Anyway, what this is telling me is that, in a nutshell, the status quo is the only viable way for Norway right now, given the different attitudes and opinions among Norwegians, based on what they perceive about their country’s relationship with the EU.

The thing is, Norway could risk marginalization if it continues along the path it has chosen. Let us take fishing, for example. I am by no means a fish expert, but who says the EU has to look to Norway’s (or Iceland’s) territorial waters for cod and other species of fish indigenous to that area? With advances in aquaculture technology, it may become possible for the EU to develop its own fish stock in sufficient volume, and in an environmentally sustainable way. If I’m not mistaken, this plan is currently being studied and could already be underway.

As for energy, I have been following with great interest the remarkable advances that have been made worldwide (Norway included) in bio-fuels and other forms of renewable energy. While there is still much more that needs to be done in this regard, this one area alone could leave Norway without a leg to stand on. So, besides fish and petroleum, what other “bargaining chips” does Norway have of significance in its dealings with the EU or indeed the rest of the world?

One possibility I can think of is that Norway could further develop its rather small high-tech industry on a scale similar to that in Silicon Valley and other parts of the U.S., or perhaps even Bangalore, India. I can tell you right now that the investments needed to achieve this will have to be swift, sustained and substantial, which could prove extremely difficult; Silicon Valley and Bangalore are not sitting idly by, and I suspect, neither is the EU.

The point I’m trying to make here is that without some serious ideas going forward, Norway could either get left behind or they could just continue to “hitch their wagons” to the EU with the existing arrangements (EEA, EFTA, Shengen, etc). I mean, who else could they tie themselves to? Iceland (whether or not they join the EU)? Russia? Perhaps all three if they’re skillful enough.

Erik, sorry for my late reply on this blog.. Since the Norwegian elections are long gone and we have discussed this in length before;-), I will focus on answering Kris’ questions as best I can.

Kris, you seem to have a good grasp on politics and thanks for reading my blog. You bring up many interesting points, and to answer your questions first.

You asked: “If there weren’t any oil to be found off the Norwegian coast, would there even be an argument about whether or not to join the EU to begin with?”
- This is a very good question. If you would ask a hardened no-person in Norway, the answer you would get would be `no`, as the membership for them often is a issue about self-rule over other recourses such as fish and agriculture and local democracy (as you point out too) etc. But since you ask me, a hardened yes-to-Norway-joining-the-EU, you get a resounding `yes` as an answer.

In football you use the term `never change a winning team` – and I think the same mentality is representative for a majority of Norwegians. It is not an opposition to the EU as such (most people have little knowledge about the EU and its relation to Norway), but people don’t see the reason of changing status quo as long as we are rich, safe and secure as we are.

Your second question refers to the funding of the EU and why Norwegians are not `furious` about it. Well, no-one wants to rock the boat in Norway. Politicians barely talk about this funding, as they don’t want to raise a debate that is either going to split their party (as many parties are quite divided) or split any of the possible government coalitions. The result is that people know little about the laws we are implementing, let alone the money we pay to participate in the single market, bilateral agreements, open borders, etc. And at the end of the day, the funds we pay are much less than countries we can compare ourselves with such as Sweden.

So, sadly, the prospects of Norway joining the EU soon are not great, as long as there are no politicians willing to take the debate, nor any `external` pressure as described in my blog posts.

There will be new elections in 2013. By that time, the Lisbon treaty will have been in effect for a few years making the EU more efficient and unitary, Croatia and Iceland might have joined the EU. This could create the atmosphere for a new debate.

Until then I hope there will be more single issues, as Erik advocates, that can trigger debate, such as an expected review of the EEA-agreement next year or our never-ending stream of directives that we implement into Norwegian law.

