Stortinget,_Oslo,_Norway.jpg: gcardinal from Norway, CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/license…>
, via Wikimedia Commons
This present article is part of a series of articles published as part of the “Europe – What if?” Campaign by JEF Europe, within the project CompletEU framework. Its aim is to acknowledge that Europe is not limited to the European Union. Therefore, we invite our readers to examine the complex relationship the EU has with non-EU countries in Europe and how this relationship could develop in the future.
Europeans from the cliffs of Portugal to the lakes of Finland, from the beaches of Cyprus to the green hills of Ireland roar about the “undemocratic nature of the EU”. Euroscepticism is on the rise, EU parliamentary elections turnout is low, and electoral campaigns never revolve around pan-European issues. The words on everyone’s lips are “democratic deficit”, “lack of transparency” and complaints about the distance to decision-makers in Brussels. Do you think you know about a lack of democratic participation in the EU? Try being from an EEA state.
In 1994, 52,2% of Norwegians voted against joining the European Union. This was the second time Norwegians barely decided against joining the Union of peace and prosperity. The debate was lowered into its grave, and Norwegians wanting to connect with the continent had to settle for the seemingly shiny and brand new EEA agreement. Together with two of the other EFTA-states, Norway ended up silently drinking pepsi max at the children’s table with Iceland and Liechtenstein, humbly accepting the rule of the adult 27. They are debating loudly with real impact on the future of the continent, toasting in champagne for further cooperation against the unknown world of tomorrow.
Rule-takers or rule-makers?
The European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement allows its members to participate in the Internal Market. It covers the four freedoms and certain areas of cooperation enabling smooth functioning of these. This in practice means the Commission when drafting new internal market policies invites our politicians to comment, but never vote on the policies we will implement in Norway. We simply receive word of new law and instructions to implement them. We are in reality rule-takers, not rule-makers. This is the antithesis of genuine democratic self-governance.
The EEA adopts about three quarters of EU directives into our national laws – through a long and bureaucratic process. This procedure hides its true nature of tied hands and silenced voices within the gilded names of “national procedures” and “constitutional requirements”. These uphold the mirage that is the EEA; a false promise of increased sovereignty. True sovereignty implies the ability to shape the laws that govern one’s land. Under the EEA, Norway retains the illusion of vattellian sovereignty by formally adopting EU laws into national legislation, though we have ceded the substance of sovereignty; the power to make those laws. This is sovereignty without influence, a hollow victory for the average Norwegian in the streets of Oslo.
Euroscepticists with full trust in Brussels
The opposition to Norwegian membership in the EU are, as their eurosceptic comrades on the continent, fond of the frequent argument that the EU is “a distant power” and “we cannot be ruled from Brussels”. However, true representation by Norwegian politicians in EU institutions is less remote than continuously implementing decisions Norway has not been involved in shaping nor voted on. If one considers the EEA Agreement sufficient while staunchly opposing full EU membership, one practically places blind trust in the EU. This means accepting that Norway will follow laws and regulations from Brussels without a voice or voting card.
When new EU regulations on services or standards are adopted, these directly impact Norwegian businesses and citizens. Yet, Norwegian lawmakers, businesses and civil society have no formal avenue to propose amendments, vote on the final text, or even formally object beyond providing comments. Our fate is decided by others, often without understanding of the Norwegian context. In contrast, a German or French MEP can directly table amendments, participate in committee hearings, and vote on every line of such legislation, directly representing their constituents’ interests.
Influence in the EU occurs through institutional presence. As a member, Norway would have had the opportunity to assume the presidency. The EU presidency rotates among member states every six months, giving the country leading the council of the EU the opportunity to set the agenda and lead negotiations. This is a concrete way member states can raise their voices in the Union, as our neighbouring state of Denmark is now doing when implementing a secure, competitive and green Europe. As a member, Norway would also have had our own Commissioner in the European Commission. This individual would not only represent Norwegian interests but also hold a portfolio with significant influence over a specific policy area across the entire Union. This is a direct, high-level importance at the very heart of EU executive power, a far cry from merely writing dusty comments on draft policies.
Change arising on the horizon?
Norwegian participation in European decision-making has for thirty years been a hushed topic in domestic politics. Opinions are sprinkled across the political spectrum from parties wanting to leave the agreement entirly to bold parties demanding full membership of the Union, and the most frequent politician and average voter – those keeping their heads down and settling for no representation. However, after thirty years of the EEA agreement, an increasingly uncertain world is slowly opening the door of a renewed EU debate in Norway. The agreement notably does not include Norway in EU policy within health nor security and defense. During the covid pandemic, the EU 27 bought vaccines as a powerful bloc. The EEA 3 were left in the cold. We would have stayed outside to fare for ourselves if the Swedish vaccine coordinator Bergström did not grace us with the mercy of inclusion. A similar argument can be employed as we are trying to join the increased defense of Europe in the aftermath of Russian aggression on Ukraine. In 2024, the government-appointed EEA Review Committee concluded that Norway is so dependent on our privileges in the EU that the only alternative to the EEA agreement is realistically full EU membership. Before the 2025 Norwegian elections, the trams of Oslo are now peppered with posters fronting political slogans. Among them,for the first time in years, are messages to vote for Norwegian membership in the EU. Arguably a big win for democratic participation. In addition, Norway might soon stand alone in the gloomy EEA with the microstate of Liechtenstein. After its latest elections, Iceland’s new government has said it aims to put the question of EU membership to a referendum by 2027. It is likely Norwegians will have a wake-up call when our closest ally is a principality the size of what would barely be considered a city in Norway.
Not to be misconstrued, the EEA agreement surely has its benefits. Next to accession countries banging the door for years without closing in on a welcoming smile by Von der Leyen, the situation seems like a paradise. But in practice, the golden key to the internal market is for us lined with never-ending bureaucracy, blabbering on about the same delayed directives for years and having no say in policy implemented in our own land. Norway needs to put on our big-boy pants and join the adults. True influence is waiting to toast us with champagne.