The pseudonymous writer Fjordman had his identity outed because the crazy mass-murderer Anders Breivik admired and cherry-picked Fjordman’s writings. Breivik’s admiration led the Norwegian authorities to accuse the famous counterjihadist as an accomplice by association. Of course Fjordman was exonerated of all suspicion much to the contempt of all European Leftist Multiculturalists. The Multiculturalists had cast so much disdain onto Fjordman that he fled his homeland Norway over death threats for a while. That was a while ago so I am uncertain of his current living conditions. HOWEVER, I am quite pleased he is still writing.
I found a recent Fjordman essay at the Gatestone Institute. The essay analyzes the choices the UK faces after Brexit and lists Norway and Switzerland’s non-EU membership as horrible models to follow.
Brexit and Norway: What to Avoid
September 15, 2016 at 4:00 am
- “[Britain wants] to be like Switzerland but they don’t know that Switzerland has to pay an enormous amount to the EU… They will have to accept the free movement of people and pay high fees and accept some laws which they would have no influence on.” — Daniel Pedroletti, president of the Swiss community group New Helvetic Society London.
- Norway is the only country that has adopted all EU directives before their deadline. Norway, which is supposedly not a member of the EU, thus implements EU rules and regulations more obediently than do the founding members France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg.
- Most of Norway’s laws are currently written by bureaucrats in Brussels, not by elected parliamentarians in Norway.
- The citizens of Norway rejected membership in the EU, twice. Opinion polls today show that a very large majority of Norwegians are against membership in the EU. Despite this, the nation’s politicians have made the country more or less a member of the EU, only without any influence or voting rights — in opposition to the popular will, and possibly also in violation of the country’s Constitution.
- The British should study the case of Norway closely. But mainly as a negative example of what to avoid.
On June 23, 2016, 51.9% of the voters in the United Kingdom voted for leaving the European Union (EU). The turnout was high, and the British referendum gained great international attention. Marine Le Pen, leader of France’s National Front, praised the result, calling Brexit “the most important moment since the fall of the Berlin Wall.” Le Pen said that if she wins France’s 2017 presidential election she would call a referendum on leaving the EU.
Nigel Farage stepped down as leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) shortly after winning the historic vote. Many death threats against him and his family from supporters of the EU reportedly affected his decision.
The complicated divorce process between the UK and the EU could take years of negotiations. Some people have looked to Switzerland and Norway, two of the wealthiest countries in Europe, as possible models to follow, yet both maintain a close cooperation with the EU. There are also concerns in Switzerland and Norway about how Brexit will impact their own relationship with the EU.
Daniel Pedroletti, president of the Swiss community group New Helvetic Society London, says there is “a big misunderstanding” in Britain surrounding Switzerland’s position:
“They want to be like Switzerland but they don’t know that Switzerland has to pay an enormous amount to the EU and accept the laws without being an influence [on them].
“They don’t realize that if they want a similar agreement they will have to accept the free movement of people and pay high fees and accept some laws which they would have no influence on.”
Though not a full member of the EU, Switzerland has over 120 bilateral agreements in place with the bloc — its main trading partner.
Nigel Farage does not want Britain to emulate Norway’s deal with the EU. It is terrible, he says. The Norwegian people rejected membership in the EU. Yet the Norwegian Parliament (Stortinget) has “deceived the people” and got Norway into a very bad agreement with the EU, according to Farage.
Norwegians voted against joining the European Community/European Union twice, in 1972 and in 1994. After the 1994 referendum, the country’s political leaders designed a close association deal with the EU. This is the EEA Agreement, known as the EØS Agreement in Norwegian. This does not cover common agriculture and fisheries policies. Control over natural resources is sensitive in a country with a long coastline plus major offshore deposits of oil and natural gas. Yet apart from a few such exceptions, Norway in reality became an associate member of the EU after 1994. EEA membership requires the free movement of persons, services, goods and capital with the EU. Norway is also a part of the open-borders Schengen Agreement, which has severely weakened checking migrants and asylum seekers across much of Europe.
Statistics from 2016 show that of all the 31 countries in the EU and the European Economic Area (EEA), Norway is the only country that has adopted all EU directives before their deadline. Norway retained its top position for the third year in a row. Its two fellow EEA countries, Iceland and Liechtenstein, were the worst at implementing directives. Norway, which is supposedly not a member of the EU, thus implements EU rules and regulations more obediently than do the founding members France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. This may surprise people who view Norway’s relationship with the EU as something to emulate.
Most of Norway’s laws are currently written by bureaucrats in Brussels, not by elected parliamentarians in Norway. Some scholars warn that the transfer of power to the EU is so great that it violates Norway’s Constitution and seriously undermines the democratic system.
In June 2016, the Norwegian Parliament voted overwhelmingly to attach the nation to the EU’s financial supervision. Critics decried this as the “biggest concession of sovereignty” in many years. With a vote of 136 in favor and 29 against, Parliament approved a bill that would tie Norway’s regulation of financial and insurance institutions to EU rules. Center Party leader Trygve Slagsvold Vedum opposed the bill and warned that it was “a circumvention of the Constitution.” The group “No to the EU” stated that Parliament had gone directly against the will of the people by weakening national sovereignty. An opinion poll showed just 26 percent of Norwegians supported the plan to tie Norway to the EU’s financial oversight.
The citizens of Norway have rejected membership in the EU, twice. Public opinion has been consistently against membership for decades. Opinion polls today show that a very large majority of Norwegians are against membership in the EU. Despite this, the nation’s politicians have made the country more or less a member of the EU, only without any influence or voting rights. The politicians have done this in opposition to the popular will, and possibly also in violation of the country’s Constitution.
Britain is a larger country with a much bigger economy than Norway. This will give it a stronger position in negotiations with the EU and others. However, it would be a mistake not to learn from the experiences of other nations. When shaping their future relationship with the EU, the British should study the case of Norway closely. But mainly as a negative example of what to avoid.
© 2016 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute. [Blog Editor Full Disclosure: I failed to ask for that “written consent”.]
About Gatestone Institute
“Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.”
— John Adams
Gatestone Institute, a non-partisan, not-for-profit international policy council and think tank is dedicated to educating the public about what the mainstream media fails to report in promoting:
- Institutions of Democracy and the Rule of Law;
- Human Rights
- A free and strong economy
- A military capable of ensuring peace at home and in the free world
- Energy independence
- Ensuring the public stay informed of threats to our individual liberty, sovereignty and free speech.
Gatestone Institute conducts national and international conferences, briefings and events for its members and others, with world leaders, journalists and experts — analyzing, strategizing, and keeping them informed on current issues, and where possible recommending solutions.
Gatestone Institute will be publishing books, and continues to publish an online daily report, www.gatestoneinstitute.org, that features topics such as military and diplomatic threats to the United States and our allies; events in the Middle East and their possible consequences, and the … READ THE REST