A Nordic Twist to Europe (Nordic Confederation)

Chapter 1

May 1992 Headline from newspaper:
Swiss decide to postpone EU application, focus initially on economic integration announces minister

The Nordic Confederation, looking back, owes it's existence to several independent yet connected events in the first half of the 1990s. 1994 is the obvious point at which Nordic integration became inevitable, with the "Triple Rejection" of the European Union by the Nordic states, leaving only Denmark a member. Firstly in October, Norway refused to join (only 45% voting for accession). Analysts largely put the rejection down to the new European Economic Area; with full integration between the EFTA states and EU states into the EEA, Norwegian voters saw little need to give up more sovereignty in order for economic success. Later the same year, in November, the Swedish voted. The result was an incredibly narrow defeat (49.2% votes to join the EU) for the Swedish Government who campaigned for accession to the EU, largely in fear that economic interests would desert the country for the EU if it rejected (as large manufacturers such as Volvo threatened).

The domino effect would continue to the Finnish referendum on EU membership. Esko Aho, Prime Minister of Finland at the time and one of the significant players in the pro-EU camp, attended an emergency meeting to discuss the Swedish rejection of the EU, and broke his leg upon his leave. It ruled him out of much of the negotiating and campaigning over the referendum, robbing the pro-EU camp of man of considerable skill, and most analysts pin the Finnish EU-rejection down to this man as the gap was incredible narrow (49.6% voted to join the EU in the late November referendum), despite the traditional Finnish lean towards following Swedish trends.

Swedish ministers were said to be initially panicked by the Swedish rejection. A round table summit was held by the new Swedish Prime Minister, Ingvar Carlsson, along with his Norwegian and Finnish counterparts (Gro Brundtland and Esko Aho who was famously photographed leaving the meeting still on crutches). All 3 participants were of the mind to take swift and drastic action to address the mass rejection of the European Union by their electorates, and stay attractive for business in the face of the integrating European Union.


The Nordic Prime Ministers who were in attendance at the round table summit (Aho, Brundtland & Carlsson, in later years).

--------------------------------
Notes: So this is a semi-rehash / second version of my attempted Nordic Union, as the Nordics are a topic close to my heart. In this, the Swiss Government decided to postpone their application to the EU, and focus on EEA integration first. In this manner, the Swiss then vote to join the EEA (instead of narrowly rejecting it in OTL), and thus the EEA comes into existence unblemished by a Swiss rejection. Full EFTA/EEC link-up, and economic integration for Europe all round (well almost; the EEA covers almost everything bar agriculture and fisheries I believe. Please correct me if I'm wrong there!).

With this, Norway votes on the EU first (OTL it was referendums in Finland, Sweden, Norway in that order), and still rejects it, with the electorate judging the EEA enough. The Swedish vote second, and narrowly vote no for the same reason. In Finland, Aho was one of the leading pro-EU politicians who ironed out a lot of issues in order to get a yes vote in OTL. Here, his broken leg keeps him away from the campaign and diplomacy, and thus Finland follows the Swedish lead and ever so finely votes against the EU as well.

The three politicians meet, and as you might guess from the opener, decide to work together, forming the opening steps to a Nordic Confederation.

So when does Britain have its referendum to leave the EU and join the Nordic Confederation?

Lindseyman said:

So when does Britain have its referendum to leave the EU and join the Nordic Confederation?

Click to expand...

I doubt strongly that UK would want join to NC and hardly NC ecen want member whose population is bigger than populations of Finland, Sweden and Norway together.

Lalli said:

I doubt strongly that UK would want join to NC and hardly NC ecen want member whose population is bigger than populations of Finland, Sweden and Norway together.

Click to expand...

If NC was EFTA rather than EU in type yes we would. Even a lot of europhiles, and I count myself as one, thought that we were joining a free trade organisation not a super state. If we had known in the 70s what we know now there would have been a resounding rejection of the EU in that referendum.
Now whether the NC would want us is a completely different kettle of herring and I suspect that the answer would be no as we would try to dominate it.
(20:20 hindsight is a wonderful thing!)

Lindseyman said:

So when does Britain have its referendum to leave the EU and join the Nordic Confederation?

Click to expand...

And just how many fringe parties would pop up from the netherlands to Austria wanting to ditch the olive-munching overexciteable crooks and hook up with the lands of stodgy social democracy?

I can hear the chants already:

Oil! Ikea! Moomins! Now! Now! Now!

Would they be fringe parties?

No-vote from Finland is quite possible regardless of all other considerations - the voter turnout in the election was 74,0%. Generally speaking conservative and agrarian Finns tented to vote no, while citizens with higher education and/or better income favoured membership.

