The "Norwegian model" - what's up with it?
Discussion
ralphrj said:
Yes, leaving EFTA would mean leaving the single market but we could use our time in EFTA to negotiate our own trade deals.
My suggestion is:
Step 1. Leave EU, join EFTA - remain in the single market but be free to negotiate our own trade deals for the day we are ready to go it alone.
Step 2. Leave EFTA - outside the single market but having already negotiated trade deals with other countries.
Ok, thanks. So what would be the benefit of leaving EFTA, bar 'saving' on market access fee?My suggestion is:
Step 1. Leave EU, join EFTA - remain in the single market but be free to negotiate our own trade deals for the day we are ready to go it alone.
Step 2. Leave EFTA - outside the single market but having already negotiated trade deals with other countries.
jjlynn27 said:
That, and (if not obvious) I voted remain, as long as we establish/keep fin passporting would work for me too. The tradeof, therefore, seems to be giving up voting on EU matters, in return for being able to negotiate deals elsewhere (if I'm not mistaken this goes under sovereignity?).
In any case don't any problem with it. Would be good to keep hand on at least some EU decisions, but that will just not happen.
From this research paper: http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/TheNorwegi...In any case don't any problem with it. Would be good to keep hand on at least some EU decisions, but that will just not happen.
"Norway has a strong track record of influencing EU legislation, contrary to
Cameron’s concerns. It is not the passive recipient of ‘fax democracy’, forced
to follow all EU laws to the letter. It is involved in EU legislation through the
early drafting stages and contributes to the final outcome. Britain, were it to be
in Norway’s position, would almost certainly have more influence still, as a
larger economy with a closer history to the EU"
jjlynn27 said:
Ok, thanks. So what would be the benefit of leaving EFTA, bar 'saving' on market access fee?
Leaving EFTA and the single market would remove any obligations to free movement of labour as well as save on the contributions. The UK would have to weigh up at the time if the benefits of that outweighed the benefits of our own trade deals. If the situation is no better then we could stay in EFTA.Turning our exit from the EU into a 2 step exercise allows time to plan for each change. We joined the EU in a 2 step exercise spending 12/13 years in EFTA before joining the EU (EEC as it was) so we would be exiting the same way we came in.
Taken from http://www.adamsmith.org/evolution-not-revolution:
Adamsmith.org said:
1. “No say”
The argument about having “no say” in EU law-making requires some explanation and can be addressed on several levels.
Firstly, “So what?” We have no say in making American laws either, yet we don’t complain about that and the USA is Britain’s single largest national trading partner.
If that feels a bit glib - and it does - the next level of argument is that the “no say” argument is factually incorrect.
Formal EFTA/EEA influence comes from a complex system of consultative structures, the foundation of which is the “two-pillar” system between EFTA/EEA and the EU. In this system, there is formal consultation and participation between the EU and EFTA/EEA, particularly in the crucial early stages of the law-making process. For example, Norwegian officials take part in over 200 committees in the European Commission. The EEA countries don’t however get a final vote in the EU’s institutions and that is what the Remain lobby actually means. A more accurate Remain statement would therefore be that they have “no say when it comes to the final EU vote on a particular matter”. Shortening this to “no say” makes for a good sound bite but it is false.
Some Norwegians are clear on Norway’s influence in the EEA and the opportunities to advise and influence the EU. This is verified by the Norwegian Foreign Ministry, which acknowledges that Norway does not have a formal vote in the decision making process but:
“Experience has shown that this is less important than the opportunities we have to influence other countries by putting forward effective, coherent arguments”.
…with the emphasis on “this is less important than…”.
Participation in the early stages involves providing experts to give their input. The extent of influence at this stage depends on the quality of the expertise provided but clearly influence can be considerable. Norway has played a key role in shaping directives and influenced amendments to the Consumer Rights Directive in 2008 by lobbying the European Commission. It has also fought off challenges from the British bookmaker, Ladbrokes, over state control of gaming machines (which itself influenced an EU member state to make a similar challenge via the ECJ).
