Does the EEA Agreement give leeway for
an active European policy?
The European Movement’s council meeting,
Oslo, 1 April 2006
Check against delivery
Translation from Norwegian
Dear friends,
Please don’t be fooled by the date!
The first of April may be a day for jokes, but it is also a day
with more sombre associations.
Fifty-eight years ago today, on 1
April 1948, the Soviet Union started its blockade of West Berlin.
This triggered one of the major confrontations of the Cold War,
with tensions between the Soviet Union and the West running high. A
few months later, an air lift was organised to save the people of
West Berlin from starvation. This dramatic episode acted as a
catalyst for the formation of NATO and for Western European
integration.
There are many interesting lines
that can be traced through history.
This week, which ended on 1 April,
two important visitors came to Norway: the Prime Minister of
Russia, Mr Fradkov, who visited Oslo and Aukra, where the onshore
processing plant for the gas from Ormen Lange is being built; and
Mr Steinmeier, my German colleague, who visited the gas plant at
Melkøya, off Hammerfest.
The themes of these visits were
energy, security, supply, European infrastructure, quantum leaps in
technology, environmental considerations and climate challenges.
The images of Cold War Europe seem distant. In different ways,
Russia, Germany and Norway have become energy partners; new
patterns of European foreign and security policy are emerging.
Between the drama that took place
58 years ago and the high-level visits to Norway this week, there
is a historic chapter of European integration, starting with
Germany’s East policy, which led to the Helsinki Accords, détente,
the breakthrough of democracy in Eastern Europe, the
reunification of Germany, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the
dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the historic enlargement of NATO
and the EU.
Europe has become a safer place.
And that means Norway has become safer too.
For there can be no doubt: Norway’s
security, Norway’s welfare and Norway’s development depend directly
on developments in Europe.
Few countries are so closely
interlinked with Europe as we are. There is almost full agreement
in Norway that we should pursue an active European policy, despite
the fact that in both the referendums on the EU, the Norwegian
people turned down membership.
You who are part of the European
Movement strove for a different result at both these crossroads. I
did too through my vote. But we are so deeply committed to European
democratic ideals that the decision was based on the will of the
people.
The pro-EU side has never
questioned this principle. But it doesn’t mean that we don’t need
an active European policy; that is not an option for a country with
the interests and geographical position that Norway has.
And so let us turn to our daily
lives in Norway today, and the question I have chosen as the title
for my address – and this isn’t an April Fool’s Day joke either –
Does the EEA Agreement give leeway for an active European
policy?
My answer is yes. And I will
explain why.
The EEA Agreement is our gateway
into Europe, into European cooperation. The Agreement gives us an
opportunity to solve shared problems, meet shared challenges and
promote our fundamental interests and values.
Therefore I am in no doubt that the
EEA Agreement gives leeway for an active European policy. Indeed, I
believe the EEA Agreement in itself reflects an active European
policy, given the circumstances at the time it was drawn up. I also
believe that an active European policy is vital for the Agreement
to function as intended.
I would like to take this
opportunity to share with you some of my thoughts about what
direction we should be taking in our European policy.
There are three points that should
be emphasised.
Firstly, the EEA Agreement was, at
the time, an expression of an active and forward-looking European
policy.
It provides opportunities, it is
innovative, and it has fulfilled people’s expectations. It has
worked well and produced good results.
One of Norway’s objectives when
negotiating the Agreement was to be able to continue on a course
that we staked out through much of the 20
th> century – close integration into European
affairs. And we have succeeded in this.
The gains have been greater than
many hoped, and the costs have been lower than many feared. And
this is something we will build on further.
But, and this is my second point,
the EEA Agreement states quite clearly what areas it covers, and
there are many other areas that it doesn’t cover. Here we have to
use our common sense and find other forms of cooperation.
And in this connection I believe we
can be better at seizing the opportunities that the EEA and our
other agreements with the EU create. I will return to this
question, and share some of my thoughts with you, later.
Thirdly, the fact that Europe is so
important for us means that a broad and lively debate on Europe is
vital.
Meaningful and constructive
discussions, creative and critical debates are prerequisites for a
good policy. A lively debate on Europe is our most important
resource – indeed it is the very engine of our European
policy.
Unfortunately the debate on Europe
has not always been constructive. The sparks have not always
inspired us to move on. It is my view that the debate on Europe has
tended to veil rather than reveal the full range of
opportunities.
