(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
Let us initially note two heavy items on the plus side of the list regarding the EEA agreement:
First, through the agreement, Norway received an agreement that regulates relations with EU co-operation. This is important since no Norwegian government would be able to handle relations with the EU without having a comprehensive agreement at the bottom. And secondly, the EEA agreement ensured "family peace" in Norwegian politics for three decades by putting an end to the upsetting EU debate from 1972 and 1994.
Had the upsetting EU conflict continued, Norwegian politics would have been wounded. Labor would have major problems internally; it would hardly have been possible to establish red-green governments; and Erna Solberg's bourgeois government project would hardly have brought with it an increasingly EU-critical Frp. Norway could enter an unstable period where it became difficult to form majority governments.
Our national compromise
Today, the EEA agreement has become our de facto national compromise in the EU case. It rests on broad support in the population and in the Storting. It is no coincidence that all Norwegian governments over the past 30 years have based their European policy on the EEA agreement. Future Norwegian governments will do the same. A possible new red-green government with Sp and SV in the majority will not be an exception. Seen in this way, Sp and SV are the real guarantors of the EEA agreement.
This broad agreement does not mean that the EEA Agreement is an uncomplicated agreement. EU supporters are fighting for Norwegian co-determination in the EU. Through the EEA agreement, Norway waives co-determination. EU opponents are fighting for Norwegian autonomy. The EEA undermines Norwegian autonomy. Seen in this way, the EEA agreement is a combination of the no-side and the yes-side were concerned with avoiding in EU disputes.
Is it acceptable if the EEA agreement becomes Norway's lasting system with the EU?
That may not be acceptable. Through the EEA agreement, Norway undertakes to accept EU laws (legal acts) without Norwegian politicians having agreed to adopt them. We accept in practice that these legal acts take precedence over Norwegian laws, and that any disputes in practice are decided by the European Court of Justice. No other European country, except Iceland and Liechtenstein, has accepted this type of scheme.
Is it acceptable if the EEA agreement becomes Norway's permanent arrangement with the EU?
Some will point out that we can, after all, veto EU decisions. This is in principle correct, but at the same time it is extremely rare that the right of veto has been exercised. The reason is simple. If a Contracting Party chooses to veto an EU decision, the other Party has the right to repeal provisions in the same area of particular interest to that Party. Norwegian authorities could, for example, decide to stop labor immigration from Poland and Hungary, as Trygve Slagsvold Vedum (Sp) has suggested. The Polish and Hungarian authorities would almost certainly have reacted to this. They would then be able to demand a corresponding halt in Norwegian citizens' opportunities to work in EU countries.
Trade agreement or EU membership
Others will point out that Norway can always demand that the EEA agreement be renegotiated. It is based on a misunderstanding. The EEA agreement is one under international law agreement that five European EFTA countries in their time entered into with the EU. One country that has signed such an agreement has no right to demand renegotiation. It can only terminate the agreement. In that case, it must be done by the country first negotiating a divorce agreement, and then negotiating a new agreement with the EU. Then there are two options: trade agreement or EU membership.
A trade agreement ensures mutual duty-free exchange of goods, especially industrial goods. It is a market liberal system in which companies, not politicians, are actors. However, such an agreement does not allow for participation in the EU countries' co-operation as the EEA does (environmental and climate co-operation, research co-operation, educational co-operation, student exchange and more). A trade agreement leaves Norway free, for example, to manage labor immigration from low-cost countries in the EU.
EU membership is a scheme where Norway must accept the mutual obligations that follow from membership. In 1972 and 1994, Norway was able to negotiate some "special arrangements". It may be harder now. This may mean that Norway must accept the principles of the EU's common agricultural and fisheries policy with the major challenges it creates.
Trade agreements do not normally cover fish and agriculture. Norway will have an interest in extending the agreement to include duty-free export of fish so that Norwegian fish to the EU can be processed in Norway and not as today in Poland and Denmark. However, if Norway demands duty-free access to fish, it is expected that countries such as Denmark will submit requirements for duty-free access for agricultural goods to Norway, and some countries will probably demand better access to Norwegian fishery resources. The final content of a trade agreement will be decided through "give and take" negotiations. Here, the parties' bargaining power will be important for the end result.
A trade agreement will mean that Norway decreases its cooperation with the EU in relation to the current situation. A membership will mean that Norway expanding its cooperation with the EU. The big question then becomes: Øwe wish å increase our mutually binding cooperation with the EU, or do we want å reduce collaboration?
Cooperation with the EU
In Norway, we have strong political groups that want to reduce the binding cooperation with the EU, and strong groups that want to increase cooperation with the EU. It is the two groups that will stand against each other in our future European debate. This also applies not only in Norway. In Hungary, groups in Viktor Orbán's party – who are strongly critical of Hungary's EU membership – have proposed that it be replaced by a trade agreement.
The Fellesforbundet in LO has proposed that the alternatives to the EEA be studied. That is a wise suggestion. Such a study must include a review of the British trade agreement with the EU (Brexit), and an analysis of how it works. It is also natural to take a closer look at the trade agreement Norway had with the EU prior to the EEA.
In 1972 and 1994, we had vague ideas about how a Norwegian EU membership would work. Sweden and Finland have gained experience with membership for several decades. It is natural that the investigators take a closer look at these experiences. The report should also address changes in the EU that follow from the eastern enlargements and Brexit.
A report should not be left to the ministries. The government should give the task to an independent research institution – preferably one that can ensure that researchers from other Nordic countries and the United Kingdom are also involved.
When a study of the alternatives to the EEA is available, it is up to the government to draw its conclusions. It is difficult to see that this will be possible until after the parliamentary elections in 2025 at the earliest. But then there may be a meaningful discussion about Norway's future place and role in Europe rolle or, we must imagine that the EEA agreement will be Norway lasting affiliation with the EU?
Jervell (b. 1943) is formerly Norwegian
diplomat who, among other things, has worked in the Foreign Minister's secretariat and the Foreign Ministry's analysis department. Was in 2003 «lent» to Norwegian Department of Foreign Policy to study alternatives to EU membership.
