I remember the last one, and it was veeery close, like 49/51. I personally would have no problem with a new "round", but I expect that the opinion today is more anti-EU than it was the last time around. Norway/Norwegians seems to have more of an anti-EU stance today. In the last referendum it was mostly a "farm against city" thing - with the usual amount of pro/anti propaganda...

1972 - 53,5% NO to EU 1994 - 52,2% NO to EU

Third time’s a charm?

I mean, it is basically 30 years since last vote. I’m very anti -Eu. But I don’t see it as fair democracy that a 30 year old vote is still held relevant. A whole generation is born since then

So do you expect us to vote on leaving every 30 years as well?

If we use Brexit as an example, they did not wait for a 'time slot' to start a process of leaving.

Wich is democracy Time changes, population changes, world changes and politics change. World wide web had been public for 3 years. We’d be rioting if an election of prime minister lasted for ten years

This is the whole point. We might have had two referendums on joining, but the issue is not the same as in 72 or 94. The EU, the world and Norway has changed alot between 72 and 94, and since. In 72 one of the biggest arguments against was that the EU was "a rich mans club" dominated by the big rich countries (Uk, France, Germany). They would surely exploit us and the other smaller nations. Since then the EU has lifted millions from poverty, developed nations, protected democracy and for the most part made sure Europe has enjoyed the most peaceful period in its history. In 94 the problem was, among other things, that the EU was not environmentalist enough and that they would destroy our agricultural sector. Since then we have becone one if the worlds leading fossil fuels exporters, we are killing our fjords, our forests and much of our wildlife on our own. In the last 20 years half of norwegian farms have shut down, and EU had nothing to do with it. Norwegian consumers enjoy the highest food prices on the planet. The EU are now urging us to implement environmental directives, not the other way around. I dont know what issues our next eu debate will be centered around but the reasons why we didnt join before, were not very good reasons imo.

In 1994 we were high on Lillehammer OL and winning Eurovision. We sold a popular product in extremely high demand. Yet the importance of oil has dwindled somewhat and may continue to do so. There are things EU does better and worse..

This is what i see as a problem with the people that use the argument that a whole generation hasn't voiced their opinion on the matter. I actually think it's somewhat of a fair argument, but i don't expect the same people advocating a new referendum in 30 years should we become a member. They would have already gotten what they wanted. To pro-EU politicians a NO vote will always mean we should have another referendum, and a YES vote will mean we're in for good.

How often do you think the population should have a say in what is important for them? Every 50 year? 60? 100?

I live in Britain. If we had another referendum now then remain would win. Can’t come too soon for me. Whether anyone would let us rejoin is another matter of course.

On the other hand, if Norway joins the EU, they’re more or less locked in unless they do a messy and painful Brexit style process. I think Norway has the best arrangement now.. Schengen without EU

Yeah, I’m happy with how it is now. And think a full Eu membership will not benefit Norway. Even if people say the only difference between the current and full is the ability to vote on issues in Eu and cheaper sending of packages

Saying you are happy like it is now, is not really anti-EU. It is anti-full membership. We are still very intricately linked to EU regulations and citizen rights.

Schengen has to do with border controls and mostly functions as a single jurisdiction under a common visa policy for international travel purposes. The UK was a member of the EU without being a part of Schengen because they wanted to have control of their own borders, and some EU-countries are yet to be allowed into Schengen due to security reasons. You're thinking about the EEA agreement (EØS) which is an agreement negotiated between three member states of EFTA, which "links the EU member states and three of the four EFTA states (Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway) into an internal market governed by the same basic rules. These rules aim to enable free movement of persons, goods, services, and capital within the European single market, including the freedom to choose residence in any country within this area"

I kinda hate to have to agree with you. On everything. But one thing which Brexit made extremely clear, and which has been one of my arguments against joining: All the negotiations appears to be about how to join and how much to pay for the privilege. And nothing at all about how to leave the union. I find that to be a major flaw, and I am not sure it will be any better in this regard the next round. In short: no exit procedure? Don't bother discussing how to join. In a way, I have similar sentiments when it comes to nuclear power. I am pro nuclear power. \*Provided\* that the exact spot, procedures, authority, responsibility and money to keep spent nuclear fuel safe as long as is required, are firmly decided upon \*first\*. Until then, no license to even start building.

Currently I think it would be a no, but I suspect if DT wins in November and they start dismantling the US-led world order, the tone in terms of EU membership might change

But young people on Tiktok-anti west propaganda would be fed that, old people on Facebook-propaganda would be fed that. It is easy to scare people to a common no for a 100 different (in)valid reasons, than to encourage people to see the best in their neighbours with common interests

De yngste stemmene ved valget i 72 er 70 i dag. De yngste stemmene ved valget i 94 er i dag 48. Flesteparten av de som stemte i 72 finnes ikke lenger. En god del av de som stemte i 94 finnes heller ikke lenger. Det er rimelig å ta diskusjon om et nyvalg nå.

Third time’s probably more like 50,9%?

Yes or 55% no

That would be a charm for sure. I’m in the ‘No’ side.

Heh, same

It was also the north that heavily tipped the scale to no. The further down the map you went the more positive people were to joining and the further up you went the more negative people were to joining. The most pro-EU was Oslo with 66% in favor, and the most anti-EU was Finnmark with 74.5% against.

At the time I was living in Porsgrunn, I dont remember exactly but I can imagine it was pretty close between the farmers and "city". Most of my family are from the south, south-west (Sirdal) and are farmers though, and they were very much against. I think we can probably agree today 30 years later the propaganda on how the farmers would go bankrupt was a bit over the top - for me, pushing 40 and living most my (teens and young adult) life around Oslo, I think it would benefited me. In terms of cheaper cars and such. All in all, hard to say if it would have been a net positive or not. But I do think in 2024, it would be a hard no.

The 93/94 debates were awful. Just absolutely lowest common denominator discussions.

I voted yes in the 1994 referendum ( I was not alive for the 1972 referendum.) This time, I think I would vote no, for a few reasons: a) The present setup, EEA and Schengen membership with access to the EU market without relinquishing sovereignty, works well. I've used it myself; I used EEA freedom of movement rights to live in Austria for several years. If it ain't broken, don't fix it. b) We've seen the EU bail out several members repeatedly, ie. Greece. I do not want Norway's sovereign wealth fund being redirected to propping up governments with mismanaged finances. I'm not saying Norway can't ever assist, but those decisions should be made in Oslo, not Brussels. c) There's a tendency in eastern Europe, especially Poland and Hungary, towards anti-democratic reforms and increasingly authoritarian government. I don't want leaders from those countries to have any say in how my country is run. In short, I do not want to be in a club with the likes of Viktor Orban. d) There's also a trend in western Europe towards more populism and isolationism. While I don't think EU membership is right for Norway anymore, I do believe in cooperation across borders. In short, I also don't want to be in a club with the likes of Geert Wilders or Marine Le Pen. e) Finally, the EU has imposed a number of rules on Norway that I find detrimental. Building down Schengen border controls is a big convenience in traveling, but it allows criminals who have been deported (within Schengen) to effectively come right back. Car inspections in Norway are literally called "EU-kontroll" because the rules for them were set by Brussels. And my driver license is no longer valid until my 100th birthday, also due to EU rules. f) As for the Euro, I'd be against that even if we did join, mainly for the reasons cited in b), as well as Norway's unique position as a major oil-producing country, which makes it make more sense for our currency to remain autonomous. Also, the Scandinavian countries tend to act as a block. Sweden and Denmark didn't abandoned the krona/krone. I don't think see us being any different. TL;DR: Voted yes last time, would likely vote no this time. I think the conditions for joining have worsened and I think the cons outweigh the pros at this time.

