Conclusion: A Nordic view on European Integration

1
Conclusion A Nordic view on European Integration
2
The Nordic Countries and European integration

• Historical evolutions
• Nordic cooperation? European cooperation?
• External pressures?
• Economy? Politics?
• Reluctant Europeans?
• Those for, those against
• What type of European integration?
• Fate of the small states inside the system

3
Historical developments

• Europe before European integration 1920s-1930s,
  cooperation in the League of Nations, sharing the
  European idea
• The thing of a minority
• World War Two disarray, division
• What to do?
• The couple Nordic cooperation-European
  cooperation (Scandinavian defense union-NATO
  Nordic Customs Union-Marshall plan
  NORDEK-European Communities, etc)
• 1960 the EFTA 1961 Great-Britains application
  to the communities

4
Historical developments

• 1968-1969 NORDEK negotiations
• 1969-1973 Entering Community Europe?
• 1973-1995 Denmark in, the others out
• Contacts without entering
• 1995 the end of the Cold War Finland and Sweden
  enter

5
Nordic cooperation?European integration?

• Eternal dilemma between a frustrating but more
  natural Nordic cooperation and a European
  integration dominated by the communities, a
  strange and vaguely threatening system
• Christine Ingebritsen Whats at stake?
• Lots to lose for the Nordic countries in Europe
  integration
• Social change, political pressure, strategic
  change, pressure on welfare-states, pressure on a
  tradition of democratic government, economic
  competition, national managment of economy and
  politics, etc
• Lots more to lose than for instance the 1980s
  enlargment countries (Greece, Spain, Portugal)
• gtsecure the end of exceptionalism, accept a
  sharing of sovereignty

6
No man is an island (anymore)

• Yet three things
• The relative inefficiency of a. Nordic
  cooperation, b. other European cooperation
  systems
• Political gains
• Economic gains
• Accepting or going against European political and
  economic changes (economic deregulation,
  globalization, political and cultural changes,
  reform of the welfare state, etc) Same dilemma
  as other European states, only 20-30 years later.
  
• European integration as the acceptation of these
  changes, an attempt at controlling them, and for
  many a second choice after Nordic integration
  fails
• -gt Example the deregulation of monetary markets
  in the 1970s-1980s the relative autonomy of
  these countries diminishes

7
External pressures?Economy? Politics?

• Nordic European integration as the reactions to
  external pressures?
• Question is open
• Also pressures against integration political
  pressure from the Soviet Union in the case of
  Finland
• Economic pressures or political pressures?
• Economy, trade, finances certainly bring the
  Nordic Countries closer to community Europe
• Politics are more ambiguous, and opinions are
  divided
• The case of Norway political opposition mostly

8

• gt A choice, in front of political, social,
  economic changes
• Good or bad? Difficult to answer, yet the Nordic
  countries seem to have fairly well adapted
• Also, it has been the choice of many European
  countries, in front of a strange brand of
  regional integration sharing political autonomy,
  adopting certain economic policies, etc
• The debate in new terms
• not whether it was useful, sound (järkevä)
• Brings the question of what is economically/politi
  cally sound and advisable is a budget deficit
  bad or good? EU says it is bad, the Nordic
  Countries said it is not so bad because it pays
  for a generous welfare-state
• but whether or not it was evitable, what were
  the alternatives, who/what groups have emphasized
  what solutions.
• Surely Nordic societies have opened,
  economically, socially, politically.

9
Reluctant Europeans?

• First picture 2007 opening of the Finnish
  parliamentary session no European flag
• Does it mean anything?
• French official portraits
• European flag only for Sarkozy, and it seems that
  the photograph, Philippe Warrin, proposed it
• Political Europe as a dilemma, a problem for the
  Nordic Countries in the same way as it is for the
  countries of core-Europe

10
Those for? Those against?

• Does this reluctance have a geography inside
  these countries?
• Countries share a lot
• Ideologies
• Left
• Divisions on the Left role of the state,
  welfare-state, neutrality
• At the same time, Europe, solidarity, change,
  opening, less emphasis on the nation
• Right
• Economic change, liberalism, interests of
  business groups
• But the nation, sharing sovereignty, isolation
• Interest groups
• Young/old, urban/countryside, peasants/industry,
  business/civil servants, intellectual
  elite/others, economic leaders/trade unions
• In many ways, similar to divisions elsewhere in
  Europe

11
What type of European integration?

• European integration as a work in progress What
  is the Nordic Countries take on that?
• Different types of integration
• German/French model strong institutions, strong
  common policies, a political dimension,
  delegation of sovereignty
• British model weaker institutions, economic
  dimension emphasized, no or elss delegation of
  sovereignty
• For the Nordic countries, more British model than
  French/German model
• Yet divisions Finland for example has emphasized
  common institutions
• A political and economic realism discourse
  Rarely is the question put in terms of adapting
  to social change or integrating politically

12
The mice and the lions?

• Nordic countries national interests how to best
  serve their national interests in the European
  system?
• How to matter as small states in a big system?
• The Irish example
• Differences in attitude
• Staying at the core Paavo Lipponen, Carl Bildt,
  a generation of politicians and leaders at the
  beginning of the 1990s
• An ambiguous position, a constant struggle (the
  efficiency of champaign glass diplomacy)
• Splendid isolation or limited contacts?
• Only economy? Difficult to hold on the long term

13

• European countries, for sure
• What sort of Europe?
• Adapting to a movement they did not initiate
• Coping with external pressures
• Influencing this movement?

