I could also add that an Icelandic application needs a change in their constitution that could only be allowed if current parliament suggest it and the next one passes it. In other words, elections are needed.

In sum, there are a lot of factors that will play a role, and it will probably take some time. My most optimistic estimate for a Norwegian application is 2010/11, you agree?

I think you have several valid points, but we need to seperate the weat from the Clinton (haha). Often people focus too much on the arguments; ie a changed reality leads to a change in public opinion. I believe that a more lively public debate can only be triggered by new participants. To actually get the people to listen and take part, we need more participants than the yes- and no-organisations. So, what can lead to a strong enough feeling of urgency in the minds of policy- and opinion-makers so that they will rase the debate?

I think you raise the most important three reasons, but on Russia I believe there has to be a clear and visible conflict of interest, not only a frozen one as now. We need to see a manifestation of Russian power with Norway as the victim (seaborders, Svalbard, Shtokmann etc).

The question then becomes, are the external events important enough in the minds of opinion- and policy-makers to trumph internal considerations, eg forming of governments? This, I believe, is in a historical perspective a new dynamic which mediates external triggers. As you need a government to initiate the application, I believe the only option is a strong minority labour government, triggered by a combination of the above three; a sharper Norwegian-Russian resource conflict, appreciation of the Krone towards Euro threatening jobs in the export sector and a Icelandic application. All four factors are not unlikely, but it will probably take a while.