Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre

Does the EEA Agreement give leeway for an active European policy?

The European Movement’s council meeting, Oslo, 1 April 2006

Check against delivery

Translation from Norwegian

Dear friends,

Please don’t be fooled by the date! The first of April may be a day for jokes, but it is also a day with more sombre associations.

Fifty-eight years ago today, on 1 April 1948, the Soviet Union started its blockade of West Berlin. This triggered one of the major confrontations of the Cold War, with tensions between the Soviet Union and the West running high. A few months later, an air lift was organised to save the people of West Berlin from starvation. This dramatic episode acted as a catalyst for the formation of NATO and for Western European integration.

There are many interesting lines that can be traced through history.

This week, which ended on 1 April, two important visitors came to Norway: the Prime Minister of Russia, Mr Fradkov, who visited Oslo and Aukra, where the onshore processing plant for the gas from Ormen Lange is being built; and Mr Steinmeier, my German colleague, who visited the gas plant at Melkøya, off Hammerfest.

The themes of these visits were energy, security, supply, European infrastructure, quantum leaps in technology, environmental considerations and climate challenges. The images of Cold War Europe seem distant. In different ways, Russia, Germany and Norway have become energy partners; new patterns of European foreign and security policy are emerging.

Between the drama that took place 58 years ago and the high-level visits to Norway this week, there is a historic chapter of European integration, starting with Germany’s East policy, which led to the Helsinki Accords, détente, the breakthrough of democracy in Eastern  Europe, the reunification of Germany, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the historic enlargement of NATO and the EU.

Europe has become a safer place. And that means Norway has become safer too.

For there can be no doubt: Norway’s security, Norway’s welfare and Norway’s development depend directly on developments in Europe.

Few countries are so closely interlinked with Europe as we are. There is almost full agreement in Norway that we should pursue an active European policy, despite the fact that in both the referendums on the EU, the Norwegian people turned down membership.

You who are part of the European Movement strove for a different result at both these crossroads. I did too through my vote. But we are so deeply committed to European democratic ideals that the decision was based on the will of the people.

The pro-EU side has never questioned this principle. But it doesn’t mean that we don’t need an active European policy; that is not an option for a country with the interests and geographical position that Norway has.

And so let us turn to our daily lives in Norway today, and the question I have chosen as the title for my address – and this isn’t an April Fool’s Day joke either – Does the EEA Agreement give leeway for an active European policy?

My answer is yes. And I will explain why.

The EEA Agreement is our gateway into Europe, into European cooperation. The Agreement gives us an opportunity to solve shared problems, meet shared challenges and promote our fundamental interests and values.

Therefore I am in no doubt that the EEA Agreement gives leeway for an active European policy. Indeed, I believe the EEA Agreement in itself reflects an active European policy, given the circumstances at the time it was drawn up. I also believe that an active European policy is vital for the Agreement to function as intended.  

I would like to take this opportunity to share with you some of my thoughts about what direction we should be taking in our European policy.

There are three points that should be emphasised.

Firstly, the EEA Agreement was, at the time, an expression of an active and forward-looking European policy.

It provides opportunities, it is innovative, and it has fulfilled people’s expectations. It has worked well and produced good results.

One of Norway’s objectives when negotiating the Agreement was to be able to continue on a course that we staked out through much of the 20^th century – close integration into European affairs. And we have succeeded in this.

The gains have been greater than many hoped, and the costs have been lower than many feared. And this is something we will build on further.

But, and this is my second point, the EEA Agreement states quite clearly what areas it covers, and there are many other areas that it doesn’t cover. Here we have to use our common sense and find other forms of cooperation.

And in this connection I believe we can be better at seizing the opportunities that the EEA and our other agreements with the EU create. I will return to this question, and share some of my thoughts with you, later.

Thirdly, the fact that Europe is so important for us means that a broad and lively debate on Europe is vital.

Meaningful and constructive discussions, creative and critical debates are prerequisites for a good policy. A lively debate on Europe is our most important resource – indeed it is the very engine of our European policy. 

Unfortunately the debate on Europe has not always been constructive. The sparks have not always inspired us to move on. It is my view that the debate on Europe has tended to veil rather than reveal the full range of opportunities.

