
Greenland votes to leave the European Community – archive, February 1982
23 February 1982
Godthaab: Greenland's mainly Inuit (Eskimo) people are expected today to vote to leave the EEC, thereby depriving the Community of roughly half its total area. Some 32,500 Greenlanders are eligible to vote in a consultative referendum on whether the world's largest island should continue membership of the Community.
EEC Commission officials in Brussels have said a 'no' vote and subsequent withdrawal could set a dangerous precedent with both the new Greek Socialist government and the British Labour party which are talking of leaving the EEC.
Greenland entered the community with Denmark in 1973 despite the fact that 71% of its voters opposed membership in the Danish referendum on the EEC the previous year. A Greenland referendum in 1979, then approved home rule by 70% to 26% of the voters, permitting Greenlanders to decide for themselves whether they wished to stay in the EEC. Greenland remained part of the Kingdom of Denmark and under the Danish constitution, but power was devolved to a locally elected parliament, the Landsting.
From John Palmer, European editor in Brussels
25 February 1982
There were fears in Brussels yesterday that the vote in favour of withdrawal from the Common Market in the Greenland referendum would encourage anti-Marketeers in Britain and Greece. The EEC Commission expressed its 'regret' at the result but undertook to negotiate a new relationship with Greenland – a process which may take until 1984 to complete.
The referendum, in which 52% were against staying in and 46% were for remaining in the Community, was advisory. But the Siumut party, which has the majority in the local parliament, has repeatedly stated that it would pull out if the majority of Greenlanders wanted it. Despite the campaign waged by the Danish Government and the EEC Commission in favour of a vote for staying in the EEC, there was no great surprise at the narrow victory of those advocating withdrawal. Although the Ten will, at a stroke, lose about half the total land mass of the European Community, the decision only affects about 50,000 people of a total EEC population of 200 million.
While considerable efforts were being made in Brussels yesterday to play down the decision, it was seen as setting a precedent in the British and Greek cases. However, it was pointed out that Greenland was a unique case in that it was better understood as part of a belated de-colonisation process by Denmark than as an attempt by an independent member state to seek a new relationship with the Ten.
The first step in Greenland's disengagement from the EEC will be the formal communication of the decision to the prime minister, Mr Anker Joergensen, by the leader of the administration, Mr Jonathon Motzfeldt. It will then be for the Danish government, which remains responsible for Greenland's foreign and defence policies, to negotiate a new status for Greenland.
Greenland's Siumut party wants the territory to be given the same privileged relationship with the EEC as that of France's metropolitan overseas territories. Although by leaving the EEC, Greenland will have taken itself out of the customs union the local administration is anxious to be able to sell fish to the EEC market free of tariffs.
While anxious not to shut the door on a close link between the EEC and Greenland, the commission also does not want to encourage anti-Marketeers in Britain and Greece to think that the Greenland referendum is an easy option for them.
From Derek Brown in Brussels
18 December 1984
Sign up to This is Europe
The most pressing stories and debates for Europeans – from identity to economics to the environment
after newsletter promotion
The European Community has invented the opposite of blackballing, the process used by club members to veto membership applications by undesirables. It has whiteballed Greenland into staying in the Community, against the will of its 52,000 mostly [Inuit] inhabitants
Greenland, a self-governing Danish territory, wanted to leave on 31 December, largely because the regional government wants full control of fish stocks, the island's only significant resource. Earlier this year the 10 member states agreed terms under which the Greenlanders conceded valuable fishing rights in exchange for cash compensation.
The deal, making Greenland the first territory to secede from the EEC, was, to take effect on 1 January 1985. But it had to be ratified by the 10 member states' parliaments. At least five have failed to do so.
The whiteballing of Greenland is not the result of warm affection for the frozen wastes. The French Senate objected to certain features of the fish deal, which could affect catches in national waters surrounding, the colonial islands of Saint Pierre and Miquelon, south of Greenland.
Other parliaments – in Ireland, Germany, and Italy – seem more simply to have overlooked the matter. Irish legislators started their Christmas holidays last week so Greenland is condemned to spend at least the first part of 1985 in the EEC. There was doubt last night whether the Dutch parliament had completed the ratification process. Belgium has refused to do so until the legal status of the deal is made clear.
