SWEDEN'S VOTERS KEEP EU ON TENTERHOOKS

by Andrew Marshall

(The Independent, 14-11-1994)

Sweden's referendum on entry to the European Union always promised to be a cliff-hanger. With the country's largest political party deeply divided, the cabinet split and opinion polls swinging from side to side, that was the way it turned out.

But the referendum also confirmed that Sweden continues to see itself as very different from other states in Europe. Despite the fall of the Berlin Wall, the country's economic misfortune and the decision of Finland and Austria to join the EU, Swedes ploughed their own furrow.

Twenty per cent of voters had been uncertain until the weekend; that appeared to have come down to 10 per cent by Saturday, with the last opinion polls showing a small edge to the "yes" camp. The country's traditions of democracy ensured that both the debate and the vote that followed were taken very seriously.

It was a vital decision for Sweden: both camps agreed on that, but it was not until the final week that the campaign really took fire. "It didn't become a hot issue until the last few days," said Per Zetterquist, spokesman for the "yes" camp. A poll last weekend showed the opposition in the lead, and that galvanised the proponents of membership into action.

There has been some criticism of the government, and especially the Prime Minister, Ingvar Carlsson, for their slowness to get involved. "That is not fair," said Mr Zetterquist, but he admitted: "We can wish that some had been campaigning harder for longer."

The "yes" side's crucial argument, said Mr Zetterquist, was: "Don't leave Sweden outside." The opposition believed that its key message was to keep Sweden as an independent nation. There were some odd arguments deployed, including the "no" camp's claim that the EU was a drug-takers paradise, with "the laxest rules in the world". Indeed, it was often unclear whether this was really an argument about the EU at all, or rather a series of claims about Sweden.

The campaigns - from both sides - frequently looked very nationalistic, with the opposition and proponents locking horns over how special Sweden is. Jorgen Bengtson, spokesman for the "no" camp, denied this, saying: "The 'no' side has been far more pan-European and internationally oriented than the 'yes' side."

The "no" side claimed that Sweden could play a more positive role in European environmental policy outside the EU, making its own legislation, than inside, subject to the whims of other, less green states.

Whether as a player in the EU or an outside partner, it was clear from the campaigns that Sweden will be a distinctive and sometimes difficult player in the European integration game. That is one reason why some European Commission officials were not displeased with the prospect of a "no" vote, saying that it would only add to the EU's problems to have another awkward customer around the table.

Andrew MARSHALL