Benefits for Norway to join the European Union - Essay Example

The of Southampton International Foundation Programme: Personal Research Project (IFYP0002) Assess the extent to which it would be beneficial for Norway to join the European Union. BY Yusif Ahmadov Student ID number: 26438585 Academic Tutor: S.J. Headford Word count: * I would like to extend my appreciation to S.J.Headford for his support and encouragement throughout my research project. Without his advice and help, this project would not have been completed. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1) Introduction………………………………………………………………………3 2) The EEA Agreement…………………………………………………………….4 3) Norway’s participation in EU programmes and agencies……………………6 4) Justice and home affairs and the Schengen agreement…………………….6 5) Norway and the EU foreign and security policy………................................7 6) Norway-EU cooperation at political level………………................................8 7) Analysing the relationship between Norway and the EU…………………9 8) Conclusion………………………………………………………………………10 9) Reference list…………………………………………………………………...11 Introduction: Norway is a country that is located in the Northern Europe with a small population of 5.1 million (CIA, 2014). Norway is surrounded by countries that are members of the European Union (EU) but it is not a member state (BBC, 2013). To date, two referendums have been hosted in the country to vote in the country to join the EU but, on both occasions the Norwegian people voted against (regjeringen, 2011). The European Union (EU) and its 27 member states constitute the most important trade partners of Norway (regjeringen, 2011). This is because of Norway’s geographical, historical and cultural relationship with the EU countries and the EU’s political and economic significance (regjeringen, 2011). In fact, Norway has close political and economic ties with the EU (regjeringen, 2011). For instance, according to regjeringen (2011), Norway and the EU are members of the European Economic Area (EEA, signed in 1994). Moreover, the EEA agreement regulates the relationship between Norway and EU (regjeringen, 2011). In addition, Norway and the European Union signed Schengen agreement and they are partners in the Iceland and Liechtenstein (regjeringen, 2011). The foundations of Norway-EU trade relations were led by the EFTA (European Free Trade Association), which was established in 1960 (regjeringen, 2011). The EU in collaboration with Norway participate in the fields of justice and home affairs, climatic changes, foreign policies, research policies and in regulation of energy consumption (regjeringen, 2011). Increase in cooperation of Norway with European Union dramatically affects more aspects of both Norwegian and the EU community and economy (regjeringen, 2011). Norway is a major supplier of natural gas supplying up to 24% of the total gas imports, (regjeringen, 2011). Norway has contributed to the EU budget € 230 million in 2010 (regjeringen, 2011). In addition, according to regjeringen (2011), the overall amount of Norway’s export to the EU is 80.7%. In order to understand the importance of the EU for Norway, one should not only look at the EEA Agreement, but analyze the entire structure of agreements. For example, the Schengen Agreement or the many other agreements between Norway and the EU that concern Justice, Security policy, fisheries and agriculture (regjeringen, 2012). On the other hand, Norway persistent refrains from joining the EU for various reasons, even though accession to the EU would bring new insights and new opportunities for Norway across diverse areas. Ladegaard (2012) states that, accordingly to Marianne Sundlisæter Skinner, an author of new theory “Norwegian Euroscepticism”, has examined more than 500 letters to the editor and news commentaries regarding EU membership in the non-tabloid newspaper Aftenposten. The study covered three separate periods of debates the issue about joining the EU, in the early sixties, seventies and nineties (Ladegaard, 2012). Additionally Skinner said: “The arguments against EU-membership were surprisingly similar in 1972 and 1994, and they were not about the economy,” (Ladegaard, 2012). Norway is a country which was dominated by foreign countries for centuries (Johnson, 2002). As a result, Norwegian people are very defensive for their independence (Johnson, 2002). Ladegaard (2012) states that voters who voted in negative felt it right for their country’s economy. However, it is difficult to overcome preconceptions about the case of Norway joining the EU without any assessment. Therefore, in order to elucidate this question, firstly, this project aims to explain the economic and political relations as they pertain to the bilateral agreements. The aim of this essay is to examine crucial economic and political areas, which are the EEA agreement, the Schengen agreement, justice and home affairs, Norway and the EU foreign and security policy. Norway’s participation in EU programs and agencies and Norway-EU cooperation at the political level will be explored. The findings of the analysis will be used to draw on what extent Norway can benefit from being a member of the European Union. The EEA agreement: First of all, the EEA agreement forms the basis of relations between the two entities. The agreement enlarges the domestic market to three countries namely Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. Additionally, the agreement creates an equal platform for competition (regjeringen, 2011). The EEA combines