We have remained at the level of
trench warfare, unable to see beyond no-man’s-land.
For many years almost every issue
raised has been considered in a pro- or anti-EU perspective.
There’s nothing intrinsically wrong in that, but the debate has
tended to slip into well-worn tracks, it has been dominated by the
same familiar actors, and few new ideas have emerged.
The
Yes and
No sides will remain – and so they should – because the
question of membership cannot be excluded from the Norwegian
debate. But we must be able to ask questions, speculate and reflect
on both the familiar and, not least, the new issues that are
arising in a Europe that is undergoing such rapid development.
I would therefore like to challenge
both the
Yes and the
No sides to revitalise the debate on Europe – not to
smooth the rough edges, but to rediscover the deeper issues, the
real dilemmas, the true European agenda.
*****
First I would like to present some
of the arguments in support of the EEA Agreement, as you have
requested.
I know not everyone agrees with me.
I also know that the European Movement has been somewhat ambivalent
about the EEA Agreement.
On the one hand, you have embraced
the Agreement because it has ensured closer cooperation with the
EU. But you have also criticised it for having serious shortcomings
and for having taken the wind out of the sails of the debate on EU
membership.
The
No to the EU movement hasn’t been any more enthusiastic,
although their criticisms are based on other factors.
The EEA Agreement is too little for
some, and too much for others.
For the Government – as we have
made clear in our policy platform – the EEA Agreement is a
cornerstone of our cooperation with Europe, and an active European
policy is one of our key focus areas.
Why are we continuing to build on
the EEA Agreement?
Because the EEA Agreement has shown
that it is, on the whole, fulfilling Norway’s main objective,
namely ensuring that we can participate in the internal market,
with free movement of goods, services, capital and persons.
This we have achieved. We are
seeing the results of this achievement all the time – every day,
every week – wherever we turn, in our daily lives, in our work. I
would like to briefly highlight three particular areas.
Firstly, Norway is now part of the
internal market on an equal footing with the EU Member States.
Norwegian companies, enterprises, the labour market and consumers
are benefiting, and new important opportunities are arising – every
day.
We know that much of our export
industry is located in outlying districts, and the EEA Agreement
has helped to maintain the industrial base of local communities and
thus maintain settlement patterns. The figures speak for
themselves: 80 per cent of our exports go to the EU, and 70 per
cent of our imports are from the same area.
Secondly, it is not just the
business sector that has benefited from the Agreement. Let me give
you some other examples.
Since the beginning of the 1990s,
thousands of Norwegians have been involved in educational and
research exchanges and cooperation projects. Through the Socrates
programme alone, some 20 000 Norwegian students, school
children and teachers have taken part in exchanges with other EEA
countries.
This has given us networks,
friends, colleagues, language skills, mobility, better quality of
education and research, and mutual learning benefits.
In the cultural sector, the EEA
Agreement has opened up opportunities through the EU Framework
Programme for Culture, which has greatly benefited many members of
the Norwegian cultural community in the fields of music, drama,
cultural heritage, the visual arts and publishing.
We are talking here about access to
considerable funds, greater mobility and the establishment of
long-term networks. Norway has taken part in a total of 65 major EU
projects in recent years, and has also received support for
important national projects, such as the border dialogue
The Girls on the Bridge in the Barents region, the art
project for very young children
Glitterbird and the city of Ålesund’s participation in the
European Art Nouveau network, just to mention three examples.
Thirdly, the EEA Agreement has
helped to raise Norwegian environmental standards in a number of
areas. It does us good to be reminded of this, as we tend to be
rather complacent about our environmental performance. In fact the
EU is often at the forefront in setting such standards.
Of course, you in the European
Movement are aware of all this.
The way I see it, the EEA Agreement
has been, and still is, an important element in the major
modernisation project that is taking place in Norway – a project
that aims to safeguard and further develop our ability to provide
jobs and welfare on the basis of wealth creation, renewal and high
environmental standards. Frank and active debate within a framework
that ensures equal rules of play for all will advance this
process.
The EEA Agreement has a broad area
of impact, and many Norwegian interest groups are involved in this
cooperation.
But it is important to be open and
honest. In some areas and in certain cases, the EEA Agreement has
led to unpopular and difficult changes. In other areas the rules
have been needlessly rigid and have imposed unreasonable
requirements.
