A recent Norwegian study argues that the EEA agreement has ‘made Norway a de facto EU member’, implementing most of the rules without a say in the decision-making. This is a very interesting paper that deserves much more attention than it so far has received . Sadly, no Norwegian media seem to have picked up on it, as the debate regarding the Norwegian democratic deficit (or fax democracy as it is also called) in our relation to the EU seem to be a non-issue in the Norwegian political debate. Read the full study here.

Member states of the EEA agreement

The crippled EU-debate in Norway has left politicians without the guts to ask the obvious and most important question: what role do we want to play in Europe? Instead, they have reduced the debate to evolve around the past EU Directives, such as the ‘Services Directive‘ and the ‘Data Retention directive‘.

The Directives are important and have big influence on the Member States, but the problem for Norway is that we have chosen not to participate in the debates when the Directives are actually discussed in Europe.

Take the Services Directive as an example. It was one of the most debated Directives in Europe, and maybe even one that created a pan-European debate, with heated discussion in the Member States and demonstrations outside the European Parliament. The compromised final Directive passed on 15 November 2006. 

The Problem: walking the talk

The problem arises when the Norwegian Government still insists that Norway has a a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ choice to the directive by continuing to ‘explore the various issues related to the directive… The Government will now study the reports thoroughly before taking a position’ (quote from the Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre Bi-annual address to the Norwegian Parliament on relevant EU issues in May). This statement was made two years after the debate ended in the rest of the EU. It is also in direct contradiction with Støre’s address on the consequences of the Lisbon Treaty, stating that ‘one obvious consequence for us is that we will have to speed up our own handling of EEA and Schengen matters.‘ It beats me how they are going to do this if Norway’s ability to manage EEA matters is to be measured by the treatment of the Services Directive.

The real reason behind that the delay is that the Government is trying to find a way to adopt the Directive without losing face or dissolving itself. The two “No to the EU” parties, the Socialist Left and the Centre Party, may have to accept something they have strongly opposed for years in order to save their ministerial posts and executive powers, as the strongest coalition partner Labour Party is generally pro-EU. 

The reality is simple; the day that the Government fails to reach an agreement on a Directive that is relevant for around 70 % of the internal market legislation is the day when Norway gives the EEA agreement the death penalty.

Prediction: The Government will stall it till after next years election

As far as I see it, all parties in office are aware of the fact, so they are left with three options:

1. They stall the Directive until after the elections. This will mean that Norway will not implement the Directive within the deadline (28^th of December 2009) and Norwegian trade and commerce may suffer as a consequence.
2.  They accept the Directive. The “No”-parties will either have to accept their defeat in return for a major trade-off with the Labour party or leave the government coalition
3. They “veto” the Directive together with Iceland and Lichtenstein. The only positive aspect with this scenario is that it will force Norway to join the EU in order to save our lifeline to Europe. 

I think the coalition will go for option one and keep on “exploring” various aspects of the Directive until fall of 2009. If the same coalition then manages be to re-elected, then we will probably see some sort of trade-off between the coalition parties and the Directive will be implemented. This is of course the most coward way of solving this issue, in direct contradiction to one of the main goals of the Government: “An active European policy”.

The last time, in 1972, when Venstre  decided on its feelings towards the EC, it divided it party in two. Sponheim is doing what he can to avoid a re-run of the 1972-division that has haunted the small party for more than 35 years. When he announced this week that Venstre likely to be in favour of Norway joining the EU, it represents an historic shift in Norwegian politics. Venstre can be the first party to change from ‘No’ to ‘Yes’ and represents a symbolic change in the European Debate.  

Venstre was during the Union with Sweden in the 19th century the party that represented the independence movement. Its members fought for the introduction of parliamentarism and achieved it in 1884. It was later in the forefront in the fight for independence from Sweden, which Norway gained in 1905. This is one of the reasons why the No-movement find it so hard to swallow that one of its ‘independence’ partners might become in favour of joining the EU. 

Another important aspect if Venstre changes its mind on Norwegian membership is the balance of power in the Storting. The Yes-side will once again regain the majority of seats, which is necessary to even consider an application for membership. It might also pave the way for governments without a so-called ‘suicide-clause’, a term used for an agreement between parties in government that debate on membership would tear the government apart (like it has been for the past 10 years). It is important to stress though, that Venstre’s shift alone, probably isn’t enough to raise a real membership debate. For that, history has shown, an external event must put it on the agenda (1972 it was Denmark and the UK joining, in 1994 Sweden, Finland and Austria joining, thus ‘pushing’ Norway to apply as well). This time around such an event could be an Icelandic membership application, economic downturn or a negative shift in the Norwegian relations to Russia. 

One of the main reasons for Venstre’s change of attitude is due the ‘democratic deficit’ of the EEA-agreement.  It grants Norway access to the internal market, but it gives it no democratic influence on the legislative process. Norway has since the EEA agreement was introduced in 1993 implemented more than 6000 directives and regulations, without having a say in the process. For the democracy-loving members of Venstre, this has been hard to swallow. Even when they were in government with only ‘No’-parties, they weren’t able to stop/change any of the controversial legislation that came from the EU. This one of the reasons why Venstre now are coming to the conclusion that Norway should join the EU: to have a democratic say and sit around the table and make the decisions. Just like in 1884.