8 ms·

Why Norway is edging towards a fresh EU membership bid

23 points by _tk_ 2y ago

ggm 2y ago
https://archive.is/cBXlo https://archive.is/cBXlo
- pavlov 2y ago
  It’s kind of crazy that I pay 429 € / year for a subscription to FT but it doesn’t include all the content, so I still have to go to archive.is for this “Premium” stuff. Why don’t we Standard edition proles get access to this article about Norway? Makes no sense. Media companies seem to optimize for making their customers vaguely unhappy.
  - disgruntledphd2 2y ago
    The Premium subscription has mostly newsletters, many of which are very very good. Personally, I think it's worth the money but it's definitely not cheap.
FirmwareBurner 2y ago
>Context: Western Europe’s biggest oil and gas producer has twice rejected joining the EU in referendums in 1972 and 1994 If people rejected it twice already, I have no idea what can change their mind to join the shitshow the EU is today. And the article provides no details on why the Norwegian people would change their mind this time if given a vote in a referendum. Especially that they already have a lot of the benefits of the EU such as free trade, free movement, and access to the common market but without the political interference of the EU over their environmental, fishing and oil industries and immigration policies (and we all saw how "competent" the EU is at such policies). And they're already part of NATO so they have defense covered too. It's more important for them that they keep their sovereignty and not hand it to corrupt unelected bureaucrats from Brussels like Ursula v.d. Leyen or to whoever is gonna replace her.
- amonith 2y ago
  > If people rejected it twice already, I have no idea what can change their mind The people themselves can change. I mean in a literal sense. It's been 31 years since 1994 and different people will vote today.
- rich_sasha 2y ago
  > shitshow Compared to what large bureaucracy? US federal government? China? India? UN? I'd say EU is about as sane as these things go. Large bureaucracies tend to be a little crazy. And as for the merits of it: NATO is fraying at the edges, and EU is the only credible alternative. It is hard to imagine basically all EU members reassembling a military union outside of the EU. Which would put Norway and the UK in a tight spot. As to the costs, it's the usual tradeoffs. EU has single set of rules, which in practice Norway has to accept without a seat at the table - they literally say that in TFA. That's already some sovereignty outsourced. They are considering swapping it for a vote. Also the single diplomacy aspect is massive when dealing with Trump. EU can apply counter-tarriffs much more easily than a non-EU country.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    > NATO is fraying at the edges, and EU is the only credible alternative The EU isn't a military unit though, is it? It's a regulatory one.
    - mrweasel 2y ago
      > The EU isn't a military unit though, is it? The EU has it's own version of NATOs article 5, it's the "Mutual defence clause", but people tend to forget that. From the excerpt: > This clause provides that if a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States have an obligation to aid and assist it by all the means in their power
      - tfourb 2y ago
        The EU mutual defense clause is even stronger than Article V of the NATO treaty: Nato Treaty: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." Translation: Every NATO member can bloody well decide for themselves ("as it deems necessary") how to help another member state. Article 42/7 of the EU treaty: "If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter." Translation: You got to give it everything you got ("all means in their power"). If Ukraine had been an EU member, the treaty would have required other EU member states to send ground troops. Of course, international treaties can not be enforced, if the treaty parties don't want to comply. So in reality, both treaties rely on mutual accepted norms of behavior more than on the letter of the law. Which is why Trump's behavior has been so damaging to the NATO alliance, without any actual test of it. And while the EU's treaty is worded stronger than NATO's, it has never been formally used or tested.
moomin 2y ago
I’m as pro-EU as they come, but if Brexit taught me one thing, it’s: when you make decisions like this, you need a stable popular majority. Otherwise the “fool all the people some of the time” crowd will see an opportunity.
- rich_sasha 2y ago
  UK went in on a stable majority in a referendum in 1975 (or rather one to confirm whether to remain) and won with a whopping 67% support. So even that isn't a guarantee.
  - FirmwareBurner 2y ago
    EU of 1975 was a different beast than EU of 2025. Back then it was just a treaty for free trade and movement, that's it, now it's bureaucratic monstrosity ruling over its members without the people having representation.
