Norway Foreign Minister Brende: UK better off in EU

[The Don]

Norway Foreign Minister Brende: UK better off in EU

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/media/images/83348000/jpg/_83348358_norbrendeepa.jpg


Norway's Foreign Minister Borge Brende says it makes sense for the UK to stay in the European Union, where it "can have more influence" than outside.
Norway is not in the EU but enacts most EU legislation in order to maintain access to the single market.
"Europe without Britain I don't think is as strong a Europe as with Britain inside," Mr Brende told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
The UK will hold an in/out referendum on EU membership by the end of 2017.
UK Prime Minister David Cameron has launched a diplomatic campaign to garner support from other EU leaders for his EU reform plans.
New curbs on migrant benefits are a priority for the UK Conservatives, but they also want to cut EU bureaucracy, give national parliaments a bigger say over EU laws and remove market barriers in key areas such as services.

Single market 'so important'
Eurosceptic opponents of the UK's membership argue that being outside would enable the UK to control immigration from the EU and trade more freely with major powers outside the EU.
Mr Brende said Norway was "among the fastest in Europe" in implementing EU directives, "because the single market is so important", with almost 80% of Norwegian exports going to the EU.
The foreign minister is from Norway's Conservative Party, the country's main centre-right party.
Norway is in the European Economic Area (EEA), along with Iceland and Liechtenstein, which allows them to trade in the single market.
Some British Eurosceptics look to Norway's position as a model for the UK if it were to leave the EU.
"In the EEA we have to implement all EU directives... we're not around the table when they're discussed in Brussels," Mr Brende said.
"We see Britain as an important voice also in the EU, we know Britain is now seeing a recovery in its economy, and we want to see the European economy also revive…
"Part of this is also addressing the bureaucracy in Brussels, in a no-nonsense manner. I think Britain is that kind of voice in the EU...
"Britain also can have more influence inside the EU than outside."
When asked about trade with the rest of the world, Mr Brende said a future EU-US free trade deal, currently being negotiated, could be "a challenge" for non-EU countries like Norway - and the UK if voters said "No" to EU membership.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32957134

Pretty much common sense. If we want to remain in the EEA but leave the EU we're still going to have to follow all their legislation like Norway. Might as well remain in a position where we have influence as opposed to directly following orders like Norway.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The Norway thing is a myth and other Norweigan ministers in the government have said the complete opposite. (http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=84212)

In any case, I would not want to be in the Single Market anyway as I find that too constricting. There's no reason why Great Britain can't conclude a simple Free Trade Agreement (FTA) agreement with the European Union as it has done with around 50+ other countries. In turn, that would give us the freedom to conclude individual FTAs with Commonwealth countries which are the vast majority of global growth to 2050.

Anyway, back to the Norweigan claims.

http://eureferendum.com/results.aspx?keyword=norway


Instead, what's on offer is: "EEA Membership – the Norway option"; "EFTA Membership – the Swiss option" and "Customs Union – the Turkey option".

The analysis of the Norway option has the usual crop of lies and half-truths, including the claim that Norway adopts 75 percent of EU laws. It doesn't. Last time I checked, the EEA acquis comprised 5,758 legislative acts, out of the 20,868 EU acts currently in force – about 28 percent of the total.

https://autonomousmind2.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/norwegian-pro-eu-foreign-minister-lies-in-bbc-radio-4-interview/


It was, as feared, a classic pro-EU stitch up. Norway’s political elite want to join the EU and Mr Brende himself is an enthusiastic Europhile and has campaigned to join. But Norway’s population, by some margin, does not agree and has rejected EU membership as it enjoys greater benefit in having independence, influence and access to the single market (http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=84212) instead. This, of course, was not explored by the ever calculating agenda chaser, Justin Webb.

Instead, Webb pursued a line of softball questions carefully designed to tee up Mr Brende to underplay the influence Norway has in Europe and the world. The aim was to make listeners feel that pursuing the Norway option is overblown straw grabbing by the anti-EU side. After all, if a Norwegian says it isn’t much good, then surely it isn’t something Britain should aspire to after Brexit.

