VIEWS FROM THE CAPITALS
Eurosceptic NORWEGIANS quietly bow to Brussels’ power
Summer 2008
Norwegians’ concern about their political autonomy and self-rule has long seemed a potent argument against joining the European Union. Their “No” vote in the 1994 referendum was a national vow never to be governed by foreign laws. The result has been that the supposedly temporary Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) is now the only formal mechanism that connects Norway and the EU.
In spite of the No campaigners’ victory back then, some observers claim they have been losing ground ever since. What is certainly true is that it is democracy itself that has suffered. Norway has meticulously to follow the rules that the EU makes, even though it is outside the club. EU rulings are approved by Norway’s Stortinget national parliament, but very quietly, even stealthily, via its EEA Committee.
The EEA Agreement does not formally imply a delegation of decision-making competence to any supranational body, but on issues relating to competition policy. the Brussels-based EFTA Surveillance Authority has direct competency. Like it or not, this puts Norway and other EEA countries under the thumb of a supranational authority. There is a get-out clause in the form of a so-called “right of reservation”, but Norway seems unlikely ever to risk using it.
When the Agreement was signed, Norway not only incorporated its relevant rulings, but had to agree to incorporate all future EU legislation for the areas covered, as well as related policy areas. The Agreement is not a conventional trading pact, but an unbalanced agreement between two very unequal parts. Even in economic terms the relationship is decidedly lopsided. For example, 80% of Norwegian gas and oil exports goes to the EU, but only 15% of the gas and oil that the EU imports comes from Norway. In a power game, the bargaining chips for Norway are pretty slim.
From an EU perspective, Norway risks being perceived as a wealthy free rider. It has not been willing to take part in European integration, but still reaps the benefits of the security that the EU provides.
Norway’s political parties now appear to agree that the country must co-operate more closely with the EU despite the earlier “No” vote. By including such areas as Justice and Home Affairs and even defence, successive Norwegian governments have been extending the EU’s influence way beyond the Common Market.
This shortfall in Norway’s democracy is supposedly redressed by the seconding of Norwegian national experts to more than 200 EU committees, but they remain barred from the most important ones. This leaves lobbying and minor committee membership as the only available channels of influence. When EU member states disagree, they have institutionalised procedures for settling their differences. Norway, though, has to rely on old- fashioned diplomacy.
The EU not only solves common problems, but also affects the identities and interests of its member states and citizens. While the latter are encouraged towards democratic participation and public debate, Norway’s citizens face a situation in which more and more decisions are made behind closed doors.
The EEA Agreement may be an example of realpolitik in action, but is a democratic disaster for Norway. When there is conflict with EU legislation, Norwegians are increasingly affected by EU rules which trump national ones. Economic and social gains are offset by losses in political rights. Norwegians have less say in making the rules that actually affect them. And if Norway today is actually ruled from Brussels, where is the popular mandate for this policy?