A new Norwegian review of the AAE-agreement - alternatives still taboo

 

Twelve years ago, in 2012, a government appointed committee delivered the first comprehensive review og the EEA and other agreements between Norway and the EU. They concluded that the EEA had been a useful instrument for Norwegian participation in the single market without beeing a member of the union. But the construction suffered from major democratic shortcomings ("fax-democracy"). The evaluation did not discuss alternatives to the EEA.

A new committee was established in 2022. The mandate was to evaluate the development and experiences with the EEA and other Norway-EU agreements since 2012. They delivered their report in april this year. 

The main conclusion prevails: EEA is useful, but in several ways undemocratic for Norway. Ans still no discussion of possible alternatives to the EEA. This is taboo because Norways relationship with the EU is a difficult political question, and the EEA works as a compromise.

Sort of a compensation for the missing discussion of alternatives, the review describes cooperation models between the EU and Switzerkand, the UK and Canada. The committee shows how several assessments indicate that the EEA is a better solution for businesses and economy. But these assessments are uncertain, and the committee does not evaluate to what extent Switzerland, the UK and Canada have preserved democracy and independence compared to Norway.

EU interfering in Norwegian decision making

The Norwegian Parliamnet

The Norwegian government has just ended a public consultation concerning the EUs Revised Renewable Energy Directive. The response was a overwhelming 7 500 answers, most of them from private citizens negative to implementing the directive.

The Renewable Energy Directive is part of the Fourth Energy Package, which is considered relevant for the EEA-agreement, and therefore should be incorperated in the agreement. But many think that building more wind generators and photovoltaic installations will damage valuable Norwegian nature and should be avoided.

This is a highly sensitive political issue, and the commissioner for energy, Kadri, has threatened the Norwegian government with punishment if the directive is not implemented before mid-August.

Inspired by this EU-involvement in the Norwegian decisionmaking process, 23 Norwegian businesses and organisations have asked the EU Commission to set a deadline also for the Energy Efficiency Directive.

This development is very worrying. When the EEA-agreement law was adopted back in 1992, it was a prerequisite that the Norwegian decisionmaking process should not be affected. Now we are in a situation where the process might be altered by the Renewable Energy Directive, where the EU commissioner is interfering and where Norwegian businesses and organisations ask for even more interfering by the Commission.

This is not acceptable.

EU future - added value is key

EU has always been about added value. Its predecessor The European Coal and Steel Community was established in 1951 as a way to prevent further war between France and Germany. These two countries had time after time ended in war when they acted separately. By placing French and German production of coal and steel - vital resources for a country to wage a war - under a supranational common High Authority, peace was preserved and France and Germany got added value. The idea of using regional integration to achieve more than the participants are able to do separately was developed further, and when the flag of The European Coal and Steel Community was lowered for the final time outside the European Commission building in Brussels in 2002, it was replaced with the EU flag - symbolizing how an innovative idea had prevailed.

But no tree grows into heaven. The EU integration project has met obstacles and crisis. People in Europe want to keep the EU, but they want changes. And the EU establishment should listen. What they call populism is democratic feedback. People react because they don´t feel the European Union gives added value - or more precise: they recognize and appreciate some important aspects of the integration, like a common market, but the project has gone to far. Especially when it comes to democracy many oppose the development and say "this is not added value, this is less democracy."

So instead of an ever closer union, the leading star must be a supranational cooperation which gives added value to everyone. This means a less ambitious integration with respect to "volume", but a more ambitious integration when it comes to identifying areas and tasks where the EU can give added value for a diverse Europe.

 

EU 60 years - shaky, but important

The EUs 60th anniversary will be celebrated in many ways, with a special European Council summit in Rome on 25 March as the most symbolic. It was on this date Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and West Germany signed the Treaty of Rome in 1957.

EU summarizes the developments on its website

Sixty years ago in Rome, the foundations were laid for the Europe that we know today, ushering in the longest period of peace in written history in Europe. The Treaties of Rome established a common market where people, goods, services and capital can move freely and created the conditions for prosperity and stability for European citizens.

On this anniversary, Europe looks back with pride and looks forward with hope. For 60 years we have built a Union that promotes peaceful cooperation, respect of human dignity, liberty, democracy, equality and solidarity among European nations and peoples. Now, Europe's shared and better future is ours to design.

The description points to important positive contributions, but does not reflect the European Union´s current crisis. However, it is necessary to deal with this in a good way for the EU to survive and provide added value in the future.

