As a Norwegian, it's hard not to feel left out as much of Eastern Europe joins Western Europe as members of the European Union. The Ode to Joy playing while 25 flags are raised together for the first time - the symbols are powerful and historic. What struck me on May 1 is how little it has come to matter whether Norway joins or not. From the EU's point of view, we are close to irrelevant. Even from our point of view, membership matters mostly in the details. Important details, by the standards of politicians, but details all the same in the larger picture. The course of our entire future - wealth or ruin - does not hang on whether we join or not. If the new EU succeeds, we will benefit a lot, through trade agreements and just being in the neighbourhood, and if the new EU fails, it will drag us down with it, for the same reasons. Or are we going to stop trading with the EU, stop adapting to EU regulations? We may still be politically independent, but it is an economic necessity to tie ourselves to the EU, wherever it chooses to go. There is no alternative.

And yet we must not let a feeling of historical inevitability fool us into making hasty decisions. Powerful symbols do not hold a badly designed structure from falling apart. It likely won't matter much to anyone whether we join or not, not on the large scale of poverty vs wealth, freedom vs oppression, chaos vs order. But it could turn out to matter. So if we join, let us do it because we believe in what the EU actually is and actually can do for us, not because we feel all fuzzy inside when we hear the Ode to Joy. I fear that the power of pan-Europeanism and a feeling of historical inevitability will pull us along without us looking too closely at what we're joining. We'll join because of course we must join our closest friends in this historic partnership which marks the end of centuries of conflict .. yada yada, Big Words (tm) and so on. Our future is tied to that of the EU, but we must try to make an informed choice all the same.

Old readers know that I've been very negative to joining the EU in the past. I'm still fairly negative to the EU. I still worry about building a strongly centralized federation based on social democratic principles, with an incoherent neopacifist foreign policy, implemented through an unaccountable bureaucracy. But as we are closely bound to the EU no matter what, I will find it difficult to join those who believe that staying outside the EU is vital to the future of Norway. If the EU really does bring economic ruin and an end to democracy, we're not likely to escape it by staying out. It may be right to try, but not important. We can't choose our location. And also, while we know that the EU is flawed today, we don't know that it is fatally unfixably flawed.

So when the Norwegian debate over joining the EU is revived - and it will be, soon - I will be with those who argue that we should watch and wait. It is too soon for us to know whether the new EU will work or not. The basic structural flaws of the old EU are also relevant, but we know that those structures work, sort of. We don't know that they will survive 10 new, relatively poor additions. We don't even know if the common currency will work for its current members. What will happen when Eastern Europe joins the Euro?

So it is prudent to wait. We can afford to wait. History is not about to leave us behind. The EU will still be here in 10 years, and it will be an EU much easier to evaluate. Our status won't matter in the long term, but at least if we wait we will be able to say that we made a choice based on a thorough understanding of our alternatives. We can't say that today.

What does Norway gain from joining the EU? The only entities that gain from Norway joining are the other EU nations - Norway loses, it seems to me.

Norway would ultimately be a net contributor to the EU. That would serve to dilute Norway's own wealth, independence, and autonomy.

Explain to me what - other than an ethereal feeling of 'belonging' - Norway would gain from joining the EU.

I have a Q. Does joining or not have any impact on how Norway treats its oil derived revenues. I was always very impressed by the consideration given by Norway as to how to avoid those revenues being used to everyone sitting and just consuming

Norway's in a very strong position. If you do decide to join, the EU will accept you in a split second. You can hop on whenever you want. After all you lead the EU in both GDP per/capita and PGPC (pretty girls per/capita)!

Norwegians may be european, but oly sort of. We live on a peninsula, sharing borders with Russia, outside of EU and mainstream european culture, Finland, inside of EU, but a language and culture different from the rest of Scandinavia, and Sweden, inside EU, with a similar, yet surprisingly different culture. Look at the map:Sweden faces to the South and East, Norway faces to the west, towards the Atlantic.
No one in Norway have cousins living in Bruxelles. Our relatives are living in Minnesota, Iowa and Oregon. It may be said that much of this also applies to Ireland, but then we have oil, and they have not.

