Conference turris::scandia

    From: [email protected] (Stale Villumstad)
    Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
    Subject: Re: Norway joining the EC ???
    Date: 7 Feb 91 15:27:45 GMT
    Organization: Computing Sci, Glasgow Univ, Scotland
 
    [email protected] (Benjamin C. Evans) writes:
 
    >Can anyone I Norway answer or comment on the question below about
    >the EC Market?

    Yes, I will make a try.  For the time being I am living abroad (student
    in Glasgow), but I still have my opinion about Norway and EC.
 
    >@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
    >In 1992 will Norway be deciding if they should join the EC Market?

    Maybe they will be able to decide within 1992, but personally I doubt
    it.  The discussion haven't *really* started.
 
    >If Norway decides to join the market, will foreign businesses  
    >beable to move into Norway?

    Yes, that is one of the main issues about the EC, that it will be a
    free market within the EC.  Any company from within EC could make 
    investments and move in to Norway.   The protection will be less.
 
    >Has there been much debating on this decision by the goverment
   >political parties?

    The debate is going on, but the largest parties in Norway are afraid of
    the discussion because it can cause a split between groups within the
    party.  Specially the labour party, which is the ruling (government)
    party at the moment.  People in general also fair for another "1972".
    In 1972 there was a referendum to decide if we should join the EC or
    not and the discussions then was _really_ hard.  It was a very close
    race, but eventually the majority said no to membership of EC.  If I
    don't remember wrong (I don't have the figures here) I think the result
    was something like 52% no and 48% yes votes.

    	After the referendum there was crisis in several parties and the 
    government had to resign.  This is the historical reason why Norwegians
    are not so eager on the discussion yet, but I think the need to decide
    is increasing now so people are more involved in the question again.

    	Personally, I want the discussion to start as soon as possible,
    also among the politicians, so that pros and cons of a membership is
    found.
 
    >Is there a large number of advantages to joining the EC?

    No, not as far as I can see. Some advantages are there of course, but
    not many. I can think of one right away.  As a student from outside EC
    I have to pay 6050 pounds in university fees a year, while EC students
    pay the same as UK student which is somewhat 700 pounds.  This is
    almost 10 times as much.
 
    Norwegian companies would also be let into the EC market with their
    products easier.  As a nonmember there are protection costumes and such
    which makes it more difficult to sell products which are similar to
    others from within EC. The quality is _much_ better though!!
 
    >What are the major disadvantages if Norway was to join?

    I can think of MANY, but I will only mention some of them here (in the
    first hand) :

    	- Freedom.  In EC we will have to agree on laws and politics
    decided centrally in Brussel (or somewhere else).  Yes, we will be able
    to vote there as well, but consider that UK, France and Germany have
    most of the votes they will always be the leading and deciding
    countries in Europe.  With EC they can also decide other countries
    laws.  The votes are given according to a key including population and
    economical power (after what I have been told). That means that Norway
    with 4,000,000 inhabitans wouldn't have anything to say against UK with
    55,000,000 or any of the other large contries!!!
 
    	- Quality.  The standard of living is for the moment better than in
    most Euopeen countries.  Within EC they will try to flatten this
    differences out.  Standards and laws for what is allowed to mix in the
    food (i.e. the meat) are much stricter in Norway than in most of the
    other EC countries. In EC we are forced to let others sell their
    products in Norway and then...
 
    	- Unemployment.  Now Norway has a good unemployment rate compared
    to other countries (i.e. UK).  After membership in EC anyone can come
    to Norway and compete for the same jobs.  As things merges...
 
    	- Off market.  The market for products will be in central Europe,
    but  Norway is in the north and will have big expences on transport and
    not be able to compete in the same way.  Easier to sell something when
    you are there rather than if you are on the perifere.
 
    >Is there any books or reports about the pro & con of Norway 
    >joining that we can read about here in the US?

    Sorry, but I think someone living in Norway should answer this.
    Generally I would think that such books/booklets would be written in 
    Norwegian and that might be difficult for you to read?  :-(
 
    >			Tusen Takk !!!

    Vear saa god!
 
    >	Please reply any comments via email to:

    Thought it was worth a discussion here on soc.culture.nordic, so...
 
    o
    Stale Villumstad   <[email protected]

    From: [email protected] (Jon Taylor)
    Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
    Subject: EEC blues and Salmiaklakrids
    Date: 7 Feb 91 22:06:44 GMT
    Sender: [email protected]
    Organization: Open Software Foundation
 
 
    A Danish friend just returned from Copenhagen and brought me my
    semi-annual supply of licorice.  For those of you poor souls who've
    never come to know the joys of Danish licorice ("lakrids") - it's a
    remarkable experience.  Generally salty, often with a nose-shattering
    dose of ammonium chloride, it makes that sweet stuff you get in America
    and other places pale by comparison.  One of my favorite nasty tricks
    is to give some unsuspecting American a piece of heavy-duty licorice
    (the one called "Krishyl" is a good choice), assuring them that this is
    a true bit of Danish tradition.  Yow!
 
    Anyway, my friend Henrik gave me a piece of rather disturbing gossip: 
    he said that the EEC is talking about restricting the contents of
    licorice, and forcing the Danes to neuter their product.  Can this be
    true???  Will there be a black market forming to produce Piratos?  My
    first thought was that Denmark may finally get out of the EEC, to save
    their national candy from the grasp of the Euro-bureaucrats.  Someone
    out there in licorice-land, please give me the scoop!

    From: [email protected] (Lars P. Fischer)
    Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
    Subject: Denmark and the EC (was Re: EEC blues and Salmiaklakrids)
    Date: 16 Feb 91 18:49:37 GMT
    Sender: [email protected]
    Organization: Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Aalborg
 
    >>>>> On 14 Feb 91 18:18:59 GMT, [email protected] (Lars Poulsen)
          said:
 
 LP> There is a large leftist minority in Denmark that would like the country
               ^^^^^
 LP> to leave the EEC, and this is as good an excuse as any they have trotted
 LP> out so far.
 
    Minority, yes, and not large. In general, the support for the EC in
    Denmark has been increasing steadily for several years now. Very few
    people would argue that Denmark should leave the EC these days.
 
    As the EC is moving into its next phase (the Political Union and the
    Economic Union) the "just-say-no" people are moving their effort to
    arguing against the "Union", saying that Denmark will cease to exist as
    a sovereign country. The debate is not very heated (yet) but there has
    been a clear pro-Union direction for the last 18 months or so. By the
    year 2010, the Danish Kronor will probably have been phased out and
    replaced by the ECU.
 
    Recently, there has even been those that argue in public that Denmark
    should join the West Union (the western Europe military organization)
    and gradually have this organization take over the role of NATO
    (gasp!).
 
  /Lars
  --
  Lars Fischer,  [email protected]   | Beauty is a French phonetic corruption
  CS Dept., Univ. of Aalborg, DENMARK. |                   - FZ

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From: [email protected] (Lars P. Fischer)
    Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
    Subject: Re: Norway joining the EC ???
    Date: 16 Feb 91 17:16:29 GMT
    Sender: [email protected]
    Organization: Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Aalborg
 
    Stale =  [email protected] (Stale Villumstad).
    Benjamin =  [email protected] (Benjamin C. Evans).
 
   Benjamin> In 1992 will Norway be deciding if they should join the EC Market?
 
   Stale> Maybe they will be able to decide within 1992, but personally I doubt
   Stale> it.  The discussion haven't *really* started.
 
    The EC will be going through a lot of reforms in 1992, so don't expect
    the EC to accept new members before 1994 or so. If Norway and Sweden
    decide to apply, they will possibly sometime during the fall of 1990.
    It is my understanding that there is a good chance that Sweden will do
    so. Norway seems to be getting there, too.
 
    If this happens, the EC countries will have to accept the application
    and a timeplan will have to be put down. There will also be a lot of
    details to sort out. This will take all of 1991 and some of 1992, too.
    At the end of 1992, when the "inner market" has been established, a
    detailed plan can be good together. This would then place the
    discussion and voting during 1993, with the new members joining january
    1., 1994.
 
    I doubt that things will happen this fast. 1995 may be a better bet.
 
    Benjamin> Is there a large number of advantages to joining the EC?
  
    Stale> No, not as far as I can see.
    Stale> Some advantages are there of course, but not many.
    Stale> Norwegian companies would also be let into the EC market with
    Stale> their products easier.
 
    With the EC moving towards more and more unity, it will become harder
    for "outsiders" to operate in the EC market. Also, the economic
    structure within EC will be harmonized, making border transitions
    easier for those *within*. The overall effect of this is hard to
    predict.
 
    Note that Norway has already joined the European monetary co-operation
    (the ECU).
 
    Benjamin> What are the major disadvantages if Norway was to join?
  
    Stale> I can think of MANY, but I will only mention some of them here
    Stale> (in the first hand) :
 
    Stale> 	- Freedom.  In EC we will have to agree on laws and politics
    Stale> decided centrally in Brussel (or somewhere else). ... That
    Stale> means that Norway with 4,000,000 inhabitans wouldn't have
    Stale> anything to say against UK with 55,000,000 or any of the other
    Stale> large contries!!!
 
    Note that for exactly this reason, the EC operates with some very
    complex voting systems, aimed at protecting the small regions. But yes,
    moving into a larger community makes compromises mandatory.
 
    Stale> 	- Quality.  The standard of living is for the moment better
    Stale> than in most Euopeen countries.  Within EC they will try to
    Stale> flatten this differences out.
 
    The EC is using a lot of money in order to increase the level of
    activity in southern Europe, especially Portugal and Greece. Do you
    consider this bad? Remember, when these areas become richer, the market
    for your products will become larger.
 
    Stale> 	- Unemployment.  Now Norway has a good unemployment rate
    Stale> compared to other countries (i.e. UK).  After membership in EC
    Stale> anyone can come to Norway and compete for the same jobs.
 
    Actually, this is not what is happening. We do *not* see a lot of
    people from the UK moving into Germany to get jobs at the moment. For
    some reason, Europeans are not inclined to move a lot.
 
    Stale> 	- Off market.  The market for products will be in central
    Stale> Europe, but Norway is in the north and will have big expences
    Stale> on transport and not be able to compete in the same way.
    Stale> Easier to sell something when you are there rather than if you
    Stale> are on the perifere.
 
    This one I agree with. But - will staying outside change this
    situation?
 
 
    Note that I'm not saying that the EC is fantastic and the way to go.
    The EC has problems of it's own, an enormous beaucracy being the primes
    example. The issue is simply very complex. Giving up part of your
    national identity in order to achieve some abstract ideal (the united
    Europe) is difficult and will easily make you fear being run over.
 
    Note also that the EC is actively in the process of transforming itself
    into a much tighter knit Union. In Denmark, the discussion about this
    "next phase" is heating up...
 
    There are many views on the EC. One is the "Europe of Regions", i.e. a
    structure with each geographic region having its own identity, culture,
    language, and local political and economic life. In some areas, like
    Catalonia (sp?), this is viewed as the great chance of *escaping* the
    bonds of central government control. Denmark (and Norway, if they join
    in) have the special situation of  "region" = "nation". 
 
  /Lars
  --
  Lars Fischer,  [email protected]   | Beauty is a French phonetic corruption
  CS Dept., Univ. of Aalborg, DENMARK. |                   - FZ

    From: [email protected] (Espen H. Koht)
    Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
    Subject: Re: Norway joining the EC ???
    Date: 20 Feb 91 00:21:48 GMT
    Sender: [email protected] (The News Manager)
    Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
 
    In article <[email protected]>
    [email protected] (Lars P. Fischer) writes:
 
    >If this happens, the EC countries will have to accept the application

    Not really, the EC has already said several times that it will not
    accept any applications until the 'inner market' has been established. 
    This attitude probably originated as a way to deal with the delicate
    question of Turkey, who really wants to apply, but EC is feeling
    squeemish about because of its human rights record.  It might change
    when more 'desirable' countries such as Sweden or Austria want to
    apply, but the EC has already show that it doesn't 'have to accept'
    applications.

   >and a timeplan will have to be put down. There will also be a lot of
   >details to sort out. This will take all of 1991 and some of 1992, too.
   >At the end of 1992, when the "inner market" has been established, a
   >detailed plan can be good together. This would then place the
   >discussion and voting during 1993, with the new members joining
   >january 1., 1994.

    The EC will have enough problems meeting the 1992 deadline that, it
    seems more reasonable that this process will only start in 1992 (or
    1993).
 
   >With the EC moving towards more and more unity, it will become harder
   >for "outsiders" to operate in the EC market. Also, the economic
   >structure within EC will be harmonized, making border transitions
   >easier for those *within*. The overall effect of this is hard to
   >predict.
 
    Of course this is why the EFTA countries is working on deals with the
    EC. Which makes a whole lot more sense than rushing into membership,
    because it will eliminate a lot of the disadvantages of being outside
    (which applying countries would probably be for a while anyway), and
    allow more time to evaluate the usefulness of the rest of the EC
    functions, leaving it membership application open to whenever the
    country in question feels ready for it.
 
    >Benjamin> What are the major disadvantages if Norway was to join?
 
   >Stale> 	- Freedom.  In EC we will have to agree on laws and politics
   >Stale> decided centrally in Brussel (or somewhere else). ... That
   >Stale> means that Norway with 4,000,000 inhabitans wouldn't have
   >Stale> anything to say against UK with 55,000,000 or any of the other
   >Stale> large contries!!!
   >
   >Note that for exactly this reason, the EC operates with some very
   >complex voting systems, aimed at protecting the small regions. But
   >yes, moving into a larger community makes compromises mandatory.
 
    Also note that aspects the EC system is profoundly undemocratic which
    might be ok in an purely economic sense, but is disturbing when the EC
    is becoming more an more a political union.  Most people don't realize
    this problem, because it is never clearly pointed out that this will
    not change in 1992.
 
   >Stale> 	- Quality.  The standard of living is for the moment better
   >Stale> than in most Euopeen countries.  Within EC they will try to
   >Stale> flatten this differences out.
   >
   >The EC is using a lot of money in order to increase the level of
   >activity in southern Europe, especially Portugal and Greece. Do you
   >consider this bad? Remember, when these areas become richer, the market
   >for your products will become larger.
 
    Hardly.  There is no indication that the EC is willing to close the
    door on cheap labour in these regions. Actually, it would be even more
    benefitial for the EC to keep things this way when the close themselves
    on the rest of the world.  I think that you will find money going into
    these regions, but it will hardly be used to increase the standard of
    living of those who can provid useful. cheap, manual labour.  There
    will probably be an increase in the distribution of wealth within these
    areas instead.
 
   >Stale> 	- Unemployment.  Now Norway has a good unemployment rate
   >Stale> compared to other countries (i.e. UK).  After membership in EC
   >Stale> anyone can come to Norway and compete for the same jobs.
   >
   >Actually, this is not what is happening. We do *not* see a lot of
   >people from the UK moving into Germany to get jobs at the moment. For
   >some reason, Europeans are not inclined to move a lot.
   >

    The real question of unemployment is not the movement of labour, but
    the loss of freedom for the governments to apply their own economic
    policies.  This would have a dramatic effect on the Scandinavian
    countries because they have very different political priorities when it
    comes to unemployment and economic policy.  Recognizing the danger of
    unemployment for the economy, as well as different social perspective,
    Scandinavian countries have always had employment rates as top priority
    (probably *the* most important election issue).  This is not the same
    in the EC, and consequently it is likely that unemployment rates will
    grow rapidly in the Scandinavian countries if they join, as they loose
    the control of the economic tools need and have to submit to other
    priorities (eg. inflation rates, which benefits big business more than
    anybody else).  Of course it is predicted that unemployment rates will
    grow in the EC after 1992 anyway, so the Scandinavians wouldn't be the
    only loosers.
 
   >Stale> 	- Off market.  The market for products will be in central
   >Stale> Europe, but Norway is in the north and will have big expences
   >Stale> on transport and not be able to compete in the same way.
   >Stale> Easier to sell something when you are there rather than if you
   >Stale> are on the perifere.
   >
   >This one I agree with. But - will staying outside change this
   >situation?
   >

    The real issue here is that Norway can only really compete on
    international markets when it comes to quality, not quantity.  I have a
    hard time seeing EC membership helping Norway in this respect.
 
    Espen H. Koht

    From: [email protected] (EDUARDO CUE)
    Newsgroups: clari.biz.economy.world,clari.news.europe,clari.biz.top
    Subject: Norwegian prime minister hopeful on EC-EFTA talks
    Date: 8 May 91 14:54:53 GMT
 
 
	BRUSSELS, Belgium (UPI) -- Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem
Brundtland said Wednesday she was optimistic an agreement between the
six-member European Free Trade Association and the European Commission
on creating a common market of 380 million people would be concluded in
June.
	Speaking to reporters following a breakfast meeting with EC President
Jacques Delors, Brundtland said a number of important issues must still
be resolved, but added the EC president shared her view that an early
agreement could be reached.
	"It is his opinion that it is important, necessary and possible" to
reach an accord by June, Brundtland said of Delors. EC officials refused
to characterize the talks.
	Foreign Ministers of the six EFTA countries -- Norway, Sweden,
Finland, Austria, Switzerland, and Iceland -- were scheduled to meet with
their EC counterparts Monday to continue the negotiations.
	EC officials said privately, however, it is highly unlikely that an
accord on a text establishing the so-called European Economic Area could
be concluded next month.
	The officials say the two sides are still far apart on the key issue
of deciding what voice EFTA countries should have in EC decisions that
affect them.
	Negotiators are also resolve whether the European Court of Justice
will be able to rule on disputes involving the six EFTA countries and on
the question of fishing rights. Brundtland made it clear that the
fishing issue was vital to Norway as well as Iceland.
	An agreement between the EC and EFTA would take effect Jan. 1, 1993,
after ratification by the parliaments of the 12-member EC and the six
EFTA member states.
	Brundtland said it was "a fact of life" that EFTA was widely
considered as a "waiting room" or "halfway house" by its members on
the way to full EC admission, but said this should not diminish the
importance of a treaty establishing a free trade zone between the two
groups.
	Austria applied for EC membership in July 1989, and Sweden has
announced its intention to do so in June. But Brundtland said the ruling
Norwegian Labor Party believes that a decision on applying for
membership in the Community should not be made until after the EFTA
treaty has been approved.
	"At the moment the train that should move is the EFTA train," the
prime minister said. "All the other trains are on different tracks."
	EC officials see a free trade zone treaty with the EFTA countries as
a way of dealing, at least for the moment, with the thorny problem of a
vastly expanded Community.
	The EC Commission is currently negotiating association agreements
with Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia, with the three countries
hopeful they will be able to join the Brussels club once they have
rebuilt their economies.
	The Norwegian prime minister argued that while vital to the EFTA
countries, a treaty creating a common market that would stretch from the
Arctic Circle to the Mediterranean was also important for the Community.
	"It is important for EC countries to have the support and
cooperation of EFTA countries in its relations with Eastern Europe,"
she said.
	Brundtland added that the rich EFTA group would be willing to
financially help poorer EC countries such as Spain, Portugal and Greece
if a treaty is worked out.

    From: [email protected] (EDUARDO CUE)
    Newsgroups: clari.news.europe,clari.biz.economy.world
    Subject: European talks on free trade deadlocked
    Date: 13 May 91 22:19:22 GMT
 
 
	BRUSSELS (UPI) -- Switzerland was reported to be considering
withdrawing from deadlocked negotiations between the European Community
and six European countries aimed at creating a free trade zone of 380
million people, diplomatic sources said Monday.
	The talks initially bogged down over the thorny issue of sharing
fishing rights within a proposed free-trade zone encompassing Western
Europe.
	As negotiations between the foreign ministers of the 12-nation EC and
their counterparts from Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Switzerland
and Austria dragged into the night, diplomats said Switzerland was
balking at a proposal giving the European Court of Justice jurisdiction
in disputes involving the six countries that form the European Free
Trade Association.
	"If there is no common declaration today, there will be a very
critical discussion among these members on whether to proceed at all,"
Austrian Foreign Minister Alois Mock told reporters during a break in
the negotiations.
	"These last hours have made me an even more convinced EC fan,"
added Mock, whose country applied for full Community membership in July
1989.
	The deadlock Monday appears to have made it virtually impossible that
a treaty creating a free-trade zone extending from the Arctic to the
Meditterranean can be negotiated by June, as Norwegian Prime Minister
Gro Harlem Brundtland and other northern European leaders had hoped.
	The fishing issue appeared to be the major stumbling block facing the
18 foreign ministers. Spain is insisting it be allowed to fish in the
waters off Iceland and Norway as part of the broader free-trade zone
agreement, but both Iceland and Norway are adamantly opposed to the
idea.
	In an effort to break the deadlock the European Court of Justice
Luxembourg, which holds the rotating EC presidency, proposed to set up
an independent tribunal, with four of its seven judges coming from the
six EFTA countries. Switzerland said it would study the idea.
	But with Switzerland also opposed to the free movement of workers
within the proposed 18-nation trade zone and the other countries
apparently unwilling to allow the country to sidestep certain provisions
in the treaty, diplomatic sources said the government in Bern was
reported to be considering pulling out of EFTA and perhaps applying for
full EC membership.
	Still another problem is the creation of a fund financed by the
richer northern European countries to spur development in poorer
countries, such as Spain, Ireland, Greece and Portugal.
	While there is no disagreement in principle on establishing such a
fund, the EFTA countries are demanding that concrete proposals about how
it would operate be put forward before they agree to its creation.
	Spain has taken the lead in requesting money for the poorer EC
countries, with EC officials saying Madrid is extremely serious about
the issue. The Spanish have suggested that a system automatically
transferring funds from the richer to the poorer countries be
established.
	EC officials see the creation of a free trade zone as a way of
associating the rich, democratic countries of northern Europe with the
EC without making them full members. But both EC and EFTA officials
admit the organization has, in fact, become a "waiting room" or step
towards full Community membership.
	Following Austria's lead, Sweden has announced its intention to apply
for full EC membership in June, and other countries in the region such
as Norway are considering similar moves.

    From: [email protected]
    Newsgroups: clari.biz.economy.world,clari.news.europe,clari.biz.finance,
	clari.biz.top
    Subject: Sweden pegs its currency to the European Currency Unit
    Date: 17 May 91 19:43:23 GMT
 
 
	STOCKHOLM (UPI) -- Sweden's National Bank said Friday it was pegging
the nation's currency, the krona, to the European Currency Unit as a
first step toward Sweden's entry in the European Community.
	The European Currency Unit is based on the basket of currencies of
the economic group's 12 members.
	"The Swedish central bank has decided to peg the Swedish krona to
the European Currency Unit," the bank said, adding the measure was
effective immediately.
	"The National Bank's decision is to be seen in the context of
Sweden's decision to apply for membership of the European Community. It
is a first step in the adjustment of the Swedish exchange rate system to
the principles of the European Monetary System," the National Bank
said.
	The central bank fixed the exchange rate at 7.40054 kronor to the
ECU.
	The krona will float against the ECU by a margin of plus or minus
margin 1.5 percent, according to the general principle ruling rate
fluctuations inside the European Monetary System's Exchange Rate
Mechanism.
	"As a second step, the National Bank will seek association to the
European Monetary System," the central bank said. "The ultimate
objective is full Swedish participation in the Europenn Community system
for cooperation in the area of monetary and exchange rate policy."
	National Bank said the decision, taken unilateraly, would help Sweden
adjust to its new role inside the European Community, once its
membership is accepted.
	"The exchange rate policy plays an important role in the ongoing
integration process in the European Community," said Finance Minister
Allan Larsson. "Sweden's decision to apply for membership of the
European Community implies we intend to fully participate in the
existing exchange rate policy."
	The Swedish parliament massively voted Dec. 12 in favor of applying
for membership in the European Community. The vote amounted to a major
policy change for the Scandinavian nation which for years declined to
join an economically united Europe.
	Larsson said the move will help Sweden keep a stable currency and
fight inflation.
	"The measure should contribute to further dampen inflation,"
Larsson said.
	Six nations originally joined forces to create a "common market"
with lesser trade barriers: Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg
and the Netherlands. They were later joined by Britain, Denmark,
Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Spain.
	The European Monetary System was officially launched in March 1979.
The ECU reflects the value of the 12 members' currencies on a weighted
basis, with the German mark alone accounting for 30.42 percent of the
European currency. The French franc and the British pound account for
19.13 percent and 12.57 percent respectively of the ECU.
	The European Community is to drop all trade and tariff barriers by
Jan. 1, 1993. It plans to replace its members' individual currencies
with the ECU and later to have one single central bank, Eurofed.
	The plan for a single currency, a single central bank, however, has
raised numerous questions after the Deutsche Bundesbank deplored the
cost of a hasty monetary unification following the October reunification
of the two Germanys.

    From: [email protected] (ISABELLE CLARY, UPI Business Writer)
    Newsgroups: clari.news.europe,clari.biz.economy.world,clari.biz.finance,
	clari.biz.top
    Subject: Finland to peg markka to European Currency Unit
    Date: 22 May 91 19:36:27 GMT
 
 
	NEW YORK (UPI) -- Finland, following Norway's and Sweden's example,
will peg its currency, the markka, to the European Currency Unit later
this year, a senior foreign exchange manager said Wednesday.
	"Finland will certainly peg its currency to the ECU later this year
although the process might take longer than in Sweden's case because it
will have to be approved by a legislature's vote," said Albert Soria,
first vice president with Finnish investment bank Kansallis Osake
Pankki.
	Sweden, which applied last year to become a member of the 12-nation
European Community, Friday pulled its currency, the krona, out of a
dollar-based parity and pegged it to the ECU.
	Bank of Finland Governor Rolf Kullberg stated soon after the Swedish
announcement that Finland should consider a similar move since it is the
only Scandinavian country not to follow the ECU. Denmark is an EC
member, and Norway tied the krone to the ECU in October.
	The ECU, the weighted unit representing the EC's 12 currencies, is
scheduled to replace the grouping's individual currencies a few years
after the 12 nations abolish all internal trade and tariffs barriers by
the end of 1992.
	"The ECU will eventually replace the EC currencies in two to five
years after the creation of the 'Europe of 1992'. Some countries are
ready for it, others, like Britain, might have more problems with it,"
Soria said.
	Sweden's unexpected move triggered volatility on money markets
because investors, attracted by strong Swedish interest rates, had to
quickly cover short positions. That came as the krona moved out of a
dollar-based parity and adjusted itself to the ECU where the German mark
accounts for about one-third of its weight.
	Soria did not expect the markka's move to create as much market
volatility as the krona did, because the volume of markka investments
are much smaller than in kronor.
	"There was a need to hedge about $20 billion krona investments
Friday, and the demand could not be met. Until now, maybe not more than
$2 billion have been hedged," Soria said. "With the markka, it won't
be the same, because we are talking about only maybe $5 billion."
	Sweden's move caught traders by surprise and central banks as well,
Soria said.
	"Sweden's Riksbank did not give any indication it was going to make
the move, and the mark suffered amid the volatility. That's why the
Deutsche Bundesbank intervened to support the mark Tuesday and probably
called the Riksbank and forced them to intervene because it was the only
other European central bank which moved with the Bundesbank," he added.
	Soria predicted a strong outlook for the dollar which could reach the
2-mark level by year end.
	"We have a lot of unemployment in Britain and crucial elections in
the coming months, data about the German economy in the second quarter
are expected to be very bad and unemployment in the eastern part of the
country is soaring, the economy in Europe is declining, all of this
contributes to a strong dollar forecast," he said. "On the opposite,
the United States is getting stronger again."
	When the ECU replaces the EC members' currencies, it will become a 
"super-currency" that will profoundly change money markets with only
three major players left: the ECU, the dollar and the Japanese yen.
	The date for the great switch from French francs, British pounds and
German marks to the ECU -- formally the name of the French currency until
the Revolution -- is to be announced in 1993.
	The plan will not go without meeting some difficulties or resistance
for political reasons as the mark will remain a major component of the
ECU and Germany might well have the final say.
	The Bundesbank has already warned of the danger of a hasty monetary
union following the costly reunification, based on a one-to-one parity
between the two Germanys' currencies.
	"(Bundesbank President) Karl Otto Poehl was the only one who was
against a one-to-one parity in Germany. He was not heard at the time,
and that might be why he is resigning now," Soria said. "The problems
with the ECU as Europe's single currency are likely to be difficult
political ones."

    From: [email protected] (MARCIA HILL)
    Newsgroups: clari.news.europe,clari.biz.economy.world,clari.biz.top
    Subject: EFTA leaders optimistic about initialing EEA Treaty
    Date: 24 May 91 15:03:00 GMT
 
 
	VIENNA (UPI) - Austrian Chancellor Franz Vranitzky said Friday the
proposed European Economic Area treaty between the seven-member European
Free Trade Association and the European Commission should be ready for
preliminary initialing by the end of next month.
	The treaty would create a free trade area of 360 million people and
will stretch from the Arctic Circle to the Mediterranean.
	"The treaty will be ready for initialing, but not signed,"
Vranitzky said. "Legal experts may have to polish certain points, but
at first the political signals have to be clear."
	EFTA held its Spring conference in Vienna this week and the prime
ministers of Austria, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland --
together with new full member Liechtenstein -- said they were now 
"speaking with one voice".
	Outstanding issues including that of access to EEC fishing markets
and access to fishing resources -- a major concern for fishing industry
dependent countries such as Iceland and Norway -- will be worked out on a
multi and bilateral basis.
	"I am optimistic," said David Oddsson, prime minister of Iceland.
Gro Harlem Brundtland, the prime minister of Norway, said she welcomed
the pragmatic approach that EFTA had suggested to solve the fishing
issue.
	Brundtland reiterated the comments of her minister for trade and
shipping Eldrid Nordbo who pointed out "... that free and equal access
for fish in the entire EEA would be a fundamental political importance
for the acceptability of the agreement."
	The president of the Swiss Confederation Flavio Cotti said he was now
more optimistic about the fate of the treaty, especially after the
progress made by EFTA at the Brussels meeting of May 14, but he added
that the problem of transit traffic -- one of the major issues for both
Austria and Switzerland --still remained "a central issue" for
Switzerland.
	Chancellor Vranitzky said the group had also discussed the
possibility of a $100 million loan to Yugoslavia for specific industrial
projects from a special EFTA fund, but said no firm decisions could be
made because of the current political uncertainty.
	"This is not a new proposal," Vranitzky said. "EFTA agreed months
ago to make funds available to Yugoslavia, but because of the daily --
even hourly -- developments we must wait to see how things work out."
Vranitzky said. He said the assistance was planned for specific projects
if and when they were put forward for consideration.
	In answer to a question concerning the so-called "waiting room"
approach for countries who would use membership to the EEA as a step
toward full EEC membership, Swedish prime minister Ingvar Carlsson said
his government had been authorized by parliament to apply for membership
to the EC.
	"I plan to give a declaration on June 14, after which we will apply
for formal membership," Carlsson said.
	Brundtland said Norway had no such timetable.
	"The debate on EC membership will start in the fall and early next
year," Brundtland said, adding that she expected a decision "in the
year 1991-92."

