6 ms·

>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,

>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.
rafaelmn 2y ago
With US becoming actively hostile to Europe and Russia too close for comfort, it makes sense to group, especially as talk of European army building starts. But unfortunately, like you mentioned, the current structure is governed by impotent bureaucrats (vs actual leaders) and the small interests diverge all over Europe.
Arnt 2y ago
I voted against joining. Norway has those benefits because it's one of the three net contributors. Norway, the Netherlands and Germany pay more to the EU than the EU pays to them. The treaties that were signed wouldn't have been signed without money changing hands. The argument now is that while Norway does have influence by virtue of paying, Norway's reach into the institutions isn't as deep as it should have been. Basically: When von der Leyen presents a policy, the committee that wrote it did not include a Norwegian. Someone from the committee may unofficially have had lunch with someone who works in a building across the street, but that's not the same.
- arccy 2y ago
  sounds like you should join to have a seat at the table...?
- iknowstuff 2y ago
  One of the three? Lol what a silly statement https://www.euronews.com/business/2024/12/09/eu-budget-who-pays-the-most-into-the-eu-and-who-gains-the-most https://www.euronews.com/business/2024/12/09/eu-budget-who-p...
  - lifestyleguru 2y ago
    but... Belgium and Luxembourg?!
    - Arnt 2y ago
      That was stupid of me, sorry. I'm fairly sure it was true at some point (and after the new treaty was negotiated in the middle nineties), but things change as decades pass. I should've checked. I tried to find a table showing how many of the past x years each country has been a net contributor. Couldn't find such a thing. Anyone?
mrweasel 2y ago
> unelected bureaucrats from Brussels like Ursula v.d. Leyen Isn't she pretty much elected the same way the Norwegian prime minister is? That is so say: Not actually elected at all, but appointed by a majority in parliament. The article doesn't mention that the polls suggest that it still only at most 40% of the population that supports an EU membership. I doubt that's high enough that the politicians would risk an actual vote on the matter. Especially as Norway have many of the benefits of a membership already, though no influence in the EU parliament.
joakleaf 2y ago
Serious question; Why do you feel EU is a "shitshow"? What EU policies do you feel have been overreaching on the individual member country's sovereignty lately? And why do you feel Leyen was unelected? As I understand it, she was elected by the Members of European Parliament [1], and the MEPs were elected by the people of EU last year during the election. And Leyen herself was elected as a MEP. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cw5yg6dp0gxo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cw5yg6dp0gxo
- red-iron-pine 2y ago
  > Serious question; Why do you feel EU is a "shitshow" because Russian agit-prop bots are as much as 30-40% of activity on many social media sites.
  - FirmwareBurner 2y ago
    So everyone disliking some EU policies or EU leaders, must be a Russian bot? You think no free thinking person can find some of EU's actions as being bad for them?
- FirmwareBurner 2y ago
  >Serious question; Why do you feel EU is a "shitshow"? What EU policies do you feel have been overreaching on the individual member country's sovereignty lately? Off the top of my head: - failing to addressing illegal immigration and even supporting it - bad energy policies - bad monetary policies - no policies to stimulate innovation, economic growth, birth rates or affordable housing - trying to push surveillance policies
oldpersonintx 2y ago
[dead]
audunw 2y ago
> It's more important for them that they keep their sovereignty and not hand it to corrupt unelected bureaucrats Joining EU doesn't hand over sovereignty, and the UK has now shown that leaving again isn't just a theoretical option. Norway is already part of EEA and has to implement basically every trade related regulation that the EU passes (a veto is theoretically possible, but it doesn't make sense to use it if Norway wants to stay part of EEA). So joining EU would mainly only change one thing: Norway would have a voice and a vote in the EU. There are other pillars of the EU, and Norway has some genuine concerns related to fishing and farming which have exceptions from the EEA. But I'd say it's really worth trading those exemptions for having a stronger voice in regulations around literally everything else Norway trades with EU. I also disagree strongly that EU is a shitshow (even if there are many issues as with any large system). What the EU has accomplished is unprecedented in the world IMO. It strikes a better balance of what it does and doesn't legislate compared to the US federal government, and is arguably a more mature and functional political entity. There are some powerful things the EU can't do that the US federal government can do, but that's not due to any flaw of the EU, it's a conscious choice related to keeping the member nations sovereign. Another comparable entity may be China. I don't think I need to argue that China isn't a model worth following. I think it says a lot that people in China arguably has less freedom to move/work across provinces than EU members have in EU countries. The positives that the EU has achieved far outweighs the negatives. From the very big (managing to economically integrate a very diverse set of countries, without sacrificing sovereignty, and arguably securing long term peace in western/central Europe) to the small (pushing Apple to allow third party app stores and USB-C)

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.

rafaelmn 2y ago

With US becoming actively hostile to Europe and Russia too close for comfort, it makes sense to group, especially as talk of European army building starts. But unfortunately, like you mentioned, the current structure is governed by impotent bureaucrats (vs actual leaders) and the small interests diverge all over Europe.

