I had planned to complete this blog about a week ago, following some comments by Danny Alexander, the Lib Dim Chief Secretary to the Treasury. However, although other commitments intervened, the theme of "poor old Norway" came up again with the publication of a report about David Cameron's renegotiation strategy by a cross-party group of MPs, so it is still topical, and like the "Three million jobs" myth, likely to remain so even after being thoroughly debunked..
The well-worn argument is that Norway is part of the European Economic Area (the Single Market), and therefore has to accept all the rules made in Brussels, but because it is not a member of the EU, it has no say in the formulation of those rules. "Look at the Norwegians for example," said Mr Alexander. "Where in order to maintain access to the single market they basically receive the new rules on the fax machine from Brussels and they have to implement them without changing them."
There are a number of points to be made here. Firstly, the Norwegians are involved, at least in the discussion stages, with the drafting of new legislation relating to the Single Market, even if they do not have a vote.
Secondly, while Norway's membership of the EEA governs its trade with the rest of the EU and its own domestic trade, it is not subject to the Common Agricultural Policy not the Common Fisheries Policy. Norwegians pay far less per capita into the EU's coffers than we do, and the country is free to strike its own free trade agreements with other countries, which we are not. It does not have to implement EU legislation in the areas of justice and home affairs, nor is its own national interest swallowed up by in the EU's Common Foreign Policy. In short, Norway has far more freedom than we do.
Thirdly. Norway is doing very well financially. This is particularly well brought out by the comparison of the per capita GDP of Norway and Sweden in the graph below. Both are sparsely-populated countries with rich natural resources - Oil in Norway's case and iron ore in Sweden's. Both have similar expensive welfare systems. Both have had a propensity for socialist governments in the last 80 years.
The well-worn argument is that Norway is part of the European Economic Area (the Single Market), and therefore has to accept all the rules made in Brussels, but because it is not a member of the EU, it has no say in the formulation of those rules. "Look at the Norwegians for example," said Mr Alexander. "Where in order to maintain access to the single market they basically receive the new rules on the fax machine from Brussels and they have to implement them without changing them."
There are a number of points to be made here. Firstly, the Norwegians are involved, at least in the discussion stages, with the drafting of new legislation relating to the Single Market, even if they do not have a vote.
Secondly, while Norway's membership of the EEA governs its trade with the rest of the EU and its own domestic trade, it is not subject to the Common Agricultural Policy not the Common Fisheries Policy. Norwegians pay far less per capita into the EU's coffers than we do, and the country is free to strike its own free trade agreements with other countries, which we are not. It does not have to implement EU legislation in the areas of justice and home affairs, nor is its own national interest swallowed up by in the EU's Common Foreign Policy. In short, Norway has far more freedom than we do.
Thirdly. Norway is doing very well financially. This is particularly well brought out by the comparison of the per capita GDP of Norway and Sweden in the graph below. Both are sparsely-populated countries with rich natural resources - Oil in Norway's case and iron ore in Sweden's. Both have similar expensive welfare systems. Both have had a propensity for socialist governments in the last 80 years.
The graph above shows something very interesting - the per capita GDP of these two countries was pretty similar until the mid-1990s when Norway suddenly powered ahead, to become one of the richest nations in Europe. The point of divergence begins in the mid-1990s when Sweden joined the EU and Norway decided not to. A coincidence? I think not. Government by fax has given the Norwegians a far higher standard of living than their neighbours to the East.
Finally, few (if any) serious advocates of British withdrawal are suggesting adopting the Norwegian model. Either the Swiss arrangement of bilateral treaties or a simple free trade agreement are the preferred options among economists who support withdrawal. Remaining in the EEA might be a useful short-term stopgap if Britain left the EU before it had completed a full free trade agreement, but it is widely viewed as far from the best arrangement for an independent Britain, even if europhiles seem to think it is what we are proposing. However, when you next hear them bleating on about "poor little Norway governed by fax from Brussels," don't feel sorry for the Norwegians; rather I suggest you should feel sorry for our country that we have so many politicians who are either ignorant, dishonest, or in all probability, both.
Finally, few (if any) serious advocates of British withdrawal are suggesting adopting the Norwegian model. Either the Swiss arrangement of bilateral treaties or a simple free trade agreement are the preferred options among economists who support withdrawal. Remaining in the EEA might be a useful short-term stopgap if Britain left the EU before it had completed a full free trade agreement, but it is widely viewed as far from the best arrangement for an independent Britain, even if europhiles seem to think it is what we are proposing. However, when you next hear them bleating on about "poor little Norway governed by fax from Brussels," don't feel sorry for the Norwegians; rather I suggest you should feel sorry for our country that we have so many politicians who are either ignorant, dishonest, or in all probability, both.