NOVEMBER_UNIKUM_WEB

DEBATE
Henrike Jost
Writer
Illustration: Freepik // freepik
Should NORWAY
join the EU?
Norway remains one of the few Nordic countries not to have
joined the European Union, despite having tried four times in 31
years. The first two attempts, in 1963 and in 1967, were blocked by
a French veto (Geelmuyden Rød, 2022). In the third attempt, the
French did not veto, allowing the membership process to move to
its final stage. This gave Norwegians the opportunity to vote on
whether their country should join the EU in a referendum. On the
25th of September 1972, 53.5% of Norwegians voted against joining
the Union, resulting in Norway remaining outside it. Norway made
another attempt about 20 years later: In 1994, Norwegians again
voted by a small majority to remain outside the EU (Neumann, 2002).
Since then, there has been no meaningful debate on the question.
With crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Russian invasion
of Ukraine, as well as the upcoming elections in 2025, the question
of Norway’s relationship with the EU reignited. The debate was
formally reopened by Erna Solberg (Høyre) at Høyre’s annual party
conference this year (Berglund, 2023). Currently, Høyre is the only
one out of the ten parties represented in the Storting to advocate
Norwegian EU membership (Europabevegelsen, 2017). A survey
conducted by Sentio shows an increase in the number of positive
voices across Norway from 27% to 33% in favor of EU accession
(NRK, 2023). Among young people, this percentage is even higher
at 56% (Berge & Heldahl, 2022). The share of EU opponents remains
more or less stable at 56% (NRK, 2023). It is therefore time to
revisit the debate and look at the pros and cons of Norwegian EU
membership.
One of the overarching arguments used by EU opponents is the
preservation of Norwegian sovereignty. They are afraid of ceding
decision-making power to the EU level and having decisions
imposed on them by Brussels (Neumann, 2002). Instead, they
argue that decision-making should be kept at the Norwegian level
so that the best solutions for Norway can be found. Furthermore,
it is argued that Norway is more flexible in how it manages issues
as it does not have to negotiate a common position with the other
Member States (Neubacher et al., 2016). This struggle is often visible
in the media, especially in regard to migration, where member
states seem unable to find common ground. However, it is also
true that we live in a time of crisis, be it the climate crisis or the socalled
refugee crisis. Such cross-border issues demand collective
policies and solutions that can tackle the problems more effectively
through pooled knowledge and resources. Together with the other
27 Member States, Norway could tackle these issues more effectively
and efficiently. This also holds true for inflicting change around the
world and making Norway’s voice heard. Together with the other
Member States and through the economic and normative power of
the EU, Norway would be more powerful in fighting for the norms
and principles on which it prides itself, such as the rule of law and
human rights (Neumann, 2002). Especially in times when the US
is no longer a dependable ally with another Trump presidency
looming on the horizon, the need for strong allies besides the US
increases. Not only regarding shared values and norms, but also as
a security guarantor. With Trump being potentially the president
of the US again NATO’s fate is up in the clouds. A membership
within the EU could then be a more safe option to ensure security
(Berglund, 2023). Thus, through its geographical closeness as
well as the shared values the EU seems to be a suitable partner.
Norway already is closely tied to the EU through EFTA (European
Free Trade Association) and the European Economic Area, which
allows it to have access to the European Single Market (European
Parliament, 2023), which is crucial for Norway as it is economically
dependent on the EU. 80% of Norway’s Exports are going to the
EU (Sinram & Kindermann, 2016). However, access to the Single
Market does not come without strings attached. Norway has to
transpose the rules that regulate the Single Market into national
law and comply with it without having the opportunity to voice its
opinion during the policy-making process (Sinram & Kindermann,
2016). These include policies regarding research and technical
development. as well as social policies, consumer protections,
and environmental policies. If Norway infringes any of these
policies the EU can invoke sanctions (Sinram & Kindermann,
2016). It is thus questionable whether the current relationship is
not infringing Norway’s sovereignty and democratic legitimacy
more than a Norwegian membership would. In that case, Norway
would have a say in the legislative and executive organs of the EU
such as the Council of the European Union, the European Council,
and the European Commission. Another argument that could
appease the EU opponents could be the subsidiarity principle that
is anchored in the EU treaties. This principle argues that policies
should always be made as closely to the people as possible so that
the EU only becomes active when issues cannot be more effectively
resolved on the regional or national level. Additionally, the EU has
policy instruments such as Directives at its disposal, which allows
countries a degree of flexibility when it comes to how a policy
objective is achieved.
Another argument that EU opponents might bring forward is that
it will be costly for Norway to join the EU. It is true that Norway
would have to contribute to the EU budget and adapt to certain EU
processes and procedures, which comes with its costs. However, as
Norway already fulfills many of the EU membership requirements
(the so-called Copenhagen Criteria), the process of adapting to
the EU will not be as expensive as it would be for other countries
(Neubacher et al., 2016). Moreover, Norway is already paying
20