Arnt 2y ago

I voted against joining. Norway has those benefits because it's one of the three net contributors. Norway, the Netherlands and Germany pay more to the EU than the EU pays to them. The treaties that were signed wouldn't have been signed without money changing hands. The argument now is that while Norway does have influence by virtue of paying, Norway's reach into the institutions isn't as deep as it should have been. Basically: When von der Leyen presents a policy, the committee that wrote it did not include a Norwegian. Someone from the committee may unofficially have had lunch with someone who works in a building across the street, but that's not the same.

arccy 2y ago
sounds like you should join to have a seat at the table...?
iknowstuff 2y ago
One of the three? Lol what a silly statement https://www.euronews.com/business/2024/12/09/eu-budget-who-pays-the-most-into-the-eu-and-who-gains-the-most https://www.euronews.com/business/2024/12/09/eu-budget-who-p...
- lifestyleguru 2y ago
  but... Belgium and Luxembourg?!
  - Arnt 2y ago
    That was stupid of me, sorry. I'm fairly sure it was true at some point (and after the new treaty was negotiated in the middle nineties), but things change as decades pass. I should've checked. I tried to find a table showing how many of the past x years each country has been a net contributor. Couldn't find such a thing. Anyone?

mrweasel 2y ago

> unelected bureaucrats from Brussels like Ursula v.d. Leyen Isn't she pretty much elected the same way the Norwegian prime minister is? That is so say: Not actually elected at all, but appointed by a majority in parliament. The article doesn't mention that the polls suggest that it still only at most 40% of the population that supports an EU membership. I doubt that's high enough that the politicians would risk an actual vote on the matter. Especially as Norway have many of the benefits of a membership already, though no influence in the EU parliament.

joakleaf 2y ago

Serious question; Why do you feel EU is a "shitshow"? What EU policies do you feel have been overreaching on the individual member country's sovereignty lately? And why do you feel Leyen was unelected? As I understand it, she was elected by the Members of European Parliament [1], and the MEPs were elected by the people of EU last year during the election. And Leyen herself was elected as a MEP. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cw5yg6dp0gxo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cw5yg6dp0gxo

red-iron-pine 2y ago
> Serious question; Why do you feel EU is a "shitshow" because Russian agit-prop bots are as much as 30-40% of activity on many social media sites.
- FirmwareBurner 2y ago
  So everyone disliking some EU policies or EU leaders, must be a Russian bot? You think no free thinking person can find some of EU's actions as being bad for them?
FirmwareBurner 2y ago
>Serious question; Why do you feel EU is a "shitshow"? What EU policies do you feel have been overreaching on the individual member country's sovereignty lately? Off the top of my head: - failing to addressing illegal immigration and even supporting it - bad energy policies - bad monetary policies - no policies to stimulate innovation, economic growth, birth rates or affordable housing - trying to push surveillance policies

oldpersonintx 2y ago

[dead]

audunw 2y ago

> It's more important for them that they keep their sovereignty and not hand it to corrupt unelected bureaucrats Joining EU doesn't hand over sovereignty, and the UK has now shown that leaving again isn't just a theoretical option. Norway is already part of EEA and has to implement basically every trade related regulation that the EU passes (a veto is theoretically possible, but it doesn't make sense to use it if Norway wants to stay part of EEA). So joining EU would mainly only change one thing: Norway would have a voice and a vote in the EU. There are other pillars of the EU, and Norway has some genuine concerns related to fishing and farming which have exceptions from the EEA. But I'd say it's really worth trading those exemptions for having a stronger voice in regulations around literally everything else Norway trades with EU. I also disagree strongly that EU is a shitshow (even if there are many issues as with any large system). What the EU has accomplished is unprecedented in the world IMO. It strikes a better balance of what it does and doesn't legislate compared to the US federal government, and is arguably a more mature and functional political entity. There are some powerful things the EU can't do that the US federal government can do, but that's not due to any flaw of the EU, it's a conscious choice related to keeping the member nations sovereign. Another comparable entity may be China. I don't think I need to argue that China isn't a model worth following. I think it says a lot that people in China arguably has less freedom to move/work across provinces than EU members have in EU countries. The positives that the EU has achieved far outweighs the negatives. From the very big (managing to economically integrate a very diverse set of countries, without sacrificing sovereignty, and arguably securing long term peace in western/central Europe) to the small (pushing Apple to allow third party app stores and USB-C)