    - rich_sasha 2y ago
      Do you live in a EU country? EU rules are generally good things: rule of law, sane deficit and debt rules etc. And in practice states have a lot of sway. I would say in all areas of governance, post-Brexit the quality of government has decreased, despite throwing off the yoke of EU. And UK has one of the more professional civil service bodies out there.
      - FirmwareBurner 2y ago
        >Do you live in a EU country? I do. >EU rules are generally good things: rule of law, sane deficit and debt rules etc Those are all very obscure "rules" And we had such rules even without the EU. > And in practice states have a lot of sway. How do states not do what Ursula v.d. Leyen says? What is their say in the matter? Or more importantly, what's their citizens' say in the matter? Since citizens did not elect her to be their representative. >post-Brexit the quality of government has decreased, That's because their government is incompetent, not because they left the EU.
rich_sasha 2y ago
That would make Brexit even more of a tragic joke than it already is. Norway was the prime example of how countries thrive outside the EU. When endlessly deliberating on what kind of relationship Britain wants with the EU, "Norway+" was one of the nauseatingly-often repeated chants, only to be discarded for something far looser. And now the "Norway+" OG wants in... maybe.
- pavlov 2y ago
  Norway+ never made any sense because Norway is a pure rule-taker. To gain access to the EU market, it adopts all EU legislation but gets no say in how it’s written. So the plus sign was always doing an awful lot of work. Presumably it meant that Britain wouldn’t be a rule-taker but somehow would still get the benefits of a pseudo-membership like Norway does. The problem there was that nobody could explain how this would have been better than the special rules EU membership that the UK already had negotiated over decades.
  - lifestyleguru 2y ago
    EU parliament is mostly empty during sessions and laws are written by lobbyists. Nothing stops Norway and UK from lobbying. Buying eastern European deputy for them is pennies. Only poor states benefit from full membership.
    - slaw 2y ago
      Poor states are exploited. EU benefits mostly Germany and France.
      - BrandoElFollito 2y ago
        That's a new one. Both these countries are net payers.
        slaw 2y ago
        That's the old one. Read the sibling comment.
Muskoxworks 2y ago
No, we won't. Iceland might though
- s_dev 2y ago
  Thanks for the details and expert analysis.
sondr3 2y ago
I think an EU membership will only happen in Norway when the old generations die out, the yes/no divide is a big generational thing. Even though the latest poll only shows a six percent difference between yes/no, it's only as high as it is now because of the current political situation with trade wars and actual wars. Any vote now for a membership will only happen when a party knows the yes side will win, doing otherwise will postpone the vote another thirty years again. Personally I think we should join the EU, we're already heavily tangled with EU laws and regulations, but I understand the concerns for our agriculture and fishing industries.
- aziaziazi 2y ago
  What would make your agriculture and fishing industries less competitive by entering our market? I understand EU gives massive subsidies for those, wouldnt your farmers also benefit from those? EU money is distributed regarding the land usage [0], not the production quantity or sustainability. Norway seems a big country and the big deers (or whatever) ranchers would thrive with our system as well as does the biggest ranches in other EU countries. Don’t get me work, this system is unsustainable as it promotes the most land intensive food creation and EU still rely on worldwide importation for its animal feed needs. 0 https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/news/2024/04/how-eu-farm-subsidies-favour-high-emission-animal-products https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/news/2024/04/how-eu-far...
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - sondr3 2y ago
    Norway has incredibly high tolls and tariffs on importing food (a bit ironic nowadays), primarily to protect the local farmers etc. We're a big country, but the amount of arable land is small and the climate does us no favors. We're at about 39% self sufficient for food, and import a majority of our vegetables, grains and fruits (Norway is one of the biggest importers of food in the world). Fact of the matter is that the only thing that props up local farmers is the subsidies and high import fees, if we join the EU that will have to go and local farms will not be able to compete on the open market. There's obviously much more nuance and details here, but that's the gist of why a lot of people don't want to join the EU. The last vote was essentially decided by the agricultural industry in Norway.

