The pseudonymous writer Fjordman had his identity outed because the crazy mass-murderer Anders Breivik
admired and cherry-picked Fjordman’s writings. Breivik’s admiration led the Norwegian authorities to accuse
the famous counterjihadist as an accomplice by association. Of course Fjordman
was exonerated of all suspicion much to the contempt of all European Leftist
Multiculturalists. The Multiculturalists had cast so much disdain
onto Fjordman that he fled his homeland Norway
over death threats for a while. That was a while ago so I am uncertain of his
current living conditions. HOWEVER, I am quite pleased he is still writing.
I found a recent Fjordman essay at the Gatestone Institute. The essay analyzes the choices the UK faces
after Brexit and lists Norway and Switzerland’s non-EU membership as horrible
models to follow.
JRH 9/16/16
**************
Brexit and Norway: What to Avoid
By Fjordman
September 15, 2016 at 4:00 am
o
"[Britain wants] to be like Switzerland but
they don't know that Switzerland has to pay an enormous amount to the EU...
They will have to accept the free movement of people and pay high fees and
accept some laws which they would have no influence on." -- Daniel
Pedroletti, president of the Swiss community group New Helvetic Society London.
o
Norway is the only country that has adopted all
EU directives before their deadline. Norway, which is supposedly not a member
of the EU, thus implements EU rules and regulations more obediently than do the
founding members France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and
Luxembourg.
o
Most of Norway's laws are currently written by
bureaucrats in Brussels, not by elected parliamentarians in Norway.
o
The citizens of Norway rejected membership in
the EU, twice. Opinion polls today show that a very large majority of
Norwegians are against membership in the EU. Despite this, the nation's
politicians have made the country more or less a member of the EU, only without
any influence or voting rights -- in opposition to the popular will, and
possibly also in violation of the country's Constitution.
o
The British should study the case of Norway
closely. But mainly as a negative example of what to avoid.
On June 23, 2016, 51.9% of the voters in the United Kingdom
voted for leaving the European Union (EU). The turnout was high, and the
British referendum gained great international attention. Marine Le Pen,
leader of France's National Front, praised the result, calling Brexit "the
most important moment since the fall of the Berlin Wall." Le Pen said that
if she wins France's 2017 presidential election she would call a referendum on
leaving the EU.
Nigel Farage stepped down as leader of the UK Independence
Party (UKIP) shortly after winning the historic vote. Many death threats against
him and his family from supporters of the EU reportedly affected his decision.
The complicated divorce process between the UK and the EU
could take years of negotiations. Some people have looked to Switzerland and
Norway, two of the wealthiest countries in Europe, as possible models to
follow, yet both maintain a close cooperation with the EU. There are also
concerns in Switzerland and Norway about how Brexit
will impact their own relationship with the EU.
Daniel Pedroletti,
president of the Swiss community group New Helvetic Society London, says there
is "a big misunderstanding" in Britain surrounding Switzerland's
position:
"They want to be like
Switzerland but they don't know that Switzerland has to pay an enormous amount
to the EU and accept the laws without being an influence [on them].
"They don't realize that if
they want a similar agreement they will have to accept the free movement of
people and pay high fees and accept some laws which they would have no
influence on."
Though not a full member of the EU, Switzerland has over 120
bilateral agreements in place with the bloc -- its main trading partner.
Nigel Farage does not want Britain to emulate Norway's deal
with the EU. It is terrible, he says. The
Norwegian people rejected membership in the EU. Yet the Norwegian Parliament (Stortinget)
has "deceived the people" and got Norway into a very bad agreement
with the EU, according to Farage.
Norwegians voted against joining the European
Community/European Union twice, in 1972 and in 1994. After the 1994 referendum,
the country's political leaders designed a close association deal with the EU.
This is the EEA Agreement,
known as the EØS Agreement in Norwegian. This does not cover common agriculture
and fisheries policies. Control over natural resources is sensitive in a
country with a long coastline plus major offshore deposits of oil and natural
gas. Yet apart from a few such exceptions, Norway in reality became an
associate member of the EU after 1994. EEA membership requires the free movement
of persons, services, goods and capital with the EU. Norway is also a part of
the open-borders Schengen Agreement, which has severely weakened checking
migrants and asylum seekers across much of Europe.
Statistics from 2016 show that of all the 31 countries in
the EU and the European Economic Area (EEA), Norway is
the only country that has adopted all EU directives before their deadline.
Norway retained its top position for the third year in a row. Its two fellow
EEA countries, Iceland and Liechtenstein, were the worst at implementing
directives. Norway, which is supposedly not a member of the EU, thus implements
EU rules and regulations more obediently than do the founding members France,
Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. This may surprise
people who view Norway's relationship with the EU as something to emulate.
Most of Norway's laws are currently written by bureaucrats
in Brussels, not by elected parliamentarians in Norway. Some scholars warn that
the transfer of power to the EU is so great that it violates Norway's
Constitution and seriously undermines the democratic system.
In June 2016,
the Norwegian Parliament voted overwhelmingly to attach the nation to the EU's
financial supervision. Critics decried this as the "biggest concession of
sovereignty" in many years. With a vote of 136 in favor and 29 against,
Parliament approved a bill that would tie Norway's regulation of financial and
insurance institutions to EU rules. Center Party leader Trygve Slagsvold Vedum
opposed the bill and warned that it was "a circumvention of the
Constitution." The group "No to the EU" stated that Parliament had
gone directly against the will of the people by weakening national sovereignty.
An opinion poll showed just 26 percent of Norwegians supported the plan to tie
Norway to the EU's financial oversight.
The citizens of Norway have rejected membership in the EU,
twice. Public opinion has been consistently against membership for decades.
Opinion polls today show that a very large majority of Norwegians are against
membership in the EU. Despite this, the nation's politicians have made the
country more or less a member of the EU, only without any influence or voting
rights. The politicians have done this in opposition to the popular will, and
possibly also in violation of the country's Constitution.
Britain is a larger country with a much bigger economy than
Norway. This will give it a stronger position in negotiations with the EU and
others. However, it would be a mistake not to learn from the experiences of
other nations. When shaping their future relationship with the EU, the British
should study the case of Norway closely. But mainly as a negative example of
what to avoid.
_____________________________
© 2016 Gatestone
Institute. All rights reserved. The
articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of
Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents
may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of
Gatestone Institute. [Blog Editor Full
Disclosure: I failed to ask for that “written consent”.]
About Gatestone Institute
"Let
us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare
to read, think, speak, and write."
— John Adams
— John Adams
Gatestone Institute, a non-partisan, not-for-profit
international policy council and think tank is dedicated to educating the
public about what the mainstream media fails to report in promoting:
o
Institutions of Democracy and the Rule of Law;
o
Human Rights
o
A free and strong economy
o
A military capable of ensuring peace at home and in the
free world
o
Energy independence
o
Ensuring the public stay informed of threats to our
individual liberty, sovereignty and free speech.
Gatestone Institute conducts national and international
conferences, briefings and events for its members and others, with world
leaders, journalists and experts -- analyzing, strategizing, and keeping them
informed on current issues, and where possible recommending solutions.
Gatestone Institute will be publishing books, and
continues to publish an online daily report, www.gatestoneinstitute.org, that features topics such as military and diplomatic
threats to the United States and our allies; events in the Middle East and
their possible consequences, and the … READ
THE REST
