Change starts when you say "No!"
* Norway The defeat of the November 1995 referendum on EU membership was an important victory for progressive forces in Europe's most northerly country. Anders Ekland explains.
In the run-up to the referendum on Norwegian membership of the European Union (EU) on November 29th, 1995, the employers association told the public that EU-membership would generate 100,000 new jobs. This was a patently ridiculous piece of propaganda - underlying unemployment rates in the EU are much higher than in Norway. The employers association admitted as much - after the referendum
Not only was being in good, but staying out was bad. Labour Party leader Torbjorn Jagland, warned that "if we do not join, I am seriously worried for the future". So far, there are few signs of crisis.
The majority of the ruling class and elites of Norway exaggerated the negative consequences of voting "No" and the positive consequences of voting "Yes" Their political credibility suffered as a result. There is a now a larger majority against membership in the EU than before. If opinion polls are to be trusted, about 60% of Norwegians would vote "No" if there was a second referendum.
Since, on the suface, so little has changed since before the referendum, one might assume that the consequences of the referendum were relatively unimportant one way or the other, both for the ruling class and for ordinary Norwegians. This would be an error. Why all the excitement?
On the surface the will of the Norwegian establishment to get into EU was irrational from an short term economic and political point of view. Their control over Norway's natural resources, especially oil and fish would be significantly reduced. They would open up their home markets to a greater degree of competition. Politically the establishment had to confront stubborn resistance from large sections of the population. Not only farmers, fishermen, but also workers, especially a large part of the lower salaried workers in the public sector, mainly women.
So why provoke a conflict. Well, how about because resistance from these same social groups is a day-to-day an obstacle for capital. It slows down restructuring, flexibilisation, and privatisation and limits the size of the cuts which the ruling class can impose in the public sector, and on the subsidies to rural and far-northern districts.
These "pressure groups" have successfully used Norway's proportional representation system to maximise parliamentary 30 International Viewpoint resistance to any decisive attack by capital on the remnants of the social-democratic weltare state. The political parties of this resistance are the Socialist Left Party, the farmer-based "Center Party, the Christian Peoples Party, and the Red Electoral Alliance, which is present in Norway's larger cities. Together with the rural sections of the Labour Party, this conglomerate would always carry enough votes and/or political weight to block the capitalist offensive, and obstruct, to a certain degree, the drive for "increased competitiveness"
But if this offensive came Brussels" as EU demands and directives, it would be much more difficult to for ordinary people to fight back. The Labour Party government could then even play the game of protesting in Brussels, waging a "heroic" fight in the EU-system against the most hated directives, and thus legitimising the other 95% of reactionary legislation.
In other words, the Norwegian bourgeoisie applied for EU-membership because, once inside the club, it would be reinforced and supported in its attacks against its own working class and farmers. Low-intensity conflict
The question of membership in the EU entered the political agenda in 1989. The capitalists and their politicians chose the strategy of drawn-out "low-intensity" conflict with anti-EU interests: the Norwegian working class, peasants and fishermen. Membership in the EEZ (European Economic Zone) was carried through the Stortinget (parliament) in October 1992.
This coup was successful mainly because important anti-EU forces like the (centre-left Christian Peoples Party and the "No" faction in the Labour party were not opposed to membership in the EEZ
In fact, joining the EEZ gave Norway virtual economic membership of the EU. The tactical plan of the ruling elites, especially the Labour Party was to let the EEZ undermine the economic and political base of the anti-EU forces, over a number of years. The requirements of EEZ membership, it was hoped. would accustom Norwegians to the flood of regulations and directives which are an integral part of the bosses' Europe. People would give up hope under the pressure of a stream of small attacks on their welfare. Or so it was hoped.
But as we all know, things turned out differently. The Norwegian bourgeoisie had planned to let the EEZ have its effects for five or six years before proposing EU membership, as the best way for Norway to have some influence over the decisions which, through the EEZ, were already dominating daily life.
The problem was that the much more acute crisis in Sweden and Finland made it imperative for the bourgeoisie in these countries (who wanted membership for the same reasons as the Norwegian elite) to join the EU as quickly as possible. The time was coming for a concerted attack on the
"Scandinavian model" welfare state, enlisting the enthusiastic support of the undemocratic, uncontrollable, neo-liberal bureaucracy in Brussels.
Bad timing
The timing of this attack was not at all ideal for the Norwegian bourgeoisie. But they were obviously obliged to show class solidarity with their Scandinavian counterparts. And, making virtue out of a necessity, the referenda were staged so as to create a "knock on" or domino effect. First to vote would be Finland, where anti-EU forces were weakest, followed by Sweden and then
Norway. Those of us campaigning for "No" in all three countries wanted simultaneous referenda, or the reversed order: Norway first, so as to encourage the forces of progress in the neighbouring countries to "just say
Being outside an organisation like the EU is a fundamental advantage for working people here. Recent events in France have reminded us that the fundamental thing in politics is the strength of the popular forces confronting the offensive of capital. And it is clear that we fight at maximum advantage when we can put the responsibility for the attack we are facing squarely and directly on those directly opposite us: our own bourgeoisie and their politicians. These forces are much more vulnerable to our mobilisation and resistance, which takes place in a national framework, including, of course, national elections.
Norway's non-membership of the EU is still very much a potential political advantage for progressive forces. The government has not gained much popularity by declaring that it would "voluntarily" comply with the Maastricht convergence criteria, despite their clear anti-social costs. Non-membership means greater or less problems for the government in carrying through EU and EEZ directives Because it is outside the club, the Norwegian Parliament can theoretically veto much of this unpopular legislation. If Norway were a member, it would have been much harder to mobilize because it would have seen almost hopeless. Resignation would have been even more widespread
Parliament's reluctance to oppose these "voluntary" measures exposes the constraints of EEZ membership. The "soft" anti-EU forces are very uncomfortable. But the "hard anti-EU forces are rewarded with numerous possibilities for political action. The fight for national sovereignty, against the Europea Union: undemocratic even by bourgeois stan dards, remains a fundamental part of revolutionary strategy. *