Houston: Norway already is an "associate member" of the EU. Which means that we pay, but don't have any voting rights. Taxation without representation, so to speak.

As always, I will include some links in my post. These three news sites should be visited frequently, especially by Europeans:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/newspage.php3

http://jihadwatch.org/

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/lgf-feeds.php

Don't ever approve the Constitution, the over 400 pages of rules and laws are staggering. How the Europeans are willing to be constrained by so many laws is beyond me.
"Over the past decade, however, that approach was superseded by increasing centralization of economic decision-making in Brussels and top-down harmonization of rules of production, delivery and sale. Those pan-European regulations stifle competition. In effect, harmonization increases the costs of production throughout the EU to levels favored by high-cost producers in Western Europe. That eliminates competition from low-cost producers, such as those in Central and Eastern Europe....
In contradiction of the EU rules, workers from new members will be prohibited from seeking employment in the west. Moreover, farmers in the accession countries will be subjected to unfair competition from Western farmers. Under the dysfunctional Common Agricultural Policy, farmers in the West will receive subsidies 4 times larger than those of their counterparts in the East....
Slovakia, to give an example, asked to produce 1.2 billion liters of milk per year, but the EU agreed to only 950 million liters per year. Slovakia wished to raise 400,000 sheep, but the EU agreed to only 218,000 sheep. Farmers in the region can be excused for complaining that this type of economic planning is eerily reminiscent of Soviet-era production quotas...."
Marian L. Tupy, assistant director of the Project on Global Economic Liberty at the Cato Institute( a libertarian think tank). http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20040503-085948-5723r.htm

As an American I think you live in a great place for when the shit hits the fan.

Your idea of waiting 10 years is one born of a cautious nature. Wise of you. The EU slumps financially with each country that joins. They thusfar have always upswung, but with as many as are joining in one group the transition may be more difficult than imagined. Waiting would be the most prudent political, and finacial path.

Wait and see is a good option. However, I fail to see how the EU can develop in a more sound direction. As long as it was limited to free trade, it was a good thing. But free trade doesn't require cohorts of politicians and bureaucrats, neither the common juridical framework we are seeing the beginning of. To convince me, the EU would need to take down some of the institutions it's busy setting up. I can't see that happening. I believe the current development is irreversible and that it will go on until the moment the whole structure collapses under its own weight.

Houston: "What does Norway gain from joining the EU?"

Better access to the European market. But as Ali says, we're already practically a member, through various agreements. The question is whether the additional benefits of membership outweigh the costs and risks.

kjell: "Look at the map:Sweden faces to the South and East, Norway faces to the west, towards the Atlantic."

Towards Great Britain, to be specific, which is a EU member. We have relatives in the Midwest, but too far separated to care. Nearly all Norwegians left before World War I. No, we're Europeans, whether we like it or not. We have a few more alternatives than the continental states, but we're kidding ourselves if we think we can ignore Europe.

ic: "How the Europeans are willing to be constrained by so many laws is beyond me."

True, but we already live by a staggering number of laws. So do Americans, btw, though mostly less intrusive ones.

Christian: "But free trade doesn't require cohorts of politicians and bureaucrats, neither the common juridical framework we are seeing the beginning of. To convince me, the EU would need to take down some of the institutions it's busy setting up."

Agreed, but full independence is not an option. Those institutions exist, and as long as we insist on trading with Europeans, they will affect us. And if it all does collapse, as you expect, how are we going to escape? Economic ruin for the EU means economic ruin for Norway.

Bjørn says: "Those institutions exist, and as long as we insist on trading with Europeans, they will affect us. And if it all does collapse, as you expect, how are we going to escape? Economic ruin for the EU means economic ruin for Norway."

The laws regulating trade will affect us, but aren't they supposed to make trade easier? We only need a free-trade agreement, then we can forget about the messy social, political and juridical integration.

If the institutions regulating the latter collapse, that will not lead to economic ruin of the EU. Rather the exact opposite.

