Interference from the EU keeps wrecking good systems Norwegians have had for years, and the EU is therefore viewed by many as an 'empire' whose rules we are forced to follow. The present battle is about the guarantees on bank deposits. Norway is now asked (forced?) to reduce their present level (2 mill. NoK, which has been in place since the bank crises in the 90's) to the level recently set by the EU countries. No wonder the 'no' side in Norway does not even have to do anything to see their numbers grow :-)
The present battle is about the guarantees on bank deposits. Norway is now asked (forced?) to reduce their present level (2 mill. NoK, which has been in place since the bank crises in the 90's) to the level recently set by the EU countries.
No wonder the 'no' side in Norway does not even have to do anything to see their numbers grow :-)
there is the weasely "is viewed by many" for the empire claim, but there is no such qualification for EU "keeps wrecking good systems": I think my words were even tamer than what Solveig used.
Look, it's fine to be euroskeptic, just don't expect any sympathy when you bring up stuff which is obviously false, or that basic research, as demonstrated by Mig, can easily prove to be wrong, especially when you hide behind "but she's someone I like" as a defense.
I'm sure you'll say that there are other real examples of EU imposing horrible rules that are destroying the way of life of the Norwegians. But it's so easy for a small country to freeride on the EU and then moan that its very independance is threatened at every turn. All I can say is: enjoy the luxury, don't expect sympathy. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Jerome a Paris:
when you bring up stuff which is obviously false, or that basic research, as demonstrated by Mig, can easily prove to be wrong, especially when you hide behind "but she's someone I like" as a defense.
If you read the thread, Mig has not proved anything that was not already in the article I unfortunately did not translate - it states that the final decision has not yet been made - and that is the conclusion Mig came to, as well, if I read him correctly.
I also linked to another article on the topic from 4 December, where it states that the minister was in Brussels to make sure Norway can keep its guarantees - in other words, she went to participate in the EU decision-making process. Why would she bother about travelling to Brussels if there was no possibility Norway could be obliged to reduce its guarantees?
especially when you hide behind "but she's someone I like" as a defense.
Here you go again, Jerome: you assume things about me - in this case that `I like her'...
For your information: I do not `like' or `dislike' people I do not know. But I do observe. With regard to politicians, I look at their policies, and the way they conduct themselves in the public sphere. In the case of this particular minister, I have observed her for several years, and she has done a decent job without meeting too much criticism from any political faction. For a (very) left wing finance minister, that is a feat, I would say.
From what you write in many of your articles, I believe you would approve of how she handles the Norwegian economy given the constraints within which she must act. In fact, from what you write, it seems that many of the economic policies that you promote are similar to the ones the Norwegian government has in place, or follows.
In other words: many of the policies you promote for the EU - for instance, routine nationalisation of delinquent banks - are for a large part in place in Norway.
To me, it is ironic to read your EU policy suggestions on the one hand, and experience your fierce antagonism when I argue that some of the EU policies Norway has agreed that it will follow IMHO are negative for the country.
I'm sure you'll say that there are other real examples of EU imposing horrible rules that are destroying the way of life of the Norwegians. But it's so easy for a small country to freeride on the EU and then moan that its very independance is threatened at every turn. All I can say is: enjoy the luxury, don't expect sympathy.
Yes, Jerome, you are right on this one: I could mention several `horrible rules' (although I would not express it in that way) that Norwegians would rather be without. For instance in relation to property rights, ownership of public assets, and private sector access. Ironically, they are more or less exactly the same as those you wish the EU to change!
When you mention 'freeride', I think you are on thin ice. The EEA agreement is certainly not free, either in money terms or in societal/community terms.
And be sure about one thing: I do not expect 'sympathy' for my views. I do, however, expect a civilised dialogue - particularly on matters upon which we do not necessarily fully agree. It is my view that there is a distinct absence of that on ET, whenever an unconventional or outside view of the EU is expressed, even lightly in an Open Thread, as in this case...!
Apology accepted, and I apologise for the harshness of the last sentence in my previous post...