    From: [email protected]
    Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic,soc.culture.europe
    Subject: Finnish EC debate
    Date: 24 Jun 91 16:31:38 GMT
    Sender: [email protected] (Uutis Ankka)
    Organization: University of Helsinki
 
 
    Finland is moving psychologically closer and closer to applying for
    full EC membership.  The main obstacle to joining has been the same as
    for Sweden up to now, namely the policy of neutrality.  The end of the
    cold war has lifted this restriction.  Moreover, the EES agreement will
    mean a big step towards full membership; it has been called an "80%
    membership".
 
    Public debate on the issue is getting more intense, and a number of
    people believe that Finland already is a member of EC.  This may have
    something to do with Finland having joined the Council of Europe, a
    different organization, last year.  (The European flag of 12 golden
    stars in a circle on a dark blue field was originally the flag of the
    CoE, by the way.)  A majority of Finns believe that we will be a member
    by 2000.
 
    The example of Sweden is sure to make politicians and the people
    consider applying even more seriously, since Sweden is a kind of a big
    brother for Finland, and we follow Sweden in many aspects.  I suppose
    this is true for Norway, also, which is in a similar stage in its
    internal debate on membership, I believe.  Many commentators belive
    that applying for membership will be the next logical step, taken
    shortly after the EES agreement comes into effect, or even before that.
 
    The quality of public debate on the matter has not been terribly high. 
    There seem to be on one hand the enthusiasts who threaten with a
    catastrophe if we do not apply right away, and on the other the
    rejectionists who threaten with catastrophe if we do join.  There has
    been a certain lack of well-reasoned, non-polemical arguments.
 
    -- Teemu Leisti / U. of Helsinki, Finland / [email protected]
 
    "All my life, I wanted to be somebody."  -- Anonymous

    From: [email protected] (Benjamin C Evans)
    Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
    Subject: EEA Negotiations
    Date: 24 Sep 91 18:09:35 GMT
    Sender: [email protected]
    Organization: The Ohio State University
 
 
            EEA NEGOTIATIONS BURDEN LABOR GOVERNMENT
 
    EFTA-EC negotiations aimed at creating a European Economic Area, one of
    the largest economic blocs in the world - were scheduled to end this
    summer.  But, among other issues, negotiators did not reach agreements
    on rules for the sale of fish products and access for European
    Community members to Norwegian fishing resources.
 
    Minister of Trade and Shipping Eldred Nordboe warned this summer "We
    are not guaranteed an agreement," adding that strong protectionist
    interests in some EC countries influenced negotiations.  Nordboe named
    Spain, Portugal, Britain, France and Ireland among the countries with
    the strongest interests in fishing policy.  Spain and Portugal want to
    take home larger fish quotas from Norwegian waters, while British,
    French and Irish fish-farming and fish-processing interests oppose
    duty-free access for Norwegian fish to their markets.  Other areas that
    remain unsolved is regulation of transit through Austria and
    Switzerland, and the creation of a fund for economic equalization
    between countries.
 
    High-level EEA-talks on the remaining issues is scheduled at the end of
    this month.  The goal is now to sign an agreement at the end of
    October, said Nordboe.  In her address to the Storting last month, she
    emphasized the importance of reaching an agreement soon to be able to
    make new regulations effective by January 1993, the deadline for
    establishment of the EC's internal market.
 
    The ruling Labor government has been criticized for the way it handled
    negotiations and kept the Storting informed.  After a meeting of
    European trade ministers in Luxembourg in June, Nordboe told the
    national assembly that an oral agreement had been reached on the
    important fisheries issue.  However, days later signals from Ireland,
    Britain and the Netherlands indicated that no such agreement existed.
 
    Speculation about Nordboe misinforming the Storting and
    misunderstanding the Luxembourg meeting soured the debate on EEA, and
    many politicians lost confidence in the Labor Party.  Brundtland's
    assessment was questioned both by Kaci Kullmann Five, leader of the
    Conservative Party, and Anne Enger Lahnstein, head of the Center Party. 
    Nordboe told the national assembly on August 15,"Even if we strongly
    regret that the agreement reached in Luxembourg did not prover
    sustainable, I cannot see how the government could have acted
    differently.  It would not have been in Norway's interest to diminish
    the significance of this agreement."
 
    She went on to explain the issues that remain before the 19 EFTA and ED
    members can sign an agreement concerning transportation of goods
    through Switzerland and Austria, the negotiating parts are still far
    from each other, the minister said.  It is an important issue to
    resolve for two reasons, she explained.  First, some EC members regard
    a transit agreement as a prerequisite for an EEA agreement.  Second,
    the transportation issue, comprising travel both by land and sea, has
    direct importance for Norway.
 
    An agreement has yet to be reached about the creation of an EFTA fund
    for economic and social equalization between nations.  Questions
    concerning the size of the fund and the ratio of loans to direct aid
    have not been decided.  According to the Minister, some EC countries
    want a financially stronger fund than what has been suggested by the
    EC-commission, and far stronger than other EFTA countries have been
    willing to consider.
 
    IN her update on the fisheries issue, Nordboe explained: "At the
    conclusion of the technical talks [on fisheries] the EC introduced new
    demands on resources by far exceeding the mutual increase in quotas
    Norwegian negotiators had agreed to .. The EC move -- far from
    including duty-free trade of all fish -- was rejected by the Norwegian
    side."
 
    ===================================================
    "Reprint from   News of Norway   September 1991 "
    ===================================================

    From: [email protected] (Wolfgang Diestelkamp)
    Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
    Subject: Re: Norway and European Community?
    Date: 19 Dec 91 14:57:52 GMT
    Sender: [email protected]
    Organization: GMD-FIRST, Berlin
 
    In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Pekka Ahonen)
    writes:
 
  >   I've been wondering for some time now, how is Norway gonna manage in
  >   the future without beeing a member of The European Community? (I'm not
  >   sure if it is European Community in english, because I've only heard
  >   it's name in Finnish, which is Euroopan Yhteis�, but I hope you know
  >   what organization I mean). Does Norway have lots of contacts with the
  >   EC countries, so they don't have the need to be member of EC (like
  >   Switzerland does)?
 
    One very important thing: The EC and the EFTA (European Free Trade
    Association ?), to which 7 non-EC countries including Norway and
    Sweden, Austria and Switzerland belong, have signed a treaty a couple
    of weeks ago to have a common free market in 1993 (just when the EC
    free market is supposed to start). Norway hesitated for a long time
    before they signed it, and I think they got some success, because of
    there fishing industry. This would make it unnessecary to join EC,
    though I *think* Norway was also contemplating to join EC.
 
   --
   Wolfgang Diestelkamp
   [email protected]
   [email protected]

    From: [email protected] (Peter I R�back)
    Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
    Subject: Finland and EC
    Date: 1 Feb 92 15:34:47 GMT
    Sender: [email protected] (Usenet pseudouser id)
    Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
 
    After a lot of discussion it now seems quite clear that Finland will
    apply for the membership in EC. The majority of the members in the 
    parliament (at least 112/200) are for the application. Also two of the
    largest parties are for the application while the third one is still
    hesitating. 
 
    In the urban areas and among young people the attitude to EC is more
    positive than in the rural areas and among old people. The opponents
    are worried about the future of agriculture in our cold climate and
    about our right to self-determination. In my opinion we don't have 
    much choice if we want gain trust in our economy.
 
    The decision will probably be made within a month or two. In that way 
    Finland could start the negotiations together with Sweden and Austria
    (and Norway ?) during 1992.

    -- 
    Peter R�back, [email protected]           
    Helsinki University of Technology   
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From: [email protected] (Jyrki Kuoppala)
    Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
    Subject: Re: Finland and EC
    Date: 1 Feb 92 19:01:10 GMT
    Sender: [email protected] (Usenet pseudouser id)
    Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
 
    In article <[email protected]>, praback@vipunen (Peter I
    R�back) writes:

   >After a lot of discussion it now seems quite clear that Finland will
   >apply for the membership in EC. The majority of the members in the 
   >parliament (at least 112/200) are for the application. Also two of the
   >largest parties are for the application while the third one is still
   >hesitating. 
 
    The opinion of the Finnish people has been quite divided and uncertain
    on this, and I don't it has yet had time to develop.  It was not
    'Politically Correct' to talk about EC until just a few months ago,
    also all politicians as a group have made a 180 turn regarding EC
    membership (earlier the official line was that of course Finland won't
    join EC, now it is that Finland has no choice but join EC).
 
    The opinion polls show no clear stabilizing of the opinions on EC.  At
    the start of the talk about EC the majority was supporting the idea.
    This is no big surprise because the information about the issues was
    nearly nonexistent and the official information was very supportive of
    joining EC.  Now there has been some critical information also and
    opposing opinions have been presented, but still the government TV
    company and the commercial TV company and the major daily Helsingin
    Sanomat seem very biased towards joining EC.  I think the polls
    currently show something around 40 percent of people opposing leaving
    the application, even though leaving it is not supposed to be binding
    by the official reasoning.
 
    Currently the government's official line seems to be that we will leave
    in the application and when we are supposed to join there will be a
    vote about it by all citizens.  The government is trying to calm those
    who don't want to join EC by telling that nothing is lost by leaving
    the application in and then later deciding what to do really. This
    seems to be usual political bullshit.  The vote is not binding, it's
    the parliament which officially decides about the issue - though I
    suppose they will have the guts to decide against the majority's will.
 
    The show the politicians are having, especially the third party,
    Keskustapuolue, is tragicomic.  It has been clear from the beginning
    that Keskustapuolue apparently will support the application if the
    party leadership gets to decide (if polls are to be trusted contrary to
    the majority of it's members stand) but the leading politicians have
    made a great show of not telling their opinions.
 
    //Jyrki

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From: [email protected] (Jyrki Kuoppala)
    Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
    Subject: Re: Finland and EC
    Date: 1 Feb 92 19:09:01 GMT
    Sender: [email protected] (Usenet pseudouser id)
    Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
 
    Here are some points about Finland joining EC from earlier discussion.
 
    Newsgroups: sfnet.keskustelu.foreigners,abo.utlanningar
    From: [email protected] (Abhay Bulsari VT)
    Subject: If Finland joins the European community,
    Organization: Abo Akademi University
    Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1992 05:18:41 GMT
 
    From whatever little I understand, these are the advantages and 
    disadvantages that I can see, of joining the European community.
 
    Advantages of joining the European community :
 
    * Prices could reduce a little, if the Finnish currency is not
    devaluated further. We will get foreign goods in more variety.
    (Probably KLM can provide better service between Kuopio and Jyv{skyl{
    than Finnair.)
 
    * It will be easier to market Finnish goods in EC, while not making it
    any more difficult to market elsewhere.
 
    * Spending on defence will reduce in due time, even though it is
    claimed that EC is not going to be a military union.
 
    * There will be more investment from other countries than if we were to
    stay out of EC.
 
    * For a lot of people, it will be very encouraging and improve the
    morale - a psychological effect, which may have no basis in facts.
 
    * If we don't join, Finland will be the only sizable country from West
    Europe left outside EC, since Austria and Sweden are most likely to be
    in EC by 1995, and that leaves Norway and Switzerland.
 
    * Hopefully we will have some foreign banks in Finland. This is
    possible even without joining EC.
 
    Disadvantages of joining the European community :
 
    * Finland will have to pay a large amount every year to the EC.
 
    * Taxes could increase. (They increase anyway.)
 
    * No duty free stuff on Viking line, if Sweden also joins the EC.
 
    * People will have to go to Estonia or Russia to drink duty free.
 
    * Agriculture will have to close down if the government is not allowed
    to support it. This will create a big problem to the farmers.
 
    * Political independence will be very little. We will have no voice in
    the EC, and all the decisions made by the EC will be the only decisions
    - Finland will not be able to make its own foreign policy. Many other
    policies made by EC could be binding on Finland.
 
    * Loss of work force - Many EC countries pay better, have lower taxes;
    working abroad is respected in Finland. The better part of the work
    force will contribute to the manpower export.
 
    * Much of the service sector can also be taken over by more efficient
    companies from other EC countries. While this is good in one way, this
    will be tough for Finnish companies.
 
    How it will affect foreigners in Finland :
 
    * It is questionable if foreigners (from non-EC countries) will be able
    to travel to other EC countries without visas.  Perhaps there will be
    something like an EC visa in not-so-near future.
 
    * It will be easier for foreigners to get jobs in Finland, because a
    labour shortage is a likely outcome.
 
    * Italians might be able to issue a visa for stay / work in Finland
    (just speculation), in which case, foreigners can choose the most
    polite people to apply for their visas.
 
    * Suomea will no longer be the lingua franca. You will have several
    languages to chose from while reading instructions in a lift, or on
    your tax forms.
 
    It is indeed difficult to say one way or the other when you take into
    account all the points.
 
 
  -- 
  A. Bulsari                                       Tel. 358 (21) 654 721
  V�rmeteknik, �bo Akademi                         Fax  358 (21) 654 792
  SF 20500 Turku, Finland                          Tlx  57 62301 AABIB SF
 
    From: [email protected] (Jyrki Kuoppala)
    Subject: Re: If Finland joins the European community,
    Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
    Date: Fri, 3 Jan 1992 18:03:44 GMT
 
    In article <[email protected]>, abulsari@abo (Abhay Bulsari
    VT) writes: [ advantages of Finland joining EC ]
 
   >* It will be easier to market Finnish goods in EC, while not 
   >  making it any more difficult to market elsewhere.
 
    It will be more difficult to trade with countries outside EC, since
    Finland won't be allowed to make its own decisions concerning foreign
    trade (EC has a unified foreign trade policy).  So, if Finland joins
    EC, it won't be able to negotiate trade deals with the former Soviet
    Union countries.  This is a disadvantage.
 
   >* There will be more investment from other countries than if
   >  we were to stay out of EC.
 
    Many people might say this is a disadvantage - the people who decide
    about industry investments etc. won't be living in Finland and so they
    might not care as much about environmental effects and such.
 
   >* For a lot of people, it will be very encouraging and improve
   >  the morale - a psychological effect, which may have no basis
   >  in facts.
   >
   >* If we don't join, Finland will be the only sizable country
   >  from West Europe left outside EC, since Austria and Sweden
   >  are most likely to be in EC by 1995, and that leaves Norway
   >  and Switzerland.
   >
   >* Hopefully we will have some foreign banks in Finland. This
   >  is possible even without joining EC.
   >
   >Disadvantages of joining the European community :
 
   [ .. ]
 
    - at least some parts of social security and education will probably be
    weakened
 
    - some claim that women's position would weaken as in the central
    European culture (esp. in Germany) it is usual that the wife is staying
    home and taking care of children and the laws reflect this [ update:
    the motherhood vacation is a lot longer in Finland than in EC countries]
 
   >* Political independence will be very little. We will have no
   >  voice in the EC, and all the decisions made by the EC will
   >  be the only decisions - Finland will not be able to make its
   >  own foreign policy. Many other policies made by EC could be
   >  binding on Finland.
 
    - many of these policies probably will not work in Finland nearly as
    well as in central European countries as the traditions in many fields
    of society are different
 
    - it will be an enormous amount of work to change the legal, political,
    social etc. systems to conform to EC
 
    - the average citizen will have much less power to change the laws of
    his own country.
 
  >It is indeed difficult to say one way or the other when
  >you take into account all the points.
 
    Yes.  It seems that the economic advantages might be quite big, but
    there are many disadvantages on other areas of life.  Many people say
    that the ETA (?) (EC - EFTA deal) will bring most of the economic
    advantages and only a few of the disadvantages.
 
    //Jyrki

    From: [email protected] (Asgeir Karl Olafsson)
    Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
    Subject: Re: Iceland and Norway applications to EC
    Date: 13 Feb 92 23:30:05 GMT
    Sender: [email protected]
    Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
 
    In article <[email protected]>
    [email protected] writes:

   >Could someone enlighten me on EC's fishing and agriculture policies
   >that make Iceland and Norway reluctant to join to EC?
 
    The main reason Icelanders hesitate is that we would lose control over 
    our "fishing zone" (not sure what the correct English term is).   The
    EC looks on their member countries fishing zones as a common  resource
    shared by all EC countries, where each country gets its quota, possibly
    in another country's fishing zone.  This makes it impossible for each
    country to have an independent fishing policy.  The EC's fishing policy
    is something we in Iceland could not live with. They're not strict
    enough when it comes to controlling fishing and it's very likely they
    would demand quotas in Icelandic waters.
 
    Asgeir.

    From: [email protected] (Niels Elgaard Larsen)
    Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
    Subject: Re: Japanese market penetration. . .
    Date: 26 Feb 92 18:38:54 GMT
    Sender: [email protected]
    Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen
 
    [email protected] (Lyle Davis) writes:
 
 
  >        There is a fair amount of debate going on over on this side of the
  >water about trade wars, protectionism, tariffs, etc.
  
  >        Have the Japanese penetrated the Scandinavian market?  And, if so,
  > are you seeing a lot of the heated debate going on over there?
 
    Denmark is one of the few countries that have a positive trade balance
    toward Japan. We export things as meat, diary producs, furs, porcelain.
    Denmark don't have a car industry (except for electrical cars), so we
    don't care much about japanes cars.
 
    There have been some discussions lately. Eg. A.P. Moller(Maersk) have
    complained that they have to pay a lot of money to use japanese
    harbours (in opposition to japanese ships). Also danish farmers
    complain about japanese initiatives to favor fresh producs -- danish
    producs are due geographical circumstances not as fresh as taiwanese.
 
    On the other hand Denmark is member of EEC, which does have problems
    with japanese trade. EEC is talking a lot of taking actions towards
    Japan. But Denmark isn't very interested in this. Eg. if EEC put
    restrictions on imported cars (which don't help Denmark), Japan might
    put more restrictions on food imported from EEC (which would be very
    bad for Denmark).

    -- 
         Niels Elgaard Larsen          
         Institute of Datalogy,        
         University of Copenhagen      
         E-mail: [email protected] 

    Perhaps even more so than Denmark, Norway has positive relations with
    Japan with respect to trade. I don't know off the bat if we have a
    positive trade balance (I assume it is negative, due to our importing
    cars, Sony's, etc); however, in areas such as cars we do not compete.
    Furthermore, our exports to Japan are growing by a very large rate. I
    know of one company (they make ships' pumping systems; a DEC customer)
    that competes very well in Japan, selling to Japanese ship builders,
    usually beating out the local vendors. In any case our exports to Japan
    are growing at a much larger rate than their exports to us. We are not
    complaining at all.
    
    The "secret" that a lot of people seem to forget is that the point is
    to understand your market; give the customer what he wants, and you'll
    sell easily. Cars with left-mounted steering wheels can only be an
    oddity in left-drive Japan. An example where we are projecting a major
    increase: Fish (Salmon) farming. Having studied with some depth just
    what the Japanese look for in (raw) fish, how they prepare it, etc.,
    our fish farmers are developing and breeding a "tailor made" strain of
    salmon for the Japanese market. It is evidently more expensive to breed
    and raise, but has a much higher market value in Japan than the version
    made for European palates.
    
    All in all the Japanese are respected as a quality-conscious and
    discerning market all around. This fits in nicely with Norway's
    industrial profile, which seeks to produce high quality/high cost
    products (a necessity for countries with high wages).
    
    Mauritz
    

    From: [email protected] (Jyrki Kuoppala)
    Newsgroups: soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.nordic,eunet.politics
    Subject: Re: EC membership ?
    Date: 24 Mar 92 09:53:30 GMT
    Sender: [email protected] (Usenet pseudouser id)
    Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
 
    In article <[email protected]>, tahonen@katk (Ahonen Timo)
    writes:

  >market for all the member states (EC + EFTA). The so-called 'four freedoms' 
  >will already constitute the major part of the benefits the EC membership 
  >would/will bring; the most important thing that the membership will bring is 
  >a say in the decisions made, whereas in the EEA the EFTA countries have no 
  >say whatsoever.
 
    Don't forget all the things which get _out_ of our decision if we join
    EC.  Some have estimated than even 80 % of the power now at the Finnish
    parliament would move to the central government of EC.  With EEA we
    have considerably more independecy to decide about our own politics.
 
    How much power do you think Finland would have in EC with it's 5
    million people among all the other EC countries?  Count to that the
    different climate, environment etc. and it's probable that Finland will
    not exactly have any advantage over the other EC countries, vice versa
    we would be _paying_ _money_ to the poorer countries with better
    environmental conditions and better geographical position.
 
    //Jyrki

    From: [email protected] (Karl-Christian Hansen)
    Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic,soc.culture.europe,eunet.politics
    Subject: Re: Increasing amount of people against EU in Denmark
    Date: 2 Apr 92 14:02:13 GMT
    Sender: [email protected]
    Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen
 
    [email protected] (Claus Tondering) writes:
 
    >One point I haven't seen discussed is the growing amount of xenophobia
    >in Europe. I'm really scared by the growing "France for the Frenchmen",
    >"Germany for the Germans", "Denmark for the Danes" etc. sentiments around
    >Europe. What IS happening to our compassion and understanding towards
    >other nations these days?
 
    >How does this affect our attitude towards a European Union? I'm not
    >sure. I can see two possible points of view:
 
    >Against the Union:
    >Although the racial bigotry is great in Denmark, it has not yet
    >reached the proportions it has in, for example, France and Germany.
    >If Denmark joins the EU we pave the way for theses movements to
    >spread to our country. Voting YES to the union means saying yes
    >to a growing ultra-right European movement.
 
    This is what I fear. In fact, I think the entire idea behind the EU is
    right-wing, and that the EU will be built to support a money-oriented
    society, not a people-oriented one. A right-wing government creates
    more poverty, which in its turn creates political extremists. I would
    be able to support an EU, if the idea behind it wasn't Economical and
    monetary.
 
    >For the Union:
    >The last thing Denmark needs now is more national egoism. What we DO
    >need is closer cooperation with the other countries. Only by a close
    >cooperation with poorer countries such as Greece, Spain, and Portugal
    >can we hope to counter the movement that says that people from
    >other nations are in some way inferior. Voting NO to the union
    >is just another way of saying "Denmark for the Danes - we don't
    >need foreigners".
 
    No. A no to the Union is a NO to materialism, and a YES to humanism.
 
    >Comments anyone?
 
    The best way of cooperating with other countries is membership of the
    UN. The worst way is to create a European superstate, which will be a
    cross- breed between the bureaucracy of the (recently deceased, and nat
    mourned) USSR and the materialism of the (IMHO living dead) USA. IMHO,
    the EU is just a way of saying "Europe for the Europeans".
 
>-- 
>Claus Tondering          ! "When a stranger lives with you in your land, you
>Dansk Data Elektronik A/S! shall not do him wrong. The stranger who lives with
>Herlev, Denmark          ! you shall be to you as the native among you, and you
>E-mail: [email protected]        ! shall love him as yourself." - Leviticus 19.33-34
 
 
    Karl-Chr. Hansen
    Datalogisk Institut
    K�benhavn Universitet
    Danmark
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From: [email protected] (Jesper Lauridsen)
    Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic,soc.culture.europe,eunet.politics
    Subject: Re: Increasing amount of people against EU in Denmark
    Date: 29 Mar 92 18:48:44 GMT
    Sender: [email protected] (Jesper Lauridsen)
    Organization: A mythological place called Bramming
 
    [email protected] (Karl-Christian Hansen) writes:
 
    >Here's a couple of my arguments against the union:
    
    >1) All the loudest "pro"-people seem to come from political right-winged
    >parties, banks, or big companies. I don't have any interests in common 
    >with them. Or do you think that these groups spend millions of DKr out
    >of their concern for the happy future of their country? In my experience,
    >there is no such thing as care for people in international politics, just
    >care for power and money.
 
    The exact same argumentation goes for "con"-people.
 
    >2) Denmark will have 16 representatives in the EEC parliament. This is a
    >very small minority, which means that Denmark will have very little
    >to say here. The power of the EEC parliament is growing all the time.
 
    This one of the things I hate about these debates, all this Denmark
    will have so and so many representives in that and that organ. It's
    completely irrelevant where the members of the parliament comes from.
    All that matters is how they vote. You seem to assume that all Danes
    have one opinion and all Germans have another. That is not the case!
    Just look at our own (Danish) parliament, 8 different parties all with
    their own private policy. No nation is one homogen group with everyone
    sharing the same opinions. So all this talk about "we only get 16
    places" is rubbish. 
 
    >4) Politicians from other countries, such as Germany (where there, as you
    >say, are a lot of short-haired people with some pretty radical opinions
    >concerning black-skinned persons), are not elected by Danes. I don't see
    >why they should be able to make decisions that affect the lives of Danes.
 
    Politicians from Sjaelland are not elected by Jyder and yet they are
    under the current system able to make decisions affecting the lives of
    Jyder. Do you think that's fair?

    From: [email protected] (Allon Percus)
    Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic,soc.culture.europe,eunet.politics
    Subject: Re: Increasing amount of people against EU in Den
    Date: 3 Apr 92 20:27:02 GMT
    Sender: [email protected] (Rene Jul-Hansen)
 
    Here is a follow-up which Rene Jul-Hansen ([email protected]) sent to me
    because the posting software at his site is not working correctly:
 
 
    ----------
 
    I would like to comment on a few of your remarks about Denmark.
    Although extreme, I must admit some of them are fairly close to the
    truth.
 
    First of all: I am a pro EEC, and have voted for EEC in 1986 and will
    do so in 1992.
 
    The lastest polls now show a swing towards a YES, although with a
    narrow margin. I think the figures for NO in the three latest polls
    were from 36 down to 34 and now it should be 33 percent no voters. The
    YES votes started with a low 32 percent and gained one to 33 and the
    standing now is either 34 or 35 (depends on which poll you prefer). 
 
    And now for some of you remarks:
 
>-> My personal opinion, as someone who has recently lived for some months
>-> in Denmark, for varying lengths of time in other European countries,
>-> and for the greatest length of time in the U.S., is that Denmark is
>-> now witnessing the wholesale destruction of its national culture in
>-> favor of imported American crap. 
 
    As in the US, UK and Germany a conservative swing started in the early
    1980's and the process is still on it's way. What you call a wholesale
    destruction is perhaps to dramatize things a bit. Your only reliable
    reference I know of is the reference to Danish Television, which since
    the introduction of the commercial second channel (TV2) lost some
    quality.  The number of books published by Danish authors has grown
    steadily during the last 5 - 10 years. The number of new Danish
    (quality) plays, both for theater and TV (In Denmark the serious TV
    play has a long tradition) is also increasing again.
 
    However the Danish business life is returning to its previous 1950's
    syndrom: "If it works is the US it must work here too".
 
>-> The behavior of the university students I lived with, in their
>-> magnetic attraction to the television and inability even to eat a meal
>-> without this source of background noise, can only be described as more
>-> American than that of young Americans themselves. 
 
    Whether you watch TV or not when you eat is not the point. The point is
    what you are watching. And there is one point you forget with your TV
    obsession: The Danes have only had access to ONE national TV channel
    all the time they have had a national TV. In some areas lucky ones
    could see either German or Swedish television.  It is thanks to an EEC
    directive about free trade that the Danes were allowed to have
    competition (more channels).
 
>-> It is all very sad but I think that to a great extent Danes today
>-> do not even know what Danish culture, as it might have been described
>-> ten years ago or so, means.  I found *I* knew more about Carl Nielsen
>-> than most young Danes I talked to.  I went to some of the few Danish
>-> plays and musicals that exist today in Copenhagen and found the
>-> audience's average age somewhere around 60.
 
    I don't know much about Carl Nielsen either, I know his music. What is
    happening to the Danish plays are a scandal in some places, but you
    confuse Aarhus and Copenhagen with Denmark. A lot of Danish plays go
    "on tour" in the province with great success.
 
>-> Where does one find the famous Danish hygge today?  What has happened
>-> to legendary Danish hospitality and outgoing warmth?  Replaced, as far
>-> as I can see, by typically American materialistic concerns and self-
>-> centered lack of consideration for others.
 
    Here you are RIGHT! The Danish hygge seems to have deteriorated to
    drinking beer and drinking "snaps" at Christmas and Easter. The most
    pervert thing going on these days is a discussion whether young people
    should have a preference to surgery (heart, liver etc.) or not. The
    bottom line is truly American: "If you have hit 40 you are probably not
    worth the investment of an operation".
 
 
>-> What about the Scandinavian, and somewhat more generally Western
>-> European, sensible and technocratic approach in long-term planning?
>-> All I saw in Denmark is the kind of chronic near-sightedness in
>-> planning which is so normal in the U.S.  (The sort of thing that
>-> causes Americans no longer to be able to produce goods competitive on
>-> the world market, and the sort of thing which causes Denmark to spend
>-> enormous sums of money on an \resundsbro and a Store- b{ltbro which
>-> are carelessly and irresponsibly thought out.)
 
    THIS IS UNFAIR - DENMARK HAS NEVER KNOWN LONG TERM PLANNING AS A
    POLITICAL INSTRUMENT!  It might have looked this way, but this is due
    to our very complicated parlamentry situation. The "Folketing"
    (Parliament) is living on a narrow balance, and though the goverment
    may shift, it is almost impossible to do a long-term planning for
    something because the basic balance stays intact. In Denmark long-term
    is four years.
 
