party congress which, ten days ago, decided by a two-thirds majority that it should campaign against the new treaty.

Last weekend, it was the turn of Prime Minister Poul Nyrup Rasmussen to deal with Eurosceptic members within his ruling Social Democratic Party - Socialdemokratiet. Rasmussen, who negotiated the new treaty, succeeded in ensuring his party will enter the referendum campaign united behind a 'yes' vote.

His success represents an important change from 1992, when opinion polls showed that barely a third of Social Democratic voters supported the Maastricht Treaty. Ove Fich, the party's EU spokesman and a former MEP, now believes it will be possible to persuade two-thirds of its supporters to back the Amsterdam Treaty.

These extra votes could prove to be crucial. Developments among traditional right-wing parties have indicated that they are starting to look more like their sister parties in the rest of Europe, where Conservative voters in particular are drifting towards Euroscepticism in the belief that the Union is responsible for unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape.

Among Conservative MPs, however, only one, Frank Dahlgaard, is so far set to argue against the treaty. And in Uffe Ellemann-Jensen's dominant Liberal Party, any sign of rebellion against the staunchly pro-European line has been fiercely quashed.

But further to the right, two rival forces, the Fremskridtspartiet (Progress Party) and Dansk Folkeparti (Danish People's Party) are both opposed to the treaty. A campaign by the former group features advertisements arguing for “More Denmark - less EU”, while the charismatic leader of the latter, Pia Kjærsgaard, argues fiercely that the Treaty of Amsterdam would bring an influx of refugees and asylum seekers.

Until now, opinion polls have given the 'yes' camp a comfortable lead - the latest survey puts it 12 points ahead. But many voters are still undecided and experience from the 1992 referendum proves that such a lead can easily be wiped out.

Then, just one month before the June referendum, the 'yes' side's noticeable lead was reversed when internal European Commission documents about the possible consequences of EU enlargement appeared in the Danish press.

These sparked widespread speculation that the country might, for instance, lose its right to appoint a member of the Commission. Such fears are widely believed to have been one of the main reasons why many undecided voters eventually said 'no'.

With none of the key institutional questions resolved in Amsterdam, it is not impossible that statements from either Commissioners or ministers from other Union countries could trigger a similar debate in the run-up to next year's referendum.

The failure of EU leaders to agree the necessary reforms at their Amsterdam summit gives the 'no' camp room to speculate on how the EU's institutional set-up might develop in future and to argue that in order to be certain of preventing any particular scenario, people should vote 'no' in next year's referendum.

With public opinion influenced by critical stories about exit signs or the salaries of MEPs and EU officials, there is no knowing how long a 12&percent; lead will last for the 'yes' camp. It is by no means certain that the Danish electorate will give the Amsterdam Treaty its support when voters enter the polling booths sometime next spring.