We have remained at the level of trench warfare, unable to see beyond no-man’s-land.

For many years almost every issue raised has been considered in a pro- or anti-EU perspective. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong in that, but the debate has tended to slip into well-worn tracks, it has been dominated by the same familiar actors, and few new ideas have emerged.

The Yes and No sides will remain – and so they should – because the question of membership cannot be excluded from the Norwegian debate. But we must be able to ask questions, speculate and reflect on both the familiar and, not least, the new issues that are arising in a Europe that is undergoing such rapid development.

I would therefore like to challenge both the Yes and the No sides to revitalise the debate on Europe – not to smooth the rough edges, but to rediscover the deeper issues, the real dilemmas, the true European agenda.

*****

First I would like to present some of the arguments in support of the EEA Agreement, as you have requested.

I know not everyone agrees with me. I also know that the European Movement has been somewhat ambivalent about the EEA Agreement.

On the one hand, you have embraced the Agreement because it has ensured closer cooperation with the EU. But you have also criticised it for having serious shortcomings and for having taken the wind out of the sails of the debate on EU membership.

The No to the EU movement hasn’t been any more enthusiastic, although their criticisms are based on other factors.

The EEA Agreement is too little for some, and too much for others.

For the Government – as we have made clear in our policy platform – the EEA Agreement is a cornerstone of our cooperation with Europe, and an active European policy is one of our key focus areas.

Why are we continuing to build on the EEA Agreement?  

Because the EEA Agreement has shown that it is, on the whole, fulfilling Norway’s main objective, namely ensuring that we can participate in the internal market, with free movement of goods, services, capital and persons.

This we have achieved. We are seeing the results of this achievement all the time – every day, every week – wherever we turn, in our daily lives, in our work. I would like to briefly highlight three particular areas.

Firstly, Norway is now part of the internal market on an equal footing with the EU Member States. Norwegian companies, enterprises, the labour market and consumers are benefiting, and new important opportunities are arising – every day. 

We know that much of our export industry is located in outlying districts, and the EEA Agreement has helped to maintain the industrial base of local communities and thus maintain settlement patterns. The figures speak for themselves: 80 per cent of our exports go to the EU, and 70 per cent of our imports are from the same area.

Secondly, it is not just the business sector that has benefited from the Agreement. Let me give you some other examples.

Since the beginning of the 1990s, thousands of Norwegians have been involved in educational and research exchanges and cooperation projects. Through the Socrates programme alone, some 20 000 Norwegian students, school children and teachers have taken part in exchanges with other EEA countries.

This has given us networks, friends, colleagues, language skills, mobility, better quality of education and research, and mutual learning benefits.

In the cultural sector, the EEA Agreement has opened up opportunities through the EU Framework Programme for Culture, which has greatly benefited many members of the Norwegian cultural community in the fields of music, drama, cultural heritage, the visual arts and publishing.

We are talking here about access to considerable funds, greater mobility and the establishment of long-term networks. Norway has taken part in a total of 65 major EU projects in recent years, and has also received support for important national projects, such as the border dialogue The Girls on the Bridge in the Barents region, the art project for very young children Glitterbird and the city of Ålesund’s participation in the European Art Nouveau network, just to mention three examples.

Thirdly, the EEA Agreement has helped to raise Norwegian environmental standards in a number of areas. It does us good to be reminded of this, as we tend to be rather complacent about our environmental performance. In fact the EU is often at the forefront in setting such standards.

Of course, you in the European Movement are aware of all this.

The way I see it, the EEA Agreement has been, and still is, an important element in the major modernisation project that is taking place in Norway – a project that aims to safeguard and further develop our ability to provide jobs and welfare on the basis of wealth creation, renewal and high environmental standards. Frank and active debate within a framework that ensures equal rules of play for all will advance this process.

The EEA Agreement has a broad area of impact, and many Norwegian interest groups are involved in this cooperation.

But it is important to be open and honest. In some areas and in certain cases, the EEA Agreement has led to unpopular and difficult changes. In other areas the rules have been needlessly rigid and have imposed unreasonable requirements.