Foreign ministers of the Community, whose meeting here yesterday was largely concerned with opening the EEC door to Spain and Portugal, were unable to find the key to the exit for Greenland. They are still hoping, however, that the island can be treated as a non-member, even though she will remain in the club. Continue reading
2 February 1985
Greenland yesterday left the EEC to become the first country to quit the bloc since the founding Treaty of Rome came into operation in January 1958. The departure, originally set for 1 January, was held up by a dispute over access to dwindling stocks of fish.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Western Telegraph
33 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
Nigel Farage calls for ‘re-industrialisation' of Wales
On a visit to South Wales, the leader of Reform UK said the resumption of traditional steelmaking and coal production is the party's long-term ambition if it comes to power. The speech came one year ahead of the Senedd elections in May next year, where the party is looking to end Labour's 26 years of domination. Addressing reporters, Mr Farage acknowledged that plans to open a traditional furnace could take years and cost 'in the low billions'. The GMB Union has branded the plans 'more lies from an opportunistic chancer'. Tata Steel's Port Talbot steelworks in south Wales (Ben Birchall/PA) Port Talbot's remaining blast furnaces were shut down in September last year, with a new electric arc furnace being built in their place. 'Our ambition is to re-industrialise Wales,' Mr Farage said. 'We are going to be using more steel over the next few years than we have probably ever used. 'As we increase military spending and as we attempt a house building programme in Wales, and even more so in England, of massive proportions, just to catch up with the population explosion over the last 20 years, we are going to need a lot of steel.' The Reform leader said 'specific types of coal' are needed in the UK, particularly for a new blast furnace. 'We should be producing ourselves, rather than importing,' he said. While he acknowledged 'mining is dangerous', he said the industry could provide well-paying jobs. Mr Farage acknowledged the plan to open a new furnace would cost 'in the low billions' and would be 'no easy thing'. 'It's a massive, expensive job to re-open blast furnaces, we're going to need cheaper energy, we're going to need much cheaper coal, we are going to need private business partners prepared to come into a joint venture,' he said. Responding to the GMB Union allegations that his party's plans were 'lies', Mr Farage said the union was tied to the Labour Party as one of its biggest funders. He said: 'They see us as a challenge, and therefore, they'll be rude about us. 'What you will find is that increasingly, GMB members are going to vote for us, and the more GMB members vote for us, the more upset GMB officials and leaders will become. 'Frankly, the trade unions have done nothing to protect British workers through open borders over the last 20-25 years.' During his speech, Mr Farage said he doubted that the electric arc furnace, which is due to come online in 2028, 'will ever, ever be switched on'. Challenged on what evidence he had, he argued that with British energy prices being so high, it would be producing 'very, very expensive secondary steel'. He added: 'I hope I'm wrong, an electric arc furnace is not the real deal, but it's better than nothing.' Mr Farage said the party's campaign for the Senedd election next May 'starts today', but would not say when Reform would announce a leader in Wales. Regional officer Ruth Brady, speaking at the GMB's annual conference in Brighton, said: 'The people of Port Talbot will see this for what it is – more lies from this opportunistic chancer. 'Nigel Farage was happy to let British Steel go to the wall. He'll trot out any line when the cameras are rolling. He doesn't care about steel communities or steel workers.' Ms Brady said the plans to shut the blast furnaces were made by the last Tory government and the union wanted Labour to 'make good on their promises to our members in Port Talbot'.


ITV News
39 minutes ago
- ITV News
Nato chief to call on UK to spend 3.5% of GDP on defence
Life comes at you fast in Downing Street. It's only a week since the Prime Minister was dodging questions about when he would increase defence spending to 3% of GDP. Today the Nato Secretary General is in town to tell Keir Starmer that actually Britain ought to spend 3.5% by 2035. Its expected the PM will agree with the target. And we are talking big sums here. That extra 0.5% is worth north of £17bn. Put a different way our defence budget of around £60bn would have to rise to more like £100bn to meet the 3.5% which is the new Nato target. Thats an NHS scale amount of money. And it inevitably means spending cuts elsewhere or tax rises or both. There are two reasons for this. The first is Vladimir Putin, the second is Donald Trump. Putin has shown he is ready and willing to attack his European neighbours. Trump has suggested he is less willing to come to the rescue. Today it is Ukraine, tomorrow it could be Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania. That's where we come in. Those three Baltic states are all Nato members. If they are attacked we would be obliged to defend them, we would be at war with Russia; that's the Nato deal. Mark Rutte wants Nato to be big enough, tough enough and determined enough to deter Putin, to make it not worth his while to test the alliance. But Nato's 2035 target is, of course, ten years away. Many defence analysts think that it will only take Putin a couple of years after ending the Ukraine war to reconstitute his armed forces. So here's the key question; are we in a Cold War moment when the threat in Europe will not materialise, or a pre-1939 moment when it will?