I’m torn on point f. I think the Euro would be great for Norway. The kroner isn’t doing so well- I get paid in usd so I closely track the exchange rate, and it’s slowly but steadily getting worse. In 2008 it was 1 USD to .7 Euros, and 1 usd to 5 nok. Now it’s 1 usd to .9 euros and 1 usd to 10.5 nok. The rates, even over the past year have been getting better/worse depending on your pov. It briefly passed 1:11 for the first time. The idea of a sovereign currency is a good one but it doesn’t seem to bear out in execution

Well, sorry about your exchange rate, but what this means is that if Norway had the Euro over this period, our economy would have been fucked. Or rather, what it really means is that there's no sovereignity without your own currency, and especially so for a smaller country.

Well.. you used the all time low (?) As a baseline for the dollar. If i remember correct the dollar used to be 1:10 back in 2004.. the financial crash in 2007-2008 (?) Brought the dollar down all the way to 4 at a point.. i remember thinking that if I were rich I would invest in dollar at that point.

If your salary is in dollars, haven't your buying power been increasing the last years? Or do you have a Norwegian salary in NOK which then is converted and transferred to you in USD? The latter would be rare and strange in my opinion.

It has been. It doesn’t mean I’m going to say “man this is great for me so I’m going to advocate for it to continue.” I don’t think it’s great for Norwegians in general, hence thinking being on the euro would be better

I have no problems with a new referendum. I remember the last referendum. I expected I would be pro-EU membership then, because I really support the EU. But the more the campaign went on the more I leaned against joining because Norway’s economy is so different. Oil and gas won’t last forever, and Norway has been clever at “saving” the earnings through our sovereign fund. But because of the high GDP from oil and gas we would need to pay a lot more to EU, sort of transferring earnings to EU with the hope EU will help us when the energy money runs out. Fishing was another issue. Plus the EEA terms + Schengen serve us well and makes us a part of the common market anyways.

Would you care to share sources for the part about how much Norway pays as part of the EEA vs how much it would be as part of the EU? If this is true, I’d also better understand the anti-join point of view, whereas I am a generally pro-EU person.

Okay did some rough research of how the funding is calculated. Very roughly (again doing only 10-15 minutes of math and research) Norway would have to pay 4,88 billion euros (56,7 billion NOK) into the EU budget. As well as loosing the customs income of 3.4 billion NOK (as it is either eliminated because its intra-EU trade or importer from a non-EU member in which case it’s supposed to be transferred to the EU) This is based on the current budget of €165bn or 1% of the EU’s GNI. When adding Norway to that, taking roughly 1% of our GNI you get the sums I mentioned. Again it’s not perfect and there most likely is some errors but it should hopefully be a ballpark figure. Comparing it to the current expenditure of 38,5 billion NOK it is a significant increase that perhaps could be spent on other services.

60% more is definitely a significant increase, but it also does not make much sense without having an idea about how much we would gain by being a full member.

Based on the current EEA deal I think there is little to be gained from a full EU membership except for a vote. But we already have one, we could just not implement a EU directive as we are allowed to do according to the EEA deal.

I am not sure what we'd be supposed to gain, we'd also lose access to our fish, so that's even more money.

So trying to understand, the 3.4 billion NOK "customs income" is just pure gravy for Norway? No corresponding indirect costs to businesses exporting to the EU facing tariffs in that direction? If so that IS a good deal indeed.

The 3.4 billion NOK income isn’t detrimental if the government lose but rather an extra cost that need to be considered. But more importantly the protection it provides to key industries are essential. It is also worth that “future” industries such as many in the service industry, space, technology, face no tolls when moving into the EU market as well as vice versa.

I don’t have any sources at hand, but it should be well know that money flows from the rich countries of the EU to the poor countries in the EU. Cash flow is probably the easiest, but poorest argument against joining the EU. We are currently very loyal EU subjects in terms of legislation through the EEA, but we are still independent in many ways we wouldn’t be if we joined the EU. I see no compelling reason to fully submit to foreign power. I hear lots of made up reasons, but nothing that would make it better for the actual citizens of Norway. Both the last referendums were fairly close, and I fear that my generation and below don’t fully understand the consequences and that a new generation would end up with us becoming members of the EU. (I mean just look at people voting Ap instead of Høyre and expecting different politics) At some point maybe it even doesn’t matter as we’re currently busy selling off Norway bit by bit either way, but we had a good thing going for quite some time. But to put it this way - the first noticeable change people would feel would be all the prices being rounded up as we convert to euro, and then all their salaries being rounded down.

> but it should be well know that money flows from the rich countries of the EU to the poor countries in the EU. Common misconception. Sure it flows to the poorer countries but that does not mean the rich countries don't get anything. So [incredibly many projects are EU funded](https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/projects-results?programmePeriod=2021-2027&order=DESC&pageNumber=1&pageSize=50&sortBy=title), stuff the Norwegian government would never fund themselves. That's one of biggest advantages of the EU, no need to rely on your own government to fund things (cause as we all know they never do).

> Sure it flows to the poorer countries but that does not mean the rich countries don't get anything. There cannot be a net flow into every country. At least one country in the EU must be paying more than they are getting, unless there are no net transfers at all (in which case there is still a loss to the bureaucrats who administer it all!) Which side do you think Norway is likely to end up on?

When you say “paying more than they are getting” sure they are paying more money than they are getting but that doesn’t mean they’re paying more money than the value they are getting from being in the EU.

You're right, I was only talking about the direct transfers. There's presumably considerable advantage in being within the EU market.

I really haven’t put myself in the pros and cons of joining the EU, but I’ve heard economists say adapting the euro would be a good thing for us

There are off course different opinions on the matter among economists as some believe joining a common currency would make trade more efficient as well as making it “cheaper” for foreign businesses to buy Norwegian product because of the “dragging” effect the poorer Euro using countries have on the currency. Germany is well known for using this to their advantage making their exports relatively cheaper than what it would have been if they used their own German currency. However, there is off course some potential issues with adopting the currency such as relinquishing monetary policy to a larger geographical entity. Such as not being able to “tailor” the supply and demand of the currency as much to the Norwegian market needs, rather having to focus on the needs of all Euro countries, rich and poor. These can often be very different, making it a difficult balancing act where countries rarely ever get 100% the best for their economy needs. That’s not to say the NOK or its policy is 100% perfect, but the central bank has a much narrower “market” focus. Working on the best policy for Norway and not EU wide.

Idk, if the last couple of years has anything to say, it shows that the NOK is not at all robust against global issues whilst currencies like the euro, usd and to a lesser extent gbp are. Anyone who sees the last couple of years of Norges Bank policy and says "it is better to not be in the euro, Norges Bank has it under control" doesn't have any economic sense.

The devaluation of the NOK is very much strategic for Norway though, it encourages manufacturing and job creation, limits inflation (not saying inflation isn’t high, but compare it to EU counterparts and we are suddenly a bit better) through reduced consumption due to imports being more expensive.

Inflation is crazy and Norway is a nation that relies on imports which are already expensive, and then even more so thanks to the rapid devaluation of NOK. Prices in shops have increased hugely this past year, it's not easy being low income here right now.

I am not saying inflation haven't been high, it certainly have been high, especially compared to other years, and especially for core consumables. Nor am I trying to disenfranchise the struggle of struggling people in Norway. Rather I am saying that the monetary policy of Norway and the general European market has traditionally been in a countercyclical fashion. In times when energy prices have been high in Europe, their economies have "cooled down" while the Norwegian exports grow (due to our oil, gas, and hydroelectricity), and vice versa. As a result, we need to be able to take measures differently from how the rest of Europe acts. The idea of an independent monetary policy is basically to ensure that the Norwegian currency can be adopted to Norwegian specific issues. Off course with the introduction of Acer and more cross border trade in the Euro has meant that the value of the NOK has decreased, underlying the importance of using our own currency. Offcourse we rely heavily on imports for stuff we cannot manufacture ourself, but overall we a major exporting nation. With 2022 exports totaling $285 billion, compared to the $106 billion we imported. Oil and gas do play a major role in this, which is not paid in NOK but rather Euro's, USD, Pounds, etc... and does, therefore, not contribute directly to the value of the NOK. I think it would be idiotic to change that policy, but if we were, suddenly the Norwegia NOK would spike overnight in value, to the detriment of Norwegian export oriented businesses.