So it was no surprise that Webb made no reference to, or asked any question about, Norway’s influence at a global level. For Webb and his pro-EU friends, the known world begins and ends at the EU’s borders and everything that happens within it is the purview of Brussels. Similarly there was no challenge when Mr Brende blatantly lied about Norway accepting all EU directives, giving the impression it had no choice. As is a matter of record, Norway has already demonstrated it does not have to be bound by EU directives when it chose to reject the EU’s Third Postal Directive.

In fact by October 2012 the EU was complaining because there were over 400 directives (http://www.euractiv.com/consumers/eu-threatens-punish-selfish-norw-news-517431) Norway had failed to implement.

Being outside of the EU but still in the Single Market is preferable to being in the EU, although EFTA or trade-by-FTAs is the ideal option for us.

[Oddy]

The Norwegian people dont want to join the EU, but still we manage to have some of the same benefits as other scandinavian countries like sweden and denmark from the EU. I'm not going to say more about this because i'm really bad at this stuff but what i can say is that Norway do great without being in the EU.

[dbgtz]

One thing Norway has that we don't is a **** tonne of oil per capita. I would say generally speaking on both sides, you really shouldn't compare to the UK to any random country and should be compared to similar countries if at all.

[-:Undertaker:-]

One thing Norway has that we don't is a **** tonne of oil per capita. I would say generally speaking on both sides, you really shouldn't compare to the UK to any random country and should be compared to similar countries if at all.

Norway has oil, but then so do we. But we also have something a lot more productive than oil: the City.

In terms of GDP on global rankings, the UK is 6th and Norway is 26th. If Norway can do it outside the EU, then so can we.

[The Don]

One thing Norway has that we don't is a **** tonne of oil per capita. I would say generally speaking on both sides, you really shouldn't compare to the UK to any random country and should be compared to similar countries if at all.

Absolutely, you shouldn't. Which is why Norway is suggesting the UK stay in the EU despite the fact that Norway itself isn't.

[dbgtz]

Norway has oil, but then so do we. But we also have something a lot more productive than oil: the City.

In terms of GDP on global rankings, the UK is 6th and Norway is 26th. If Norway can do it outside the EU, then so can we.

I said per capita. The UK is a net importer of oil as of a few years ago whereas Norway is a net exporter, but also has greater production than the UK (1.2m bbl vs 1.1m bbl) and greater proven reserves (~5bn bbl vs ~3bn bbl). This doesn't change regardless of if we're in the EU or not. Also the problem with the City (presumably you mean the ~1sq mile district of London) is that it doesn't actually produce any goods as far as I'm aware, which I would have thought would be something you're not a fan of.

[The Don]

I said per capita. The UK is a net importer of oil as of a few years ago whereas Norway is a net exporter, but also has greater production than the UK (1.2m bbl vs 1.1m bbl) and greater proven reserves (~5bn bbl vs ~3bn bbl). This doesn't change regardless of if we're in the EU or not. Also the problem with the City (presumably you mean the ~1sq mile district of London) is that it doesn't actually produce any goods as far as I'm aware, which I would have thought would be something you're not a fan of.

Spot on. Also tangible assets are not at all comparable to cities. Crazy comparison on Dans part.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Absolutely, you shouldn't. Which is why Norway is suggesting the UK stay in the EU despite the fact that Norway itself isn't.

A Norweigan politician who wants to join the EU despite what his people want is suggesting the UK stay in*

Not the Norweigan people or other Norweigan government ministers.


I said per capita. The UK is a net importer of oil as of a few years ago whereas Norway is a net exporter, but also has greater production than the UK (1.2m bbl vs 1.1m bbl) and greater proven reserves (~5bn bbl vs ~3bn bbl). This doesn't change regardless of if we're in the EU or not.

