Why are Iceland and Norway not EU members?

Question

Why are Iceland and Norway not EU members?

Answer 1

Norway voted no.

Answer 2

a key reason why they did not join has to do with fishing rights.

Answer 3

The European Union is an economic conglomerate (if that's the right word to use) that allows free movement of goods, services, and people throughout member nations. Norway has become rich over the years from its oil production. Although this isn't the only factor, the Norwegian economy is strong and they probably did not want poorer European nations dragging them down. Additionally, Norway has strict immigration laws that prevent excessive amounts of migration into the country so they probably objected to allowing the free movement of people.

Answer 4

The people of Norway have voted on EU membership twice. Once in 1972 (53,5% against) and again in 1994 (52,2% against, 47,8% for). The “no” side has increased a little over the years, but it’s still very close. I’ve included some of the arguments that have been/are being used for and against EU membership below.

The pro EU arguments in 1972 were (loosely translated from Wikipedia):

The EU means strenght through collaboration

The EU means peace between old enemies

The EU  contributes to a strenghtened western world in the fight against the eastern block

The EU  secures growth and employment

Anti-EU arguments in 1972 (loosely translated from Wikipedia):

The EU threathens Norwegian sovereignty

The EU is a potential new power block that may weaken NATO.

The EU reduces Norwegian property rights to the fishing resources

The EU creates larger distance between people and government

The EU means ruthless exploitation of nature

The EU will weaken Norwegian farming

The main pro EU arguments in 1994 were (loosely translated from Wikipedia):

Securing industrial/trade interests: The EEA agreement meant progress, but this was not enough. If Norwegian companies were to be able to compete on equal ground with European companies, membership would be necessary.

International collaboration for peace: An increase in European collaboration and mutual dependence would prevent wars on a historically war ravaged continent.

In to influence: Norway is affected by the goings on in the EU anyway, so why not contribute? Some also raised the argument that the EEA agreement was worse than EU membership.

Participation in a new block: A counterweight/balance to the US is necessary, and that's the EU.

Solidarity with poorer countries: The EU is a project for equalisation in Europe, and Norway should contribute to the progress of countries such as Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland.

The main anti-EU arguments in 1994 (loosely translated from Wikipedia):

National sovereignty: By being subject to the EU's financial policies, Norway will not be able to control/administer their own resources, and by being subject to institutions such as the European Commission and the European Parliament, Norway will no longer be able to make decisions on its development.

More bureaucracy: The EU will represent a further, unnecessary bureaucratisation.

Threat to distinctive cultural characteristics: Norway's distinctive cultural characteristics will be threathened by financial interests.

Market ideology: The EU exists on the terms of  market interests, and this has consequences for the environment as well as workers' rights.

Solidarity with the third world: The EU, fortress Europe, contributes to maintaining the large differences between north and south.

No to military aggression: The west union has an out-of-area clause that allows the union to perform military attacks outside their own member countries. (Note: Since the 1994 referendum, NATO has included a similar clause.)

So, those were the arguments, and the our referendums have turned down the EU twice. At the present time, this may be a good decision, as the EU would be a drain on the country's coffers, but in the long term, when the oil is gone, and Norway might need the EU's help, it may turn out to be a bad decision. That being said, membership in the EU is still on the agenda in Norway, but polls show that there is still a majority on the "no" side. Every once in a while there's a slight majority for "yes", but that disappears again very quickly. Norway will need to invest in the future, and find alternate sources of income than oil and gas if they hope to remain outside the EU. Personally, I am fed up with Norway ratifying all the c*ap that comes out of the EU (had to tear down all the playgrounds because they weren't EU standard playgrounds - but then of course no one would foot the bill to rebuild them afterwards, so the result is less safe playareas for children...), because the EU watchdog in Norway says we have to. Countries in the EU can put down a veto, as both Denmark and the UK have done in the past. Why Norway can't is beyond me. I still don't know where I stand on the EU issue, so if a vote were put to me tomorrow, I'd vote no, as I have no idea what issues/changes being a member of the EU would cause.

