首页 | 主题 | 图库 | 问答 | 文摘 | 原创 | 百科

历史 | 地理 | 人物 | 艺术 | 体育 | 科学 | 音乐 | 电影 | 信息技术 | 世界遗产

 开放、中立,源自维基百科

Personal tools

Norway and the European Union

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Image:EU and Norway.png
     European Union     Norway
Foreign relations of the

European Union

Image:EU Insigna.svg

Policy · High Representative
Relations · ER Commissioner


Enlargement
Croatia · FYROM
Turkey · Netherlands Antilles
SAA states
Albania · BiH · Kosovo
Montenegro · Serbia
EFTA/EEA
Iceland · Liechtenstein
Norway · Switzerland
Neighbourhood Policy
ACP
Armenia · Azerbaijan
Belarus · Georgia
Israel · Moldova
Morocco · Russia
Ukraine
Other relations
Microstates · Cape Verde
Territories · Greenland
Canada · PR China · USA


Economic Relations · Aid
Diplomatic Missions
Security · Military · Eurosphere
ESDP missions

Politics Portal · EU Portal

 v  d  e 

Norway
Image:Coat of Arms of Norway.svg

This article is part of the series:
Politics and government of
Norway



Other countries · Atlas
 Politics Portal
view  talk  edit

Norway is presently not a member of the European Union, but is required to adapt EU legislation in most policy areas because it has signed the EEA free-trade deal through EFTA. Additionally, Norway has opt-ins to many EU-initiated projects such as the Schengen Agreement, Europol, Eurojust, European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction , Frontex and the Union's battlegroups.[1] Whether or not the country should apply for full membership has been one of the most dominant and divisive issues in Norwegian political and economic debate since World War II.

Contents

History

See also Norwegian EC referendum, 1972 and Norwegian EU referendum, 1994

In the early 1960s, Norway applied for membership in the Treaty of Rome when the United Kingdom asked to join. When France rebuffed the UK's application, Accession negotiations with Norway, Denmark, Ireland and the UK were suspended. This happened twice.[2]

Norway completed its negotiations for the terms to govern a Norwegian membership in the European Community on January 22 1972. Following an overwhelming majority in favour of joining the EC in early 1972, the government decided to put the question to a popular referendum, scheduled for September 24 and 25.[citation needed] The result was that 53.5% voted against membership and 46.5% for it.[2] The Norwegian Labour Party government led by Trygve Bratteli resigned over the outcome of the referendum, and a coalition government led by Lars Korvald took over.[citation needed]

Norway entered into a trade agreement with the community following the outcome of the referendum. That trade agreement remained in force until Norway joined the European Economic Area in 1994.

On November 28, 1994, yet another referendum was held, narrowing the margin but yielding the same result: 52.2% opposed membership and 47.8% in favour. There are currently no plans to file another application.

Currently (2005) Norway pays an annual fee of €240 million to the EU budget but it receives no EU expenditure.[3]


Position of political parties

Currently, parties supporting or opposing EU membership are to be found in both right-wing and left-wing coalitions: as a result, most governments contain pro- and anti-EU elements. To avoid a new debate on EU, anti-EU parties usually require "suicide paragraphs" in government-coalition agreements: if some party in the coalition officially begins a new debate on EU, the government will fall. This has been true for both the previous centre-right Bondevik government and the current centre-left Stoltenberg government.


Stances of Norwegian parliamentary parties towards membership of the European Union
Group Party Pos. Main reasons given on party websites SRC
Government    Socialist Left Party No "Lack of democracy; too much focus on liberal trade." [1]
   Labour Party Yes "Cooperation; influence in EU decisions." [2]
   Centre Party No "EU does not reduce economic differences, and does not strengthen democracy" [3]
Opposition Liberal Party  ? Party divided; "EEA works; wants further coop.; respects a referendum; not democratic enough yet" [4]
   Christian People's Party No "EEA is good enough, independence" [5]
   Conservative Party Yes "Peace; stability; solidarity; influence" [6]
   Progress Party  ? Will stay neutral; pleads to respect any referendum result [7]

Arguments

Membership in the European Union has arguably been the lengthiest and most polarizing issue in Norwegian politics ever. Both sides of the issue started advocacy organisations that persist to this day.

In favour of membership

  •  

Internal cooperation prevents conflict

  

European nations have since the Middle Ages frequently been at war with each other. Increasing interdependence between EU members makes war an increasingly unappealing option. Generally speaking; when a country joins the Union, more continuous dialogue relaxes relations and prevents conflicts.

  •  

Unity against external threats

In e.g. a potential cold war scenario, unity and solidarity amongst member states could be important. It is reasonable to assume that Norway as an EU member would experience greater solidarity by other member states in such a situation. Today, NATO doesn't cover all of the EU, and deeper military cooperation between EU members is expected to be deepened.[4] Former Prime Minister Thorbjørn Jagland has argued that Norway would have a stronger position within NATO if it had an EU membersip.[5]

  •  

Influence over decisions that affect Norway

Since its signing in 1994, the European Economic Area (EEA) agreement between EFTA and the EU has been under fire by both the Pro-EU and eurosceptic camps in Norway. It has been criticized for being an undemocratic intrusion upon Norwegian law due to the lack of any Norwegian participation in the formulation of policy. Norway has a right to veto, but has never used it. If Norway became an EU member, it would take part in the shaping of the laws and have a vote on EU decision making in general.