When these situations arise, it is
our task to point out where we are in disagreement and try to
change the rules.
The question of support for the
regions and differentiated employers’ national insurance
contributions is one such example. The Norwegian scheme has been a
flexible way of providing support to the regions. The European
Commission has now changed the rules and we are striving to ensure
that what was a good and effective scheme is reintroduced.
In Norway we are good at
implementing EEA rules. This is in line with our long-standing
tradition of rapid ratification and implementation of international
agreements and Community acts in Norwegian law. We were rated
fourth in the most recent league table for performance in this
area.
This is positive. I do not agree
with the Secretary General of the Young European Federalist,
who claims this puts us at the top of the list of the
“powerless”.
No, our rating reflects the fact
that that we have an effective public administration, and that we
realise that implementing these rules is to our advantage. It
reflects the fact that the joint rules and standards correspond to
the priorities we have set ourselves. It reflects the fact that
this opens up opportunities for us.
As I was involved in the
negotiations on the EEA Agreement, I would also like to highlight
another positive aspect – that it is an effective and innovative
instrument.
By this I am, unfortunately,
implying that not all international agreements produce the results
hoped for or required. Nor is unnecessary red tape or duplication
of administration always avoided. This is regrettable.
The EEA Agreement, on the other
hand, is an effective agreement.
Firstly, it requires little
administration, either in Norway or in the EU, in relation to its
scope. A well-functioning decision-making system and monitoring
mechanism have been established.
Secondly, the dynamic nature of the
EEA Agreement is innovative. New Community acts are continually
being incorporated. The Agreement does not become out-of-date. On
the contrary, it is constantly being up-dated.
But there is of course the problem
that cooperation in Europe is developing in a large number of other
areas that are not covered by the EEA Agreement. This is not
something that can be blamed on the Agreement itself, but it has to
be given proper attention in the ongoing debate on Europe.
The positive aspects of the EEA
Agreement are attracting attention in the international arena.
Vassilios Skouris, President of the European Court of Justice,
pointed out recently that the cooperation between the EU and EFTA
is an excellent example of dialogue and cooperation on
international policy between judicial institutions. I agree with
him.
A third strength of the EEA
Agreement is that it has both proved to be robust and
produced results, even though Norway has had to pick up a big share
of the tab.
In the next round of enlargement,
we will send a clear signal to the EU that Norway cannot be put
into a different category to other countries.
The EEA Agreement has been robust
enough to deal with major changes in Europe, including the EU
enlargement, and it has been productive enough to further develop
the cooperation between Norway and the EU.
*****
But we must also look at the
longer, historical lines. It is true that the EEA Agreement is
dynamic and ensures that new rules are incorporated. But it will
never enable us to participate in the full breadth of cooperation
that is emerging.
I would now like to turn your
attention a little back in time.
We must not forget that the EEA
Agreement was a response to the plans to establish the Single
Market in the middle of the 1980s. It is now more than 20 years
since the first talks were held between EFTA and the EC in
high-level working groups. The Agreement we speak so favourably of
today – in 2006 – is therefore primarily a response to the
challenges of the 1980s.
The idea of establishing a large
European Economic Area was launched by Jacques Delors in January
1989. The EFTA side, led by Gro Harlem Brundtland, followed up this
initiative closely, and as early as spring 1989 an arrangement
between the EC and EFTA was established.
In other words, the EEA was
conceived at a time when Europe was quite different to what it is
today – indeed just a few months before the dramatic upheavals of
autumn 1989, when courageous people were taking to the streets,
demanding their rights, cutting holes in fences, crossing borders
and tearing down the Wall.
Since then, changes have taken
place at record-breaking speed.
The EC has become the EU.
Cooperation has extended into new
areas.
The German and Finnish mark have
been replaced by the euro.
The EU has expanded from 12
countries solely in Western Europe to 25 countries throughout
Europe.
And today European eyes are turning
further eastwards, towards Belarus, where the fight for democracy,
participation and human rights is in full swing. The election in
March was a far cry from the principles of free and democratic
elections. Together with the EU and the OSCE, we condemn the
arrests of members of the opposition and underline that this is a
new battle for democracy in Europe.
We also have to remember that the
context of the EEA Agreement was altered significantly when Sweden,
Finland and Austria joined the EU, and EFTA was substantially
reduced.
But the ship did not sink. It
weathered the storm.
