Norway and the EU

Eurosceptics are fond are pointing to Norway as a rich prosperous country that is not a member of the EU and appears to be doing well. But even if we assume that what is good for a very small (population 4million) country sitting on vast oil reserves and with an unlimited supply of hydroelectric power would in some way be applicable to a nation of over 60 million that has to pay its way in the world by trade, closer inspection shows that Norway's relationship with the EU is not the bed of roses that eurosceptics would have us believe.

I have just read an article by Erik Eriksson, a professor at the University of Oslo, who points out that, in order to access the EU market, Norway negotiated the EEA agreement which required it "to agree to incorporate all future EU legislation for the areas covered" into its own domestic law. Yet Norway has no voice around the table when such EU legislation is elaborated by EU member states. It can, Professor Eriksson points out, second experts to over 200 EU committees. They have no voting rights, and there are no Norweigan ministers in the meetings of the Council of Ministers, nor MEPs in the European Parliament. As Professor Eriksson says: "when EU member states disagree, they have institutionalised procedures for settling their differences. Norway, though, has to rely on old fashioned diplomacy."

What are its cards in such diplomacy? Professor Eriksson points out that the bulk of Norway's trade is with the EU whereas from an EU perspective Norway represents only a very small part of its overall trade. This makes for what he calls "an unbalanced agreement between two very unequal parts". This would be exactly the same for Britain.

All in all, Professor Eriksson concludes that non-membership of the EU is "a democratic disaster for Norway" and that, through its regrettable decision to stay out of the EU, "it is democracy itself that has suffered".