When these situations arise, it is our task to point out where we are in disagreement and try to change the rules.

The question of support for the regions and differentiated employers’ national insurance contributions is one such example. The Norwegian scheme has been a flexible way of providing support to the regions. The European Commission has now changed the rules and we are striving to ensure that what was a good and effective scheme is reintroduced.

In Norway we are good at implementing EEA rules. This is in line with our long-standing tradition of rapid ratification and implementation of international agreements and Community acts in Norwegian law. We were rated fourth in the most recent league table for performance in this area.

This is positive. I do not agree with the Secretary General of the Young European Federalist,  who claims this puts us at the top of the list of the “powerless”.

No, our rating reflects the fact that that we have an effective public administration, and that we realise that implementing these rules is to our advantage. It reflects the fact that the joint rules and standards correspond to the priorities we have set ourselves. It reflects the fact that this opens up opportunities for us.

As I was involved in the negotiations on the EEA Agreement, I would also like to highlight another positive aspect – that it is an effective and innovative instrument.

By this I am, unfortunately, implying that not all international agreements produce the results hoped for or required. Nor is unnecessary red tape or duplication of administration always avoided. This is regrettable.

The EEA Agreement, on the other hand, is an effective agreement.

Firstly, it requires little administration, either in Norway or in the EU, in relation to its scope. A well-functioning decision-making system and monitoring mechanism have been established.

Secondly, the dynamic nature of the EEA Agreement is innovative. New Community acts are continually being incorporated. The Agreement does not become out-of-date. On the contrary, it is constantly being up-dated.

But there is of course the problem that cooperation in Europe is developing in a large number of other areas that are not covered by the EEA Agreement. This is not something that can be blamed on the Agreement itself, but it has to be given proper attention in the ongoing debate on Europe.

The positive aspects of the EEA Agreement are attracting attention in the international arena. Vassilios Skouris, President of the European Court of Justice, pointed out recently that the cooperation between the EU and EFTA is an excellent example of dialogue and cooperation on international policy between judicial institutions. I agree with him.

A third strength of the EEA Agreement is that it has both proved to be robust  and produced results, even though Norway has had to pick up a big share of the tab.

In the next round of enlargement, we will send a clear signal to the EU that Norway cannot be put into a different category to other countries.

The EEA Agreement has been robust enough to deal with major changes in Europe, including the EU enlargement, and it has been productive enough to further develop the cooperation between Norway and the EU.

*****

But we must also look at the longer, historical lines. It is true that the EEA Agreement is dynamic and ensures that new rules are incorporated. But it will never enable us to participate in the full breadth of cooperation that is emerging.

I would now like to turn your attention a little back in time.

We must not forget that the EEA Agreement was a response to the plans to establish the Single Market in the middle of the 1980s. It is now more than 20 years since the first talks were held between EFTA and the EC in high-level working groups. The Agreement we speak so favourably of today – in 2006 – is therefore primarily a response to the challenges of the 1980s.

The idea of establishing a large European Economic Area was launched by Jacques Delors in January 1989. The EFTA side, led by Gro Harlem Brundtland, followed up this initiative closely, and as early as spring 1989 an arrangement between the EC and EFTA was established.

In other words, the EEA was conceived at a time when Europe was quite different to what it is today – indeed just a few months before the dramatic upheavals of autumn 1989, when courageous people were taking to the streets, demanding their rights, cutting holes in fences, crossing borders and tearing down the Wall.

Since then, changes have taken place at record-breaking speed.

The EC has become the EU.

Cooperation has extended into new areas.

The German and Finnish mark have been replaced by the euro.

The EU has expanded from 12 countries solely in Western Europe to 25 countries throughout Europe.

And today European eyes are turning further eastwards, towards Belarus, where the fight for democracy, participation and human rights is in full swing. The election in March was a far cry from the principles of free and democratic elections. Together with the EU and the OSCE, we condemn the arrests of members of the opposition and underline that this is a new battle for democracy in Europe.

We also have to remember that the context of the EEA Agreement was altered significantly when Sweden, Finland and Austria joined the EU, and EFTA was substantially reduced.

But the ship did not sink. It weathered the storm. 