When seen from this perspective,
another outstanding quality of the EEA Agreement is the fact that
it still functions well.
And although it does not provide
for our participation in all new areas, it has served as a
springboard for us, for example in the field of justice and home
affairs, as well as in the common defence, foreign and security
policy. Just a couple of weeks ago, we signed an agreement on
participation in the European Defence Agency (EDA).
The Schengen agreement is another
example. At first we were informed by the EU that we could not take
part. We then flew EU representatives along the whole of the
Norwegian border to show them exactly what they would have to
defend if Norway was not allowed to participate.
Robust and innovative. These
qualities of the EEA Agreement have provided us with predictability
and a firm and stable framework that have been valuable in rapidly
changing times.
I would also like to add that the
Agreement has been and still is a well-functioning political
compromise for Norway.
All Norwegian governments –
regardless of political colour and support in the Storting – have
continued to govern on the basis of the EEA Agreement. This is not
something that should be taken for granted in an area where there
have at times been severe political storms, with strong tension
between opposite poles.
I think we would have experienced a
considerable degree of instability and insecurity if every
government over the last 15-20 years had had to forge its own form
of cooperation with Europe.
I know that in many people’s eyes,
the EEA, being the compromise it is, has almost been too
successful. During the EEA negotiations, I remember Member of the
Storting Jon Lilletun constantly asking whether the EEA would be a
permanent solution. And Gro Harlem Brundtland would answer, “The
EEA will be a permanent solution – until something else turns
up.”
*****
In short, the Government believes
that there are many good reasons for defending the EEA
Agreement:
- it is fulfilling its objectives,
- it is effective and innovative,
- it has been robust and fruitful, and
- it has worked well as a political compromise.
But no defence of the EEA can
change the fact that the Agreement has its limits, that it does not
reflect the whole of the EU’s agenda or its full development – for
better and for worse.
This is my second main theme here
today.
And here I would like us to
speculate for a moment. What kind of agreement would we have if it
was negotiated today? What do you think?
Of course it is a hypothetical
question, but I believe Norway would want a more extensive
cooperation that better reflected the increasingly important role
of the European Parliament, and included cooperation in areas such
as foreign, security and international development policy. I
believe we would want more formal access to the EU’s various
strategic priority areas, from the Lisbon strategy to the energy
strategy that is currently taking shape.
On the other hand, it might be more
difficult to establish the institutional arrangements we were able
to achieve when we were negotiating with a full EFTA team. The
two-pillar solution is important for us, even though the pillars
can hardly be called balanced.
But the formalities are important
here. While the agreement and arrangements that we have today give
us the opportunity to influence Community legislation, there is no
guarantee of influence.
Nevertheless, nothing is
incorporated into Norwegian legislation without us deciding it
should be.
So I don’t agree with those who
maintain that the EEA Agreement has made Norway a “fax
democracy”.
At the same time we have to be
realistic. When we look at the map of Europe and the way it is
organised, we see that Norway is not at the centre.
But neither are we on the
periphery, and we should be the last to make ourselves smaller and
less important than we are.
The EEA Agreement entitles us to
take part in the early stages of the EU decision-making process.
But is does not give us the right to vote. We are not sitting at
the table when the decisions are being taken.
We have to utilise other channels
to exert an influence, and these are often more informal than the
ones used by the Member States.
When we are out of sight we are
often out of mind.
That is how the EEA is. And we have
to find ways to remedy the situation.
Being part of the EEA is a
challenging position that sets tough requirements, both to us here
in Norway, and to our foreign service missions. And I believe these
challenges can only be met if we have an active European
policy.
This is why the Government has set
itself the target of revitalising the work on European issues.
If we are to follow a proactive
European policy, we have to be better at identifying opportunities
and focusing on what and where we can contribute.
The EU wants a dialogue with us
because we have resources, expertise and experience.
Let us look at the most obvious
area – energy – where significant developments are under way.
Both the European Commission and
the Member States regard Norway as one of their most important
strategic energy partners.
The EU imports around half of the
energy it consumes and this share could rise to 70 per cent in 15
years. Secure access to energy is at the top of the agenda. The
proactive approach the EU is taking to its energy policy was clear
at the European Council meeting last week.
And we are finding that our
European friends are very interested in developments in the High
North.
In the last few days, I have been
discussing energy issues and have explained and drawn diagrams of
the High North with the Foreign Ministers of Estonia and
Germany.