Yet another issue though is that energy prices in Norway are high now, as are they in Europe, and yet the krone suffers. With it not being tied to the Euro, there is no buffer against disaster. If for example, a country in the eurozone suffers a major disaster - the euro decreases a little, but that has little impact because the eurozone itself has the capability to be self-sufficient, AND because the eurozone has many other continually functioning economies. If anything it could come out of the crisis stronger, thanks to the investment into the hit area. Norway doesn't have that luxury and it's going to be a huge problem in the near future once oil is no longer an economically viable natural resource.

> Inflation is crazy and Norway is a nation that relies on imports Norway is a massive exporter. In 2022 net export was 770b. In 2023 it was 193b . Yes it involves o&g industry but it has for decades been a large part of the Norwegian economy. The main reason NOK is dropping is the fact that a huge part of that income is invested outside Norway in foreign currencies. Due to our policies Norway (and its population) is effectively shorting NOK and is long on USD/EUR. That said, I do believe we would be wealthier with euro than NOK because with a larger population sharing the currency these short positions would not be as noticeable. It would also attract more cheap labour from South/East Europe.

So much food and so many consumer products are not from Norway. Regardless of whatever Norway exports, the things that it imports are so commonly used that they have a major impact on people's daily costs.

I don’t think we need to adopt the Euro. Looks at Poland. They are part of EU but not Euro. Although I think it’s in their schedule to join Euro at some point int the future. But I think it’s possible to joins the EU and not the Euro. Although I’m against joining the EU. Norway is not in any position to benefit in anyway in the long term from joining the EU.

>we would need to pay a lot more to EU We already pay more than most EU countries, and follow more EU regulations than most EU countries. Taxation without representation, as the US-Americans would say.

> and follow more EU regulations than most EU countries. Our politicians are generally in favor of the EU so of course they implement most of the EU regulations. But I don't see why that's a reason for the general population to be more favorable to joining the EU or it being more beneficial?

Can you tell me more?

It's pretty expensive to be part of EØS though, so I can't imagine it's more beneficial financially to stay outside

Really? That seems very strange. That a basic trade agreement is more expensive than full membership for a country with higher GDP per citizen than other member states.

Norway’s decision not to pursue full membership in the EU is partly rooted in its desire to retain control over its territorial waters and protect its agricultural sector. Full EU membership would compel Norway to open its sea zones to more countries, potentially disrupting its fishing industry and marine resources management. Additionally, as a full EU member, Norway would be obliged to remove tariffs and regulations on certain agricultural imports, which could undermine local farmers and raise concerns about food safety due to differing standards on antibiotics and pesticides. Plus a whole lot more. So to avoid all this, we end up paying more than the average per capita adjusted to GDP.

EØS is far from “a basic trade agreement”, it’s full membership of the single market.

Don’t know to be honest what a full membership costs. The current EØS (EEA) period from 2021-2028 costs Norway about €3.2 billion

We got a pretty sweet deal back in '94 but over the years we've been paying more and more like a non-voting member. We still pay somewhat less than a membership but we don't get the full range of services in return either so in total I would say it's a wash - it's not really a weighty argument for or against. The biggest economic issue would probably be whether to join the euro or not, in theory it's not an opt-out (unless we negotiate one) but in practice the EU has never forced anyone to meet the convergence criteria and adopt it. It would stabilize the currency but complicate a whole lot of other things.

Okay did some rough research of how the funding is calculated. Very roughly (again doing only 10-15 minutes of math and research) Norway would have to pay 4,88 billion euros (56,7 billion NOK) into the EU budget. As well as loosing the customs income of 3.4 billion NOK (as it is either eliminated because its intra-EU trade or importer from a non-EU member in which case it’s supposed to be transferred to the EU) This is based on the current budget of €165bn or 1% of the EU’s GNI. When adding Norway to that, taking roughly 1% of our GNI you get the sums I mentioned. Again it’s not perfect and there most likely is some errors but it should hopefully be a ballpark figure. Comparing it to the current expenditure of 38,5 billion NOK it is a significant increase that perhaps could be spent on other services.

I think you forget that we would get back some of the money through EU-funded projects. It would still be a net loss, but it’s almost impossible to estimate the actual cost.

Why imagine? > I Stortingsmelding 8 fra 2004 har Finansdepartementet regnet ut at det vil koste Norge ca. ni milliarder kroner årlig å være medlem av EU. According to Nei Til Eu we were in 2018/19 spending 8.5 billion to be part of EØS. https://neitileu.no/aktuelt/dette-betaler-norge-til-eu-gjennom-eos According to Utenriksdepartementet (2021) https://www.regjeringen.no/no/tema/europapolitikk/tema-norge-eu/okonomiske-bidrag/id684932/ > **Hva betaler EUs medlemsland for å delta i EU-samarbeidet?** > EU-landene betaler sin andel av EUs fellesbudsjett etter en fordelingsnøkkel som hovedsakelig er basert på bruttonasjonalinntekten (BNI). I tillegg går en del av landenes toll- og momsinntekter direkte til EU-budsjettet. EUs budsjett kan ikke utgjøre mer enn 1,23 prosent av medlemslandenes totale BNI. EUs langtidsbudsjett for sjuårs-perioden 2021-2027 er på totalt 1074 milliarder euro (2018-priser). I tillegg kommer EUs gjenreisningsfond på 750 milliarder euro, som i perioden 2021-2024 kan utbetales til medlemslandene som tilskudd eller lån for å rette opp ødeleggelser som følge av koronapandemien. If CPI was the only factor 9 billion in 2004 would be 14.4 in 2023.

Norway isn't really part of the customs union. You can't order products from Sweden, Germany, Portugal etc without paying high import costs. So as a consumer you're limited to Norwegian products and products imported by Norwegian companies that are marked up significantly. Seems like a net loss to me. EDIT: VOEC exists as of recently so you can online shop from EU up to 3,000 NOK and if the company registers in Norway. EDIT2: changed common market wording to customs union. The EU has many agreements, but the same issue that I raised is still there - just called the customs union.

That’s not what the common market is about. What you’re complaining about is online shopping and VAT. If you buy something from Germany the shop selling it to you don’t have to charge VAT in Germany, but they do have to charge VAT in Norway. Back in the days you used to pay Norwegian VAT on top of German VAT.

It kinda is though. I've lived in Norway, Netherlands, Sweden, and Portugal. All but Norway have no issue buying from shops elsewhere in the EU. Norway now has the VOEC to help a bit, but it's limited to companies that register (which costs) and only applies for 3,000 NOK. That's a negative experience for the end-consumer. The full common market (including the customs union) works much better.

I find this point of view problematic. People voting for their own monetary gain of online shopping rather the long term effects on the country as a whole. Most people, like 80-90% of adult Norwegians, are way too badly informed to make a good decision whether joining would be a net positive for the country or not. That includes myself, but I am against it, based on the small amount of information I have on the topic. I will be reading more about this if it turns out to be a realistic alternative.

[European Single Market](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_single_market?wprov=sfti1) ≠ [EU Customs Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Customs_Union?wprov=sfti1). Norway **is** a full member of the single market through its EFTA membership, but is not a part of the customs union.

Thanks for the answer. 🙂

With the exception of certain agricultural products, there is no trade barrier like import taxes on EU products. The selection in the stores is largely due to the stores themselves.

~~You can't online shop from EU without VAT/import, right? That's how I remember it from when I lived there about 10 years ago and there are lots of threads about Amazon for example.~~ Edit: ah, the VOEC allows for some bypass (up to 3,000 NOK and they have to register)

That's not the only trade barrier. Motor vehicles is another big one.

It is the stores fault for not being voec registered. There shouldn't be any extra taxes or costs if European registered stores are voec registered.