>-> In light of this I find it laughably absurd that so many Danes are
>-> worried about the cultural damage in European integration when in
>-> reality they are doing such a fine job of annihilating their Danishness
>-> on their own.  It seems that Denmark has, for instance, far more to
>-> fear across the Atlantic than across the southern border of Jutland.
>-> And perhaps still more to fear from the present government's reckless
>-> neglect of its responsibilities to Danes and to their culture.
 
    I don't know which fear is the most realistic, but it's all nonsense to
    me. We are a 6.000.000 people nation. We speak our own language, have
    our on living culture and make our own decisions. If that's a sign of a
    dying culture, well ok. We're dying.
 
    If you look a little beneath the surface of the Danish debate you'll
    see some interesting things. 
 
    First: The people arguing against the new integrated EEC and for the
    existing EEC treaty are a lot of the old EEC opponents from 1972 when
    Denmark entered the EEC. And by voting against the new EEC they have a
    second chance for getting Denmark out, at least that seems to be their
    reasoning.
 
    Second: Most of the people against Denmark participating in the Western
    European Defense Union (In Denmark it is referred to as: "The Western
    Union" or "The Defense Union"), are NATO sceptics clinging to NATO and
    the Atlantic ties. 
 
    It is heart warming to see old left wing socialists arguing for the all
    the good things in the NATO alliance.
 
    The final points are however: Denmark is the country that have
    implemented most EEC directives of all EEC countries. We believe in a
    strong integrated Europe with equal rights for every nation. It is the
    fact that countries like France, Germany and Italy still refuse to
    implement vital EEC directives that make some Danes consider whether
    they stand a fair chance. 
 
    The most important thing is that Denmark always has taken the EEC
    serious, more serious that most of the "Great Nations" in the
    Community. We believe that the EEC is too serious a thing to just close
    your eyes and jump into it because our politicians have decided to do
    so.  We strongly advocate the right of a debate on the issue and if the
    EEC can't convince the majority of the people by argument, than it
    perhaps is not such a good thing after all.
 
    I know that in some countries it is generally accepted to trust
    politicians (or people just don't get a fair chance to vote on the
    issue), but since the Danish constitution opens the possibility of a
    national referendum, why not ask the people for a change?
 
 
  ==================================================================
  These are my personal opinions and I alone are responsible.
  If you wish to post this as news on my behalf you are welcome.
  ==================================================================
 
 
==========================================================================
||        Rene' Jul-Hansen      ||    Phone  : +45-42-800-500  ext 2595 ||
||        Bruel & Kjaer         ||    FAX    : +45-42-801-405           ||
||        Test Systems A/S      ||                                      ||
||        DK-2850 Naerum        ||    E-mail : [email protected]              ||
||        DENMARK               ||                                      ||
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
|	      "There is nothing permanent except change" -               |
==========================================================================

    From: [email protected] (Allon Percus)
    Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic,soc.culture.europe,eunet.politics
    Subject: Re: Increasing amount of people against EU in Den
    Date: 3 Apr 92 20:30:42 GMT
    Sender: [email protected] (Rene Jul-Hansen)
 
    And here is one more comment from Rene Jul-Hansen ([email protected]) which I
    am posting for him:
 
 
    ----------
 
    I discussed the problem of Pro and Contra with some of my friends
    yesterday evening and there seems to be something that we all agree
    upon as either good or bad. Where our oppinions go apart is the issue
    of how much control the EEC should have over local affairs.
 
    What we all think is GOOD:
 
	The EEC has introduced an extra security for citizens who
	feel that some laws are "unjust, strange or discriminating",
	the EEC-Court (I don't know it's exact name in English).
 
	The EEC at least tries to enforce some kind of unity in
	law and administration and even tries to impose sanctions
	on countries who break the rules.
 
	The EEC can in fact be influenced by small countries if
	they have done their homework and present a strong case.
 
	The EEC is just about the only stabilizer in these unresting
	times in Europe.
 
    What we all think is BAD:
 
	It is absurd to expand the powers of the EEC Commission
	when you don't expand the powers of the European Parliament.
	Without power how can they control the Commission.
 
	There are still too many countries within the EEC that 
	maintain national regulations and give subsidies to
	some industries. 
 
	That the EEC Parliament should be given a permanent
	residence (We think Strassbourg is fine as it is
	we don't want Brussels to become a EEC Capitol)
 
 
    And we all agreed upon the outcome of the referendum. It is probably
    going to be a YES. Perhaps with a little majority of only 2 - 5 %, but
    as I have mentioned to others before: "The picture is very much like it
    was on the last two EEC referendums. It starts out with a much publized
    NO majority, and this gives a certain energy to the NO groups who
    marginally will increase the lead in the polls during the first period
    of the campain, mainly because a NO outcome is better news for the
    media than a YES.  But when the Pro EEC groups begin to move the lead
    dissappears and at the actual day we will see a YES result."
 
    ....
 
==========================================================================
||        Rene' Jul-Hansen      ||    Phone  : +45-42-800-500  ext 2595 ||
||        Bruel & Kjaer         ||    FAX    : +45-42-801-405           ||
||        Test Systems A/S      ||                                      ||
||        DK-2850 Naerum        ||    E-mail : [email protected] or           ||
||        DENMARK               ||             [email protected]            ||
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
|	      "There is nothing permanent except change" -               |
==========================================================================

    From: [email protected] (Rene Jul-Hansen)
    Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
    Subject: Denmark and EU.
    Date: 6 Apr 92 11:06:44 GMT
    Sender: [email protected]
 
 
    If you follow the Danish debate about the EU (European Union) it is
    sometimes difficult to locate the real problems. Most of it is mixed up
    with popular slogans like: "Without the EU the Danish economy would
    suffer a blow that would put us back to the 50's" or "The EU means
    abandoning all national parlamentarism", both arguments are of course a
    lot of rubbish. 
 
    The problem with the Danish debate is the quality of the information at
    hand, since both Pros and Cons do their utmost to scare people into
    voting whatever they would like them to vote.
 
    It is truly difficult to establish a valid guess or estimate for what
    the future holds in store for Denmark both inside and outside the EU,
    but I think that most people would appreciate if the debate would gain
    a level or two in quality. 
 
    The debate itself is highly concentrated on the matter of influence on
    legislation in the various countries, and Denmark in particular. 
 
    We would like to get as many of the bonuses of the Danish society put
    into the EU as possible. And at the same time we would like to maintain
    our position as net-cash-receiver from the EEC/EU. We don't like our
    farmers or fishermen step down on their activity, just because it, all
    in all, may be better for the EEC as a whole. 
 
    A lot of people are really affraid of losing the national currency, the
    "krone". The history of the Danish currency only goes back to somewhere
    100 or 200 years ago (1840's I think), before that we had all sorts of
    different currencies as valid means of payment. We had "mark" and
    "skilling" just to name two, and don't they sound familiar?
 
    What perhaps is funniest of it all is, that more and more Danes prefer
    CreditCards. 
 
    Well, I'm getting into a Pro argument, which I didn't really intend to
    go further into.
 
    A few things I remember from the Danish debate in parliament.
 
    One Con member talked about how strange it was that Eastern Europe was
    dismantling their "Common Market" and of course he was reminded of how
    the EEC was created by voluntary members whereas in Eastern Europe...
 
    And then some Pro brought the military dimension into the debate which
    made it all drift into something about the Western Defence Union, and
    then the Cons made the day.
 
    There was however an interesting point about what would happen if the
    Danes said NO (quite a theory :-). Could the Mastrich Treaty be
    re-opened and re-negotiated?
 
    The Foreign Secretary, Mr. Uffe Elleman Jensen, made quite a good
    assumption on this. The essence was something like: "It would not bring
    the process to a halt. The rest of the EEC would continue to integrate
    their EU, they might call it something else, but the contents would be
    the same. The Danes would de facto become second class member or
    associated member. And only if the modifications to the Mastrich Treaty
    suggested by the Danes were agreable by the rest the Danes would stand
    a chance of getting into EU again."
 
    The Pros said that this was against the principles of the EEC, but as
    Mr. Ellemann Jensen very justly said: "The formality of the process
    would be indisputable, but the result would be as he had just
    explained".
 
    During the following day several "experts" on EEC legal matters
    discussed the issue in the media, but none of them could really tell
    whether Mr. Ellemann Jensen was right or not.
 
    I wonder how the question would have been answered in other countries?
 
    And I take it that this question really is of any relevans in the minor
    EEC countries. If, say France, was to say NON to the EU it would
    probably mean that the Mastrich Treaty would have to be completely
    rewritten. 
 
  - - -
  The opinions stated are mine and mine alone. - 
  - - -
==========================================================================
||        Rene' Jul-Hansen      ||    Phone  : +45-42-800-500  ext 2595 ||
||        Bruel & Kjaer         ||    FAX    : +45-42-801-405           ||
||        Test Systems A/S      ||                                      ||
||        DK-2850 Naerum        ||    E-mail : [email protected] or           ||
||        DENMARK               ||             [email protected]            ||
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
|	      "There is nothing permanent except change" -               |
==========================================================================

    From: [email protected] (Hans Huttel)
    Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
    Subject: Re: Increasing amount of people against EU in Den
    Date: 30 Mar 92 16:59:08 GMT
    Sender: [email protected] (Wladyslaw Pietraszek)
    Organization: Mathematics and Computer Science, Aalborg University
 
 
    [ This article is in Danish with an English translation. ]
 
    Lad mig lige starte med at sige at jeg synes vi skal stemme nej d. 2.
    juni. EF-unionen betyder oeget centralisering og bureaukrati; alt andet
    end demokrati og selvbestemmelse. Tag bare de nye
    beslutningsprocedurer: Flere beslutninger skal laegges over til
    Ministerradet hvor Danmark har 3 ud af 76 stemmer. Og der bliver flere
    flertalsafgoerelser.
 
    Naa, i artikel <[email protected]> skriver
    [email protected] (Allon Percus):
 
> My personal opinion, as someone who has recently lived for some months
> in Denmark, for varying lengths of time in other European countries,
> and for the greatest length of time in the U.S., is that Denmark is
> now witnessing the wholesale destruction of its national culture in
> favor of imported American crap.  Danish television, for many years
> of reliably good quality (if somewhat limited), is now overrun by
> the worst of commercial U.S. programming.  (In fact, watching DR
> and TV2 now it is very easy to believe that no Danish literature or
> drama exists at all.)
 
    Jeg maa desvaerre erklaere mig 100 procent enig. Alene i loebet af de
    tre aar jeg boede i Storbritannien syntes jeg der skete ufattelig
    meget. Det var et endnu mere kommercialiseret Danmark jeg vendte hjem
    til. Forretnings"etikken" er virkelig kommet i hoejsaedet - men hvad
    kan man forvente efter ti aar med en borgerlig regering og en uduelig
    opposition ? Nogenlunde det samme er sket i Storbritannien:
    Privatisering hoerer til dagens uorden nu.
 
> It is all very sad but I think that to a great extent Danes today
> do not even know what Danish culture, as it might have been described
> ten years ago or so, means.  I found *I* knew more about Carl Nielsen
> than most young Danes I talked to.  I went to some of the few Danish
> plays and musicals that exist today in Copenhagen and found the
> audience's average age somewhere around 60.
 
    Det er egentlig ikke saa meget det nedadgaaende kendskab til Carl
    Nielsen (der forresten er en fantastisk komponist) der bekymrer mig.
    Det er mere det at vi efterhaanden kun definerer danskhed som et
    negativ, "vi er danske, de er i hvert fald ikke". Den slags er
    nationalisme, og det er til at tude over.
 
    Jeg synes det er ret sigende at man snakker saa meget i danske medier
    om hvad det vil sige at vaere dansk. Maaske ved vi det knap nok. Jeg
    haaber ikke at det lykkes Den Danske Forening [en fremmedhadende,
    nationalistisk gruppe (maa man kalde dem racister?)] og den slags at
    tage patent paa det at vaere dansk.
 
    Det var saa min taletid der udloeb.
 
    - Hans
 
    ---
 
    First of all let me say that I think we should vote no on June 2. The
    union will mean more centralization and bureaucracy, representing
    anything but democracy and self-determination. Take as an example the
    new decision structures: More decisions will be delegated to the
    Council of Ministers in which Denmark has 3 out of 76 votes. What's
    more, more decisions will be the result of a qualified majority (i.e.
    vetoing is no longer a way out.)
 
    Anyway, in article <[email protected]> 
    [email protected] (Allon Percus) writes:
 
 > My personal opinion, as someone who has recently lived for some months
 > in Denmark, for varying lengths of time in other European countries,
 > and for the greatest length of time in the U.S., is that Denmark is
 > now witnessing the wholesale destruction of its national culture in
 > favor of imported American crap.  Danish television, for many years
 > of reliably good quality (if somewhat limited), is now overrun by
 > the worst of commercial U.S. programming.  (In fact, watching DR
 > and TV2 now it is very easy to believe that no Danish literature or
 > drama exists at all.)
 
    I have to admit that I agree 100 per cent. In the course of my three
    years in Britain (1988-1991) I felt that things were changing
    drastically back home. The Denmark that I returned to was even more
    commercialized than the one I left. Business "ethics" are riding high
    now - anyway, what can one expect after ten years with a conservative
    government and a lame opposition ? Just about the same thing has
    happened in Britain: Privatization is the order of the day.
 
 > It is all very sad but I think that to a great extent Danes today
 > do not even know what Danish culture, as it might have been described
 > ten years ago or so, means.  I found *I* knew more about Carl Nielsen
 > than most young Danes I talked to.  I went to some of the few Danish
 > plays and musicals that exist today in Copenhagen and found the
 > audience's average age somewhere around 60.
 
    I am not that worried by the lack of knowledge of Carl Nielsen (who is
    a great composer, BTW). I am more worried by the fact that we Danes
    these days are defining Danishness as a negative: "we are Danish, and
    <they> certainly aren't." That is the essence of nationalism and it is
    not something we should be proud of.
 
    I think it is rather telling that Danishness is so high on the agenda
    of the media these days. Maybe we don't really know what it is to be
    Danish. I do hope that Den Danske Forening [a right-wing,
    nationalistic, xenophobic pressure group (I am not allowed to say that
    they are racists, am I ?] and their ilk do not succeed in get a
    monopoly on defining Danishness.
 
    (Stepping down from my soapbox.)
 
 
    - Hans
 
 
 --
 Hans H{\"u}ttel, Office E1-111                   -   [email protected]  
 Mathematics and Computer Science, Aalborg University
 Fredrik Bajersvej 7E, 9220 Aalborg {\O} DENMARK - North Jutland is for lovers.

   From: [email protected] (Jyrki Kuoppala)
   Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic,soc.culture.europe,eunet.politics
   Subject: Pros and Cons of EU
   Date: 3 Apr 92 20:47:09 GMT
   Sender: [email protected] (Usenet pseudouser id)
   Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
 
    In article <[email protected]>, karl@diku
    (Karl-Christian Hansen) writes:

  >This is what I fear. In fact, I think the entire idea behind the EU
  >is right-wing, and that the EU will be built to support a money-oriented
  >society, not a people-oriented one. A right-wing government creates more
  >poverty, which in its turn creates political extremists. I would be able
  >to support an EU, if the idea behind it wasn't Economical and monetary.
 
    Hmm, I don't really know what "rigth-wing" or "left-wing" means and I
    don't particularly think they're good concepts to handle most things.
    Also, I don't think the talk here about fascism / Germanophobia /
    nationalism is really that relevant on EU.
 
    My hunches about pros and cons of let's say Finland joining EU:
 
Pros:
 
- better possibilities for well-educated people to choose jobs
  - probably better pay
  - easier to move around EU countries
- we would have military power to defend against possible
  Soviet Union troubles
- it is claimed that it would boost our economy by offering a big
  unrestrained EU market
- power would be moved away from our parliament (yes, many people
  actually seem to feel this is a good thing ;-), dunno what
  makes them think EU politicians would be any better)
- advantages of allying in waging trade wars against
  USA, Japan and possibly other countries
- no loss of EU paper industry market to Sweden (assuming Sweden
  joins EU), same for other export industries
- less bureocracy in trade to EU countries
- possibly more investments from abroad to create jobs
- better possibilities for offspring companies abroad
- people in good economic position or well-educated probably will win
  in general
- companies' position will get "better" relative to Finland today
  (tax treatment etc?)
 
Cons:
 
- social security, health care etc. will inevitably be worsened
- we will have less of a chance to mind our own business
  on environmental, geographical, foreign trade etc. matters
- our independence would be gone
- our neutrality (well...) would be gone
  - actually there is a point to neutrality, I understand the point
    to Finnish neutrality has been to stay out of superpower
    conflicts (for a small boy it's reasonable to not get involved
    when the big guys are fighting) and this seems reasonable
    to me and we certainly can't stay out by joining a superpower
- militiary union could force Finnish soldiers to fight wars
  in some far corners of the war like USA does currently
- public library system would probably be worsened
- trade with Soviet Union, Japan and USA would not be our own
  decision but dictated by EU
- women's position (I'm told it's one of the best of the world in
  Finland) would weaken
- social security things unconnected with work would probably be gone
- education couldn't have better conditions for domestic students
  than foreign - this probably is not a problem but might be if
  Finnish system is a lot better than elsewhere (need to downgrade)
- who would want to maintain production in Finland with equal
  legislation elsewhere?  It's cold here, we're far away, domestic distances
  are long
- billions to pay for poorer EU states
- added bureocracy (more languages etc.)
- the burden of changing our legal/economical/customs/licensing/etc.
  systems to match the EU one
- the threat of totalitarianism resulting from a big, undemocratic,
  centraliced government (look at the Soviet Union and USA)
  - probable loss of individual freedom and civil liberties,
    in general the "little people" will suffer
 
    So I've got more Cons than Pros, that proves that we must not join
    EU;-)
 
    Notice that I've left out the common rhetorics of agriculture,
    nationalism, refugees, fascism, drug trade etc. which I think are not
    the real issues and are just designed to get people's attention away
    from the real issues.  For example agriculture in Finland has to change
    whether EU or not but the political clowns and their puppets the
    mainstream media have made agriculture one of the primary show numbers.
 
//Jyrki

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  From: [email protected] (Per Abrahamsen)
  Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic,soc.culture.europe,eunet.politics
  Subject: Re: Pros and Cons of EU (was Re: Increasing EU opposition in Denmark)
  Date: 4 Apr 92 15:55:15 GMT
  Sender: [email protected] (Wladyslaw Pietraszek)
  Organization: HUGIN Expert A/S
 
 
>>>>> On 3 Apr 92 20:47:09 GMT, [email protected] (Jyrki Kuoppala) said:
 
    Jyrki> My hunches about pros and cons of let's say Finland joining EU:
 
    I took the liberty to divide your arguments into four categories. 
 
    * Economic:
 
    All the Nordic countries will be part of the EES (the economic union),
    whether or not they join the EU.  As a part of EU, you should find it
    easier to influence the economic union.
 
Pro> - better possibilities for well-educated people to choose jobs
Pro>   - easier to move around EU countries
Pro> - it is claimed that it would boost our economy by offering a big
Pro>   unrestrained EU market
Pro> - no loss of EU paper industry market to Sweden (assuming Sweden
Pro>   joins EU), same for other export industries
Pro> - less bureocracy in trade to EU countries
Pro> - possibly more investments from abroad to create jobs
Pro> - better possibilities for offspring companies abroad
Pro> - companies' position will get "better" relative to Finland today
Pro>   (tax treatment etc?)
Con> - we will have less of a chance to mind our own business
Con>   on environmental, geographical, foreign trade etc. matters
Con> - trade with Soviet Union, Japan and USA would not be our own
Con>   decision but dictated by EU
Con> - who would want to maintain production in Finland with equal
Con>   legislation elsewhere?  It's cold here, we're far away,
Con>   domestic distances are long
Con> - the burden of changing our legal/economical/customs/licensing/etc.
Con>   systems to match the EU one
 
    * Social and culture:
 
    The next arguments seems to assume that the European social and
    cultural systems will be "averaged".  The competition in the ESS might
    have such an effect on some areas, but not all those listed below.  I
    don't see the public libraries, the womens positions, the educational
    system, or your civil liberties being affected.  The EU might be able
    to stop the worst effects of the competition.  Or it might not.
 
Pro> - better possibilities for well-educated people to choose jobs
Pro>   - probably better pay
Pro> - people in good economic position or well-educated probably will win
Pro>   in general
Con> - social security, health care etc. will inevitably be worsened
Con> - public library system would probably be worsened
Con> - women's position (I'm told it's one of the best of the world in
Con>   Finland) would weaken
Con> - social security things unconnected with work would probably be gone
Con> - education couldn't have better conditions for domestic students
Con>   than foreign - this probably is not a problem but might be if
Con>   Finnish system is a lot better than elsewhere (need to downgrade)
Con> - probable loss of individual freedom and civil liberties,
Con>   in general the "little people" will suffer
 
    * Superpower:
 
    The EU may or may not evolve into a superpower.  If it becomes a
    superpower, do you want to be part of it, or merely allied with it?
    Finland should know all about being located next to a superpower.
 
Pro> - we would have military power to defend against possible
Pro>   Soviet Union troubles
Con> - our independence would be gone
Con> - our neutrality (well...) would be gone
Con>   - actually there is a point to neutrality, I understand the point
Con>     to Finnish neutrality has been to stay out of superpower
Con>     conflicts (for a small boy it's reasonable to not get involved
Con>     when the big guys are fighting) and this seems reasonable
Con>     to me and we certainly can't stay out by joining a superpower
Con> - militiary union could force Finnish soldiers to fight wars
Con>   in some far corners of the war like USA does currently
Pro> - power would be moved away from our parliament (yes, many people
Pro>   actually seem to feel this is a good thing ;-), dunno what
Pro>   makes them think EU politicians would be any better)
Con> - the threat of totalitarianism resulting from a big, undemocratic,
Con>   centraliced government (look at the Soviet Union and USA)
 
    * Misc:
 
Con> - billions to pay for poorer EU states
 
    Do you really consider that a con?
 
Con> - added bureocracy (more languages etc.)
 
    No doubt here!

    From: [email protected] (JULIAN M. ISHERWOOD)
    Newsgroups: clari.news.europe,clari.biz.economy.world,clari.news.election,
	clari.biz.top
    Subject: Denmnark rejects unity treaty
    Date: 3 Jun 1992 11:53:39 GMT
 
 
	COPENHAGEN, Denmark (UPI) -- Prime Minister Poul Schluter called an
emergency cabinet meeting Wednesday to deal with the decision by the
Danish people to reject a European unity treaty.
	Tuesday's "no" vote on a treaty calling for common EC monetary
unity and central bank and a common foreign and security policy in a
national referendum has repercussions beyond the borders of tiny
Denmark, as other nations in the 12-member European Community may also
balk when the treaty is put to them.
	EC rules require unanimity before a treaty takes effect, but EC
leaders have warned they may get around the rules by isolating Denmark.
	After meeting with his cabinet, Schluter, a Conservative, was to meet
later in the day with all eight parliamentary parties to determine a
course of action.
	Danes narrowly rejected the Maastricht Treaty, named after the Dutch
town in which it was signed, with a 50.7 percent vote. The result is
binding on Denmark's foreign policy.
	Danish business leaders and the political establishment had
campaigned for approval and the Copenhagen stock market plunged
Wednesday, a reflection of political uncertainty that was a result of
the vote.
	Futures lost 8 points and interest rates went up .25 percent.
	"There has been a panic reaction," said senior broker Jesper
Nielsen. "We are in the midst of a vacuum and we have a very nervous
market."
	Schluter said his two-party minority government would not resign, but
would begin efforts to limit the damage of the referendum result.
	"The electorate has spoken and there is nothing we can do about it
but listen," said a dejected Schluter when the result became known. 
"In this difficult situation, we must now take care of Denmark's
interests as well as we can."
	The vote could scuttle the whole process of European integration,
forcing EC nations to renegotiate or even scrap the treaty that would
require all EC member states to pool sovereignty in vital areas that
Danes evidently are unwilling to share.
	Under EC rules, the treaty can become EC law only through unanimous
agreement in all 12 member countries.
	Ten of the EC nations will ratify the treaty by parliamentary vote,
although France and Germany must make changes in their constitutions to
accommodate the Maastricht provisions. Ireland will hold a referendum on
the issue July 18.
	Other Scandinavian nations, Sweden, Finland and possibly Norway, are
about to become EC members.
	Before Tuesday's referendum, several EC heads of government said a
Danish rejection would not prevent them from adopting the Maastricht
Treaty provisions.
	Denmark can ill afford such isolation as the rest of Europe moves
closer together. Denmark is doing well in the EC and it has an annual
inflation rate of below 3 percent and a trade surplus, even with Japan.
	"It will be a shame if we become 11 on June 2," said French
President Francois Mitterrand. "But we will soon become 12, 13, 14 and
15," he concluded, anticipating the community's expected rapid growth.
	"This is a blow to us from the Danish voters," said a visibly
shocked Foreign Minister Uffe Ellemann-Jensen, who as late as Tuesday
afternoon said he could "not imagine the Danish electorate rejecting
the treaty."
	Opponents of Maastricht were overjoyed at the rejection.
	"Democracy has worked," said Socialist People's Party leader Holger
K. Nielsen, whose party was one of three in Parliament to oppose the
treaty. "It took guts for the electorate to reject the advice of their
pro-Maastricht parties ... The community will have to go back to the
drawing board."
	Supporters of the Maastricht treaty, including an overwhelming
majority in Parliament, argued before the vote that approval would keep
Denmark in the mainstream of European politics, with a strong voice in
European development.
	Opponents countered that it would give too much power to the central
EC administration in Brussels, Belgium.
	In addition, trade unions, employers' associations and specialized
agencies have warned that the treaty would mean increased unemployment
and decreased investment in Denmark.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   From: [email protected] (Per Laursen)
   Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
   Subject: Re: Danish Referendum on EC
   Date: 3 Jun 92 09:07:34 GMT
   Sender: [email protected]
   Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen
 
 
    Talk about a close race... The general trend was that the majority in
    the  large cities (Copenhagen, Aarhus, etc..) voted no (something like
    40-60 in favor of no), while the rest of the country were in favor by a
    small margin (approx. 52-48). This adds up to the above. About 82 %
    used their right to vote. In absolute figures, the difference was less
    than 50,000 votes!
 
-- Per

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From: [email protected] (Morten Kjeldgaard)
    Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic,talk.politics.misc,eunet.politics
    Subject: Re: [soc.culture.europe] The danes voted 'no' to the EEC union.
    Date: 3 Jun 92 09:56:41 GMT
    Sender: [email protected]
    Organization: Aarhus University, Denmark
  
    We know that we will not be a part of a new European economic and
    military superpower! We know that we will not be a part of a
    bureaucratic superstate where decisions are made in secret! We know
    that the aspirations for a truly unification of the european peoples,
    with respect for the sovereinty of their nations is now possible! EU is
    a club for the needle stribed suits!
 
    Break down the walls!! For friendship and cooperation between peoples
    of europe and the world!
 
    YES TO EUROPE!! NO TO THE EUROPEAN UNION!
 
  /Morten
 
  --
  Morten Kjeldgaard  ~ [email protected] ~ [email protected]
  Biostructural Chemistry, Department of Chemistry, Aarhus University
  Langelandsgade 140, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark
  Phone: +45 86 12 46 33 ~ +45 86 20 27 11 x6752 ~ Fax: +45 86 19 61 99

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From: [email protected] (Frank Jensen)
    Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
    Subject: Re: Comming vote on EU in Denmark
    Date: 3 Jun 92 12:02:54 GMT
    Sender: [email protected] (UseNet News)
    Organization: Mathematics and Computer Science, Aalborg University
 
    In general about 90% of all eligible danes vote in parliamentary
    elections.  However, less than 80% voted in the last election for the
    EEC parliament.
 
  ---
  Frank Jensen,   [email protected]
  Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
  Aalborg University
  DENMARK

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From: [email protected] (Ole D. M. Lennert)
    Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
    Subject: Re: Danish Referendum on EC
    Date: 3 Jun 92 12:47:05 GMT
    Sender: [email protected]
    Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen
 
    [email protected] (Soeren L. Buhl) writes:
 
    >>>>>> On 3 Jun 92 02:34:59 GMT, [email protected] (Alim Ormeci)
    said: [Alims text deleted]
 
  >Although ratified by an overwhelming majority in the Danish parliament
  >the Maastrict package was rejected at the referendum with 50.7 pct. no,
  >49.3 pct. yes.  More than 80 pct. voted.
 
  >It is rather embarrasing to be a Dane now.
  >We can look forward to a lot of trouble in the years to come.
 
  >Soeren Buhl  [email protected]
 
    I think Soeren is partly right. There sure will be a lot of trouble  in
    the years to come. But there would also be a lot of trouble in  the
    years to come, if we joined the EU. A majority (small, but a  majority)
    of the danish voters decided to face the trouble outside  the EU.
 
    I think your comment about it being embarrasing to be a dane is 
    tasteless. "The voters have spoken, the bastards". Denmark and  Ireland
    are the only members of the EEC that leaves the decision of wether or
    not to join the EU to the voters. That makes me proud. I believe in
    democracy. A vote is IMHO the purest form of democracy. I don't think
    that bureaucrats and "experts" should make the important decisions. And
    this is an important decision. So let us accept the result, and try to
    be true to the majority.
 
    No matter the result, the danish vote is a victory for democracy.
 