Therefore the “no say” allegation is not only false, but even when it is corrected to the more accurate “no vote”, it still doesn’t tell the full story and one can still demonstrate that influence is exerted.
The next level of argument surrounding “no say” is that despite not having a vote in EU institutions, EEA countries have some ability to protect their own interests from EU law. They retain a “right of reservation” - a veto - as set out in Article 102 of the EEA agreement and thus have the right to opt out of new EU legislation. This is a right that the UK as an EU member does not have.
The EFTA Secretariat has identified more than 1,200 EU acts considered EEA relevant by the European Commission that have then been contested by the EEA/EFTA Member States.
Examples for Norway include postal services and oil & gas, while Iceland was responsible for one of the biggest rejections of the EU in history when the Icesave bank’s online savings account collapsed.
And that brings us neatly to the next level of argument about EEA countries having “no say”, which is that we must recall the UK’s own influence inside the EU is itself severely constrained in a community of 28. Even the big fanfare over David Cameron’s “veto” in December 2011 came to nothing – the other members just went ahead anyway without Britain. One can now add the recent failed EU renegotiation, which further showed starkly the limits of Britain’s influence inside the EU. That’s perhaps why the government quickly stopped talking about it.
The UK does not have anything like the level of freedom of EFTA members, and has the additional constraint of the UK not being able to conduct its own international trade negotiations/policy. These are conducted by the European Commission after agreeing a “common position” with Member States via the Council.
It is also worth noting that the powers of the Parliament and the Council are strictly limited. The ever increasing number of EU laws originating from global standards are increasingly implemented as “delegated legislation” using the EU’s “comitology” procedure. These committees consist of anonymous officials from member states with absolutely no power to amend or reject Commission proposals. They can only approve them or refer them to the Council.
The UK’s influence in the EU is therefore diminishing as the Union further centralises and quashes democratic protections in its pursuit of full supranational government – its ultimate objective.
That just leaves the final level of argument against “no say”: that EEA countries play a fully independent role in global bodies where the majority of Single Market legislation now originates. In other words they are exerting their influence “upstream” in a way the UK cannot because of its EU membership.
The argument about having “no say” in EU law-making requires some explanation and can be addressed on several levels.
Firstly, “So what?” We have no say in making American laws either, yet we don’t complain about that and the USA is Britain’s single largest national trading partner.
If that feels a bit glib - and it does - the next level of argument is that the “no say” argument is factually incorrect.
Formal EFTA/EEA influence comes from a complex system of consultative structures, the foundation of which is the “two-pillar” system between EFTA/EEA and the EU. In this system, there is formal consultation and participation between the EU and EFTA/EEA, particularly in the crucial early stages of the law-making process. For example, Norwegian officials take part in over 200 committees in the European Commission. The EEA countries don’t however get a final vote in the EU’s institutions and that is what the Remain lobby actually means. A more accurate Remain statement would therefore be that they have “no say when it comes to the final EU vote on a particular matter”. Shortening this to “no say” makes for a good sound bite but it is false.
Some Norwegians are clear on Norway’s influence in the EEA and the opportunities to advise and influence the EU. This is verified by the Norwegian Foreign Ministry, which acknowledges that Norway does not have a formal vote in the decision making process but:
“Experience has shown that this is less important than the opportunities we have to influence other countries by putting forward effective, coherent arguments”.
…with the emphasis on “this is less important than…”.
Participation in the early stages involves providing experts to give their input. The extent of influence at this stage depends on the quality of the expertise provided but clearly influence can be considerable. Norway has played a key role in shaping directives and influenced amendments to the Consumer Rights Directive in 2008 by lobbying the European Commission. It has also fought off challenges from the British bookmaker, Ladbrokes, over state control of gaming machines (which itself influenced an EU member state to make a similar challenge via the ECJ).
