Why Norway is edging towards a fresh EU membership bid
ft.com
ft.com
0 https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/news/2024/04/how-eu-far...
And now the "Norway+" OG wants in... maybe.
So the plus sign was always doing an awful lot of work. Presumably it meant that Britain wouldn’t be a rule-taker but somehow would still get the benefits of a pseudo-membership like Norway does. The problem there was that nobody could explain how this would have been better than the special rules EU membership that the UK already had negotiated over decades.
Politicians and oligarchs of poor EU states intercept all EU funding and defraud the funding. Most ordinary folks get nothing, pay high taxes, see everywhere "funded by EU" and wonder "where all my taxes go?!". Without EU poor states can create Slavosphere or Balkanosphere. Their politicians with oligarchs will go full Belarus or even start wars again.
Still FR and DE are net payers, no matter where the money goes so why saying that they benefit the most?
Now that they've (finally) accepted that the debt brake was a terrible idea, I'd expect them to return to growth (and indeed their precision manufacturing is gonna be helpful in this turn towards defence spending).
Politicians and oligarchs of poor EU states intercept all EU funding and defraud the funding. Most ordinary folks get nothing, pay high taxes, see everywhere "funded by EU" and wonder "where all my taxes go?!". Without EU poor states can create Slavosphere or Balkanosphere. Their politicians with oligarchs will go full Belarus or even start wars again.
Norway wasn’t a founding member. Norway never fully joined and then partially pulled out.
I really hope the UK rejoins eventually, but I will never support them having the prime position they used to enjoy.
Obviously you don’t get to write every law to your liking, but Britain certainly wasn’t lacking in influence. They mostly did a good job of picking their battles, but couldn’t make that case to their own voters (many of whom just didn’t care about things like Britain’s finance leadership, of course).
Of course the overwhelming majority of Norwegians might not mind lower prices that much..
When traveling to Norway I notice a lot how the food is both lower quality (in taste, not in safety) while being quite a bit more expensive than in Sweden.
The major political block hanging over Norway's EU ascension are fisheries and agriculture since those industries don't know how they would compete against cheaper EU products.
Maybe this is because food was never a cultural thing (as opposed to France, Italy, ...)?
Food not a cultural thing? Food defines cultures my friend.
Many things define culture, and their impact varies from culture to culture.
In any case, it will take a long time to adapt but at least the country should have a plan to make the most of it and invest over the long term in that plan. Instead they've just only tried to minimise change and to stay as aligned on the EU as possible.
It's not a comment for or against Brexit, it's just an observation that it is really a "go for it or don't do it" situation.
Note, too, that one of the key measure that people wanted out of Brexit was to end free movement. If you end free movement there is not many options because that means you are firmly outside of the common market. Norway has free movement, and even Switzerland has. Considering the absolute shamble that is immigration policy in Europe, and still is in the UK, I can't see things evolving towards "rejoining" any time soon.
The counterargument was that the new optimum isn't much better, the price is too high, and arguably even the UK will not be able to manoeuvre itself to that new optimum (like, execute better trade deals, or replace wonky regulation with less wonky ones).
So I guess you are saying (?) Brexit is still a net positive because the potential upside is still there. People like me say that upside is not actually realizable under real world conditions - and so far that seems to hold. You mention free movement, and if anything, UK immigration is more shambolic, not less, compared to pre-Brexit.
I guess it is hard to know. Is colonising Mars merely an engineering problem or major challenge to science? I guess either, depending on how you look at it.
Why don’t we Standard edition proles get access to this article about Norway? Makes no sense.
Media companies seem to optimize for making their customers vaguely unhappy.
Personally, I think it's worth the money but it's definitely not cheap.
I would say in all areas of governance, post-Brexit the quality of government has decreased, despite throwing off the yoke of EU. And UK has one of the more professional civil service bodies out there.
I do.
>EU rules are generally good things: rule of law, sane deficit and debt rules etc
Those are all very obscure "rules" And we had such rules even without the EU.
> And in practice states have a lot of sway.
How do states not do what Ursula v.d. Leyen says? What is their say in the matter? Or more importantly, what's their citizens' say in the matter? Since citizens did not elect her to be their representative.
>post-Brexit the quality of government has decreased,
That's because their government is incompetent, not because they left the EU.
Not at all. Maybe you are thinking of EFTA, not EU. Or you are just revisionist.
EU was never just about free trade. Back when it was founded as ECSC it was about maintaining peace and putting community interest over national interest.
Quite soon after the UK joined, environmental regulations took hold that forced it to stop being the "Dirty man of Europe". Brexit opponents rightly feared that this would return after leaving the EU.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/03/brexit-w...
