From: Jonny Axelsson <jonnya@ifi.uio.no>
Subject: Re: EC (Was: Laughing at americans)
        22 Jul 1992 14:36:30 GMT
Cc: jonnya
Organization: Dept. of Informatics, University of Oslo, Norway
        <1992Jul16.010400.27061@alf.uib.no>
        <1992Jul17.110259.8147@ugle.unit.no>
        <1992Jul18.023908.13147@alf.uib.no>
        <1992Jul20.071842.8407@ugle.unit.no>,<EXJTMM.92Jul20094427@ida28.tts.lth.se>
        <1992Jul20.162011.25613@kth.se>,<EXJTMM.92Jul21083930@ida28.tts.lth.se>
        <1992Jul21.151547.11679@kth.se> <1992Jul22.143630.28575@kth.se>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:12:06 GMT
Originator: jonnya@geirahod.ifi.uio.no


Tomas Erikson write in article <1992Jul22.143630.28575@kth.se>:
> In article <1992Jul22.072047.22178@ugle.unit.no>, jafitv@termo.unit.no (Jan Arne Fagertun) writes:
> >In article <1992Jul21.151547.11679@kth.se>, tomas_e@LINK.Physchem.KTH.SE (Tomas Eriksson) writes:
> >|> 
> >|> EC will probably become more and more synonymous with Europe. If Norway, 
> >|> Sweden, Finland, Austria and Switzerland joins EC, then all European 
> >|> countries except Iceland west of the former iron curtain will be members 
> >|> [adds Central European countries]

> >Tomas, and all of you pro-EEC's in Sweden and Norway :
> >
> >It's no good idea to say that "If Norway, Sweden, ..... join EC, ...."
> >as an argument for actually joining EEC.

> It wasn't an argument for joining EC. (If you use the term *E*EC, you just 
> mean one aspect of the European Community.) It was a discussion about to 
> what extent it's reasonable to say "Europe" instead of EC.

EC is, post-Maastrich, one out of three pillars of EU. Sweden or
Norway won't be able to join the EC (only).

I think in population EC enrolls a slight majority of "Europe" (if you
exclude Russia and Turkey), though it is overwhelming in economic
terms. Anti-EC people have called EC "a group of twelve coastal
European states" (a bit like calling USA "a North American country").
I think there are in reality *two* debates,

1) Quo vadis EU
2) Quo vadis Europe
in my opinion they are separate (if intermingled).
 
> >Norway will not join EEC, and if you use norwegian EEC-membership as a
> >major argument for Sweden to join EEC, you might get into a problem
> >in just a short time.
 
> I could say that it doesn't matter to me if Norway wants to behave in a 
> stupid way, but it actually does. It would probably save time and effort 
> for both the EC and for the countries involved if all EFTA countries 
> joined the EC at the same time. As I see it, if Norway and/or Finland 
> joined the EC while Sweden was outside, that could be use as an argument
> in favour of Swedish EC membership. But if Norway chooses status quo, 
> that isn't really an argument against Swedish EC membership. Our present 
> and future economic relationship with the present EC countries is, in my
> opinion, enough to justify a Swedish EC membership.
> 
> Fortunately, we don't have a previous negative referendum result in our 
> "luggage" as Norway has.
> 
> >Besides, it looks like Denmark's membership may be questionable, too.
> >This may increase your problems. You may have to switch from saying
> >"Sweden must join EC because Norway and Denmark ...." to "Sweden must
> >join EC in spite of Norway and Denmark ....".
> 
> Are you seriously saying that Denmark will *leave* the present EC? I 
> don't think that is the case. That's definitely not what they were voting
> about!

Maybe the EC will leave Denmark... One of the dafter pro-EU argument
by an unnamed politician said that Denmark, while voting against
Maastricht, were still pro EC, and thus of no concern to the Norwegian
application. Conveniently forgetting that there are no way for Norway
to join the EC without joining the EU. I think the Union is virtually
unknown here, people only know of the consequences of the Single
European Act (the four freedoms etc).

> I would like to ask you a few things: those who are anti-Norweigan EC 
> membership, what do you think about Norway's NATO membership? 
NATO, as is, is a defensive treaty protecting the territory of the
members of the pact from invasion, which is fine with me. It is using
nuclear deterrent, which is less fine.

WEU is supposed to be a highly mobile military collaboration designed
to protect EU-ropean interests wherever they may be. I don't like that
*at all*. EU-ropean chumminess does in no way compensate for this.

I sense that an anti-USA undercurrent lies behind much of this (coming
back to the original thread). I think it is high time that Europeans
realize that the Americans have functioned as a very convenient scape
goat the last forty years. Apart from their adventures in Central and
South America, West European countries have been behind them all the
way. They inherited Vietnam from the French, the Libyan bomb raid was
resupplied by the Brits, the European had greater interest in
Kuwaitian oil than the Americans etc etc etc.

Oh, I forgot, Europeans are peace-loving and diplomatic, scratch the
previous paragraph. I can't think of any European country that would
(re!)elect Ronald Reagan (or Dan Quayl...) though, there may be some
cultural differences there.  

>If you don't like it, what did you think about it pre-1989, or say, pre-1986? 

I didn't go out in anti-NATO demonstrations to be beaten up by the
police like some of my more masochistic friends. I do have some sense.
Whatever feelings I may have had to NATO in the past or will have in
the future, today NATO is just dandy.
 
> How would you view an extended Nordic/Scandinavian cooperation, 
> including e.g. common currency and close defense cooperation? What about 
> the rumour that some people in Norway don't like EC because that would 
> mean some kind of Swedish influence in Norway ?

*Cooperation* is usually a good thing, generally. In this case too. A
close defence cooperation would be even better (for once a defensive
cooperation that is defensive), common currency would be backwards.

I've never heard the rumor, and it doesn't make any sense at all (not
that all pro or anti arguments do). But from another posting I guess
what is meant is that EC is likened to the Swedish-Norwegian union, ie
a union "of equals" that leaves Norway with pretty little influence in
own affairs. 

Jonny


Newsgroups: soc.culture.nordic