- Pursuing politics is global thinking

- My hope is that SV allows an open debate and that both supporters and opponents of EU membership will feel that the party takes proper care of them, says Wenche Fossen.

She is known for being one of the most remembered supporters of Norwegian EU membership on the Norwegian left. She has been an active member of the SV for decades.

- I have faith in the party SV, and I hope that we will have a debate in the party where everyone, regardless of their position on EU membership, will feel that they get support for their views. I have never felt that we need a separate organization within SV that will take care of the supporters, as the opponents in the Labor Party did in 1994 with the Social Democrats against the EU.

- How will you then start a debate in SV?

- We want to meet wider. The Radical Europe network is the forum that suits those on the left who want Norwegian membership of the EU. In this network we have both SVers and other radicals on the left. For us, being radical does not mean being opposed. Trond Giske and other opponents have tried to make being radical mean opposed to membership. This is not the case, and Radical Europe will prove it.

- Will Radical Europe become a fighting organization?

- We will be visible in the debate when it takes off. We will have people throughout Norway who are educated and who can enter the debate. We want a real debate about the pros and cons of a membership. People should take a stand based on the world we live in, and not on a picture of a world that does not exist.

- Does the left live in a dream world?

- Both SV and others on the left must show that they want to enter into a debate about what we want with our participation in European cooperation. Regardless of whether one is for or against membership, there is no doubt that the world and the EU have changed since 1994. We have global challenges that are far clearer today than ten years ago.

The EU has undergone major changes. The EU is no longer just an economic cooperation between a few rich countries in Europe. And there has been a lot of positive in recent years.

There is an ideological distinction in European politics between right and center / left forces. Social Democrats and Socialists have been at the forefront of the development of the EU we now see forming, while the Conservative parties have largely tried to prevent it. The SV must dare to see that the EU has changed in ten years.

What is most positive about that development?

- The EU has proven to have the ability to work towards solutions that all member states are behind. We have had the convention and the constitution that the EU countries are working on refining will now be adopted soon.

The Constitution is a good starting point. I would like to see it go much further than is possible today. I want more supranationality and more power for the elected representatives.

- The nation state is wiped out?

It is important to look at what are self-interests and what are community interests. There are some areas where we can still have national rules or regional rules, but it is important in a number of areas that we get supranational rules. We need several sets of minimum standards that everyone across the EU must comply with.

For a party like SV, this should be a number of demands that the party with great self-assurance supports, such as issues related to human rights and the environment. SV already works well here and knows what they want. This can be transferred to the EU area.

SV should not shy away from these issues. The party should address the discussion of what we should do with the nation state? Why is the nation state important? What can the nation state that we can not achieve in the EU for example?

- Why should SV see benefits with the EU?

- SV believes in an international order that, among other things, can manage globalized capital and ensure a fair distribution and a better environment. To me, it becomes incomprehensible that this cannot also be implemented through active EU membership.

The EU can help manage globalized capital if they want to. Norway as a nation has little opportunity to do this alone.

In addition, I and the Norwegian left have more in common with German socialists than Carl I. Hagen. The EU is a political arena of which we should be an active part.

The EU is constantly changing, and I believe that the changes in recent years have been in a positive direction. A direction that both the SV and the rest of the left wing should see as positive for the goals we have for politics and ideologies.

- The new member states of the EU are often referred to as poor, but together with today's EU they belong to the richest third of the world's countries. Is it solidarity to ensure the richest better conditions, while the world's poorest countries do not receive the same attention?

- This is a question of global solidarity. It goes without saying that we should help those who need it. The question is where to start. The EU has made a choice, and has begun to wind up somewhere. They want to build the Eastern European democracies. This is demanding both financially and politically. Once this project is in place, they will be able to use the resources elsewhere in the world.

The EU faces enormous challenges. On 1 May, most European countries will join the EU.

- The government in Norway, a number of governments in the EU together with the trade union movements are afraid that we will be flooded with labor from the new EU countries. Therefore, they have made it particularly difficult for them to apply for jobs in Western Europe. What do you think about that?

- This discussion upsets me. I do not like what I see of signals from the trade union movement and the Norwegian left. I can not find a single good argument from the trade union movements that can defend such an attitude. For decades, the trade union movements have fought for weak groups and demanded a solidary labor market. How can they then deny weak groups from Eastern Europe the same struggle and the same solidarity? Solidarity costs, and we can bear that cost. We are not inundated with cheap Eastern European labor. These are the same arguments that were used when countries such as Spain, Italy and Greece became members of the EU. Then the hordes would come from the south – they never came. Nor do I think people will flock to Western Europe after May 1st. There are completely different mechanisms that govern people's choices. People do not move if they do not have to. People want to live, and then they need a job.

I can understand that the right wing stands for such unsympathetic views. But it is incomprehensible that the left believes that it is right to be out of solidarity with the people of Eastern Europe. I believe that the left must go into its own pay chamber and search for itself and what it stands for.

Previously, only rich people could decide where they wanted to live. Today we should allow everyone to be able to move where they want to create their workplace and live.

Are the parties too vague?

- Norwegian politics lacks clear political goals. A party like SV should look at its own political platform and find out where the party wants. They need to set some clear goals. I am tired of all this discussion about constellations of cooperation in the Storting. SV and the other parties should rather put into words what they want with a government consisting of SV, Ap and Sp. What these three parties want to do is fundamentally different from what the current government is doing. They must have a vision of why they want power.

What must be done then?

- Pursuing politics is global thinking. Therefore, we must find out what Norway can do in the global society. Today we participate in many different contexts in international forums. Through the EU, we will be able to stand together on some common goals and get these implemented. The EU has the weight to carry out what the majority wants.

Politics is power. Why does the left not want power? I experience that the opponents of EU membership are a vision, and that is to say no. If we join the EU, we will be able to speak with a common EU voice and get what we want.

It is not the EU that creates the biggest problems for the Norwegian left. In Norway, we have a policy of privatization – all public services must be privatized or exposed to competition. We have implemented this policy without any help or pressure from the EU.

Norway is not the beacon of happiness in the world. We have some good sites that others can learn from. But we can certainly also learn from others. Why can we not learn the best from each other?

We must be willing to think differently. Even the Swedish Center Party has come to the conclusion that supranationality should be used where necessary. More than 400 million Europeans are willing to give up some of the right to self-government. They do not give up this right without seeing that they will get something in return for it. I would like SV to let the Center Party run the old national romantic arguments, and that SV instead came up with some new arguments based on the fact that the world is changing. We are radical because we believe that we can create change, and if we are to influence what happens, we must participate.

2005 is election year and SV will have an important national meeting. What is your hope for the party?

- The signals from the party's leadership have been positive. I think it is good that they have set up a broad debate on the EU issue. I hope that this debate will lead to both the yes side and the no side being heard when the National Assembly is to make its decisions. It is important to respect that there are political opinions on both sides that deserve to participate in the debate. An SV voter should feel that he has his supporters in the party, regardless of whether she is for or against EU membership. It is also important that all views on the EU issue are reflected in the central bodies of the party. Today, the yes side is completely absent from the party's leading bodies. Then I hope that in the nomination process all points of view will be taken into account. It should not be the case that yes-people are put on the electoral lists as decoration and alibi. For example, it would not be right to put three no-people in the three safe places in Oslo, when we know that a solid majority of the people in the capital want Norway in the EU. These are some of the touchstones we have next year.