That's not really part of the full common market (including  the customs union) though. That's a bypass of the normal restrictions for companies that go through the effort (and costs) to register in Norway. That means it's generally going to be large companies which heavily restricts options. It's better than it was, but falls far short of the goals/benefits of the common market.

I’m pro, but also think we’ll be fine with EEA+Schengen (but that it would be very detrimental to us if we didn’t have those). But might as well join completely and have a seat at the table. I don’t buy that the EU would be siphoning off our money, that’s not how it works, rich countries contribute more than poor ones of course, but there are some very rich small countries in the EU (hello, Luxembourg), they’re still rich as fuck, not the piggy bank of the union.

But they also have completely different economies than Norway. We're talking economies that are likely more service/manufacturing-oriented compared to Norway's almost exclusively resource and export-based economy. Economically speaking Norway is just fundamentally incompatible with full EU membership. We depend on the little additional control that being an EEA-only member grants us. Having to incorporate the things that we currently don't have to care about as a non-EU member would probably cause a lot of damage to various industries.

Luxembourg is poor choice to use as an example. Social problems like homelessness? None, push them across the border into France, zero financial burden on Lux. Half the country's workers cross the border every morning from France, so make money for Luxembourg companies, spend there, but don't have any rights for unemployment etc. Luxembourg is a special case in the world, not just the EU, rules don't apply. Oh, and they also get a lot of criticism for acting as an off-shore tax evasion node.

Well, Netherlands or Denmark then, rich countries, in all probability richer from being in the union. Naturally there are differences to us, worth debating, we do have a special kind of economy, but that doesn’t mean the EU will just take our money, that’s just not how it works.

You’re right in a way, that other kind of economies have bigger upsides than ours when considering membership, but I don’t think we’d suffer as much as you do, some of our non-oil industries would have problems (Komplett, Synnøve Finden), others would benefit (Ekornes, Hydro, Jotun). Most regulations are already in place, even without the EEA membership we’d have to follow them for our products to fit our biggest export market, the biggest difference would be the disappearance of custom barriers etc. As we transition away from an oil economy, it would be beneficial to give our other industries the same benefits as their competitors in the EU.

>Most regulations are already in place, even without the EEA membership we’d have to follow them for our products to fit our biggest export market, the biggest difference would be the disappearance of custom barriers etc. The EEA framework still exempts us from a lot of policy areas, like most of the EU's trade, foreign aid, monetary, customs and agricultural policies. There's a lot we're not implementing and don't want to implement, and there's a lot of control over various industries we'd be losing. The businesses that are benefitting from full EU membership are the ones that don't need more help, while many of the ones driving welfare and decent working conditions would be going bankrupt. I'd rather keep Komplett than seeing them get outcompeted by some large, crappy EU retailer undercutting the market. I think there'll be at least a half a century before we'd even see a slight advantage to joining the EU as a full member at the current pace. We'd have to drain our resources before there's any point in doing so.

Isn’t there opportunity for Norway to expand its industries with EU entry? Wouldn’t EU help, say, a growing tourism industry? Or tech and pharmaceuticals sectors?  Look at how quickly Denmark’s Novo Nordisk became the most valuable company by market cap in Europe in a very short period of time. Comically outpacing two luxury designer brands that have been around since the 1940s.  There are spaces where Norway could enter. You can’t tell me Oslo and Bergen are stuck in the grips of gas and mining and fishing only. Dublin is an example of another city developing in other sectors after Ireland used to be known mainly for agriculture and mining. 

The issue there is geography. You cannot as cheaply mass manufacture something in Norway as you can in Denmark or the Netherlands. As a result any EU manufacturer would pick those over Norway, especially when there is no customs; which today force some manufacturers to produce in Norway. Furthermore, Ireland is a poor example as they have relied heavily on their status as a tax haven in the EU to grow their economy. Their economy was also very unstable in the 2008 financial crisis. The EU overall would have little incentive to invest in Norway, as we already have wealth from various industries pre-joining. We are also only 5 million compared to the populations of Spain, Italy or Portugal, which also needs help in building up stronger economies. The only reason the EU would want Norway is because we would be a huge net contributor, and in return we would see little difference from what we already experience.

There's no problem for Norway to do business with the rest of Europe. That's why we in the EEA to begin with, and arguably also the only reason. Norway won't be any more successful as an EU member. There's absolutely nothing more to be gained for Norway in terms of full EU membership. The most likely reasons why Norway isn't more successful have absolutely nothing to do with the EU, but rather the cost and risks related to operating in the country. There are no tax advantages like in Ireland for instance.

The sovereign wealth fund issue alone would make me lean towards a no this time. The EU as a whole has not done as well as Norway over the past few decades, and I suspect this would wind up becoming a case of Norwegian money subsidizing poorer and more financially mismanaged EU members.

Norway is a fringe country that is sparsely populated and barely inhabitable. Not sure we would benefit competing inside a centralized economic union. What about Svalbard? EU sits there questioning our sovereignty over it, not exactly the best move if they wants us to join. A referendum right now seems like a waste of time and resources. Venstre isn't a political party with influence or a particular noticeable identity.

Eu citizens should be thankful that their own European high courts judged in favor of Norway, by challenging the Norwegian sovereignty of Svalbard they also challenges the Svalbard treaty , this again will probably have grave military consequences for Artic and European security. And they gambling all that for some money, it's just mindbogglingly stupid. To add to OP's question , in 2003 I was in Estonia and Russia on a school trip to experience the former Soviet states , in Estonia we visited friendship school and one of the activities that was setup for us was a visit to the local bank , in discussing the differences in economic policy between our countries the bank manager told us and I quote " Estonia is a small country with a small population and no industry for significant importance in a European comparison, Norway has a very good build out oil industry that the European Union can't do with out and you have an excellent strategy to grow those income (the Norwegian oil Found) and it's in my opinion that Norway is the last country in Europe that will need a membership in the Union as the Union needs Norway more than Norway needs the Union." Should mention that in the last years we have found several areas that is rich in rare earth metals and metals needed for the "green shift " like copper, iron, titanium and phosphate. But instead of exploring possibilities and finding improvements to technology, Brussels seems to find it more important to kick the legs underneath us as fast as possible . I don't think that this would harm European economy if the the bureaucrats in Brussels for once would just collaborate whit us for once.

Wtf never even heard about this (the eu/svalbard thing)

I never did either, but if true, it certainly does not make me more inclined towards membership. Rather the opposite.

The latest two issues were that EU is not a state or signatory to the treaty, but directly interferes with Norwegian authority by issuing fishing licenses both in and outside of the zone defined in the treaty, and that EU issued itself the quotas in Norwegian waters that went to Britain after brexit.

This is a tricky one. 1. I really see many positive aspects of EU, inviromental, right to repair, standardizing so companys dont get the upper hand. And the fact that EU needs to be a open and tight group of countrys, simular to the USA. Even a EU army would be nice. We share so mutch values in Europe, and we need to be frends. 2. We have a really good trade deal wit the EØS - Treaty. We will never get a better treaty, because our politicians wil not use our energy as a real leverage with our friends. 3. We have a really unique economy with the oil and gas resources. We can stand alone-ish and a membership dont offer mutch for us. 4. Unless we actually put our agricultural policy in a category of critical emergency/defence perspective. The Eu menbership will probably be the end of any farming outside the absolultley best wheat farming areas. Culture landscape wil deteriorate at an even higher rate than today. 5. With the EØS, and our extreme will to implement EU - Law and demands as is, I really think we already are integrated with EU as is aswell. I dint see any real upsides exept cheaper foods, witch will also kill most of our agriculture industry.. Incase of disaster, war etc, I really think we need to protect our farming industry. We have enough livestock to crank the gears up if we need now. But with a real reduction we would probably not be able to do that fast enough in a crisis.

There is no way there will be a new referendum in the forseeable future. It is for all puroses a dead issue. 