Daily Mirror
40 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
'Reform and Tories want to ban burkhas but don't give a damn about Muslim women'
At the end of last week, Zia Yusuf, the millionaire 'patriotic Muslim' chairman of Reform, left the party with this goodbye email: '11 months ago I became chairman of Reform… I no longer believe working to get a Reform government elected is a good use of my time, and hereby resign the office'. This came after Sarah Pochin, a new Reform MP, urged the PM to ban the burka, 'in the name of public safety'. Yusuf thought it was a 'dumb' intervention and flounced off. Now he is back in the fold, being flattered and coddled by Nigel Farage and his motley lot. Nige actually looked grey with shock when he first commented on the unexpected resignation. Now the perma smile is back. Now Kemi Badenoch, a hungry political scavenger, has picked up the burka theme. She wants bosses to be able to ban burkas. Lots of votes in that, she calculates, as her party sinks. Neither Reform nor the Tories give a damn about us Muslim females. They just want to incite hatred. Anti-Muslim bones are thrown and are grabbed by ISLAMOPHOBES. The burka is used, as it was by the ghastly Boris Johnson, as a code to incite fear of an enemy within. Muslims make up only 6.7% of the UK's population, but you would not know that from the hysteria they/we generate in the media and politics. Farage previously accused Muslims of wanting to take over the UK and, last May, told the nation that Muslims do 'not subscribe to British values'. As defined by him. So Lord Chancellor Shabana Mahmood, Tory peer Sayeeda Warsi, Olympian Sir Mo Farah, polymath Adil Ray, actor Riz Ahmed, TV chef Nadiya Hussain, broadcaster Mishal Husain, etc, are aliens living among us. Me too. Dangerous rubbish. And they know it. Yusuf, the born again Reform chairman, manifestly does. That said, the burka is not a brown and white issue. Modernist Muslims like me have, for many years, expressed dismay and opposition to all forms of veiling. I even wrote a book, Refusing the Veil, some years ago, outlining its history, exposing fake claims about what the holy texts say and revealing the long history of resistance to it. There are only five fundamental obligations in Islam. Veiling is not on the list. Aisha bint Talha, a granddaughter of Abu Bakr, head of Sunni Muslims after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, refused to cover herself: 'Since God has put upon me the stamp of beauty, it is my wish that the public should view that beauty… No one can force me to do anything.' Egyptian, Iranian, Iraqi and Afghan women, through the centuries, have done what she did. And keep on challenging the practice today. I also am forthright about grooming circles of men of Pakistani heritage and their white victims. As a feminist Muslim, I feel I must continue to do that. However, as an anti-racist leftie, I must take on vicious politicians who are going after people of my faith. The genuine anxieties and problems experienced by citizens across the Western world are being exploited by the far right to whip up xenophobia against migrants and Muslims. Reform tries to project itself as inclusive – Yusuf was a useful mascot – but this does not bear scrutiny. Farage, like Trump, has savaged equality policies because they 'disadvantage' white people. A year ago, a Channel 4 investigation recorded Reform canvassers making explicitly Islamophobic and racist comments. The Great Leader has posed with far-right activists who show off their swastikas. With more voters flocking to his party and unending media sycophancy, Farage seems unstoppable. Yusuf is back on the mission to make him PM. He may succeed. Then Reform's messiah will dump on the common people. Those who pick on minorities should not be trusted. Ever. Muslims will have to battle against these xenophobes as well as misogyny within our families and communities. And for British democracy, hard times are coming. I read excerpts of Sarah Vine's new book, How Not to Be a Political Wife with, first, amusement, then annoyance. The stridently anti-EU Daily Mail columnist and ex-Mrs Michael Gove was once in the top Tory girl gang led by Samantha Cameron. The great Brexit swindle broke them up. Vine was devastated – no more holidays together, no cheery dinners, no children's sleepovers. Her marriage, she claims, crashed too. I feel her pain. Sort of. But there is no concern that the country fell apart and will never recover. Her lot live in a bubble of privilege and vanity. That's why the voters kicked them out. No lessons have been learnt.