  Ole Lennert
  Graduate student at the Institute of Datalogy, University of Copenhagen.
  Datalogy is the english translation of the danish word for Computer Science.
  E-mail: [email protected] (school)
	dok-ol%[email protected] (work)
  

    From: [email protected] (REGINE BRANDON)
    Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.international,clari.news.economy,
	clari.news.europe,clari.news.election,clari.news.gov.officials,
	clari.news.top.world
    Subject: Danish minister rules out renegotiation of EC treaty
    Date: 4 Jun 1992 13:24:18 GMT
 
		United Press International 

	Denmark said Thursday it may have to quit the European Community
because of its voters' rejection of the Maastricht Treaty on EC
integration and the reaffirmation by other member states to move ahead
with the process.
	Danish Foreign Minister Uffe Ellemann-Jensen ruled out the question
of seeking a renegotiation of the treaty, narrowly voted down Tuesday by
Danish voters in a referendum, upon his arrival Thursday in Oslo for a
meeting of NATO leaders.
	Before leaving for Oslo, Ellemann-Jensen had said he would ask for
changes in the treaty, signed last December in Maastricht, Netherlands,
which calls for the inclusion of foreign and security policy, a common
currency and an EC central bank.
	But upon his arrival Thursday, Ellemann-Jensen told reporters that
after discussions with other EC partners, it had become clear that a
renegotiation of the pact was out of the question. "I will not ask
questions where I know the answer in advance," he said.
	Asked if Denmark now would be leaving the EC altogether, he said: 
"That's what we have to consider very carefully now."
	It remained unclear Thursday as to how the remaining 11 EC members
would officially react to the 50.7 percent to 49.3 percent Danish
rejection of the treaty, but delegates from all 11 countries said
Thursday they would not accept a renegotiation, nor would they allow the
Danish rejection to stop the process of political integration in Europe.
	It was unclear, however, what if any steps could be taken to exclude
Denmark from the 12-nation EC.
	"It will be a question of finding a way to go ahead with Maastricht
and keep the door open for Denmark," said a spokesman for Portugal,
which at present holds the rotating EC presidency.
	In Paris, French Foreign Affairs Minister Roland Dumas reaffirmed
Thursday that his country intended to move ahead with the Maastrich
Treaty and called the Danish vote an "electroshock" for other EC
members.
	"If we cannot do things as 12 (countries), we will do them at 11 or
10. After all, Europe started out as six," Dumas told French radio
before heading off to the Oslo meeting. "Europe is a permanent
conquest. It's a battle."
	According to a poll published Thursday in the French daily Le
Parisien, 69 percent of the French people surveyed said they would vote
in favor of ratification of the Maastrich Treaty in the national
referendum announced Wednesday by President Francois Mitterrand.
	Ireland is the only other EC nation planning to hold a referendum.
	Joao de Deus Pinheiro, president of the EC Council of Foreign
Ministers, said Wednesday in Brussels, "One cannot think that a member
state that does not accept the objectives of the European Community be
allowed to remain a member state.
	"There is a strong unanimity that the 11 other member states should
go ahead and fulfill the terms of the Maastricht Treaty," Pinheiro
said. "Denmark may obtain another status like the one of the countries
of the European Free Trade Association."
	"The Community cannot fail to say this will have consequences for
the EC itself but also for Denmark and for the perspectives of
enlargement of the Community," said Jacques Delors, president of the
European Commission and the chief architect of the Maastrict Treaty.
	Mitterrand and German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, the EC's primary
backers of European unity and heads of the EC's leading economic powers,
issued a joint statement Wednesday reiterating their determination to
continue steps toward ratifying the treaty.
	"Therefore, both countries will hold to planned schedule for
ratification of the Maastricht Treaty," Kohl and Mitterand said in
their statement. They urged the other 11 member states to ratify the
Maastricht treaty by the end of 1992.
	In Geneva, Denmark's rejection of the Maastricht agreement was hailed
Thursday by opponents of Swiss membership of the EC as a major boost for
their cause. But the Swiss government said it intended to press ahead
with its application for EC membership despite the Danish vote.
	Bruno Spinner, head of the "integration bureau" set up by the Swiss
government to push the EC membership forward, said he did not think the
two events were directly related.
	Public opinion polls show that the Swiss electorate is slightly less
than 50 percent in favor of membership in the EC. The application
eventually will have to be submitted to the electorate in a popular
referendum.
	Martin Chevallaz, a spokesman for the Movement for an Independent and
Neutral Switzerland, said however there was a distinct link. "We are
very encouraged by what the Danes have done," he said.
	Christoph Blocher, a Member of the Swiss Parliament who is another
leader of the anti-EC movement, said he thought Danish voters had shown
"that the EC is for politicians and bureaucrats but not for national
economies and for voters."

   From: [email protected] (Gudmundur Joekulsson)
   Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
   Subject: Re: Danish Referendum on EC
   Date: 5 Jun 92 07:21:10 GMT
   Sender: [email protected] (USENET News System)
   Organization: FORUT-IT
 
 
  |> >Congratulation Danes, with not following the big guys just becaus
  |> >they are bigger.
  |> 
  |> What a lousy excuse for a congratulation )-; This election was far to
  |> serious to be ridiculed by such opinions... As for the people who
  |> voted no just to be against establishment I pity them (just as much as
  |> I pity those who voted yes just to please certain parties).
                                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    I have to protest, this is not being rediculous - I am perfectly
    serious.
 
    The "big guys" I am talking about are the big NATIONS in the EC, and
    with "Danes" I mean the danish NATION, I am not talking on the level of
    danish internal politics (wich I know little about - except for this
    ever returning  Uffe Elleman Jensen telling norwegians how nice it is
    to be in the EC, and who cheated the Icelanders out of what little left
    there seems to be of Nordic cooperation).
 
    The most importand pro EU argument of the Social democrats in Norway,
    is  that the EU, becaus of its size (in number of heads but mostly
    economical size) is going to control the economical, social and
    environmental development in the future.  If Norway wants to influence
    the policy Norway must be friends with the big guys.
 
    Thus the argument is that we are practicaly forced to join in, but not
    that we want to or we even like any of the ideas that the EC is based
    on.  The size of the EU makes it powerful and - if you cant beat them
    join them - is the solution, but at the same time the SDs are realy
    saing that the best thing had been for EC never to happen.   A good
    start to build on for the future of a union of the european nations?
 
    gudmundur,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic,talk.politics.misc
  From: [email protected] (Mikael Lundgren)
  Subject: Re: [soc.culture.europe] The danes voted 'no' to the EEC union.
  Sender: [email protected]
  Organization: UDAC, Uppsala University, Sweden
  Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1992 15:37:17 GMT
 
    In article <[email protected]>
    [email protected] (Stupendous Man) writes:
 
>        I understand the sentiment, in that Denmark doesn't want to become a
>footnote in history, but the people of the smaller states/nations in Europe
>need only a bicameral legislature to ensure that they will not lose their
>representation.  In the US, such a setup means that Rhode Island (a really tiny
>state) has as much representation in the Senate as California (a really big
>state).
 
>        The other house would be based on population.
 
    You are correct, the only problem is that nobody (to my knowledge) has 
    proposed anything like that. The Maastricht treaty gathers power from 
    member states giving it to a central power consisting of a few
    councils. The european parlament does not wield any significant power. 
    The treaty mentions the principle that decisions should be taken at the 
    lowest possible level (close to the citizens), BUT there are no 
    institutional provisions for that to happen. A lot of people see the 
    opposite, power is moving toward the center
 
>        In a hundred years, the people will think of themselves as European
>first, and their local heritage as a compliment to this, not something that
>conflicts with that.
 
    I think that what you mention here is one of those things that make
    people uncertain. They are afraid that they will lose their identity. 
 
>        The same kind of debate went on in the US before the states joined in
>unions.  It might help to get copies of the Federalist, the
>Anti-Federalist papers and other documents from that era.  Also, the
>Constitutional debate and the Virginia compromise.
 
    I favor a European Union, but I also think that all the cards should be
    on  the table. I am a bit weary about joining an organization that is 
    centralizing power but that is unwilling to develop institutions of 
    political power that give states and populations adequate influence
    over  their joint destinies.
 
    What we need is a debate concerning how the power deriving from the 
    Maastricht treaty should be controlled in a more evolved manner than
    today.
 
    My country (Sweden) will have a referendum about its membership in the
    EU in 1994. For that referendum to yield a positive result there has to
    be some  clarity on those issues, otherwise we will have a "danish"
    vote here too.
 
    Off course there are other issues, environment, social security,
    monetary  union etc. But from my point of view it is the political
    power issues that  are intersting and that will have the greatest
    impact on my vote in 1994.
 
    Ciao /Mikael

-
Mikael Lundgren  UDAC, Uppsala University, Sweden!You saw an opinion up there?
Phone: +46 18 18 78 86       Fax: +46 18 18 77 70!It's my personal view, but
Email: [email protected]                !you're welcome to share it!
                

    Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
    From: [email protected] (Yngve Koehler Raustein)
    Subject: Re: Danish Referendum on EC
    Sender: [email protected] (News system)
    Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1992 12:05:17 GMT
   
    The best thing about the referendum is that it made everyone stop to
    think. In Norway the politicians are trying to get us into the EEC as
    fast as possible, but don't seem to find it worthwhile to really inform
    the people about the nature of the EU.  Now they aren't quite as
    loud-mouthed, as their Norway-as-only-Nordic-country-outside-the-EU
    argument is no more valid...
 
    The pro-EC people have tried to use this as a proof of the ``true''
    democracy in the EEC.  Kiss my ass!  The way it seems to work is that
    if you don't agree with every decision then you'd better get the hell
    out! The other EEC countries, lead by Monsieur d'Estaign, are seriously
    considering throwing Denmark out of the EEC because they wouldn't join
    the EU. What democracy!
 
    Yngve
 
 
   ..sig missing, because I can't figure out this damn news reader!
   --
  Yngve K. Raustein		| ``We use choicest juicy chunks of fresh 
  362 Memorial Drive		| Cornish ram's bladder, emptied, steamed, 
  Cambridge, MA 02139		| flavoured with sesame seeds whipped into a 
  617-225-7343 			| fondue and garnished with lark's vomit.''

    Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
    From: [email protected] (Anders Christensen)
    Sender: [email protected] (NetNews Administrator)
    Organization: /home/flipper/anders/.organization
    Date: 23 Jul 92 21:53:05
 
    ....
 
    As far as I know, Anne Enger Lahnstein, the leader of the Norwegian
    party "Senterpartiet" (one of the most radical "No-to-EEC" parties)
    said something like: "Joining the EC would be worse for Norway than the
    union with Sweden 1814-1905." (Taken from memory, that was not a
    quote!) Her point was that Brussels should not decide in Norway, and if
    non-Norwegian organizations or persons got influence on how Norway was
    run, that would be a tragedy, using the 1814-1905 union as 'proof' on
    how bad such a situation would be.
 
    This reached the front page of several newpapers at a time where there
    were little other news. Political commentators claimed it  set "a new
    low-water mark" in the EC debate in Norway, since the two unions in
    question are very different in a lot of respects. 
 
    Probably, Enger Lahnstein tried to make some of the 'very bad karma'
    that the 1814-1905 union have in Norway rub off to the EEC. In 1905, I
    think there was a referendum in Norway, on whether to continue the
    union, but a large majority wanted to break it (the number 500 to 1
    seems to come to mind for some reason, but I'm not really sure). The
    word "union" generally have a very bad sound to Norwegians.
 
    Her opponents ridiculed (and mixed) her statements and said that the
    real reason was that she didn't want Swedish influence in Norway. ....
 
    -anders

   From: [email protected] (UPI)
   Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.international,clari.news.economy,
	clari.news.europe,clari.biz.finance
   Subject: Ratification deadline for Maastricht treaty won't be met despite
	French yes
   Date: Sun, 20 Sep 92 17:12:01 PDT
 
	BRUSSELS (UPI) -- The Danish rejection of the Maastricht Treaty on
European Union means the pact will not be ratified this year despite
Sunday's 'yes' vote in France, European Commissioner Martin Bangemann
said.
	"The ratification process will run into next year," he said,
because "the Danish have to put the question again to the Danish
voters."
	But Bangemann said there was no reason to renegotiate the treaty as 
"all 11 other countries have said yes, so the treaty cannot be changed.
"
	"There may be a Danish interpretation, allowing the Danish
government to put the question again," he said.
	"We do not have to change the substance of the Maastricht treaty.
What we have to change is the way to explain it."
	When asked if the narrow victory in France would be sufficient to
bring stability back to Europe after a week of turmoil, he said, 
"Konrad Adenauer was elected with a majority of one vote, his own. And
we have had a good period with a great stability in Germany."
	Bangemann said "Only European Monetary Union can bring an end to
speculation such as that we have witnessed this week."
	Europe has gone through a week of severe monetary turbulence, where
two EC currencies, the sterling and the lira, left the European Exchange
Rate Mechanism, a system based on intervention in currency markets to
keep currencies between their allowed fluctuation limits.
	Bangemann said currency markets would calm down "now there was a
perspective for the Maastricht treaty to be accepted."
	Commenting on last week's economic and monetary turmoil in Britain,
he said "the Bundesbank was right to say there are homemade problems
when a currency is in difficulty."
	But in such a case "everyone should be as helpful as possible," he
said.
	Asked what his feelings -- as a German -- were about the way several
French politicians used the image of a dangerous Germany to convince
people to vote against or in favor of the Maastricht treaty, he said, 
"In an electoral campaign, politicians often use arguments somewhat out
of reality."

   From: [email protected] (UPI)  
   Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.international,clari.news.europe
   Subject: Denmark seeks opt-out clauses in Maastricht treaty  By PATRICK MOSER
   Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 14:23:36 PDT
 
	BONN, Germany (UPI) -- Denmark said Wednesday it was seeking a number
of opt-out clauses in the Maastricht treaty, which would enable it to
hold a new, successful referendum on the European integration pact.
	Speaking at a news conference after a two-hour meeting with
Chancellor Helmut Kohl, Danish prime minister Poul Schlueter said he
agreed with the other European Community leaders that the treaty should
not be renegotiated or "changed" but should be "amended" in a
legally binding manner.
	He said he told Kohl that Denmark is "very interested in
supplementing the Maastricht treaty text in such a way that would enable
us to move ahead to another referendum in 1993."
	Danish voters rejected the European integration treaty in a June 2
referendum.
	"It is essential to find a solution", said Schlueter, adding that
he was confident the treaty could be amended in such a way that Danes
would accept it.
	Danish Foreign Minister Uffe Ellemann-Jensen, who also attended the
talks, said that "We will perhaps have to have special opt-out
possibilities for Denmark on problems that are of specific concern to
us."
	Asked whether this would include a clause similar to the one allowing
Britain to choose not to join the third phase of European Monetary Union
-- the introduction of a European currency and European central bank -- he
said that "Maybe that is one solution."
	The minister confirmed that in addition to the clauses on currency
union, social and defense issues in the treaty were of particular
concern to Denmark.
	"You find in Denmark a fear that European defense cooperation would
undermine NATO," he said.
	Schlueter said he and Kohl agreed on the need to clarify the meaning
and application of subsidiarity, a principle which calls for decision to
be taken at the lowest effective administrative level.
	Ellemann-Jensen said that the principle was only vaguely defined in
the treaty. "In the treaty, you'll find the name of the principle on an
empty shelf. We have to admend the treaty by adding flesh to that
amendment," he said.
	He added that "this is an amendment, not a renegotiation."
	Denmark is due to present on Oct.12 a white paper outlining the
options it is considering. Schlueter said he would discuss the proposals
with his European partners in early November so that a "joint solution"
could be found at the Dec. 11-12 EC summit in Edinburgh, Scotland.

    From: [email protected] (Tomas Eriksson)
    Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
    Subject: Re: Swedish parliament open for the season
    Date: 8 Oct 92 18:42:37 GMT
    Sender: [email protected] (Usenet)
    Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm
 
    In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
    (Wolfgang Diestelkamp) writes:

   >...
   >As the Swedish parliament is now open for the season, could anybody tell
   >me if and when the Swedish parliament intends to ratify the 
   >EC-EFTA treaty ?
 
    The anser to the "if" question is "yes". No controversy (*) which will 
    jeopardize the EES treaty, as far as I know. The answer to the "when" 
    question is "during the autumn", as far as I know. The government's EES 
    propsal is fairly extensive in number of pages (four or five fat 
    volumes). There's a special EES comitte of the Parliament, which 
    actually has been working over most of the summer. (**)
 
    (*) The question about "freedom of information" has surfaced lately, as 
    something which can create controversy. The Swedish version of this is 
    different from the anglosaxon countries where the term is used. 
    Basically, any document which is recieved or created by a Swedish 
    authority (state or local) is public, unless it's classified as secret, 
    which is not allowed except for very specific reasons. Any citizen have 
    the right to access these public documents, without having to answer
    the  "why" question. (And basically without cost or delay.) E.g. you
    can read applications for a state job (interesting to judge the
    competition if you applied yourself), or you can find out the salary of
    *any* publicly-employed person (such as me). There is a possibility
    that this freedom will be less liberal, but as I understand it this is
    still somewhat unclear. I hope we can keep things as they are, because
    I'm a curious person, and I have used these rights on occasion.
 
    (**) The comittees can work when the parliament is not in session
    without any "dramatic" decision being made, unlike a special session
    with the whole chamber. Also, it is very uncommon that a special
    committe of Riksdagen is being created for a specific purpose; there
    are 16 permanent comittees (15 members each) which usually cover most
    issues.
 
    Tomas
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tomas Eriksson                                          [email protected]
            Surface Force Group, Department of Physical Chemistry,
               Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
    From: [email protected] (Lars-Henrik Eriksson)
    Subject: Re: Swedish parliament open for the season
    Sender: [email protected]
    Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
    Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 08:51:49 GMT
  
    From what I have understood there are two problematic areas:
 
    1) The EC commission itself has a well developed system for classifying
    documents, where most of the stuff have some sort of security
    classification. Sweden may be (will be?) forced by the EES treaty to
    apply similar security classification to any document that relates to
    EES issues.
 
    2) The EC has (or has decided to have) a greater degree of secrecy for
    public documents with information about individuals. Such documents
    would be released only if the "benefit" of releasing them would
    outweigh the "damage" that the individual could suffer. The authority
    holding the document decides if this is the case. Apart from the very
    great possibility of not getting the documents, it means that the "why"
    question will have to be answered in every case. The person requesting
    the information will also, in practise, have to identify himself. I
    don't think the EES treaty will force Sweden to apply the same
    measures, but an EC membership would. Swedish investigating journalists
    are not at all happy about this.
 
    In principle, all issues such as these would be subject to negotiation
    when the Swedish EC membership application is processed. However, it
    seems that the current Swedish cabinet has no plans to question any of
    the current EC regulations.

--
Lars-Henrik Eriksson                            Internet: [email protected]
Swedish Institute of Computer Science           Phone (intn'l): +46 8 752 15 09
Box 1263                                        Telefon (nat'l): 08 - 752 15 09
S-164 28  KISTA, SWEDEN                         Fax: +46 8 751 72 30

    From: [email protected] (UPI)
    Newsgroups: clari.biz.economy.world,clari.news.europe
    Subject: Denmark issues White Paper on Maastricht Treaty
    Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 12:42:56 PDT
 
	COPENHAGEN, Denmark (UPI) -- Denmark's government Friday suggested
eight scenarios to break the impasse of the troubled Maastricht Treaty,
which is hovering in limbo after a majority of Danes refused to ratify
the treaty on European union in a June 2 referendum.
	The scenarios, contained in a White Paper issued Friday, failed to
map the changes required by Denmark before a new referendum could be
held asking Danes to rethink their opposition.
	"This (White Paper) now forms the basis for our discussions with
Denmark's political parties on proposals we will put to our European
partners," said Foreign Minister Uffe Ellemann-Jensen.
	It was unclear why the White Paper was released Friday. Danish Prime
Minister Poul Schluter had repeatedly said it would not be available
before Oct. 12.
	The paper said there were eight ways for the Maastricht Treaty, which
calls for closer political, defense, foreign policy and monetary union
among the European Community countries, to go forward:
	"- The shelving of Maastricht, with the problems it sought to solve
being addressed in another way.
	- The withdrawal of Denmark from Maastricht and its entry into the
European Economic Space.
	- Changes to Maastricht for all 12 countries.
	- The introduction of riders to Maastricht for all 12 members.
	- The application of Maastricht to the 11 ratification countries,
with Denmark continuing its EC membership only under the founding Treaty
of Rome.
	- The application of Maastricht by the 11, with Denmark negotiating
and ratifying a special arrangement.
	- Maastricht with a special status for Denmark.
	- The ratification by Denmark of Maastricht, but with a time limit
allowing it to withdraw if unhappy with European developments under
Maastricht."
	"I hope a combination of all or several of the eight scenarios will
be a possible solution," Ellemann-Jensen said.
	Legally, the Treaty cannot come into force unless all 12 EC members
ratify the document.
	"But there will be major problems in finding a solution with the 11
others, and it will also be difficult to reach agreement in parliament
on a Danish proposal," he said.
	The Danish foreign ministry said Friday that no proposal would be
ready for the upcoming EC summit Oct. 16 in Birmingham, England.
	The 251-page White Paper outlined proposals for European cooperation,
saying if the Treaty were not put into force it could become
increasingly difficult to make member countries observe treaty
principles and specific rules.
	"In such a situation it cannot be taken for granted that there will
be political will to go through with an enlargement of the Community,"
the paper said.
	It added that if Maastricht did not come into force "it is likely
that a nucleus of European countries wanting to continue the economic
and political integration will come into effect." This reflected recent
reports that Germany, France, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg were
considering a two-tier EC, especially in monetary cooperation.
	The paper suggested that the Maastricht Treaty could be agreed to
while at the same time adapting its implementation to changing
conditions in Europe.
	"Indications of this have followed the Danish and French referenda.
This is evident from the increased interest in concepts such as greater
democratic control, more decentralization, more subsidiarity, openness
and transparency in the decision-making processes," it said.
	In their referendum in June, Danes voted by 51 percent to 49 percent
to reject the Maastricht Treaty. Reasons most often cited for the
surprise result were suspicion of a secretive and unwieldy EC
bureaucracy and opposition to Maastricht Treaty suggestions of an EC
army and common defense and foreign policy.

    From: [email protected] (UPI)
    Newsgroups: clari.biz.economy.world,clari.news.europe
    Subject: Denmark publishes Maastricht Treaty renegotiation proposals
    Date: Wed, 28 Oct 92 8:57:08 PST
 
	COPENHAGEN, Denmark (UPI) -- Denmark Wednesday published its long-
awaited proposals for special treatment under the stalled Maastricht
Treaty.
	A June 2 Danish referendum rejection of the pact plunged the European
Community into disarray.
	The proposals, brokered by the opposition Social Democratic party but
supported by an overwhelming majority of Denmark's Parliament, were put
for formal discussion to the all-powerful parliamentary EC Committee.
	A formal decision to approach Denmark's EC partners with the proposal
was expected Oct. 30 after a full parliamentary debate.
	"I can certainly recommend the proposal for a referendum on this
basis. There are also good chances that the other EC countries will
accept it," said Danish Conservative Prime Minister Poul Schluter.
	Schluter has repeatedly said that he will not countenance a new
Danish referendum unless changes are made to the Maastricht Treaty,
either in the form of a full-fledged re-negotiation or as a legally
binding addendum to the treaty document.
	"It would be a mockery of democracy to simply put the same thing to
the Danish electorate to give them a second chance," Schluter has said.
	Danes voted by 50.7 percent to 49.3 percent in their first referendum
to reject the Maastricht Treaty, committing it to limbo under EC Treaty
of Rome rules that require all 12 members of the Community to agree on
changes to the EC's founding constitution.
	Wednesday's Danish proposal, dubbed the "National Compromise,"
calls for binding opt-outs from Maastricht goals and plans for a common
currency, central bank, defense, judiciary, police and citizenship.
	Apart from these binding Danish opt-outs from the Treaty proper, the
3000-word document also calls for more openness in community affairs as
well as the introduction of the concept of subsidiarity - that EC organs
can only make decisions on issues if local and regional authorities or
parliaments are unable to do so.
	In particular, the paper calls for national parliaments to be more
closely involved in EC decision-making and demands a strenghtening of
the European Parliament's ability to "carry out an effective inspection
and control of the administration of EC institutions."
	"It must be stressed that Denmark, and only Denmark, will decide on
its social standards and welfare distribution policy," the document
said.
	In return for agreement to its demands, to be provided in a legally
binding document with the same legal standing as the Maastricht Treaty,
the proposals say that Denmark "will not prevent the other 11 members
from going ahead" on any elements of the Maastricht Treaty.
	Schluter has previously said that if Denmark's proposals are
sanctioned by the other 11 EC members, a new Danish referendum will be
called in 1993 to give the Danish electorate a chance to ratify the
amended Treaty.
	After its presentation Wednesday to the Market Committee, final
parliamentary agreement on Denmark's new Maastricht plan will be
announced on Friday. The only party to reject the proposals is the
right-wing Progress Party, which wants Maastricht to be reopened and
fully renegotiated -- a demand Denmark's EC partners have flatly
rejected.
	In November, Danish Foreign Minister Uffe Ellemann-Jensen will travel
to all EC capitals to canvas support for the Danish proposals prior to
discussions at a Dec. 11 EC summit in Edinburgh, Scotland.

    From: [email protected] (JULIAN M. ISHERWOOD)
    Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.international,clari.news.economy,
	clari.news.europe,clari.news.demonstration,clari.news.politics
    Subject: Danish trawlermen give away fish in EC demo
    Date: Tue, 3 Nov 92 4:58:14 PST
 
	COPENHAGEN, Denmark (UPI) -- Scores of Danish skippers handed out
hundreds of pounds of free fish Tuesday to demonstrate against European
Community sole quotas they said were unreasonable and unscientific.
	More than 100 trawlers from around Denmark converged on the capital
in driving rain and heavy winds Tuesday to hand out about a ton of sole
to a jostling crowd of several hundred fish-hungry Copenhageners.
	The protest came after the European Community cut the weekly quota of
sole catch per trawler from 300 kilograms to 150 kilograms (330 pounds).
	"It's unreasonable and unscientific. That's three boxes of sole,
supposedly because stocks are small. But we don't see any reduction in
the amount of sole in our waters," said Captain Finn Jensen of Roedvig
who organized the demonstration.
	"We have never caught as many soles as we do at the moment, and in
places we never found them previously. Nobody knows why there are so
many, but one reason might be the four mild winters we have had. It is
ludicrous to have to throw good fish back into the sea," he added.
	Jensen said the new quotas were even more difficult to understand
given meteorologists claims of an impending hard winter in northern
Europe.
	"During cold winters the sole population dies," he said.
	"They have a point. All this fish was caught in one night apparently
by only a few trawlers," said Birthe Jensen, a Copenhagen housewife
happily brandishing a plastic bag containing six large sole.
	The fishermen Tuesday met Danish Minister of Fisheries Kent Kirk,
himself a trawler owner, to demand action on the new quotas.
	A fisheries ministry spokesman said Kirk would raise the issue with
the EC, but he was not optimistic that an increase in quotas could be
negotiated.
	Earlier this year, complaints from Kirk caused the European
Commission to agree to sole quota hikes for Danish fishermen.
	Quota bartering with other EC countries increased the Danish catch
overall by 400 tons.
	"But it is going to be difficult to get quotas hiked again," said
Svend Heisselberg, fisheries spokesman for the Liberal Party, a
government coalition partner.
	"But obviously there are a lot more sole than the EC's biological
consultants thought. We'll just have to see what we can do," he
concluded.

    From: [email protected] (JULIAN M. ISHERWOOD)
    Newsgroups: clari.biz.economy.world,clari.news.europe
    Subject: Majority of Swedes against EC membership
    Date: Tue, 3 Nov 92 7:04:34 PST
 
	COPENHAGEN, Denmark (UPI) -- For the first time since Sweden applied
to join the European Community last year, a majority of the electorate
is against membership, according to the latest poll of Swedish EC
sentiment, published Tuesday.
	The SIFO institute poll, published in the G�teborgsposten daily
newspaper, said that 53 percent of the electorate was against
membership, with 30 percent in favor and 17 percent undecided.
	The figures contrasted sharply with SIFO results 11 months ago, when
48 percent were in favor of membership and only 24 percent against.
	Opposition to the EC among Swedish women had risen most sharply, the
poll disclosed. It showed 61 percent of all women were now against
membership, compared with only 46 percent a month ago.
	In the under-30 female age-group, a full 71 percent said they would
vote against membership.
	Eighty-two percent of those asked in the poll said a referendum
should be called on whether to join the EC, and 90 percent of the sample
said they were "very sure" of how they would vote.
	Both the Swedish Conservative-led government and the Social Democrat-
led opposition have been warm supporters of Swedish EC membership, but
Swedish politicians have been increasingly worried as to whether the
population shares their enthusiasm.
	In particular, the Swedish government has been alarmed at an apparent
spin-off effect from the June 2 referendum rejection of the Maastricht
Treaty on closer European union in neighboring EC member Denmark.
	Sweden has repeatedly stated that its EC membership application was
made on the basis of the Maastricht Treaty, which calls for extended
cooperation in economic, security and foreign policy.
	But after Denmark's refusal to ratify Maastricht in its current form,
anti-EC sentiment in Sweden has quickly risen and Swedish officialdom
has been careful to explain that its membership application is a
negotiating base.
	Apart from Sweden, Finland has also applied for EC membership and a
special Nov. 5 congress of Norway's ruling Labor party is expected to
endorse a Norwegian membership application.
	European Community countries have said that they look favorably on
applications for membership from Denmark's Nordic neighbors, but that
the enlargement process must wait until the Maastricht Treaty has been
ratified by all 12 countries to come into force.
	Denmark recently published its demands for opt-outs from the treaty,
which would enable the Copenhagen government to call a new national
referendum and give Danes another chance at ratification.
	Danish requirements include exemptions from plans for a common
currency, central bank, a supranational judicial and police and
citizenship.
	The demands are to be discussed during an EC heads of state and
government summit in Edinburgh, Scotland Dec. 16. If agreement on the
Danish paper is reached among the 12 members, a new Danish referendum is
expected to take place sometime in 1993.
	Enlargement negotiations, including those on Sweden's membership, can
be expected to begin in the wake of a second Danish referendum.