Restrictions on free movements were too weak and the UK was the only country to choose not to impose any (along with Ireland). This created a huge influc of Eastern Europeans into the UK, which resulted in a surge of support for abolising, or at least strongly limiting, free movement.
Then, fate struck and Merkel had the "good idea" to unilaterally have an open border policy towards Middle Eastern "refugees" right before the Brexit referendum... The rest, as they say, is history.
And yet the Brits don't seem to want these people. Fine - their country, their right. But instead, free of the yoke of the EU, they got themselves lots of immigrants from far abroad, while doctor and nurse shortages abound.
I guess sometimes it's hard to get the thing you want, and not the consequences of it.
Every local shop seemed to have a Polish person on the till back then and it was a real culture shock for most. Would they have been worse off if the position went unfilled? Perhaps, but I can also say as a then teenager looking for summer work I lost access to starter jobs.
I understand some people didn't like this experience, but I loved it.
In term of immigration the EU actually faces the same issue, and the people are voting more and more to make it known. This will end badly on both sides if governments don't get a grip.
The EU expansion that was promoted by the UK government (presumably after reading Machiavelli's Republics)?
> Restrictions on free movements were too weak and the UK was the only country to choose not to impose any (along with Ireland). This created a huge influc of Eastern Europeans into the UK, which resulted in a surge of support for abolising, or at least strongly limiting, free movement.
They didn't impose any because they were pushing for this expansion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Dutch_European_Constituti...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_French_European_Constitut...
(look at the list of all referenda in those pages, because this wasn't just the Netherlands and France rejecting the EU)
Note almost all the referendums that were planned, were canceled. Any honest person should point out: they were canceled because the odds of the referendum passing was negligible. Of course, the EU immediately went against the obvious will of the voters through the treaty of Lisbon.
Needless to say, as per usual, the EU makes sure it's popular with politicians (e.g. special tax-exempt status, BUT full social benefits, for any EU personnel. Plus many other things, including an excellent restaurant). So there was a long and thorough discussion in the NL parliament on how to override the will of the voters.
Just like, in this case, the party in parliament is bluntly stating they're looking for a way to get membership approved knowing full well a majority is against it.
There's yet another reason I'd be wary: the poorer an EU citizen is, the more likely they're to vote against EU. Given the economic performance of the EU of the last 10 years I would expect ... and I do see recent election results (near-majorities for the extreme right, and growth for extreme-left parties that also aren't helpful, in both France and Germany)
The EU itself is extremely frustrated about these events, because the whole point of the "EU constitution" that became the Treaty of Lisbon was to trade a bit of EU power for increased legitimacy through a popular Europe-wide constitution. After forcing through the treaty of Lisbon ... the net result of it was less legitimacy instead of more, and less power for the EU executive. They are pretty frustrated since the EU executive actually fulfills a LOT of government functions of the member states.
Reality is that for ~70 years the people of the EU have rejected the EU the vast majority of chances they got. Politicians have seen it, imho correctly, as a necessity. Even a country like Germany cannot reasonably negotiate as equals with something like the US, Russia or China, to say nothing of countries like Luxembourgh or Serbia.
I guarantee you that while Norway's politicians want to join the EU, they are very unlikely to actually commit to a fair vote to join the bloc.
This suggests actually most referenda passed in favour of EU membership. There are 48 events and 7 "rejections". These are the votes in Greenland, San Marino, two in Norway, two in Switzerland, and Brexit. Still a fairly conclusive record of 85% in favour of EU membership.
And I don't understand, given western European election results of the last 20 years, anyone could argue the EU either is popular or is becoming more popular. Even in Germany (which along with France has more than it's fair share of power in the EU), the German state is 1000x more popular than the EU.
Anti-EU parties, though admittedly rising in popularity in some countries, are still losing popular e locations by a long way. AfD got 20% of the vote recently. 80% of the voters rejected then - and that is historically their best result. That's very far from a rejection of the EU in a popular vote.
Great example in democracy. Unfortunately, and not unusual in the EU, they carried on without taking notice and most of the content was simply moved into the Lisbon Treaty.
More generally, the world is extremely complex. None of us understand all of it, but the constitution of the EU needs to engage with a surprisingly large percentage of it. There's no way such a document can ever be easy to read.
I strongly disagree.
A Constitution ought to put forward key things. It is not to cover everything and anything. Such a key piece of legislation should be kept concise and understandable.
The US Constitution is understandable. Magna Carta is understandable. The 1798 "Declaration of the Right of Man and of the Citizen" (still part of the French Constitution) is understandable.
