25

A referendum on joining the European Union was held in Norway on 27 and 28 November 1994. But, the "No campaign" won the referendum.

One of the reason was that, Norway has an economy based on natural resources (oil and fish), meanwhile the European union mostly consist of industrial countries.

What would Norway have lost in case of joining to EU then?

  • @Salman - I have removed the part of the question that seems unclear and that does not seem to fit the actual question. If this is too far from your intention, feel free to reject/revert the edit. – Alexei Jun 23 '18 at 11:52
  • I don't understand the use of the future tense in the question. Is there another referendum planned in Norway? – Trilarion Jun 24 '18 at 19:37
  • Also as a generic answer: All the usual stuff that you lose and win when you join the EU. It's not really depending on which country joins. The question may rather ask for which of these things was especially important for Norwegians at the time. – Trilarion Jun 24 '18 at 19:39
  • I suspect (from the other mistakes in the question) that the questioner should have written, and meant, "would", not "will". – JdeBP Jun 24 '18 at 19:45
33

The common fisheries policy is a EU wide system for managing fish stocks in the waters around the EU. It intends to give all EU fishing fleets equal access to EU waters. If Norway were to join the EU it would have to join the CFP. Outside the EU, Norway can control its own waters, which are rich in natural resources. The right of access to EU fisheries may not compensate for the increased competition from other nations.

  • 16
    Don't forget that Norway still hunts whales, which is forbidden in the EU. – Martin Schröder Jun 23 '18 at 13:31
  • 4
    Commercial Hunting of whales is forbidden worldwide by the IWC (Norway is not a member of the IWC either). But the whale hunt is not a major part of the Norwegian economy. – James K Jun 23 '18 at 14:31
  • 3
    @JamesK Whale hunting might not be a major part of the economy but surely of the culture (otherwise they would hardly continue it, if almost all others condemn the practice and the economic value is close to zero). Killing whales is one defining thing for Norway (probably not all Norwegians though). Within the EU it would probably be harder to continue with it than outside. – Trilarion Jun 25 '18 at 12:49
9

Although the 'No' vote won the 1994 referendum in Norway it's worth looking at the actual voting figures. This shows that 47.8% were in favour of joining, and 52.2% were not. So the vote was very close - a 2% swing would have resulted in a tied vote. What this means is that as a whole, Norway was split evenly between the two sides and hence unsure of which policy was best to pursue.

Norway's economy need not have lost out by joining the EU by negotiating protections for what they considered vital parts of their economic infrastructure from what they might take as as unfair competition from larger, more industrialised and more wealthier European nations; after all, there are protections already built into the Common European Fisheries Policy; this policy allows equal access to all European waters for any European fishing fleet; however, the traditional fishing grounds of fishing fleets are protected by two boundaries - within twelve nautical miles of the coastline, and also within a hundred nautical miles. This protection is due to lapse in 2022; but at the time of the referendum - in 1994 - this would have been a generation away; Norway, could have argued by virtue of its high reliance on their fisheries, this protection should last in their case, rather than thirty years, say fifty years; this gives them plenty of time to adjust; instead, by putting themselves outside of that framework, Norway has lost the right of shaping that framework.

Having said that, Yannis Varoufakis, the ex-finance minister of Greece - another small nation within the EU - has lambasted the EU for its opaque structure, and its democratic deficit; his solution is not to withdraw from it, but to reform it.

  • 15
    (+1) The last paragraph seems a bit random, it's not that Varouflakis point of view is necessarily uninteresting but it was made in a widely different context and is just one of many many opinions about the EU. What does that have to do with Norway's decision not to join the EU? – Relaxed Jun 23 '18 at 15:21
  • 1
    @relaxed: see the last couple of sentences of the penultimate paragraph beginning with 'by putting themselves outside of that framework...' – Mozibur Ullah Jun 23 '18 at 18:38
  • @MoziburUllah OK and what's the connection between this or the question at hand and the last paragraph? – Relaxed Jun 24 '18 at 12:09
  • 1
    @MoziburUllah If that's what you meant to explain, it's extremely unclear. You're not stating that point and instead focusing on just one of many critics of the EU structure (and a point many have made before). You would improve the answer by removing that paragraph and copying your comment instead. – Relaxed Jun 24 '18 at 17:13
  • 1
    @MoziburUllah That also makes no sense, clarity is the ability to communicate your ideas to others... – Relaxed Jun 25 '18 at 12:51
7