    From: [email protected] (UPI)
    Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.international,clari.news.europe,
	clari.biz.economy.world
    Subject: European Community favors Finnish application
    Date: Wed, 4 Nov 92 16:59:05 PST
 
	BRUSSELS, Belgium (UPI) -- The European Community's Commission
indicated Wednesday it favored Finland's application for the EC, but
said some obstacles must still be overcome.
	Commission Vice President Frans Andriessen said an EC report
recommended membership negotiations open after EC members ratify the
Maastricht Treaty on European union and conclude negotiations on its
resources and related issues.
	Under EC procedure, the Commission must give a detailed opinion on
application requests before membership negotiations can be started at
ministerial level.
	Andriessen said since Finland has agreed to abide by the laws and
rules regulating the Community, the Maastricht Treaty included, there
are no major objections.
	"But the fact that some issues, in the text, had to be put between
brackets, shows the need for additional negotiations," he said.
	Problems of compatibility with EC laws and regulations remain in
agriculture, some state monopolies, Finnish national policy in relation
to regions facing particular difficulties such as the northern and
eastern regions of Finland, fisheries and industry.
	Andriessen said Finland's application is being handled faster than
usual because it is already a member of the European Free trade
Association, composed of Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland,
Liechtenstein and Finland.
	Finland submitted its application to the Council of the EC on March
18, 1992.

     From: [email protected] (JULIAN M. ISHERWOOD)
     Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.international,clari.tw.science,
	clari.news.europe,clari.news.economy
     Subject: Denmark to flood EC cheese market
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 92 3:21:09 PST
 
	COPENHAGEN, Denmark (UPI) -- Denmark is to flood the European cheese
market with excess cheese and begin an internal European community price
war as a result of U.S.-EC agreements on farm subsidies, Denmark's giant
cheese producer said Monday.
	"We have no option. We do not intend to be the losers in this crazy
GATT battle," said MD Foods spokesman Peter Kjelstrup.
	"We will flood the market with our cheeses and prices will drop
considerably. That will seriously affect other European producers, but
we cannot see why Denmark should be the loser as a result of this
agreement," Kjelstrup said.
	At issue were the annual 100,000 tons of third-country exports
Denmark sends outside the EC, and which currently receive up to 30
percent subsidies.
	Denmark is the largest EC cheese exporter, with 40 percent of all
exports from community countries. It is also the world's largest
producer and exporter of feta cheese, predominantly sent to the Middle
East.
	"We're talking about exports of some two billion kroner ($350
million) from Denmark each year," said Kjelstrup.
	MD Foods, the largest Danish producer, said it was particularly
incensed that U.S.-EC farm subsidy talks had not only cut subsidy
amounts by one-third, but had also cut the amount of third-country
cheese exports eligible for subsidy by 21 percent.
	"We have no objections to the cut in the subsidy amount, but cutting
down by almost a quarter in the amount of cheese eligible, is
unacceptable," Kjelstrup said.
	He added that opposition was even stronger because negotiations had
used an unrealistic base date.
	"Cheese tonnages used were an average of 1986 to 1990 when third-
country exports ran to 386,000 tons annually. In 1991 the EC export was
at 450,000 tons to third countries, so they should at least have used
that figure," Kjelstrup said.
	"The result is that we are going to do battle with other EC
producers within the European area. The weakest will lose - and that is
not going to be us," he said.
	Kjelstrup said that all types of cheeses would be involved in MD
Foods dumping program, as third-country exports were re-targeted to the
European market.
	"We will also be dumping against American cheese," he said, adding
that the only way to avoid a price war would be for France to veto the
recent EC-U.S. agreement.
	"This GATT agreement is lousy and one-sided. The Americans are not
required to cut down their grain subsidies, which in turn means that
they get cheap fodder for their cattle. That in turn means they can
produce cheaper cheeses. Well, we aren't playing ball," Kjelstrup said.

    The farmers in the U.S. are payed not to grow some crops.  But as my
    father and grandfather were both farmers, I can say that the basic 
    prices of oats, corn, wheat, and hay have not changed more than +/-
    $0.50 per measure over 50 years.  Small farmers cannot exist, and the
    large farmers have to invest such a large sum to buy equipment that 
    there are no small farms any longer.  Where I was born, and where I
    lived my first 19 years, there are no family farms, just come brush
    overgrown areas that are no longer productive.  
    
    Why does everyone automatically blame the U.S. when they are having
    a bad time.  My Grandfather farmed 120 acres, using some tractors, but
    mostly horses.  My father farmed 80 acres, some of each, but mostly
    with horses.  You could live but, not with luxuries, just the basics.
    Now, I do not farm, although the life is good with the labor, and clean
    air, I can not afford to farm, who do I blame, not the U.S., I live
    here.  
    
    Fair trade practices are needed all the world over, and without
    subsidies.  
    
    Dave
    

    From: [email protected] (JULIAN M. ISHERWOOD)
    Newsgroups: clari.biz.economy.world,clari.news.europe,clari.biz.finance
    Subject: Major says Danish problem persists but may be solved
    Date: Wed, 2 Dec 92 9:26:21 PST
 
	COPENHAGEN, Denmark (UPI) -- British Prime Minister John Major said
Wednesday there were still problems in finding a solution to Denmark's
opt-out requirements from the Maastricht Treaty, but he hoped to present
proposals to all 12 European Community members by next week.
	"There are still problems, but I hope to be able to make proposals
that will be acceptable both to Denmark and the rest of the Community,"
Major said at the end of a two-hour visit to Denmark.
	The British prime minister said a proposal had to be found that did
not require the re-ratification of the Maastricht Treaty on closer
European union in any of the other EC countries.
	Germany Wednesday became the latest EC country to ratify the treaty
when the Bundestag voted by 543 votes to 17 and with eight abstentions
to adopt the integration treaty.
	Denmark has demanded a 7-point exemption from the treaty before it
will consider a new referendum on the issue. In the last referendum on
June 2, Danes voted narrowly to reject the proposals.
	Copenhagen has said it wants immediate opt-outs from the document,
including exemption from a single currency, central bank, citizenship
and formalized defense and police cooperation, before it will consider a
new referendum.
	It has also demanded that its opt-outs be legally binding on other
member countries and have the same status as the Maastricht Treaty,
which under EC rules cannot come into force unless ratified by all
member countries.
	Germany, Italy, France and Spain have all said that any addendum to
the treaty would legally amount to a reopening of the treaty proper and
would require full re-ratification in member states, prospects they have
rejected out of hand.
	On the other hand, Danish Prime Minister Poul Schluter repeated
Wednesday that a second referendum on the treaty in Denmark could only
happen if changes were made to the treaty to take Denmark's opt-outs
into account.
	"There will be no referendum without the changes," Schluter said
categorically.
	In the German Bundestag Wednesday, compromise on the Danish
requirements seemed hard to find as preparations continue in Britain for
a Dec. 11-12 summit of heads of state and government to decide on the
issue.
	While German deputies prepared to ratify the Maastricht Treaty,
Chancellor Helmut Kohl called for full EC integration, saying there
could be no amendment to the treaty, no special dispensation and no 
"Europe a la carte."
	"A Europe a la carte in which each partner only choses what he finds
particularly attractive in this Europe would be just as contrary to our
aims as a Europe which follows the slowest ship in the procession,"
Kohl told the Bundestag.
	He also strongly rejected recent suggestions that a future European
central bank should operate in London and have only its administrative
headquarters in Germany.
	German lawmakers went on to pass a resolution urging the government
to ensure that a future European central bank would have the same strict
stability-oriented standards as the German Bundesbank and that it would
be based in Frankfurt.
	In Copenhagen, neither Major nor Schluter would be drawn on Kohl's
comments.
	"Mr. Kohl has said on several occasions that he does not believe in
a two-speed Europe. Well, neither do we," Schluter said.
	"He has repeated that again and again," echoed Major, who added he
envisioned a Europe which eventually spread eastwards to include Hungary,
Poland and Czechoslovakia.

    From: [email protected] (UPI)
    Newsgroups: clari.biz.economy.world,clari.news.europe
    Subject: EC Commission to examine Norwegian membership request
    Date: Mon, 7 Dec 92 11:38:10 EST
 
	BRUSSELS, Belgium (UPI) -- European Community foreign ministers Monday
asked the executive Commission for a detailed opinion on Norway's
request for EC membership, EC officials said.
	It was the first step in the normal EC procedure leading toward
negotiations with candidate members. If the Commission opinion, expected
to be delivered within a few months, is positive, the council of
ministers then will have to decide on the opening of formal membership
negotiations.
	Norway already negotiated EC membership in the early 1970s along with
Britain, Ireland and Denmark, but Norway's accession to the EC then was
rejected in a popular referendum.
	Norway now becomes the fifth member of the seven-country European
Free Trade Association to apply for EC membership.
	At their summit meeting in Lisbon in June, EC heads of state and
government agreed formal membership negotiations with EFTA countries
could start as soon as all EC member states have ratified the Dec. 91
Maastricht Treaty on European monetary and political union, and an
agreement is reached on future financing of the Community.
	The Danish rejection of the Maastricht Treaty in a referendum in June
has thrown a wrench in the works. The EC hopes to find a solution to
this problem at its summit meeting in Edinburgh Friday and Saturday.
	The Commission has already delivered a favorable opinion on the
applications submitted by Austria, Sweden and Finland and is working on
Switzerland's membership request.
	Some doubts arose about whether Switzerland will maintain its
membershiprequest after the rejection of the planned European Economic
Area in a Swiss referendum Sunday.
	The EEA was intended to link the 12 EC member states and the seven
EFTA countries -- also including Iceland and Liechtenstein -- in one large
economic area of 380 billion people, with free movement of goods,
services, capital and persons among the 19 countries.
	After the Swiss rejection of the EEA Sunday night, EC Commission
Vice-president Frans Andriessen said there was no direct link between
the Swiss membership request and its rejection of the EEA.
	"However, it is clear one can wonder whether it is still realistic
to count on the real will of the Swiss to participate fully in the
Community, whereas they oppose already a less ambitious step, to wit
participation in the EEA," Andriessen said.
	A Commission spokesman said Monday that following the Swiss rejection
of the EEA treaty, a diplomatic conference among the 19 signatory states
may be expected to be convened soon. Such a conference was provided for
in the EEA treaty in case it was not ratified by all signatories.
	One problem is the treaty may have to be adapted following the Swiss
rejection, which might require new ratification procedures in the
countries which have already ratified it, he said.
	"The effect of the Swiss absence from the EEA will have to be
examined closely," the spokesman said.

    From: [email protected] (JULIAN M. ISHERWOOD)
    Newsgroups: clari.biz.economy.world,clari.news.europe,clari.biz.finance
    Subject: Danes in turmoil over British Maastricht proposals
    Date: Thu, 10 Dec 92 7:18:27 PST
 
	COPENHAGEN, Denmark (UPI) -- British proposals to solve Denmark's
objections to the European Community Maastricht Treaty met heavy
resistance from a key Danish political party Thursday.
	The Socialist People's Party, which successfully called for a
rejection of the union treaty in a June 2 referendum, early Thursday
walked out of an all-night meeting of parties called to discuss the
proposals, put forward by Britain as current EC president.
	In a so-called 'national compromise' following the referendum
rejection, seven of eight parties in Parliament agreed on a compendium
of Danish exemptions from the treaty. These include "opt-outs" from
Maastricht's targets for a single curency and central bank, defense and
judiciary cooperation and citizenship.
	Denmark has also demanded that its "opt-outs" be legally binding
and have the same status as the Maastricht Treaty itself.
	The other 11 EC members have said that while they are willing to
accomodate some of Denmark's requirements, they will not re-open the
Maastricht Treaty, nor will they be forced to re-ratify the treaty as a
result of Danish objections.
	Britain has proposed a bevy of declarations and statements from this
weekend's summit of heads of state and government in Edinburgh,
Scotland, which would allow Denmark to be exempted from key areas of the
treaty.
	Although the statements are generally accepted as being legally
binding, several EC countries have questioned the extent of accomodation
of Danish wishes, despite the fact that without Danish ratification, the
Maastricht Treaty cannot legally come into force.
	While Denmark's minority government said Wednesday it was satisfied
with the British draft, a parliamentary majority was more skeptical,
saying changes were required to the documents before they were could be
sanctioned.
	The heaviest criticism came from the SPP.
	"None of the Danish exemption requirements are clear enough in this
revised British draft," said SPP Deputy Chairwoman Christine Antorini.
	"In some cases we are even worse off than in the first draft," she
said.
	In particular Antorini said her party found Danish requirements for
exemption from Maastricht Treaty preamble targets of union were 
"unsatisfactory", and her party was opposed to draft requirements that
new EC members would not be able to invoke similar exemptions.
	It was unclear early Thursday whether the SPP would remain within the
group of seven parties, or whether its opposition to the British draft
was a negotiating ploy. Most observers believe that without SPP support
for a negotiated settlement, any new referendum on Maastricht in Denmark
would result in another rejection, plunging the EC even deeper into
crisis.

    From: [email protected] (UPI)
    Newsgroups: clari.biz.economy.world,clari.news.europe
    Subject: Opinion polls say Danish will vote 'yes' to Maastricht
    Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 7:42:37 PST
 
	COPENHAGEN, Denmark (UPI) -- Danish voters will vote in favor of the
Maastricht Treaty in a new referendum, provided they are given
concessions at Friday's Edinburgh summit of European heads of state and
government, opinion polls said.
	Two opinion polls, published as European Community presidents, prime
and foreign ministers gathered in Edinburgh, Scotland, said a majority
of Danes would vote to ratify the Maastricht Treaty if agreement was
reached on exemptions for the Scandinavian nation.
	The Maastricht Treaty on European union has been stranded since
Denmark voted in a June 2 referendum to reject the agreement. Since then
the Danes have put forward a compendium of requirements for opt-outs
from the treaty.
	One opinion poll, carried out by the GfK Institute, said Friday that
provided EC ministers accepted Danish opt-outs from a single currency,
central bank, defense, judiciary and citizenship, 61 percent of Danes
would vote in favor of the treaty.
	Another, carried out by the Danish financial daily Borsen, said 51
percent would vote in favor on the same basis.
	In the June referendum, 49 percent voted in favor and 51 percent
rejected the treaty which under EC rules cannot come into force until
all 12 members have ratified.
	Friday's opinion polls were a morale-booster for Denmark's minority
government as the two-day Edinburgh summit began. The surveys both said
that a "yes" vote on the basis of current proposals for exemptions was
assured irrespective of how the key anti-Maastricht Socialist People's
Party viewed results of the summit.
	The SPP has demanded extensive changes to an EC presidency proposal
for Danish opt-outs, and has said that it will not support the treaty in
a new referendum if changes are not made.
	Previous polls have all said that without SPP support, any settlement
negotiated in Edinburgh would be voted down in a new referendum.
	Denmark's minority government has said it is satisfied with EC
presidency proposals and plans to reach agreement Friday in Edinburgh.
Government ministers have said that a new referendum on the Maastricht
Treaty could be held in Denmark next spring or fall, provided agreement
is reached.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From: [email protected] (EDUARDO CUE)
    Newsgroups: clari.biz.economy.world,clari.news.europe,clari.biz.finance
    Subject: EC moving towards Danish deal
    Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 8:10:14 PST
 
	EDINBURGH, Scotland (UPI) -- European Community leaders were reported
close to agreement Friday allowing Denmark to call a new referendum on
the Maastricht Treaty, but officials said some tough legal issues
remained.
	As the 12 heads of government began a two-day summit in Edinburgh,
reaching a compromise on the tricky Danish issue was seen as a crucial
step towards putting the Community back on track following a series of
setbacks in recent months.
	The leaders devoted the entire morning session to the Danish question
in the hope they can agree on a solution that will allow the Danes to
again vote on the issue while at the same time not requiring a new
ratification of the treaty by the 11 other EC countries.
	In a development that stunned the Community and derailed plans for
creating a common currency and central bank by the end of the century,
Danish voters narrowly rejected the treaty in a referendum last June.
The timid French vote in favor of Maastricht in September raised further
doubts that the document would ever be applied.
	Although the document has been ratified by seven of the 12 members,
Community rules require that it receive unanimous approval before it can
come into effect.
	British Prime Minister John Major, whose country currently holds the
rotating EC presidency, has delayed submitting the treaty to the House
of Commons until the Danish dispute is resolved.
	"The debate is well oriented and I think there is an obvious will on
the part of all to find a solution," a French spokesman told reporters
at midday.
	Under a complex proposal submitted by the British presidency, four
separate declarations will be issued by the EC and the Danish
government.
	One of the EC texts would in effect accept the four major Danish
conditions, including Copenhagen's refusal to participate in the final
phase leading to the establishment of a single currency and central bank
to manage it.
	Denmark will also abstain from taking part in the creation of a
common defense policy or in the establishment of an EC police and
justice system.
	Major set five conditions for the acceptance of the Danish demands.
These make it clear that the exceptions are applicable only to Denmark
and that they in no way imply the re-ratification or renegotiation of
Maastricht by the other members.
	The major problems remaining were of a legalistic nature, according
to officials. Denmark's demand that the exceptions be permanent was also
running into opposition from other countries, who say they should be
effective only until 1996, when the Maastricht Treaty will be revised.
	Danish Prime Minister Poul Schluter appeared satisfied with the
proposed compromise, and he told the other heads of state that his
country admitted there could be no renegotiation of the treaty.
	Schluter said that if an agreement were reached at the summit a new
referendum could be called for April or May.
	While substantial progress on the Danish matter was made, Spain
threatened to veto any agreement unless the Community agreed to increase
its financial aid to the poorer EC members. The issue is closely linked
with a seven-year financing plan developed by EC Commission President
Jacques Delors.
	Madrid has also promised to hold up negotiations on admitting new EC
members if it does not get its way on the budget issue, while the richer
countries, led by Britain and Germany, are resisting any substantial
increase in Community spending.

    From: [email protected] (UPI)
    Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.international,clari.news.politics,
	clari.news.europe,clari.news.economy
    Subject: Danish parties accept EC agreement
    Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 12:59:47 PST
 
	COPENHAGEN, Denmark (UPI) -- Parties representing an overwhelming
majority of the Danish parliament Sunday accepted a European Community
agreement that leaves the small Scandinavian nation outside key areas of
the Maastricht Treaty on European union.
	Seven of eight parties in parliament announced Sunday they fully
supported a settlement announced Saturday at a summit of European heads
of state and government in Edinburgh, Scotland. The settlement exempts
Denmark from a single currency and single central bank as well as
cooperation on defense, the judiciary and citizenship.
	"This was a great day for Denmark," Danish Prime Minister Poul
Schluter said Sunday of the agreement.
	As he spoke, party committees announced one-by-one they supported the
settlement he negotiated. Only the small right-wing Progress Party
maintained its rejection of the agreement.
	Sunday's decision made a new Danish referendum on the Maastricht
Treaty possible, with government spokesmen saying it could be held as
early as April 1993.
	Recent opinion polls have suggested a majority of Danes are in favor
of ratifying the treaty, provided that exemptions such as those
introduced at the EC summit Saturday were included.
	A GfK poll published Friday said 61 percent of Danes favored
ratifying the treaty, provided a variety of opt-outs was accepted.
Another poll put the number lower, at 51 percent.
	The EC's Maastricht treaty has been dry-docked since a June 2
referendum in Denmark in which 51 percent voted against the treaty and
49 percent voted in favor.
	Under the EC founding constitution, the Treaty of Rome, all members
of the community must ratify changes to old treaties, or new treaties,
in order for them to take effect.
	The Danish decision Sunday put the treaty back on track, although two
hurdles remain before it can be implemented. A new Danish referendum
must sanction the document and its riders, and Britain also must ratify
the treaty.
	In November, British Prime Minister John Major postponed the
troublesome British ratification process for Maastricht until after a
new Danish referendum.

    From: [email protected] (JULIAN M. ISHERWOOD)
    Newsgroups: clari.biz.economy.world,clari.news.europe,clari.biz.top
    Subject: Denmark plans U.S.-EC cooperation
    Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 14:36:03 EST
 
	COPENHAGEN, Denmark (UPI) -- Denmark, which takes over the rotating
presidency of the European Community Jan. 1, will coordinate EC growth
policies with the new U.S. administration as a sign of growth for the
world economy, Prime Minister Poul Schluter said Wednesday.
	"Within its first 100 days, the Clinton administration will
introduce a program to convince the world that growth will begin, and we
in Europe must and will coordinate our efforts," Schluter told
reporters.
	"A well-functioning and strong trans-Atlantic link is vital for
growth in the world economy, and we will closely work with (U.S.
President-elect Bill) Clinton to achieve this," the Danish prime
minister said.
	Schluter said "a certain growth" already had been measured in the
world economy, but that "much more" was needed.
	"A primary target of our EC presidency will be to achive this in
close collaboration with America," Schluter said.
	Denmark took over the EC presidency despite the fact that Danish
voters voted down the Maastricht Treaty on further European integration
in June. At the EC summit in Edinburgh, Scotland last week, ministers
agreed to exemptions to the treaty that will pave the way for another
Danish referendum on European unity.
	Schluter and his Foreign Minister Uffe Ellemann-Jensen both planned
visits to Washington sometime in January, and the prime minister said it
would be a good sign of cooperation if Clinton were to visit the
European presidency.
	"We would like to invite Mr. Clinton to come over here to Copenhagen
during the Danish EC presidency to discuss our common approach,"
Schluter said, adding he already had talks with U.S. officials.
	Schluter, voicing issues from the Edinburgh EC summit, said that
apart from developing EC-U.S. links, priorities for the six-month Danish
presidency were reaching agreement on the Uruguay Round of negotiations
to open up world markets, enlarging the EC from 12 to 15 members,
putting the 16 million EC unemployed back to work and protecting the
environment.
	Sweden, Finland and Austria are waiting in the wings for EC
membership negotiations to start.
	Ellemann-Jensen said Tuesday he hoped they would be full EC members
by 1995.
	Norway also has applied for EC membership, but its negotiations were
due to start at a later date.
	Speaking on the upcoming second Danish referendum on the Maastricht
Treaty on European union, Schluter warned Denmark and Britain that it
would be "an historical mistake" to reject the treaty.
	"The 12 of us have been a good family for so long, it would be
unthinkable to reject the treaty now," Schluter said. "It must not
happen."
	"It would be disastrous to Denmark and disastrous to Britain if one
of us, or both, decided against Maastricht," he said. "We would punish
ourselves and our children severely by such a stupid act."
	In a June 2 referendum, 51 percent of Danes voted against the closer
European union embodied in the Maastricht treaty.
	That decision dry-docked the treaty until last weekend, when a
special set of exemptions from the treaty was agreed for Denmark
including opt-outs on defense, a single currency and formalized EC
cooperation on citizenship and the judiciary.
	That decision constitutionally permitted the Danish government to
call another referendum on the issue to break the deadlock. Under EC
rules, no new treaty can come into effect without the ratification of
all members.
	Apart from Denmark, Britain also remains to ratify the treaty.
British Prime Minister John Major, faced with a rebellion over
Maastricht in his own Conservative party, postponed the ratification
procedure until after a new Danish referendum.
	Latest polls published Wednesday said that 59 percent of Danes now
would vote for the Maastricht treaty in a new referendum.
	In the sphere of EC political cooperation, Schluter said it was 
"vital" that a lasting peace agreement be reached for territories of
the former Yugoslavia, and that stronger links be forged to the emerging
democracies of central and eastern Europe.
	"There is a very unstable situation in eastern Europe, and
particularly in the Commonwealth of Independent States," Schluter said.
	"The economic crises there can lead to new conflicts and we have a
special responsibility toward these countries to help them," he said.
	"It will be up to the Danish presidency, in an active diplomatic
effort, to help create and secure a peaceful development," Schluter
said.

    From: [email protected] (BILL LAMP)
    Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.international,clari.biz.economy.
	world,clari.news.europe
    Subject: EC foreign ministers kick off two-day parley
    Date: 1 Feb 93 17:20:49 GMT
 
 
	BRUSSELS, Belgium (UPI) -- The European Community Monday formally
launched negotiations aimed at admitting Austria, Finland and Sweden to
the Community by the beginning of 1995, but Stockholm repeated that it
will not participate in any military alliance, despite moves within the
Community toward common foreign and security policy.
	Foreign ministers for the three put forward their nations'
negotiating positions at a two-day meeting of EC foreign ministers that
was also due to address world trade talks, the recent U.S. decision to
levy heavy punitive duties on steel imports and the Yugoslav conflict.
	Austria, Finland and Sweden all said they could accept provisions of
the Union on European Union, which set up goals of a common foreign and
security policy.
	However, Ulf Dinkelspiel, Sweden's minister on European affairs and
foreign trade, said: "Sweden's policy of non-participation in military
alliances remains unchanged. At the same time, we recognize that the
eventual framing of a common defense policy is one of the goals" of the
Community to be discussed in 1996.
	"We will not hamper the development of the European Union as it
moves towards this goal."
	Neutrality initially posed problems for both Austria and Sweden.
	All three nations asked that their particular circumstances,
especially government support for agriculture, be taken into account in
accession talks, which will continue in separate conferences between the
12-member EC and each of the candidate nations.
	Negotiations with Norway are expected to begin later this year.
	Denmark, which now holds the presidency of the Council of Ministers,
has indicated it will make the enlargement of the Community from 12
nations to 15 a priority during its tenure, which expires at the end of
June, and the three applicants are expected to become members by the
beginning of 1995 unless the talks hit a snag.
	Austria applied for membership in July 1989, Sweden in July 1991 and
Finland in March 1992.
	Earlier EC foreign ministers, meeting for the first time since
Denmark took over presidency Jan. 1, kicked off their gathering in a
live television broadcast for the first time to counter concerns the
EC's workings are too secretive.
	The ministers delivered mainly prepared speeches to open the meeting.
	Denmark's "one main priority" in the next six months is delivering
a "clear yes" to the Maastricht Treaty on European union, Danish
Foreign Minister Niels Helveg-Petersen said in televised remarks to open
the meeting.
	Danish voters on June 2 narrowly rejected the treaty, which would
consolidate the 12-member EC as a free-trade zone and advance political
and monetary union among EC members.
	But the Danes are expected to approve the treaty in a second
referendum this year because of special opt-outs granted to Copenhagen
at an EC summit in December.
	The ministers also were to discuss the former Yugoslavia, relations
with Central and Eastern Europe and Israel.

    From: [email protected] (BILL LAMP)
    Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.international,clari.news.politics,
	clari.news.europe
    Subject: Norway clears first hurdle in bid to join EC
    Date: 24 Mar 93 18:49:31 GMT
 
 
	BRUSSELS, Belgium (UPI) -- Norway cleared the first hurdle Wednesday
to become a member of the European Community.
	The EC Commission gave a favorable opinion on its application, paving
the way for the European Council to start negotiating terms for
admitting Norway.
	Hans van den Broek, commissioner responsible for enlargement of the
EC, said talks will proceed in parallel with those to include Austria,
Sweden and Finland, which were launched Feb. 1.
	The EC hopes to wrap up the talks by the end of the year. The 12 EC
member states and the four applicants would then have one year to ratify
the pacts.
	Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland submitted Oslo's
application in November 1992, and the application approval by the
Commission came in record time.
	Norway has applied twice before, but withdrew its application both
times. Most recently, public opposition to membership forced the
government to back out in 1972.
	Van den Broek stressed the talks would be held with the assumption
that the Maastricht Treaty on European union will come into force in the
meantime. The candidate nations will have to commit themselves to the
key elements of that treaty during negotiations even though Denmark and
Britain have yet to ratify it, he said.
	The Maastricht Treaty calls for a common foreign and security policy
and proposes a future defense identity, which is unlikely to start
taking shape until the next EC constitutional review in 1996. If the
four join the EC by 1995 as expected, they would have a voice in that
review.
	For neutral countries such as Austria and Sweden, one of the biggest
obstacles could prove to be a common defense policy.
	That will be no problem for Norway, which is a member of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization. However, Oslo will face tough talks on
agriculture, fisheries, state aid and energy, van den Broek said.
	Language could also prove to be a sticky issue. The EC already has
nine official languages, and ``we certainly have some worries about
adding two or three new languages,'' van den Broek said.
	The application by Norway, Sweden and Finland could help spur Danes,
who have rejected Maastricht once, to approve it during a second
referendum scheduled for May 18. Recent polls show support for a ``yes''
vote still strong, but slipping.
	Copenhagen is anxious to show the Danish public that the EC is eager
to embrace new Nordic members with similar political and cultural
traditions.

    From: [email protected] (BILL LAMP)
    Newsgroups: clari.news.europe,clari.biz.economy.world
    Subject: Norway enters talks on becoming member of EC
    Date: Mon, 5 Apr 93 11:14:28 PDT
 
	BRUSSELS, Belgium (UPI) -- The European Community and Norway began
talks Monday aimed at admitting the Nordic nation as a member by 1995.
	In an open session of the Council of Ministers, EC officials warned
that membership entailed accepting the demanding Maastricht Treaty on
European Union, and Norway set out several problems that must be
resolved in negotiations before it can join.
	Despite its late application in November, Norway joined three other
nations on the fast track to join the EC -- Austria, Finland and Sweden.
Denmark, which now holds the rotating presidency of the Council of
Ministers, said it wants to bring all four into the EC at the same time.
	The Danish presidency, which has made the enlargement of the EC a
priority during its tenure, said it hopes to lay the groundwork so that
accession agreements can be signed at the end of the year. If the
treaties are approved by the respective governments, the four applicants
would then become members by the beginning of 1995, swelling the number
of members to 16.
	But Niels Helveg Petersen, president of the council, emphasized
Norway "will be required to accept in full the Treaty on European
Union." The EC expects Norway, he said, to "be ready and able to
participate fully and actively in the common foreign and security policy
as defined in the treaty."
	The Maastricht Treaty calls for monetary union, a common foreign and
security policy and raises the possibility of a future defense identity.
The common foreign and security policy is unlikely to start taking shape
until 1996. If the four join the EC by 1995 as expected, they would have
a voice in discussions.
	The ambitious goals of the community have proved difficult to attain.
Britain and Denmark have both obtained special opt-outs from parts of
the Maastricht Treaty that will be unavailable to the new applicants.
And turmoil on currency markets have thrown the future of a single
currency into doubt.
	Norway, like the other three would-be members, asked that its
particular circumstances, especially access for its fish products and
government support for agriculture, be taken into account in accession
talks, which will continue in separate bilateral sessions between the
12-member EC and the four candidate nations.
	Bjorn Tore Godal, Norway's trade minister, said Norway accepted the
goals of Maastricht, but he laid out several obstacles to membership.
	He noted the cost of producing food in Norway was high because of the
long, harsh Arctic winter and long distances produce has to travel. "We
seek terms of accession which will ensure satisfactory income for our
farmers," he said.
	Godal asked for complete and quick access to EC markets for its fish
catch, which accounts for about 11 percent of commodity exports, noting
that would also provide EC consumers with a wider range of fish. EC
officials acknowledged both the farm subsidies and access for Norwegian
fish pose difficult problems for negotiators.
	Speaking English, Godal insisted that Norwegian be adopted as an
official EC language. There are presently nine languages, and there is
broad opposition within the EC to letting that number increase. Both
Sweden and Finland are pushing for the adoption of their national
languages, too.
	If Norway and the EC reach agreement on accession, Oslo will put the
matter to Norwegians in a referendum. Norway has applied before. In
1972, public opposition to membership forced the government to withdraw
its application.
	The application by Norway, Sweden and Finland could help spur Danes,
who have rejected Maastricht once, to approve it during a second
referendum scheduled for May 18. Recent polls show support for a "yes"
vote still strong, but slipping.
	Copenhagen is anxious to show the Danish public that the EC is eager
to embrace new Nordic members with similar political and cultural
traditions. Danish voters on June 2 narrowly rejected the Maastricht
Treaty.
	But the Danes were expected to approve the treaty in a second
referendum this year because of the special opt-outs granted to
Copenhagen at an EC summit in December.