Given the EU is actively seeking to make using fuels like oil and gas for energy purposes harder with its carbon and renewables targets, even if we did have double the amount of oil Norway has then what use would it be if we're being forced away from using what it rightfully ours to use? In any case, I don't understand what oil has to do with EU membership... both Britain and Germany have huge coal reserves, but what has that got to do with the price of fish?

Britain is the 6th largest economy in the world and Norway is 26th. We're in a much stronger position to negotiate trade deals.. so why not?


.Also the problem with the City (presumably you mean the ~1sq mile district of London) is that it doesn't actually produce any goods as far as I'm aware, which I would have thought would be something you're not a fan of.

It produces services, many of which are worth more than goods. Hong Kong, Singapore and many western countries do not produce many goods but produce services, it is a sign of a developed economy and it doesn't mean it is worth any less. Indeed as I said, it actually means more as it is a sign of being developed. The City of London and being the financial capital of the world is much better than having barrels of oil which are highly dependent upon global oil prices as well as being worth much less.


Spot on. Also tangible assets are not at all comparable to cities. Crazy comparison on Dans part.

You believe when I say 'The City' I mean London as in Liverpool? You serious?

The City is a term used to refer to financial services across the UK, not just in the square mile or London.

[dbgtz]

Given the EU is actively seeking to make using fuels like oil and gas for energy purposes harder with its carbon and renewables targets, even if we did have double the amount of oil Norway has then what use would it be if we're being forced away from using what it rightfully ours to use? In any case, I don't understand what oil has to do with EU membership... both Britain and Germany have huge coal reserves, but what has that got to do with the price of fish?

Britain is the 6th largest economy in the world and Norway is 26th. We're in a much stronger position to negotiate trade deals.. so why not?



I'm going to assume we're being forced to use less oil. It would first mean we import less, then if we're forced to useless than we produce, we can simply export or produce less and have longer lasting reserves. It's not like they're going to outright ban oil.
It's also a silly statement to say EU membership (and presumably you're referring to EU parliament etc. too) can't deal with more than one issue!! I'm not even pro-EU but that's just a weird statement to make :P

Trade deals are also unrelated to what I said. I was merely comparing the oil between two countries.




It produces services, many of which are worth more than goods. Hong Kong, Singapore and many western countries do not produce many goods but produce services, it is a sign of a developed economy and it doesn't mean it is worth any less. Indeed as I said, it actually means more as it is a sign of being developed. The City of London and being the financial capital of the world is much better than having barrels of oil which are highly dependent upon global oil prices as well as being worth much less.


But fair enough, if that's your view. I just know a lot of people complain about the lack of industry in the country and assumed based off of what you posted that you were one of them.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'm going to assume we're being forced to use less oil. It would first mean we import less, then if we're forced to useless than we produce, we can simply export or produce less and have longer lasting reserves. It's not like they're going to outright ban oil.

We are being forced to implement renewables targets by the EU which are simply unachievable and make energy costs higher, rather than use our own sources such as oil, cheap imported oil or shale gas. Below you make the point about a lack of heavy industry in this country (which isn't unusual for an advanced economy) yet it is EU regulation which pushes up the costs of energy that result in heavy industry closing down. The likes of steel smelting plants require huge amounts of energy to operate, and an increase of even 10% due to EU legislation forcing us to use 10% renewables has an enormous effect on operating costs at that plant.

I say below oil isn't related to EU membership, and it isn't, but on the energy point we are linked to EU policy. And EU policy on energy is a disaster.


It's also a silly statement to say EU membership (and presumably you're referring to EU parliament etc. too) can't deal with more than one issue!! I'm not even pro-EU but that's just a weird statement to make :P

Trade deals are also unrelated to what I said. I was merely comparing the oil between two countries.

But oil has nothing to do with EU membership.


But fair enough, if that's your view. I just know a lot of people complain about the lack of industry in the country and assumed based off of what you posted that you were one of them.