And it should not be impossible to achieve a workable compromise between europhiles and -sceptics. The common vision must be an appropriate mix of decentralization and supranational power. "An ever closer union" is a dead end street.

Even if the UK don´t want to be part of the single market and is heading for a "hard" Brexit, other sceptics are less radical. E.g. said one of the participants in todays Dutch elections, Geert Wilders, a few days ago to Norwegian journalists that he wanted the national sovereignty back, but that he might accept a Norway-model with EEA-membership. So the EEA, which includes the single market and some other cooperation areas, might give some ideas for development of a new EU vision.

EU future - everything in play

While the European Council today is preparing the EU´s 60th anniversary declaration without PM May attending, the growing lack of European unity makes it hard to deliver anything other than general phrases about the future EU.

At the summit yesterday Poland refused to accept a continuation for Donald Tusk as European Council President. The traditional consenus was stalled. “We know now that it [the EU] is a union under Berlin’s diktat,” the Polish foreign minister, Witold Waszczykowski, told Polish media.

Earlier this week France, Germany, Italy and Spain - "the big 4" - backed multispeed Europe (Juncker´s scenario 3), a future which the Visegrad group - Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and Czech Republic - does not like.

The leaders participating in the summit yesterday agreed to let a group of willing go ahead with plans to set up a European public prosecutor to probe financial crimes against the EU budget. EU Observer writes: "The move is largely procedural but also symbolic for an EU currently debating the possibility of a so-called multi-speed Europe, where some countries can forge ahead with deeper integration."

The multi-speed strategy is an old idea. When the frontrunners successfully achive added value, the slow ones will be tempted to follow. And integration will be strengthened. 

But the consequences of multi-speed seems more likely to be confusion and disintegration. What matters most is the tasks unifying all the 27 member states. They are the basis and the core of the Union. So instead of escalating multi-speed, the strategy should be to democratize, concentrate and streamline a one-speed European Union.

Vision impossible ?

Last week the European Commission published a White paper on the future of Europe. 5 scenarios were presented: 1. Carrying On, 2. Nothing but the Single Market, 3. Those  Who Want More Do More, 4. Doing Less More Efficiently and 5. Doing Much More Together.

The White Paper does not recommend one of the scenerarios, the purpose said to be to inspire a broad discussion in the coming months. After that, in September 2017, Juncker will present his personal views.

The White Paper´s most important contribution to the EU reform process is perhaps that it apparently recognizes and authorizes the existence of different visions for the European Union´s future. None of them should be excluded from the reform discussions.

The Commission´s openmindedness for discussing reform alternatives might be hard to swallow for the different camps, and already today EurActiv reports that "a scenior Commission official" says Juncker has a preference for the latter option, where the 27 EU members share more powers, resources and decision-making across the board. According to the official Juncker is not a supporter of a two-speed Europe, the third scenario. Juncker alleged rejection of scenario 3, which he has previously preferred, is related to the Visegrad countries' strong dislike for this option.

But in France the En Marche presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron outlines plans for scenario 3. The Eurozone is held back by "shame" and we must "dare to go for a multi-speed Europe", he says.

And in the forthcoming Brexit negotiations the UK, as a backdrop for the EU reform process, will try to show that participation in the internal market is not needed.

Status seems to be that agreement on a EU vision is far away, and the most likely scenario is number 1. Carrying On.

 

The Commission rides again

After years with a Commission looking like a bystander to the crisis management of the European Council, President Juncker finally had the leading role yesterday. He presented a White Paper on the future of Europe.

The White Paper, which gives "reflections and scenarios for the EU27 by 2025", is interesting, and the Juncker commission deserves credit for this initiative.

5 scenarios are presented:

1:  Carrying On
2:  Nothing but the Single Market
3:  Those Who Want More Do More
4:  Doing Less More Efficiently
5:  Doing Much More Together

Together they cover critisism of the status quo and the different views of which reforms are needed. There are many overlaps between each scenario, and they are therefore neither mutually exclusive, nor exhaustive.

The White Paper does not recommend one of the scenarios, the purpose is to inspire a broad discussion in the coming months. Then, in his State of the Union speech in September 2017, Juncker will present his personal views.

To preserve and strengthen the EU, a combination of number 2 and 4 seems to be a possible path to follow. Number 3, which is already a reality for some areas, should not be the vision for the future of Europe. This scenario means several unions - not a common European Union.