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".

Better off out brigade are only lying to themselves

It was good to see the excellent points made in this week's Charlemagne column in this Economist refuting the arguments that Britain could enjoy the benefits of the EU without being a member of it.

Some Eurosceptics claim that the EU would continue to trade with us if we left it and re-joined the likes of Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein in the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). Indeed, they also spuriously claim that the EC was only ever supposed to be a free trade organisation, ignoring that Britain was in fact leaving a free trade agreement to join the EC which was always a political project as well as an economic one - a point which was spelt out in the White Paper by the Heath government which spoke of "an ever closer union among European peoples” not just of trade but "social progress".

Under its agreement with the EU, Norway, for example, has access to the internal market and most of the economic integration programmes. On a superficial level, this might to some to be an attractive prospect. But, as part of the terms of their agreement, each year, Norway transposes 400 EU internal market regulations into their national law, but have no say in shaping them. They have no Commissioners, no ministers in the Council to represent their national interests, no MEPs, no seat on the European Council and no civil servants in the EU institutions. They also have to make a hefty contribution to the EU budget, and receive no EU spending at all. Perhaps this is why Norway's Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg has publicly stated that he would like his country to become a member of the EU.

The members of the "better off out" brigade like to think of themselves as being true patriots, defending the British national interest. But the reality is that if Britain were to leave the EU, and re-negotiate access to the common market our position would be very weak. The remaining Member States would set stringent terms for access to the common market and a big contribution to the EU budget. The notion that they would offer a favourable deal to a country walking out and slamming the door behind them is pie in the sky. As The Economist rightly puts it: "anyone who dreams otherwise is lying not just to others, but also to themselves".