EU

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Wed 26 Nov, 2008 03:49 pm
In Norway we've had two referendums about EU membership. One in 1972 and another in 1994. Both times the people voted no. Norway, Switzerland Liechtenstein and Iceland are the only west european countries that aren't members of the union. Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway are members of the The European Economic Area (EEA). The EEA is an agreement between member states of European Free Trade Association (EFTA), the European Community, and all member states of the European Union. It allows these EFTA countries to participate in the European single market without joining the EU.

This means that Norway is practically subject to many EU laws without having any particular political power in decisions made inside the union.

There are also many disadvantages followed by a EU membership. The Norwegian agriculture has no chance against the large scale food production in mainland Europe if the import restrictions are removed.

Iceland do now consider a bid for EU membership. This means that Norway and tiny little Liechtenstein (Not even visible on the world map) probably will be left as lonely members of the EEA.


Norway and the European Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here are more detailed info from Wikipedia:



In favour of membership Against membership
Further sharing 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 member states' governments, and not directly by EU citizens. When national ministers 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 in early 2009, empowers the directly elected (by the people of Norway also, had it been a member) European Parliament, partly at the expense of the Council. The new treaty also requires all meetings of the Council to be held in public.

Agriculture and fisheries
In case of EU membership, Norway would have to take part in the Common Fisheries Policy. Norwegian fishing quotas would have to be shared with the rest of the EU. Some claim the coastal areas of Norway, which rely heavily on fishing industry, would suffer from a reduced share of the catch.

The often steep Norwegian topography is unfavourable for agriculture. Some fear that Norway's relatively small farming industry would be disadvantageously exposed to competition from other parts of the Internal Market. Some fear state subsidies to Norwegian farming and fisheries would be made illegal, furthermore depopulating rural areas.

Reduction in economic self-determination
Euro adoption is de jure 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 for the Norwegian government to use the rate as a political tool. In 2008, a DnB NOR economist said that Norway would not benefit sufficiently on adopting the euro due to the impact of high oil-prices on Norway's economy.


What should we do if we in the near future will have a new referendum here in Norway? Should we vote ja or nei (yes or no)?
I'm on the "Ja" side!
 
xris
 
Reply Thu 27 Nov, 2008 07:36 am
@Henrik phil,
I dont think you have any viable alternative....
 
avatar6v7
 
Reply Fri 28 Nov, 2008 05:01 am
@xris,
I think that the EU is the best hope for the future of the world- just half a century back Europe emerged from centuries of the most bloody warfare the world has ever seen. Now it is becoming a united enity. However it is too capatlilist and neoliberal at present. I think that the EU has great potential if it only escapes the influence and idealogies of America. I think that free trade agreements are an abomination that can only perpetuate poverty and destroy local industries and buissnesses. I would like my own country (the UK) to cancel its free trade agreements.
 
xris
 
Reply Fri 28 Nov, 2008 05:16 am
@avatar6v7,
My opinion is that the EU must be politically based not nationally...it can never advance more than it is by petty country interests...the countries like the uk being decentralised might be a long term target by certain politicians....More local industries for local needs and electrical power being a european plan rather than country by country mish mash..
 
avatar6v7
 
Reply Fri 28 Nov, 2008 02:37 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:
My opinion is that the EU must be politically based not nationally...it can never advance more than it is by petty country interests...the countries like the uk being decentralised might be a long term target by certain politicians....More local industries for local needs and electrical power being a european plan rather than country by country mish mash..

a man speaking sense. The new european energy plan- getting energy from solar power in the sahara, geothermal energy from iceland, and creating a europe-wide energy grid is a brilliant and elegant solution to the problems posed both by global warming, dwindling resources and the unpredictability of sustainable energy sources. Also the scale of the project would mean tens of millions employed at a time when people really need work. If any of the european governments have any sense, they will push very hard for this plan to go ahead ASAP.
 
sarek
 
Reply Sat 29 Nov, 2008 02:14 pm
@Henrik phil,
If there is to be any kind of meaningful political and economic balance in the world continued work on a united Europe is essential. It helps to keep the other major powers "honest"
In addition, far too many problems today have a clear supranational character and thus cannot be solved at the level of individual countries.