That said, I believe our best hope for the EU is that a sufficiently large number of the member states -- Britain included -- reject the constitution at the polls. It would also help if other integration issues were to be subject to the electorate's scrutiny. That might at least put some sand in the socialist machinery, albeit only temporarily.

Bjørn says: "I still worry about building a strongly centralized federation based on social democratic principles, with an incoherent neopacifist foreign policy, implemented through an unaccountable bureaucracy."

Funny. I am worrying about building a strongly centralized federation based on laissez-faire market liberalism, with a foreign policy based on a growing military presence outside its borders, implemented through a constitution that is unchangeable by bureaucrats and politicians alike.

When eating with the devil, you better use a very long spoon...Norway should better be careful in their dealing with EU.I lived in Norway for two years and I dont think Norwegians are Europeeans maybe geographically but certainly not in their mentality(well maybe in Blindern and Blitz but that's all).You can ask any Europeean expat living in Norway what they think about Norwegians,they ll tell you that norwegians are savages without any culture or savoir vivre worthy of who only think about money and on top of it they re also bigots and their social system suck.does nt that ring a bell ?It s exactly what Europeeans say about Americans...(I personnally do not support that opinion and I terribly miss Norway.)

Arnt: "...implemented through a constitution that is unchangeable by bureaucrats and politicians alike."

Oh, I get it. You're talking about that big failure, the American Constitution. Funny how it endures, while European law was torn to shreds whenever a strongman or an ideology came to power. Yes, unchangeable constitutions sure are something to worry about.

kira,

wow,I can't believe some Europeans think like that. what a rude and small minded thing to say about Norwegians, which it seems they know very little about.

Is Denmark in the EU? Is Sweden? I think I read that Iceland is opposed to it.

But it's a shame that the scandinavian countries can't come together. Form the "Northern League", an autonomous subset of the EU. You play by "their" rules, but on "your" terms.

A single currency, not the Euro, but the Krona. That way you can get that hot babe Crown Princess Victoria on your money. YUM! She's gorgeous!

Umm... anyway, it's a shame that your (and I mean all of "scandinavia") political leaders didn't foresee the purpose of the EU, which is to establish what Napoleon and Hitler strived for:

The Franco-German Empire. Le Quatreme Reich. France and Germany, co-dictators for all of Europe.

It would, of course, be arrogance of me to tell Norwegians what to do with their nation.

That said, if my advice were offered, I would definitely wait it out for now, to see how it develops. So long as you have free trade with the EU you have the benefits anyway.

I would not be so hasty as to assume that if the EU leads to a gradually less and less democratic superstate, this means Norway would succumb to a loss of democracy. Norway might well become a beacon of hope for Europeans who want better, a place to get away for some. I doubt very much that the EU would devolve into a fascist dictatorship--rather, it would become a sort of oligarchic superstate, and likely unwilling to take a small country like Norway by force.

I mean, mind you, it might. But more likely it would just be a bloated superbureaucracy run by a faceless oligarchy.

So really, for several reasons, you might be wise to stay out. I probably would vote that way were I Norwegian.

Let us not forget Chirac's words when Norway initially declined joining the EU: "They will not have another chance, even if they came on their knees."

Well, maybe not everyone thinks that way.But people from france do but so do they about everyone, and not only Norwegians.They judge a country mainly on the price of booze and how much money and medecine you can get for free.It s much a latin thing they don t understand protestant ethics and pragmatism.

Now, it's time for Herbie to come up with some French bashing.

EU... I will just vote NO!

Bjørn: "True, but we already live by a staggering number of laws. So do Americans, btw, though mostly less intrusive ones." The difference is, sometimes, may be once in a blue moon, the legislators may overturn old laws, or write new laws that in effect invalidate the old ones. But if these rules and laws were set in the Constituition, they are harder to change.

RSN: "Oh, I get it. You're talking about that big failure, the American Constitution." The big failure only consists of a few pages of laws, but the EU Constituition has 400 pages which set out how each member and her citizen is to behave.

"It s much a latin thing they don t understand protestant ethics and pragmatism. "

It's a freeloader thing. The French are world-class freeloaders.

Go away for a week and you miss all the good stuff.

