(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
It's been big days. The blue star banner has swayed in the wind, men have spoken of peace and the history of Europe, and the world's most beautiful anthem, the chorus from the last movement of Beethoven's 9th symphony with Schiller's powerful text, has lifted us out of everyday life. The ceremonies that marked the entry of new countries into the EU have impressed everyone. Big words and great music appeal to the emotions. And I should like to have believed in what was said and written in connection with enlargement. I envy those who believe. I've always done that, whether it be faith in a heaven here or beyond.
I have always envied the blessed whether they were believing communists, believing Muslims, believing yes-people or blessed in some variant of the Christian faith. But as a liberal Marxist, I will always remain a doubting Thomas. When the evangelist lets the master say: "Blessed are those who do not see and yet believe", (John 20.29:XNUMX), for my part it must often apply to the more metaphysical parts of life. But as a clue to politics and practical-economic activity in today's Europe, it is not only unfortunate, but dangerous. I have an unpleasant feeling that swarming and faith is about to take over from some Norwegian yes-people.
As a more and more convinced no-man, I will first make an admission. I have thought that some yes-people in the press and politics have often said one thing and known something else. That they have sometimes "taken a quick one". But now I understand that they believe. And they believe so strongly that facts do not bite them. We get to take it in turn.
1. The EEA Agreement is a full membership with no influence.
You must believe strongly to believe in such a claim. The EEA agreement was not the no-brainer. It was Gro Harlem Brundtland and her government who imposed this agreement on us. And it has many negative sides; at least as many as we as opponents said before it was passed. But when it is said and written that it is full membership without influence, it is an exaggeration that borders on pure lies. From 1997 to 2003, 11.511 legal acts were adopted in the EU. 2129 covered the EEA. In other words, 18.5 per cent since the EEA agreement was released in 1994, less than 2 per cent of the EU decisions that we have been imposing require legislation or change in the Storting.
All this is bad enough, but miles away from full membership without influence. In addition, there will be cheating and fanfare when one pretends that the decisions in Brussels would have looked different if Norway had been a member. Norway will not rule Europe as a full member. Neither should we.
In addition, we have some influence through the EEA Agreement. We are already a member of more than 200 expert committees. Here we can meet and express our opinion on the issues that concern us. We can even influence if we have good arguments. But in these meetings we participate largely in mute and unprepared.
Erna Solberg has said that we do not have the resources to meet prepared in all the EEA committees. How she then intends to procure resources to influence if we become a full member, she has not told us. It is believed that the EEA Agreement is a membership without influence because you do not want to know that it is different.
2. Norwegian complacency and prosperity mean that we will not be in solidarity with the rest of Europe.
Every Norwegian citizen now pays more to the new member states of Eastern Europe than the citizens of any EU member state. Norway pays more in U-aid than any other country in Europe. To the extent that there has been skepticism and opposition to Norwegian transfers to poor countries, this opposition has been on the right side in Norwegian politics.
Thorough election research has documented that those who voted no both in 1972 and in 1994 are the part of the population with the lowest income. The Norwegian EU conflict is a classic opposition between the center and the periphery both socially and geographically. In other words, the least prosperous part of the population has voted no. The no-side against the yes-side is simply the historical left against the traditional right in Norwegian politics. It is the producing and exporting Norway – oil, fish and aluminum – that votes no while it is the service and administrative Norway – the central eastern region – that votes yes. Lars Roar Langslet said in resentment that he had lost two referendums that it was straw Norway that voted no. So it was the other way around. There are many who do not like this and therefore write and talk as if it is different. You believe because you do not want to know. The fact that we all know a poor fisherman from northern Norway who voted yes and a millionaire from Oslo who voted no does not change the big documented picture of who voted yes and no.
3. All of Europe is involved. What is wrong with Norway?
The whole of Europe is not included. And there is nothing wrong with Norway.
Most states in Europe are involved. But gradually, there is no longer a majority among the member states' population who support the EU project. The majority are skeptical or opposed. The EU is a project for the political elite. Most people feel powerless. There is nothing wrong with Norway. But Norwegians are headstrong democrats. Obedience is not a political virtue in Norway. Reminding that the Norwegian democratic constitution – the Constitution – is Europe's oldest in force, is not an expression of national chauvinism, but a reminder of a historical fact.
In addition, the Norwegian economy is different from the other economies in Europe. When the oil and fish prices go up, it is very good for Norway, but a problem for the other EU countries.
4. We sit in the hallway.
We make up one percent of Europe's population. Some people feel sorry for not being able to attend all the meetings in Brussels and elsewhere. For most Norwegians, it does not matter whether we are sitting at the table or in the hallway. What matters is our ability to influence our own everyday lives. Today, we are an important player in the international community. At the UN, we are counted on. Some say that we are going into the EU to influence together with others. No one has told us what they want to influence that can not be affected as well from the current position. Some claim that they have a vision of a social democratic EU. At one time we had 11 Social Democratic governments in the EU – 11 out of 15 without anyone noticing anything about either employment or the distribution between rich and poor. One thinks because it is uncomfortable to know.
Some are going into the EU to strengthen Nordic values and traditions. Nordic cooperation in Brussels must know. When it is true, I do not quite understand what is meant. I do not think for a moment that we will have a better and more socially decent Europe if Erna Solberg sits next to Denmark's Fogh-Rasmussen at the Brussels meeting table. On the contrary, I would prefer not to be represented by ultra-liberal or reactionary politicians either in Brussels or elsewhere. I have very few political ideals in common with Erna Solberg and Fogh-Rasmussen. And then it helps little that one speaks Norwegian and the other Danish.
5. The EU is a peace project.
Initially, the European Coal and Steel Union was a project to develop trade between old enemies in an important area. Reasonable and good. And I also have no doubt about the beliefs of many who say that the EU is the largest peace project in world history. But if one is to divide beliefs from the knowledge, then one knows that democratic development, international trade and cross-border cultural initiatives contribute to consensus, stability and peace. You know that. What one does not know, but can believe and believe a lot about, is how an elite-dominated bureaucracy in Brussels affects democracy and stability in the individual member states. Some of us believe that the EU, as a political and bureaucratic superstructure, weakens democracy and creates frustration and political conflicts. We should then have believed in a political invention that aims to create a democratic community between Poland and Portugal, between Finnish Lapland and the Andalusian highlands. But I can't believe it. If one is to believe in the truth, everything suggests that the Champion League and the Melody Grand Prix mean more to the development of stability and peace in Europe than a thousand acts of the bureaucracy in Brussels.
Norway is doing well outside. We can better give our international contribution outside than inside. And we do not know how the EU will develop in the coming years. The UK will have a referendum on the EU next year. If the British say no, it will have a domino effect for the whole EU. We can wait. We have time to wait. No rush. It's not about getting a train.
