In a significant moment for European integration, Denmark held a referendum on September 28, 2000, to decide whether to adopt the euro, the single currency of the European Union. Despite strong recommendations from most social partner organizations and trade union leaders, the Danish electorate voted against joining the Eurozone by a margin of 53.2% to 46.8%. This decision reaffirmed Denmark’s opt-out from the third stage of the EU’s Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), a position negotiated during the complexities of the Maastricht Treaty ratification in 1992-93. This article delves into the factors behind Denmark’s continued stance outside the euro, exploring the referendum details, the arguments from both sides, and the implications of remaining a non-euro nation.
Denmark’s journey to this referendum began with the Maastricht Treaty, where it secured an opt-out clause regarding participation in the EMU’s third stage and the adoption of the euro. This opt-out was a crucial element in gaining Danish acceptance of the treaty in the early 1990s. By 2000, as the euro had already been introduced in 11 other European countries on January 1, 1999, the question of reversing this opt-out became a central political and economic issue in Denmark, leading to the referendum. The high voter turnout of 88.1% underscored the importance of the issue for Danish citizens, with the definitive “no” vote highlighting a deep-seated division within the nation regarding further EU integration and the adoption of the euro.
The referendum result mirrored a recurring pattern in Danish referendums concerning EU matters since joining the European Community in 1972. The Danish population consistently demonstrates a near even split on issues of EU integration, with voting patterns not strictly aligning with traditional political party lines. In the 2000 euro referendum, if voting had solely followed party recommendations, the “yes” side would have secured an overwhelming 80% of the vote, leaving only 20% for the “no” camp. This stark contrast between party alignment and voter behavior reveals a more nuanced public sentiment towards European integration and specifically, the adoption of the euro currency.
Leading up to the referendum, a united front of social partner organizations actively campaigned for a “yes” vote. The Confederation of Danish Trade Unions (LO) and the Danish Employers’ Confederation (DA) were prominent voices in this campaign. LO even deployed a campaign bus across the country to promote euro adoption, while DA intensified its public engagement in the debate. Their core argument, echoing the employer’s perspective, was that adopting the euro would safeguard and boost employment in Denmark, while remaining outside the Eurozone presented obstacles for the nation and its businesses. Despite these concerted efforts, the referendum outcome demonstrated a disconnect between the recommendations of these organizations and the voting decisions of many rank-and-file trade union members. It appeared that public figures like Pia Kjærsgaard from the Danish People’s Party, who opposed euro adoption, resonated more strongly with a segment of the population than the pro-euro stance of LO president Hans Jensen.
Max Bæhring, president of the Central Organisation of Industrial Employees in Denmark (CO-industri), voiced the disappointment felt by the “yes” campaign. CO-industri, alongside the Confederation of Danish Industries (DI), had conducted a joint information campaign emphasizing the euro’s importance for Danish businesses and employment. Bæhring lamented, “The ‘no’ of the voters to a common currency in Europe is sad for Denmark and for Danish jobs.” He acknowledged the rare consensus between employers and unions in favor of euro adoption and noted the surprising suspicion this consensus generated among some workers. Looking ahead, Bæhring expressed concern about Denmark being “on the sidelines” of the Eurozone and the need to mitigate potential negative impacts on Danish competitiveness and employment as the euro was set to be introduced in participating countries on January 1, 2002.
Hans Jensen, the LO president, shared similar sentiments of disappointment. He urged the government to maintain a stable economic policy to foster investment and employment despite the referendum outcome. Jensen also reflected on the need for the trade union movement to reassess its European policy, acknowledging that many LO members voted “no” due to a perceived difficulty in understanding the “European project.” He emphasized the importance of engaging in constructive dialogue with “no” voters to prevent the “no” vote from evolving into broader opposition to European cooperation, cautioning against the disastrous consequences of Denmark withdrawing from the European Union altogether, a scenario he believed was supported only by a small minority.
Representing the employer perspective, Hans Skov Christensen, director general of DI, expressed regret over the anticipated decline in the competitiveness of Danish enterprises as a result of rejecting the euro. He stressed the critical need to maintain the fixed exchange rate between the Danish Krone and the euro to minimize economic disruption for the industrial sector. Christensen also called for the government to avoid introducing new financial burdens on trade and industry in the upcoming finance bill, signaling a pragmatic shift towards adapting to the “no” vote outcome and focusing on damage control and maintaining economic stability.
In the aftermath of the referendum, the prevailing sentiment was one of resignation and a return to “business as usual.” While acknowledging the setback, there was a general understanding that another referendum on the euro was not imminent. However, many “yes” supporters held onto the hope that public opinion might shift over time in response to evolving European dynamics. As Mr. Skov Christensen concluded, “With the referendum the euro theme is dead for a time. But it is possible that the Danish population will change its attitude in the light of future developments in Europe.” This reflects a long-term perspective on the Danish To Euro question, suggesting that while the 2000 referendum solidified Denmark’s non-euro status for the time being, the debate and the potential for future reconsideration remained open.