But I have to add a warning. The last few years there have been proceedings aimed at giving The EEC some sort of constitution.
IMNSHO this constitution is seriously lacking in democratic values. It is worrying that the European voter currently is not the ultimate authority in Europe and that is a highly questionable state of affairs. It is even more worrying that so few seem to see there even is a problem.
 
manored
 
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2008 10:05 am
@avatar6v7,
avatar6v7 wrote:
I think that the EU is the best hope for the future of the world- just half a century back Europe emerged from centuries of the most bloody warfare the world has ever seen. Now it is becoming a united enity. However it is too capatlilist and neoliberal at present. I think that the EU has great potential if it only escapes the influence and idealogies of America. I think that free trade agreements are an abomination that can only perpetuate poverty and destroy local industries and buissnesses. I would like my own country (the UK) to cancel its free trade agreements.
It depends of how you see it tough. From the point of view of humanity, free trade agreements mean one less of the many barriers that divide humans into groups that fight against each other. (Not just militar fight, but also political, economic, etc) But if you see from the point of view of the countries its a different matter and depends a lot from the situation at hand.
 
avatar6v7
 
Reply Wed 3 Dec, 2008 08:55 am
@manored,
manored wrote:
It depends of how you see it tough. From the point of view of humanity, free trade agreements mean one less of the many barriers that divide humans into groups that fight against each other. (Not just militar fight, but also political, economic, etc) But if you see from the point of view of the countries its a different matter and depends a lot from the situation at hand.

free trade agreements have little or nothing to do with 'lowering barriers' other than the 'barrier' of fair buisness practices.
 
manored
 
Reply Wed 3 Dec, 2008 01:23 pm
@avatar6v7,
avatar6v7 wrote:
free trade agreements have little or nothing to do with 'lowering barriers' other than the 'barrier' of fair buisness practices.
They are not done with that goal but they are a step towards it anyway.

And bussiness fairness is quite relative... is it fair for a country to manipulate taxes aiming at protecting its industries, while it tries to convince other countries to lower the taxes for their own products?
 
avatar6v7
 
Reply Wed 3 Dec, 2008 05:41 pm
@manored,
manored wrote:
They are not done with that goal but they are a step towards it anyway.

And bussiness fairness is quite relative... is it fair for a country to manipulate taxes aiming at protecting its industries, while it tries to convince other countries to lower the taxes for their own products?

But in the long term it benefits neither the countries who import the goods, and those who export them. In the rich countries industries are decimated by cheap foreign imports, and in poor countries normal economic progress is halted so that they continue to be economic vassals to the west. The only people who benefit are a very small group of very rich and powerful people. It is a system designed to maintain global poverty, to break the power of the unions and to prevent people having the audacity to actually better themselves, against all the odds.
 
xris
 
Reply Thu 4 Dec, 2008 05:39 am
@avatar6v7,
I cant agree with you more ..we are slaves to a few international companies and powerful individuals...it benefits them but never the majority..give me the arrow of revolt and make this world good enough for us all not the priveledged few ..
 
manored
 
Reply Thu 4 Dec, 2008 10:00 am
@avatar6v7,
avatar6v7 wrote:
But in the long term it benefits neither the countries who import the goods, and those who export them. In the rich countries industries are decimated by cheap foreign imports, and in poor countries normal economic progress is halted so that they continue to be economic vassals to the west. The only people who benefit are a very small group of very rich and powerful people. It is a system designed to maintain global poverty, to break the power of the unions and to prevent people having the audacity to actually better themselves, against all the odds.
Thats a social and political problem, winhout free-trade it will happen anyway, except that in a smaller scale inside the countries thenselves.
 
avatar6v7
 
Reply Thu 4 Dec, 2008 11:36 am
@manored,
manored wrote:
Thats a social and political problem, winhout free-trade it will happen anyway, except that in a smaller scale inside the countries thenselves.

But within our own countries we have a minimum wage, legislation restricting unfair treatment of workers and we would have strong trade unions too if it wasn't for free trade agreements destroying the power base of the working classes. That is part of the motive behind free trade agreements, in wealthy countries(though I am drawing mostly on my experiance of Britian on this one) the working classes had deveolped political power due to its effective hold on the industrial sector, so the industrial sector was eliminated and outsourced to the east where the working classes were subjegated.
 
