Talk:Norway–European Union relations

On October 2013, it was proposed that this article be moved from Norway–European Union relations to European Union–Norway relations. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

International relations Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Norway

	Norway portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

European Union Mid‑importance

	European Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

This should definitely be longer. Doesn't anybody notice that Norway is conspicuously absent from the European Union? Or does nobody care? BirdValiant 23:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the latter. 'Norway? Isn't that a town in Sweden?' Joffeloff 15:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice and care, but it seems nobody cares I care. ;) —Nightst a llion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 18:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noway? Don't you mean Nor-walk in Southern California? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.25.164 (talk • contribs)

Reduction in economic self-determination: being subject to the economic policy of the EU would compromise Norway's ability to determine its own economic development, particularly with respect to rural needs and natural resources. Whaling is often given as an example of an industry whose existence would be threatened in case of EU membership (whaling is however insignificant for Norway's economy).

This is simply a stupid example, why not mention the fisheries and the consern about fishing rights and controle with Norwegian Economical Zone instead which is a much stronger issue for those against membership, which affects rural needs, natural resources and self governing.

It's interesting to notice that the list of reasons in favour of joining the EU on this page is far longer and with more facts backing them than the reasons against. Also there are some major arguments left out. The only place fisheries are mentioned is as a pro EU reason because Norwegian fishermen would gain access to all EU waters. It's "well done" making that a pro argument, when not even mentioning fisheries in the list of reasons why not to join. The area traditionally most dependent on fisheries is the three North-Norwegian provinces. In all three more than 70% voted against membership, one of the main reasons was that other EU fisheries would gain access to Norwegian waters. Because of rich Norwegian fisheries, gaining access to all EU waters is generally seen as no benefit when it also involves opening Norwegian waters to others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.27.95.199 (talk) 12:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polls?

Are there any opinion polls on EU membership in Norway that could be mentioned here? (58.188.97.134 07:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Opinion polls are publicized regularly. Around 2001-2003, as Norway was going through a minor economical crisis (along with the rest of world) and the EU was expanding to include Eastern European countries, the polls were in favour of joining the EU. However, as the political problems within the EU increased and Norway regained its economical strength, the polls have suggested around 60% against and 40% in favour of joining. As long as Norway keeps doing well economically, large parts of the population will probably be uninterested in joining.

There haven't been any opinion polls added since July, but they seemed pretty regular up to that point. Anyone know where to find them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.50.240 (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

argument against: end of self-sufficiency in food

I'm sorry but since when is this the case? this country is heavily reliant on foreign food imports ever since the 19th century. 84.90.16.244 (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Norway is currently almost self sufficient with grain for instance. Inge (talk) 06:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ref: Article from the government Inge (talk) 06:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and if you read the numbers in the article, they are only self-sufficient for two minor grains, that is only 24000 Tons out of a total 400,000 tons needed annualy. For wheat(323 623 tons used in 2007) they produce only 75%, pretty far from self-sufficient! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.108.16.189 (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments

I believe the arguments section is tilted towards a positive conclution on membership. The positive arguments are more numerous and better composed. The negative arguments even contain counter arguments and are riddled with cite tags. The section could as it stands do with an NPOV tag.Inge (talk) 08:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. I just moved to Norway, and really honestly don't have an opinion on EU membership. However, I think that this needs to be touched up. I don't have background in the issue, but I'm going to try to even things out a bit - for example: there are currently "scare quotes" on the word 'threat' in the negatives, and I think that's an author's POV showing. I'm sure someone will shoot me for this, but... AshleyMorton (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. And I have never seen the Nynorsk argument in favour of EU membership. The main Nynorsk organisation Noregs Målag and their youth organisation Norsk Målungdom is against EU membership, and I'm pretty sure there is significant higher opposition among Nynorsk users than among Bokmål users (mostly because of the areas in the country where they live). --195.0.220.117 (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

clarification?

