logo
Greenland votes to leave the European Community – archive, February 1982

Greenland votes to leave the European Community – archive, February 1982

The Guardian05-02-2025

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.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Reeves has folded like the Tin Foil Chancellor she is
Reeves has folded like the Tin Foil Chancellor she is

Telegraph

time10 minutes ago

  • Telegraph

Reeves has folded like the Tin Foil Chancellor she is

Rachel Reeves confirmed on Wednesday that she is a ' spend today, tax tomorrow ' Chancellor. Her spending spree on the country's credit card has set us on a collision course with the autumn when more tax rises will hit working families' pockets hard. After a year of chaos, how can anyone take this Government seriously? Rather than using the spending review as an opportunity to deliver secure public finances, the Chancellor is instead lurching from one disaster to the next. The cruel cuts to winter fuel payments, the £30 billion Chagos Islands surrender and the billions in no-strings-attached union handouts are all chickens that have come home to roost. When the pressure is on, the self-styled 'Iron Chancellor' folds like the 'Tin Foil Chancellor' she really is. She promised to get borrowing down, but the deficit is up by 70 per cent on her watch. She pledged no new taxes rises, yet more are on their way. She pledged not to change pensioner benefits, then U-turned. Then U-turned again. The only consistent thing about her is her inconsistency. Her own MPs, Cabinet ministers and Labour's trade union paymasters smell weakness. They know she's vulnerable and they will demand more money – and get it if they shout loud enough. The Chancellor has boxed herself into a corner. We face an extra £200 billion of borrowing this Parliament compared with the last Conservative Budget, with £80 billion more in interest payments alone. We are almost a year in but no economic plan is forthcoming. Our country is exposed. We have no room left to respond to shocks in global markets. Interest rates and mortgages are staying higher for longer because of her choices, as the OBR has said. She trumpets the hundreds of billions in extra spending she has announced while on the other hand claiming to have fixed the public finances. It simply doesn't make sense. She claims there is 'still work to do to ensure the sums add up'. That's not stability, it's uncertainty – the very last thing markets want to hear. It is not just markets. Her abject failure means British families have seen inflation almost double, unemployment rise, growth stalling, debt interest soar and pensioners sacrificed. The country is worse off because of her choices. What of the winter fuel U-turn? Last summer, pensioners were left out in the cold to avoid 'a run on the pound', as Labour's Lucy Powell put it. Now they claim they can afford to reverse it because they have fixed the economy and the finances – but economists are saying both are in a worse state since Labour came to office. Nothing's changed except the Government's credibility, which is vanishing. Rock bottom confidence There was nothing in her review restore rock bottom business confidence. Payrolls fell by over 100,000 last month alone. Unemployment is up 10 per cent since Labour took office. Only businesses create growth and jobs. But our Chancellor has not yet learnt that basic lesson of economics, her fingers planted firmly in her ears whilst the alarm bells are ringing. Similarly, the first and most important duty of any Prime Minister is keeping the country safe. But even as the world is becoming more dangerous and a new axis of evils draws their battle lines, there was no further progress towards spending 3 per cent of GDP on defence, which Labour claim to be committed to. They stood firm on the Chagos surrender, which is paying for tax cuts for Mauritians while we suffer, costing our country £30 billion to lease back our own land. There is no urgency on the issues of the day. The Home Office budget too has been significantly hit by asylum costs, while illegal crossings soar. Rather than point the finger at everyone else, the Chancellor should take responsibility and fix the problems she has created. Instead, the socialist's lazy embrace of high spending, more borrowing and higher taxes beckons – leaving our public finances dangerously vulnerable. If we were in charge, we would take a different approach. We wouldn't kill growth with tax rises and red tape. We'd restore confidence, focus on efficiency and productivity, and reform welfare to get people off benefits and into work. At the end of the day, it's working people and businesses who will pay – with higher taxes, higher costs, and fewer opportunities. This Spending Review is unaffordable, and so is this Chancellor.

UK agrees to check-free land border for Gibraltar but EU controls for flights
UK agrees to check-free land border for Gibraltar but EU controls for flights

