(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
The last time it attracted an EU fight, Trond Giske was one of the most prominent union opponents in the Labor Party. He intends to be this time as well.
- I am not slipping in the EU case, he says, and thinks there is another similarity:
- I am absolutely sure that the result will be the same.
It will not be a mere reprise. We ask him what separates the forthcoming debate from the one before the 1994 referendum:
- Firstly, the threats from the yes side about how bad things will go for Norwegian industry and agriculture are no longer credible. I remember Gro said that she had talked to many who would invest in Norway if we became a member, but no one who would invest if we were left out. As many as 60 per cent of those who voted yes thought that Norway would face major tariff barriers on the border with the EU if we stood outside, yes 30 per cent on the no side thought the same. It has turned out that they were wrong, says Giske.
He believes it makes an important difference that works in the no-side favor and the yes-side disfavour.
- What kind of cases and arguments will come instead then?
- Other financial consequences of membership, I think. As the consequences of EU monetary policy, the common economic policy guidelines adopted by the Council of Ministers and increasing pressure for the harmonization of the level of taxes and duties will have on our welfare model and the goal of full employment. If we become a member now, there is no question of being exempt from monetary policy. This has consequences, also for the debate here at home.
- How?
- Pensions are not currently part of the EU, but the central bank believes that public pension systems cannot be maintained because they cannot be financed through taxes and fees. If the EU poses a threat to the National Insurance Scheme, it will be an important no-argument.
With a common constitution and a stronger federal development, one must also ask if one can guarantee that control over the Norwegian oil resources will remain in Norway. If there is the slightest doubt about this, the yes side is odious.
- Are there any new yes-arguments at all?
- The expansion should have a positive effect on the yes side, and has probably done so as well. But we showed that it came already in 1994 – yes, in fact it came later than the yes side claimed. And the consequences were different: I reckoned that enlargement would slow down the process of deepening. Now the opposite seems to be happening, and the influence on small countries will be even less.
- What about the argument that the EU can act as a counterweight to the US in big politics?
- This is meaningless argument – it is especially incomprehensible when it comes from the left. One imagines a strong EU as the kind superpower. It is a banal analysis. We must rather ask whether strong states do not have a certain international behavior precisely because they are large. Is there any reason to believe that a strong EU with an associated military force will have a different agenda and not pursue its own strategic and economic interests?
- There are those who believe that Europe is happier in soft power than the current regime in Washington.
- This is based on the idea that Europeans are genetically or culturally predisposed to be more idealistic than Americans. But is that so? With Europe's colonial history and a violent century of totalitarian regimes fresh in my mind, I do not think the United States comes out badly in a comparison. Moreover: today we have a situation of liberal currents in European politics. It may not last forever. What happens the day John Kerry gains power in the United States and Berlusconi in Europe? A federal EU is a political power apparatus over which different directions can take control. It must be taken into account.
And finally: Although the EU should play the role of countermeasure against the US. Does it depend on Norwegian EU membership? Hardly, says Giske.
- But can Norway play any positive role outside then?
- We can best make a solidarity effort as an independent member of UN bodies. The EU has a common position in about 95 per cent of UN cases, and influence in the EU is not something we get in addition to influence elsewhere. As an EU member, we must give up our direct influence in organizations such as the UN.
- You have to choose in a way, and then you choose the UN?
- Together with countries such as Canada, Switzerland and New Zealand, we can be catalysts and bridge builders in peace and environmental issues and in issues of the relationship between North and South by standing outside the power blocs. We can have a meaning that far exceeds what our size would suggest. The should be the vision of the left. That SVs can believe something else, that people who base themselves on some variant of the Marxist idea of base and superstructure, can believe that there are good superpowers – it is to be laughed at, says Giske.
But they do – part of them at least. In addition, the Labor Party has a fairly large no-minority in the party.
Therefore: To what extent does the EU case thwart the ambitions to establish a government alternative before 2005?
- The societal problems today, such as lack of business policy, greater differences between people and greater differences between private wealth and public poverty can be solved by a change of government, but not with EU membership. Therefore, I hope to be able to put my efforts there.
- But if there is an application and a referendum?
- In that case, it will be prioritized. Elections are held here every four years, while EU membership will be permanent. It is a battle of a completely different dimension.
- What is your assessment of the balance of power in the Labor Party this time?
- EU opposition is about as great in the Labor Party as last time. Among the members, there are as many no-people as in 94. Among the shop stewards, there are a few more. AUF, for example, is far clearer in its no-position than last time.
- When will the Social Democrats against the EU start again, then?
- There are no plans yet, but if it is decided that we will have a new referendum, it is natural to create something similar. We must have structures to conduct an effective no-election campaign from a social democratic point of view.
- What do you think about SV's line break in the 50,1 question?
- I think it benefits the no-side that the discussion is about the advantages and disadvantages of an EU membership rather than procedural issues. That said, it is fine to argue as the Center Party.
- Do you sympathize with their position?
- No, not sympathy. Understanding. The Labor Party has held the position that SV has now fallen for a long time. We will follow the people after a referendum, says Giske.
But apropos of the Center Party, which will announce Norway out of the EEA: In part of the rhetoric they and other EEA opponents use, Giske has an objection or two.
- It is okay to be against the EEA agreement, but the no side must always emphasize the big differences between the EEA and EU membership.
- You're welcome.
- The EEA only covers the internal market. The agreement does not apply to monetary policy, economic policy, foreign policy constraints, fisheries policy, agriculture, common customs and trade agreements with third countries, federal constitutional projects and any extensions of EU governance.
In other words, it is not a membership light, as some people make it. If we reveal this bluff, I think many who today say they will vote yes, think about it. On the other hand, continuing the unholy alliance between EEA opponents and the yes side when it comes to comparing the EEA with membership, I am afraid we will lose the next EU fight, concludes Giske.