I do, and I am one of them: but that's not to say that Great Britain is now some tiny island with no global power. We're the sixth largest economy, one of only three countries in the world to operate a blue-water navy, we're the financial capital of the world with the square mile and we're predicted to be the only economy in Europe left in the top ten global economies by 2050. On top of that, we have historical links with the rapidly growing Commonwealth and a free trade ethos that means we can do so much better and do it alone.

I wish people would have some more faith in this country and what it can be and do. We can do better than an outdated 1950s Euro-centric customs union.

[dbgtz]

We are being forced to implement renewables targets by the EU which are simply unachievable and make energy costs higher, rather than use our own sources such as oil, cheap imported oil or shale gas. Below you make the point about a lack of heavy industry in this country (which isn't unusual for an advanced economy) yet it is EU regulation which pushes up the costs of energy that result in heavy industry closing down. The likes of steel smelting plants require huge amounts of energy to operate, and an increase of even 10% due to EU legislation forcing us to use 10% renewables has an enormous effect on operating costs at that plant.

I say below oil isn't related to EU membership, and it isn't, but on the energy point we are linked to EU policy. And EU policy on energy is a disaster.



But oil has nothing to do with EU membership.


Anything is related to EU membership if the government makes it to do with it. I'm also not defending the EU by any means, but at some point some renewable energy sources will need to be adopted at some point (at least on a more local scale). Whilst making it more expensive now, it will become cheaper at some point. However, I would also personally like to see an investment in nuclear and also greater investment into R&D. Those last 2 sentences weren't really relevant now that I think about it, but oh well.



I do, and I am one of them: but that's not to say that Great Britain is now some tiny island with no global power. We're the sixth largest economy, one of only three countries in the world to operate a blue-water navy, we're the financial capital of the world with the square mile and we're predicted to be the only economy in Europe left in the top ten global economies by 2050. On top of that, we have historical links with the rapidly growing Commonwealth and a free trade ethos that means we can do so much better and do it alone.

I wish people would have some more faith in this country and what it can be and do. We can do better than an outdated 1950s Euro-centric customs union.

I never said it has no power. Literally the only point I was trying to make is the extraction and selling of oil isn't really comparable to financial services.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Anything is related to EU membership if the government makes it to do with it.

Not really, the government often tries to avoid linking issues to EU membership.

Take for example Royal Mail/Post Office privatisation. Nothing to do with the EU, right? Heard nothing about the EU mentioned. Well... (https://www.google.co.uk/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=KdF0VZa2D4Xj8wfmy4HYCQ&gws_rd=ssl#q=post+office+privatisaion+eu)

The competences of agriculture, fisheries, energy are heavily influenced/almost entirely driven by EU legislation.


I'm also not defending the EU by any means, but at some point some renewable energy sources will need to be adopted at some point (at least on a more local scale). Whilst making it more expensive now, it will become cheaper at some point. However, I would also personally like to see an investment in nuclear and also greater investment into R&D. Those last 2 sentences weren't really relevant now that I think about it, but oh well.

If you agree with renewables, that is another issue and I would say to you that you can't argue for more heavy industry whilst advocating renewables. But that's a whole other topic I guess. That said, this is what all this is really about though isn't it: who governs Britain?

Does Britain make her own energy policy to suit her own needs, accountable at the ballot box, or do Belgian pencil-pushers make it for us?


I never said it has no power. Literally the only point I was trying to make is the extraction and selling of oil isn't really comparable to financial services.

Well no it isn't comparable as financial services are far more sophisticated than oil trading.

Hence why we're the 6th largest economy for a relatively small population.

[dbgtz]

Not really, the government often tries to avoid linking issues to EU membership.

Take for example Royal Mail/Post Office privatisation. Nothing to do with the EU, right? Heard nothing about the EU mentioned. Well... (https://www.google.co.uk/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=KdF0VZa2D4Xj8wfmy4HYCQ&gws_rd=ssl#q=post+office+privatisaion+eu)

The competences of agriculture, fisheries, energy are heavily influenced/almost entirely driven by EU legislation.