Hundreds of pages without focus wasn't [1] and was rightly rejected. The issue is that the people's voice was ignored, as is often the case in the EU when the people choose the "wrong" answer.
[1] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_establishing_a_Constit...
No county court is to be held save from month to month, and where the greater term used to be held, so will it be in future, nor will any sheriff or his bailiff make his tourn through the hundred save for twice a year and only in the place that is due and customary, namely once after Easter and again after Michaelmas, and the view of frankpledge is to be taken at the Michaelmas term without exception, in such a way that every man is to have his liberties which he had or used to have in the time of King H(enry II) my grandfather or which he has acquired since. The view of frankpledge is to be taken so that our peace be held and so that the tithing is to be held entire as it used to be, and so that the sheriff does not seek exceptions but remains content with that which the sheriff used to have in taking the view in the time of King H(enry) our grandfather.
And you know none of the documents you mention were ever put to a popular vote?
I really don't agree, I thought it was much better than Lisbon (which I voted against twice on the principle that the rest of the EU didn't appear to want it).
- it's much easier to influence politics in English than in Norwegian (or Dutch or Greek, etc.). The language can act as a protective barrier making it obvious which message is from the 'out' group and which is from the 'in' group.
- there was a lot of money invested by foreign actors in into influencing brexit because the UK is a large economy. The RoI is there.
- UK joining the EU came in tandem with the end of the Imperial times. The significance of the UK and it's economy is now proportional to their population. On the way down people are always ready to hear about scapegoats.
Norway has none of these things. Culturally well protected, not big enough to be a priority in influences and they went from poverty to wealthy in the same time.
On the other hand. Imperial times are making a comeback.
If people rejected it twice already, I have no idea what can change their mind to join the shitshow the EU is today. And the article provides no details on why the Norwegian people would change their mind this time if given a vote in a referendum.
Especially that they already have a lot of the benefits of the EU such as free trade, free movement, and access to the common market but without the political interference of the EU over their environmental, fishing and oil industries and immigration policies (and we all saw how "competent" the EU is at such policies). And they're already part of NATO so they have defense covered too.
It's more important for them that they keep their sovereignty and not hand it to corrupt unelected bureaucrats from Brussels like Ursula v.d. Leyen or to whoever is gonna replace her.
The people themselves can change. I mean in a literal sense. It's been 31 years since 1994 and different people will vote today.
Compared to what large bureaucracy? US federal government? China? India? UN? I'd say EU is about as sane as these things go. Large bureaucracies tend to be a little crazy.
And as for the merits of it: NATO is fraying at the edges, and EU is the only credible alternative. It is hard to imagine basically all EU members reassembling a military union outside of the EU. Which would put Norway and the UK in a tight spot.
As to the costs, it's the usual tradeoffs. EU has single set of rules, which in practice Norway has to accept without a seat at the table - they literally say that in TFA. That's already some sovereignty outsourced. They are considering swapping it for a vote.
Also the single diplomacy aspect is massive when dealing with Trump. EU can apply counter-tarriffs much more easily than a non-EU country.
The EU isn't a military unit though, is it? It's a regulatory one.
The EU has it's own version of NATOs article 5, it's the "Mutual defence clause", but people tend to forget that.
From the excerpt:
> This clause provides that if a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States have an obligation to aid and assist it by all the means in their power
Nato Treaty:
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."
Translation: Every NATO member can bloody well decide for themselves ("as it deems necessary") how to help another member state.
Article 42/7 of the EU treaty:
"If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter."
Translation: You got to give it everything you got ("all means in their power"). If Ukraine had been an EU member, the treaty would have required other EU member states to send ground troops.
Of course, international treaties can not be enforced, if the treaty parties don't want to comply. So in reality, both treaties rely on mutual accepted norms of behavior more than on the letter of the law. Which is why Trump's behavior has been so damaging to the NATO alliance, without any actual test of it. And while the EU's treaty is worded stronger than NATO's, it has never been formally used or tested.
So, right or wrong, Europe is thinking of building an alternative. It would require not only military, but also political coordination. The options are to do it within, or outside the EU.
Within the EU, it is somewhat straightforward. As a sibling comment says, there is already a vague commitment to mutual defence. There is a forum for political discussion, common diplomacy, mechanisms for coordinating industrial policy, the works. And any changes could be seen as incremental strengthening of an existing thing.
To do it outside of the EU, most of all, makes the original concern explicit - it is saying US has left the NATO. This is in no-one's benefit. Even ambiguous US participation is valuable to Europe.
The other downside is that, as is, a EU "NATO" can't easily include UK and Norway, both valuable allies. Which is maybe what Norway wants to address here.