the three EEA EFTA states (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) and the 27 EU member countries in a domestic market. The purpose of the agreement is to enhance economic and political relations between the 30 EEA members (regjeringen, 2011). There is free movement of products, persons and services within the domestic market without any restrictions and duties (regjeringen, 2011). All nationals, including students, pensioners and non-working persons of 30 EEA countries have the right to work or stay in any EEA State (regjeringen, 2011). The EEA agreement gives nationals and companies an opportunity and the right to create businesses across the EEA countries. Furthermore, according to the EEA, all citizens and companies in 30 EEA states have the right to transfer money between member countries, open bank accounts and invest throughout the free movement of money in some other EEA countries (regjeringen, 2011). Uniformity, is the main principle of the EEA agreement, which provides the same rules and the same conditions for all businesses within the EEA (regjeringen, 2011). As a result, through this agreement, both Norway and the EU managed to arrange jointly beneficial businesses. According to Malinowski (n.d), “due to the fact that 80% of Norway’s exports went to the European Union and more than 70% of imports came from the EU in 2005”, it is clear that even being partly in cooperation with the EU through the EEA agreement, Norway takes the maximum economic benefit. However, the EEA agreement does not consider areas such as agriculture and fisheries policies, the customs union, justice and home affairs, the common trade policy and the common foreign and security policy (regjeringen, 2011). However, because of its economical significance, the EEA agreement covers trade in sectors such as fisheries and agriculture (Malinowski, n.d). According to the Malinowski (n.d) all organs in the EEA or not supranational. Therefore, this form of the membership of the EEA is the biggest difference from the membership of the EU. The relations and agreements between the EEA countries and the EU are appointed on a national level, by consenting. Giving an example, the minority cannot be tied by the majority, and that governments of each country should execute new laws (Malinowski, n.d). However, if Norway had been a member of the EU, the solutions achieved by the European Union Parliament would have had to be realized into Norwegian legislation, even if Norwegian politicians rejected the new laws (Malinowski, n.d). This is due to the fact that they will be bound by membership agreements. Therefore, being a member of the EU for Norway means that they will lose their political independence in some cases which translates to a loss of control of some of their operations Norway’s participation in EU programs and agencies: As mentioned above, the European Union has launched many programs aimed at strengthening its marketing capabilities. The programs have been initiated outside its member states to expand the market in addition to the domestic market provided by member states. The activities cover areas such as education, research, culture and social policy (regjeringen, 2012). Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are participating in these programs through the EEA agreement (regjeringen, 2012). The EU has created several services in order to support technically and scientifically issues related to the domestic market and the European Union programs (regjeringen, 2011). According to regjeringen (2012), through the EEA agreement or any other bilateral agreements Norway participates in these agencies. However, the EEA agreement declares that Norway has to contribute a considerable amount of in order to reduce the economic differences in Europe (Eeagrants, n.d). For example, according to regjeringen (2011), in 2010 Norway contributed € 210 million, which constituted 97% of the all EEA EFTA contributions. During the program period 2007-2013, the Norwegian investment increased the European Union program budget from € 130 to € 290 million (regjeringen, 2011). That fact shows an importance of Norway in the EU’s internal market. However, Miles (1996) claims that the EU looks at the EEA agreement as a secondary agreement compare with its other internal agreements, and this issue will be further reduced if Norway will join with the EU. Justice and home affairs and the Schengen Agreement: The Schengen-Treaty gives Norway and the European Union access to justice and home affairs of many states (regjeringen, 2011). Schengen-Treaty established in 1985 by 4 European countries (Malinowski, n.d). From 1985 to 2001 most of the EU countries signed Schengen-Treaty (excepting Great Britain and Ireland) (Malinowski, n.d). In 2001 Norway joined the Schengen cooperation (regjeringen, 2011). The main principle of the agreement is about free movement of people between the member countries (Malinowski, n.d). For example, if you are travelling from Norway to France through Sweden, Denmark and Germany you do not have to stop and show your passport at each national border (Malinowski, n.d). Moreover, the Schengen agreement considers an issue regarding to immigration. For example, one embassy of the member country can issue a visa for the whole area (Malinowski, n.d). However, if the individual applying for visa is unwelcome in certain member-states, then the visa can be issued only in Germany (Malinowski, n.d). In addition, the cooperation between police forces of the member countries