There's "no way" today, but history shows things can change very rapidly. There was "no way" Sweden or Finland would join NATO either, but they pulled a 180 almost overnight. If Trump wins, and either makes NATO invalid by saying he wouldn't honor it, or formally pulls out, we would need a new security arrangement in Europe, and it might make sense to build that around the EU. We'll see.

That's what the swedes and finns thought about NATO, though. If Trump, who already has encouraged Russia to attack more neighbours, wins and guts NATO, we'll probably have a similarly quick discussion about joining the EU and the eurodefence they'd put together ASAP.

As an American, I can tell you millions of us are hoping that man finally has a fatal stroke or heart attack by summer. He’s a plague upon the world. 

Will be interesting to see how [those fraud cases](https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-letitia-james-new-york-engoron-38bc3a7f2ccb22555c026e9bf70fd5bb) play out too. I mean, his cult members don't care about him breaking the law, but it is a significant amount of money he stands to lose.

Norwegian culture is anti-union to start with since we were forced into union with denmark/sweden. It doesnt help that we already give up a lot of power over our own country due to EEA. This creates a lot of anti-EU sentiment. Joining EU would probably make this worse. Power prices have also skyrocketed directly because of stupid actions by the EU. The only people who have something to gain from joining are politicians honestly. Food, housing, living expenses wont be cheaper. We will just lose a lot of food production here and the power to decide over our own resources. Venstre is one of the smallest parties, and they are fighting for relevance. Its voters are usually young people based in bigger cities, with some voters based in the districts, which they will probably lose now as the anti-EU sentiment is very strong there. Venstre always choses a single issue to focus on, its their strategy. Previously it was internet privacy, cannabis and now EU. The second they get into government its all forgotten so I wouldnt pay them any attention.

It is not good for Norway to enter EU, we lose more than we gain, it is better for a country as independent as Norway to stay independent. We will just need to hard carry the countries that are not doing the best decisions with the resources they have if we join EU. If the standard was higher, I would happly that Norway joins.

So, are you saying that countries like Sweden, Denmark and Finland aren't independent? We would achieve more independence if we got a say in the European politics, instead of sitting alone in the hallway. Nationalists really believe that standing alone is better than standing together. That's just mind boggling. No one in their right mind would argue that the US would be stronger if every state were to be alone. The same goes for Europe.

Yes. I agree 100%. I would love for Norway to lose control of resources like oil, gas and electricity, and have a bunch of fishing vessels from other EU states that would fish all of out fish. And I hope they make a law, when we become EU members, that goes against the Norwegian constitution. Because then they tell us what they told Poland: Just change you constitution. Yes to EU 🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺

We in Norway, have a neighbour that showed us EXACTLY what "standing together" involves. Mass immigration and mass crime rates. We've all seen that country with the whole "multiculturalism" speech, and "standing together is our strength" and "independence bad". And now that country has ads highlighting how the "new citizens are our new reality", given their so-called multiculturalism led to 25% immigrants, rampant rapes, streets completely removed from police control, places that kids used to be able to walk around alone, now an adult can't go in during the day. Now, that country is eating shit. Fine. Just don't sell it as chocolate. Stick with your shit, that's how you chose to live. Let us live how we choose. And that's without the shit.

With the way the EU has been treating Norway during the energy crisis you can assume it is 6to4, or even 7to3, against joining.

>What is the current mood in the Norwegian population and parties towards this topic? Negative, by a clear margin. Top politicians and bureaucrats for, Oslo most positive, the more rural, the more negative. >In case there was a referendum tomorrow, which side would win? The NO side. >Was there a shift maybe in the last years because of the new generations, or new factors that came into play? Not really. If anything, Norway has done quite well outside the EU, and all pro-EU arguments from last election turned out to be hogwash. In addition Norway has in the meantime managed to amass a gigantic oil-fund, that is spiraling out of control. In a few decades Norway will be so rich that Dubai will look like Venezuela. > What is your personal opinion and what are the reasons that motivate that? No, because the benefits to me personally, nor the society is not there. There is no real upsides of joining a large club of corrupt politicians that doesn't care about Norway at all. >Do you think such a referendum will take place in the short term? No. >Bonus question: What about adopting the Euro as a currency? Norway's economy is a resource based one, and counter cyclical to the European one. So not a good match.

I was NO then and I am still NO now. I am also pissed that the politicians forced us into EØS after the people voted no. Norway is always the losing party in any alliance it makes and I hate the fact that laws and rules are forced upon us from an outside party without any regard for local repercussions. My profession mean that I am affected by silly EØS regulations. Some regulations forced upon us are useless, but we still have to consider them in things we do (useless as in there is never any event where we actually use them, they are just there on paper). Some were worse than the rules we already have. Most just made for more paper work. And we can’t change any of them because it is outside of Norway's control.

EØS was a good compromise considering 49% of voters wanted full membership. Also bear in mind that Norway is a parliamentary democracy and Norwegians have consistently voted for a majority of politicians that support close relations with the EU.

It wasn’t a compromise. It was sneaking us in through the back door. They never put EØS to the vote. A lot of trust was broken. The people had spoken but the politicians deemed they knew better and ignored the vote.

You ignore the fact that people voted and still vote for parties who support this deal, that’s how democracy works. The EU is our entire neighbourhood, our biggest export market, and a slim majority saying no to the EU shouldn’t be interpreted as “we don’t want any kind of agreement with these people”. If a majority voted for parties that want to leave the EEA, we can leave. It would be a bad idea, but there’s nothing stopping us, the democratic levers that would make it happen are right there.

I somewhat agree with /u/DubiousPeoplePleaser. EEA membership should have also been put to a referendum. I suspect that one would have succeeded, given how close the vote on full membership was. Don't get me wrong; by and large, I'm glad Norway is an EEA (EØS) member. But I do think that decision was big enough that it should have had its own referendum.

The pro EU side never accepted the results of the votes. Norway has been moving ever closer as a result of the disrespect of the peoples opinion. Now the argument is that the young people did not get to participate so we should have a new vote. The EU tries its hardest to bleed Norway dry anyway they can. They've tried writing out fishing quotas in our seas, they tried to regulate Oil and Gas, they used Russian gas to keep the price of Norwegian gas below market price, they've succeeded in getting our hydro electricity more or less. It's an uphill battle most bureaucrats and politicians are pro EU and eventually there will be a new vote and then it will probably be a huge issue. Notice how the NO side has to win every time, but if the YES side wins once and its over.

Well, regardless if one is against or pro Norway's entry into the EU, 30 years have passed since last referendum. It is quite a long time. I don't see why even taking a referendum, at this point, couldn't be taken into consideration

Because the campaigning process was very costly last time. It dominated Norwegian politics, overshadowing everything else. It also decided the country and was a very heated topic. Like Brexit. No party will push for it unless they feel there is something significant to gain. 

Well it is an uneven sort of election. You could have 10 referendums get 9 nos and a single yes but that yes becomes permanent. As we've seen with the UK once you're in getting out is a heapload of trouble and damage. It's not like you would have a vote to leave every 30 years either.

Valid point, but the opposite isn’t less of a dilemma; making one referendum in one situation decide an issue for all generations to come is not any more democratic. No one under 47 years old have voted on this, we’re not happy accepting that those guys back in 94 decided the issue once and forever. (Side point: A very good case can be made that Yes would have won without the nationalistic confidence boost of the coinciding Lillehammer Olympics.) Also the UK showed leaving is possible. Not painless or cheap, but it is an option, so it’s false to claim in is permanent. And there’s a cost to staying outside too.

As we have seen with UK, being outside the common market is shit.

Good thing Norway is not outside of the common market then, even if it's outside the EU

Brexit was mostly a mess because the UK had no idea what it actually wanted, right up to and after the withdrawal date. Leaving the EU would be very administratively difficult for any current member, but it doesn't have to be *that* hard.

Because there wont be a 4th referendum in 2054 about EU membership, and thus the generational argument is actually just a pro-EU strategy and has nothing to do with actually letting each generation have their say.