I mean, when there's will, there's a way. It could notionally be an EU organisation, with third-party affiliates, a bit like ESA or Horizon. But even then, I posit that it is more convenient to have it notionally be a unit of the EU for most EU members - and by extension, most NATO-ex-US countries.
So there's a good reason not to subject yourself to large bureaucracies any more than you have to.
> NATO is fraying at the edges, and EU is the only credible alternative
Not really, Norway is already part of NORDEFCO and the Nordic Council, they're not 'alone'.
Some things require scale. As I say elsewhere in the thread, UK left for this very reason and is worse off in every single metric they were hoping to improve - GDP growth, immigration control, quality of governance, environmental concerns, amount of red tape...
The workings of a bureaucracy are not the same as the final outputs. IMO and IME the quality of EU outputs is generally high.
on the macro level though I can't see it myself.
EU area had everything going for it in terms of being able to make drastic progressive shifts forward in multiple areas. but instead since 2008 its been doing little but dealing with the contradictions of its own self-imposed constraints. be that debt crisis, energy policy, fortress border policy, emigration issues, Brexit and endless political dramas over reactionary political movements. It's now fixated with re-armament, something that threatens to produce yet another lost decade.
Meanwhile, China and other parts of Asia have taken these same 20 years to create entire new sectors and lead the world in them.
The rearmament might actually inject a good chunk of investment - let's see.
The Eurozone included economies as diverse as Greece, Spain, Lithuania and Germany
These are some of the self-contradictions I'm referring to.
And the basic issue is that you cannot have a single monetary policy and impose half a fiscal policy, without political unification. And IMO that will never be squared.
I suppose the new glaring contradiction is that environmental policy and net zero policy has primacy (rightly in my view), but now so does making bombs.
Norway has those benefits because it's one of the three net contributors. Norway, the Netherlands and Germany pay more to the EU than the EU pays to them. The treaties that were signed wouldn't have been signed without money changing hands. The argument now is that while Norway does have influence by virtue of paying, Norway's reach into the institutions isn't as deep as it should have been.
Basically: When von der Leyen presents a policy, the committee that wrote it did not include a Norwegian. Someone from the committee may unofficially have had lunch with someone who works in a building across the street, but that's not the same.
https://www.euronews.com/business/2024/12/09/eu-budget-who-p...
I tried to find a table showing how many of the past x years each country has been a net contributor. Couldn't find such a thing. Anyone?
Isn't she pretty much elected the same way the Norwegian prime minister is? That is so say: Not actually elected at all, but appointed by a majority in parliament.
The article doesn't mention that the polls suggest that it still only at most 40% of the population that supports an EU membership. I doubt that's high enough that the politicians would risk an actual vote on the matter. Especially as Norway have many of the benefits of a membership already, though no influence in the EU parliament.
And why do you feel Leyen was unelected? As I understand it, she was elected by the Members of European Parliament [1], and the MEPs were elected by the people of EU last year during the election. And Leyen herself was elected as a MEP.
because Russian agit-prop bots are as much as 30-40% of activity on many social media sites.
Off the top of my head:
- failing to addressing illegal immigration and even supporting it
- bad energy policies
- bad monetary policies
- no policies to stimulate innovation, economic growth, birth rates or affordable housing
- trying to push surveillance policies
Joining EU doesn't hand over sovereignty, and the UK has now shown that leaving again isn't just a theoretical option.
Norway is already part of EEA and has to implement basically every trade related regulation that the EU passes (a veto is theoretically possible, but it doesn't make sense to use it if Norway wants to stay part of EEA). So joining EU would mainly only change one thing: Norway would have a voice and a vote in the EU.
There are other pillars of the EU, and Norway has some genuine concerns related to fishing and farming which have exceptions from the EEA. But I'd say it's really worth trading those exemptions for having a stronger voice in regulations around literally everything else Norway trades with EU.
I also disagree strongly that EU is a shitshow (even if there are many issues as with any large system). What the EU has accomplished is unprecedented in the world IMO. It strikes a better balance of what it does and doesn't legislate compared to the US federal government, and is arguably a more mature and functional political entity. There are some powerful things the EU can't do that the US federal government can do, but that's not due to any flaw of the EU, it's a conscious choice related to keeping the member nations sovereign.
Another comparable entity may be China. I don't think I need to argue that China isn't a model worth following. I think it says a lot that people in China arguably has less freedom to move/work across provinces than EU members have in EU countries.
The positives that the EU has achieved far outweighs the negatives. From the very big (managing to economically integrate a very diverse set of countries, without sacrificing sovereignty, and arguably securing long term peace in western/central Europe) to the small (pushing Apple to allow third party app stores and USB-C)