Theater of Cruelty

No to the EU rhetorically decorated





(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)

I will be publishing this fall book The little life. The book is especially about the extinction of "the others", the non-human life. 24 percent of all mammal species are considered endangered by "us". In Norway, more than 3000 species are endangered, about half due to Norway's pitiful, one percent coniferous forest protection. In the book, I use three pages on the EU, and conclude – sadly and reluctantly – that species protection in Norway will be significantly strengthened by membership. Deputy leader of No to the EU, Tine Larsen, hesitates the debate by claiming here in the newspaper that for the sake of a species, wolf, I disregard everything negative about an EU membership.

In '94, the no-side used the slogan "environment, solidarity and democracy" as a value basis. Larsen is daring enough to claim that these values ​​still apply. SV's no-man Inge Ryan drew up a program for district Norway a few years ago in Ny Tid: More killing of endangered mammals, cheaper electricity and cheaper airline tickets. Did this scheme result in a sea of ​​steep, value-based no-people? Not? But then two out of three points in the value base are just party rhetoric. Or is there a no-resistance to increased oil recovery, increased electricity consumption, increased road construction? Against the fact that petrol is getting cheaper every year, measured by purchasing power or against the enormous growth in air traffic? Towards Norway's strong CO2 growth? Where do the no-people in northern Norway stand when it comes to pumping up gigantic amounts of CO2 from the Barents Sea?

Yes, the EU has a terrible fisheries policy – something the EU is aware of, and discussing. Norway prioritises resource-wasting trawlers. Salmon farming is protein imperialism – the art of turning three food fish into one – and may also eradicate wild salmon. I hear no no-protests. The power consumption in Norwegian meat production is high, and it has a number of harmful effects. Some of the content is soy grown where the Amazon rainforest recently gave up after tens of millions of years. Norway probably burdens per capita the earth's resources more than any EU country. No EU country has such a malevolent predator policy, and the EU would apparently force on the no-people's core troops an extended coniferous forest protection. No to the EU makes it easy for itself with its sharp eye for the EU's black sides and its blind eye for Norway's. Strategically it is understandable, but thus the no-people no longer fight – at least in part – for specific values, on the contrary, the values ​​are then an effective lubricant in the defense of their own, economic interests. Sp fights for support schemes in agriculture, also when it comes at the expense of food imports from developing countries – which under some conditions is solidarity policy. At the same time, Sp demands increased liberalization of world trade in fish, against the protests of developing countries. Had free trade in agricultural products benefited Norway, it is hardly a secret that both Sp and Bondelaget would have fought for free trade.

No to the EU is quietly silent about Norway's contribution to skewed distribution, resource overuse and species extinction.

Åslaug Haga calls in Ny Tid my new yes position for «Steinar Lem's death line». It is a bit unclear whether it is me or Norwegian species that will die in the event of EU membership. At best, neither party, at least not immediately. She goes on to say that "Remote control from Brussels is not what the environmental movement needs". Brussels has not threatened to remotely control Norwegian environmental organizations. On the other hand, the environment in Norway desperately needs someone to remotely control Åslaug Haga. She must be prevented from gaining power to exterminate high-ranking mammals from Norway on the grounds that, like many a center-right party member, they eat meat. She must be prevented in her fight against increasing the state coniferous forest protection to 5 percent, a minimum to ensure the survival chances of hundreds of species. For the sake of both the defenseless, non-human life, and for the sake of the opportunities for experience for future generations – Haga must be managed so that she does not get to complete her protection break, which will destroy immortal habitats that are still intact. SV also needs monitoring and resistance. The party has not shown any ecological unrest at the idea of ​​cooperating with the government with Sp. SV today itself represents a conventional growth policy, which will both increase Norwegian private consumption into eternity, and finance a flood of both excellent and more dubious public goods.

For No to the EU, the value base is reduced to the point of government. People's government understood as local and national majority decisions is a good thing that easily turns into the catastrophic if it is not balanced by other values. Maybe I could propose the values ​​"environment" and "solidarity" for No to the EU?

My yes position is problematic, and I have had some bad friends. That is why I will be critical of both the EU and Norway.

Steinar Lem is up to date with the book "The little life".

You may also like