Yesterday my German colleague, Mr
Steinmeier, and his delegation visited Melkøya, off Hammerfest, and
saw for themselves a new energy region in the north taking
shape.
It is all very impressive, and it
seems that the perspectives and challenges in the north first
become really clear when people see this enormous, advanced plant
for themselves.
They also see how magnificent and
vulnerable the natural environment in these areas is.
Another issues is the question of
social justice, employment and economic development in Europe.
Here I find the EU is showing
increasing interest in what are generally called “Nordic
solutions”: the way we combine a flexible labour market with
security for the individual, and strive to prevent social dumping.
These solutions are not unique to Norway, but here too we have
something to offer.
The fact is that the Nordic
countries have been successful. There are several reasons for
this:
- we have had a great deal of confidence in each other, and have
been able to understand and take into account each other’s
interests
- we have had an overarching objective of providing equal
opportunities for all
- we have a taxation system that aims to ensure redistribution of
wealth
- we have an active and – in an international perspective –
efficient public sector
- and the social partners have played a constructive role.
Therefore, as I have made clear
before, I do not hesitate to promote this model. I agree with Grete
Berget, the leader of the European Movement, who underlined in an
excellent article in the daily newspaper
Dagsavisen recently the importance of seeing our
welfare reforms in the light of the changes in the rest of Europe.
In the early 1990s, many people predicted the demise of the Nordic
model. Now we are hearing a different tune. The Nordic model and
the Nordic redistribution mechanisms are making us better equipped
to take part in the knowledge economy.
It is not the internal market that
is threatening the European welfare states, but globalisation and
the inability to constantly reform and develop them.
I mentioned education and culture
earlier. Another field in which we have developed close cooperation
with the EU is research. Norwegian participants have been included
in around 2 500 applications to the EU’s Sixth Framework Programme,
and nearly a third of these applications have been successful. This
places Norwegian researchers at the top of the league, together
with Belgium, France and the Netherlands. Thus we are taking out
just about as much as we are putting in, in addition to gaining
access to leading centres of excellence.
The important point here is that
influencing the development of Europe requires knowledge, insight
and networks; and it requires commitment.
During the course of the spring,
the Government will present an action plan for European policy,
which we will call
EEA plus. The objective of this plan is to ensure that our
European policy is firmly based on clear and timely political
priorities.
We intend to inform the Storting
about issues that are important for Norway at an early stage, even
if we are unable to take part in the decision-making process. One
example here is the EU green paper on energy.
Ine Marie Eriksen has called
EEA plus “membership minus”. I think it is good for the
debate that the action plan has different names.
When I referred to providing
information at an early stage, I was pointing to the importance of
Norway being involved early enough – at the start of any decision
processes where we have strong interests.
But we don’t need to be deeply
involved in all issues. In many cases we have shared interests with
the EU. In many cases EU policy is advantageous for Norway too. And
when 25 countries reach agreement, we generally agree as well. But
not always. Therefore we have to be alert, strategic and
proactive.
We are currently reviewing our
routines and procedures so that we are better able to promote our
interests and views.
We intend to concentrate our
efforts in certain areas. The reorganisation of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs and the Foreign Service, with emphasis on promoting
a modern knowledge organisation, will support these changes.
Openness, competence and
participation will be decisive for our success.
We have to pull together and become
better at seeing things in perspective.
We have to strive to increase
knowledge throughout society. We must bolster education and
research in this field.
The members of the Government are
no exception. We need adult education programmes. We have sent all
the state secretaries and political advisers on a course in
Brussels, and we will hold an EU seminar for the Government in the
near future.
In connection with these efforts,
we will also strengthen the dialogue and cooperation with regional
and local authorities, and with the social partners, interest
organisations, think tanks, research communities, media and other
parties.
Here – yes, in this very room –
there are many people with experience, expertise and valuable
networks. Many of you know exactly where the shoe pinches and where
we can become better. It is the Ministry’s job to find ways of
involving you in these efforts.
Together we have to find out how we
can make better use of our shared knowledge base.
*****
This brings me to my final theme –
one that I outlined at the beginning: the need for an active debate
on Europe. As I have already pointed out, an active debate is
essential for an active policy. By talking together we will find
solutions. Discussion breeds engagement. Openness casts light over
the issues at stake.