The Independent

time22 minutes ago

  • The Independent

UK agrees to check-free land border for Gibraltar but EU controls for flights

The UK has reached a deal with the EU over Gibraltar's border with Spain that will allow travellers to cross by land without checks. The agreement on a 'fluid border' clears the way to finalise a post-Brexit deal on the territory with the EU. But those flying into Gibraltar from the UK will face one check from Gibraltarian officials and another by the Spanish on behalf of the EU. This is because the land border will allow those arriving by air access to the European Schengen free travel area unchecked once they are in Gibraltar. The UK and Gibraltar insisted the changes would not affect the British overseas territory's sovereignty. The airport will operate under a model similar to London's St Pancras station, where passengers pass through both UK and French passport checks to board international trains. Goods and customs checks will also eventually be removed in both directions under the agreement. The move could also see airlines start to add flights to Gibraltar from countries other than the UK in a boost to tourism. Officials say a hard border would have been introduced under the EU's incoming exit and entry control system if no deal was reached, causing delays for some 15,000 people who cross the border every day as every individual passport was checked. Talks on rules governing the border have been ongoing since Britain left the European Union in 2020. Foreign Secretary David Lammy said the previous Tory government left behind a situation that 'put Gibraltar's economy and way of life under threat'. He said the agreement was a 'breakthrough' after years of uncertainty. He said: 'Alongside the government of Gibraltar, we have reached an agreement which protects British sovereignty, supports Gibraltar's economy and allows businesses to plan for the long-term once again. 'I thank the chief minister and his government for their tireless dedication throughout the negotiations. The UK's commitment to Gibraltar remains as solid as The Rock itself.' Spanish foreign minister Jose Albares said the deal marked 'a new beginning' in the relationship between the UK and Spain. He said that Spain 'will guarantee free movement of people and goods', adding that Gibraltar would now be linked to the Schengen Area with Spanish authorities controlling entry and exit. President of the EU Commission Ursula von der Leyen welcomed the deal. In a post on X, she said: 'It safeguards the integrity of Schengen and the single market, while ensuring stability, legal certainty and prosperity for the region.' Gibraltar's chief minister Fabian Picardo said the deal would 'protect future generations of British Gibraltarians and does not in any way affect our British sovereignty'. 'Now is the time to look beyond the arguments of the past and towards a time of renewed co-operation and understanding. Now the deal is done, it's time to finalise the treaty,' he said. On Wednesday evening, Sir Keir Starmer spoke with Mr Picardo and thanked him for 'his years of hard work, commitment, and leadership to reach an agreement'. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez also had a phone call with Sir Keir, and congratulated the British PM because 'his Government had succeeded where others had failed'. The Conservatives have said they will carefully review the UK's agreement with the EU on Gibraltar's border to see if it crosses any 'red lines' the party set out during its own negotiations when in government. Shadow foreign secretary Priti Patel said: 'Gibraltar is British, and given Labour's record of surrendering our territory and paying for the privilege, we will be reviewing carefully all the details of any agreement that is reached.' Mr Lammy held talks with Gibraltar's leaders, members of the opposition and the business community before leaving the British overseas territory to head to Brussels on Wednesday morning. Gibraltar was ceded to the UK by Spain in 1713 and the population is heavily in favour of remaining a British overseas territory. The last time it voted on a proposal to share sovereignty with Spain, in 2002, almost 99% of Gibraltarians rejected the move. Gibraltar also hosts an RAF base at its airport and an important naval facility.

Reeves sacrifices defence and police for NHS splurge
Reeves sacrifices defence and police for NHS splurge