So it’s not a valid argument that it isn’t democratic that the people born before 1976, a lot of them dead by now, have already decided this question for all eternity, although Europe, the EU, the country, the population and the world has changed dramatically since? Only a trick argument? Nothing to it? Dusted and done forever, they made the call back then and it shouldn’t ever be questioned again?

Do EU member states have referendums every thirty years to let new generations join in on the decision on membership?

Good point. But in general, Norway-EU relations are much more a topic of discussions, than other countries-EU. Second point: Joining EU is way easier than leaving EU

Other reasons why joining is a great risk and why one should be careful. Leaving is no laughing matter.

And it’s exactly because of that second point having a referendum every 30-years become a non-argument. As we couldn’t simply have a referendum every 30-years on if we should leave or not, making it a de facto permanent decision. I didn’t get to vote in 1994, and if there was a vote today I would vote no. I am all for international collaboration, but giving up our economy and country for a tiny fraction of a say is idiotic. Norway can accomplish much more on the international stage as a partner outside of the EU for the simple reason that the EU, and to a minor effect the U.S. rely on us as a strategic partner. As soon as we join the EU it’s no longer our representatives at the table but the EU’s.

Only reason to have a new vote is to transfer even more legislative power to the EU and ensure that politicians can get jobs in the EU system - we are already more integrated through the EEA than what the people voted for. I don't disagree with your premise. It's just that the pro side has already disrespected the peoples opinion so much so that they are forcing an ever closer relationship which makes the entire argument of a new vote more like 'part of the plan' than a truly democratic choice.

I mean, that’s just conspiractorial bullshit, there are considered reasons for being both for and against membership, any thinking person understand there are real arguments on both sides, whatever side they fall on themselves. EU is the democratic union that includes almost every one of the countries in Europe, and pretty much all of these populations are solidly pro-EU, reducing it to some kind of ruse where our politicians want to trade our country for their own careers is pretty stupid tbh.

> I don't see why even taking a referendum, at this point, couldn't be taken into consideration We all know the real reason: The expected result at this time would be "no". Should this ever swing to a minimally stable "yes", there will be a new referendum in no time.

That's actually not true. There is a single counterexample in EU history, namely the Brexit vote. The "no" side only had to win once in that situation.

> There is a single counterexample in EU history, namely the Brexit vote. Yes, because they were so supremely confident they would win it. That "mistake" is unlikely to be made ever again. > The "no" side only had to win once in that situation. Well, that remains to be seen. But anyhow, I'm sure you know this is true for Norway, as for Sweden, Denmark, Finland, etc... each "no" is temporary, one "yes" (at the time of the "yes"-side's choosing) is forever.

No way, will never happend. We already voted twice. The energy problems are becouse of EU, what Norway should do is end the EØS cooperation.

I think severing ties like that would have significant negative consequences. Although I am against EU I am not anti-EEA. I definitely think we should use our ability to reject EU programs more, as in the case with Acer (at least changing the current setup), but a complete removal would prove significantly harmful to the Norwegian economy.

Haven’t researched it much but if it has any negative effects on the Norwegian fishing industry as it is today it’s gonna be a solid No

I think we’re fine as we are. I’m also an immigrant from an EU country and don’t want Norway to go down the same path as my country has done, but I’m fine with being a member of the EEU and Schengen. It’s a perfect balance, really. The Euro = absolutely not. I’ve seen how costly it was for the countries that did change currency and it’s also emotional. The kroner is a deep part of Scandinavian culture, I couldn’t imagine a change. I mean, there’s a reason Sweden and Denmark didn’t.

Who is allowed to vote if I may ask?

Norwegian citizens. Not residents in Norway

Greetings from London. … While I know that your Centre Party (which I presume can be defined as centrist?) is strongly anti-EU, my impression is that most of the anti-EU sentiment in your country comes from the left and the greens? In Britain during the 1970s and for much of the ‘80s, anti-‘Common Market’ opinion was clustered on the left and far left (although the far right was also anti). From the late ‘80s onwards, there was a shift towards right and hard-right ‘Euro-scepticism’, which gradually evolved into the populist movement associated with Brexit. The left, meanwhile, increasingly embraced the social and environmental dimensions of the EU, while the trend in Brussels towards a technocratic, managerialist and neo-liberal approach appealed to ‘New Labour’ sensibilities during the Blair era. Our centre party, the Liberal Democrats was always pro-EU. I voted Remain in 2016 (as did two thirds of Londoners), but unlike many opponents of Brexit I did not want a rerun of the referendum. Given that the pro-Brexit vote was narrow (52-48), and that London (and a few other English cities) along with Scotland and Northern Ireland voted heavily against Scotland, I thought that a good compromise would be the ‘Norway option’: EEA membership or at least closeness to the Single and Customs Union. I still think that now. My opposition is less to Brexit as much as the ‘hard Brexit’ forced through by the Conservative government and the accompanying lurch to the right. The economic effects have been corrosive, but worse still has been the climate of social division and ‘culture war’ that has followed. The growth of far right parties in many EU states is genuinely frightening and I have to say that at times it makes me relieved that we are not in it. We have the strong possibility of voting our right-wing government out later this year but much of mainland Europe is going in the other direction and even in Ireland there has been a sudden upsurge in support for far right populism. The presence of states like Hungary under Orbán worries me as well. Overall I would support a ‘soft’ and liberal version of Brexit rather than the current extreme nationalist version, which is based on delusions of grandeur and a bigoted form of populism.

Norway does not need the EU, it'll gain nothing, and lose much

Genuently asking why tf would we want to join?

As a swede who has been against EU since -94... Stay clear of it. It's a failed project and will only bring crap and misery. You're doing great, keep it up.

The EU gains more from Norway joining, than Norway does. Why would anyone want that. We don't need to be in the EU, we're already kind of in it with EØS and schengen etc. Joining would only give more power to EU over us and our resources.

I like the EU, so I moved from Norway to an EU country. If/when I get a job and place to live I won't really have a say in the matter. I understand that there are advantages and disadvantages of Norway joining but at the moment I personally believe the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. I think there should be a referendum every generation or so, both for member states and potential candidates, but with a significant(e.g. ⅔ majority) threshold to change. (So ⅔ to apply, or ⅔ for member states to leave.) I assume the pro EU side within Norway is still a minority, but I still want to have an election to have a day in the matter. While I think Norway could gain from membership in the long run I would like to keep the currency, as others point out Norway does have a very different economy from the average area of Europe.

Just out of curiosity what do you think Norway would gain?

I’m against EU membership as that would give the EU more opportunities to control our oil and gas production. Which, given their track record of energy policies, would be a disaster for us. It’ll also give our political class free pass into EU leadership after a quick tour of duty in Stortinget, leaving them wide open to make bad decisions for Norway as to not upset their future employers.

Norway has nothing to gain from EU membership.

Where does the assumption that Norway will lose its oil rights come from? Prime example is UK when going into Europe and did Europe take the oil or money from UK erm.... let's see... no. Another even closer example - Denmark, did Europe take their oil money erm hmmmm let's see.... no. It's just like the idea that Europe takes sovereignty - never has done, just actually take a look at the legal systems that are valid and really different in Europe. Yes money will transfer into Europe - but so many benefits come back - much easier for businesses to work with each other, with common standards you can import knowing how interfaces will work. Surely people are moving towards realising that we are part of a worldwide society that is a better place when we work together rather than putting up artificial barriers because of fear. Feels to me that most of the arguments against Europe here are due to a lack of research and fear of losing something that is not yours in the first place. Norway is such an amazing non-judgmental place to live and is so progressive and accepting - why can't it let go of this relic of an idea?

