EU split into a series of sub-issues
A more detailed look at people's positions nevertheless
suggests that the question of world-view is not really as
clear-cut as this. So many different aspects of the EU
have a bearing on people's attitudes. One will stress
economics, another fear disintegration of the social
security system, and a third emphasize national security.
Or else each will consider all these factors to one
degree or another. The referendum did not do justice to
a person who was in favour of membership in the hope
of an improved business environment and lower food
prices, but was doubtful due to fears of an increase in
crime. Nevertheless, numerous matters which were not
really comparable had to be squeezed together to
produce a `yes' or a `no'.
An opinion poll conducted just a couple of months
before the referendum showed that, even at such a late
stage, people were still in principle prepared to be
flexible in their views, as if they were waiting for the
final piece of information which would seal their
position. Those definitely in favour numbered 17%,
with those definitely opposed at 24%. In favour but
uncertain (23%), opposed but uncertain (17%), and
plain undecided (19%) taken together were clearly in
the majority.
There were nevertheless no great swings in public
opinion in either direction between autumn 1992 and
autumn 1994. The basic outlook on the EU and the
effects of membership remained stable. Agriculture was
the only question to produce an overall shift in public
opinion of more than 10 percentage points. The closer
we came to the referendum, the more people there
were who thought that agriculture was featuring too
prominently in the discussions.
This contrasts with the situation after the referendum,
when there were definite swings in public opinion. For
example, there was a clear increase in the proportion of
those who believed Finland's position as neighbour to
an unstable Russia to be safer as an EU member than
not (up from 49% to 63%). There was a similar
increase in the proportion of those who thought
effective environmental protection was possible only
through cooperation between EU Member States.
There was an equally strong reduction amongst those who believed (feared?)
that the Union would in future come to form a closely knit
federal state.
On these issues, which carried a fairly hefty emotional
charge, there was in a sense a release of tension in the
aftermath of the referendum. National security was
evidently a factor which had turned waverers into
supporters of membership, although it had attracted
surprisingly little attention in the referendum debate. In
contrast, the argument over the question of a federal
Europe was kept in the foreground of debate,
especially by the opponents of membership.
Expectations versus reality
Finland has been a member of the European Union for
almost three years now. As of autumn 1997, 38% of
Finns feel positive about membership, 29% take a
negative view, while 32% are neutral. A quarter (23%)
favour withdrawal from the EU.
The EU has become boring to an alarming extent. In
the two years leading up to the referendum, every
fourth person (around 25%) declared themselves
extremely interested in the questions surrounding
membership, while 20% indicated little or no interest.
By autumn 1997 only 10% were extremely interested,
while the `apathetic' numbered a whopping 39%.
One reason for this may be that, although the EU did
not result in an earthly paradise, neither did it herald the
arrival of the Beast of the Apocalypse, as some had
forecast. In autumn 1996, six out of ten were ready to
underwrite the claim: "If I didn't already know our
country was a member of the EU, I wouldn't easily
notice it from anything in my everyday life."
Prior to membership, the whole issue was surrounded
by both hopes and fears. During the past two years
there has been an ebbing away of the fears, in
particular. The proportion of those fearing a negative
impact on the quality of foodstuffs, on social security
(dramatic cuts), on sexual equality and on relations with
Russia was noticeably greater prior to membership than
after it. On the other hand, positive expectations about
employment, exports and foreign trade in general were
clearly more common than they are now.
This data reflects the average views of the public as a
whole. It clearly goes without saying that for those who
voted `no' the EU has been an enormous
disappointment, while for `yes' voters it has been a
positive experience.
Quo vadis, Finland?
The referendum on membership came as a surprise.
Several generations had grown up in an environment in
which no-one listened to the voice of the people; on the
contrary, it was the people who had to listen when
questions of foreign policy were
being decided. The information provided by the schools
on the progress, and even the very idea, of European
integration gave no solid base for forming an opinion.
As late as the end of the 1980s, public support for EU
membership still represented the voice of dissent in
Finland. However, in the referendum the vote of a
granny from Pihtipudas (a small municipality in the
forest area of rural Central Finland) was to carry as
much weight as that of the head of a department in the
Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
In spring 1992, two thirds of all Finns considered
themselves very well or fairly well acquainted with the
questions surrounding EU membership. By autumn
1997 - after intensive debate and less than three years
of membership - those who considered themselves
knowledgeable had fallen to 30 %.
This realistic assessment of the level of knowledge and
the collapse of interest are both understandable
phenomena. The Finnish people need time to adjust
and to digest their collective decision. But the EU
allows no time for quiet reflection. Just as the farmers
are finding their way around the new system of
agricultural aid, and officials and politicians are
adjusting to the habits and customs of their new
household, the Union finds itself facing major
challenges. The third stage of EMU lies immediately
ahead, while there are a dozen countries lining up to
join the Union, which as a result is being forced to
rethink many of its policies and procedures.
Finnish faith in membership as the correct solution is at
least as solid as it was at the time of the referendum.
But the new changes are happening too fast. EMU
causes unease, while Union enlargement excites a
reluctant rather than an enthusiastic response,
deepening of the Union being more popular than
enlargement.
The lack of information has meant the re-emergence of
the `don't knows', who were of course also a significant
group at the end of the 1980s. The mass media have
maintained the high profile of questions surrounding the
future of the Union, as well as the various forms of EU
aid, the most concrete manifestations of membership.
This is where the `don't know' group is particularly
large - much larger than in opinion polls dealing with
domestic issues.
This does not imply that opinions on domestic politics,
for example, are always based on sound knowledge.
However, the level of uncertainty surrounding the EU
makes people reluctant to take up a position.
Common causes of anxiety across the Union
In EU matters the Finnish people are in a similar
position to those in other Member States:
decision-makers operate at one level, the general public
at another. While there is general agreement that the
development of the EU has the broad approval of the
general public, two problems are raised. One concerns
the communication of information, i.e. how
decision-makers at the national level - politicians,
officials, business leaders - are able to convincingly explain why
integration is necessary. The second problem is the use
of EU matters as a tool of domestic policy.
The rise of nationalist thinking in at least part of the
population is another pan-European phenomenon. The
recession, unemployment and the pressures on the
welfare state have all turned people's gaze inwards.
There has been a hardening of attitudes towards
immigrants and refugees. In Finland, the will for national
defence and the deep faith in the problem-solving
capacities of the nation state are part of the same
phenomenon. There is increasing unease over the
undermining of national self-determination.
SOURCES:
This article draws on material from the opinion surveys
conducted by the Centre for Finnish Business and
Policy Studies (EVA). These involved written
questionnaires conducted on the basis of random
sampling. The surveys focus either solely on the theme
of integration or on social issues. In other words, the
respondents did not have to divide their attention when
giving their answers, making the surveys mutually
commensurate. All the surveys were conducted by
Yhdyskuntatutkimus Oy researchers.
The Centre for Finnish Business and Policy Studies' EU
opinion surveys: 1992 (spring and autumn), 1993
(spring and autumn), 1994 (spring and autumn), 1995
(autumn), 1996 (autumn), 1997 (autumn).
The Centre for Finnish Business and Policy Studies'
national opinion surveys: Kriittisinä 90-luvulle (1989),
Suomi etsii itseään (1991), Epävarmuuden aika
(1993), Kansa tienhaarassa (1995) and
Menestyksen eväät (1997). These surveys have been
published in English as untitled, numbered volumes
under the series title The Finns and their Society.