When seen from this perspective, another outstanding quality of the EEA Agreement is the fact that it still functions well.

And although it does not provide for our participation in all new areas, it has served as a springboard for us, for example in the field of justice and home affairs, as well as in the common defence, foreign and security policy. Just a couple of weeks ago, we signed an agreement on participation in the European Defence Agency (EDA).

The Schengen agreement is another example. At first we were informed by the EU that we could not take part. We then flew EU representatives along the whole of the Norwegian border to show them exactly what they would have to defend if Norway was not allowed to participate.  

Robust and innovative. These qualities of the EEA Agreement have provided us with predictability and a firm and stable framework that have been valuable in rapidly changing times.

I would also like to add that the Agreement has been and still is a well-functioning political compromise for Norway.

All Norwegian governments – regardless of political colour and support in the Storting – have continued to govern on the basis of the EEA Agreement. This is not something that should be taken for granted in an area where there have at times been severe political storms, with strong tension between opposite poles.

I think we would have experienced a considerable degree of instability and insecurity if every government over the last 15-20 years had had to forge its own form of cooperation with Europe. 

I know that in many people’s eyes, the EEA, being the compromise it is, has almost been too successful. During the EEA negotiations, I remember Member of the Storting Jon Lilletun constantly asking whether the EEA would be a permanent solution. And Gro Harlem Brundtland would answer, “The EEA will be a permanent solution – until something else turns up.”

*****

In short, the Government believes that there are many good reasons for defending the EEA Agreement:

• it is fulfilling its objectives,
• it is effective and innovative,
• it has been robust and fruitful, and
• it has worked well as a political compromise.

But no defence of the EEA can change the fact that the Agreement has its limits, that it does not reflect the whole of the EU’s agenda or its full development – for better and for worse.

This is my second main theme here today.

And here I would like us to speculate for a moment. What kind of agreement would we have if it was negotiated today? What do you think?

Of course it is a hypothetical question, but I believe Norway would want a more extensive cooperation that better reflected the increasingly important role of the European Parliament, and included cooperation in areas such as foreign, security and international development policy. I believe we would want more formal access to the EU’s various strategic priority areas, from the Lisbon strategy to the energy strategy that is currently taking shape.

On the other hand, it might be more difficult to establish the institutional arrangements we were able to achieve when we were negotiating with a full EFTA team. The two-pillar solution is important for us, even though the pillars can hardly be called balanced.

But the formalities are important here. While the agreement and arrangements that we have today give us the opportunity to influence Community legislation, there is no guarantee of influence.

Nevertheless, nothing is incorporated into Norwegian legislation without us deciding it should be.

So I don’t agree with those who maintain that the EEA Agreement has made Norway a “fax democracy”.

At the same time we have to be realistic. When we look at the map of Europe and the way it is organised, we see that Norway is not at the centre.

But neither are we on the periphery, and we should be the last to make ourselves smaller and less important than we are.

The EEA Agreement entitles us to take part in the early stages of the EU decision-making process. But is does not give us the right to vote. We are not sitting at the table when the decisions are being taken.

We have to utilise other channels to exert an influence, and these are often more informal than the ones used by the Member States.

When we are out of sight we are often out of mind.

That is how the EEA is. And we have to find ways to remedy the situation.

Being part of the EEA is a challenging position that sets tough requirements, both to us here in Norway, and to our foreign service missions. And I believe these challenges can only be met if we have an active European policy.

This is why the Government has set itself the target of revitalising the work on European issues.

If we are to follow a proactive European policy, we have to be better at identifying opportunities and focusing on what and where we can contribute.

The EU wants a dialogue with us because we have resources, expertise and experience.

Let us look at the most obvious area – energy – where significant developments are under way.

Both the European Commission and the Member States regard Norway as one of their most important strategic energy partners.

The EU imports around half of the energy it consumes and this share could rise to 70 per cent in 15 years. Secure access to energy is at the top of the agenda. The proactive approach the EU is taking to its energy policy was clear at the European Council meeting last week.

And we are finding that our European friends are very interested in developments in the High North.

In the last few days, I have been discussing energy issues and have explained and drawn diagrams of the High North with the Foreign Ministers of Estonia and Germany.