"To avoid a new debate on EU, anti-EU parties usually require "suicide paragraphs" in government-coalition agreements: if some party in the coalition officially begins a new debate on EU, the government will fall." Can somebody clarify this? Is a 'suicide paragraph' the same as a sunset provision? The government falling due to debate on the EU, I don't understand that at all. 74.78.98.109 (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of date

I've added an out of date tag to the History section because it still uses the 2005 payment to the EU. -Rrius (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sitation needed regarding fishery

"Agriculture and fisheries In case of EU membership, Norway would have to take part in the Common Fisheries Policy. Norwegian fishing quotas would have to be shared with the rest of the EU.[citation needed] Some claim the coastal areas of Norway, which rely heavily on fishing industry, would suffer from a reduced share of the catch.[citation needed]

The often steep Norwegian topography is unfavourable for agriculture. Some fear that Norway's relatively small farming industry would be disadvantageously exposed to competition from other parts of the Internal Market. Some fear state subsidies to Norwegian farming and fisheries would be made illegal, furthermore depopulating rural areas.[citation needed]"

That's what the article is saying right now. I don't have any actual sitations that can be used. But if you check the statistics for the fishery in Norwegian terretorial waters and the one for the EU one I would be supriced if it didn't show a difference in productivety. It is a subjective feeling of mine thou. (no I'm not the orginator of that part of the article) So I'm wondering do any of you know of any EU numbers regarding fishery? Preferably some that don't include the fish fished by spanish boats outside the african coast. It would need to be some sort of numbers that compare the output of a set amount of sea as the territorial waters of Norway and the EU differs in size. I'll see if I can find something similar for Norwegian outputs. Luredreier 01:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Might be some more info in this article: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Fisheries_management Luredreier 01:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luredreier (talk • contribs)

Arguments

This section has had the "sources needed" tag for more than a year. If there is noone against, I will clean it up and will removed all unsourced materials. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Labour Party

Since the Labour Party lost its dominance in Norwegian politics, all governments have been a coalition of several political parties. When did the loss of dominance occure? The labour party has 35,4% of the wotes (2009), only with one exception the party got between 30 and 50% in all elections from 1927-2009, since 1990 the party has formed a minority government with a lower outcome than in 2009 twice. If you look at the parliamentary situation, the labour party could have formed a minority government and cooperate with the conservatives on EU (if they wanted to). The case is rather that parties choose parliamentary controle before EU-debate than a parliamentary situation making EU-debate impossible. --Tordenskrall (talk) 23:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland

How does the (possible) icelandic EU membership influence the EU Debate in Norway? ASAIS isn't that topic mentioned in the article. --134.176.205.173 (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spaced en dash?

Shouldn't it be titled 'Norway–European Union relations'? The two parts of the compound modifier are of equal importance to the relations; the relations are between Norway and the EU. 86.15.57.23 (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Georgia (country)–European Union relations which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Georgia–European Union relations which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New article?

Any else think that there should be an article titled "Accession of Norway to the European Union", I know, they might not be intrested right now, but neither is Iceland. Charles Essie (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Map is wrong

In the southernmost tip of Argentina the Argentine province of Tierra del Fuego is painted in orange, as if it were a British territory and therefore part of the EU. That's absolutely wrong. The Malvinas Islands/Falkland Islands and British Antarctica are the lands the UK administers, but Tierra del Fuego is an integral part of Argentina and it has nothing to do with the UK or the EU.--Luuchoo93 (talk) 07:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, and I added Greenland and Canary Island to the EU also.--BIL (talk) 12:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BIL: Thanks for removing Tierra del Fuego, but Greenland isn't part of the EU. Only Outermost regions are part of the EU. TDL (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then British and French Antarctica and Falkland islands should be removed. Probably Norwegian Antarctica also, since it is not part of Norway, only a Norwegian possession.--BIL (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. TDL (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Norway–European Union relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110724183817/http://riks24.no/index.php/bruker/Innenriks/Nei-flertall-i-fire-aar to http://riks24.no/index.php/bruker/Innenriks/Nei-flertall-i-fire-aar

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Norway–European Union relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Norway–European Union relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian customs arrangements

European Union Customs Union states that Norway is not a member. I feel that it would be helpful if either this article, that article or some other article gave details of the extent to which this leaves Norway free to negotiate its own customs arrangements, especially in light of (1) its membership of the Single Market and (2) the (unsourced) statement that "Free movement of goods means freedom from customs fees, where however food and beverage is excluded (because those are subsidised by the EU)." There is some information at Norway–Sweden_border#Control. This is of course topical in light of the debate over the form which Brexit may take.

Thoughts? Alekksandr (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]