EUPolitics Links | Jon Worth

Oslo Opera House - CC / Flickr

Norway goes to the polls on 14th September and the election is being held at a time when Norway’s position in the world is in some question: what role for the oil rich country of 4.5 million people at the northern edge of Europe? The influence of the EU on the poll has today been highlighted through an internal note (obtained by Aftenposten) written by Norwegian Ambassador to the EU Oda Helen Sletnes, raising concerns about how Norway is losing influence in Brussels.

Let’s face it – Norway’s position is ludicrous. The EEA agreement, in force since the 1990s, suits no-one. Norway is part of the Single Market for everything except agriculture and fish, but has no say over any of the decisions. So directives and regulations get agreed in Brussels and sent to Oslo. It would be better for Norway to have a seat at the table in Brussels, and even the Swiss position is easier to defend than the status quo for Norway.

So what would have to happen for Norway to join the EU and get a seat at the table?

1. The right election result. There have regularly been majorities of members of the Stortinget that are in favour of EU accession, but governing coalitions are almost always divided on the issue. Senior coalition partner in the current administration, PM Jens Stoltenberg’s Arbeiterparti, are pro-EU, while junior coalition parties – the Left Party and Centre Party are eurosceptic. On the right Høyre (Conservatives) are EU-favourable, the Fremskrittspartiet (Progress Party) are not. Hence the only way to move on EU questions is for either pro-EU party to do well enough to form a minority administration without the need for a formal coalition. Høyre are not going to manage it (and personally I don’t want the Conservatives to do well anyway) so Brussels should be hoping for a Arbeiterparti minority administration.

2. Iceland joining the EU. Iceland has been hit by the financial crisis more than Norway has, and in June 2009 tabled a formal request for accession. Were Iceland to make major steps towards the EU it would make Norway’s position in EFTA look even more untenable.

3. Reform of the EU’s fisheries policies. Norway (and indeed Iceland) have been rightly critical of the EU’s fisheries policies in the past. If the European Commission gets its act together and proposes some decent environmental reforms of EU fisheries policies (how about a Commissioner for fisheries from a northern country this autumn?) then one of the major arguments against accession will be removed.

A 4th ingredient – decent leadership for the Yes campaign – has already been achieved, with the appointment of the sharp and savvy Paal Frisvold as chair of Europabevegelsen (European Movement) – more on this in Norwegian here.

Question Mark - CC / Flickr

I’m rather conscious that I have a tendency to rant and complain on this blog. So after some interesting questions posed by the audience at an event organised by le Cercle québécois des affaires internationales where I was the speaker earlier today, here are a few strange and radical ideas to improve the EU.

Employ an extra 10000 Commission officials. Essentially if you compare the EU institutions with ministries of national governments the numbers of people employed are miniscule. The Commission has about 24000 staff, the UK’s DWP more than 95000. So few staff (and among them a whole bunch of translators and interpreters) means the European Commission is too reliant on lobbyists and consultants. More staff would help.
Shut down Strasbourg. The Strasbourg seat of the European Parliament makes the institution inefficient and wasteful. Close the Strasbourg building, and save €200 million a year. It will help pay for the extra Commission staff.
Mix up the DGs of the Commission. No-one has had a proper and fundamental look at how the Directorates General of the Commission are organised for years and years – could some be merged or abolished? Work out what areas need more staff, and the areas that need less. Make sure French dominance of agriculture is well and truly broken. While doing this streamline the systems of inter-service consultation and paper trails to directors.
Introduce an EU tax. This should be constitutionally limited – i.e. maximum percentage of GDP set. It should have direct taxation and indirect taxation elements, with the emphasis on taxation of a cross border nature – taxation on airline fuel for example. Parties then run in EP elections on the basis of whether they want to increase or decrease the budget of the EU. This system would put the financial power together with the legislative power, with a constitutional limit to prevent over-spend. This would be coupled with complete budget transparency – essentially what the guys at farmsubsidy.org do, but for every policy area.
European Parliament to choose the Commission President. I’ve been hammering on about this one already. Make the head of a party’s list their candidate to be Commission President. That way a party might actually be able to deliver on its promises during a 5 year parliamentary term.
Legislative initiative for the European Parliament. Currently only the European Commission can propose legislation in Pillar I matters. Why not open this up to allow the EP (and the Council?) to propose legislation? Similar to private member’s bills in national parliaments the Commission drafts could still maintain precedence in the legislative timetable.
Better scrutiny by national parliaments. If all Member States used the Finnish system – where the EU committee of the Parliament is sitting at the same time as Ministers are meeting in the Council – then the disconnect between EU politics and national politics could be partially eliminated. This of course requires national politicians to be diligent too… Hmmm.
10% Civil Servant Exchanges. National civil servants do not understand the EU, and EU fonctionnaires do not understand national administrations. So a 10% exchange system should be introduced, where civil servants spend 10% of their time (or 1 year in 10) elsewhere – on secondment to Brussels from a national capital or vice versa.
Reshuffling and censure of the European Commission. Why do Commissioners so seldom get shifted from one portfolio to another? Perhaps a motion to move could be introduced in the European Parliament, a signal to the Commission President that an individual – while possibly OK in their own right – is not doing adequately well with their particular portfolio. Power to the EP to censure individual Commissioners (with perhaps a 3/5 majority in the EP) would also help.
Rename things. Why do we have the Council of the EU, the European Council (well, and the Council of Europe – not part of the EU)? Why are 2 different things called RELEX? We need some better terminology for what’s going on.
Get the web strategy right. Maybe more minor than the other points, but each and every DG of the European Commission needs a simple and straightforward website so people can actually find out what’s going on. The information is online (generally) only it’s impossible to find.