    From: [email protected] (BILL LAMP)  
    Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.international,clari.news.europe,
	clari.news.features,clari.news.economy,clari.news.election
    Subject: Denmark lurches toward a yes to modified Maastricht Treaty
    Date: Sun, 16 May 93 19:08:02 PDT
 
	UPI Newsfeature
	
	COPENHAGEN, Denmark (UPI) -- Liselotte Vestergaard holds the future of
Europe in her hands.
	The last time Denmark asked her for her thoughts on further European
integration, in a referendum on June 2, 1992, she and like-minded Social
Democrats strayed from the party line to shout "No!"
	This triggered similar contrary reactions at the grass-roots level
across the Continent and Britain and threw European Community officials
into a snit.
	That rejection, by 50.7 percent to 49.3 percent, committed the
Maastricht Treaty on European union to limbo under EC Treaty of Rome
rules that require all 12 members of the Community to agree on changes
to the EC's founding constitution.
	The Danes vote again Tuesday on a modified version of Maastricht, and
the outcome either will propel the ship of Europe forward or scuttle it.
This time Vestergaard has fallen into line -- not from any profound
belief in the need for a United States of Europe, but out of fear that
her small nation will be left behind economically as the rest of the EC
sails forward.
	"I'm scared that if we say no we will be put aside by Europe," said
Vestergaard, an employee of the Danish telephone company KTAS. "Many
people are out of work now, and a yes would be worth it if Denmark can
create new jobs."
	With the European economy still struggling to reverse its downturn,
that change of heart has swept through the crucial voting bloc of nay-
saying Social Democrats, and polls indicate the treaty will be ratified
this time around, albeit with a lack of enthusiasm.
	Support rose as high as 68 percent, according to Gallup surveys, but
recently has leveled off at about 48 percent in favor, 33 percent
against and 14 percent undecided. Of those who have made up their minds,
59 percent have said they will support the treaty, the polls say.
	Despite concessions exacted from fellow EC nations that exempt
Denmark from certain key Maastricht provisions, Vestergaard and many
Danes voice the same objections that led them to say "nej" to the
treaty last time: The powerful Brussels bureaucracy pokes its nose into
matters of local interest where it has no business, and too many
decisions are made in secrecy by unelected officials.
	The Maastricht Treaty aims to tighten the ties among EC states. It
calls for economic and monetary union, including a single currency;
common foreign and defense policies; "European citizenship"; a
cohesion fund to transfer wealth from richer to poorer member states;
increased cooperation on judicial, immigration and police matters, and a
common policy on workers' rights.
	The treaty, approved by the European Council in December 1991, has
been ratified by 10 nations, but awaits the approval of Denmark and
Britain. It also faces legal challenges in Germany's constitutional
court.
	The modifications added at the Edinburgh summit in December to
placate contrarian Danish voters permit Denmark to reject the single
currency, common defense policies, supranational legal cooperation and 
"union citizenship."
	Those changes have not satisfied most Danes.
	"The reason for voting yes is that Denmark cannot go it alone,"
says Lars Bille, professor at the Institute of Political Science at the
University of Copenhagen. "The Social Democrats that voted no are the
crucial bloc, and for them the decisive argument is the economy and job
security."
	Despite those economic fears, he says, the outcome will be a close 
"ja."
	"A clear majority is actually against the political union of Europe
-- it has been like that since the '70s -- and that is a great fund to
draw on," Bille says. In last year's referendum, two-thirds of the
Social Democrats voted against Maastricht, but polls show they are
evenly split this time, giving pro-Europe forces the margin they need.
	The deepest misgivings to Maastricht emanate from strongly held
Scandinavian ideas about local government and democracy, but they have
struck a chord among voters across Europe.
	"I'm afraid that Denmark will not have the same say in events and
that we won't have the same insight into what is going on," says
Vestergaard, 27. "The Danish system is open, and you have access to
information."
	The democratic notion of a local governing assembly -- or "ting" --
is embodied the name of Denmark's parliament, the Folketing, and has
given English the word "hustings."
	To make European Union workable, its architects have tried to make it
easier to overrule objections by small minorities. "Some think Danish
democracy will be endangered," Bille says, but pro-Maastricht forces
have argued that exclusion from the union would undercut Danish
influence even more.
	"Euro-skeptics" in the 12 EC member states have taken up the cry
against the move toward centralization and toward accumulating power in
the hands of unelected officials. Since the Danish no, French and Irish
voters have narrowly approved the treaty.
	Graham Mather, president of the London-based European Policy Forum,
says, "The (Danish) no prompted a debate in virtually every other (EC)
state revealing a public skeptical of anything they saw as ... unduly
centrist. The political agenda has outstripped support."
	Jens-Peter Bonde, leader of Denmark's June Movement, the principal 
"no" campaign organization, objects to the anti-democratic nature of
European Union and insists the people will be voting on exactly the same
issues as last year because the concessions gained by Denmark at
Edinburgh make no difference.
	"Every time you take away decision-making power from elected
officials or close deliberations on new laws that before were decided in
open parliaments, that makes it much harder to involve citizens," says
Bonde, a member since 1979 of the European Parliament, the EC's directly
elected body whose powers are severely restricted. "Lawmaking should be
as close to citizens as possible, and this is something that is highly
valued in our tradition of local democracy."
	Bille says two particularly Danish issues have played a role.
	Danish stubbornness swelled the no vote in June, but has been muted
so far this year. "Danes don't like to be told what to do," Bille
says, but prior to the June vote, top politicians and businessmen told
them they had no choice but to approve the treaty.
	"It was frightening last time," Vestergaard says, because opinion
leaders tried to bulldoze voters into voting yes.
	The government, which was reformed with the Social Democrats in
charge early this year, has taken a softer approach this time,
encouraging big businesses to chat with their workers, but not mount
high-profile campaigns.
	Anti-German sentiment, which lies entwined with many other issues,
has also helped Euro-skeptics. "As small homogeneous state, Denmark has
always depended on what other big states do -- especially Germany,"
Bille says. "(Anti-German) sentiments did not have an overriding
influence, but they were hiding behind many other issues."
	Denmark fought several bloody wars with Prussia in the last century
and was conquered by Germany during World War II.
	Foreign Minister Niels Helveg Petersen concedes the prospect of
domination by a large neighboring nation is worrying for the average
Dane, saying, "Denmark's history is one of playing off larger powers
against each other and avoiding turmoil."
	A no would derail European Union, perhaps forever.
	A yes would end in quick ratification by Britain and modestly
increased integration. The future of the Union will then be decided in
1996 when the EC undertakes a major constitutional review, though few
expect the EC to regain the momentum of the heady late 1980s.
	The EC's executive Commission has lain low for months for fear of
antagonizing Maastricht opponents in Denmark and Britain, putting off
sweeping initiatives until the treaty is ratified.
	The Maastricht Treaty will not be put to a referendum in Britain, but
has become the object of a bitter dispute in Parliament. The outcome is
not entirely assured, but most observers reckon it will pass with the
fillip of a Danish yes.
	Governments then would probably revamp EC institutions to add the
checks and balances that are missing now. "Anything aiming for a more
ambitious structure does not look credible," Mather says.
	Though France and Germany have threatened to proceed without Denmark
and Britain, they are likely to lose much of their enthusiasm when their
aging leaders -- Chancellor Helmut Kohl and President Francois Mitterrand
-- leave office.
	Even the crowning jewel of the Maastricht Treaty, a single European
currency, has lost some of its sheen with the turmoil seen on money
markets late last year and early this year. The timetable will probably
have to be put back.
	Ratification by Denmark and Britain would breathe life into the EC,
but is hardly likely to propel it to the hoped-for heights dreamed of
during the late 1980s. A tenacious recession, monetary turmoil and a
complete failure to come to grips with the tragedy unfolding in the
former Yugoslavia daunt even the brightest Euro-optimists.

From: [email protected] (BILL LAMP)
Newsgroups: clari.biz.economy.world,clari.news.europe
Subject: Danes show little enthusiasm for Maastricht referendum
Date: Mon, 17 May 93 14:24:42 PDT
 
	COPENHAGEN, Denmark (UPI) -- Despite widespread projections that Danes
will approve the Maastricht treaty on European union they rejected a
year ago, there was little evidence of enthusiasm for the referendum
Monday outside political circles.
	Perhaps the most demonstrative show was put on by a group of
residents from Christiania, an enclave of anarchists in a run-down
section of the capital, who formed a mock organization, "Conservative
Women for Union," to push for approval.
	Majorettes with toilet-paper rolls bound to their heads and plastic
sausages dangling from their epaulettes, a clanking mobile sculpture and
a man who was buck-naked except for a sandwich board all marched through
picturesque walking streets in the center of the city to make their
point.
	Their campaign literature favored the Maastricht treaty, but they
punctuated their stroll with coordinated shouts of "No!"
	"I really am against the treaty, but this is just a fun way to
protest," said Anne Julie Arnfred, a Christiania resident.
	Most recent polls show Denmark is likely to approve the Maastricht
treaty, which would create a common European currency as well as joint
foreign and defense policies for the 12 members of the European
Community, in Tuesday's referendum.
	The treaty, which must be approved by all 12 European Community
members to come into effect, has been in limbo since Denmark rejected it
last year.
	Non-anarchist Danes were taking the referendum in stride.
	Johnny Neucuts will vote to approve Maastricht, but he is not
enthusiastic.
	"We can't stay outside the EC," he said. "Denmark is really forced
by economic considerations to approve." He also said he was "a little
tired" of the campaign, which has dominated Danish politics for a year.
	Lene Moustgaard had yet to decide how to vote, though she said she
was leaning toward approval.
	"I'm not sure yet, but I'll make up my mind by (Tuesday)," she
said. "With the long campaign, we have a good idea what it is all
about, but now it's a matter of whose interpretation you believe. The
politicians interpret it in their own ways, and it's hard to know how it
will really affect us."
	Preebem Joensson said he will vote against the treaty because
politicians have failed to make clear the effects it will have.
	"I don't trust the politicians," Joensson said. "It's a
complicated issue and hard to know what to do, but it's better to be
safe now than to find out later you have done something irreversible. I
don't think it will hurt us if we reject the treaty. The Danish crown
may fall a little, but that's all."
	Pia Andersen said she will vote to reject the treaty because she is
worried that the treaty binds Denmark to countries to which it has no
deep natural ties. "We don't have much in common with the other
countries of the EC," she said. "We have a Scandinavian identity, and
that could be submerged."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [email protected] (BILL LAMP)
Newsgroups: clari.news.europe,clari.biz.economy.world,clari.biz.finance
Subject: Danes vote again on European unity; approval expected this time
Date: Tue, 18 May 93 5:58:42 PDT
 
	COPENHAGEN, Denmark (UPI) -- In a vote likely to determine the fate of
further political integration in Europe, Danes cast their ballots
Tuesday in a long-awaited referendum on the Maastricht Treaty on
European union that they rejected a year ago.
	Voters flowed through polling stations at a steady pace on a bright
spring day.
	A Gallup prognosis published in Tuesday's edition of the daily
Berlingske Tidende predicted 58 percent of Danish voters will support
the treaty and 42 percent will oppose it. The prediction was based on 1,
710 telephone interviews conducted Monday.
	It said 55 percent of Social Democrats would vote to approve
Maastricht, up from 36 percent in June. Social Democrats who voted no
last time in defiance of their party's recommendation are considered the
crucial swing vote.
	In recent weeks, support has stabilized for the treaty, which would
create a common European currency as well as joint foreign and defense
policies for the 12 members of the European Community.
	In June 1992 Danes voted 50.7 percent to 49.3 percent against the
treaty, committing it to temporary limbo under the rules of the EC
Treaty of Rome, which require all EC member nations to agree on any
change to the EC's founding constitution.
	Leaving a polling station in the capital, Tine Maria Toft, who voted
yes, said she was confident the treaty would be passed.
	"I think union is a good idea -- not just the economic side, but
politically as well," she said. "Denmark will have a greater say in
Europe if we vote 'yes."'
	But Anne Sofie Arctander Plum, who had just cast a "no" ballot,
disagreed strongly.
	"I don't believe in the EC at all, and I certainly don't believe in
union," she said. "The EC is far too big a project and could submerge
Denmark. I think we would do better to work together with our fellow
Scandinavian countries."
	Approval by the Danes is expected to give the pact a boost in the
British Parliament. Ratification there and successful defense in German
courts would make it law.
	Rejection would sink the Maastricht Treaty, plunge the EC into deep
confusion, and seriously delay or dash hopes of European integration.
	Of the eight parties represented in the Folketing, Denmark's
parliament, only one backs a "no."
	The treaty aims to tighten the ties among EC states. It calls for
economic and monetary union, including a single currency; common foreign
and defense policies; "European citizenship"; a cohesion fund to
transfer wealth from richer to poorer member states; increased
cooperation on judicial, immigration and police matters; and a common
policy on workers' rights.
	After Danish voters rejected the pact, Copenhagen extracted
modifications at the EC summit in Edinburgh, Scotland, in December to
placate the nay-sayers. These "opt-outs" permit Denmark to reject the
single currency, common defense policies, supranational legal
cooperation and "European citizenship." 
	The treaty, approved by the European Council in December 1991, has
been ratified by 10 nations, but awaits the approval of Denmark and
Britain. It faces legal challenges in Germany's constitutional court.
	Major EC initiatives were put on hold for the last year as "Euro-
skeptics" in the 12 EC member states took up the cry against the move
toward centralization and toward accumulating power in the hands of
unelected officials. Since the Danish no, French and Irish voters have
narrowly approved the treaty.
	The EC has been bedeviled by a tenacious recession and an inability
to deal with the war in the Balkans.
	If the treaty is ratified by the 12, the future of the Union will be
decided in 1996 when the EC undertakes a major constitutional review,
though few expect it to regain the momentum of the heady late 1980s.
	In a related development, a new poll in Norway, one of four new
candidates for membership in the EC, shows support for joining waning
quickly.
	A survey of 1,003 people published by the daily Aftenposten of Oslo
Tuesday showed 51 percent would vote against joining the EC, up from 41
percent in March of 1992.

    From: [email protected] (BILL LAMP)
    Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.international,clari.news.europe,
	clari.news.economy,clari.news.election,clari.news.urgent
    Subject: Danes approve Maastricht in convincing vote
    Date: Tue, 18 May 93 14:20:36 PDT
 
	COPENHAGEN, Denmark (UPI) -- In a vote that could reinvigorate plans
to turn Europe into an integrated economic colossus, Danes voted
overwhelmingly Tuesday to approve the Maastricht treaty on European
union that they rejected a year ago.
	With all the ballots counted, returns showed 56.8 percent voted to
ratify the pact and 43.2 percent voted to reject it.
	Support for the treaty, which would create a common European currency
as well as joint foreign and defense policies for the 12 members of the
European Community, has stabilized in recent weeks after gradually
declining.
	Warm and sunny weather throughout the day brought a high turnout from
a polarized electorate. A preliminary count showed 86.2 of eligible
voters cast a ballot, the second highest rate ever in Denmark.
	In June 1992 Danes voted 50.7 percent to 49.3 percent against the
treaty, committing it to temporary limbo under the rules of the EC
Treaty of Rome, which require all EC member nations to agree on any
change to the EC's founding constitution.
	Copenhagen then extracted modifications at the EC summit in
Edinburgh, Scotland, in December to placate opponents. These "opt-outs"
permit Denmark to reject the single currency, common defense policies,
supranational legal cooperation and "European citizenship."
	Other EC nations agreed reluctantly to the terms of the Edinburgh
treaty, realizing that without the exemptions Denmark would be
effectively squeezed out of the EC and that the spectacle of sidelining
one of the smallest member states could provoke a backlash across Europe
that would doom integration.
	The treaty tightens the economic ties between the 340 million
citizens of the EC with a single currency, due in 1999 at latest, but
analysts say political integration will not soon lead to a more decisive
union able to take international initiatives to solve problems like the
Balkan war.
	Prime Minister Poul Nyrup Rasmussen welcomed the vote. "We should be
first of all pleased that Denmark has come through this very, very
important event," he said, but emphasized the need to focus now on
giving a boost to the economies of Denmark and Europe, which are stuck
in a tenacious recession.
	Foreign Minister Niels Helveg Petersen said the approval will bring
Denmark more "authority" in the EC. "With greater power we can affect
the direction of Europe," he said. "From that point of view, it is a
wise decision."
	The campaign for the second referendum was dominated by issues of
economics and democracy.
	Many who voted in favor of the treaty said they had done so out of
fear that rejection would have led to losses of jobs, a declining
economy and marginal influence within the EC. Opponents of the treaty
said it diminished Denmark's democratic principles by giving decision-
making authority to unelected bureaucrats at EC headquarters in
Brussels, Belgium.
	Although the race was tight, only one of the eight parties
represented in the Folketing, Denmark's parliament, urged voters to
reject the treaty.
	Approval by the voters brings automatic ratification, though the pact
must be signed by Rasmussen and Queen Margrethe II in a purely formal
ceremony.
	Maastricht, approved by the European Council in December 1991, has
been ratified by 10 nations, and awaits the approval of Denmark and
Britain. It faces legal challenges in Germany's Constitutional Court.
	Not all EC countries have put Maastricht before their voters, but
Paragraph 20 of Denmark's constitution obliges the government to get
consent in a popular plebiscite before ratifying a treaty that restricts
national sovereignty. The Folketing approved the Maastricht treaty in
April.
	Rejection would have sunk the Maastricht treaty, plunged the EC into
deep confusion and seriously delayed or dashed hopes of European
integration.
	Danish television stations reported in preliminary surveys based on
telephone interviews that a clear majority had approved the treaty in a
long-awaited referendum that has drawn massive attention around Europe.
	Tine Maria Toft, who voted yes, said as she left a polling station in
the capital she was confident the treaty would be passed. "I think
union is a good idea -- not just the economic side, but politically as
well," she said. "Denmark will have a greater say in Europe if we vote
yes."
	Anne Sofie Arctander Plum, who had just voted against the treaty,
declared, "I don't believe in the EC at all, and I certainly don't
believe in union. The EC is far too big a project and could submerge
Denmark. I think we would do better to work together with our fellow
Scandinavian countries."
	The treaty aims to tighten the ties among EC states. It calls for
economic and monetary union, including a single currency; common foreign
and defense policies; "European citizenship"; a cohesion fund to
transfer wealth from richer to poorer member states; increased
cooperation on judicial, immigration and police matters, and a common
policy on workers' rights.
	Major EC initiatives were put on hold for the last year as "Euro-
skeptics" in the 12 EC member states took up the cry against the move
toward centralization and toward accumulating power in the hands of
unelected officials. Since last year's Danish rejection of Maastricht,
French and Irish voters have narrowly approved the treaty.
	If the treaty is ratified by the 12, the future of the Union will be
decided in 1996 when the EC undertakes a major constitutional review,
though few expect it to regain the momentum of the heady late 1980s.

   From: [email protected] (UPI)
   Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.international,clari.news.europe
   Subject: Four nations take step toward European Community membership
   Date: Tue, 5 Oct 93 6:26:06 PDT
 
	LUXEMBOURG (UPI) -- Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden took a small
step toward joining the European Community Tuesday in negotiations that
ranged from the hunting of Arctic wolves to the fate of 800,000 Swedish
snuff users.
	All four would-be members welcomed EC promises that the talks will be
finished in time for them to join by Jan. 1, 1995, but some warned that
time was growing short if they were to put the matter to their people or
parliament in time.
	"We told the Community we were somewhat worried that we have not
achieved results, and if we do not speed up, we will not meet the
deadline," Finish Deputy Prime Minister Pertti Salolainen said. 
"Unless we get results on the big issues in the coming months, we have
reason for concern."
	An official of the Commission, the EC's executive arm, agreed,
saying, "The hard core problems remain." He said they include
agricultural subsidies, aid to poor regions and environmental standards.
	Salolainen said Finland had won concessions that left it in control
of nuclear fuel policy, but environmental issues concerning flora and
fauna remained.
	"The community has accepted an exception for (wolves) in reindeer
areas," Salolainen said. "In plain terms, we can continue strictly
regulated hunting, but that doesn't change things because it is strictly
regulated now." The hunting of bear and lynx will be addressed later.
	Ulf Dinkelspiel, Sweden's European affairs minister, said Stockholm
and Brussels had reached wide agreement on a number of areas including
nuclear policy and customs regimes.
	However, he raised the problem of how to handle snuff, which is used
by 800,000 Swedes and banned by the EC.
	Austrian Foreign Minister Alois Mock listed five problem areas for
his country in the accession negotiations -- a transit treaty governing
north-south traffic through the western corner of the country,
agriculture, aid to poor regions, laws governing a second residence and
environmental standards.
	He said any agreement should not harm the environment and "This is a
dialogue aimed at seeing that all the parties meet each other later at a
higher standard (for the environment)."
	Mock welcomed progress in the negotiations that allow Austria to
leave "the ban on nuclear energy approved in a 1978 referendum
untouched." Although Vienna would have to contribute funds to Euratom,
the EC nuclear agency, and participate in setting safety standards, no
nuclear plants would have to be built.
	Austria applied for membership in July 1989, Sweden in July 1991,
Finland in March 1992 and Norway in November 1992.
	Norwegians rejected EC membership in a 1972 referendum, and there are
strong doubts whether they will give their blessing to the EC linkup
this time.

   From: [email protected] (UPI)
   Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.international,clari.news.europe
   Subject: EC applicants accept Maastricht treaty goals
   Date: Tue, 9 Nov 93 11:45:57 EST
 
	BRUSSELS (UPI) -- The four nations applying for membership in the
European Community Tuesday formally embraced the rules for closer
political and economic cooperation contained in the Maastricht treaty,
but they urged that the talks be speeded up so they can join by 1995.
	Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden said they could accept the
treaty, which took effect Nov. 1, including the provisions for a single
currency; common foreign and defense policies; European citizenship; and
increased cooperation on judicial, immigration and police matters.
	"Austria will actively participate in the further development of
foreign and security policy," Austrian Foreign Minister Alois Mock
said.
	He said the treaty could be reconciled with his country's law
mandating neutrality in foreign affairs because it was up to Austria to
define its neutrality. Mock said that position had been accepted by the
EC.
	Sweden also said it would support the common foreign and security
policy, but was not committed to a foreseen defense identity, which is
unlikely to start taking shape until the next EC constitutional review
in 1996.
	"Sweden's policy of non-participation in military alliances remains
unchanged," Ulf Dinkelspiel, Sweden's minister for European Affairs,
told his EC colleagues. "At the same time... we will not hamper the
development of the European Union as it moves toward" a common defense
policy.
	He also said Sweden would retain the right to decide whether to join
the currency union, which could create a single currency as early as
1997.
	Finland warned against changing the balance of power within the EC in
favor of the larger members just as four smaller countries are joining,
and renewed its plea for special treatment of Finnish farmers.
	"I am still a little worried how things are going," Finnish Foreign
Minister Heikki Haavisto said. "The (EC executive body) does not seem
to understand our particular climatic and geographic conditions."
Finland wants to ensure that its heavily subsidized farm incomes are not
cut by EC laws.
	Norway, which applied for membership after the other three, insisted
it could still meet the 1995 deadline, but called on the EC to improve
its environmental standards rather than force Oslo to degrade its own.
	"It is of major political importance that the applicant countries
not be put in the position where they have to lower standards,"
Norwegian Trade Minister Bjoern Tore Godal said.
	The EC has set a deadline of March 1 for negotiations to give
parliaments time to ratify the agreement by 1995.

    From: [email protected] (Reuters)
    Newsgroups: clari.world.europe.western,clari.news.gov.international
    Subject: Finland seen as net payer from start of EU membership
    Date: Tue, 29 Mar 94 2:40:04 PST
 
	 HELSINKI, March 29 (Reuter) - Finland will be a net payer to
the European Union from its very first year of prospective
membership, a foreign ministry report showed on Tuesday.
	 Veli Sundback, permanent under-secretary of state at the
ministry, told a news conference the net membership fee would
rise year by year, but he declined to give any specific figure.
	 Finland reached a preliminary agreement with the EU on
membership terms this month in Brussels but the accord also
needs the approval of a national referendum, parliament, the EU
countries and the European Parliament.
	 Finland, like Austria, Norway and Sweden, aims to become a
member from January 1 next year.
	 Foreign Minister Heikki Haavisto told the news conference
Finland's annual net payments at a later stage may amount to
between two and three billion markka ($361 million to $542
million).
	 The effects of a Finnish membership of the EU were outlined
by the foreign ministry in the preliminary report.
	 It said Finnish payments to the EU would amount to 6.80
billion markka ($1.23 billion) in 1995 while EU payments to
Finland would be 6.45 billion markka ($1.16 billion) in that
first year of membership.
	 After the preliminary deal was reached with Brussels on
March 1, it was estimated in Helsinki that Finland would receive
700 million markka ($126.5 million) net during the first year of
membership.
	 One of the reasons for the changed calculations, Sundback
said, is that Finland has lowered its estimate for EU support to
Finnish agriculture.

  From: [email protected] (AP)
  Newsgroups: clari.world.europe.western,clari.news.gov.international,
	clari.news.election
  Subject: Norway To Hold EU Referendum
  Date: Tue, 12 Apr 94 6:30:11 PDT
 
	OSLO, Norway (AP) -- Norway will probably hold a national
referendum on European Union membership on Nov. 27 and 28, Prime
Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland said Tuesday.
	Brundtland met for nearly two hours with leaders of opposition
parties, as well as representatives of the main pro- and
anti-European organizations to discuss the dates.
	After the meeting, Brundtland confirmed that Nov. 28, two weeks
after neighboring Sweden votes on Nov. 13,, was the most likely
date. The other applicants, Finland and Austria, are also planning
national referendums on membership. Austria votes June 12.
	"It is a Monday, which we usually have as an election day in
this country. It is 14 days after the Swedish vote, which gives us
the opportunity, which many are concerned about in this country, to
know which choice Sweden and Finland have made," she said.
	Norwegian elections cover two days, with voters allowed to cast
their ballots on both Sunday and Monday.
	Brundtland's spokesman Oivind Ostang said the date still has to
be discussed by the government, and that it would take several
weeks before Brundtland presented a proposal to Parliament for
approval.
	Norwegians remain deeply split over EU membership, more than 20
years after the country narrowly rejected membership in a 1972
national referendum.
	Opponents of membership wanted the referendum on the same date
as Sweden's vote, because they feared that a Swedish "yes" could
sway the vote in Norway. Proponents wanted it after the Swedish
vote for the same reason.
	According to a poll published by the Nationen newspaper on
Tuesday, 45 percent of those asked said they would vote "no" if
the referendum were held simultaneously with Sweden. Of the 1,000
asked 28 percent said they would vote yes and 27 percent were
undecided. The report did not give a margin of error.

   From: [email protected] (Reuters)
   Newsgroups: clari.world.europe.western
   Subject: Help for farmers may delay Finnish EU membership
   Date: Thu, 14 Apr 94 5:10:06 PDT
 
	 HELSINKI, April 14 (Reuter) - The Finnish Foreign Minister
said he would not ask Finns to accept membership of the European
Union until it was known what extra help would go to its
farmers, Ilkka newspaper reported on Thursday.
	 "The negotiated result was not what was aimed for," Heikki
Haavisto was quoted as saying in the daily paper, referring to
Finland's deal with the EU on its hugely subsidised cold-climate
farming.
	 Finland, officially aiming at EU accession next year, has
agreed with the EU that it will be allowed to give national aid
to its farmers, plus EU subsidies, to offset their heavy losses
when they bring their prices into line with EU producers.
	 Haavisto told the newspaper he would recommend EU membership
only if the prospective national aid allowed would be good
enough "for the people to live with".
	 Haavisto is a member of the agrarian-based Centre Party, the
biggest group in the government and traditionally the custodian
of the farming and rural population's interests.
	 The government has not yet made its proposals to parliament
on national aid but says the bill may be drafted and a date for
a referendum on EU membership set next month.
	 Under the agreed EU deal Finland must come into line with EU
producer prices next January 1. This would mean a drop of 40 per
cent in average Finnish prices and 60 per cent for cereals.
	 Haavisto said he thought Finland could hold its referendum
concurrently with Sweden, which like Finland, Norway and Austria
also seeks EU membership from the start of next year.
	 The Swedes vote on November 13, and Haavisto was quoted as
saying this could delay accession beyond the beginning of 1995.
	 In Finland's Helsingin Sanomat on Thursday, senior Centre
Party politician Paavo Vayrynen renewed an earlier proposal that
Finland delay accession.
	 "It is impossible to make the national aid so good it will
safeguard the continuance of our farming even roughly at the
present level. And it will be hard to fund that aid when the
national budget is so deeply in deficit," Vayrynen wrote.
	 "A postponement by a couple of years would considerably help
Finnish adjustment. In those years we would be able to bring our
costs and prices down close to EU levels," he wrote.

