I have in earlier messages said that the Norw. elite, by echanging the
FTA for an EEA agreement in january 1994, have sold out for nothing in
return. Someone may react to such a description of seemingly irrational
behaviour.
I got a personal message from a political scientist on this. He is
puzzled:
> How do you explain this decision? Political scientists tend to be
> skeptical of (though do not reject outright) explanations where the
> cause is "stupidity" or "conspiracy."
(I think his questions are of interest to a wider audience.
So here is a slightly edited version of my reply to him:)
Yes, in general I agree that one must watch out for this.
See comment at the end, however.
You say:
> Is the Norwegian government interested in generating future
> support for EU membership by forcing adjustment?
Definitely, yes. The argument is that
"with the EEA we are bound to the EU in a thousand ways, but we
lack the political influence because we are not members. So we
have to say 'B' when we already have said 'A' ".
> Are certain sectors of
> industry interested in generating such a level playing field? What is
> your view.
With the EEA, as opposed to the former FTA, EU "free flow" principles
(The Treaty of Rome), legislation and regulations concerning the EU
"inner market", are formally _above_ Norwegian legislation (even the
Constitution). And in case of judicial conflict, the EU High Court
supercedes the Norw. Supreme Court. This means that a lot of N.
national legislative, economic and political instruments are simply
outlawed. I think "industry" (I would prefer to say the economic and
politico-bureaucratic elite) wants this because it shifts the balance
of power drastically in their favour and away from trade unions,
farmers and fishermen, environmental and consumer organizations.
Btw, I don't accept the term "level playing field" here. In fact the EU
system and practice tilt the field in favour of the biggest corporate
interests, at the expense not only of worker, environmental and
consumer influence, but also of medium/small and local firms.
Now back to the question of what motivates the ruling elite: There is
another error one may make of an opposite type (opposite in relation to
"conspiracy" or "stupidity"-based explanations): The assumption that
people in power are always motivated by rational (as seen by them)
reasoning. IMO, and to paraphrase your formulation, "political
scientists tend to be" a bit blinded or infatuated on this aspect,
nodding world-wisely and always talking about how "realpolitik"
explains most of developments on the (international) political scene.
In fact, there is a very "emotional" and personal component (of course
not the whole explanation) in the N. elite motivation to get N. into
the EU, which is not talked about at all in the mainstream (= dominating)
media: Their wish to "sit at the table" with the big Euro-shots, to be
exposed in the European media, to play the international game, and of
course (more prosaically) to get access to the lucrative privileges and
perks that the political and bureaucratic Euro-jet-set receive. Today
they are continually whining and complaining in the Norw. media how
they "have to sit on the outside while important issues for Europe are
decided". Strangely and pathetically, their rhetoric is often quite
centered around themselves(!), not N. interests as such, and is thus
quite transparent.
Trond Andresen