Kind of even applies to the previous discussion on "democracy."

http://www.innocentsabroad.blogspot.com/2004_05_02_innocentsabroad_archive.html#108355005022614583

Obviously, Collin's personal opinion, and Collin's Canadian BTW. And worked for an NGO, IIRC.

Via EURSOC:

...Last week, Chirac and his cronies in Brussels warned that Britain might be asked to leave the EU if the public failed to approve the constitution.

One commissioner claimed that Britain would "end up like Switzerland or Norway" if it dumped the constitution - a threat jumped on with glee by British Eurorealists, who pointed out that the Swiss and Norwegians enjoy Europe's highest standards of living while managing to get by without EU membership.

That said, the possibility of Britain becoming another Switzerland if it leaves the EU is about as likely as the Eurofantasist's favourite daydream that Britain will gain a Swedish-style welfare state if it surrenders wholly to Brussels. But if a threat of unrivalled prosperity and independence is the best threat Eurofanatics can come up with, they have lost the media campaign already....

---

Well, at least you'd be in good company....

OT: I really don't care if you guys think I'm a wacko. I put out my doomsday scenario for all of you to read.

Especially the part about Europeans coming here and we'll take them in.

Then catching up from last week I read this at Roger Simon's place and I'm kind of curious about US:

live in Canada and am noticing an increase in the number of Europeans going out of their way, when having a baby, to just happen to live here at the time, ensuring dual citizenship for the child.

If I lived in Spain, I would have my "escape" laid out already - i.e. some funds offshore, another locale scouted out etc., just in case....

--

And yet the PM tells W the Canucks will protect themselves. Right. Not w/the way they've gutted their military.

IC: "RSN: "Oh, I get it. You're talking about that big failure, the American Constitution." The big failure only consists of a few pages of laws, but the EU Constituition has 400 pages which set out how each member and her citizen is to behave."

Good point to make. Plus, the US Constitution is all about how the federal government operates... describing functions of the branches (legislative, executive, judicial), how the members are chosen (or elected), and what the actual functions of the government overall are. The first 10 Amendments, the Bill of Rights, are all about what the government can NOT do; this is an absolute Sacred Cow to Americans, and is one of the reasons we frequently stringently react to UN infringement. The remaining 17 Amendments are mostly fine tuning of the Bill of Rights, with a few oddballs thrown in for grins and giggles (18th... Prohibition of alcohol, 21st, repeal of Prohibition) ;). It contains not one mumbling word about how the individual States or its citizens are to behave!

Amendments have to be passed in Congress by a "supermajority" (3/5ths yes), and then must be ratified by 3/5ths of the States to be adopted. As you can see, it isn't easy to pass a new Amendment. (I'm totally befuddled by how the 18th Amendment was ever ratified!)

The US Constitution doesn't contain "laws" per se... it's mostly about functions and rights that huge tomes of laws and case histories are based upon. And, as IC pointed out, it is only a few pages in length.

OG, How could I resist such a nice invitation. We should thank France for the Statue of Liberty which, I understand, was modeled after a French woman. We did have the good sense to cut off the hair in the armpits upon its arrival. :-)

There are fundamental differences between the US and the EU on how they approach things like a Constitution. In the US there is an active distrust of government. We believe, generally, that the government should stay out of peoples lives after setting broad rules of play. There is a greater sense of trust of the citizenry in the US and that the government is to serve the people rather than the other way around. In the EU, also for historical reasons, the government seems to want to protect itself from its citizens and certainly does not trust them. Perhaps the best example is the tax system. In the US it is based on trust in the first instance. NO so in the EU. In the EU people are more comfortable with a myriad of regulations to govern their conduct. I n short there appears to be rigidity in the EU political process which rules are designed to encourage and a more flexible approach in the US.

Last evening I heard a frightening statistic – if it is true. More people collect direct government payments in France and Germany then work. I do not know how any society can survive over the long term if that is true.

OG - you can start w/pavefrance.com and go on from there.

EURSOC has some good stuff re Britain and the EU constitution.

Tony wants another 25 amendments.

