This present article is part of a series of articles published as part of the “Europe - What if?” Campaign by JEF Europe, within the project CompletEU framework. Its aim is to acknowledge that Europe is not limited to the European Union. Therefore, we invite our readers to examine the complex relationship the EU has with non-EU and newly EU countries in Europe and how this relationship could develop in the future.
Norway’s position as a possible EU member has historically met a barrier that cannot be crossed: the Norwegian public wish to stay on the outside of the European Union. In two referenda a majority voted against admission to the Union. The last referendum was in 1994 and still represents a barrier for Norwegians wishing to restart the debate on a European future for Norway. In the context of Europe, what if?, Norway’s road to EU accession is marred by other difficulties than, for example, the Balkan countries.
A couple of months ago, the European Commissioner for Enlargement, Marta Kos from Slovenia told public broadcaster NRK in an interview that Norway could join the Union “very quickly” in the event of a formal membership application. However, there are a multitude of political reasons that a topic of EU membership has been met with skepticism from a majority by the Norwegian people, but I wish to focus on a major topic that gives a necessary introduction to Norwegian political history for federalists who wonder why Norway has delayed taking the “European plunge” for so long.
The modern Norway was born in the winter of 1813 while Napoleon was fleeing west. A pursuing Swedish army under Crown Prince Carl Johan swung north towards Denmark to collect the prize promised to Sweden for joining the war against France: taking Norway from the Danish king to make up for the recent loss of Finland to Russia. The Treaty of Kiel was hastily signed and ratified, ending the union between Denmark and Norway which had lasted for over 400 years. It also ended absolute monarchical rule in Norway instituted in the realm during the 1660s.
While this was happening the Danish crown prince Christian Frederik was Governor-general in Norway. As soon as word spread in Norway, he moved quickly to oppose the Swedish takeover. The years since Danish entry into the war on the side of Napoleon had been hard on Norway. Blockaded by the British navy, the contact between Copenhagen and Oslo had been scarce, and the standard of living dropped dramatically. This created the necessary environment for some people, especially businesspeople in Eastern Norway, opposed to continuing Danish rule to look to a future union with Sweden. Overall loyalty to Denmark remained high however, especially among the powerful group of civil servants. The revolt was not a defence of the old autocracy but forced the king to acknowledge the voice of the people by calling for the democratic creation of a constitution. Elections were called, and a national assembly met to do two things: create a constitution and elect a king.
For Sweden the revolt was nothing but illegitimate, but the option of going to war with the rebel regent was both a decision which was seen as politically risky, and not possible at the moment anyway. The revolt had about half a year before the Swedes would invade. The assembly, lasting a mere six weeks, was plagued by division and polarization. It was split in two, with the “Independence party” preferring Norway fight for and gain independence from Sweden and elect the Danish crown prince as king; the “Union party” was the opposing group, its members either saw a personal union with Sweden as positive, or inevitable, while believing that Norway was too small and weak to pursue an independent path. The more prominent members were businessmen along the coast in eastern Norway, but substantial popular support could also be found. The keen eye will see that both parties favoured a union of some sort, as the wish to elect the Danish heir would’ve lead the countries to reunite in the future.
In the town of Eidsvoll on the 17th of May the constitution was approved and Christian Frederik elected king. His reign would however be short, as Sweden invaded and forced him to abdicate. In the following negotiations the Swedes were forced to accept the constitution, with only the necessary changes needed to allow for the Swedish king to take the throne.
The Norwegian constitution was the last constitution in Europe for a long time that was democratically approved, not by royal charter as was the case for many constitutions adopted during the restoration of royal and absolutist powers after the Congress of Vienna in 1815. As such the constitution was inspired by those older constitutions, such as the Swedish constitution of 1811. However, since 1975, Norway’s constitution has been the oldest in Europe in continuing use after Sweden repealed 1811 constitution.
Nineteenth-century Norway experienced a large cultural movement of nation-building which was plagued by endless debate over where Norway’s past, present and future lies. Large debates over the Norwegian language were especially prominent, with a long-lasting fight over whether Norwegian writing should retain its Danish elements or shift in the direction of rural dialects. This would lead to the eventual juxtaposition of two different written systems of Norwegian.
The writing and revision of Norwegian history was also rampant in the context of the nineteenth century’s nation building. The names given to the two parties in 1814 reveal historical biases about the Norwegian relationship with independence. The independence party ended up losing the day in 1814, having to accept the union with Sweden, but was since romanticized by nationally oriented historians. A mainstream historical view is that the struggle for independence in 1814 was consummated first with the end of the union between Sweden and Norway, even though such an analysis ignores the actual events and wishes of the founders of the Norwegian constitution in 1814.
The personal union between the two neighbours would last for 91 years, ending in 1905 when the Parliament and people voted first to leave the union with Sweden, and then inviting a Danish prince to take the throne.
I wish to illustrate the existing skepticism over “union” in the Norwegian political debate with two anecdotal examples. On a highway south of Trondheim, our third largest city, one passes a farm on a hill overlooking the road with a large old concrete structure. On the edifice the words “Nei til Union” (No to Union) are written in huge red letters. The other example was an online post by the national movement against EU-membership “Nei til EU” which posted on June 7th, the day of independence from Sweden, about how membership in the European Union would mean a larger transfer of sovereignty from the personal union ended in 1905.
The view which federalism’s political opponents hold, a view of the nation-state as transcendent and absolute, is obviously not uniquely Norwegian. All EU-member states experience a variant of nationalistic critique against the EU, or other European political organizations, where they decry the perceived attack against their nation’s absolute sovereignty. The necessary change in the view of sovereignty for the EU to become what it has become after 75 years was a collective step away from absolute, national sovereignty after the second world war’s important lesson. This change took place in the whole of Europe, although with considerable differences in National perception of this important idea for our current European Union. This change of the perception of sovereignty did also take place in Norway.
In the afterwar period Norway underwent large constitutional changes to allow for transfer of sovereignty away from a purely National competence. Originally §93, what is now §115 allows the parliament with a qualified majority to transfer political sovereignty to external and non-national entities. Of importance to the reader is the place the paragraph holds for Norway’s obligations to enact EU legislation or join EU bureaus which would hold certain power over Norwegian law and politics. As the reader can guess, this paragraph is a major source of political contention internally in Norway.
Primarily, this is an example of the middle position Norway has attempted to straddle in our relationship with the European Union. This text has obviously simplified important aspects of Norwegian contemporary politics. The EU having the word “union” in its name is not in itself a reason that Norway ended on the outside after two referenda. The referendum in 1972 our membership to the EEC resulted in a larger majority against membership than the second referendum, 22 years later, when the question was about EU-membership.
However, I do believe that Norway’s historical relationship with our own independence and National democracy has strengthened the convictions that international cooperation in the form of the EU is much less necessary for Norway than for our neighbours. A relevant idea that anyone interested in Norwegian politics will discover in this regard is the idea of Norway as the “differing country” (annerledeslandet). Attributed to former prime minister Gro Harlem Brundtland is a quote that may showcase the less sympathetic parts of Norwegian culture: “Excellence is typical Norwegian” (Det er typisk norsk å være god).
For many, these short-handed rhetorical talking points are reason enough to lay the issue of EU-membership to rest. Why should Norway seriously talk of joining a failing union while Norway is doing so much better than anyway?
For me, as a member of JEF Norway, the ever-existing comparison to other (European) countries with the silent, but constant, exclamation that “we’re better!” exists as a constant challenge; even in a political climate where the issue of a future EU-membership is one of this years election’s foremost political issues.
Follow the comments:
|
