The Norwegian population said no to EU membership, not once, but twice; in the 1972 and the 1994 referendums. Why? Only years before the 1972 referendum it became clear that Norway’s economy was in for a major boost, facilitating unprescedented wealth for one of Europe’s up until then poorest nations. A wealth which definitely had taken effect by 1994, at which point we turned down membership once more.
Even though we were stinking rich at the time, the debate revolved around this single issue: What’s in it for us? Of course it ought to be “How can we contribute for the European greater good,” but no. What we need to remember, is: This is Norway, strikingly characterised by playwright Henrik Ibsen in this very descriptive Peer Gynt quote:
Man, be thyself. Troll, to thyself be – enough.
There’s wide consensus that this statement in fact describes a very typical Norwegian trait: Egoism, which Ibsen himself criticised – by way of trolls. A trait very much alive even today, manifesting itself in our no to the European Union.
Now you turn us down
Keeping to yourself – and, by all means, keeping your wealth to yourself – is all just fine and dandy when things are going your way, but that just may not last for ever, which is what some have come to realise. We see it in Iceland, who, by the way, turned an EU membership down, too, is beginning to feel the credit crunch’s effect, only days after the nationalisation of its leading bank, Glitnir. According to Norwegian online daily VG Nett Icelandic trade unions have started talking of an EU membership as a means of support to Icelandic banks.
This in turn has lead the Norwegian European Movement to deem a renewed Norwegian application inevitable.
If so, please remember that we turned you down twice when you needed us. I suggest you do the same when we need you, which inevitably we will, once our oil and gas resources are out.
Serves us right.
Please , do not join EU. We are living in a nightmare.
In truth, Piirka, I’m convinced there’s no way around a full EU membership — eventually. You know, we’re already — through our EEA participation and as part of the Schengen cooperation — members in every sense of the word but one: codetermination (i.e. no vote in EU bodies), rendering us committed to costs and obligations equal to that of full members. I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before we’ll demand influence on how our money is spent.
As for nightmares, I think these days you’d have to live on a different planet altogether in order to avoid them.
I think it is the Peer Gynt syndrome again,you want all the benefits but without making any contributions.You want to be in the club but continue to behave as if you are not a member,you do not want to pay the subscription you want an exit door at all times ,but remember your wealth can’t last and it may not be long before you run out of it all together ,when you come with the begging bowl (like your cousins the icelanders ) we may not be quite as forthcoming as you would like .Small self centred people with big wallets which are emptying fast are no match for the big boys, we’ll eat you alive !!
You should have joined in 72 ,we joined in 75 (“as you sow so you shall reap”)
However, and contrary to the above rant of a jealous foreigner, the complete stupidity on your behalf, which seems classic Norwegian behaviour to me, is that you are actually having to make all the contributions but without any voice to influence developments ,absolutely brillant, well done ,love the logic behind this ,too much fish is clearly not good for the brain despite what they say ,or is some perverse Lutheran logic at play here
In any case, we are totally skint so we’ll probably have to come to you and ask for some of your petro-dollars so we better not piss you off totally ,we love you really but please please join the EU
Aoxomoxoa! How good to see you again!
You know, we seem to think so alike it’s downright scary at times. Needless to say I agree completely. We’re highly predisposed to have our cake and eat it, too, amazingly unaware that in fact we’re not. Which is why I’m not as eager as I used to be, in convincing people that we really should join. Of course, I’m full aware of how strange that sounds, but I’ve always regarded our contributions the chief inducement for a Norwegian EU membership.
Now, 14 years after our last referendum, we find ourselves in just that position — as substantial financial contributors to the EU system, leaving yours truly happy to conclude that my chief justification for a full membership is already achieved, while most Norwegians seem blissfully unaware of the fact that our membership/non-membership is a matter of mere formalities.
Does make you wonder how eating fish could possibly affect our intellectual capacity in any way, doesn’t it. In harm’s way, perhaps. One explanation, of course, is that most of our fish is exported anyway. How’s that for brain drainage?
So far the effect of the global credit crunch has been somewhat limited over here (even if stock exchange figures continue to plummet), mostly due to the accumulated reserves, generated by decades of vast oil profits, of course. But we’re not altogether unaffected, as even we seem to grasp the fundamental principles; that reserves spent will have to be replaced lest we exhaust them completely. With oil prices continuing to drop, I seem to detect a nervous fluttering in our PM’s eyes whenever future finances are brought up, despite his verbal reassurances that we, that our banks, are rock solid. I wouldn’t put it any other way myself, if avoiding wide-spread panic was my responsibility.
Still, I wouldn’t say there’s an immediate cause for panic: Unlike the average Norwegian our financial institutions and corporate Norway have remained remarkably sober, remembering lessons learnt in the not-so-distant yuppie era, I suppose.
As for EU — and our position — I just can’t bring myself to understand why converting a de facto membership (sans influence) into a formal membership is so hard.
I mean it, Aoxomoxoa: I’d send us to Coventry, if I were you — if not literally.
Having said that: You can’t imagine how glad I am to see your two pennies’ worth over here, too. But in all honesty: Are you, considering our obvious shortcomings, sure you’d like to have us in your midst?
Hi Jarle,
With all due respect, your analysis seems excessively reductionist and a little irresponsible if I may say.
You know perfectly well that far more was on the agenda during the 94 membership debate than mere economic benefits. Have you completely forgotten the heated debate on EU’s pretended ‘democracy deficit’, or the no-campaign’s much repeated arguments about keeping higher standards in terms of development assistance an environment protection than the general EU average? Both were at heart of the debate. You might also recall that while Balas, Jagland and others tried to focus on solidarity with Eastern Europe, solidarity largely remained the argument of the no-movement; either in the form of solidarity against social dumping (illustrated by LO’s clear stance on the membership issue) or as solidarity with the third world against a perceived “European club of the rich”.
