Finland, the Nordic countries, and European Integration, POLH1024

1. Finland, the Nordic countries, and European Integration, POLH1024 Session 6. From NORDEK to accession, 1970-1973

2. Context Spring 1969: Charles de Gaulle resigned Georges Pompidou accepted to re-open negotiations with Britain on EEC accession Balance German power, bargain for deepening of CAP In came also the Scandinavian candidates Britain turned to the EEC: Avoid political isolation Turn to Britain's main markets Negotiations from 1970 to 1972 January 1973: England became a member-state of the Communities EFTA lost even more of its significance

3. Nordic suitors Denmark and Norway applied 1962, 1967: the same pace than Britain’s applications Necessity to keep contacts with a British market Norway and dependency, but the problem of the CAP and political reservations ; Denmark and the CAP… Applications rejected with the British application by de Gaulle: 1963, 1968 NORDEK had been conceived in this frame, as a Nordic cooperation to prepare a common position in the EEC It would be a mistake to consider NORDEK and the EEC as mutually exclusive for Denmark and Norway Denmark would have continued SKANDEK in 1970, but Sweden and Norway refused it When NORDEK and SKANDEK failed, Denmark and Norway had already crossed the Rubicon towards the EEC

4. Denmark and Norway at the gates Denmark: A high-level agriculture, that would be in competition with others (France) in the CAP For Norway, the texts of the 1960s applications spell out the problems: Norway's application for membership to the EEC, April 30th 1962? “On behalf of the Norwegian Government…I have the honor to request…that negotiations be opened with a view to Norway’s accession to (the treaty of Rome)…Norway’s accession to the EEC will raise special problems owing to its geographical situation and economic structure.” (PM Halvard Lange). Fishing, industrial development and increased competition, agricultural national subsidies, national support to non-competitive zones… For both: NATO membership as a problem For both: the emphasis on intergovernmental policy-making and not on supranationality For both: political reluctance and the symbolic opposition of societies strongly divided over ”Europe”

5. Divisions Internal divisions in societies Ireland, that applied at the same time, saw a consensus between government and population on the benefits of EEC accession Denmark and Norway, on the other hand, had difficulties selling the EEC to their population Abandonment of sovereignty, economic and social problems, fear of Communities’ dirigism and bureaucracy, supranationality, attack on democracy, even the fear of a catholic conspiracy, etc… Town vs country; export vs domestic market; SD vs Liberals and conservatives, etc… The necessity to insist on economic benefits: governmental campaigns talk of the ”market” question, not the ”European Communities” question Problems with Nordic partners Sweden was associated to the talks in 1970, but withdrew in 1971 Neutrality, mostly, fear of the Community system Finland could not be associated with the talks Iceland preferred to stay outside

6. Negotiating: common features… Negotiations started on July 21st 1970 with England, Ireland, Denmark and Norway Negotiations in the shadow of EEC-Britain negotiations A reputation of pragmatists, not caring for the political aspect The role of Willy Brandt, West-German chancellor A change from Konrad Adenauer: Adenauer was defiant of the Scandinavians’ solely economic vision of European integration Brandt’s personal implication: Swedish and Norwegian exile in the 1930s-1940s (born Herbert Ernst Karl Frahm, then Gunnar Gaasland, then Willy Brandt…)? Natural partners to Germany Advocating against a more cautious France: The problem of agriculture, NATO, etc… 2 different negotiating strategies: Denmark flexible, Norway stiff due to domestic divisions

7. Negotiating accession: Denmark Butter and beacon: the problem of Danish agriculture A competitive, export-based agriculture Two main markets: Britain and West-Germany Goals: markets, the CAP Opponents: France, the Netherlands A sound negotiation strategy brought results for Denmark A transition period limited the entry of Danish products on the EEC market Denmark got opt-outs on several areas January 22 1972: treaty with the EEC Selling the deal: the Danish referendum October 2nd 1972: 89,5% participation, 62 % yes. Obvious economic advantages contributed to this result, whatever the political reservations of the population

8. Negotiating accession: Norway Fishing 2000 kms of coasts, a developed fleet, an export-based activity: fear of competition but need of markets and imports A compromise is found: Norway got a 6 miles strip reserved to Norwegian fishermen for a certain period of time? Agricultural subsidies Norwegian government subsidized agriculture in non-competitive areas: contrary to the principle of the CAP -> what attracted Denmark (the CAP) repelled Norway… Prospect of EEC membership rose fear of a rural exodus in Norway Compromise: a long transition period Treaty on January 22nd 1972 Referendum A difficult, very political campaign, dominated by agriculture, national sovereignty, and symbols September 25th 1972: 77,7% participation; 53,5 % for the No Prime Minister Trygve Bratteli resigns, and the pro-EEC left is dealt a blow The fear of peripheral, isolated zones: fear of dirigism, isolation, foreign influence, rural exodus… North vs South

9. 1973: Denmark enters Denmark’s accession to the Europe Communities on January 1st 1973 The new Communities met in Paris on October 19th-21st 1972 A treaty was signed in 1972 with the non-member Nordic states: In January 1973, the EFTA countries (Sweden, Austria, Portugal, Finland, and Iceland) would have a free-trade association with the countries of the EEC Denmark as a bridge-builder inside the EU between Nordic countries and Community institutions Supranationalism a dead letter in the 1970s Easier for the Danes to accept the Communities Denmark as a smart player inside the system The first thirty years of the CAP see Commissioners for agriculture from either Ireland or Denmark... The end of a phase of Nordic cooperation

10. The special case: Finland A society divided over the USSR and European cooperation YYA kyllä, EEC ei… The definite No of the radical Left and communists A political, ideological/symbolic, economic dilemma... Parties for a link with European systems: Swedish people’s party, the Right, liberals, some personalities in the Left and the Centre party Debates in 1969-1973 over an association treaty with the EEC, the continuation of Kekkonen’s term, and relations with the USSR (all linked, like always) 1973: extension of Kekkonen’s term by an emergency law, association treaty with the EEC, commercial treaty with Eastern Europe and the USSR: Kekkonen was afraid of the international developments started in Prague in 1968. He thought to be the only one able to reassure the Russians, and thus, seeing his mandate coming to an end, started making arrangements Issue linkage with the opposition: Kekkonen, the EEC treaty, the treaty with the USSR – all or nothing 1972: SDP prime minister Kalevi Sorsa cannot get a majority for a law of exception in the Parliament In december, Kekkonen announced that he would not be candidate. In October a threatening note by the Soviet Union’s military leadership (the Zavidovo note) had been leaked to the press… Kekkonen managed to appear as the providential man, ensuring in the beginning of 1973 the extension of his mandate, the EEC treaty, and a treaty with the USSR Kekkonen kept the balance with the reluctant support of the opposition