One thing Norway would have lost is the sovereignty over its fisheries policies. It's not so much that the impact would have necessarily been negative on the economy as a whole but fisheries (very much including whale hunting, no matter how small that activity may be economically speaking) are a hugely symbolic issue.

In fact, Norway's current quasi-membership (through the EEA and EFTA) forces it to contribute to the EU structural funds (the so-called “Norway grants”) and to implement most of the single market rules with little to no influence on the making of these rules but it preserves the country's autonomy regarding agricultural policies and fisheries.

Finally, Norway's oil wealth means that EU membership and participation in the single market is somewhat less important for the country than it is for EU member states. It's not so much that they stand to lose a lot but simply that they can maintain a high revenue without it (that's the point behind the natural resources vs. industrial countries comparison you heard about it).

0

One of the things Norway would have lost almost assuredly is the peace that a homogeneous population brings which is counter to the social and criminal pathologies that the EU mandates as part of its immigration policies. Consider Sweden for example:

Forty years after the Swedish parliament unanimously decided to change the formerly homogenous Sweden into a multicultural country, violent crime has increased by 300% and rapes by 1,472%. Sweden is now number two on the list of rape countries, surpassed only by Lesotho in Southern Africa.

Significantly, the report does not touch on the background of the rapists. One should, however, keep in mind that in statistics, second-generation immigrants are counted as Swedes.

In an astounding number of cases, the Swedish courts have demonstrated sympathy for the rapists, and have acquitted suspects who have claimed that the girl wanted to have sex with six, seven or eight men.

While Sweden's decent as described above began in 1975, which predates their EU membership, given the EU's immigration policy requirements, the results would undoubtedly be the same.

-4

If Norway joins the euro, first and foremost, she will lose her most important asset, which is her national currency, that is, her sovereignty and control of her economy via her own monetary policies. That is enough to guarantee a downward spiral for the people of Norway, like every other EU country has experienced, except a couple ones -mostly Germany, that take advantage and gain a lot from the downfall of the indebted southern countries, like Greece, Spain, Ireland, Portugal, Italy, but even northern ones like France also suffer from the EU policies. Germany is in good shape (although even the German people have lost a lot), because of that factor and because of unequal treatment -like borrowing with zero or negative interest in contrast to those countries.

Meanwhile, the eurozone is very fragile and this is why Germany has bought huge amounts of gold the recent years. For example, recently Italy was prevented from taking a turn against the euro and its policies as is the wish of the majority of its people, with the president Sergio Mattarella violating the article 92 of Italy's constitution (which was considered a coupe), preventing Paolo Savona (an anti-euro economist) from becoming finance minister and suggesting a government of "technocrats" instead (=bankers). After the intense reactions of the Italian people, a second order was given to Giuseppe Conte instead to form a government, but Giovanni Tria, a pro-euro economist was given the position of finance minister, so EU got back the wheel of Italy's economy.

EDIT For those in doubt: Germany repatriated 700 tons of gold and became the second worldwide in gold reserves. World’s 2nd-Largest Hoard

Also: Germans Have Quietly Become The World's Biggest Buyers Of Gold

EDIT #2: The above link (Forbes) can only be accessed by turning ad blocker off. But you can access the source of the chart bellow. https://www.gold.org/research/market-update/market-update-german-investment-market

Those hundreds of tonnes of gold per year are bought mostly by banks and between them a national one (KFW) that is the main stockholder in companies like Deutche Telecom. If the euro and eurozone is solid and has a bright future, why the strongest oligarchy in Germany buys tonnes of gold?

German investment market -2017

EDIT 27-7-2018: Nice website-policy, 5 idiots alone managed to gray-out the truth...

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.