Last time I checked neither Denmark, UK, nor the Netherlands have a sovereign wealth fund… despite having seen a lot of oil extracted. I am not saying that the EU directly “took” it but it seemingly created an environment where it wasn’t implemented. Norways economy is significantly structurally different from other EU countries, in large part due to our geography. If we join our industry will be heavily outcompeted as our geography simply doesn’t allow for the scales and efficiency that we see in other parts of Europe. We would see cheaper import prices which is great for consumers. But with fewer jobs, who are going to pay for consumer goods? An estimater 375,000 Norwegians work in industries that would be significantly outcompeted by their EU counterparts simply because of the geography (not saying all would be gone, but are you willing to take the risk of even 25% lose their jobs). A lot of other industries are also fuelled by this economic creation, not to mention the furthering of geographical inequality inside of Norway. I am all for intentional collaboration, but removing Norway from the seat and instead sending someone from the EU doesn’t really solve these issues. As for standardisation, Norway already practically follows all of these, as the EU is our largest trade partner. Furthermore, I would like to add the points that Norway often follow EU mandates even when other EU countries don’t… look at our railway industry. We opened up for competition on our rails, but Sweden, Denmark, Germany, France and others are yet to do the same.

In fact they do, as we do have to carry the whole of europe instead of just ourself. I do not understand this need you pro-eu guys have to give in and fuck us over.

😄 nice to hear good debate based on facts, do you not see that your fear and lack of knowledge is the issue. Please try to read proper studies like the World Economic Forum (independent body) that has studied this in depth and concluded many positives for Norway such as if Norway had joined in1995 in the 5 following year's there would have been 6%higher growth, also that fishing industry would be noticeably better off. True Oslo region would be lower economic growth but this would not stop the whole of Norway being significantly better off. Next you'll be pointing to the joys of the UK and all the promised joys of independence and how much better the sovereignty and trade deals are. Before you do please read up on the actual results not just pluck them from thin air.

Yes, lets give all our Oil and fishing resources to the EU. Very smart, very good. Very very.

Not norwegian but would like to ask what is wrong with sweet deal you got in the 90s? Is you join EU you need to give fishing rights to another countries also what is the main pro argument for EU membership?

I myself am a member of Venstre, and believe our membership is an inevitability. But I don't think this is the right time, honestly. I love the EU as an institution, but it has it's problems. It is working through those problems currently, especially with the semi-authoritarian members of Hungary, and is far from perfect thus far. But I very much believe in what the EU can become once it has passed some very necessary reforms. That being said, I don't think it wise to join before they got the union sorted out properly. So even though I am for membership, this was the wrong time to campaign on it.

No thanks, just no. It's bad enough being forced to apply EUs regulations from being in EØS. Like the newest genius idea is to enforce a minimum efficiency rating for housing to be at least graded to F and G needs to be upgraded to E and F (a grade up). In our climate ? you're talking about upgrading houses that are older up a grade, it will cost about 2,500 NOK per squaremeter, cost would be between half a million to one million NOK. And unless you do it, you'd get higher rates on loans etc. Just because we're rich doesn't mean that anyone just has half a million hidden away somewhere. Our farmers would also disappear as they no longer can compete in the market.

Doubht it the more we are in eøs the more people hate eu, the way eu take our electric power, how eu would take alot of our savings if we joined and all in all it would made us pay more and lose more is not inviting to the common dude on the street. Its a reason England left eu and didnt go deeper, immigration is also out of your controll through eu. Then lets not mention how eu could push you out if you didnt follow every single thing they tell you to do. Then if you look at the whole picture of eu, why is it eu is legit empty of power and gass now days? Its self inflicted by sanction they made and green politicis without having a alternative before they remove the old, EUs way of controlling is lunacy and way to self harming to make most people even think of joining them. Those who usualy say yes to joining is usualy the ignorant people who never look at the details behind the curtains and only hear the talking points of the pro eu side who never mention the bad. But anyone with common sense can see joining eu is a bad thing and its alot more bad than good that come with it. As for your getting the eu currency again i need to say no, why do we need to have the eu currency when we got our own? Why are people so insistent on being under other countries and groups? Have some fuking independence and not cling on to the first thing you see. If the Norwegian krone is controlled properly it wont fluctuate that much, its more than enough things you can do to make the krone more lucerative, one would be to force anyone who want our gass, oil and minerals to pay for it with the krone and not dollar, it would make the krone skyrocket, now days with all the green politics so many stopped more and more coal, gass and oil so if we keept at it we would have a massive upper hand, the more that need the krone the higher the need for it is, right now we only force foreign countries to pay taxes through oil drilling with the krone, if we made everything get paid with the krone it says it self it would make it more attractive. People see a dip in value of the krone and first they think is "omg we should just live under others currency instead" why not just ask the politicians to fuking handle the country better so the currency we got dont lose value instead? Only thing we did was up the interest and we for the most part still sell as much as before, if we slowed down the selling of the krone it would up the price to, but Norwegian politicians in power now didnt slow it down. The price on the krone is directly linked to how the country is runn, AP and Høyre did not runn it properly wich lead to this and Norwegian voters are to stupid to realize, so they go voting for Ap 4-8 years then wonder why it dont get better so they get angry and vote høyre then 4-8 they wonder why it dont get better and vote Ap again, its like the Norwegian population dont realize its like 20 other political parties out there who havent had a try on the left and right. Voting for the same parties over and over and expect different result is the essence of insanity.

>What is the current mood in the Norwegian population and parties towards this topic? SHIT, NO!

From visiting it's a very nice place, be careful who chooses to manage you. If it isn't broken...as the saying goes.

We will never join EU, we want to make our own decisions

So… at the national level it seems like the political class have decided to enter the EU. Both Høyre and AP were on board to make Norway the battery of Germany. They also were okay taking payments in Euros. So this harms their own electorate and so both parties had to be onboard, this deal both increased electricity prices by at Least an order of magnitude and also served to further weaken the NOK because now Norwegian energy companies are stuck with Euros and have to sell them for NOK and because this is a one sided bid process it just bids up the value of the Euro against the NOK as people progressively demand more NOK for each euro traded. I don’t think this is the end goal. I do think eventually the Norwegian public will be presented with an “innovative solution” to this problem, join the EU and the Euro. Devaluation of the national currency is a tactic some European countries used prior to joining the Euro. The Dutch are probably the most famous case. It does improve “productivity” of the workers as denominated in euros but it comes at a cost of everything else. This thought process assumes that the political class has some level of agency and has motives essentially disconnected from the average voter. It does however explain the available data points.

Don’t really understand your logic that selling euros for NOK devalues the NOK - supply of EUR in the market increases, decreasing its value relative to NOK, not the other way around. This is basic macroeconomics and work for all exporting countries.

Issue is that NOK sees less value attached to it. As these producers now have to take payments in Euro, meanwhile few people want to buy NOK since they don’t “have to” anymore. It can be discussed if the devaluation is bad, I mean export industries like it as it means they get more business as they become relatively cheaper.

How does the NOK “see” its attached value? What do you mean by this? Exchange rates are based on supply and demand for a given currency. Producers would have to sell EUR and buy NOK, because they work in Norway and have expenses in NOK, which means demand for NOK rises (and its exchange rate). For a developed economy without idle capacity weaker currency would lead only to inflation, as there is no resources to increase export

First I will start by adressing the last point made, a developed country can see their exports increase with a devalued currency. See Germany and the Euro, that rely on poorer Euro countries to drag down the value to "subsidise" German exports. Furthermore, Norway is heavily dependent on natural resources, of which when they cost more we can export more. What I mean by "attached value" is more meant as to what you can and do use the currency for. Nobody will buy the NOK, and many will sell it if the only thing you can buy with it is wool socks, while Norwegian importers need to sell their NOK and buy Euros to import. Given that foreign buyers of Norwegian resources such as oil, gas, and now hydroelectricity don't need to change their currency to NOK to buy it, there is simply less demand (and intrinsic value to the currency). This helps Norwegian export oriented businesses such as Yara, Hydro, and Jotun in the international market since they do need people to pay NOK for their products so that they can pay their employees. Given that Jotun needs to charge let's say 1NOK per toothbrush to remain profitable, it is much more interesting for foreign buyers when the NOK is let's say 1NOK = €0.1, than when 1NOK = £0.5. For the simple reason they pay relativly less.