Therefore the “no say” allegation is not only false, but even when it is corrected to the more accurate “no vote”, it still doesn’t tell the full story and one can still demonstrate that influence is exerted.
The next level of argument surrounding “no say” is that despite not having a vote in EU institutions, EEA countries have some ability to protect their own interests from EU law. They retain a “right of reservation” - a veto - as set out in Article 102 of the EEA agreement and thus have the right to opt out of new EU legislation. This is a right that the UK as an EU member does not have.
The EFTA Secretariat has identified more than 1,200 EU acts considered EEA relevant by the European Commission that have then been contested by the EEA/EFTA Member States.
Examples for Norway include postal services and oil & gas, while Iceland was responsible for one of the biggest rejections of the EU in history when the Icesave bank’s online savings account collapsed.
And that brings us neatly to the next level of argument about EEA countries having “no say”, which is that we must recall the UK’s own influence inside the EU is itself severely constrained in a community of 28. Even the big fanfare over David Cameron’s “veto” in December 2011 came to nothing – the other members just went ahead anyway without Britain. One can now add the recent failed EU renegotiation, which further showed starkly the limits of Britain’s influence inside the EU. That’s perhaps why the government quickly stopped talking about it.
The UK does not have anything like the level of freedom of EFTA members, and has the additional constraint of the UK not being able to conduct its own international trade negotiations/policy. These are conducted by the European Commission after agreeing a “common position” with Member States via the Council.
It is also worth noting that the powers of the Parliament and the Council are strictly limited. The ever increasing number of EU laws originating from global standards are increasingly implemented as “delegated legislation” using the EU’s “comitology” procedure. These committees consist of anonymous officials from member states with absolutely no power to amend or reject Commission proposals. They can only approve them or refer them to the Council.
The UK’s influence in the EU is therefore diminishing as the Union further centralises and quashes democratic protections in its pursuit of full supranational government – its ultimate objective.
That just leaves the final level of argument against “no say”: that EEA countries play a fully independent role in global bodies where the majority of Single Market legislation now originates. In other words they are exerting their influence “upstream” in a way the UK cannot because of its EU membership.
Major T said:
From this research paper: http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/TheNorwegi...
"Norway has a strong track record of influencing EU legislation, contrary to
Cameron’s concerns. It is not the passive recipient of ‘fax democracy’, forced
to follow all EU laws to the letter. It is involved in EU legislation through the
early drafting stages and contributes to the final outcome. Britain, were it to be
in Norway’s position, would almost certainly have more influence still, as a
larger economy with a closer history to the EU"
I think that our influence would be quite large - the only issue is that we would have no veto over something we really didn't like."Norway has a strong track record of influencing EU legislation, contrary to
Cameron’s concerns. It is not the passive recipient of ‘fax democracy’, forced
to follow all EU laws to the letter. It is involved in EU legislation through the
early drafting stages and contributes to the final outcome. Britain, were it to be
in Norway’s position, would almost certainly have more influence still, as a
larger economy with a closer history to the EU"
Logically the US and China must have some influence at the EU but obviously aren't members. The UK isn't as big economically as either of those but is geographically close with strong import and exports.
Major T said:
jjlynn27 said:
That, and (if not obvious) I voted remain, as long as we establish/keep fin passporting would work for me too. The tradeof, therefore, seems to be giving up voting on EU matters, in return for being able to negotiate deals elsewhere (if I'm not mistaken this goes under sovereignity?).
In any case don't any problem with it. Would be good to keep hand on at least some EU decisions, but that will just not happen.
From this research paper: http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/TheNorwegi...In any case don't any problem with it. Would be good to keep hand on at least some EU decisions, but that will just not happen.
