(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
On Wednesday, attempts were again made to raise an EU debate in Norway. During the Storting's questioning period, Inge Lønning asked the government to investigate immediately what the consequences will be for the EEA agreement, should Iceland decide to enter the EU.
And that should no longer be ruled out, after the global financial crisis has caused the island to shake more than what Hekla volcano has managed for many years. Over 70 percent of Icelanders now open for EU membership, in contrast to a record high 60 percent of Norwegian voters who say no to the inclusion. Now, noticing polls is rarely a reliable guide to what is wise or morally right to do. But at least such Norwegian parties influence voting so much that a membership application also seems out of date for the next parliamentary term. As Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg himself points out, all relevant government alternatives will consist of parties that are wholly or fairly opposed to a Norwegian membership, be it SV, Sp, KrF or Left.
However, there is no reason to dampen the actual debate on Norway's relations with the European Union, although it seems clear that there will now be no realpolitik changes – regardless of Iceland's EU elections. It is more the angle and perspective that needs to be changed and lifted. Norway's fate does not stand and fall with the EU. Rather, it seems to be of secondary importance what will happen or not with Norway, or the EU, in or outside this ever-growing union.
Of greater interest is how Norway, Norwegian politicians and Norwegian organizations can "make a difference" in the world, as Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre has as his starting point in his new book. And then it is difficult to follow the Ja – side's monomaniacal argument that a Norwegian membership is the best. The EU's democratic deficit is becoming more and more obvious – only the papal election seems more vague and unpopularly inclusive than the selection of who will have the real power in Brussels. Norway is already behaving like a full-fledged EU member in practice: as if Norway is being pushed for a better environmental policy through the EEA agreement. But also by being part of the controversial Schengen cooperation. And the current EEA co-operation does not testify that a complete incorporation would be somewhat less problematic, let alone better, for some parties.
Parts of the No side can be accused of looking no further than Svinesund, but large parts of the Yes side can be accused of not looking further than the Bosphorus Strait. And it's not necessarily any less problematic. The question is before the first whether one can not influence European and global politics as much outside as within what can now be, or will be, the world's largest power bloc. The second question is how to relate to the rest of the world, outside the EU, such as the AU (African Union).
And herein lie the major issues that are missing in the eternal yes-no debate in Norway, namely how to relate to the rest of the world – which alliances one can or should form. And then especially if one is to continue to stand outside the EU, as it now stands in unmanageable at the same time. Instead of another pointless EU debate, one should also be able to start an AU debate.
It is not enough for the No side to just stick to a no to the EU. In practice, one then turns out to be as EU-centered as the Yes side. The key question is what do you say yes to when you say no. The interesting question is not which alliances and unions one is against, but which one one is for.
An example of the unfortunate consequences of the simple yes-no debates came when it became clear last week that outgoing Storting President Thorbjørn Jagland (Labor Party) will join the Nobel Committee. Jagland has previously written that the EU should receive the Nobel Peace Prize – which should probably also make large unions such as the US and India deserve the same – and No to EU leader Heming Olaussen warns against Jagland then becoming chairman of the committee. Most of all, this shows how unfortunate it is that the five members of the Nobel Committee continue to be recently retired Storting politicians. This is a party-political appointment that was introduced exactly 60 years ago these days, November 29, 1948, as Fredrik Heffermehl shows in his latest book The Nobel Will.
The controversy over the EU-friendly Jagland's entry into the committee shows two things: That Heffermehl is right, the members of the Nobel Committee should be appointed to a better and less party political will, in line with Alfred Nobel's will. And it shows that we need a completely new EU debate in Norway.