Yesterday my German colleague, Mr Steinmeier, and his delegation visited Melkøya, off Hammerfest, and saw for themselves a new energy region in the north taking shape.

It is all very impressive, and it seems that the perspectives and challenges in the north first become really clear when people see this enormous, advanced plant for themselves.

They also see how magnificent and vulnerable the natural environment in these areas is.

Another issues is the question of social justice, employment and economic development in Europe.

Here I find the EU is showing increasing interest in what are generally called “Nordic solutions”: the way we combine a flexible labour market with security for the individual, and strive to prevent social dumping. These solutions are not unique to Norway, but here too we have something to offer. 

The fact is that the Nordic countries have been successful. There are several reasons for this:

• we have had a great deal of confidence in each other, and have been able to understand and take into account each other’s interests
• we have had an overarching objective of providing equal opportunities for all
• we have a taxation system that aims to ensure redistribution of wealth
• we have an active and – in an international perspective – efficient public sector
• and the social partners have played a constructive role.

Therefore, as I have made clear before, I do not hesitate to promote this model. I agree with Grete Berget, the leader of the European Movement, who underlined in an excellent article in the daily newspaper Dagsavisen  recently the importance of seeing our welfare reforms in the light of the changes in the rest of Europe. In the early 1990s, many people predicted the demise of the Nordic model. Now we are hearing a different tune. The Nordic model and the Nordic redistribution mechanisms are making us better equipped to take part in the knowledge economy.

It is not the internal market that is threatening the European welfare states, but globalisation and the inability to constantly reform and develop them.

I mentioned education and culture earlier. Another field in which we have developed close cooperation with the EU is research. Norwegian participants have been included in around 2 500 applications to the EU’s Sixth Framework Programme, and nearly a third of these applications have been successful. This places Norwegian researchers at the top of the league, together with Belgium, France and the Netherlands. Thus we are taking out just about as much as we are putting in, in addition to gaining access to leading centres of excellence.

The important point here is that influencing the development of Europe requires knowledge, insight and networks; and it requires commitment.

During the course of the spring, the Government will present an action plan for European policy, which we will call EEA plus. The objective of this plan is to ensure that our European policy is firmly based on clear and timely political priorities.

We intend to inform the Storting about issues that are important for Norway at an early stage, even if we are unable to take part in the decision-making process. One example here is the EU green paper on energy.

Ine Marie Eriksen has called EEA plus “membership minus”. I think it is good for the debate that the action plan has different names.

When I referred to providing information at an early stage, I was pointing to the importance of Norway being involved early enough – at the start of any decision processes where we have strong interests.

But we don’t need to be deeply involved in all issues. In many cases we have shared interests with the EU. In many cases EU policy is advantageous for Norway too. And when 25 countries reach agreement, we generally agree as well. But not always. Therefore we have to be alert, strategic and proactive.

We are currently reviewing our routines and procedures so that we are better able to promote our interests and views.

We intend to concentrate our efforts in certain areas. The reorganisation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Foreign Service, with emphasis on promoting a modern knowledge organisation, will support these changes.

Openness, competence and participation will be decisive for our success.

We have to pull together and become better at seeing things in perspective.

We have to strive to increase knowledge throughout society. We must bolster education and research in this field.

The members of the Government are no exception. We need adult education programmes. We have sent all the state secretaries and political advisers on a course in Brussels, and we will hold an EU seminar for the Government in the near future.

In connection with these efforts, we will also strengthen the dialogue and cooperation with regional and local authorities, and with the social partners, interest organisations, think tanks, research communities, media and other parties.

Here – yes, in this very room – there are many people with experience, expertise and valuable networks. Many of you know exactly where the shoe pinches and where we can become better. It is the Ministry’s job to find ways of involving you in these efforts.

Together we have to find out how we can make better use of our shared knowledge base.

*****

This brings me to my final theme – one that I outlined at the beginning: the need for an active debate on Europe. As I have already pointed out, an active debate is essential for an active policy. By talking together we will find solutions. Discussion breeds engagement. Openness casts light over the issues at stake.

