Clinching the ‘Return to Europe’: The Referendums on EU Accession in Estonia and Latvia

Abstract

There are two salient features of the referendums on EU membership in Estonia and Latvia. Firstly, the results with decisive pro-EU majorities went easily beyond expectations based on previous opinion poll trends, where these two Baltic states had shown less public enthusiasm for integration than other Central and East European countries. This fact owed much to convincing arguments about abandoning international isolation and about geopolitical choice, with strong historical overtones. The anti-accession cause in both countries suffered from various weaknesses even though, in Estonia though not in Latvia, Eurosceptical attitudes were in evidence. Secondly, there was much less support for EU entry among the strong Russian minorities in both countries. This difference was partly due to the higher incidence of economic circumstances in determining voting behaviour but also to the fact that pro-EU (hence, pro-West) arguments were implicitly and sometimes explicitly unfriendly to Russia. In turn, this also showed that the Soviet legacy was particular to these Baltic countries compared with other accession states from CEE.

Notes

Sweden and Finland have been the main origins of FDI in Estonia with their shares at 41.0% and 27.3% of the total investment respectively, as of the end of 2002 (Bank of Estonia 2003). For Latvia, two Nordic countries, Sweden and Denmark come right after the top investor Germany (12.8%) with shares at 12.4% and 10.8% at the end of 2002 (Bank of Latvia 2003).

Law professor Igor Gräzin has been the most high-profile opponent of the ‘socialist’ EU (Gräzin, 2002a; 2002b).

This issue had been highlighted by debates in the European Convention and, of course, had been made controversial two years before with the EU's mishandled sanctions against Austria.

Interview with Arturs Karins, chairman of the New Era parliamentary party and member of the Saeima's European Affairs Committee, Riga, May 2003. He commented that the European Commission was ‘perceived as a prescriptive body’, especially because of its annual Progress Reports on candidate countries which monitor rather bureaucratically their success or not in meeting the EU's Copenhagen conditions. He summarised this attitude as: ‘we don't want foreign lords telling us what we should do’.

In Latvia, the February 2003 survey of the market research centre Latvijas Fakti showed 43% believing EU membership would not threaten Latvia's economic independence and statehood against 38% who thought the opposite (Latvijas Fakti 2003a: 4, 12–13).

According to the head of European Movement in Latvia, education and information about the EU were important factors influencing the linkage between sensitivity to national sovereignty and EU accession, i.e. the better informed were more likely to appreciate the differences between the EU and the USSR (interview with Ainars Dimants, European Movement, Riga, May 2003).

Interviews then included a party international secretary, a prominent member of the Saeima and its European Affairs Committee, the director of the European Integration Bureau, a cabinet minister, a member of the Management Board for the EU referendum campaign, the head of the government's Referendum Organisation Unit, the deputy head of the Naturalisation Board and the head of the EU delegation. The last commented that he was often asked by Latvians about the question of national sovereignty and EU accession (interview with Andrew Rasbash, head of EU delegation, Riga, May 2003).

Interview with Julija Zukovska, International Secretary of Latvia's Way (LC), Riga, May 2003.

The arguments included: the EU is ‘a union of nation states’ and Latvia supports the role of small states in the European Convention (interview with Ainars Dimants, European Movement, Riga, May 2003).

This was at least the view of Nils Muiznieks, Social Integration Minister, who saw Russians as being as positively inclined towards the EU as Latvians, though for different reasons, namely for ‘getting fair rules of the game’ and for ‘strengthening the anti-discrimination framework’ (interview with Nils Muiznieks, Riga, May 2003).

Interviews with Ramona Umblija, former Minister of Culture and head of the government's referendum organisation unit, and with Roberts Kilis, member of the Management Board for the EU referendum campaign, Riga, May 2003.

The EU membership issue was rated only eleventh in priority by the general public (Postimees 2003).

According to the 2000 Population and Housing Census, the share of the Russian-speaking population was about 30% and citizens about 15%.

Interview with Ramona Umblija, head of Government Referendum Unit, Riga, May 2003.

Interview with Roberts Kilis, member of the Management Board, Riga, May 2003.

Interviews with Ramona Umbija, head of the government's referendum unit, and Roberts Kilis, member of the Management Board, Riga, May 2003.

Interviews with Ramona Umblija and Roberts Kilis, May 2003.

• Decide the Future of Estonia! We will vote for the European Union

• We say that firmly today.

• We will say that firmly tomorrow.

• We will say ‘Yes’ on September 14th.

• We recommend all Estonian citizens do the same

• (www.president.ee/eng/avaldused/avaldus.html?gid = 35290).

Except the Centre Party, only part of whose members and leaders joined with the public ‘Yes’ statement.

Expected price increases for commodities like sugar, tobacco and petrol were the most discussed.

For example, trade unions, the war veterans, the Academy of Sciences, the National Olympic Committee, the national football team, the employers' organisations, the Students' Union, the environmentalists, the Lutheran Church, the Farmers' Union, the Journalists' Union, the Roundtable of NGOs and the Pensioners' Union.

In Estonian Nõukogude Liit and Euroopa Liit respectively.

I.e. the threat to bilateral trade relations with Russia and Russia's successful use of international organisations for its own purposes over the rights of the Russian-speaking population in Estonia.

According to the survey carried by Faktum on June 2003, the top three concerns of Estonians in relation to EU membership were: higher prices (93%); the purchase of land and property by foreigners (77%); and the ‘brain drain’ (77%). Hence, all top three concerns had negative connotations (Avalik arvamus Eesti liitumisest Euroopa Liiduga 2003).

ELIS running the national campaign planned to reach as a minimum the level of the last national elections of 58.2%.

Tallinn was actually third after Harjumaa (69.9%), the county surrounding Tallinn.

Conducted by Department of Political Science, University of Tartu (690 respondents).

Average income being around 6,600 kroons (e.g. €420).

Actually, a small gap equal to 5–10% developed already from December 2002, but the difference stayed stable and was not as drastic as what happened in August–September 2003.

According to the pre-referendum polls conducted by EMOR, the difference in support for accession between ethnic Estonians and Russians was 7% in August (respectively 62% and 55%) and as much as 21% in the first week of September (respectively 66% and 45%).

Figures on population are taken from Enciklopedija Latvijas Pilsetas 1999.

Cf. the statement of Linz and Stepan that ‘demographically, the most difficult Baltic country in which to reconcile the logic of a nation-state and the logic of a liberal democracy will be Latvia’ (Linz and Stepan 1996: 405 – chapter 20 on Estonia and Latvia).