This is a bitter personal loss for PM Aho, and EU-critical challengers like Väyrynen will soon topple him as a party leader in Keskusta. Aho threatened to resign unless Keskusta would support the plan to seek membership in the organization. With this electoral defeat, his days are numbered.

After that, all bets are off. With Russian politics in turmoil, Finns will be eager to support closer cooperation with Norway and Sweden to gain at least some kind of support, and the "big three" of Kokoomus, SDP and Keskusta will all favour this foreign policy approach after their bid to join EU has failed. Interesting TL premise, do keep it up.

Step out for the evening down to the local and a few comments spring up!

Lindseyman said:

So when does Britain have its referendum to leave the EU and join the Nordic Confederation?

Click to expand...

Lalli said:

I doubt strongly that UK would want join to NC and hardly NC ecen want member whose population is bigger than populations of Finland, Sweden and Norway together.

Click to expand...

Yep, the UK wouldn't exactly be welcomed in the NC! Too big....and not exactly Nordic either any more. It is interesting to note that OTL, the Nordics have made positive comments to Scotland that they would be welcomed into the Nordic Council if they vote for independence later this year. I don't see Scotland as particularly Nordic - if anything the avid left-wing opposer-of-privatisation has led to a less privatised economy unlike the Nordics who have scope for privatised education and healthcare amongst others. It'll be a cold day in hell when that happens in Scotland.

However, although this will obviously focus on the Nordics, I would like to have a little look at the EU at a later point. There will be butterflies for the UK and Europe!

Karelian said:

No-vote from Finland is quite possible regardless of all other considerations - the voter turnout in the election was 74,0%. Generally speaking conservative and agrarian Finns tented to vote no, while citizens with higher education and/or better income favoured membership.

This is a bitter personal loss for PM Aho, and EU-critical challengers like Väyrynen will soon topple him as a party leader in Keskusta. Aho threatened to resign unless Keskusta would support the plan to seek membership in the organization. With this electoral defeat, his days are numbered.

After that, all bets are off. With Russian politics in turmoil, Finns will be eager to support closer cooperation with Norway and Sweden to gain at least some kind of support, and the "big three" of Kokoomus, SDP and Keskusta will all favour this foreign policy approach after their bid to join EU has failed. Interesting TL premise, do keep it up.

Click to expand...

Thanks - for both the feedback and the comments on Finnish politics. Likewise, I can't see Aho hanging around for too long; but he does seem the kind of guy to not litereally just walk out. Expect him to lay down the initial framework, and then step down.

EDIT: PS, chapter 2 probably tomorrow night.

We need a back-story for the Nordic Confederation.

This should be worth reading.

Historyman 14 said:

We need a back-story for the Nordic Confederation.

Click to expand...

That's what this whole TL is

Sanderford said:

This should be worth reading.

Click to expand...

Cheers, stay tuned!

Chapter 2

January 1995 joint statement (translated to English):
"The national rejections of European Union membership that has been cast by each of our electorates will have major ramifications in years to come. In seeking the way forward for each of our nations, we will stand together as Nordic brothers, and thus we will be inviting the leaders of Denmark and Iceland to join us. There is initial agreement, in principle, on the unity of our nations together and further talks will be held to bring this into reality. Initial plans would focus on the easing of cross-border business activities, transport and energy."

The 3 Prime Ministers had returned to their countries with an idea to sell; that of an enhanced Nordic grouping, a beefed up Nordic Council. This was of course part of the reason that Iceland and Denmark had been brought in. Some pan-Nordic institutions already existed, and it seemed a waste to reinvent the wheel if it was possible to use them. Iceland responded enthusiastically, and David Oddsson announced he would be joining the second round table Nordic summit at the end of January. The Danish, under Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, were more guarded. The Danish were a member state of the European Union (former EEC), and the agricultural lobby in Denmark would be resistant to change. Agricultural exports from Denmark formed almost a quater of Danish exports, and an exit from the EU would be disastrous for that trade. Rasmussen announced he would attend, but expectations were not high for Danish participation.

Finnish politics had however already boiled over in the aftermath of their "ei" (no) vote. Aho had stepped down as Prime Minister (although that was virtually his only option due to his anti-EU swinging Centre Party), and had been replaced by Paavo Vayrynen. Vayrynen had been one of the loudest backers of a "no" vote, and while pro-Europe in principle, he had been substantially disappointed by the results of the EU membership negotiations. Vayrynen was therefore in favour of a pan-Nordic group, able to better negotiate terms with the rest of Europe as part of a larger block, although he would be quickly distracted by domestic politics. Finland would hold it's next parliamentary election in early 1995, and the Centre Party would need do campaign well to maintain it's spot.


