Finn Myrstad » Norway

Norway has earned between 6-8 billion euro a year on membership in the EEA

Finn Myrstad — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 13:44:49 +0000

A calculation from the European Commission estimates that Norway has increased it GDP with 6-8 billion Euro’s a year as a direct consequence of their membership in the European Economic Area (EEA), which gives Norwegian business access to the internal market in the same way as EU-members. The calculation was leaked to Norwegian media today and has apparently been used as leverage to push Norway into increasing their contributions to new EU member states in the re-negotiations of the EEA-agreement.

The current negotiations between the EU and the EEA states on the other side (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) have been running for the past months. They are meeting again today to try to settle their differences and reach an agreement. Norway has traditionally paid most of the bill, around 97 % of it, and is doing what it can to minimize its contribution to the EU. The money that Norway has paid so far to access the internal market, has mainly been spent in the new member states through two separate funds:

The money is supposed to support projects within areas such as the environment, cultural heritage, health and childcare and more. The total amount has been 300 million euro a year, and apparently the Commission is keen on gradually increasing that amount to 500 million euro a year. In comparison, Sweden paid around 2,5 billion euro for their membership in the EU in 2006.

It is a question of solidarity for Norway

The Commission calculation clearly shows that Norway has benefitted much from its membership in the EEA. The question now is: how much shall Norway pay for its continued membership in the internal market? It is obvious to me that Norway should pay more for access to the internal market as the EU has enlarged since the last negotiation and it will include new member states in the next five year period.

It is first and foremost a question of solidarity as Norway is one of the richest countries in Europe and the money is going to development in some of the poorest countries in the Europe. I can understand that Iceland might have problems with their cash flow at the moment, but I cannot understand that Norway shouldn’t.

It would be a final irony if Iceland pushed Norway into increasing its share and then benefit from the money once if it becomes a member in a few years.

Labour party trumps the services directive through

Finn Myrstad — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 19:04:59 +0000

Despite of the fierce opposition from the minority parties in Government (the Socialist Left (SV) and the Centre Party (SP)), Jens Stoltenberg (prime minister and leader of the Labour Party) today forced through a vote to adopt the disputed Services Directive. The Labour Party, with its ten ministers, outvoted the minority parties’ nine ministers, thus finishing the longest and hardest dispute of the current government.

The debate on the Services Directive reached its final climax today, more than two years after the whole debate finished in the rest of Europe. The Directive has been the object of fierce debate in some circles of Norwegian politics for the past years, but only on the national scene for the past few months as the pressure for decision has been drawing nigh.

Miscalculation from the No-side

The No to the EU movement in Norway has since 2006 had a “veto” to the Directive as their main campaign issue. They have systematically forwarded petitions and decisions in all the major labour unions, some political parties and different NGO’s of various sizes and political leanings. Their stated goal has been to push for a so-called “veto”, or a reservation, of the directive through the EEA-agreement. Despite their massive campaign, they miscalculated the politics of scale, namely the fact that the pro-European Labour Party, with a majority in the cabinet could just push it through if they wanted. But the No Movement was not alone in miscalculating the timing of the adoption of the directive. I predicted in my blog in June that the Government would stall it till after the election, and to then Labour push it through.

What now? A single party government with the Labour Party is more likely after elections

Both the Centre Party and the Socialist Left actively voted against the decision, and their defeat is a massive blow to their credibility as “No-to-the-EU-guarantors”, as many of their voters are against Norwegian membership to the EU. The Centre Party defines their existence on their opposition to the EU. I think this might be the start of the Labour Party’s plan to go after the election next year, instead of a continuation of a majority coalition government as there is today.

The advantages with a one-party minority government with Labour would be that they could apply for membership with the support of the conservative party Høyre. That is if they together have a majority of the seats in the parliament. With the wind of change in Icelandic politics towards a much more positive attitude of the prospect of membership in the EU, Norway might see itself forced to once again to debate the issue of membership. Norway member of the EU by 2011?

Read more in VG, Dagbladet and Aftenposten.

PS: Norway has never used the right to reserve, or veto, any legislation from the EU through the EEA agreement. Our political influence on EU legislation is minimal, but we still accept it all. The fax democracy lives on.

Will Iceland push the Norwegian EU debate?

Finn Myrstad — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:36:18 +0000

The EU-debate in the former euro-sceptic fishing nation Iceland is heating up, as banks, business interests and labour unions are all calling for EU-membership and adoption of the Euro. An Icelandic membership may also trigger a new debate on Norwegian membership to the EU.

It seems difficult to foresee that Norway will join the EU any time soon, as Norwegians narrowly have voted no to EU membership twice (1972 and 1994) and the oil-economy seems less affected by the world’s financial crisis so far.

Previous applications have not been triggered by domestic/internal events

Norwegian politicians seem to lack the political clout and guts to raise the debate, as the question is the most contentious and divisive in Norwegian politics. The 1972 application came as a result of the British application, where both Norway and Denmark applied. The 1994 application came as a result of the Swedish application. In other words, external events seem to trigger the membership debates in Norway.

Three events that can trigger an EU application in Norway

There are currently three external events I believe can trigger an EU-debate in Norway:

Iceland applies for membership to the EU. This will leave Norway “alone” in the EEA-agreement together with Lichtenstein. EFTA will become even more irrelevant. More importantly, Iceland will be on the other side of the negotiation table when Norway negotiates their fishery agreements with the EU. This is a situation I think is unacceptable for Norwegian fishing industry who has always regarded themselves as big brothers to Iceland. Norwegian newspaper VG reported on the issue today.
Increased pressure from Russia. Norway is currently in a long-standing border dispute with Russia for more than 30 years. If Russia continues to reassert itself in the North, Norwegians might start feeling lonely without international support for their claims. EU-membership might seem like the only viable option to secure Norwegian interests’ in the High North. Read more about it here: Norway Urges Russia to Stick to International Law in Arctic , President Medvedev threatens Russian Arctic annexation
Economic depression. The main rationale used to explain why Norway is outside the EU is that the Norwegian economy has been going so well due to the oil discoveries in the 70ies, leaving Norway as one of the best countries to live in world wide. Many Norwegians thus have not had a clear economic incentive to join the union. If the economy (sadly) is weakened, EU-membership might seem as the option that can boost the economy, as it has been in almost all the new member states of the union.

Read an old, but still good, analysis from the International Herald tribune on the pros and cons in the Norwegian EU debate