desirability of, or readiness for, full membership. A Finnish application in the foreseeable future would, apart from doubling NATO’s direct border with Russia, probably take place in a charged international situation. As the domestic political process in Finland would require several months, approval by Parliament and, possibly, a referendum campaign, the country could be exposed to strong pressure from Russia. If Sweden were to apply simultaneously, the whole application process would be protracted, since a referendum in that country is, in the view of the Swedish establishment, a natural element of the accession process. How this would play out in Finland is uncertain. Public opinion will be an important part of the accession process.
Referendum processes always run into the problem of how to phrase the question, since this will inevitably influence the outcome. In the case of EU accession, the agreement reached was put to referenda in both Finland and Sweden[1]. In Sweden, as in Denmark, a referendum also took place on whether or not to join the EMU.
A possible Finnish decision to apply for NATO membership would be taken by the President on the basis of a motion proposed by the Government. Before this takes place, the Government would present a report to the Parliament, and the Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee would be continuously informed about the process and the negotiations. If the outcome of negotiations were decided to be put to a referendum, a specific law would need to be stipulated accordingly. After the referendum, the Parliament would have to approve the agreement on Finland’s accession, whereafter the President would take the final decision on membership.
The Swedish constitution, for its part, provides for both decisive and consultative referenda, the former only in relation to constitutional issues. However, in practice, the difference between the two forms is not that significant, as even a consultative referendum is seen as decisive. If and when there is a broad consensus that Sweden should apply for membership of NATO, it may well be a condition for Social Democratic support that an enabling referendum be held on whether to apply or not. This is widely seen as the politically central point in an accession process. In Sweden, foregoing an enabling referendum in favour of the Finnish model may lead to accusations that the Government is trying to prejudice
- ↑ A separate referendum was held in the Åland Islands a few weeks after the referendum in mainland Finland. Accession referenda also took place in Ireland (1972), Norway (1972, 1994), Denmark (1972), Austria (1994), and in 2003 in Malta, Slovenia, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, as well as Croatia (2012).
