Forum shows up Nordic divisions

Date: 07/03/1996

By Ole Ryborg

IT was repeated several times by speakers and underlined by the lack of action.

The idea of the three Nordic members of the EU pursuing a common approach to the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference is nothing but an illusion.

It may even be a “dangerous” one, according to Niels Ersbøll, the Danish EU negotiator and former secretary-general of the Council of Ministers.

The yawning divide between members of the Nordic Council, the well-established forum for cooperation between Denmark, Sweden and Finland and non-EU members Norway and Iceland, was highlighted at a conference in Copenhagen this week where MPs and MEPs from all five countries met to discuss the IGC.

The conference demonstrated to the public what has long been a well-known fact in government circles in the three Nordic EU capitals - they share common ground only in areas largely destined to remain on the very margins of the IGC negotiations. And even in those areas, they agree only on the goals and not on the means of achieving them.

There is broad Nordic agreement on just three issues facing member states at the IGC: the need to reinforce the EU's ability to play its part in the fight against unemployment; increased openness and transparency in the Union; and the introduction of stronger provisions in the new treaty to protect consumers and the environment.

However, apart from the employment question, these are all far from central issues on the IGC agenda.

The lack of a common Nordic approach to questions such as the future development of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), defence, justice and internal affairs, and institutional issues was highlighted by several speakers at the conference.

“Nordic cooperation is limping. There is no Nordic coordination on questions such as foreign policy or the institutional changes,” said Finnish minister Ole Norrback, who currently chairs the Nordic Council of Ministers. Norrback gave a concrete example of this lack of a common agenda when he asked Denmark to lift its opposition to moves to transfer EU police cooperation from the intergovernmental third pillar of the Maastricht Treaty to the communitarised first pillar.

This is a demand to which the Danish government cannot agree, bound as it is by the terms of the Edinburgh agreement drawn up after the Danes rejected Maastricht in a referendum in June 1992.

The conference organisers came under fire for failing to focus on matters at the heart of the IGC. But that criticism was rejected by former Danish Minister Ole Stavad, chairman of the Nordic Council's Europe committee, who pointed out that the aim of the conference was to concentrate on issues where the common denominator was the desire to preserve the Nordic welfare model.

But the lack of discussion on IGC key issues also reflects the current domestic climate in the three Nordic EU member states. Opinion polls in both Sweden and Denmark have shown a great reluctance on the part of citizens of both countries to sanction further European integration. Only the Finns have shown a consistently positive attitude towards the EU.

It was this which prompted Norrback to warn that the Nordic countries must prepare the ground for the IGC carefully in order to win public support for the next EU treaty. “Poor preparation means an unnecessary risk. If ministers have to report a defeat in Brussels back to their countries, there is a risk that the people will reject the treaty,” he said.

Decisions on whether to hold referenda on the results of the IGC in the Nordic countries have not yet been taken, but they will be difficult to avoid - if not for constitutional reasons, then for political ones. Most also believe that if just one of the three decides to hold a referendum, the others will automatically follow suit.

If that happens, there is a tangible risk of failure because, even in those areas where the Nordic countries broadly agree, a more detailed examination of the issues in question shows the preferred means for achieving common goals differ in each country.

Sweden, for example, has linked employment policies with economic and monetary union. This idea is only partly supported by Denmark and Finland, who both prefer other methods to strengthen the EU's ability to fight unemployment.

As Knud Enggaard, the Danish president of the Nordic Council, put it: “The Nordic countries are too small and too different to act as a bloc.”