Recent opinion polls have demonstrated that, in common with a majority of Britons, around half of the Swedish population and growing minorities in many other member states, most Danish people remain stubbornly unconvinced of the merits of European Union membership. Given the country’s long defence of its independence and the fact that it had what was arguably the world’s first welfare state, this is hardly surprising. Given its lively political culture, it is perhaps equally unsurprising that there are not only two left parties, but two anti-EU movements. The latter can be explained by the fact that whereas the People’s Movement, founded to campaign against membership in 1972, remains committed to total withdrawal, the June Movement, established in 1992 to oppose the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty, is broader, accepting membership but combating further integration. But why are there two left parties?
Pernille Frahm of the Socialist People’s Party (SF), cites historical reasons for the division. ‘Our party split from the Communist Party over Hungary in the 1950s,’ she explains, ‘and Enhedslisten was formed from the remnants of the CP, together with left socialists, Trotskyists, Maoists - none of these small parties could reach the 2% needed to get into Parliament.’ She does not find the division problematic. ‘I think it’s good for us that there is another left party. It stops us getting too complacent. Of course, sometimes there are difficulties, but in general relations are friendly.’
Whilst agreeing that the two parties generally get along - ‘We cooperate on a lot of issues’ - Inger Johannssen locates the differences between them much more firmly in the present. ‘We attract and represent different tendencies,’ she says. ‘In general the Red Green Alliance (RGA) can be called radical socialist, whilst the SF is more reform-oriented. If we take the example of attitudes to the EU there are clear and interesting differences. The RGA is united in opposition. In the SF there is a small right wing which counts amongst the most fervent of Danish integrationists, and a minority on the left who totally oppose the Union. The majority support Denmark’s opt-outs, but basically believe in a strategy of reforming the EU. There are some contradictions in SF policy. For example, they support a common foreign policy, but are opposed to a common military policy. They support more common decision-making in social, labour market and environmental areas, but only when this concords with their own policies. The consequences, however, would necessarily be more EU integration.’
Frahm accepts that her party is divided over the EU, and welcomes positive legislation emanating from Brussels, citing the directive which reversed the burden of proof in sex discrimination cases, forcing employers to prove that gender had not been a factor in an employee’s dismissal. ‘Discussion in the party since the late ‘80s had focussed on how much to accept and how much to oppose, with some arguing that we should participate in the single market and try to influence it. Many of us, however, were opposed to this view, fearing that it meant we would have to give up any kind of autonomy. In 1992 in the first referendum the party agreed to oppose Maastricht, but then the opt-outs granted in the Edinburgh agreement proved acceptable to some. I campaigned against in the second referendum, but we were in a minority in our own party.’
If Frahm’s opposition to the Union is more nuanced than Johanssen’s, she remains a committed opponent of the Maastricht/Amsterdam neo-liberal juggernaut. ‘We have had to change our tax code to the detriment of our welfare system,’ she points out, and cites the case also of a scheme offering pre-retirement payments to workers in physically gruelling occupations. ‘The Commission ruled that it could not be restricted to people who had worked for a long period in Denmark, and that you could continue to collect if you left the country, threatening to make it unaffordable.’ She would like to see a Union where differences were respected, not merely through pious words but by an extension of something like Denmark’s opt-outs, so that member states could stand in different relationships to the whole. Frahm is adamant, moreover, that ‘joining the euro would be a disaster.’
Inger Johanssen, of course, agrees. ‘One can only guess at the possible consequences,’ she says. ‘It is going to be extremely difficult to preserve the so-called Nordic welfare model, which is based on a principle of sponsored social security for all.’ She is also pleased to see that SF ‘has come out very strongly against participation and have just initiated their campaign, which has the support even of prominent members who are otherwise pro-EU.’