"Norway has a strong track record of influencing EU legislation, contrary to
Cameron’s concerns. It is not the passive recipient of ‘fax democracy’, forced
to follow all EU laws to the letter. It is involved in EU legislation through the
early drafting stages and contributes to the final outcome. Britain, were it to be
in Norway’s position, would almost certainly have more influence still, as a
larger economy with a closer history to the EU"
Major T said:
From this research paper: http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/TheNorwegi...
"Norway has a strong track record of influencing EU legislation, contrary to
Cameron’s concerns. It is not the passive recipient of ‘fax democracy’, forced
to follow all EU laws to the letter. It is involved in EU legislation through the
early drafting stages and contributes to the final outcome. Britain, were it to be
in Norway’s position, would almost certainly have more influence still, as a
larger economy with a closer history to the EU"
Comparison is difficult and such assertions are almost impossible to make, the state of the Norwegian and UK economies is miles apart and their relative histories in Europe will also have a significant bearing on how things play out. Even if we were to attempt the Norwegian model, there's no guarantee we will get the same terms. Norway has a small population and is extremely rich in natural resources, fishing is a common issue but they are a world apart from us. I don't really see how any UK government could negotiate the Norway model and square it with the Leavers, but then I doubt that will figure too much in any decisions, both sides I think will be sold down the river."Norway has a strong track record of influencing EU legislation, contrary to
Cameron’s concerns. It is not the passive recipient of ‘fax democracy’, forced
to follow all EU laws to the letter. It is involved in EU legislation through the
early drafting stages and contributes to the final outcome. Britain, were it to be
in Norway’s position, would almost certainly have more influence still, as a
larger economy with a closer history to the EU"
phil-sti said:
I doubt the UK would agree to any deal that still allowed free movement of EU migrants. Do Norway still have to listen to the EU court of human rights?
It's the European court of human rights, not the EU.We didn't vote on that as it's a completely separate institution.
phil-sti said:
I doubt the UK would agree to any deal that still allowed free movement of EU migrants. Do Norway still have to listen to the EU court of human rights?
Yes, as it's a separate entity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_...
Someone can tell me if I'm wrong, but I believe membership of the EU means you must be a member of ECHR. By leaving the EU, we free ourselves from that obligation, and so can leave ECHR. Keep in mind that even Turkey and Russia are members of ECHR. We'd stand alongside only Belarus as not being signed up.
Explained here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendu...
There are two problems with the Norwegian model (or EEA membership to be precise):
the rest of the EEA has to agree unanimously to allow us in (we don't have any automatic right to step back from EU to EEA); and
EEA members get very little say over EU legislation that binds them, Yes, as FiF will point out if he sees this, they have a theoretical veto, but it is never used. The Norwegians thought about it once in the case of the Postal Services Directive and then realised that it would irretrievably damage their relationship with the EU.
the rest of the EEA has to agree unanimously to allow us in (we don't have any automatic right to step back from EU to EEA); and
EEA members get very little say over EU legislation that binds them, Yes, as FiF will point out if he sees this, they have a theoretical veto, but it is never used. The Norwegians thought about it once in the case of the Postal Services Directive and then realised that it would irretrievably damage their relationship with the EU.
Puggit said:
phil-sti said:
I doubt the UK would agree to any deal that still allowed free movement of EU migrants. Do Norway still have to listen to the EU court of human rights?
Yes, as it's a separate entity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_...
Someone can tell me if I'm wrong, but I believe membership of the EU means you must be a member of ECHR. By leaving the EU, we free ourselves from that obligation, and so can leave ECHR. Keep in mind that even Turkey and Russia are members of ECHR. We'd stand alongside only Belarus as not being signed up.
Explained here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendu...
Axionknight said:
jjlynn27 said:
Axionknight said:
Dog Star said:
Some really interesting stuff in here - thanks chaps.
Nice that it's not descended into some slanging match too.
Don't jinx it!Nice that it's not descended into some slanging match too.
k off!
Normal non-abusive programme will resume after these messages....
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff