Freenations

NORWAY'S RESISTANCE TO THE EUROPEAN UNION

Thank you very much. To start with, I would like to thank you for the invitation. It's a pleasure to be invited to a briefing, because the countries in the northwestern part of Europe have many things in common. Not least we have peoples who are EU-critical in all our countries. Britain has a long history of not following the EU's plans in all sorts of ways - well, perhaps that hasn't been the case recently. Norway, and the people of Norway, have decided to say no to EU membership. If the Swedes had a referendum today, they would also say no to membership. Iceland is also outside the EU, and as you know, the Danes have once again said no to one of Brussels' supranational projects, the euro. The broad opposition found in our countries, and the fact that we are not among the EU-core countries, I think represents a hope that it is possible to establish perhaps a different kind of cooperation in Europe, which is not based on the dream of a federal Europe, but on the fight for democracy, and instead of the EU project, we should join in a fight for such a cooperation.

My approach to the EU question is of course Norwegian. I'll try to share with you some of our experiences of recent years, and I'll focus on Norway's relationship with the EU, the type of EU criticism and EU critics we have in Norway, on the situation for the international EU critical movements, and then I must, of course, touch upon the Danish 'no' to the euro.

In Norway we have had several national debates about the EU and EU membership. We had two referendums, one in 1972 and one in 94, both resulting in a 'no.' And through the years we've tried different alternatives, different other models, to access the inner market of the EU. The first one was the free trade agreement, after an intense debate in the year of 1972, we had a referendum about regional or associate membership of the EEC, as it was called at the time, and the result was a 53.6 % majority voting 'no.' The people had made their decision, and the politicians thought they would work out an alternative for Norway, and this led to negotiations between Norway and the EEC, and from 1974 Norway had a free trade agreement with the EEC. This agreement implied that there would be no customs or quotas for most industrial products, with some exceptions - that is, some agricultural products and processed products from our fishing industry. But this agreement was sufficient, and trade between the EEC and Norway flourished in the years that followed.

But Norway was to get a different agreement with the EU, I'm afraid. After an initiative from the six EFTA countries in 1990, negotiations were initiated between EFTA countries and the EU, resulting in the EEA, the European Economic Area. The aim of these negotiations was to allow the free flow of capital goods, services and labor between the EFTA countries and the EU, in other words integrating the EEA and EFTA countries in the inner markets. And from 1993 Norway signed the agreement, and joined in 1994. I could mention that, at the time, most Norwegians didn't want the EEA, but the government didn't really care. They tend not to care about things like that.

In the national debate about the EEA, one important question remains unanswered, and that is the question 'Do we need it at all?' Why do we need the EEA? Our exports with the EU would not have been harmed if we had not joined the EEA, because we already had the free trade agreement, as I mentioned. And the EEA leads to EU directives being integrated into Norwegian law, and that's a drawback that we would avoid, if we had stuck to the free trade agreement only. But even though the EEA limits our freedom in some ways, it is still a lot better than EU membership. We can still make our own policies when it comes to monetary and economic policies, foreign policy, trade with the world outside the EU, welfare policy, and so forth. And I find it very important that Norway has its own voice in the international community. We don't have to follow the EU, which member countries like you in the United kingdom have to do in international negotiations and in the UN. And not to mention that we have something that no regular member of the EU has. We can veto. We can actually say 'no' to any rule from the EU. That's a very, very important option, but thanks to an EU friendly majority in parliament, we haven't used it so far.

But were the Europhile parties in our parliament satisfied with the EEA? Were they satisfied with market access and having at least some democratic foundation for Norway's position in Europe? Well, of course they were not. Because they have a genuine interest in the EU project and the ideas behind it. For them, it's not a question of what is good for the Norwegian economy or what is in the interests of the Norwegian people. Being swallowed by some centralized superpower is of no concern to them, as long as they can mingle with the political elite in Brussels. So they decided to have another referendum on EU membership, and that was set up to be held in the autumn of 1994. Two campaigns, both for and against membership were launched, and the result was that 52.2% of the people voted 'no,' on the 28th of November 1994. We won despite the fact that the 'yes' side had the media on their side, they had enormous amounts of money available, and they had the entire government apparatus at their disposal. During the debate prior to the referendum, those supporters of the Union - the political elite, the media and big business, predicted the complete and utter devastation of the Norwegian economy, if we dared not join the Union. They told us that our exports would be hit, that capital would move abroad and investments would decrease, that the interest rates would most certainly rise, our currency, the krone, would collapse, and employment in industry would decrease dramatically. An economic Armageddon would actually await us, if we said 'no.' But guess what - the result was actually quite the opposite. Just after the "No" referendum, the Norwegian economy boomed, for some reason. Our exports were increasing, investments were rising, foreign capital bought our enterprises, the interest rate held the day after the referendum, our currency became stronger, and the employment in industry increased. The prophecies of the 'yes' side turned out to be pure propaganda.

So, why did the Norwegians say 'no' to the EU? It's of course impossible for me, within reasonable time limits, to give you all the reasons, but I'll try to give you some highlights. One reason is that Norway's economy differs widely from that of continental Europe. Germany, for instance, has quite different interests than Norway. We export primary products like oil and fish, while Germany, for instance, imports these products, and then has different interests, and this is an important reason why the EMU, the Economic and Monetary Union, is not a good idea for Norway. An even more important reason is perhaps Norwegian history. Norway is a small country without a history of a great and rich nobility, and without great wealth, not at least until the last 30 years, but, even though people in Norway were not rich, many were farmers and fishermen, who were their own masters. They had their own lands, and from the middle of the last century, we had large people's movements, fighting for different issues - one for instance for the new Norwegian language (NyNorsk), farmers, workers, and not least, Democratic Christians, just to mention some. And these movements were based on democratic principles, and they had quite an important impact on Norwegian policy and society. These are some of the reasons why Norwegians have become used to having an influence on the government and being able to control their own lives to some extent. And this, I believe, contributed to the 'no' in 1994. Because the EU debate is, of course about whether it is possible to control the government and to influence your own, everyday life. But there is another very important reason why the 'no' side won, and that is, the way we were organized. Instead of numerous parties, organizations and groups, having their own small complaints, we all joined and organized in a national and local organization. We had coordinated activities in this broader organization, and it is called 'No to the EU;' and that's the organization I'm representing here today. Later on, I'll say something about how we're organized, but let me first say some words about the two sides in the debate.

Three parties in Norway support EU membership. That is, the Labour Party, the Conservative Party, and the right-wing Progress party. Another strong supporter of the 'yes' campaign is the Confederation of Norwegian Business and Industry. Dominated by the big enterprises, this organization supplied our opponents with considerable amounts of money during the campaign. In general, the large companies are in favor of membership, while they think of how they can expand in Europe, and so on, while smaller companies are more afraid of competition when European multinational companies enter our market. Geographically, the vote showed a 'yes' majority in and close to the capital Oslo, while in the districts, in the west and the north, people were massively against. Polls also showed high percentages of 'no' voters among women, young people, older people, and trade union members.

The political parties opposing the EU are the Center party, the Christian Democrats, the Socialists, the Liberals and the left-wing Socialists. There is also a strong opposition within the Labour party. In addition to these political parties, farmer's and fishermen's organizations, the environmentalists, and most political youth organizations, also opposed membership.

So let me just say a few words about my organization, the 'No to the EU.' 'No to the EU' was founded in 1988 as an information group, but we were established as a proper organization two years later. It is the main - in fact the only cross-part organization opposing membership in Norway, and it organized the opposition during the campaign, before the referendum in 1994. 'No to the EU' defines itself as a broad political coalition with one single goal, and that is to keep Norway outside the EU. The organization nevertheless found it useful to establish a political platform on the questions of democracy, environmental protection and international solidarity. The main objects of gathering in this broad coalition with all these different organizations, is to avoid the subordination to Brussels that membership would lead to but to allow all these organizations to disagree on other political issues.

So, from August 1990, we were an organization reaching from the national to the local level. We had local branches at the municipal level, in each of our counties we had a local organization, and we had a national organization with a Congress, a national board, an executive board, and a national secretariat. At the time of the referendum in November 1994 we had 145,000 members - that is equivalent to 5% of the total electorate - and we had more than 500 local branches. Today, 6 years after the referendum, we still have about 26,000 members, and we believe that this number will increase in the years to come.

So, what about the situation today? Is the struggle over? Have the politicians fighting for Norwegian membership given up? Can we relax now and just lean back? Well, I'm afraid not. EU membership is an important goal for these forces, but they have learned one important thing - that if they are to achieve that goal, they have to stay away from referendums. So, they have changed the strategy to avoid that.

In recent years, they tried to make Norway an EU member without a referendum - without a democratic debate - by integrating us step-by-step into the EU. EU directives are being integrated into Norwegian law, the EEA has been expanded; we are now a part of the Schengen system, as you might know, and one day the politicians of these parties, they wish to say to the public, 'But look - we are practically a member of the union already - let's just get it over with and join formally.' And in recent months it has even become clear that the 'yes' side is planning a new referendum in the future. We do not know exactly when the new referendum will come. The reason is, of course, that the majority in parliament, which is in favor of membership will decide. So they probably hope to surprise us. Well, the Norwegian people have said 'no' twice in two referendums. What makes the 'yes' side believe that they can win this time?

Well, I think the new, important debate is concerning how the EU is changing. If we can convince the public that the EU is changing in the wrong direction, into something even worse than in 1994, it's obvious that the 'no' side, from the last referendum, the last debate, will strengthen, and we will thereby win. Therefore, it is crucial for the supporters of the union to convince the public that the EU is turning into something better - that we, on the 'no' side in 1994 were wrong, and it didn't turn out the way we had said. And that's why they have changed their rhetoric. They now speak of democracy. They speak of protection of the environment and of international solidarity, which traditionally had been the key issues of the 'no' side.

The changes in the EU system give the European Parliament more power, and thereby the people in Europe more power. They say, "look at it, it's becoming more democratic;" and the EU has started a new fight for the environment through the Amsterdam Treaty. "And just look at Eastern Europe," they say. "Look at that - that's history's grandest efforts for peace and solidarity in Europe and in the world." This is the way they describe it; this is the way they describe developments in the EU. While if you look at the reality - how the mechanisms in the EU are really being changed - it's quite the opposite. It's obvious that this is all nonsense. But they are dependent on giving this impression among the public. Because the EU has, in fact, gone through enormous changes in recent years. The Amsterdam Treaty was an important step, so was the decision to establish the EU Army of 60,000 soldiers. Another huge step is about to be taken this year, at the intergovernmental conference. Qualified majority voting is becoming the main procedure of decision-making in the EU this year, and the EU Council will have less votes for small countries, giving countries of the size of Norway less votes in the system. And the EU is also becoming flexible, so that no one can stop a core of EU countries going further with integration and pulling the others with them. That's how the EU is really changing.

Today the EU has a common market. It has a common police force, the Europol. It has a common foreign policy. Soon, it will have a common army. And it already has (supposedly) strictly controlled common borders around the EU. The EU is being shaped into a state, with a federal structure, and these steps are going towards a sort of United States of Europe, even though Tony Blair just calls it a superpower, I've noticed.

One of the cornerstones in this development, is of course Economic and Monetary Union and the euro, the single currency, which transfers power over monetary and economic policies, from the national states, to the centralized EU system. And this dismantling of the national states causes serious problems, not least regarding democracy. And, as you know, this is what the people in Denmark voted 'no' to recently. The Danes voted no because they feel the consequences of such a political union that the EMU leads to, and they fear the consequences of tax and welfare policies being controlled from Brussels, and they refuse to be forced to vote in favor of the oligarchy in Brussels. A Danish 'yes' vote was an obvious part of the strategy of European Social Democratic leaders. Their plan was to launch a referendum in Sweden, following a 'yes' in Denmark. Of course, if they had a 'yes' in Sweden, they could follow up with a referendum in the UK, also resulting in a 'yes.' And in that way, they wanted to build a foundation for getting support, providing support for the reforms of the EU system and for the enlargement process.

The Norwegian foreign minister had, of course, hoped that the Danish people would say 'yes,' so that it could increase the support of membership in Norway, and make it possible for the 'yes' side in our country to win a new referendum. Earlier this year, he said in a newspaper interview that the Danes and the Swedes, if they voted 'yes' to the EMU, the situation for Norway would be dramatic. But now, he suddenly thinks - and this is a quote - "the consequences for Norway will not be very far-reaching." So, the moment the Danish people said 'no,' then it wasn't all that important after all. If the result had been yes, he wouldn't have just described it as dramatic, he would have started a huge campaign for Norwegian membership. Because he knows very well that what our neighbours decide has a great influence on public opinion in Norway, of course. And even though the 'yes' side tried to ignore it in this way, the Danish vote has had a considerable impact on public opinion. After months with polls showing quite a close race between the 'yes' side and the 'no' side in Norway, polls recently showed that 46% percent of the electorate do not want to join the EU, while 33% are in favor of membership. The Danish 'no' not only strengthens the opposition against Norwegian EU membership, but it has also destroyed the whole project of linking the Norwegian currency, the Krone, to the euro, which the 'yes' side has tried to do for years. But even though the Danish vote had a positive influence on Norway, I think the most important effect is that it will strengthen the international movement against the euro and against the EU.

Opposition is growing all over Europe, as we know, not least in the central and eastern European applicant countries. The number of international conferences and networks criticizing the EU is growing, and the work in the anti-Maastricht alliance Team, and the New Theoretic Network, are signs of this trend. We are also building a stronger Nordic network. For this international movement, the Danish know, is a great encouragement. Because it's not enough to win the struggle in Denmark, or to win the struggle in Norway, or in any of our respective countries, because the EU is having an increasingly negative impact on society all over Europe, inside and outside the Union. Therefore, it is very important that we who are critical or opposed to the EU and the euro, that we build international alliances and that we cooperate, share valuable information and experiences. Because, it is possible for us to go home - I can go home to Norway, and we can go home to our respective countries - and say 'Look - we are not alone.' All over this part of the world there are people fighting for a different Europe. We are not alone - they can't call this a Norwegian thing, or a British question. And all over this part of the world, we should work together and show Europeans that we might disagree on a lot of political issues but we must stand together in the fight for democracy itself

Thank you very much for your attention.