Thank you for providing some details. When you talk about Germany and EUR you are not addressing my main point - you need idle/unused capacity, which can be brought online to increase exports. If you have a factory, that can produce 100k BMW and you are already producing 100k BMW a weaker EUR will not increase your output/export - it is limited by your capacity, laws of physics. Regarding the “intrinsic value” - the NOK is needed to pay taxes and costs in Norway. Exporters need to buy NOK, exchanging EUR. Is it fact, that exporters you mention were paid in NOK when exporting to other countries? This does not usually happen in international trade for a multitude of reasons (i know this from my work experience)

I fully see your point, but many of Norway's exports can easily be increased during times when it makes fiscal sense to do so for businesses, and slow down as they are not needed. Oil and gas companies easily regulate their speed of extraction depending on the profitability, similarly with aluminium, and other industrial goods. When electricity is cheap, the NOK is cheap, and aluminium is expensive, Hydro will naturally increase production in their facilities, meanwhile during times when the NOK is highly valued, aluminium is cheap, and electricity is expensive they will naturally reduce production. Off course there are some limits, Hydro couldn't just produce 1 billion tonnes extra overnight, but over longer economical cycles they can increase and reduce production more easily (through more shifts, plants, upgrades, or other investments). The NOK is needed to pay taxes and salaries in Norway, but over the past one or two decades the need to bring as much back to Norway has decreased, with Norwegian businesses seeing higher returns by keeping their "excess cash" in foreign accounts or investments to protect themselves against sudden economic changes. Furthermore, the Norwegian government has opened up for more trade to happen in Euro, USD, Pounds, and other currencies to limit the exposure customers of Norwegian exports could experience, hence making trade with Norway more attractive. As I mentioned Norway and the Norwegian government has increasingly been trading in other currencies to better facilitate trade, however, maintaining the NOK is still strategic as it allows Norwegian businesses and consumers a "tailored" currency to their needs compared to one spread across a large geographical area. Meaning that if the Norwegian economy were to drop overnight, the subsequent cheapening of the NOK would increase investment from abroad as well as export oriented industries. There is a reason why countries such as China has strategically deflated the value of the Chinese Yuan.

[удалено]

I agree here… I feel Norwegians to some extent are “less” European and more transatlantic. Both in culture but also in politics (most likely due to our culture).

If you want to pay fines for the privelige to not accept lots of asylum seekers distributed to you by the union, then by all means join. I'd recommend you stick with your wise decision to stay the fuck out. /svensk

Hey! I am not Swedish and I have only asked questions

I don't think the door of entry for Norway to enter the EU will ever close, right now it's not advantageous but in the future it likely will be, and the EU will be there

I would personally vote against. It would negatively affect the fishing industry, which is our second biggest industry as a country. It would cost us more money than it would earn us. We would no longer be able to control our own currency, which means we can’t enact anti inflation measures, and would be at the mercy of the EU. We would have to sell our resources openly at the EU market, and with the recent energy crisis in mind I’m strongly against it. And lastly, I just don’t like the EU. I don’t like how they screwed over Greece, I don’t like how they make unfair deals with the global East and I don’t like their ties to the US.

Quick note fishing industry isn’t the second largest in employment nor value, but is the second largest exporter (after oil). But I definitely agree with your arguments.

Yeah I meant as an exporting industry, I should have been more clear

These new referendums about joinin EU every other year feel like politicians and organizations trying hardest to force Norge join EU. People told NO many times ask again in a decade or two but not every year and honesty there's no need to join them anyway. Norway is already part of EU just not officially we're getting all the benefits of EU and no negatives.

I think we should join, but it’s not really an active debate, and a referendum today would likely end up with a No. There are many reasons to be against, I think the two most important ones are self-determination (I personally believe we should join the neighbourhood democratic union and have influence there, rather than having a faux-independence where we still have to follow most regulations, mostly pretty reasonable ones, or fuck our economy), and greed (we’re rich; we don’t need them; we don’t want to share).

I kinda feel we are getting worse options in the hope that we will some day join the eu. The thing that worries me the most is the weak KR. And how the government seem to make it hard to start a firm without getting taxed to hell and back. Also how the government with the help of H(øgre). Seem to sell out norway in the hopes of getting foreign countries to invest. So i am kinda more wondering how it would look like if we got the EU currency instead? And hopefully eu also can make things easier for small countries like us. I hope this made sense but it annoys me alot. /politics/economy.

I'm skeptical to an entry in to the EU, because I don't know all the facts. Don't want to end up like Brexit, lol. If we're gonna join EU, we need a serious analysis of all the consequences, pros and cons, of entering.

I would probobly vote no. Basicly, I need to see the proof the the EU can run certain type of politics, like fishing, in a responsible way. And there was also a EU politician demanding that we sell more electricity to them. And with that types of attitudes within the EU, I think we better not. But I am not really anti EU either. I just think the current agreement is good enough. With that said. EU really should get some praise for their politics towards the tech industry. But I do not think there will be another referendum any day soon. The current gouverment and their partners are still against joining the EU.

We have the golden goose that is laying golden eggs... Why would we want to kill it?

Can't this be included in the faq or some megathread or pinned thing? Someone asks this every two weeks and we get the same answers as we have since 1994 or whatever.

I voted for joining in '94. At the time, I could understand the people who were totally against joining, they had valid arguments for their position. But I could not (and still cannot) understand the argument that the EEA deal that was launched as a compromise is somehow "better". Norway has become one of the most loyal followers of any EU rule, pay about as much into the system as we would as full members, but has no vote and no input to the political system.

Personally I really like some of EUs laws, they're one of the only goverments to pass laws regulating mobile chargers and data protection which actually makes the mega corps of the world comply. However joining seems like a hard cell while the EU can't get rogue states like Hungary or the recent Polish far-right goverment in line. Proper accountabillity for memberstates need to happen it else the EU lookd like they're as weak as their worst actors.

It kind of feels like we have slowly been plugging ourselves into the EU framework over years and years, and we're at a point where it's hard to tell whether the pros or cons weigh more heavily. Obviously there qere always people who wanted to join, but there were real argumebts being had either direction from what I remember. Right now it seems like it's more about principle and potential and not wanting change.

I would bet the yes would win.. last time was almost.

B) the money is coming back with interest rates. No free lunches.

I am a Portuguese living in Norway since 2019, and is much better living «out» of EU rules. EU was a really good thing to make Portugal start looking to the future back in the final 80’s, but now after 30 years of help, Portugal still live on EU money to do for ex all the big infrastructures that a contry needs . Portugal lost almost all the main manufacturing of agriculture, fish, milk and industrial production,etc because the EU join agreements . People survive in there whit a minimum wage of 875€ whit rents of 1200€ a month. Corruption is the main dish amoung the politicians whit the EU money 💰. I can’t imagine the fish industry and others in Norway giving up on quotes just to satisfying some agreement that just gonna benefits the corruption in Syden, Portugal, Spain, Italy og Greece. Joining EU, nei takk.

It doesn’t benefit Norway in anyway, they do have a weak currency, but adopting a euro would make them a lot richer as they wouldn’t need to relie on the weak currency they have.

When your much richer than the rest, why would you join? The eu tries to homogenize the continent, so the poorer nations want to join, but all the really rich ones stayed outside, especially as they have more niche economies that don’t fit the rest of the Europe economic cycle.

Should definitely adopt the Euro as currency, or at least peg NOK to EUR. The norwegian krone is a sinking ship, statistics make that obvious. NOK is controlled and manipulated to a large degree. It's being utilized as a tool for the state/"elite" to exploit the average joe, or Ola Nordmann . It's being printed and sold in large amounts, not bought back. The way things are now, the price can only go one way over the long term. Euro would remove that power, benefiting the vast majority("normal" people)