Scandinavian Airlines (System) was an early example of pan-Nordicism, being co-owned by the Danish, Norwegian & Swedish Governments together.

The second round of talks were held in Turku; a Finnish city that was the old capital of Finland in Swedish days, at the end of January. This time there were all 5 Nordic Prime Ministers present, and much of the success of these talks should be given to Vayrynen. In a tight situation, he wanted clear results to be able to show the Finns in the days running up to Finnish elections. As well as the afore mentioned business, transport and energy, security played a large part in Vayrynen's aims. Finland was, after all, bordering Russia which was in turmoil at the time following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Finnish economy wasn't great either; the Soviets had traded extensively with Finland, and now that market had disappeared. The case was similar, but for different reasons, for Sweden. Swedish business had boomed through the 20th century, and veiled threats to leave Sweden for the EEC/EU had been made by businesses pressing for entry into EEC/EU. That option had now evaporated; Carlsson needed real steps to be taken in order to keep businesses in Sweden and not jump across the Oresund. Similar concerns had been heard in Norwegian government circles.

Any form of treaty regarding collective security was quickly dismissed however, and dismissed; especially by the Norwegians and Danes, who were members of NATO. A statement of Nordic solidarity would have to suffice for that; how much help that would be for Finland was unknown. Past days had seen Nordic promises to Finland only to see the promises not worth the paper they were written on in the face of Soviet invasion. Iceland was open to talk on defence matter; although they were also a NATO member, the US/NATO air force base at Keflavik was far from popular amongst the Icelanders.

Talk quickly turned to the main matters at hand. On cross-border business, there was wide consensus on effectively almost recreating "Nordek" - a Nordic Single Market & Customs Union, which would be a member of the EEA itself. Such an agreement was not an option for Denmark, due to their membership of the EEC, but they were more then happy for the other states to pursue this. It would only enhance the ability to Danish business to operate across the Nordics as well as the domestic businesses. Agreement in principle was also made on the standardisation of corporation tax, to avoid businesses domiciling themselves where ever it would be cheapest (25% was the unofficial agreement). The Nordic Single Market would work to eliminate barriers in the movement of capital, goods & services (including fishing and agriculture), but would leave the movement of people under the Nordic Passport Union so that travel to and from Denmark would be unaffected.

The Prime Ministers agreed to set up a special commission to investigate the possibility of establishing a mutual currency. Earlier attempts had been made through the years at this, with the Scandinavian Monetary Union, but this would be the first attempt in many decades for a real shared currency. This was another area where Danish interests were unclear; they had previously already rejected the Euro currency within the EEC. However, Rasmussen made clear that the proposed Nordic group would effectively be Finland, Sweden, Norway & Iceland, with Denmark joining specific programmes where appropriate.


20 Krona (one Danish, one Swedish), from the last time the Denmark, Norway and Sweden effectively shared currency at the start of the 20th century.

Energy - something vital for Finland again due to it's northern location and flat land, was also part of the agreement. Further work to harmonise the electrical grids would take place (although only half of Denmark would benefit - the western half of Denmark is connected to the European grid, and only Zealand connected to the Nordic grid). Investments were to be encouraged in renewable power, although Brundtland was cautious of this, with memories of out-and-out protest against hydro power at Alta in Norway. New dams and hydroelectric power plants would need to be carefully targeted to avoid controversy.

And finally, much improved transport links would be needed to remain competitive in the face of Europe. There was sad recognition that Iceland and Finland would probably not be immediate winners of any improvements, as both are far removed from the Scandinavian lands, but Carlsson, Brundtland & Rasmussen were very keen to work on a mutual gain. All 3 felt that intercity links would need to be improved, and better use of aircraft did not reflect a particularly environmentally sound solution. Although the Nordic Investment Bank already existed, the Prime Ministers agreed to create a "Nordic Infrastructure Fund", that all countries would pay in to on a proportional basis. The funds would be used to pay for new and improved infrastructure across the entire Nordic area, enabling large and expensive works to be jointly funded for mutual gain.

--------------------------
Notes: Firstly, I see these talks taking place against a backdrop of uncertainty and urgency. All 3 countries are desperate to avoid businesses moving to the EU. Some will see this as an ambitious plan, but it needs to be drastic in order to stay competitive against the EU.