    From: PETERSONAH%[email protected]
    Subject: SWEDEN AND THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
    To: International Swedish Interest discussion list
    	<[email protected]>
    Date: Mon, 16 May 1994 23:03:14 -0400
    
    The following opinions are my pros and cons to Sweden's entry into
    the European Economic Community:
    
    One of the arguments against entry is the desire to preserve Sweden's
    national culture. I am afraid that the culture has and will continue
    to be altered by the affect of global communications, especially in
    relation to American "pop" culture. Whether or not Sweden joins the
    European Community, this erosion will continue through the vehicles
    of travel, cinema, television, and literature. The remaining integrity
    of the Swedish culture could by protected by the government but the
    isolation of it would require a government totalitarianism in which
    the government determines what the population can view and read.
    
    Another problem that will confront sweden on entry into the
    CommonMarket is the freedom of movement of labor within the bloc.
    Sweden, with its high standard of living and extensive welfare system,
    could expect a wave of immigration from the more economically
    disadvantaged nations within the European Economic Community; this will
    cause a further deterioration of the Swedish culture, place a strain on
    its welfare system, create a problem for Swedish labor (e.g. immigrant
    labor willing to work at a low wage), cause a strain on housing, and
    result in a rise of xenophobia among elements of the Swedish population
    similar to the current situation in Germany. I have noticed the rise of
    xenophobia against immigrants during my recent two visits to Sweden.
    
    If, or when, Sweden does become a member of the Common Market, some
    Swedish industries will not be able to compete within the bloc and, as
    a consequence, will slowly disappear; others will be competitive.
    Swedish industry, in other words, will have to go through a wrenching
    restructuring. Members of my family are farmers in Smaland and they
    believe that their way of life will be threatened because the Swedish
    agricultural sector will not be able to compete with some of the other
    European nations. One of my cousins told me that the government's
    restrictions on the use of pesticides and other agriculture chemicals
    will put it at a disadvantage to farmers in other nations that are more
    lenient of non-organic farming methods. The latter have greater yields
    and less cost than the Swedish farmers. Sweden can be competitive in
    the high tech and precision manufacturing industries but it will have
    to compete with Germany and other nations in these sectors.
    
    The movement towards a common currenct within the EC community will
    present Sweden and the other nations with a large reduction in their
    economic autonomy; the government will no longer be able to adjust
    the economy with the tools of monetary policy and some elements of
    fiscal policy. As a consequence, it will lose what ever buffer it has
    against any nation's recession within the European Community.
    
    Sweden could attempt to establish conditions for its entry into the
    EC in order to minimize the preceding problems but one must question
    how much it can push the membership in relation to Sweden's demands
    and the EC's requirements.
    
    A reason for Sweden immediately becoming a member of the European
    Community is that if it does not "the train will leave the station"
    without Sweden. The reality is that the nations of the world are
    sacrificing some of their sovereignty in order to become members of
    trading blocs: the European Economic Community, the North American Free
    Trade Bloc, and in the predictable future a Pacific bloc that could
    include China, Japan, Indonesia, South Korea, Malaysia and Singapore.
    Within these blocs there will be no barriers on trade (e.g. quotas,
    tariffs, local content requirements) but it is possible and highly
    probable that there will be restrictions on outsider nations attempting
    to compete in an economic bloc's market. Sweden's current membership in
    the bloc that includes Iceland, Austria, and the other Scandinavian
    nations form a market that is extremely small compared to the North
    American and European Blocs and one problem is that more advanced
    technologies of production and economies of scale may not be viable if
    Sweden is hindered from competing in the larger markets.
    
    The industries of the trading blocs may have another cost advantage
    over Sweden if it decides not to enter the EC. Industries within the
    blocs will be able to utilize absolute advantage by disassembling the
    production process of a manufactured good and manufacture each
    component and assemble the product in those nations within their bloc
    that have an absolute cost and/or technological advantage within the
    bloc. For example, American automobiles are not 100% of American
    manufacture; the automobile corporations disassemble the manufacturing
    process and manufacture the various components and sub-systems in
    nations where they can gain the greatest cost advantage and assemble
    the final product in a nation that will do it at the lowest possible
    cost. This would place Swedish industry at another disadvantage if it
    decides to remain out of the European Economic Community.
    
    In conclusion, I believe that there are significant tradeoffs for
    Seden in its decision and the answer in not clear to me. I do not
    know what road Sweden should choose and perhaps you will take the
    time to critique my presentation and provide me with additional
    input.
          
    Sincerely,
    
    Alden Peterson
    Walker College of Business
    Appalachian State University
    Boone, North Carolina
    IN%"[email protected]"
        

    Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic
    From: [email protected] (Yli-Kuha Kari)
    Subject: Finland Sets the Date of EU Referendum
    Sender: [email protected] (#Kotilo NEWS system )
    Organization: Tampere University of Technology
    Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 09:53:51 GMT
 
    The [Finnish] Government has finally decided that the the Finnish EU
    referendum will be held at October 16th.
 
    Exact dates:
 
	Austria: June 12th
	Finland: Oct. 16th
	Sweden: Nov 13th
	Norway: Nov 27-28th
 
    There was also some talk that the Finnish referendum could be renewed
    if the result would be "unsatisfactory", i.e. Sweden would vote
    differently.

  --
  /Kari

    From: Michael Palmer <[email protected]>
    To: International Swedish Interest discussion list
    	<[email protected]>
    Date: Wed, 1 Jun 1994 13:59:38 -0600
    
    Last night I went to dinner with Andreas Ekman who was Assistant Under
    Secretary of State at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs from 1989 to
    1993 and is presently Minister for Economic Affairs with the Swedish
    Embassy in Washington, D.C. I asked him about this issue and he said
    that it is true that the EU parliament has only limited authority. 
    However, he also clearly indicated that the EU will and does have power
    to dictate policies in several areas to the member nations.  However,
    it is apparently the EU Commission which holds the power and the
    parliament apparently plays a role that even many member nations feel
    is disturbingly advisory in nature. 
    
    Mr. Ekman stated that many of the representatives in the EU Parliament
    have complained that the current role of the democratic process in the
    present power structure of the EU is minimal and unsatisfactory.  He
    indicated that the EU Commission will in fact determine policy for all
    member nations in areas such as defense, foreign policy, international
    and intramember trade, monetary and banking policy, business
    regulation, regulation of production and marketing (even domestically),
    agriculture, labor and employment laws, movement of citizens between
    member nations, and SOCIAL SERVICES.  He indicated that much of this is
    already predetermined by the 12,000 page treaty and that any new
    members will have little chance of changing those conditions.
    
    Mr. Ekman indicated that if Sweden joins the EU, she would pursue a
    policy of encouraging an improvement of the democratic process in the
    EU, as democracy is a strong Swedish tradition, and that through
    coalition politics Sweden will hopefully be able to effectively
    influence future EU policy.  However, he admitted that Sweden, alone,
    will be a minor player in the EU and as such can not be expected to
    influence EU policy except when it is Sweden's turn to be represented
    on the EU Commission. All-in-all, Mr. Ekman towed the line of the
    present Swedish government in indicating that membership in the EU will
    be a good and progressive thing for Sweden and Sweden's future.
    
    As far as nationalism, I think that it becomes a issue similar to
    States rights vs federalism that we have faced here in the US. 
    Certainly one would have to admit that there is a certain loss of
    nationalism when a European country gives up sovereignty (even just
    over those issues listed above).  
    
    The other issue in my mind is democracy.  The issue of the EU
    Parliament having little influence aside, representation in the
    Parliament, as I understand it, is strictly by population. Thus, less
    populated countries would have less of an influence.  In the US we have
    two houses - one in which the representation is determined by
    population, but the other in which each member state has equal
    representation and a compromise must be reached between the two houses
    to create new laws.  In contrast, it seems that a few very populated
    countries could conceivably control the EU Parliament.  
    
    I do not understand the basis of the membership in the EU Commission
    which apparently currently holds the power in the EU, but from what I
    have heard it seems that the only Nationalist policies pursued in that
    group will be in favor of the nations represented in that group.
    
    > No one is talking of supressing any European tradition. It is
    > contary to the entire spirit of the EU. It is designed to foster
    > them (albeit indirectly)
    
    To the contrary, it is my understanding that the only fostering of
    European tradition within the EU today (other than French or German
    tradition) is no more than rhetoric.  Certainly the Swedish traditions
    of strong social services and high quality food supplies will meet
    their demise in the EU. The Swedish tradition of snuff (snus)
    consumption will probably be outlawed.  The Swedish tradition of low
    unemployment has already met its demise as the current government
    shifts its economic policies to align with the EU.  I believe that
    there are numerous examples.
    
    It is not that I am against Sweden's joining the EU. Rather I think it
    is foolish to think of the EU as a the means to economic ends that will
    have little or no cost to Sweden. The question is whether the potential
    rewards will be worth the cost. To enter the EU agreement blindly,
    claiming that arguments against joining are uninformed B.S. is to ask
    for a rude awakening.
    
    Michael Palmer

             STOCKHOLM, Aug 12 (Reuter) - Supporters of Sweden's plan to
    join the European Union from 1996 are gaining on opponents, to
    the point where they are virtually neck-and-neck, an opinion
    poll published on Friday suggested.
             The apparent shift makes the result of a November 13 EU
    referendum look more open than ever, though about a fifth of
    those asked said they had still not decided how they would vote.
             In the survey, published by the Expressen daily, the level
    of support rose by three percentage points to 38 percent while
    opposition slipped back by one percentage point to 40 percent.
    The last similar Gallup-researched poll was published in June.
             The result confirmed the statistical trend seen in previous
    opinion polls in the run-up to the EU referendum -- that while
    about four in 10 Swedes have decided for sure where they stand,
    for or against, some 20 percent have not made up their minds.
             In the Expressen poll 23 percent said they were undecided, a
    fall of two percentage points since the last poll.
             Sweden is one of four countries hoping to join in 1996.
             While Austrians voted overwhelmingly in favour of membership
    in a June referendum, Finland, Sweden and Norway all plan to
    hold their plebiscites during a six-week period this autumn.
    

    Polls find EU opposition rising in Norway; Finns delaying decision
    
        Knight-Ridder
    
        Stockholm--Sep 16--Opposition to EU membership is hardening in
    Norway while the Finnish prime minister has suggested his government
    may delay a final decision on membership until the result of a
    Swedish EU referendum is known.
        According to the latest Opinion Institute poll in Norwegian daily
    Aftenposten today, 50 pct of Norwegians would vote against membership
    if a referendum was held now, 28 pct are in favor and 22 pct are
    undecided.
        The poll said almost all those asked in both the 'yes' and 'no'
    camps said they would not change their minds, irrespective of the
    result of Swedish and Finnish referenda.
        Norway set its referendum for Nov 28--the last of the three
    Nordic countries to hold an EU plebiscite--in the hope that the
    positive results expected in Sweden and Finland would tip the balance
    in favor of membership for Norway.
        The Norwegian poll comes in the wake of controversy in Finland
    where the Finnish Prime Minister Esko Aho has said that irrespective
    of the result of the Finnish referendum in October, the Finnish
    Eduskunta or parliament need not debate final instruments of
    accession until the result of the referendum in Sweden, one of
    Finland's main trading partners, is available.
        His statement suggested that Finland, previously the only one of
    the three Nordic applicant nations deemed a certain member, may be
    having second thoughts on  membership if Sweden says 'no'..
        The right-of-center Finnish government under Aho has been
    increasingly worried for its political future because of widespread
    anger in the agricultural community over the terms of entry.
        Finnish agriculture, a highly emotive issue in Finland, receives
    major subsidies to take the length of transport lines and harsh
    climatic conditions into account. EU membership will roughly halve
    farm earnings after an initial roll-over period of national subsidy.
        In the latest poll, 38 pct of those asked said they would vote in
    favor of Finnish membership, 31 pct were against and 31 pct remain
    undecided.  End
        By Julian Isherwood Knight-Ridder Financial News
        +46-8-223260-502
                                     

             STOCKHOLM, Sept 19 (Reuter) - Fellow-politicians in Western
    Europe acclaimed Sweden's Social Democratic Party election win
    as a boost to the left, aiding the Scandinavian nation's chances
    of endorsing European Union membership.
             Swedish newspapers took a wary line. Newspapers urged the
    party, which failed by 134 votes to gain an overall majority, to
    build a coalition with parties to the right to prevent political
    and financial chaos.
             The SDP's return to power may help persuade voters to say
    ``yes'' to EU membership in a referendum in November, the French
    daily Le Monde said on Monday.
             Party leader Ingvar Carlsson said he will form a new
    government after winning Sunday's general election when voters
    swung left from the centre-right coalition of defeated prime
    minister Carl Bildt.
             The victory was hailed by German and Finnish Social Democrat
    leaders, each facing elections.
             ``From chaos comes even more chaos. This could...be the
    result of yesterday's election,'' the independent liberal
    Sydsvenska Dagbladet said in an editorial.
             ``The only road away from chaos and a serious confidence
    crisis for the Swedish economy is a government across party
    lines,'' it said.
             In Helsinki, the head of the Finnish Social Democratic Party
    welcomed the outcome, saying it augured success for the party
    in Finland's election next March. Like in Sweden before Sunday's
    election, neighbouring Finland has a centre-right coalition.
             Both countries have deep economic problems with wide budget
    deficits, growing state debts and high unemployment.
             In Bonn, Rudolf Scharping, leader of Germany's opposition
    Social Democrats facing an election this month, congratulated
    Carlsson, declaring:
             ``We hope that soon after the decision of the Swedish people,
    you will bring your long and successful experience in creating a
    democratic and socially just society into the European Union.''
             Sweden's daily Aftonbladet said: ``The Social Democrats
    received strong support for their programme, but not so strong
    that Carlsson himself can build the strong majority government
    needed to bring about a firm economic policy,''
             In Oslo, Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland
    hailed the win as a boost for the left in  Europe, but
    Norwegians disagree whether it could influence their European
    Union referendum, also in November.
             Brundtland's government has warned voters that Norway would
    be isolated if it rejected EU membership while Sweden voted to
    join the powerful bloc.
             Per Norvik, political editor of daily Aftenposten, agreed
    the Swedish election outcome could indirectly influence Norway's
    referendum.
             Portuguese Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso told
    a Lisbon news conference: ``I am not convinced (the election
    result) will damage Sweden's adherence to the European Union.
             ``We have faith that Sweden will become part of the European
    Union from the start of next year.''
             Le Monde said in an editorial: ``The general opinion is that
    the success of the Social Democrats on Sunday is a good thing
    for supporters of (EU) membership.
             But Le Monde said Carlsson would have to work rapidly to
    bring financial order to Sweden if he wanted the country to be a
    full member of the EU. Sweden is struggling with a gigantic
    budget deficit swollen by generous welfare handouts.
             Swedes vote on November 13 on whether to join the EU, and
    aim to join from January along with Finland, Norway and Austria.
    Polls show that Swedes are deeply split.
    

    ========================================================================
            HELSINKI, Finland (AP) -- Finland said ``yes'' to joining the
    European Union in a referendum Sunday, the first of three Nordic
    ballots that could enlarge the community by millions of people.
            With more than half the votes counted, officials said 57.2
    percent of voters said ``yes'' to membership and 42.8 percent were
    opposed. Some 4 million people were eligible to vote in the nation
    of 5 million.
            ``A clear majority wants our country to join the European
    Union,'' said Martti Ahtisaari in a nationally broadcast speech.
            ``It's clear that the people are supporting the government's
    policy,'' Prime Minister Esko Aho said.
            The referendum was non-binding and the parliament now must make
    a final decision. Most of the 200 legislators have said they will
    respect the referendum outcome.
            Nordic leaders hope the ``yes'' vote will influence neighboring
    Swedes and Norwegians to accept membership in their referendums
    Nov. 13 and Nov. 27.
        ``I would like to congratulate Finland on a clear result,'' said
    Swedish Prime Minister Ingvar Carlsson. ``I would also like to
    congratulate Europe, this is a step forward for European
    cooperation.''
            Carlsson's predecessor, Carl Bildt, who was instrumental in
    hammering out the membership plans and referendums during his term
    that ended last month, said the Finnish vote ``will have a great
    impact on the Swedish referendum.''
            ``This is a way for us to strengthen Nordic cooperation and the
    Nordic influence in Europe,'' Bildt said. ``I believe in a
    renaissance for Nordic cooperation within the framework of the
    European Union.''
            With the Nordic nations and Austria, the EU would grow to 16
    members encompassing some 375 million people.
            Finland was the first of the three Nordic countries to vote.
    After a long recession and decades in the Soviet shadow, this small
    nation on the northeastern edge of Europe is hoping for stronger
    ties with western Europe.
            Sharing a 1,270-kilometer (790-mile) border with Russia,
    Finland fought two bitter wars against the Soviet Union to keep its
    independence. During the Cold War, the Finns subjected their
    foreign policy decisions for Moscow's tacit approval, but the
    breakup of the Soviet Union gave them new freedom.
            ``Now the situation has changed,'' Tapani Vaahtoranta from
    Helsinki's Foreign Policy Institute said before the vote. ``Finland
    is jumping out, through the window of opportunity, to formally
    become a part of western Europe.''
            The main EU opponents were Finnish farmers, who are afraid they
   will have to compete against cheaper produce from warmer climates
    in Europe. Some Finns also feared a loss of independence.
            But the Finance Ministry says the net gain from membership next
    year would be 1.2 billion markkaa (dlrs 250 million), mainly from
    EU agricultural subsidies and other compensation.

    ========================================================================
             STOCKHOLM, Oct 16 (Reuter) - Swedes are divided over whether 
    to follow the Finns and join the European Union (EU), opinion polls show.
             Since his election last month Carlsson has said he will not
    make his government take a forceful pro-membership stand because
    of the division in the SDP, which extends into his cabinet.
             Instead, the government will campaign for Swedes to
    participate in the vote without backing one side.
             Recent opinion polls have shown the number of Swedish
    supporters virtually drawing level with the number of opponents
    after lagging behind for about six months.
             A large percentage remain undecided, however, and most
    politicians agree the pattern of 40 percent against, 40 percent
    for and 20 percent unsure -- shown in most recent polls --
    contains no clear message for either side.
             Carlsson himself is a strong EU proponent and he and other
    SDP leaders will conduct what he calls ``a traditional Swedish
    campaign of debate'', touring the country and trying to whittle
    down the strong opposition, especially inside his own party.
             About 45 percent of SDP members say they are still against
    the EU, however, with opinion polls showing 30 percent in favour
    and the remainder undecided.
             Both pro- and anti-Europe activists in Sweden pledged to
    step up their campaigns after Finland joined Austria as the
    second of four current EU applicants to accept membership.
             Union opponents, who say Sweden could be forced to give up
    its neutral status and have to join Western European defence
    alliances if it becomes an EU member, said the result did not
    diminish the grounds for voting ``No''.
             ``There is still every reason to guard Sweden's
    independence,'' said Hakan Larsson, spokesman for the so-called
    Movement against EU.
             Sweden is the largest and richest of the three Nordic EU
    applicants and also has a very internationally-oriented economy,
    probably more than either Finland or Norway.
             It relies heavily on the EU for most of its trade and its
    state finances -- among the most precarious in the Western world
    -- are dependent on foreign investor support.
             Financial markets say only a Swedish ``Yes'' vote will keep
    the foreign money flowing into the currency, the crown, and into
    hundreds of billions of crowns (tens of billions of dollars)
    worth of government loan stock, known as bonds.
             Former Prime Minister Carl Bildt, who negotiated Sweden's EU
    accession in March and set the date for the referendum before
    losing power in a September election, welcomed the result.
             Unlike Carlsson, he said he firmly expected it would have a
    significant effect in turning public opinion towards a Yes vote.    

    The latest SIFO polls and results from the Swedish EU referendum should
    be accesible by way of the World Wide Web (WWW) on:
    
    http://www.swip.net/eu/swedish/home.html

            STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) -- She has swayed the nation and scared
    politicians. On Tuesday, the 80-year-old creator of ``Pippi
    Longstocking'' struck again by criticizing the European Union just
    five days before Swedes vote on whether to join.
            Swedes should reject EU membership in the Sunday referendum in
    order to protect farm animals from cruel treatment, said Astrid
    Lindgren, in an article signed by herself and veterinarian Kristina
    Forslund in the daily newspaper Dagens Nyheter.
            Few Swedes in or out of politics have as much clout as the
    frail, wrinkled Lindgren. Like her Pippi Longstocking -- the girl
    who disrupts the adult world with supernatural powers -- Lindgren
    has a history of making Swedish leaders tremble when she uses her
    influence in politics.
            Her comments could give a major boost to opponents, who have
    gained ground in opinion polls in the last week after trailing for
    months.
            A poll last Sunday by the SIFO institute gave opponents a
    slight edge, with 42 percent against, 40 percent in favor and 17 percent
    undecided. The poll last week had an error margin of three
    percentage points.
            Apparently shaken by the figures, Prime Minister Ingvar
    Carlsson and other prominent EU supporters have started warning about 
    the consequences of losing the referendum.
            But while Carlsson says rejecting EU membership could bring
    isolation and economic hardships, Lindgren's concern for animals
    touches a soft spot.
            In the late 1980s, Lindgren triggered a debate about
    prison-like conditions for farm animals. Her criticism led to laws 
    improving conditions for sheep and cattle and requiring more capacious 
    coops for chickens.
            Carlsson made a show of ``giving'' her the law as a birthday
    present.
            In Tuesday's article, Lindgren and the veterinarian Forslund
    said they want to protect the reforms. They claimed EU membership
    would seriously hurt conditions for animals.
            ``Animals are but merchandise in the EU ... while our Swedish
    animals no longer are `production units','' they wrote.
            They wrote that Swedish farmers trying to compete with other EU
    countries may have to use fodder spiked with antibiotics and to
    ship the livestock alive over long distances to cut costs.
            ``When the EU gives us the right to protect our animals against
    contamination and suffering, and to view them as living, feeling
    creatures ... then we can join. Until then, we shall for the sake
    of our farmers and tame and wild animals vote `no','' they wrote.
            About 200 veterinarians issued a statement supporting
    Lindgren's claims. They said Sweden's regular inspections of imported 
    meat would vanish with the EU, opening up Sweden for a variety of
    diseases.
            The government's veterinary expert, Martin Virup, disputed
    their fears as exaggerated and said controls may actually improve under
    EU regulations.
            A Stockholm newspaper this week conducted a random survey of
    farms and found that most may be cleaner than in the EU but that
    their food is often of lower quality and more expensive.
            Most of Sweden's leading politicians, industries and businesses
    support membership.
            Sweden's Minister of Finance Goeran Persson, struggling to cure
    a huge budget deficit, has warned that a ``no'' would have
    ``serious consequences'' for the Swedish economy.
            He said this week that interest rates would rise, investments
    shrink and the country's $180 billion national debt deepen.
            Interest rates have rocketed and share prices tumbled on
    Swedish markets since the opinion polls started showing the ``no'' camp
    gaining ground.    

             STOCKHOLM, Nov 10 (Reuter) - Sweden's industrial giants have
    issued a dire warning that a No vote in Sunday's European Union
    referendum could sap the nation of its lifeblood -- investments.
             Influential top managers of the country's best-known
    bluechip firms are publicly appealing for a Yes vote and are now
    holding their breath awaiting the result of the referendum which
    opinion polls predict will be very close.
             The heads of the country's top four exporting firms -- car
    and truck maker Volvo, telecommunications group Ericsson, paper
    maker Stora, and Swiss-Swedish engineering giant ABB -- said in
    a joint newspaper article they were planning investments in the
    next five years totalling up to 50 billion crowns ($7 billion).
             The four, who answer for one-third of the country's exports,
    said a No vote in the EU referendum could leave firms
    dangerously isolated in the tiny Swedish domestic market.
             Around 90 percent of Volvo's sales are outside Sweden and 53
    percent are in Europe. It has produced a glossy brochure
    explaining why it supports joining the EU from next year.
             ``Membership of the EU would strengthen Swedish industrial
    competitive power and boost employment, vital preconditions for
    Volvo's activities in Sweden,'' it says.
             Ericsson has also proudced a campaign document saying why it
    thinks membership is vital.
             ``The expected benefits for investments, Sweden's chance to
    influence the new Europe, lower interest rates, a stable crown
    and political stability all weigh strongly,'' it says.
             Sweden's forestry industry, among the world's largest, has
    also thrown its hat into the debating ring.
             The four biggest pulp and paper firms -- Stora, SCA, MoDo,
    AssiDoman -- published a joint newspaper article last month
    promising unspecified ``measures'' if Sweden stayed out of the
    Union and their rivals in Finland, which approved EU membership
    in an October 16 referendum, joined.
             ``If Sweden votes No to EU we will be forced to contemplate
    the issue of where to invest,'' Stora chief executive and
    president Lars-Ake Helgesson said.
             Corporate Sweden has been careful with its wording, trying
    not to sound too threatening, but it clearly feels its
    international credibility and its eternal desire to have a level
    competitive playing field are on the line.
             Around 75 percent of Sweden's exports go to EU countries or
    to countries hoping to become members.
             ``With a Yes there will be increased investment in Sweden,
    both by Swedes and foreigners,'' said Per Magnus Wijkman, chief
    economist at the Federation of Swedish Industries,
             ``With a No, there will be a tendency for both Swedes and
    foreigners to invest in the Community rather than in Sweden.''
             A survey of 400 companies conducted by the Federation showed
    that around one in three plan to increase investments in Sweden
    if it says Yes to the EU.
             It will take more than joining the EU to suddenly trigger a
    wave of investments in Sweden. ``Membership in itself is not a
    magic cure for the fundamental problems facing the Swedish
    economy,'' Wijkman said. ``For that, policies that stimulate
    industrial growth are necessary.''
             Many economists say one likely advantage of EU membership
    would be a more disciplined fiscal policy, leading to increased
    credibility for the government's efforts to cut massive state
    debt and thus lower interest rates.
             ``The important indirect effect for the industrial sector is
    reducing the drain of savings into financing the state deficit,''
    Wijkman said.
             ``The precondition for this indirect effect is that the
    government itself conducts a strenuous policy to reduce the
    deficit. It if doesn't want to do this, membership won't help.''
             Corporate Sweden's nightmare scenario, which no one wants to
    talk about, is a No vote.
             Those likely to be hit the hardest by such a result are
    inflexible small and medium-sized companies, while any gradual
    erosion of the industrial base would hurt those seeking jobs.
             ``The disadvantage of Sweden being outside would fall
    primarily on the population, not necessarily on the big
    companies which have the alternative of moving,'' Wijkman said.

            HELSINKI, Nov 10 (Reuter) - Finland's parliament is likely
    to approve membership of the European Union as opponents are
    unable to muster a blocking vote, a national radio poll said on
    Thursday.
             The Finnish Broadcasting Company survey showed 43 of the 200
    MPs were against joining, a figure well short of the one third
    of parliament, or 67 members, needed to reject accession under
    parliamentary rules.
             Under the rules, a ``Yes'' vote by two thirds of parliament is
    needed to pass the accession bill, which goes into a third and
    final reading next Monday and could go to a vote late next week.
             The results are in line with other surveys indicating little
    shift in sentiment among MPs since the Finnish referendum of
    October 16.
             Finns then voted 57 percent to 43 in favour of joining the
    EU, and most members of parliament were afterwards polled as
    saying they consider that advisory ballot as morally binding.
             Most opposition came from the divided Centre Party, the
    biggest group in parliament and government, and from the Leftist
    Alliance, a front dominated by former communists, the broadcast
    said.
             Anti-EU forces say the accession would not provide enough
    protection for Finland's heavily subsidised cold-climate
    agriculture and would ill reduce Finnish sovereignty.

             STOCKHOLM, Nov 11 (Reuter) - Sweden's 6.5 million voters go
    to the polls on Sunday to decide whether to join the European
    Union, with latest opinion polls showing a nailbitingly close
    race between supporters and opponents.
             Two polls published on Friday showed around 60 percent of
    voters will reject membership or are still undecided.
             One poll, in the Dagens Nyheter daily, showed supporters and
    opponents tied on 40 percent and the undecided at a remarkably
    high 20 percent just 48 hours before voting begins.
             Another poll, by the SIFO institute published in the
    Goteborgs-Posten daily, gave supporters 42 percent of the vote
    and opponents 39 percent.
             Pollsters pointed out that both polls fell within the
    statistical margin of error of around five percent which means
    that the result could go either way.
             Sweden's vote will br crucial to a similar referendum due to
    be held in neighbouring Norway on November 28, where opposition
    has been strongest.
             However two opinion polls published in Oslo on Friday showed
    for the first time since April that Norwegians could vote for
    membership if Sweden does.
             One poll gave supporters a five-percentage point lead over
    opponents if Sweden votes ``Yes'' while another showed the two
    camps with equal support.
             Swedish Finance Minister Goran Persson issued a clear
    warning to Swedes on Friday that severe spending cuts would be
    necessary if the country decided to stay outside the European
    Union.
             Persson told Reuters in the arctic town of Lulea that he
    could not raise taxes any more. ``If we are forced to do more, we
    will have to do it through spending cuts,'' he said.
             Sweden's pro-European political and business establishment,
    slow to realise anti-EU supporters had grabbed the initiative,
    has launched a public offensive to try to secure the 20 percent
    of voters who have still to make up their minds.
             ``How can half of the Swedish electorate be prepared to vote
    against membership?'' the respected liberal Dagens Nyheter daily
    wrote in an editorial on Friday.
             The pro-EU campaign has failed to impress average Swedes
    outside the main cities, who fear the imposition of rule from
    Brussels will slash into Sweden's high standard of living and
    comprehensive welfare state.
             ``Sweden is suffering from a superiority complex. We fear
    integration will drag us down to a European average, that
    outside influences jeopardise Swedish welfare and living
    standards,'' Dagens Nyheter said.
             Finland voted last month to join the EU with a 57 to 43
    percent majority. But EU opponents have forced a postponement of
    the parliamentary vote on adhesion until next week.
             Opponents in Finland have said they hope a Swedish ``No'' vote
    will persuade enough deputies to change their minds. A
    two-thirds majority is needed for Finland to adhere to the EU.
             In Sweden, all parties have said they will respect the
    referendum decision.
             Financial markets, volatile ahead of the referendum, are
    expected to swing violently in Sweden when they reopen on Monday
    morning, whatever the outcome.
             In case of a Yes vote, analysts predict a five percent jump
    in the share market and a sharp fall in interest rates, while
    the crown should strengthen appreciably.
             If Sweden votes No, the market reaction is expected to be
    even more violent, with an up to 10 percent fall in the crown
    and shares predicted.

