(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
As any other serious political party, the SV would like to be in government position. One will have a collaboration with the Labor Party and the Center Party. The EU case is causing problems. There are problems SV could elegantly reject because of the trend toward a federal superpower in Europe. Could it be possible that the SV leadership and the EU committee have not come to the conclusion that a proposal for a federal constitution is pending?
Everyone in SV's leadership knows that the EU is not a political issue in line with other issues. The EU already controls most of the political framework conditions and more will be. Because of the EEA agreement, we are 80 per cent in EU policy. The SV must agree that the EEA agreement must be removed as soon as possible. The alternatives are clear, as Dag Seierstad, among others, has thoroughly documented.
Political top leaders were not aware of the content of the proposal for the Convention for Europe's future, which would take the big step from the EU as a supranational organization to a federal state formation modeled by the United States. The responsibility for the failure at the December summit was laid on Poland and Spain, which demanded over-representation in the decision-making bodies. The reality may be that the heads of state were uncertain whether the people would endorse the federal state through referendums.
It is common for large projects in the EU to take somewhat longer than planned, but from experience we know that the EU is reaching its goals. These days, the EU's top leaders have put the draft federal constitution back on the agenda. It looks like the EU summit in June will recommend the proposal, then it will be considered, some states take it in their parliaments others will have referendums. If everything goes according to plan, the Constitution will come into force from 1 January 2006.
It was the British in particular, but also some EU-critical representatives who could not accept that the term federal should be in the constitution. The word federal was taken out, but that doesn't change the reality. The leader of the Danish social democrats in the EU parliament, Torben Lund, is a clear supporter of Danish EU membership, but recommends people vote no to the new constitution,
because it is 95 percent federal already and thus unacceptable.
The policies of the European states must be coordinated and administered on a federal basis.
We recognize concepts such as, the four freedoms, citizenship of the Union, common trade policy, common currency policy, common justice policy, common military power, foreign and security policy. There will be a common tax and tax policy, a central government budget, more use of majority voting and a president as the top leader of the federal state. The goal is a new super-state, with more central power and more market liberalism.
There is great popular opposition across Europe to federal development, especially in Denmark, Sweden and the United Kingdom. These three countries have so far rejected participation in a single currency and the monetary union. Once the new Constitution is approved both in the EU and in the nation states, the opportunities for choosing areas of European cooperation will end, says EU Commission President Romano Prodi. Loyal participation is required in all areas or the use of the new constitutional rules on exclusion or withdrawal.
Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik is still talking about a kind of EU light, where Norway should be able to choose areas for Norwegian participation. That time is over, according to Romano Prodi. During Bondevik's visit to Brussels, the head of the Commission clearly stated that it is not possible to stand with one leg inside and one outside. Those countries that will not ratify the upcoming Constitution and accept all sides of EU policy will be excluded from further participation.
The political leaders in Sweden and Denmark try to present the constitution with a low profile. They know that a majority of people in the Nordic countries will not support a federal state. An attempt is made to reassure that nothing has been transferred from the Member States to the EU and that there will be no change in the distribution of power. Following the crushing defeat of the single currency, Gøran Persson opposes a referendum on the constitutional proposal. According to him, the federal constitution is a clean-up of legislation that can easily be decided by the Swedish Parliament.
In Denmark, they will have a referendum. This means that Denmark must accept that the Maastrich Treaty reservations will be withdrawn, including participation in the single currency and monetary union. A poll was conducted in Denmark and the Danish people said no thanks to a crushing majority of 75 percent, while only 17 percent said yes to the Convention's constitutional proposal. Jens-Peter Bonde, the well-known Danish opponent, has pointed out that the EU will make the member states states, without the right to their own legal process, and asks the Danish Parliament to order its members to follow the Danish constitution, which they have solemnly signed.
The British Government wants a strong community, but still European nation states. Both the British representatives of the Convention and the political leadership have clearly stated that they will not participate in federal development of the EU. The British want to make the EU more efficient, but the national states must maintain control. A survey in The Economist shows that only 30 percent is for the constitutional proposal. In France, the measurements show dead races between federalists and those who want national government.
It takes a lot before Denmark, Sweden and the UK take the big step into the federal state.
It is therefore an open question about which countries will participate in the further development of the EU. Until our neighboring countries have clarified their relationship with the future of Europe, there is little need for a Norwegian application or referendum. One likely possibility is that some countries will jump off and say that enough is enough. The argument that Norway cannot stand alone is greatly reduced in such a situation.
A possible referendum on Norway to cease as an independent state and become a state in the United States of America is no rematch of the referendum in 1994. When it may be relevant here at home, today's EU concept and political reality have expired.
Norwegian opinion polls have balanced between yes and no to EU membership. Those who make these measurements must ask if we are to become a state of the European federal state. There is reason to believe that such measurements will give a large majority to the EU. Therefore, it is unlikely that there will be any Norwegian application or referendum in the first place.
I cannot claim that Sweden, Denmark and the United Kingdom do not join the federal super state. It is my contention that this is a likely development, especially if these countries take into account the will of the people.
We experience that the Norwegian media do not want a debate about the realities of the EU's development. Jens Stoltenberg has claimed that Åslaug Haga is "completely wrong" when she refers to the EU's federal development. Julia Christensen from the Conservative Party has in a reply in the Nation said that the Conservative Party can not recommend membership of the EU if the EU goes in the federal direction. I have met leaders of the European movement for debate – they do not want to talk about the federal state. How will these people, who do not believe in the EU's future prospects, win a possible referendum?
Jens Stoltenberg wants Norway to join the EU. If he is a federalist, he must stand up to defend developments against the United States of Europe and stop blurring the facts. It is dishonest to advocate for Norwegian membership in today's EU and reject the future federal state of Europe. With such a strategy, Stoltenberg and his peers are doomed to lose. For most of us, that's fine enough, but for the sake of debate, we'd like to know what Stoltenberg thinks about the EU of the future.
Many believe that a government of the SV, the SP and the Labor Party is the number one job for the trade union movement and everyone else who wants to fight market liberalism and the reduction of welfare and professional rights. The top peoples of the SV must not say that Stoltenberg should be prime minister.
In line with Tony Blair and Gerhard Schrøder, Stoltenberg is a warm supporter of market liberalism and an unreliable partner for SV. If the SV and SP have the right focus on the EU case and reveal the Labor Party's double play in both the Pension Commission and the Labor Committee's settings, we will see a weakened Labor party and strengthened the SV and SP. The target must be Kristin Halvorsen as prime minister and Åslaug Haga as foreign minister. Jens Stoltenberg may become finance minister in a Norway outside the European superpower, provided the party finds its way back to its social democratic soul.
Remember that people are not stupid and we have exciting times to meet.