Essentially, what the Nordics are agreeing to is what they would have achieved if they had joined the EU. Just that instead of being part of the EU, they are part of a Nordic block, which would be part of the EEA. Sovereignty over the EEA matters (ie. approval of EU law where relevant to the EEA) would be pooled, with the exception of Denmark. Legislation and administration of a customs union would also be pooled, as would be any potential Nordic Central Bank, looking after a "Nordic Krona" (I can't see it being renamed a riksdaler!). While the electorates have rejected EU membership, most of the powers for administering the Customs Union will be passed down by the European Union as part of the EEA; so in reality little extra power is needed. The big advantage is that suddenly the Swedish-Norwegian and Swedish-Finnish borders become completely seamless rather then the customs checks there are currently (OTL) on the Norwegian border. Prior to Schengen, all you needed was a ticket to travel within the Nordic area (customs aside), so this will bring completely open borders.

On the note of fishing, there will be free movement of fish goods, but the actual fishing zones will remain nationally licensed. Iceland's economy is heavily engaged in the fishing industry, and there is no way on earth Iceland will want even Norwegian ships sailing into Icelandic waters, fishing, then sailing back to Norway.

Energy is a simple one to improve on, thanks to the already existing mutual electricity market. Streamlined planning for renewable power. For currency; no doubts, this will be difficult. So at the moment, they have only proposed a commission to investigate the possibility of a shared currency.

Transport; the big one. Those who have read any of my other works *may* have picked up on my interest in transport matters. No doubt I will end up writing a special piece on how this progresses.

Devvy said:

... and had been replaced by Paavo Vayrynen.

Click to expand...

So, this had already become a dystopia.

Seriously though, while he is popular among his supporters, he is also a rather controversial person especially outside his own party. He being PM would definitely spice up Finnish politics.

Devvy said:

Transport; the big one. Those who have read any of my other works *may* have picked up on my interest in transport matters. No doubt I will end up writing a special piece on how this progresses.

Click to expand...

Maybe Arctic Ocean railways in Finnish Lapland gain larger political support ITTL. This is something which has been regularly brought up IOTL but the government hasn't yet wanted to commit itself to such projects (and it seems unlikely that it ever will). These railways would mainly support mining industries in Northern Finland and also help generate cross-border business opportunities in the area. Currently transport connections in the area are rather bad.



Somewhat smaller but locally important project would be also the Sokli Railway in Eastern Lapland. It would support the long-planned phosphate mine in Sokli though the mining project is extremely controversial due to environmental concerns.



A railway from Salla to Russia might also get more support here if there's larger interest towards rail transportation in Lapland.

General Tirpitz said:

So, this had already become a dystopia.

Seriously though, while he is popular among his supporters, he is also a rather controversial person especially outside his own party. He being PM would definitely spice up Finnish politics.

Click to expand...

Hah - bear in mind he's currently only in for a few months until the Finnish elections. My feeling is that the SDP would probably still end up as the biggest party after the whole "Government loses referendum" thing!

General Tirpitz said:

Maybe Arctic Ocean railways in Finnish Lapland gain larger political support ITTL. This is something which has been regularly brought up IOTL but the government hasn't yet wanted to commit itself to such projects (and it seems unlikely that it ever will). These railways would mainly support mining industries in Northern Finland and also help generate cross-border business opportunities in the area. Currently transport connections in the area are rather bad.

Somewhat smaller but locally important project would be also the Sokli Railway in Eastern Lapland. It would support the long-planned phosphate mine in Sokli though the mining project is extremely controversial due to environmental concerns.

A railway from Salla to Russia might also get more support here if there's larger interest towards rail transportation in Lapland.

Click to expand...

My initial sketches on this topic are more of HSR between the main Scandinavian big cities. Finland would need to be placated over the years, probably with a wodge of cash for Lansimetro.

Somebody mentioned Scotland. How about Estonia and Latvia, which are already independent.


As for transport, you can upgrade the rail line between Boden and Kemi, and restore passenger service. Also you need to change the gauge in Finland.

A great update. Here's to hoping the Centre indeed loses the elections so Väyrynen is replaced by someone a bit more sensible.

Devvy said:

Scandinavian Airlines (System) was an early example of pan-Nordicism, being co-owned by the Danish, Norwegian & Swedish Governments together.

[snip]

The Prime Ministers agreed to set up a special commission to investigate the possibility of establishing a mutual currency. Earlier attempts had been made through the years at this, with the Scandinavian Monetary Union, but this would be the first attempt in many decades for a real shared currency. This was another area where Danish interests were unclear; they had previously already rejected the Euro currency within the EEC. However, Rasmussen made clear that the proposed Nordic group would effectively be Finland, Sweden, Norway & Iceland, with Denmark joining specific programmes where appropriate.