    Sweden yesterday voted Yes to the European Union
    
    52.2% against 46.9% (some 0.9% blank votes)
    
    The difference were some 278.000 votes....
    
    Paul.

    ========================================================================
             STOCKHOLM (Reuter) - Sweden voted Sunday to join Finland and
    Austria as new members of the European Union beginning January
    1995.
             Final results showed 2.79 million Swedes (52.2 percent)
    voted for membership and 2.52 million (46.9 percent) voted
    against, with 48,179 (0.9 percent) casting blank votes.
             ``Sweden will now be part of creating a peaceful and
    democratic Europe,'' Prime Minister Ingvar Carlsson told
    reporters.
             ``This is a great day for Sweden,'' former prime minister
    and ardent pro-European Carl Bildt said.
             The result confirmed opinion polls published before the
    referendum, only the fourth in Sweden's history, which indicated
    that a last-gasp campaign to persuade voters to join the EU the
    week before the vote was successful.
             Anxious financial markets were expected to react positively
    when European traders start work Monday.
             Less than one percent of voters opted to record a ``blank''
    vote for those who could not make their minds up.
             Austria and Finland have already voted to join the EU and
    Norway is due to vote Nov. 28.
             Opponents of EU membership have dominated in Norwegian
    opinion polls, although some polls indicated that a ``yes'' vote
    by Swedes could persuade more Norwegians to agree to membership.
             Turnout in the referendum was 82 percent, the highest
    recorded for a Swedish referendum. Previous referenda included
    votes on driving on the right hand side of the road and on
    prohibition.
             As expected, rural and arctic areas voted overwhelmingly
    against membership.
             Farmers and Lapps in the far north, who mistrust the
    government in Stockholm, saw Brussels as an even greater evil.
             However these sparsely populated areas were overwhelmed by
    the population centers of Stockholm, Gothenberg and Malmo, where
    pro-European sentiment is at its highest.
             A similar phenomenon occurred in Finland, where widespread
    support for membership in southern population centers overcame
    rural opposition to ensure a final 57 percent ``yes'' vote.
             The pattern is expected to continue when Norway votes in two
    weeks' time, with northern and rural voters expected to come
    down heavily against membership.
    ========================================================================
             BRUSSELS, Nov 13 (Reuter) - Outgoing European Commission
    President Jacques Delors welcomed the Swedish people's vote to
    join the European Union as a vote of confidence in Europe and
    said he regretted his term would be up before Sweden joined.
             ``I am very happy with the success of the `yes' (vote) in the
    Swedish referendum for two reasons,'' Delors told reporters.
             ``First, because this is a vote of confidence to the
    continent of Europe, and second because we are very pleased to
    enrich the European Union by the contribution of Sweden's social
    and environmental policies,'' he said.
             Delors, who leaves the Commission in January after 10 years
    as its president, said he regretted not having started his
    period in office with the support of Sweden because of its
    policies in domains such as these and women's rights.
             Asked what his message was for those Swedes, especially in
    the rural north, who voted against EU membership, Delors said
    that joining the EU ``will not break the chain of solidarity
    between southern Sweden and northern Sweden''.
             Delors said that ``perhaps Norway needs the European Union''
    -- a reference to the decision Norwegians will take on November
    28 in the last of four referenda in the current round of EU
    enlargement. Austria and Finland have already voted to join.
             In the Hague, Dutch Foreign minister Hans van Mierlo on
    Sunday also welcomed the results. ``We hope that the outcome of
    this vote will have a positive effect on the result of the
    referendum in Norway,'' Van Mierlo said.

            OSLO, Norway (AP) -- Proponents of the European Union made
    strong gains Tuesday in the first opinion polls published after 
    Sweden voted for membership, although the ``no'' side remained in the
    lead.
            Norwegians will vote Nov. 28 in a non-binding referendum on EU
    membership, and the ``yes'' side hopes that neighboring Sweden's
    approval of membership Sunday will sway a large bloc of doubters
    towards membership.
            In opinion polls released after the Swedish vote, support for
    membership ranged from 37 to 42 percent, gains of four to six
    percentage points from surveys done before the referendum.
            The ``no'' side gained in some polls and lost in others,
    ranging from 45 percent to 58 percent against.
            Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland predicted that
    the ``yes'' side would continue its climb, since Sweden approved
    membership and Finnish voters said ``Yes'' month ago.
            ``This is just the beginning,'' she told the Norwegian news
    agency NTB. ``People will understand that Norway cannot stand
    isolated outside the EU when Sweden and Finland go in.''
            A poll published Tuesday by the Oslo newspaper Aftenposten
    indicated a five percentage point gain for the ``Yes'' side to 40
    percent, and a two point gain to 48 percent for the ``No'' side.
            The poll, conducted by the Opinion institute, said 12 percent
    were still undecided.
            Another survey, conducted for the Dagbladet newspaper by the
    MMI institute, said proponents gained four points to 42 percent and
    those opposed fell the same amount to 58 percent.
            A Feedback Research survey said the ``Yes'' side gained five
    percentage points to 39,7 percent, while the opponents declined two
    percentage points to 46,3 percent, according to the Drammens
    Tidende newspaper. The others were undecided.
            In a poll by the Norsk Gallup institute for the TV-2 television
    network on Monday, those favoring membership gained six percentage
    points to 37 percent, while the ``no'' side gained one percentage
    point to 45 percent, while 18 percent were undecided.
            In Norwegian EU polls, the survey institutes generally ask
    about 1,000 people by telephone, which gives a margin of error of 
    three percentage points.
    ========================================================================
            OSLO, Norway (AP) -- A day after Swedes voted to join the
    European Union, Norway's voters -- who had been leaning against
    joining the trading bloc -- began to feel the effects of ``Swedish
    suction.''
            ``I have been against the EU the whole time, but after the vote
    in Sweden, a `No' would be meaningless,'' said Jan Otto Fredagsvik,
    a parliament member who switched sides Monday. ``It would be
    unnatural for Norway to part ways with the rest of the Nordic
    countries.''
            A poll taken after Sunday's referendum in Sweden showed
    opponents of joining the EU still ahead in Norway. But those in
    favor were closing the gap two weeks ahead of the Nov. 28 Norwegian
    vote. 
            Sweden's economy is by far the largest of the Nordic countries,
    and its actions often influence events in neighboring countries, an
    effect widely known as ``Swedish suction.''
            Norwegian rejection of EU membership would leave it isolated in
    the region. Denmark already is an EU member and Finns voted for
    membership earlier this year.
            TV-2 said a poll Monday showed 37 percent saying they would
    vote for membership -- a gain of six percentage points from a poll
    conducted by the network last week.
            But opponents also gained a bit of ground, rising one point to
    45 percent of the respondents. The station did not say how many
    people were surveyed or state a margin of error for the poll.
            Opponents vowed a fierce battle.
            ``We will win if we press on,'' said Anne Enger Lahnstein,
    leader of the largest anti-membership party, the Center. ``Now the
    battle begins.''
            Norwegians narrowly rejected membership in a 1972 national
    referendum, despite government, industry and newspaper warnings
    that a ``No'' would have dire economic consequences.
            Those warnings haunt the ``Yes'' side, which uses many of the
    same arguments now, because Norway has become Western Europe's
    largest oil exporter and is in the midst of an economic upswing.        

   From: [email protected] (Steinar Kj�rnsr�d)
   Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic,eunet.politics,alt.politics.ec
   Subject: Live on the Internet - Norway's Votation for Membership in EU
   Date: 21 Nov 1994 14:50:07 +0100
   Organization: Oslonett public access
 
   Live on the Internet - Norway's votation for the European Union 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------
 
    While probably not so interesting as Stones' live event some days ago,
    Oslonett is happy to announce another upcoming live event of potential
    interest to all Norwegians abroad:
                                                             
    Results and news from Norway's votation for membership in the European
    Union on November 28 will be made available live through the World Wide
    Web.
 
    Tune in your Web client at URL
 
    http://www.oslonett.no/EU/EU.html
 
    and help us spread the word to all Norwegians around the Internet.
 
    Wire news messages will start to flow by the end of next week.
 
- steinar kjaernsrod (Oslonett Inc)  | mail to [email protected]        |
  [email protected]             | for information on Oslonett Inc |
  ---------------------------------- | ------------------------------- |
  Personal profile    http://www.oslonett.no/html/profiles/steinar.html|
  Company  profile    http://www.oslonett.no/html/adv/ON/ON.html       |

             OSLO, Nov 22 (Reuter) - Barring the unforeseen, Norway will
    reject membership of the European Union next week and choose
    relative isolation on the northern periphery of Europe.
             The Norwegian referendum will cap a series of popular votes
    in which Austria, Finland and Sweden have decided to join the
    enlarged Union from January 1.
             A country with a booming economy based on oil exports,
    Norway as the Union's 16th member would be a net contributor to
    Brussels coffers and an addition to its environmentalist bloc.
             But if opinion polls are any guide, a majority of the three
    million eligible voters will say ``No'' on November 28.
             The emotional campaign has pitted Norway's two leading women
    politicians against each other and an anti-European Union
    countryside against an ambivalent urban population.
             Queen of the ``No to EU'' side is Anne Enger Lahnstein, who
    heads the agrarian-based Centre Party, the second largest in
    parliament. Lahnstein is crusading against EU membership because
    she fears it would lead to a loss of sovereignty to a distant
    bureacracy in Brussels and an erosion of Norwegian values.
             Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland, who heads a Labour
    Party minority government, has warned voters against throwing
    away an historic chance to help influence European affairs. She
    says staying outside the Union would lead to fewer investments
    and the loss of jobs.
             Brundtland is a veteran politician who has fought her way of
    out of tight spots before, but her party is divided on the EU
    issue which cuts right through society.
             European integration has been a sensitive issue in Norway
    since the country voted 53.5 percent to 46.5 percent to reject
    membership in the then European Economic Community in 1972.
             The vote came after an acrimonious debate that split
    families and left deep scars in society. Trygve Bratteli,
    Brundtland's Labour predecessor, threatened to resign if the
    voters did not say ``Yes.'' They rejected him and he had to step
    down.
             Brundtland, mindful of Bratteli's fate, has made it clear
    she would respect the outcome of the referendum, which is
    non-binding, and stay in office if Lahnstein's movement won.
             EU supporters, as well as many analysts, had thought that
    neighbouring Sweden's narrow ``Yes'' vote on November 13 would
    create a domino effect and help tip the balance in Norway.
    Sweden is Norway's main trade partner.
             But the ``No'' movement still held an average eight percent
    margin in polls a week before the referendum and chances
    appeared slim that the ``Yes'' camp would catch up.
             ``The effect of the Swedish vote does not show,'' said Henry
    Valen, professor of sociology of Oslo's Institute for Social
    Research. ``I don't know what it would take for it to show. Maybe
    a miracle.''
             Central Bank Governor Thorstein Moland has said a potential
    rejection of membership has been more or less priced into the
    bond and currency markets.
             About 14 percent of voters were undecided, however, and
    could hold the key to the outcome.
             The government, fearing isolation, applied for EU membership
    in 1992 after the Swedes and the Finns.
             While Sweden and Finland saw economic incentives in voting
    for EU membership, many Norwegians seem to lack a reason.
             Nils Morten Udgaard, diplomatic correspondent at the daily
    Aftenposten, said: ``With no external threat perceived, no real
    internal economic hardship experienced and a population that
    senses a mental distance to Europe, convincing a majority to
    vote for EU membership is an uphill task.''
             Valen said: ``The debate is deadlocked. The explanation can
    only be found in geography, history and the social structure.''
             In the Finnish and Swedish referendums, pro-EU urban
    populations were big enough to outweigh the rejection by the
    people who live in the country.
             But Norway's population, experts say, is essentially rural
    and many city dwellers still look upon themselves as ``displaced
    farmers.''
             Even the head of the Oslo city assembly, Rune Gerhardsen, is
    a prominent opponent of EU membership.
             The core of the protests stems from farmers afraid they
    might lose government subsidies and fishermen worried about the
    competition from EU trawler fleets in Norwegian waters.
             Norwegians also have an ingrained contempt of being pushed
    around by foreigners after being ruled by Denmark for 400 years
    and then belonging to a lopsided union with Sweden for nearly a
    century. Norway left the Union with Sweden in 1905.
             ``Our resistance against the EU is based on the experiences
    of generations,'' Lahnstein told a cheering anti-EU rally of more
    than 20,000 in Oslo last Saturday, one of the biggest political
    manifestations in memory in Norway.
             ``We do not want to be ruled from abroad,'' she added.
             A ``Yes'' rally earlier this month in Oslo drew only 7,500.
             Brundtland says the Norwegians must sit at the table in
    Brussels in order to help influencing decision-making that will
    affect them anyway.
             Should Norway miss this opportunity, it would have to wait
    until the next decade after East European states have completed
    accession talks with the Union, she says.
             The government argues that Norway, which shares an arctic
    border with Russia, needs to join the Western European Union
    (WEU), the EU's defence arm, now that the Cold War is over.
             The ``No'' side says Norway's security is looked after through
    its membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).

    To: International Swedish Interest discussion list                
    From: Roald Steen <[email protected]>
    
    I listened to the news from Radio Sweden at 1545 GMT today.  The news
    summary began with a description of a number of tax increases which the
    Swedish government has decided necessary in order to pay for the
    Swedish EU membership.
    
    The cost of a EU membership was known before the referendum, and the
    finance ministry must also have know that they needed additional taxes
    to pay for the cost of a membership.
    
    Therefore, the information about the tax increases should have been
    published before the referendum if the election was to be a fair one in
    which each Swedish voter could base his or her vote on as much
    available information as possible.
    
    When this information in stead has been released a little more than a
    week after the referendum, the reason was most likely a desire to avoid
    something which could turn a lot more Swedish voters towards a No vote. 
    In fact, had this information been available before the referendum, it
    is not impossible to think that the referendum might have resulted in a
    No majority.
    
    I do not understand the Swedish tax system too well, but one of the
    steps was described as a 1.5 per cent raise in a fee which the
    employers pay to the government.  If I interpret this correctly, it
    means that the Swedish employers must now pay a 1.5 per cent new
    surcharge to the government on the salaries that are paid out.
    
    This step will in the long run result in a similar reduction in the
    wages paid, since the employers must get the money from somewhere.
    
    Property taxes on agricultural properties will go up, and there will be
    a 0.5 per cent new surcharge to the government on the cost of
    industrial construction, if I understood Radio Sweden correct.
    
    All this information should have been released to the voters prior to
    the referendum, and not concealed until just after the referendum.

Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic         
From: [email protected] (Jon-Ivar Skullerud)
Organization: Edinburgh University
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 1994 10:16:27 GMT
 
Norway has said YES to Europe, YES to international cooperation and NO
to the Union.
 
Latest results (9:29), with 96.7% of the votes counted:
52.5% NO  47.5% YES
 
The Yes side won 5 counties: Oestfold 53% (which had a No majority in
'72), Vestfold 57.1%, Akershus 63.2%, Oslo 66.4% and Buskerud 57%.  All
other counties had a No majority, of up to 74% in Finnmark.
 
Trondheim went from a slender No in '72 to Yes (54%) now.
Bergen had its Yes majority substantially reduced -- down to just 51.4%
before the advance votes were counted.
    
The Yes majority also decreased in Stavanger, but not by far as much.
 
The turnout was a splendid 88%
 
--
jon ivar skullerud
[email protected]
    
    ========================================================================
            BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- In a sobering note to euphoric ``No''
    voters rejecting European Union membership, top EU officials said
    Tuesday Norway could not avoid being largely integrated into the
    giant economic bloc.
            ``We are still linked with Norway,'' said EU Commission
    President Jacques Delors.
            He pointed out that Norway must play by many of the EU's rules
    because it is a member of European Economic Area which guarantees
    free movement of goods, capital and people, between the EU and
    Norway.
            ``We should not overdramatize,'' added the EU Foreign Affairs
    Chief Hans van den Broek,' noting Norway was firmly anchored to
    Europe through the EEA, NATO and other international institutions
    despite Monday's snub to the EU.
            ``The Norwegian people are taking the risk of living right next
    to an enormous economic alliance whose rules will be imposed on it,
    without Norway having a say in the drafting and application of
    these rules,'' said France's minister for European affairs, Alain
    Lamassoure.
            Despite disappointment with the Norwegian vote, EU leaders said
    the drive for further expansion would continue after 1996, when the
    negotiations could begin with prospective members from central and
    eastern Europe.
            German Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel said ``the European Union
    will keep its promises and open itself further to the states of
    central and eastern Europe.''
            Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic have said they
    want to join the EU by the end of the decade.
            The 12-nation union had sought to add Austria, Finland, Norway
    and Sweden on Jan. 1. The three other nations have approved
    membership in referenda. It will bring membership to 15
    encompassing some 370 million people between the Arctic Circle and
    the Mediterranean Sea.
            The rejection was the second time Norwegian voters had shied
    away from closer ties with other West European nations. They also
    turned down membership in 1972.
            But Delors said the ``EU will keep its doors open,'' if Norway
    wants to join later. ``Norway is the only judge of its own
    future,'' he said.
            Many said the rejection at the polls in Norway was founded on
    fears of having to share their oil resources with the other EU
    nations.
            ``Norway thinks that with its own energy resources, it can get
    by on its own,'' said Delors.
    (rac-pa)
    ========================================================================
             OSLO, Nov 29 (Reuter) - Norwegian Finance Minister Sigbjoern
    Johnsen pledged to further reduce the state budget deficit on
    Tuesday after Norway rejected EU membership in a referendum.
             ``This requires that we continue a steady course in our
    economic policy to prop up confidence in Norway's economy so
    that we secure the basis for investments and jobs in Norway,''
    Johnsen said in a statement.
             The Norwegian crown weakened on Tuesday following Monday's
    ``No`` vote in a bitter defeat for pro-EU Prime Minister Gro
    Harlem Brundtland.
             ``Norway has said `NO' -- again,'' said a front page headline
    in daily Aftenposten, alluding to a similar referendum 22 years
    ago when Norwegians rejected membership of the then European
    Economic Community by virtually the same margin.
             But Norway, by choosing relative isolation now that
    neighbouring Sweden and Finland will join the expanding Union,
    ``is taking a step into the unknown,'' the newspaper commented.   

             GENEVA, Nov 29 (Reuter) - The European Free Trade   
    Association (EFTA), earlier seen doomed as key members switched
    to the European Union, is likely to survive after Norway's ``no''
    to joining the EU, a spokesman said on Tuesday.
             ``Now following the Norwegian vote everything indicates that
    EFTA will remain around -- smaller and slimmer, but there,'' Ake
    Landquist of the the Geneva-based grouping told Reuters.
             EFTA, founded in 1960 as a counterweight to the then
    European Economic Community, currently has seven members --
    Austria, Finland, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Sweden and
    Switzerland.
             Following referendums and parliamentary votes this autumn,
    Austria, Finland and Sweden will become members of the EU on
    January 1, reducing EFTA from a market of 32 million people to a
    grouping with only 11 million.
             Ministers from the seven meet in Geneva on December 13 and
    the remaining four are expected to decide then exactly in what
    form the organisation -- which once also included Britain and
    Portugal -- will continue.
             ``We now think this will be a new starting-point for EFTA,
    not the end,'' said Lundquist. ``The four will be looking at
    options for how it can operate -- perhaps by looking out for new
    members in the former communist countries.''
             Until the Norwegian referendum, which produced a clear
    majority of around five per cent for opponents of EU entry, EFTA
    diplomats and officials had studiously avoided discussing the
    future.
             ``There was a feeling that if we did talk openly about
    alternatives, it would encourage the 'no' side in Norway,'' said
    one diplomat whose country is switching to the EU. ``Now these
    questions will be faced by our partners who will stay behind.''
             EFTA officials had earlier agreed that if Norway had
    followed suit, the grouping could not have survived.
             In the early 1990s, EFTA countries negotiated creation with
    the EU of a free trade zone known as the European Economic Area
    which went into effect in January 1994.
             Diplomats say the protracted negotiations cleared over 60
    percent of the issues that would have to have been dealt with in
    the EU entry talks between the four EFTA candidates for the
    Union and Brussels.
             Iceland has shown no interest in joining the EU, arguing
    that it could not accept a common fisheries policy. It provides
    EFTA's current secretary-general, Kjartan Johannsson.
             Switzerland, many of whose people like the Norwegians are
    extremely suspicious of foreign ties, voted in a referendum even
    against joining the EEA -- but its government which favours
    joining the EU is now seeking a bilteral accord with Brussels.
             EFTA has free-trade accords with several Eastern European
    countries, including the Czech Republic and Hungary, as well as
    with Israel and Turkey. It has been discussing similar accords
    with Slovenia, Albania and the Baltic states of Latvia,
    Lithuania and Estonia.
             Although all the former communist states have made clear
    they aim eventually to join the EU, several have expressed
    interest in EFTA and the EEA as a half-way house.
             ``With Norway and Switzerland still, EFTA should remain an
    attractive proposition for those states who recognise that
    getting into the EU is not for tomorrow,'' said one diplomat.

    ========================================================================
             OSLO, Dec 1 (Reuter) - Several small Norwegian companies
    have announced they plan to move production facilities to
    neighbouring Sweden after Norway rejected membership of the
    European Union in a referendum on Monday.
             Norwegian industrials are being more cautious, but industry
    experts predict several major exporters will close down some
    domestic production units in the next year or two and move them
    to EU countries.
             Sweden voted earlier this month to join the EU from next
    year.   
             The traders who sell cheaper Swedish food to Norwegians at
    the border crossing town of Svinesund were delighted by the "No"
    vote, as a "Yes" would have wiped out the price differentials
    that bring thousands of Norwegians to their stalls.
             Two Norwegian food producers were the first to announce on
    Wednesday that they would move production lines across the
    border to Sweden to avoid paying EU import duties.
             Bjorn Fulgerud, director of Oslo salad producer Delikat,
    told reporters more than 10 percent of the company's jobs in
    Norway would have to disappear when part of its production moved
    to Sweden.
             In the southern town of Larvik, another salad producer,
    Denja, said it would be doing likewise.
             "We don't have any choice. Our bottom line will disappear
    from the new year when we have to pay 16 million crowns ($2.34
    million) a year in tolls on the salad products we sell in
    Sweden," said Managing Director Asbjorn Reinkind.
             The Oslo stock exchange, however, had no problems shrugging
   off the "No," vote, taking heart from government statements that
    it would pursue tough economic policies and that company taxes
    might be eased to compensate for loss of earnings from the EU
    decision.
             The All-Share Index climbed more than two percent in heavy
    trade. The Norwegian crown, which dipped the day after the
    referendum, has now recovered to levels seen before the vote and
    is looking strong, dealers said.
             Brokers said they were confident Prime Minister Gro Harlem
    Brundtland planned measures in her December 9 revised budget to
    compensate industry for the "No" vote.
             "Share market players are expecting strong cuts in state
    spending in several sectors," said analyst Inger Nergaard.
             Norwegian corporates are popular abroad at the moment. The
    country's top 14 blue chips have turned in results so far this
    year around 10 percent above analysts' expectations.
             Forestry companies like Norsk Skog, which have benefited
    from massive paper price increases but fear they will lose out
    on sales to Swedish forestry groups, have made some of the most
    dramatic profit improvements this year.
             Erik Tonseth, Chairman of engineering group Kvaerner, one of
    the country's biggest companies, on Wednesday toned down threats
    to move corporate headquarters out of Norway to a European Union
    country.     

 
	 STOCKHOLM, Dec 30 (Reuter) - When Harry and Inger Franke
return to Sweden from their annual motoring holiday they stop at
a German supermarket and fill their Volvo with groceries.
	 Now, following the Swedish decision to join the European
Union from January 1, the Frankes and many other Swedes hope
their own country's shops will be able to offer the lower prices
and bigger range of products they find abroad.
	 ``It would be heaven. Imagine all those sausages, cheeses,
fresh vegetables, pastries and beer brands,'' said Inger, a
64-year-old housewife.
	 Because of the EU common agricultural policy and free trade
rules, experts think prices in Swedish grocery stores will
decline gradually, but eating habits and market considerations
will probably limit the speed with which shelves are expanded.
	 ``The range of foreign food in Swedish supermarkets has
increased in recent years and the trend will accelerate now,''
said Coordination Minister Jan Nygren, a leading figure in Prime
Minister Ingvar Carlsson's Social Democratic government.
	 ``But I think it will continue to be a relatively slow
process. Sweden is after all a small market for foreign
exporters,'' he said.
	 A Swedish neighbourhood supermarket is no feast for the eye.
	 Vegetables are often expensive and unappetising, loaves are
frequently one or two days old, cheese and meat is usually
pre-packed in plastic. Wine and strong beer are nowhere to be
found as anti-drinking laws confine alcohol to state-run shops.
	 Food was not a winning issue in the ``Yes'' campaign when
Swedes voted by 52.2 percent to 46.9 percent on November 13 to
join the Union
	 While Swedes gape when they enter, say, a French
hypermarket, they are also certain that Sweden, despite limited
choice and higher prices, has the cleanest and best food in the
world.
	 ``No'' campaigners, including Agriculture Minister Margareta
Winberg, argued forcefully that EU membership would flood Sweden
with cheaper, substandard food such as salmonella-infected
chickens and pork from pigs bred on fodder treated with
antibiotics.
	 Children's author Astrid Lindgren, immensely popular and
trusted by her compatriots, said Sweden's ambitions to improve
the lot of farm animals would be thwarted by the continent's
industrial food production practices.
	 ``Swedes like to talk about how dangerous foreign food is.
Then they travel abroad and come home and tell everybody what
great meals they've had,'' said chef Hakan Mogren, a member of
Sweden's Gastronomic Academy.
	 Sweden's environmental obsession is evident in European data
on salmonella. In neighbouring Denmark, 51 percent of all
chickens carry the bacteria, in Britain 36 percent, in Germany
26 percent. Swedes take pride in their own figure: zero percent.
	 Food is more expensive in Sweden. Despite a 20 percent
depreciation of the crown since late 1992, Swedish food is 12
percent dearer than in Germany and 34 percent more expensive
than in Britain.
	 With Sweden in the EU, some Third World imports such as rice
and bananas wil become more expensive.
	 Bread, butter, meat and poultry will be cheaper.
	 The national daily Dagens Nyheter sent a reporter around
Europe to compare Union food with that at home. It concluded
Swedish food was often inferior.
	 Even the cheapest Danish sausage contains 54 percent meat
compared with around 30 percent in its Swedish equivalent.
	 Take the potato, the main fare in most Swedish meals.
	 German potatos are washed and packed in see-through bags
stating quality, size and shelf-life. Not so the Swedish kind.
	 At Marks & Spencer stores in Britain, every cabbage is
marked with the last recommended day of sale and of consumption.
This is not the case in Swedish greengrocers'.
	 Swedes, like other Europeans, are conservative when they
shop. Imports of processed food from the European Union were
worth five billion Swedish crowns ($679.2 million) in 1992, a
year when Swedes bought food worth a total of 133 billion crowns
($18.07 billion).
	 Producers of the typical red Danish hot dog, far meatier
than its Swedish cousin, plan to step up exports to Sweden now
that they can offer competitive prices.
	 The red hot dog, banned in Sweden until last year because of
its high content of colouring additives, has always been a
favourite among Swedish weekend visitors to nearby Copenhagen.
	 Swedish producers, whose subsidies will double in the EU,
are also rubbing their hands, hoping for the same kind of
booming high-quality dairy and pork exports achieved by Denmark
after it entered the European Community in 1973.
	 ``It will be interesting to see what Swedish producers can do
in Europe with their clean food,'' Nygren said. ``That will
ultimately test whether Swedish food is as good as we think.''

    To: International Swedish Interest discussion list
    <[email protected]>
    From: David Curle <[email protected]>
    Subj:   Re: Swedes and EU
    
    I just got back from three weeks in Sweden, visiting friends and
    relatives.  There is a lot of frustration right now with the EU, and I
    think it is justified for the most part.  The "first impression" that
    the EU is making to its new member is that of a clumsy bureaucracy that
    is dealing with trivial matters like the size of strawberries.  Even
    pro-EU people are frustrated with that sort of thing, because it
    trivializes the whole idea of why the EU exists.
    
    However, the people I spoke with who work in industry are very relieved
    that the referendum passed.  They were aware that, without EU, Swedish
    companies were prepared to stop investing in facilities in Sweden and
    put new facilities somewhere within the EU borders.  That would have a
    big impact on jobs.  As it is, Swedish companies have a hard enough
    time dealing with the high costs of doing business in Sweden.  Being in
    the EU will at least give them a better reason to stick around.
    
    Sweden, like the US, has to recognize that globalization will make it
    very difficult to retain well-paying jobs in traditional industries. 
    If we want a high-standard of living we need to invest in industries
    where knowledge, not labor, is most important.  The wages for
    manufacturing industries will be set in Portugal and Mexico and SE
    Asia.  We had better start thinking about how to replace those
    industries with knowledge-intensive industries instead of whining about
    the disappearance of manufacturing jobs.
    
    David Curle
    [email protected]