The Government wants to help the
elected representatives become involved in a more meaningful way in
the development of our European policy, by ensuring that they
receive information at an early stage and are in an even better
position to take part in debates at important crossroads and on
future challenges.
In this way we will bring to the
fore the breadth of Norwegian viewpoints, which will create a
better basis for exerting an influence.
The debate on Europe should not
just be taking place between the experts, politicians with
specialist knowledge, well prepared journalists and commentators.
Neither should it be taking place solely in the formal channels.
The European issues should be debated in the media we read and
listen to, in the public spaces for discussion and wherever people
share their thoughts and opinions.
And as I said at the beginning, the
European debate should not be reduced to the question of
membership. It should be about that too, but not just that.
Otherwise all we will have is polarisation: “us” against
“them”.
The nuances can easily be lost. Too
much importance can be attached to what form our cooperation with
Europe should take.
The European debate would be a more
valuable resource if it both allowed more room for ambivalence and
dilemmas, and highlighted the opportunities and freedom of action
that we have, rather than just being a black/white, yes/no
issue.
We have to be aware of, interpret
and understand what is going on in the EU to be able to exert an
influence.
We have to be able to act at the
right time and in the right way.
The Government will therefore take
some concrete steps to revitalise the European debate.
- We will improve reporting on European issues.
- We will foster greater openness and make our European policy
more visible.
- We will provide better insight into our activities, our
priorities and the results that are achieved.
- We will increase our support to the organisations that are
engaged in European issues, as we announced in our policy
platform.
- We will encourage the business sector to take part in the
public debate both on legislation that is being drafted in the EU
and on the general European policy agenda.
I believe there should be more
focus on the fact that European cooperation is about joint problem
solving. Take the situation in Belarus, for example. This is an
urgent issue on the European policy agenda.
- It is all a question of how we are going to:
- secure peace and stability
- address climate and environmental challenges
- deal with cross-border health problems
- ensure social development, welfare and justice, at both
national and European level, and prevent social dumping
- strengthen the dialogue between different cultural and
religions communities – the great dialogue project of our time
just to mention a few.
When I meet my colleagues in the
EU, it is to discuss concrete practical solutions to the challenges
that we are all facing and that unite us, such as human
trafficking, the spread of avian flu, the response to the cartoon
issue, preventing illegal fishing, the development of the
High North.
I agree with Dag Seierstad, who
wrote in the daily newspaper
Nationen last year that one of the weaknesses of the
European debate is that everyone seems so quick to disagree about
everything: where we stand, where we are going, what tools we have
at our disposal.
This makes discussion difficult,
and the disagreements can easily overshadow the full range of
opportunities.
There are differing views within
the Government on the question of membership, but we have no
problem agreeing on the values and interests that we want to
protect in individual matters.
I would therefore like to challenge
the European Movement and
No to the EU to sit down together and apply your combined
expertise, which is considerable, to hammer out some joint
positions on certain important issues.
I’m not joking, even though it is
April Fool’s Day. I believe you would agree on a number of
important areas. And I believe this would also clarify where the
real disagreement lies – apart from the obvious issues – and what
it consists of. Disagreement is good, and it is valid, but it
should not eclipse everything that we can and should agree on.
If you accept this challenge, I
would like to invite you to present the outcome of your discussions
at the first meeting of the new national forum on Europe that we
are in the process of establishing. I will give you more
information at a later date about the format, composition and
functions of this forum, in the light of other countries’
experience of similar models, but it is already clear that
participation should be broad – including various organisations
and, not least, parliamentarians. And I intend to chair the forum
myself.
A joint contribution from you would
revitalise the European debate, and it would help create an active
European policy.
*****
For more than 15 years, politicians
have made speeches on the EEA Agreement. A great deal has been
said. I think it is important that every now and again we stop,
look back and try to see the larger picture.
The EEA Agreement has worked better
than many expected and better than others feared.
Gro Harlem Brundtland, whom I keep
returning to – and not without reason – said at the beginning of
1995 that Norway, “benefits from joint rules that are followed by
everyone – both strong and weak. The EEA Agreement is now our most
important mooring. We must keep a close watch on this mooring to
make sure that it holds.”
It has held. Successive governments
have watched over the Agreement well.
I have given you a challenge, and I
hope you will grasp the opportunity it offers. Together we can
renew the debate and our policy on Europe. I hope very much,
therefore, that I will be seeing you in the new national forum on
Europe.
