Nordics prepare IGC strategy

Date: 07/12/1995

By Ole Ryborg

TWO of the EU's three Scandinavian members this week set out their stall ahead of the 1996 treaty review, with reports clearly designed to appease Eurosceptics and boost the Union's popularity in both countries.

A seven-page document drawn up by the Copenhagen government - which declares the 1992 Edinburgh Agreement, setting out four Danish reservations on the future shape of Europe, is not up for negotiation next year - is being used as the basis for discussions among political parties on the country's 'negotiating basis' for the IGC.

The Swedish government's 28-page report, also published this week, reflects the scepticism which has grown rapidly since the country joined the EU in January this year.

While other IGC reports, including the Copenhagen document and the Reflection Group's report, give priority to preparations for enlargement to Central and Eastern Europe, the Swedish document touches only briefly on this point and devotes little attention to the Reflection Group's preoccupation with maintaining the efficiency of the EU institutions.

The Swedish government also parts company with its Scandinavian neighbour over the issue of majority voting. While Copenhagen would agree to changing the voting rules for common foreign and security policy issues to allow joint actions to go ahead even if one or two member states disagreed, this is rejected by the Swedes.

And while the Danes say they would agree to linking voting procedures to population size - although they insist there should be no change in the balance between small and large countries or in the relationship between the EU's institutions - Stockholm says it can see no reason why an element of population should be introduced into voting procedures.

Both governments, however, stress the need to show the EU is taking account of its citizens' concerns.

The Danish report outlines several objectives to achieve this goal: a decrease in unemployment, the creation of a better environment, the fight against international crime, and the promotion of stronger internal and external security measures. In addition, it cites subsidiarity, openness and the simplification of EU decision-making procedures as central issues.

The government also calls for the inclusion of citizens' rights in the next treaty and says non-discriminatory rights against race, sex and religion, as well as basic rights for employees, should also be considered.

For the Swedes, the biggest challenges for the IGC are the fight against unemployment, creating a better environment and equality between the sexes.

Reflecting its concern to win over a sceptical public, the Swedish government positions itself at the head of the integrationist camp in the field of justice and home affairs, calling on the IGC to move asylum and refugee issues from the intergovernmental third 'pillar' of the treaty to the first, giving both the Commission and the European Parliament a greater say.

It also insists the EU should include a special employment chapter in the treaty and create a special joint employment committee comprising social affairs and finance ministers.

Stockholm places great emphasis on openness, demanding that the right to information be written into the treaty.

Both governments call for more EU action to protect the environment. Denmark says the principle of sustainable development should be written into the treaty and environmental considerations included in other treaty chapters, such as those concerning agriculture and transport.

It also recommends allowing member states to strengthen national legislation on internal market rules when new scientific knowledge emerges, and adding a protocol to the treaty specifying areas where environmental taxes could be adopted by qualified majority vote.

Sweden calls for the introduction of the 'substitution principle', forcing businesses to use those materials least dangerous to the environment and giving the authorities the right to remove products from shop shelves if they are produced from materials which do not comply with the substitution principle.