During the whole period, Denmark has considered itself to have the world’s best system (the same view is also held by a number of other nations). From 1973 to about 1988, everything revolved around preventing the EC from "damaging our system"; hence the mandate given to negotiators at all levels was that they were to ensure that nothing was passed that would necessitate any major amendment of Danish rules. That defensive position often had the result that the EC drew up Directives so considerately as to enable Denmark - as well as some of the other Member States - to continue hitherto practice. However, it did not allow Denmark much opportunity to leave its mark on EC decisions.
This defensive attitude became evident in the debate that preceded the 1985 referendum on the Single European Act (the EC Internal Market). The new Article 100A, Section 4 of the Treaty of Rome played an absolutely central role. The Danish government promised - on the verge of overinterpretation - that Denmark would always be able to impose stricter rules if the EC should lower the standard.
Since 1988, Denmark’s stance has been more and more offensive. Denmark has become convinced that the Commission really does want a high level of environmental protection, and the Commission’s GD XI (environmental matters, etc.) is considered more as a fellow player than a threat to the Danish environment. In line with the line Holland has taken for many years, Denmark has therefore strived to influence the decisions by alluding to the fact that certain solutions have functioned well in practice. In such discussions, Denmark and Holland have the advantage that they are unitary states in which the central government has a good overview of the situation and great influence, even though the practical implementation of measures is decentralized. Denmark and Holland are hardly likely to have achieved much without Germany, however. Germany is Europe’s largest industrial nation, and all three countries impose roughly the same strict environmental requirements. The same line is followed by the new Member States - Sweden, Austria and Finland.
It is characteristic of this offensive attitude that in the Maastricht negotiations Denmark advocated having greater possibility for outvoting hesitant Member States on environmental matters. The same will be the case in 1996 during the negotiations on the next revision of the Treaty of Rome.
During the whole period, Denmark has been at the forefront with regard to the question of implementation; thus the degree of implementation is high, there have only been minor delays in relation to the deadlines, and there have been very few treaty infringement cases8. This is a Danish policy that applies not only to environmental matters, but to implementation in all areas. On the other hand, however, there have been instances in which Denmark has tried to obtain special rules. The latest example is the Edinburgh agreement in connection with the Maastricht treaty. Previously, Denmark has reaped great benefit from agricultural support.
A Danish Member of Parliament was appointed to the office of EC Commissioner for the Environment for the five-year period 1995-99.
In Denmark there is broad support for a very offensive environmental policy, even in circles that otherwise do not approve of the European Union.
The Brent Spar episode in June 1995 added a new dimension to this
offensive environmental policy. A Greenpeace action developed into a boycott of Shell by a
large number of consumers in Germany, Holland and Denmark. Among these consumers were
several leading industrial enterprises. As a result of the boycott Shell gave up dumping
the obsolete oil platform in the sea - a solution otherwise approved by the British
government.