and EUROPOL is one of the important functions of the Schengen-Treaty, in which Norway participates actively due to the fact that it borders with Russia (Malinowski, n.d). The cooperation between police forces of the member countries and EUROPOL makes it easier to fight against illegal immigration (Malinowski, n.d). The most important point of the Schengen agreement is that, it will be in force if Norway will be a member of the EU. The treaty is not between Norway and the EU, but between other member states where some of the members are in the EU (Malinowski, n.d). Actually the Schengen and EEA agreements open more capabilities in Norway. Malinowski (n.d) claims that membership in the European Union will open for Norway much more scopes. Norway and the EU foreign and security policy: The security policies in any country are crucial to its stability in term of economy and politics. Norway has close political ties with the EU and its member countries (regjeringen, 2011). This is due to the fact that Norway’s and the EU member countries foreign policy based on the same principles and they are very similar (regjeringen, 2011). Regjeringen (2011) states that Norway is involved in a treaty dialogue with the European Union on foreign policy matters. Moreover, according to regjeringen (2011), the EEA agreement provides foreign policy consultations twice a year, where Norway participates as well, in order to consider the issues of common interests such as the Middle East, the Balkans, Russia, the OSCE and the council of Europe (regjeringen, 2011). In addition, Norway has signed with the EU another separate agreement which matters the EU civilian and military operations (regjeringen, 2011). Furthermore, Norway has signed an agreement of the European Defense Agency (regjeringen, 2011). These conventions illustrates that Norway is undecided and has one foot in the EUs policy (Malinowski, n.d). Firstly, it can be seen that having an EU membership has a number of advantages for Norway and it is stated that Norway is not negatively affected by being a member of the EU. To exemplify, in consideration of political work, it is argued that Norway can select to join in the EU or not (Malinowski, n.d). However, There is a number of examples that Norway desire to have a cooperation with the EU on definitional issues, but the EU has not agreed to a compromise with Norway. Military, security policies and the justice sector are a few examples of this certain issues that Norway and the EU could not reach an agreement (Malinowski, n.d). This is because of the needs for special allowances of Norway being capable of participating in the initiatives (Malinowski, n.d). Furthermore, the resources required for EU to initiate the negotiations would have exceeded the EU’s definite allocation that believed to be reasonable. The recent extension of the EU in Eastern Europe had a negative impact on Norway’s supremacy in the EU. Wider involvement of Eastern Europe countries over the agreements and issues to be discussed in the EU sphere leaded a great influence of East Europe in EU (Malinowski, n.d). Norway-EU cooperation at political level: Moreover, Malinowski (n.d) claims that political cooperation between Norway and EU has some drawbacks for Norway. For example, in order to participate in legislative processes in the union, Norway has to donate funds to the European Union (Malinowski, n.d). Only EU member countries are able to join in and shape legislations (Malinowski, n.d). As Malinowski (n.d) claims, this is a huge disadvantage in Norway. However, Malinowski (n.d) mentions that, Norway is allowed in on the initial hearings regarding new policies. Nevertheless, when it comes to transfer drafting to the Commission, Norway is out of the process (Malinowski, n.d). Regarding decision-making, Norway comes in during the making of legislation to supervise whether the proposed bill is in accordance with EEA regulations. However, the main disadvantage is that, if Norway decides to reject the new bill act, the EU can retire some details of the EEA agreement. Malinowski (n.d) argues that, as more than 80% Norway’s exports goes to the EU, partly or fully withdrawing from these agreements will negatively affect the Norway’s economy. For example, the EU used to put punitive taxes on Norwegian salmon imports in the wake of an issue concerning salmon farming (Kinnucan: 2000). This is indicative of the dilemma faced by Norway in regards of its membership to the European Union or to retain their freedom. The EU is a powerful political arena, among EU members and outside the union (Malinowski, n.d). This is fact that, the EU has a strong influence on the international economic and political issues (Malinowski, n.d). For example, foreign policy of the EU regarding the war against the terror in war torn nations such as Afghanistan and Iraq shows the higher political role of the EU among the world’s superpowers. Thus, Norway, by not being a member of the EU has no access to the discussions and this highlights the political difficulties that Norway is facing (Malinowski, n.d). Analysing the relationship between Norway and the EU: The first stage of the accession process calls for inquiring of the membership. After the inquiry, the EU has to give feedback on the accession by providing the criteria specifications. If Norway accepts the criteria specifications, a referendum will be held to decide on the matter (Malinowski, n.d) When Norway places a request for their membership, the union has to decide whether to accept