Click to expand...

Here I see specific points of friction between Finland and the others.

The Finns would want to hold on to the national carrier Finnair, for prestige and tradition if not anything else, even if more cooperation with SAS would be seen as an answer to the company's financial woes in the 90s.

And then there's the currency issue. I can see Finland agreeing to a common currency - unless it is not called the krona (crown), which would be opposed by many republican Finns. A more neutral name for the new currency would win over the Finns to the cause - perhaps one could be found from common history? Naming it the krona would only outline this being a "Scandinavian" instead of a "Nordic" project to many Finns.

Devvy said:

Transport; the big one. Those who have read any of my other works *may* have picked up on my interest in transport matters. No doubt I will end up writing a special piece on how this progresses.

Click to expand...

As the late 90s and early 00s come around, one major trend is that the transport links to Russia will grow in importance, at least for Finland if not everyone else, because trade will pick up and Russian tourists start making their appearance in Nordic cities. General Tirpitz's point about the Arctic connections is one thing, and updating roads and rail connections in the south will be on the agenda, too. It is very likely Finland would promote enhancing transport links to Russia as a pan-Nordic project and lobby for Nordic funds for that.

edvardas said:

As for transport, you can upgrade the rail line between Boden and Kemi, and restore passenger service. Also you need to change the gauge in Finland.

Click to expand...

Improving sea links and ports across the Nordic area will be much more cost-effective. Perhaps there would be mergers or more cooperation between shipping companies, too. Improving rail and road connections in the north would be wise, but any rail projects would IMO have to be based on the existing gauges because of economic considerations alone - not to forget that Finland will have a lot more railway freight going to Russia than to Sweden, and so the importance of the Finnish gauge matching with the Russian will become bigger by the 2010s.

Devvy said:

My initial sketches on this topic are more of HSR between the main Scandinavian big cities. Finland would need to be placated over the years, probably with a wodge of cash for Lansimetro.

Click to expand...

With extra money the construction of Länsimetro could be started very well few years earlier than IOTL as the price tag is much more attractive for Espoo. Maybe they would be already building the Matinkylä-Kivenlahti extension by 2014 ITTL.

DrakonFin said:

And then there's the currency issue. I can see Finland agreeing to a common currency - unless it is not called the krona (crown), which would be opposed by many republican Finns. A more neutral name for the new currency would win over the Finns to the cause - perhaps one could be found from common history? Naming it the krona would only outline this being a "Scandinavian" instead of a "Nordic" project to many Finns.

Click to expand...

I was actually thinking exactly the same thing. A common Nordic currency wouldn't be really a problem but the name krona is completely unacceptable for many Finns.

General Tirpitz said:

With extra money the construction of Länsimetro could be started very well few years earlier than IOTL as the price tag is much more attractive for Espoo. Maybe they would be already building the Matinkylä-Kivenlahti extension by 2014 ITTL.



I was actually thinking exactly the same thing. A common Nordic currency wouldn't be really a problem but the name krona is completely unacceptable for many Finns.

Click to expand...

Well, it would be Kruunu in Finnish anyways.

Immigration policies will unavoidably be an interesting topic in this TL - as it is, Finland in early 1990s is still very ethnically homogenous society when compared to Sweden and Norway.

Finns have traditionally worked as a workforce reserve for both countries in the past with fishing industry in Norway and manufacturing in Sweden as prime examples. A closer economical union with common currency will make it even easier and more lucrative for Finns to work part-time in Sweden, especially in construction business. This might actually be beneficial for both Finland and Sweden, as it will alleviate the unemployment problems in Finland and promote economic growth in Sweden. The status of Finnish as an official minority language in Sweden will most likely move up quicker than in OTL as well.

A common currency combined with the Norwegian alcohol taxation would profit Finnish state alcohol monopoly even more than in OTL, with large Alko stores opening up in Finnish Lappland to meet the demands of Finnmark Norwegians.

yourworstnightmare said:

Well, it would be Kruunu in Finnish anyways.

Click to expand...

It would still specifically refer, in many Finns' eyes, to the Swedish rather than Finnish currency, as well as having all those royalist connotations. That it would seem like a step backwards instead of towards the future would not help to raise acceptance to the new currency.

In fact "mark" (or "markka" in Finnish) would be a more neutral name, if an existing one should be repurposed, and it would have some history in the Scandinavian area, too.

How about, say, simply "mynt" ("myntti")?

Maybe they should have a pan-Nordic competition for choosing the name - there is some precedent for such a move in history.