For those of you who might be offended by LGF, Charles was a democrat, still is, tho not on the war on terror. A little incident on 9/11/01 gave him pause. You can read about it yourself in his archives, IIRC.

Og, these are for you :-)

"France has neither winter nor summer nor morals. Apart from these drawbacks it is a fine country. France has usually been governed by prostitutes." ---Mark Twain

The only navel victory that the French had in it's long history is the blowing-up of the Rainbow Warrior in New Zealand.

Q: What do you call someone in France taking a bath? A: A tourist

It has come to my attention the real reason the French have not mobilized in the war with Iraq is they were covertly asked not to participate with the coalition. It apears that the British, Americans had logically concluded that someone on both of a war trying to simultaneously surrender would be too confusing.

1.

he he...

The Mexicans just celebrated Cinco de Mayo - their triumph over France.

I thought French forces won the US War of Indepence?
A well documented mostly French victory at Yorkton, non?

Great blog btw. As an Englishman it's very difficult at the moment to find a sensible & balanced debate on the EU & further integration into it, & what the consequences may be either way.

I, by my own admission, am largely ignorant of the workings of the EU. However, on a gut level, I wonder how this can be a success..with 25 separate countries each with countless diverse groups and interest somehow striving for a common goal. We have a hard enough time in the U.S. satisfying all the divergant factions and we are all citizens of the same country.

I think you are very wise to wait and see what happens to the EU, but you must remember that this union of Europe has stood for over 50 years, the chances are that it won't be going anywhere soon.

But you must also remember that we won't wait on you forever

You may find it interesting to visit some relevant pages in the field of rules for texas holdem | rules for texas holdem | http://www.rules-for-texas-holdem-top-site.info/ | texas holdem tip | texas holdem tip | http://www.texas-holdem-tip-win.info/ | no limit texas holdem | no limit texas holdem | http://www.no-limit-texas-holdem-win.info/ | texas holdem scanner | texas holdem scanner | http://www.texas-holdem-scanner-games.info/ | online holdem inspector | online holdem inspector | http://www.online-holdem-inspector-win.info/ | slang terms for texas holdem big slick | slang terms for texas holdem big slick | http://www.slang-terms-for-texas-holdem-big-slick-4u.info/ | texas holdem handheld | texas holdem handheld | http://www.texas-holdem-handheld-games.info/ | play texas holdem for free | play texas holdem for free | http://www.play-texas-holdem-for-free-top-site.info/ | ...

At first I thought that Norway should go the way other European nations have gone by joining the EU, mostly for political and cultural reasons. Now I agree that neither the EU nor Norway now need nor ever will need each other, in economic and political terms, so the best thing for Norway would be to wait it out, just as Switzerland is doing. See how it evolves in the next few years. It is certainly the most prudent thing to do, for no one knows for sure how the EU will be affected by its new Eastern European members, let alone the not-so-near but almost-certain accession of Turkey years from now - an even more massive blow to which the EU will struggle to adapt, if it ever does. However, if the EU proves itself prosperous and successful in its goals, Norway should look to join in the future in order to share take part in the implementation of Europe's common economic, political, and social goals.

The last two years the UN has declared Norway the country with the best living standards in the world. I'd like someone outside the viking kingdom to give good reasons to join the EU. The EU follows a long line of continental empires, kingdoms and organizations that want to impose on northmen ideas on how they ought to be governed. The Roman Empire, The Vatican, Denmark, Sweden, The Third Reich and now the EU. Norway, with the exception of WWII, has only been independant since 1905. Let's keep it that way, and especially since it's going well for us "savages". If the EU could give us a more comfortable climate, membership would be worth considering, but I don't expect that to happen...