23 points by _tk_ 2y ago

ggm 2y ago

https://archive.is/cBXlo https://archive.is/cBXlo

pavlov 2y ago
It’s kind of crazy that I pay 429 € / year for a subscription to FT but it doesn’t include all the content, so I still have to go to archive.is for this “Premium” stuff. Why don’t we Standard edition proles get access to this article about Norway? Makes no sense. Media companies seem to optimize for making their customers vaguely unhappy.
- disgruntledphd2 2y ago
  The Premium subscription has mostly newsletters, many of which are very very good. Personally, I think it's worth the money but it's definitely not cheap.

FirmwareBurner 2y ago

>Context: Western Europe’s biggest oil and gas producer has twice rejected joining the EU in referendums in 1972 and 1994 If people rejected it twice already, I have no idea what can change their mind to join the shitshow the EU is today. And the article provides no details on why the Norwegian people would change their mind this time if given a vote in a referendum. Especially that they already have a lot of the benefits of the EU such as free trade, free movement, and access to the common market but without the political interference of the EU over their environmental, fishing and oil industries and immigration policies (and we all saw how "competent" the EU is at such policies). And they're already part of NATO so they have defense covered too. It's more important for them that they keep their sovereignty and not hand it to corrupt unelected bureaucrats from Brussels like Ursula v.d. Leyen or to whoever is gonna replace her.

amonith 2y ago
> If people rejected it twice already, I have no idea what can change their mind The people themselves can change. I mean in a literal sense. It's been 31 years since 1994 and different people will vote today.
rich_sasha 2y ago
> shitshow Compared to what large bureaucracy? US federal government? China? India? UN? I'd say EU is about as sane as these things go. Large bureaucracies tend to be a little crazy. And as for the merits of it: NATO is fraying at the edges, and EU is the only credible alternative. It is hard to imagine basically all EU members reassembling a military union outside of the EU. Which would put Norway and the UK in a tight spot. As to the costs, it's the usual tradeoffs. EU has single set of rules, which in practice Norway has to accept without a seat at the table - they literally say that in TFA. That's already some sovereignty outsourced. They are considering swapping it for a vote. Also the single diplomacy aspect is massive when dealing with Trump. EU can apply counter-tarriffs much more easily than a non-EU country.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  > NATO is fraying at the edges, and EU is the only credible alternative The EU isn't a military unit though, is it? It's a regulatory one.
  - mrweasel 2y ago
    > The EU isn't a military unit though, is it? The EU has it's own version of NATOs article 5, it's the "Mutual defence clause", but people tend to forget that. From the excerpt: > This clause provides that if a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States have an obligation to aid and assist it by all the means in their power
    - tfourb 2y ago
      The EU mutual defense clause is even stronger than Article V of the NATO treaty: Nato Treaty: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." Translation: Every NATO member can bloody well decide for themselves ("as it deems necessary") how to help another member state. Article 42/7 of the EU treaty: "If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter." Translation: You got to give it everything you got ("all means in their power"). If Ukraine had been an EU member, the treaty would have required other EU member states to send ground troops. Of course, international treaties can not be enforced, if the treaty parties don't want to comply. So in reality, both treaties rely on mutual accepted norms of behavior more than on the letter of the law. Which is why Trump's behavior has been so damaging to the NATO alliance, without any actual test of it. And while the EU's treaty is worded stronger than NATO's, it has never been formally used or tested.

moomin 2y ago

I’m as pro-EU as they come, but if Brexit taught me one thing, it’s: when you make decisions like this, you need a stable popular majority. Otherwise the “fool all the people some of the time” crowd will see an opportunity.