  •  

Adopt the single currency

If Norway became a member it could legally adopt the euro in line with recommendation of the European Central Bank, as opposed to adopting it unilaterally.[6] A 2007 report suggested that Norway would benefit from doing so because the Norwegian economy is very similar to that of the Eurozone. The swap of currency would be especially positive for the export industry. [7]

  •  

Little reform needed

Norway is already compliant with most additional requirements that EU membership would imply, to the point that a few years ago Romano Prodi, then president of the European Commission, commented that "Norway is already the best member of the EU".[citation needed]

  •  

Participation and influence

The reformed EU is emerging as an economical and political counterbalance to the United States and rising Asian economies on the world stage.

  •  

Economic security

When the oil and gas alongside the Norwegian coast has run out, a membership of the European Union might offer economic security and solidarity.

  •  

Norway losing cash by staying out of EU

Norway annually loses out on €180 million by not being an EU member, according to the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs.[8] Fishermen would gain from membership as the cost of entering the EU market would disappear and they would be able to fish in all EU waters.[9]

  •  

Reduction in subsidies, cheaper food and alcohol

Those opposed to Norway's heavy subsidies for farming point out that protectionism by import barriers in this sector has led to very high prices in food for consumers, and increased competition would lower them. Opening to the EU market may also require Norway to reduce its heavy taxes on alcohol.[citation needed]

  •  

Securing Nynorsk

Nynorsk- and Bokmål Norwegian are the two official languages in Norway. Nynorsk is the least used, but would most likely obtain status as official EU language, in the same way as Irish did in 2007. Such a status whould mean that legislation approved by both the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers would be translated into Nynorsk, and interpretation from Nynorsk would be available at European Parliament plenary sessions and some Council meetings.

Against membership

  •  

Further shearing of sovereignty

  

Norway would have to amend its constitution to become a member. It would have MEPs and its own European Commissioner, but would have to rely on the opinions of other members states in more policy areas than with today's EEA agreement.

  •  

Democratic deficit and little transparency

Currently, many EU decision makers, such as the European Commissioners, are appointed by national leaders, and not directly by the citizens of the Union. When the same leaders gather in the Council of the European Union, their process of deciding have been criticised for not being transparent enough.

It should however be noted that the proposed Treaty of Lisbon which is expected to come into force early 2009, empowers the directly elected (by the people of Norway also, had it been a member) European Parliament, partly at the expense of Council and the merely appointed Commission. The new treaty also requires all meetings of the Council to be televised.

  •  

Reduction in economic self-determination

Euro adoption is obligatory for all new member states of the European Union, and the European Central Bank would control Norway's interest rate and monetary policy. This would for example make it impossible to use them as a political tool at national level.

  •  

Threat to cultural identity

An argument is that closer ties with the rest of Europe could water-down Norwegian culture and language.

Characteristics of the controversy

Image:Erna.JPG
Erna Solberg and her Conservative party is currently the most Pro-European party in the Norwegian Parliament

Because these positions to a great extent cut across ideological boundaries, various political parties have dealt with the issue in different ways. The Centre Party has maintained the most principled stand against membership, and though parties such as the Conservative party and the Labour Party support membership in their platform, they allow for a minority to oppose it. Most dramatically, the Liberal Party split over the issue in 1972 at the famed party conference in Røros and did not reunite until 1989.

The EU membership crosses the traditional left-right axis in Norwegian politics. Since the Labour Party lost its dominance in Norwegian politics, all governments have been a coalition of several political parties. Because the EU membership issue almost certainly would break up any conceivable government coalition (except maybe a rainbow coalition of Labour and the Conservatives), no government has raised the subject and no opposition party has stated any desire to do so either.

Disagreements on this issue have been known to create divisiveness within families and local communities. Although there is a general pattern that urban communities favor membership and rural communities don't, there have been vocal minorities in every area of Norway.

Image:No to EU on Norwegian barn.jpg
Norwegian barn shows its negative position

Complicating the matter has been that a great variety of political and emotional factors have been raised in the debate. Radical socialists oppose membership because of an opposition to conservative economic and political forces that concern them within Europe; opponents on the right are concerned about an infringement on Norwegian culture; and others are opposed in principle to compromising Norwegian sovereignty. Some social democrats see membership as a way to participate in the global social democratic movement, whereas libertarians favor open markets for capital, services, and goods.

Many observers felt that the Centre Party misread the situation when they interpreted the narrow majority against membership in 1994 as an endorsement of the party's general platform. Party politics continue to be confounded by this issue, and most governments tend to avoid it.

References

See also

External links




nl:Noorwegen en de Europese Unie

AD Links