A bitter-sweet celebration
This upcoming Monday marks a milestone in Europe’s recent history; the fall of the Berlin wall on 9 November 1989 and the subsequent reunion of a war-struck Germany – taking both WW2 and the following cold war into account.
British pre-war PM Neville Chamberlain had a point, you know, in claiming peace in our time – depending on how you define our time. As luck has it, France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg signed the European coal and steel union treaty, the European Union’s predecessor, on just 9 November 1951. Unfortunately, the date coincides with that of Germany’s 1938 Kristallnacht – which, in a sense, only goes to show what’s at risk, if it hadn’t been for the European Union.
The coal and steel union and the resulting European Union both have proved to materialise in the biggest international peace project in our time. The European continent, with its vast number of nations and conflicting interests, has experienced no era of such lasting peace as just the one brought about by the EU.
In claiming an outside, bitter-sweet look at that, I’m merely acknowledging the fact that my own country, in its infinite wisdom, has decided – not once, but twice – to exclude itself from that project (and the beneficial consequences thereof), by turning down the union’s gracious offer to join.
Living in a supposedly peace-loving country, I won’t deny having certain difficulties stomaching that attitude.
Our reiterated No to a European Union membership is based on sheer selfishness, clad as gravely mistaken socialism, branding the peace project a result of the market forces’ attempt to control the continent and its resources.
The thing is, though, if it hadn’t been for Norway’s vast oil and petroleum resources, we’d be begging on our knees to join. That’s right, good people, that’s the kind of people we are, paying heed to no-one’s interests but our own. Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen didn’t make up Troll, to thyself be – enough, based on nothing, you know.
Which makes our decision not to partake all the more discouraging – and the esteem in which we ought to hold ourselves all the lower. Not so, I’m afraid. On the contrary, we see ourselves as knights in shining armour, yet devoid of an actual will to contribute.
So you see, dear fellow Europeans, it is with much grief and humility I humbly ask your forgiveness, and permission to partake in what to me seems a bitter-sweet celebration – however unworthy. I remain, nonetheless, very happy for you.
Many happy returns on the 20th anniversary – as well as the 58th!
I agree with every word of your post.
But one thing is the electorate, the other is that we don’t have a political leadership with a backbone on this issue.
Agreed, Knut Albert, but I’m not at all convinced that it’s to do with political denomination or colour. Could it be that most Norwegian politicians, be it socialists or conservatives, tend to look out for number one — perhaps a little too much?
I’m inclined to think so.
[...] See also: A bitter-sweet celebration [...]
When the Norwegian people has voted NO to join the EU two times, it is not that much about oil wealth or selfishness.
It is often about:
- The centralization of power. Decicions should be made close to the people they affect. Norway is a small nation and would have less than 1% influence on EU policies.
The EU now has a common
– foreign policy
– farming policy
– economic policy
– fishing policy
– aid policy
– and some more
- In the WTO the EU has a common policy, often pressuring developing countries into bad deals. If Norway has an independent voice in WTO it will be possible to choose to have a different policy.
- Certainly Norway does have economic reasons to not join the EU. Not out of selfishness, rather out of a wish to not participate in an economic project that isn’t going to work.
- It is a democratic problem that after the Treaty of Lisbon the EU constitution has attached market liberalism as a particular policy direction.
“Free Trade” and the “four freedoms” (free movement of capital, goods, labor and services) takes precedence over political decisions. This limits the political room for maneuver, making it difficult for elected politicians to change the political course when nessecary.
The EU Court judges often member states to amend laws that violate the EU’s free trade rules. Health, environment and labor rights must often give way.
- The EU policy of “free trade” causes more pollution because products are transported more between the nations. And if a nation has a law to protect the environment that goes against the “free-flow” principle, the EU will force the nation to remove that law. For example a member nation can not say that all new cars should only have 120 gr CO2 emittions pr kilometer. A member nation can not have stricter rules than the rest of the EU.
-Also the farming and fishing policies of the EU aren’t always ethical or environmental einough. For example, big areas are used to farm one kind of vegetable, creating a monoculture that is bad for the sustainability. Or when the EU fishing fleet is fishing in occupied West Sahara. Isn’t exploiting occupied land like that breaking the Geneve-convention?
- Most significant environmental agreements are global, and are made in the UN. Example of this is the Kyoto agreement on greenhouse gases, or the negotiations in Denmark last year. When this type of agreements being negotiated, the EU speaks with one voice. (last year didn’t this result in the EU not being able to decide in time for the conference? lol)
- What I’m saying is that EU countries like Sweden can not say what they want but must follow the EU’s common line.
Often Swedish negotiators come to the Norwegian ones, and ask them to suggest the ideas that Sweden has not managed to get approval for in the EU.
That also makes it even more important for Norway to continue to have an independent voice.
- Norway is the distributor of more foreign aid per capita than any other country. If Norway joins the EU, this will probably be ruined, since the EU has a common foreign aid policy.
On its own, Norway will have the freedom and possibility to choose its own policies, the possibility to make better choices than the politicians in the EU.
And there is a lot more to say too…
Leave a comment
Subscribe: Receive insignicicances on email!
Klikk flagget for å abonnere på norske insignifikanser
Recent comments
Tags
Incoming!
Twitter updates
Links
For when I’m lost for – my own – words:
Müsik
Random video picks
Google Friend Connect
How to Blog
Recent Posts
Highly recommended
Mission statement
I do hope, however, that you won't let that stop you from making use of it. There are too many blogs of significance as it is. What we need now is quite the opposite.