I'm well aware of the directive which lead to the privatisation, but at some point the government would have signed away the power to make it relevant to the EU. The EU doesn't exist without government consent and they could have probably ignored the EU if they really wanted.



If you agree with renewables, that is another issue and I would say to you that you can't argue for more heavy industry whilst advocating renewables. But that's a whole other topic I guess. That said, this is what all this is really about though isn't it: who governs Britain?

Does Britain make her own energy policy to suit her own needs, accountable at the ballot box, or do Belgian pencil-pushers make it for us?



Well no it isn't comparable as financial services are far more sophisticated than oil trading.

Hence why we're the 6th largest economy for a relatively small population.

I advocate renewables more so when coal/nuclear etc. become more scarce and pricey, then the infrastructure is there and paid for but also because it will hopefully lead to developments which improve on what exists so they're less crap. Also, I never actually said I was a fan of heavy industry to begin with.

Also financial services may be more sophisticated, but they can also easily relocate which would cripple this country. Oil will stay where it is until extracted, however is finite in the grand scheme of things. Both have their positives and negatives.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'm well aware of the directive which lead to the privatisation, but at some point the government would have signed away the power to make it relevant to the EU. The EU doesn't exist without government consent and they could have probably ignored the EU if they really wanted.

Indeed, so let's leave and restore those powers back to Her Majesty's Government in Whitehall.

I have said before, given the ultimate aim of the European project is to acquire more and more powers and turn itself into a political state, it is high time those in favour came out in public with this and argued for it so we could have an honest debate on whether we wanted to remain independent or become part of a European superstate. But they will not do this as they know what answer the public would come back with so they continue to pretend it's just about trading cheese with France: which is the exact same trick they pulled in 1975.

I want elections to matter in this country again so that when we go to the ballot box and choose a government, that government can control immigration. That it can sign or not sign a Free Trade Deal (FTA) with Mexico. That it can renationalise industry should it wish. That it can remove X regulation on financial services. Etc.


I advocate renewables more so when coal/nuclear etc. become more scarce and pricey, then the infrastructure is there and paid for but also because it will hopefully lead to developments which improve on what exists so they're less crap. Also, I never actually said I was a fan of heavy industry to begin with.

Again another topic, but all those renewable subsidies are making a few landowners very wealthy indeed. Thanks to Brussels and Westminster. Meanwhile in the real world, elderly people and families are struggling to heat their homes because of the absurd costs of renewable energy.


Also financial services may be more sophisticated, but they can also easily relocate which would cripple this country. Oil will stay where it is until extracted, however is finite in the grand scheme of things. Both have their positives and negatives.

Aye they could relocate, but given we're not under a Marxist government they won't be relocating anytime soon.

[dbgtz]

Indeed, so let's leave and restore those powers back to Her Majesty's Government in Whitehall.

I have said before, given the ultimate aim of the European project is to acquire more and more powers and turn itself into a political state, it is high time those in favour came out in public with this and argued for it so we could have an honest debate on whether we wanted to remain independent or become part of a European superstate. But they will not do this as they know what answer the public would come back with so they continue to pretend it's just about trading cheese with France: which is the exact same trick they pulled in 1975.

I want elections to matter in this country again so that when we go to the ballot box and choose a government, that government can control immigration. That it can sign or not sign a Free Trade Deal (FTA) with Mexico. That it can renationalise industry should it wish. That it can remove X regulation on financial services. Etc.


You really didn't need to give me the whole speech. Again, I've not advocated being in the EU.



Again another topic, but all those renewable subsidies are making a few landowners very wealthy indeed. Thanks to Brussels and Westminster. Meanwhile in the real world, elderly people and families are struggling to heat their homes because of the absurd costs of renewable energy.


Oh yeah, I think the way it's been handled is pretty bad and definitely some money going where it shouldn't.



Aye they could relocate, but given we're not under a Marxist government they won't be relocating anytime soon.

Oh yeah the chance of any large scale movement is very unlikely, but still possible nonetheless especially as developing nations get wealthier and better infrastructure.