rich_sasha 2y ago
UK went in on a stable majority in a referendum in 1975 (or rather one to confirm whether to remain) and won with a whopping 67% support. So even that isn't a guarantee.
- FirmwareBurner 2y ago
  EU of 1975 was a different beast than EU of 2025. Back then it was just a treaty for free trade and movement, that's it, now it's bureaucratic monstrosity ruling over its members without the people having representation.
  - rich_sasha 2y ago
    Do you live in a EU country? EU rules are generally good things: rule of law, sane deficit and debt rules etc. And in practice states have a lot of sway. I would say in all areas of governance, post-Brexit the quality of government has decreased, despite throwing off the yoke of EU. And UK has one of the more professional civil service bodies out there.
    - FirmwareBurner 2y ago
      >Do you live in a EU country? I do. >EU rules are generally good things: rule of law, sane deficit and debt rules etc Those are all very obscure "rules" And we had such rules even without the EU. > And in practice states have a lot of sway. How do states not do what Ursula v.d. Leyen says? What is their say in the matter? Or more importantly, what's their citizens' say in the matter? Since citizens did not elect her to be their representative. >post-Brexit the quality of government has decreased, That's because their government is incompetent, not because they left the EU.

rich_sasha 2y ago

That would make Brexit even more of a tragic joke than it already is. Norway was the prime example of how countries thrive outside the EU. When endlessly deliberating on what kind of relationship Britain wants with the EU, "Norway+" was one of the nauseatingly-often repeated chants, only to be discarded for something far looser. And now the "Norway+" OG wants in... maybe.

pavlov 2y ago
Norway+ never made any sense because Norway is a pure rule-taker. To gain access to the EU market, it adopts all EU legislation but gets no say in how it’s written. So the plus sign was always doing an awful lot of work. Presumably it meant that Britain wouldn’t be a rule-taker but somehow would still get the benefits of a pseudo-membership like Norway does. The problem there was that nobody could explain how this would have been better than the special rules EU membership that the UK already had negotiated over decades.
- lifestyleguru 2y ago
  EU parliament is mostly empty during sessions and laws are written by lobbyists. Nothing stops Norway and UK from lobbying. Buying eastern European deputy for them is pennies. Only poor states benefit from full membership.
  - slaw 2y ago
    Poor states are exploited. EU benefits mostly Germany and France.
    - BrandoElFollito 2y ago
      That's a new one. Both these countries are net payers.
      - slaw 2y ago
        That's the old one. Read the sibling comment.

Muskoxworks 2y ago

No, we won't. Iceland might though

s_dev 2y ago
Thanks for the details and expert analysis.

sondr3 2y ago

I think an EU membership will only happen in Norway when the old generations die out, the yes/no divide is a big generational thing. Even though the latest poll only shows a six percent difference between yes/no, it's only as high as it is now because of the current political situation with trade wars and actual wars. Any vote now for a membership will only happen when a party knows the yes side will win, doing otherwise will postpone the vote another thirty years again. Personally I think we should join the EU, we're already heavily tangled with EU laws and regulations, but I understand the concerns for our agriculture and fishing industries.

aziaziazi 2y ago
What would make your agriculture and fishing industries less competitive by entering our market? I understand EU gives massive subsidies for those, wouldnt your farmers also benefit from those? EU money is distributed regarding the land usage [0], not the production quantity or sustainability. Norway seems a big country and the big deers (or whatever) ranchers would thrive with our system as well as does the biggest ranches in other EU countries. Don’t get me work, this system is unsustainable as it promotes the most land intensive food creation and EU still rely on worldwide importation for its animal feed needs. 0 https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/news/2024/04/how-eu-farm-subsidies-favour-high-emission-animal-products https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/news/2024/04/how-eu-far...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- sondr3 2y ago
  Norway has incredibly high tolls and tariffs on importing food (a bit ironic nowadays), primarily to protect the local farmers etc. We're a big country, but the amount of arable land is small and the climate does us no favors. We're at about 39% self sufficient for food, and import a majority of our vegetables, grains and fruits (Norway is one of the biggest importers of food in the world). Fact of the matter is that the only thing that props up local farmers is the subsidies and high import fees, if we join the EU that will have to go and local farms will not be able to compete on the open market. There's obviously much more nuance and details here, but that's the gist of why a lot of people don't want to join the EU. The last vote was essentially decided by the agricultural industry in Norway.