Fisheries policy can also become more of an issue, as the European Parliament is going to have an equal say now with the Lisbon Treaty. Norwegian fisheries associations are worried that this will make it even more difficult to be heard, as decisions are moved into an institution of which they have little or no friends (Scots defends Scottish fishermen, Spanish defends Spanish fishermen, etc). The EU wide `seal ban` is a perfect example of the consequences of not being present in the European Parliament for Norwegian interests.

Migration is another hot-topic where the link and dependency to the EU is understated and underestimated among Norwegian media and political elite.

Does this answer your questions? Feel free to ask more if you want…

I can hazard a guess as to why there is a “no” side in Norway. Could it be a fear of this “United States of Europe” bogeyman that they believe will plunder their precious petroleum and, perhaps to a lesser extent, their fishing industries that supplies the wealth for their social safety net? Or perhaps an EU membership, especially at this stage, would not amount to much anyway, because their voice would be just one among several, thereby putting at risk their sovereignty and identity if they need to be heard on matters of great importance to them? If anyone hasn’t noticed, the EU is poised to get even larger.

Allow me to turn the first question around a bit. If there weren’t any oil to be found off the Norwegian coast, would there even be an argument about whether or not to join the EU to begin with? Now, to be fair, any answer to this question would be pure speculation, but at present, apart from Switzerland, Norway is the remaining major western European country and the only Scandinavian country that is not an EU member. Is Norway safe and the others doomed? Or perhaps neither? I guess history will be the judge.

As for the second question, let me point out what some people would consider to be rather startling facts: Norway is adopting laws made in Brussels as well as in Oslo. Norway is partly funding EU enlargement (according to Norway’s mission to the EU website, http://www.eu-norway.org/, Norway contributes € 284 million annually for this) I cannot speak for anyone else (not being Norwegian and all), but I find this rather curious; not necessarily troubling, mind you…just curious. I mean, why aren’t Norwegians furious at their governments about this? If my country is not a full member of some organization that my government is in actual fact paying millions to each year AND reaping basically no say in return, I would be downright livid!

So it all boils own to this: Where is Norway going? Where does Norway want to go, if anywhere? What is Norway doing to to get to where it want to go (or stay where it wants to stay, for that matter)? Again, more questions.

First of all I would like to give credit to Finn’s blogpost which, on the major subject, is a good analysis of the Norwegian debate on the EU-membership question. Therefore I hope it will be read by many, and through the twit from @JulienFrisch and others it probably will.

I will therefore offer another point of view when it comes to the conclusion on the role EU will, and should, play in the debate leading up to the general elections on November 14th. But before I do this I would like to offer a correction to Finn’s information on The Conservative Party, Høyre.

Finn writes: “…they have promised not to join a government that would block a potential application.” This seems to be false as their leader, Erna Solberg, is quoted by a Norwegian news source yesterday (http://www.abcnyheter.no/node/93165) saying (my translation) “we may do as the last time, where some parties say that they will not take part in a coalition government if this government will apply (for EU-mebership).”

So why would Høyre raise the question now? Well, they are struggling on the polls around a steady 13 % and that means that there are a lot of potential voters out there who are pro EU and thereby, as Høyre sees it, are potential win-over-voters.

Contrary to Finn’s conclusions I do not think the EU-question should be, or will be, a major topic in the coming elections. The reason for this is that, even though a referendum has no place in the Norwegian constitution, we have had two referendums on the subject earlier and through this there exist a “none written binding understanding” between the parties and the voters that the question of Norway joining the EU or not will be left to the people to decide in a referendum and the parliament will then execute the will of the people. As of now, the people have been saying NO in the polls for more than four consecutive years.

This does not mean that I do not think that European and EU questions should be on the agenda for the forthcoming elections. On the contrary, these issues should, and must, be part of the core of everyday political debate in Norway. Many of the challenges we face, whether it be climate change, transportation or who’s controlling the Internet there the European and world focus has to be brought into the debate. What is EU doing on the subject, what is the US position and where is China going are relevant question when deciding on a Norwegian policy on all this, and many other, questions.