It's a pity that such a well motivated Bjørn's thesis about the possible EU membership of Norway has received comments from the US regarding the lack of winters & summers in France (!) and some similar comments that don't stick to the topic and above all show that these US “analysts” feel AFRAID (correctly) that the world leadership of their country is highly in danger (see Euro, GDP, Olympic scores, best cars, best girls…). But back to the topic, I think that the Bjørn's opinion makes sense, but actually the Norwegian friends (I challenge anyone to bring evidences proving that in Europe we think anything bad about the Norwegians!) are indeed welcome and shouldn't be worry about joining the EU. That’s a nice place where to stay. Am I saying that there is no development outside of the EU? No, I'm not saying that. Norway actually is already 100% European for political and social values, economic integration, respect of the human rights worldwide and of course from the geographical point of view. Norway, Iceland and Switzerland are indeed European countries enjoying the European high quality of life of our (western) countries. The eastern European countries are also rapidly improving their standards (since 1989) exactly thanks to the growing economical and political integration into the "House Europa". Right like Spain, Portugal and Greece did in the ‘80. For their luck Norway, Iceland and Switzerland were already integrated in the “free” Europe and they did NOT NEED to join the EC in order to be eurointegrated, but now they don’t have really anything to lose by joining. They are like San Marino for Italy and Monaco for France and Andorra for Spain which are formally external to the mentioned countries, but actually completely integrated to those countries and to the EU. And also Norway, Iceland and recently Switzerland for example have signed the Schengen agreement which provides a single visa and complete freedom of movement within the whole Union (with exception for the British/Irish islands) and their citizens can study, marry, work, own real estates, live as all the other EU citizens. Actually also large % of the EU laws is already effective and implemented in these countries as well. Thus the question is simply: Should Norway be also formally a member of the European Union or should rather keep being like is today a member of the “European free and developed society"? We are indeed a free community of peoples that respects the State of Rights and the democratic will of our friends, thus we’ll always let Norwegians decide how better they feel and wish to be European. Anyway in Oslo, like in Istanbul and in Peking, like in Moscow and in Washington (perhaps one day also in Houston!) everybody is already realizing that Europe (finally unified) is standing as the world leading power (fortunately peaceful… yes, we are!) among the democratic countries.
Let God welcome Europe and we’ll welcome Norway (if they wish).

........i personally think that norway,iceland and switzerland should join the EU sometime in the future....you are already half members, and you paricipate in all european programms....i also believe that europe will go on well in the future,if only wait 10-20 years until new states from eastern europe or turkey join in.....first must be some stability after the entrance of the 10 new countries....in my opinion romania and bulgaria are not ready to join in.....but norway,iceland and switzerland are....i believe that there is a lot of work to be done yet so can democracy and freedom will be established in europe,but i don't think that is inevitable or this should discourage norway to join.we the europeans have common ancestory and common future,why norway has to be left out....??all those years of fanatic nationalism brought only wars in europe.....flags, queens and kings, currencies, land claims,language,racism separated europe for centuries......it's time for re-unification and common goals.....i don't mean to forget our national heritage and language,but make it well known in the rest of europe,and come in touch with other european cultures....... i am really fond of norway and iceland, in fact i ould like to live there for a while and study more your culture.....but the last word is entirelly up to the norwegians....and we will respect any descision they make.....

best regards

christos mouzeviris

Se avete amici Italiani, ricordategli di andare a votare domenica...La chiesa italiana boicotta il referendum!Conto su di voi...thank's

http://credit-card.totaldebtservice.net/85486/ belongimaginationlent

http://online.appsi.org/1567603/ braidconjunctionstairs

http://bankruptcy.finances-inco.com blinkscrabearth

I feel that Norway, as well as my native Iceland enjoy the best of both worlds right now.

I feel that the trading union and freedom of work is a great thing about EU, but the centraliziation cause great concern.

The EU is soon to be a replacement for the former Bête Noire of the West, the U.S.S.R. They (EU & USSR) both have similar traits, namely they are a Union of Socialist Republics. An interesting concept it seems at first but ultimately unworkable in it's present guise. I fear/hope that someday in the far off future, the citizens of the EU wil cast off the bureaucratic shackles by which we have been constrained by Brussels.
Norway should stay as it is for now but watch this space.

otherpresenceurine

Trackback URL: /cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/686

House of Payne International: The Castle, May 15, 2004 07:34 PM

I often read that the EU is undemocratic, a sort of dictatorship by bureaucracy. But certainly American bureaucracy is no great shakes. Is the EU that much worse?