I don’t think reducing the majority of the Norwegian population to one-dimensional egocentric trolls helps further the cause of membership, and it definitely does not give a fair representation of Norway and the 1994 popular vote abroad.
In fact, such statements are precisely what nurture anti-unionist sentiments in Norway and within the EU. How can people possibly believe in a pro-European message if its proponents don’t respect them? It is compelling to see how no-votes are constantly rejected as expressions of egoism (in the case of Norway) or ignorance (in the cases of France, the Netherlands and Ireland), while no such derogatory characteristics are used to describe voters on the other side.
And why on earth are negative voting results always put to a second referendum while not a single yes-vote is subject to such scrutiny???
It would probably not be unfair to say that repentance is needed if the pro-european movement is to get back on track again. Taking euro-sceptics seriously would be a good start. Then of course it never hurts to revamp the communication strategy, although I have the feeling that the current problems are rather rooted in bad attitudes than in bad communication.
Hello, Arne,
I’m afraid my little piece of mind here is more of a personal sentiment than a full-fledged analysis. Add to that that mistaking me for a “yea-sayer” would be seriously erroneous.
Granted, I used to be in favour of a Norwegian EU membership, in fact very much so, but these days I’m not so sure. Mainly because I seriously feel that, due to Norwegian politicians’ incompetence, the European Union won’t benefit from our participation in its decision-making bodies. I’m serious.
One might, of course, argue that Norwegian politicians, political creed regardless, actually have done well for themselves and for the people they serve. After all, who am I to say that the country is in utter and complete shambles? Unfortunately, however, it has everything to do with certain resources off our shores, nothing with our politicians’ — or our — abilities.
Also, I actually mean it when I say I share Aoxomoxoa’s impression of the Norwegian spirit. Although the EU’s alleged democratic deficit most certainly played a role back in ’94, I fail to see how excluding ourselves from influence — and, simultaneously, throwing ourselves at the European Union’s mercy — in any way could alleviate the “problem”.
Now there’s a democratic deficit in action, if ever I saw one.
I, for one, have serious problems accepting numerous EU arrangements imposed on a helpless EEA partner. Take the horrendous Data Directive, for instance. You have to agree that, while we oppose it, there’s really no way of getting around it, but to join and vote against, leave the EEA cooperation altogether — or work our way through exhausting negotiations unlikely to yield a desirable outcome.
Besides, constantly having to beg our Swedish and Danish neighbours to make our case in Brussels strikes me, not only cowardly, but unnecessarily complicated.
As for aid to developing countries or environmental issues, of course you’re right in pointing out that the “nay-sayers” regarded Norwegian standards better than the EU’s — as do they in all matters, very much in line with said Norwegian self-perception. Which of course is not to say that our self-perception in any way reflects our real qualities. It rarely does.
You know, our only experience is related to negative voting results, but I’m confident that, should the outcome have been any different, there’s no reason why a re-referendum shouldn’t take place if popular dissatisfaction should reach a certain level. After all, the Irish reluctance to ratify an EU constitution might well prove to be the country’s first step towards leaving the union altogether.
Even so, I’m convinced that the EU and its legislative bodies have a long way to go before we can call it perfect. With all probability we’ll never get there. Then again, how realistic is perfection — anywhere?
Having said all this, which may seem like quite a speech in favour of a Norwegian EU membership, I still feel that the EU, not we, is better off without us. And even if it’s to our disadvantage, I’m convinced that we can afford remaining outside, not only the EU system, but the EEA, for that matter.
Hello again, Arne,
I forgot all about the “what’s in it for us” aspect of the 1994 campaign (and our continued attitude towards the EU) in the above reply. I’m sorry for that, but here goes:
As already mentioned, my chief personal motivation for a Norwegian EU membership application was — and remains to be (insofar that I’m still for it) — a fair distribution of Norway’s filthy wealth, alongside a deep-rooted sense of “anti-isolationalism”, if that term applies.
Playing an active part in the European Movement’s campaign, I tried to convey just that idea for quite some time, only to discover that no-one seemed to be interested, which applied to the public as well as inside the movement (Norwegian EU followers are Norwegians, after all, first and foremost). How we could benefit from a membership, however, turned out to be the crucial question, leading even me to tailor the message such that most ads, press releases, brochures and other campaign material all boiled down to just that. Not my proudest moment, as you can well imagine, but at least people started to listen. I’m not sure what you make out of that, but I think I have an idea.
Also let me add this:
It was partly done so in response to the No to EU movement’s constant focus on how a future membership could drain our financial wealth, in terms of oil and marine resources (fisheries, not least, included), which, as I pointed out in my last reply, actually comprise the very core of our wealth, for the past 40 years or so.
So, in response to your:
Certainly! But I do know what caught the attention of the masses. Consequently we tailored our message accordingly, and so did the other side. Make no mistake about it.
I remember once, when asked by Swedish TV news (Rapport or Aktuellt, not that it matters) how I felt about Norway not being members, that I simply replied that in fact we’re more so (members, that is) than the formal member countries — more catholic than the Pope, always eager to comply, whereas member states do whatever they can to suspend or delay EU regulations and decisions.
I still think that holds true.
[...] So you see, today I just want to remain silent, even though I’m not entirely convinced that we deserve being accepted into the EU. [...]