The Government wants to help the elected representatives become involved in a more meaningful way in the development of our European policy, by ensuring that they receive information at an early stage and are in an even better position to take part in debates at important crossroads and on future challenges.

In this way we will bring to the fore the breadth of Norwegian viewpoints, which will create a better basis for exerting an influence. 

The debate on Europe should not just be taking place between the experts, politicians with specialist knowledge, well prepared journalists and commentators. Neither should it be taking place solely in the formal channels. The European issues should be debated in the media we read and listen to, in the public spaces for discussion and wherever people share their thoughts and opinions.

And as I said at the beginning, the European debate should not be reduced to the question of membership. It should be about that too, but not just that. Otherwise all we will have is polarisation: “us” against “them”.

The nuances can easily be lost. Too much importance can be attached to what form our cooperation with Europe should take.

The European debate would be a more valuable resource if it both allowed more room for ambivalence and dilemmas, and highlighted the opportunities and freedom of action that we have, rather than just being a black/white, yes/no issue.

We have to be aware of, interpret and understand what is going on in the EU to be able to exert an influence.

We have to be able to act at the right time and in the right way.

The Government will therefore take some concrete steps to revitalise the European debate.

• We will improve reporting on European issues.
• We will foster greater openness and make our European policy more visible.
• We will provide better insight into our activities, our priorities and the results that are achieved.
• We will increase our support to the organisations that are engaged in European issues, as we announced in our policy platform.
• We will encourage the business sector to take part in the public debate both on legislation that is being drafted in the EU and on the general European policy agenda.

I believe there should be more focus on the fact that European cooperation is about joint problem solving. Take the situation in Belarus, for example. This is an urgent issue on the European policy agenda.

• It is all a question of how we are going to:
• secure peace and stability
• address climate and environmental challenges
• deal with cross-border health problems
• ensure social development, welfare and justice, at both national and European level, and prevent social dumping
• strengthen the dialogue between different cultural and religions communities – the great dialogue project of our time

just to mention a few.

When I meet my colleagues in the EU, it is to discuss concrete practical solutions to the challenges that we are all facing and that unite us, such as human trafficking, the spread of avian flu, the response to the cartoon issue, preventing illegal  fishing, the development of the High North.

I agree with Dag Seierstad, who wrote in the daily newspaper Nationen last year that one of the weaknesses of the European debate is that everyone seems so quick to disagree about everything: where we stand, where we are going, what tools we have at our disposal.

This makes discussion difficult, and the disagreements can easily overshadow the full range of opportunities.

There are differing views within the Government on the question of membership, but we have no problem agreeing on the values and interests that we want to protect in individual matters.

I would therefore like to challenge the European Movement and No to the EU to sit down together and apply your combined expertise, which is considerable, to hammer out some joint positions on certain important issues.

I’m not joking, even though it is April Fool’s Day. I believe you would agree on a number of important areas. And I believe this would also clarify where the real disagreement lies – apart from the obvious issues – and what it consists of. Disagreement is good, and it is valid, but it should not eclipse everything that we can and should agree on.

If you accept this challenge, I would like to invite you to present the outcome of your discussions at the first meeting of the new national forum on Europe that we are in the process of establishing. I will give you more information at a later date about the format, composition and functions of this forum, in the light of other countries’ experience of similar models, but it is already clear that participation should be broad – including various organisations and, not least, parliamentarians. And I intend to chair the forum myself.

A joint contribution from you would revitalise the European debate, and it would help create an active European policy.

*****

For more than 15 years, politicians have made speeches on the EEA Agreement. A great deal has been said. I think it is important that every now and again we stop, look back and try to see the larger picture.

The EEA Agreement has worked better than many expected and better than others feared.

Gro Harlem Brundtland, whom I keep returning to – and not without reason – said at the beginning of 1995 that Norway, “benefits from joint rules that are followed by everyone – both strong and weak. The EEA Agreement is now our most important mooring. We must keep a close watch on this mooring to make sure that it holds.”

It has held. Successive governments have watched over the Agreement well.

I have given you a challenge, and I hope you will grasp the opportunity it offers. Together we can renew the debate and our policy on Europe. I hope very much, therefore, that I will be seeing you in the new national forum on Europe.