or decline their request (Malinowski, n.d). The Copenhagen Criteria has been forwarded as a guide for countries wishing to join the European Union (Malinowski, n.d). If a country satisfying the criteria and are denied membership of the union, the agreements in place are termed void. However, in the case of Norway their membership would be approved as they satisfy the criterion (Barroso, 2009). Benefits of joining the union include free access to the EU market and the retention of their agreement as an energy provider (CIA, 2014). Compromise has to be reached regarding the supply of oil and fish with the union letting Norway regulate the sectors (Hjellum, 2008). For Norway to join the European Union, they have to be allowed to be in control of their natural resources (Malinowski, n.d). Another benefit that Norway stands to gain is balancing their political deficit, as they will be open to participate in negotiations in the EU parliament (Malinowski, n.d). In the case where Norway refrains from membership and the union fails to sign trade agreements with the country, alternative avenues of trading have to be sought out. These include trading with EU state members at individual basis. In addition, in a case where the European Union and Norway are not members of EAA, all trade restrictions include imposition of tariffs on imports and exports would come into play (Malinowski, n.d). The extra charges would result in increased price of products; thus, reducing their competitiveness. The solution, therefore, would be for Norway to trade with other countries, including the United States, Russia, and Canada (Malinowski, n.d). Implications of the EU would be on their future requirements for energy (Malinowski, n.d). Conclusion: The project discloses agreements and collaborations between the two entities through analysis of the fields of justice and home affairs, security, and foreign policies. The project also discloses trade and political constraints that impact on the decision of Norway whether to join the European Union. Norway feels that its current state with European Union give it maximal benefit in that there is open trade and it gets to control all its natural resources (especially energy resources) (Malinowski, n.d). On the other hand, by Norway refraining from the membership they suffer from a political deficit in the EU parliament. Therefore, they do not participate in crucial decision making which can affect its operations in the future (Malinowski, n.d). The European Union benefits from financial support and a steady supply of gas from Norway (Malinowski, n.d). However, in future Norway can refrain from the trade agreements, leaving the Union in a predicament (Malinowski, n.d). Even without membership, Norway has an upper hand due to the extensive alternatives in the market sector. If the European Union refrains from current agreements due to Norway declining to join in the union, it would result in imposition of trade tariffs making it very expensive (Malinowski, n.d). The location of Norway gives it a benefit in that it can seek out other trade partners such as United States, Russia, and Canada (Malinowski, n.d). On the other hand, tariffs imposed between the two entities will impact on the supply of energy to the EU. The benefits of joining the union at the risk of sharing control rights of its renewable resources with the union tips the balance against applying for union membership (Malinowski, n.d). Reference list: BBC. (2013). Norway profile. Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17743896 . Last accessed 08.04.2014. Barroso. (2008). Norway Could Join EU Tomorrow if It Wants. Available: http://dalje.com/en-world/norway-could-join-eu-tomorrow-if-it-wants--barroso/126742 . Last accessed 14.04.2014. CIA. (2014). Norway. Available: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/no.html . Last accessed 09.04.2014. Christopher Malinowski. (n.d). CAN GAME THEORY BE USED TO EVALUATE NORWAY’S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE EU? Available: https://www.uea.ac.uk/documents/953219/967353/Malinowski_C+Norway.pdf/ef96a23f-d792-4c85-beb7-3f1cfbbb4372 . Last accessed 17.04.2014. Eegrants. (n.d). €1.79 billion to reduce economic and social disparities in Europe. Available: http://www.eeagrants.org/id/1441 . Last accessed 12.04.2014 europa. (n.d). Accession criteria (Copenhagen criteria). Available: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/glossary/accession_criteria_copenhague_en.htm . Last accessed 11.04.2014. Hjellum Torstein. (2008). Den Norske Nasjonalstaten Cappelen. Isak Ladegaard. (2012). Why Norwegians never wanted EU membership. Available: http://sciencenordic.com/why-norwegians-never-wanted-eu-membership . Last accessed 12.04.2014. Kinnucan.H.W & Myrland.Ø. (2000). Optimal advertising with application to the Norway-EU Salmon Agreement. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 27: 39-58. Miles Lee. (1996). The European Union and the Nordic Countries Routledge. Nathan Johnson. (2002). Why did Norway not join the European Union? Available: http://diemperdidi.info/nordicnotes/vol06/articles/johnson2.html . Last accessed 10.04.2014. regjeringen. (2011). norway and the eu- partners for europe. Available: http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/UD/Vedlegg/eu/norge_og_eu_2011.pdf . Last accessed 12.04.2014. regjeringen. (2012). Outside and Inside. Available: http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/UD/Vedlegg/eu/nou2012_2_chapter27.pdf . Last accessed 12.04.2014. Read More