The people have spoken, but with many voices

By Stine Bosse, President, European Movement Denmark

The people have spoken with many voices and the confusion may seem total. The electorate is again left behind in the EU debate.

One thing is clear. The Danes said no to the common EU rules on divorces, combating pedophilia, cybercrime and other cross-border crime. The Danes said no to remaining in Europol and no to empowering the parliament with a mandate to proceed with common rules in the area of justice and home affairs. Mind you, the area of the justice and home affairs is characterised by transnationalism and therefore demands joint solutions.

Can the outcome of the referendum be interpreted unambiguously? No – the aftermath suggests something else. Everybody is now in line to obtain what we, the people, just turned down. A hopeless situation and one is met with surprise from our countries of affiliation.

The flexible opt-in model was designed for the sake of us and it is a true bonus, as we just have to choose from the menu.

With the flexible opt-in model we have the opportunity to pick and choose, what we want to be part of in the area of justice and home affairs. Furthermore, it means that we have the opportunity to step out of areas, if that is what we choose.

It is precisely the reciprocal opportunity to make demands, which a binding community is characterised by. This separates the European Union from intergovernmental cooperation. We are interdependent. This is called solidarity, unity, one for all and all for one – in this context on a supranational level.

All the Danish parties, across the center of the political spectrum, as well as most organisations, recommended a yes. Here lies the campaign’s biggest problem. Because the Danish people wanted to know, be informed, to understand and then adopt a position on the question.

The no meant safety for our constitution. As such nonsense – the referendum was about something else. The no meant a utopian idea that safety can be decided only on Danish terms. However, these areas can only be regulated through cooperation. The one pro-no-side wants hermetically sealed borders and believe that all promises, through political agreements, from other politicians, are untrustworthy. The campaign gleefully promised safety, security and certainty for promises, which are by no means simple and possible. Are voters confused – yes, of course and rightly so.

The other pro-no-side wants international cooperation. Yet, they want a new system. Thus, they promise to build a new “EU-system” fast and effectively, without the binding elements, and where chance and voluntarism are key components. How do they think this is achievable? And can they promise everything on this background?

The refugee question was one of the crucial subjects in this referendum. Because of this, it was maybe easier to understand, although it was much less pretty. Many Danes want to find a common durable and European solution to the refugee challenges. This can obviously only be done giving away sovereignty. We need to meet in Brussels with the Swedes, Germans, Italians and Greeks and so forth and pass the bill which the European-Commission proposed 9 months ago.

Many pro-no-voters still wish for a joint EU-solution on the question of refugees. Yet, many from the same side do not wish these joint solutions. This puts us in a complex position. The no to the referendum has distanced us from joint solutions. Meanwhile, the best solution to the refugee challenge is still only presented by the European-Commission, which Denmark cannot be an active part of because the no. We don’t have the possible to impact the outcome.

The difficult part of the no is to determine what Denmark should do now. We know that the pro-no-parties have proclaimed themselves as the champions, even though they fully do not understand the outcome and why so many people voted no.

What now? The uncertainty covers not only Europol, but also many other areas of cooperation in justice and home affairs.

Does it help to get mad? Of course it is not going to be that easy. However, there is a path, it will not be simple but it will be a traditional Danish path – information, dialogue and civil involvement. It makes us confident, forward-thinking and hence able to make decisions based on facts.

The Danish European Movement takes a part of the responsibility. We are not Europhiles; we are modern thinking people living in Denmark who disagree on many issues. Yet, we have one thing in common: we believe in Europe and the EU. It is a political system enabling us to discuss and illuminate the great challenges of our time. It is a system where solutions are decided together, and where nations are committing to each other. All for this is a desire to develop Europe and the EU-institutions all alongside the member states; while maintaining peace and respect for human rights.

For this project to develop it demands civil engagement from the people. Not as a support for the elite, but driven towards solutions by demand from the people. We are not a political party, but a movement that ensures a continuous and intense EU-debate, across borders and peoples – we can, and will, insist that the media informs us better and with nuance.

Let me finally say that the EU in the future will and should be challenged, but the basic ideas behind the project continue to exist. Ideas such as: peaceful trading, coexistence and common development. These ideas will not become unmodern. On the contrary, I look, with big concern, on the debate regarding the no to the referendum and how it gives rise to considering an adjusting of the overall European policy in the traditional pro-EU parties. Maybe someone wished this among the pro-no-parties. However, this was not what we voted on. We voted on a corner of the EU community. The pro-no-parties must now contribute to a solution to the problems relating to the area of justice and home affairs.

We have to remember the fundamental idea, in the European cooperation scheme, still grows more and more important. Simply because the challenges are greater and they are only able to be solved in a committed, informed and developed EU.