From: etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se (Peter Lund)
Subject: Re: [soc.culture.nordic] Re: Why did Denmark
Reply-To: etxjpll@eua.ericsson.se
Organization: Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:52:54 GMT

In article 5399@daimi.aau.dk, olevi@daimi.aau.dk (Ole Villumsen) writes:

You listed up some arguments in Denmark against Maastricht. You didn't 
say whether you agreed with those arguments or not. Anyhow, beeing a 
Pro-European, I would like to refute those arguments, the best way I can.

> - One goal of Maastricht is a military union. We don't want to be 
>   part of that.

A military union, consisting of countries with a long and strong democ-
ratic tradition, is something positive. In all wars in history, there 
has always been at least one party in the conflict that has been a di-
catorship. Wars between democratic nations are impossible! (Try to find
a "democratic" war!)

The humanity does not need democratic countries, that are divided and 
that don't have the common strength to stand up against dictators opp-
ressing the people living in a country. Those people need this democra-
tic force, that is able to confront their dictator.

The political and military union is necessary for keeping order in all 
of Europe. The democratic world needs one strong power more, that can 
defend the democratic ideals. (Only US wasn't enough in Yugoslavia, the 
EC was powerless.)

> - When EC takes over regulation of environmental issues, the rules 
>   are going to be weaker than they are in Denmark now.

Strong rules in the 4 or 5 million people big Denmark is nothing, compa-
red to just a little bit stronger rules in the 320 million EC. Denmarks 
environmental voice is much more needed inside Denmark than outside. Even 
if Denmark stays outside the EU, market pressure will probably force Den-
mark (an Sweden) to have about the same environmental rules as inside the 
EC, not to lose Denmark's competetive edge. So where is the environmental 
gain then?

> - Same goes for rules about workplace security

About the same answer here.

> - the bodies in control in the European Union are beyond
>   democratic control. (The debate on this point has intensified
>   _after_ the referendum I think. For most Danes it probably
>   hasn't been important when they voted.)

The only way to increase "democratic control" today is by letting issues, 
having to do with implementing the single market, become supranational 
[European] issues. If Europe doesn't have the power to control the single 
market, no one will have that control. Absolutly not any of the 12 nations 
in the EC. A single market can only be controlled by a European political 
system.

The bodies are not beyond democratic control. I agree that the system is 
still an international political system , not supranational, and therefore 
it can not work by the usual democratic patterns. Each nations government 
has veto powers, leading to an Europe governed by a "lowest common denomi-
nator" policy. 

This must be changed, and the only way is to go towards a more suprana-
tional Europe, not less. The European Parlament has to be given more powers 
and become something like the US Congress. The Council of Ministers ought 
to become more like the US Senate, that only can veto proposals with a ma-
jority vote. Maybe Europe also should have an president, but I do not think 
he/she should have as great powers as the US president.

> - Maastricht will allow more immigration into Denmark than we
>   want.

Immigration is usually economically good for a country. Usually the immig-
rants take the poorest jobs, those no native would concider taking. Some 
immigration regulation is of course needed. Europe needs a common policy 
also here, to spread immigrants fairly even in the EC. The Denmark people 
can also after Maastrict, if they want, vote agaist immigration.


Peter Lund, 	mail: Peter.Lund@eua.ericsson.se
Ellemtel Telecom Systems Labs, Stockholm, Sweden