Telegraph

time24 minutes ago

  • Telegraph

Reeves sacrifices defence and police for NHS splurge

Rachel Reeves has been accused of sacrificing police and defence spending in favour of a record handout for the NHS. Police chiefs warned that Labour's flagship election promises on reducing crime could be missed after the Chancellor set out her spending review on Wednesday, while former military leaders criticised her 'totally inadequate' plans for the Armed Forces. Instead, the Chancellor prioritised a 'record' funding boost for the NHS, which will now get an extra £29 billion a year compared with 2023-24, despite the lack of a detailed reform plan. Economists said tax rises in the autumn Budget were now inevitable. Treasury documents revealed that the Government was already forecasting a 5 per cent increase in council tax each year until 2028, meaning an extra £395 for the average Band D property. Chris Philp, the Conservative shadow home secretary, said: 'Despite the biggest tax rises for a generation, this Labour Government has made the wrong choices and is leaving our country's national security at risk. 'The military are not receiving the money they need to face a dangerous and uncertain world and it is likely we will not see the record police numbers I delivered as police minister last year being maintained.' Boris Johnson also told The Telegraph that Labour's 'feeble' spending on defence would leave Britain at the mercy of Russia. The spending review set out three years of day-to-day spending and four years of capital investment, with an extra £300 billion spent after money-raising measures last autumn. Ms Reeves told MPs: 'I have made my choices. These are my choices. These are the choices of the British people.' Writing for the Telegraph, she added: 'We are keeping our country safe.' But there was immediate scrutiny of the Chancellor's priorities, which Sir Mel Stride, the Conservative shadow chancellor, described as a 'spend now, tax later'. There were also accusations of questionable accounting as critics asked whether Ms Reeves was being fully transparent on spending levels. Health spending will rise by £17.2 billion a year between 2025-26 and 2029, almost 90 per cent of total additional day-to-day spending, leaving budgets in real terms flat or falling per person for most other Whitehall departments. The real budgets for daily running costs for defence, including the Armed Forces, will rise by just 0.7 per cent per year over the next three years. That compares with a day-to-day budget increase of 3 per cent for the NHS. However, Ms Reeves's cash injection for tanks, warships and military bases will mean the overall defence budget rises by an average of 3.8 per cent until the next election. The Resolution Foundation said the surge in health spending would 'leave little to rebuild other public services'. The think-tank described increases for defence and education as 'small'. Extra funding for the police is expected to amount to just £200 million in real terms by the end of the decade. The policing budget will rise by 1.7 per cent a year. Police chiefs criticised a Treasury suggestion it was increasing by 2.3 per cent, noting that the figure included a past boost to cover the National Insurance increase. Documents released alongside the spending review suggested that higher council tax police precepts would form part of 'additional income' used to increase police budgets, alongside funds from central government. Senior officers warned that the lack of funds puts at risk Labour promises to deploy an extra 13,000 neighbourhood police officers, as well as halve violence against women and girls and reduce knife crime. Gavin Stephens, the chairman of the National Police Chiefs' Council, said: 'It is clear that this is an incredibly challenging outcome for policing. 'In real terms, today's increase in funding will cover little more than annual inflationary pay increases for officers and staff ... the amount falls far short of what is required to fund the Government's ambitions and maintain our existing workforce.' Tiff Lynch, the acting chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, said: 'When this Government came in, they said they had the police's back. It feels like we have been incredibly let down.' The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners said that 'the funding announced is not enough to deliver the Government's Safer Streets mission'. Sadiq Khan, the London Mayor, also claimed it would mean cuts in the number of Metropolitan Police officers. He called the funding 'insufficient'. Earlier this year, it was announced that defence spending would rise from 2.3 per cent of GDP to 2.5 per cent. However, new plans for the 2028-29 financial year show the Government will not go further, despite the stated 'ambition' to reach 3 per cent in the early 2030s. It threatens to undermine Britain's expected endorsement of an even more stretching 3.5 per cent target, which is set to be adopted at a Nato summit this month. Earlier this week, Mark Rutte, the Nato secretary general, warned that failure to invest in defence would mean 'you could still have the NHS … the pension system, but you better learn to speak Russian'. Mr Johnson, the former prime minister, told The Telegraph that the lack of new defence funding beyond February's uplift was a 'wasted' opportunity. He said: 'My view is that this Government is completely failing to show the leadership that is needed to defend Britain and defend Europe. Labour are congenitally hostile to defence spending. Their grass roots are still basically Corbynistas who think Russia is a great thing. Those views are still highly influential in Labour.' The Treasury also came under fire for allegedly massaging its numbers after Ms Reeves confirmed intelligence services spending would be included as defence spending, taking the figure to 2.6 per cent. Sir Ben Wallace, the former Tory defence secretary, said: 'Today's spending review confirmed what we all feared. Rather than making tough decisions on public spending priorities, Rachel Reeves chose to use Treasury tricks to deceive us all. 'They have now folded in intelligence spending, Ukraine spending and even Foreign Office money to the notional 'defence' figure. The result is that core defence spending will not even be 2.5 per cent as promised: not even close. There was no path to 3 per cent either. It was just a con all along.' Lord Dannatt, a former head of the Army, said the figures presented on Wednesday were 'totally inadequate' and warned that the UK would be 'embarrassed' at the Nato summit in the Hague later this month. By contrast, the NHS was one of the big beneficiaries of the spending review. Whereas the defence spending uplift largely came in capital investment, the health budget rise was in day-to-day spending. An extra £29 billion a year for the running of the health service was announced, with Ms Reeves promising 'more appointments', 'more doctors' and 'more scanners'. Another winner was Lord Hermer, the Attorney General criticised for defending alleged terrorists before he took the job. A long-standing friend of Sir Keir Starmer, his law officers were given a spending increase of 5.3 per cent, although the rise was small in cash terms. The Chancellor defended her approach in an article for The Telegraph. She said: 'I have announced record investment in the NHS, with £29 billion more a year to improve patient care. 'But let me be clear: this investment comes on the condition of reform. It's not enough to spend money on a broken system. It is about investing to reform services so they are fit for the modern century.' Ms Reeves insisted she was a defender of national security, writing: 'We are keeping our country safe with an £11 billion real-terms increase in defence spending, making sure our Armed Forces have the equipment they need. And we are boosting funding for our security and intelligence agencies, so they have the tools they need to respond to new threats.' But Sir Mel countered in his own article for The Telegraph: 'Rachel Reeves confirmed that she is a 'spend today, tax tomorrow' Chancellor. Her spending spree on the country's credit card has set us on a collision course in the autumn when more tax rises will hit working families' pockets hard. After a year of chaos, how can anyone take this Government seriously?' There were other claims of questionable accounting. The Government vowed to eventually find £14 billion a year of efficiency savings. But a document some 50 pages long detailing claims by each department on how those savings would be made included loose promises such as better use of artificial intelligence. The Chancellor also pledged to end the 'costly' use of hotels to house asylum seekers by the end of this parliament. However, the Home Office will still be paying £2.5 billion a year by then to support migrants.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store