From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Norway

This article is part of the series: Politics and government of Norway

Constitution King Harald V Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg Government Red-Green Coalition Storting Political parties Politicians (category) Elections 1973 · 1977 · 1981 1985 · 1989 · 1993 1997 · 2001 · 2005 Counties (Fylker) Municipalities (Kommuner) Foreign relations Norway and the EU

Other countries · Politics Portal view • talk • edit

One of the most important and divisive issues in Norwegian political and economic debate since World War II has been the country's relationship with the European Union.

Contents 1 Chronology 2 Position of political parties 3 Prominent issues 3.1 Against membership 3.2 In favor of membership 4 Characteristics of the controversy 5 References

See also Norwegian EC referendum, 1972 and Norwegian EU referendum, 1994

In the early 1960s, Norway applied for membership in the Treaty of Rome when the United Kingdom asked to join. When France rebuffed the UK's application, Norway withdrew.

Norway completed its negotiations for the terms to govern a Norwegian membership in the European Community on January 22, 1972. Following an overwhelming majority in favor of joining the EC in early 1972, the government decided to put the question to a popular referendum, scheduled for September 24 and 25. The result was that 53.5% voted against membership and 46.5% for it. The Norwegian Labour Party government led by Trygve Bratteli resigned over the outcome of the referendum, and a coalition government led by Lars Korvald took over.

Norway entered into a trade agreement with the community following the outcome of the referendum. That trade agreement remained in force until Norway joined the European Economic Area in 1994.

On November 28, 1994, yet another referendum was held, narrowing the margin but yielding the same result: 52.2% opposed membership and 47.8% in favor. There are currently no plans to file another application.

Currently, parties supporting or opposing EU membership are to be found in both right-wing and left-wing coalitions: as a result, most governments contain pro- and anti-EU elements. To avoid a new debate on EU, anti-EU parties usually require "suicide paragraphs" in government-coalition agreements: if some party in the coalition officially begins a new debate on EU, the government will fall. This has been true for both the previous right-wing Bondevik government and the current left-wing Stoltenberg government.

Party	Position	Main reasons given
Red-Green Coalition (government)
Norwegian Labour Party	In favour	Cooperation; influence in EU decisions. [1]
Socialist Left Party	Against	Lack of democracy; too much focus on free market. [2]
Centre Party	Against	Lack of democracy; environmental concerns; solidarity [3]
Opposition
Conservative Party of Norway	In favour	Peace; stability; solidarity; influence [4]
Christian People's Party	Against	EEA is good enough, independence [5]
Liberal Party	Against	EEA is good enough; democracy and independence concerns; protectionism [6]
Progress Party	Not decided	Formally renounced to have a clear position; pleads to respect any referendum [7]

Membership in the European Union was possibly the most controversial and polarizing issue in Norwegian politics since its independence in 1905. Both sides of the issue started advocacy organizations that persist to this day, and even within political parties there were divisions. Although the debate took on many forms, some of the most prevalent arguments on either side could be summarized

• Surrender of political sovereignty: Norway would have to amend its constitution to become a member of the EU, ceding political power to the European parliament and commission.
• Lack of democracy in the EU: most EU decision makers (such as the European Commission) are appointed by governments, and not elected by the people.
• Reduction in economic self-determination: being subject to the economic policy of the EU would compromise Norway's ability to determine its own economic development, particularly with respect to rural needs and natural resources. Whaling is often given as an example of an industry whose existence would be threatened in case of EU membership (whaling is however insignificant for Norway's economy).
• Threat to self-sufficiency: increasing Norway's exposure to competition from other EU countries would reduce the country's self-sufficiency in food and other essential commodities. Some sectors, such as farming, are heavily subsidised for strategic reasons (to have food supply in case of war, for example), and membership in the EU would expose these sectors to competition from more fertile countries such as France or Italy. The former Farmer's party, now Centre party, has consistently been against EU membership.
• Threat to cultural identity: Norwegian culture would be overcome by commercial interests.
• Additional layer of government and bureaucracy: the European Union's administrative apparatus would add cost and inconvenience to an already well-developed Norwegian government.

• International cooperation to preserve peace: for several millennia, European powers have been at war with each other. By increasing interdependence among European powers, war is an increasingly unappealing option.
• Influence over decisions that affect Norway: the Norwegian economy is highly dependent on the EU's, and it would be better to be in a position of some power.
• Few additional duties: Norway is already compliant with most additional requirements that EU membership would imply, to the point that a few years ago Romano Prodi, then president of the European Commission, commented that "Norway is already the best member of the EU".
• Participation in an emerging political bloc: the EU is emerging as a counterbalance to the United States in foreign affairs, and Norwegian public opinion is usually not favorable to US foreign policy, in particular about the Middle East.
• Reduction in subsidies, cheaper food and alcohol: those opposed to Norway's heavy subsidies for farming (usually estimated at about 20,000 Norwegian krones per taxpayer) point out that protectionism by import barriers in this sector has led to very high prices in food for consumers, and increased competition would lower them. Opening to the EU market may also require Norway to reduce its heavy taxes on alcohol, something many Norwegians would appreciate.

Because these positions to a great extent cut across ideological boundaries, various political parties have dealt with the issue in different ways. The Centre Party has maintained the most principled stand against membership, and though parties such as the Conservative party and the Labour Party support membership in their platform, they allow for a minority to oppose it. Most dramatically, the Liberal Party split over the issue in 1972 at the famed party conference in Røros and did not reunite until 1989.

The EU membership crosses the traditional left-right axis in Norwegian politics. Since the Labour Party lost its dominance in Norwegian politics, all governments have been a coalition of several political parties. Because the EU membership issue almost certainly would break up any conceivable government coalition (except maybe a rainbow coalition of Labour and the Conservatives), no government has raised the subject and no opposition party has stated any desire to do so either.

Disagreements on this issue have been known to create divisiveness within families and local communities. Although there is a general pattern that urban communities favor membership and rural communities don't, there have been vocal minorities in every area of Norway.

Complicating the matter has been that a great variety of political and emotional factors have been raised in the debate. Radical socialists oppose membership because of an opposition to conservative economic and political forces that concern them within Europe; opponents on the right are concerned about an infringement on Norwegian culture; and others are opposed in principle to compromising Norwegian sovereignty. Some social democrats see membership as a way to participate in the global social democratic movement, whereas libertarians favor open markets for capital, services, and goods.

Many observers felt that the Centre Party misread the situation when they interpreted the narrow majority against membership in 1994 as an endorsement of the party's general platform. Party politics continue to be confounded by this issue, and most governments tend to avoid it.