manored
 
Reply Mon 8 Dec, 2008 07:56 pm
@avatar6v7,
avatar6v7 wrote:
But within our own countries we have a minimum wage, legislation restricting unfair treatment of workers and we would have strong trade unions too if it wasn't for free trade agreements destroying the power base of the working classes. That is part of the motive behind free trade agreements, in wealthy countries(though I am drawing mostly on my experiance of Britian on this one) the working classes had deveolped political power due to its effective hold on the industrial sector, so the industrial sector was eliminated and outsourced to the east where the working classes were subjegated.
These exist because there is no reason to destroy then, since free-trade agreements exist. If they didnt existed, there would be conflict with the upper classes trying to worsen the situation of the lower classes again... ending trade agreements is not the solution, making people (from all classes) be happy with the idea of fairness is... now, just dont ask me how to do that Smile
 
xris
 
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2008 05:22 am
@manored,
manored wrote:
These exist because there is no reason to destroy then, since free-trade agreements exist. If they didnt existed, there would be conflict with the upper classes trying to worsen the situation of the lower classes again... ending trade agreements is not the solution, making people (from all classes) be happy with the idea of fairness is... now, just dont ask me how to do that Smile
Revolution brother revolution...as my union rep would joke with his wife ..come the revolution that big house overlooking the sea is ours darling..
 
manored
 
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2008 07:38 am
@Henrik phil,
Revolution wont change anything, as history has proven. The only way to change society is to change society, not to change the laws that rule the society.
 
RDanneskjld
 
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2008 11:15 am
@Henrik phil,
Norway should Vote Yes

I would be most pleased to see Norway enter the EU. Being a rather Euroskeptic country, this could help fight the European Federalist's. Who would like too see a more federal Europe, which I'm completly against. It's my wish too see Europe as an economic union and promoter of worldwide free trade, not the political europe that it is becoming. There a huge fundamental problems in the Political institutions within the EU, with a remarkable democratic deficit. It has often been argued that if the EU applied to join itself, it would be refused entry because it's not democratic enough.

Im in favour of a wider, less politically focused EU supporting the growth of free trade and removing such protectionist measures such as the CAP. If this was it's goal, it could really help make the world a better place.
 
avatar6v7
 
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2008 11:29 am
@RDanneskjld,
R.Danneskjöld wrote:
Norway should Vote Yes

I would be most pleased to see Norway enter the EU. Being a rather Euroskeptic country, this could help fight the European Federalist's. Who would like too see a more federal Europe, which I'm completly against. It's my wish too see Europe as an economic union and promoter of worldwide free trade, not the political europe that it is becoming. There a huge fundamental problems in the Political institutions within the EU, with a remarkable democratic deficit. It has often been argued that if the EU applied to join itself, it would be refused entry because it's not democratic enough.

Im in favour of a wider, less politically focused EU supporting the growth of free trade and removing such protectionist measures such as the CAP. If this was it's goal, it could really help make the world a better place.

I think that the EU should be a powerful economic union, but one that kills the wretched myth of free trade. 'free' trade is a form of economic slavery.
Also a more politically unified Europe is vital for the future of the world. It would form a counterbalance to the US in terms of power, and give hope that one day we may have a world government(of a not overly intrusive or beuracratic kind, which the EU will have to work on.) The EU has the most progressive enviromental policies in the world, and working together could create a new green economy, and, as has been proposed, create an EU wide power grid that would solve the problem of sustainable enegies unpredicatbility.
Also an economic union is effectivly a political one.
 
RDanneskjld
 
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2008 11:47 am
@Henrik phil,
In no way is free trade a form of economic slavery. If your serious about ridding the world of poverty, it should start with Free Trade. Free Trade benefits everyone, some of the protectionist measures, such as CAP have damaged poor african farmers while also inflating the level of our food price's. How is this a positive outcome for anyone? The EU should keep the internal free trade measures while opening up the EU too free trade by removing all tarrif's on imports entering the EU. The power of true free trade is no way a myth.
 
avatar6v7
 
Reply Tue 9 Dec, 2008 11:58 am
@RDanneskjld,
R.Danneskjöld wrote:
In no way is free trade a form of economic slavery. If your serious about ridding the world of poverty, it should start with Free Trade. Free Trade benefits everyone, some of the protectionist measures, such as CAP have damaged poor african farmers while also inflating the level of our food price's. How is this a positive outcome for anyone? The EU should keep the internal free trade measures while opening up the EU too free trade by removing all tarrif's on imports entering the EU. The power of true free trade is no way a myth.

protectionism can do damage as well, I do not deny, but fair trade is exactly what is sais, fair. Name me one poor country that free trade has benefited, just one.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 05/06/2024 at 01:59:56