14
Chronology

• Denmark and Norway apply as early as 1961
• Economic, trade incentives are strong for these
  two
• EFTA seemed like a good idea, mixing openess and
  isolation
• A sort of Nordic co-operation extended
• But problems, like the EEA in 1990
• EU integration is part of a larger change for the
  Nordic countries
• In the 1970s, the economic and trade pressure
  grows
• Not easy
• Norway applies four times, gets membership twice,
  rejects it twice through a referendum
• Series of ups and downs failure to form a Nordic
  Defense Union -gt Nordic Council Failure of
  Customs Union -gt EFTA etc
• NORDEK as the exception that and EEC were seen
  in parallel

15

• A complex patchwork of relations, from EU, EEA,
  informal intergovernmental regional
  organizations, bilateral relations
• A sensitive domestic policy issue in these
  countries
• Denmark 1992 2 refs before the TEU is accepted
• Is the Union attractive for rich, assertive
  states?

16

• A Nordic block with common interests?
• Securing preferential trade relations with Europe
  while keeping contacts with own region?
• Political and symbolic defiance, economic and
  trade attraction?
• But the starting points are different, because
  national situations differ

17
Chronology

• DK and Nor follow DK , Nor divided
• July 67 open application by Sweden, for durable
  relations with EC compatible with Swedens
  neutrality
• France opposed to supranationality and NATO,
  seems safe to approach the EC
• After DGs second veto in 1967, Nords tournent
  vers NORDEK
• A delaying tactic that goes far
• Finns turn down the scheme
• 1970 Iceland joins EFTA, necessity to stay in
  contact with EFTA countries, industrialization
• DG goe sin 1969
• Applications?
• Attraction, but also the fear of return of
  supranatiaonalism among Swedish especially
• March 71, sw gvt announces EC membership is not
  an option anymore
• Norway divided Bratteli has a minority gvt
• Ap 70, Finns asks for a free trade ag with EEC
• Iceland, fear of losing contacts with EFTA and
  does the same as the Finns in Nov 1970
• June 1971, negotiations with DK and NOR open
• Negotiations with DK go without problems
• Negociations with norway, continued disagreements
  ont eh fishery regime delay the results to
  mid-January 1972
• Dec 71, negotiations with Finland, Sweden and
  Iceland on free trade agr start
• Sweden wants to be associated to a vast number of
  cooperations, but the treaty signed on 22 july
  1972 is only free trade, the EC refusing to
  satisfy many Swed demands

• EFTA poru DK, problèmes
• Pas agr
• Pas bridge building avec EEC
• GB applies 1961
• DK follows, aug 61
• Norway a bit later, Ap 62
• Not too enthusiastic, gvt forced by UKs decision
• Unpopular decision, but better with intergvtal UK
  than without
• Both divisions des partis partis du centre et
  far left sont contre, autres divisés. DK plus
  pour, Nor plus contre Conservatives et liberaux
  sont les seuls en general pour
• Sweden also for an asociation treaty, idee de
  reconcliier neut et interets
• Industrie, lib, cons sont pour EC
• Reste divise ou contre
• Finland et Iceland wait and see
• 1963 DG halts the talks
• Liberalization isndie the EFTA, realized by 1966
• But UK decides in 1964 de lever de 15 les taxes
  sur les imports de EFTA countries il faut
  trouver uatre chose que EFTA
• May 67, UK applies

18

• Referenda
• Norway in 1972
• A bitter campaign spliting the governing Labor
  party, and the treaty rejected
• Feb 1973, negotiations for a free trade
  agreement may 1973, the Storting approves the
  free trade ag.
• DK treaty accepted
• Sweden, ratification proceeds smoothly
• Iceland and Finland, debates are intense but
  ratifictaions through parliaments are acquired in
  1973
• In Finland, newly founded majority gvt of Kalevi
  Sorsa supports the deal
• Each country has a contractual relationship with
  the EEC, but problems remain
• DKs membership is aloof, distant foot-dragging,
  minimalist approach to integration, public
  opinion negative towards Europe
• Other countries are satisfied with the treaties
  1984 is the date when most tariffs have been
  removed according to plan
• Little spill-over into other areas of cooperation
• In Norway, EEC remains a political taboo for 10
  years
• Yet, Norway cooperates actvely with the EC,
  bilaterally, on specific problems (entering the
  snake, cooperating with the EPC, talking about
  fishery etc
• Sweden, the Palme gvt after 1973 prursue a policy
  of independence. After 1976, the country
  experiences a series of weak coaltion non-SD
  gvts, with the anti-EEC Center party amongst the
  coalition parties The EEC is taboo.
• With the return of SDs and Palme in power,
  Signals were given in the beginning of the 1980s
  that Sweden wanted to pursue closer cooperations
• Finlands involvment is very guarded
• Iceland has problem with fishing rights with UK
  and germany, but avenues of cooperations are not
  closed

• There is also a renewal in the relations between
  EFTA and the EEC
• April 1984 first EFTA-EEC ministerial meeting in
  Luxemburg on development of contacts, beginning
  of a new relationship. This will deboucher in the
  EEA negociations in the beginning of the 1990s.
  But then, everything will change
• The Luxemburg process of getting EFTA and EEC
  closer
• Late 1980s as a transition period moving closer
  to the EU
• A role of initiative for the Nordics, and a good
  reception in the EEC circles The EFTA/EEA card
  is important for Finland, Norway as a back
  channel to integration in the EU
• Negotiations start in earnest in the beginning of
  the 1990s
• A de-politicized way to relations with the EEC,
  but the relations deepen significantly Engaged
  in cooperation in many aspects
• EEA agreement signed in Oporto 2 may 1992, enters
  in force in January 1993. EFTA countries are
  influence but have little influence on EEC
• Sweden and Finland are all for, Norway and
  Iceland less so
• A third way between marginalization and the EEC
• Reluctant europeans towards supranationalism and
  political Europe