More recent pro arguments (loosely translated from hoyre.no - Norwegian conservative party):

1. The EU shapes the policies in Europe, and also in Norway (EEA). The EEA is undemocratic and a membership will provide increased influence and a better/more representative government here.  

2. The EU democratices and ensures security and peace in Europe. The EU has ensured democratisation a number of dictatorships and authoritarian countries in Europe. The EU develops and modernises poorer member countries. The EU collaboration is a guarantee against military conflicts between countries setting the tone in Europe. We need the EU in the fight against international crime and terrorism.

3. The EU creates common rules for industry/business in a large market. Common rules make it easier and better for the companies to compete and secures employment.

4. The EU improves the environment and climate The major challenges are transboundary environmental and climate challenges. We need the EU for this.

5. The EU creates possibilities for youths through education and exchange. Millions of European youths have large possibilites available to them due to the EU.

6. The Euro makes things easier for people and companies in Europe. The Euro is a robust currency that it's difficult to speculate against. Companies and people won't have to deal with exchange rates/costs when operating between countries with the Euro.

7. The EU builds on the best in Europe - a social market economy. The EU combines a liberal Europe with a social Europe.

8. The EU minimises/evens out the differences between European countries. The EU makes poor EU countries richer and more efficient.

9. The EU plays a positive and active international role in the world. The EU puts store in democratic values, human rights, aid for poor countries and an active peace diplomacy. Norwegian "core competence" as a humanitarian superpower and active peace diplomacy may also develop/be displayed within the EU framework.

10. The EU may gather all of the Nordic countries. Our neighbours, Sweden, Denmark and Finland are in the EU. This is Norway's natural place as well. If Norway joins, Iceland joins.

Recent anti-EU arguments (loosely translated from senterpartiet.no):

The faith in representative government and democracy as the best governing form. The EU is a fundamentally undemocratic organisation with loads of power. The people can't hold those governing responsible, or control what they do, because they are not elected and much of what happens is kept secret. Senterpartiet (Norwegian center party - the farmers' party really) feels that people must participate in decisions that relate to themselves, that the people must  be allowed to say how they feel through elections, and that what happens must be public. A closed bureaucracy in Brussels, with more and more power over large and small decisions is not Senterpartiet's vision of a good democracy. We would rather aim for a good and open democracy in Norway, and binding collaboration between nations where necessary to resolve common questions, for instance collaboration on defense, human rights and the environment.

The fight for a good environment, both in Norway and the rest of the world. The EU's one sided focus on economic growth isn't good for the environment. Increasing pollution demands other solutions than a rich Europe. Norway has, in many areas, far stricter environmental requirements than the EU, we would have to relinquish these should we become members.

Senterpartiet feels the environment shall be prioritised much more than it is today, and then we can't have a one sided focus on finance and production.

The fight for more solidarity and a fairer distribution nationally as well as internationally. If we want this, it’s no good to continue enriching ourselves at the expense of other, as the EU partly does today. The fight for better distribution and against poverty is also the fight for a better environment. Then we don’t need powerful customs unions and a one sided focus on market laws, but will to collaborate and manage/govern.

Hope this helps explain things a little! :-)

Answer 5

Norway rejected membership in the EU (by referendum). Iceland isn't interested in joining at this time either.

Answer 6

Xenophobia in Iceland...I assumed Sweden didn't join as well although I might be mistaken. I was living in Finland in the late eighties early nineties when it was only a concept and the general attitude there amongst everyone is it will never happen and if it does we will never join....however it did happen and Finland did so very reluctantly with the a close majority in favor. Major concerns at that time were issues like could England and Germany get beyond long held grudges. Would stronger economic and fiscally responsible banking systems like in Switzerland, Germany, and Scandinavia have to carry the recession of Italy and other indebted nations at the time like Spain. The influx of foreigners and loss of national identity were main concern for many Europeans but the consolidation of the EU came with both sacrifices and benefits. It appears the system is advantageous even 15 years ago was unimaginable to many as ever becoming a reality as for Norway and Iceland I would imagine they could always join if need be it is interesting too see how the non EU countries will maintain and thrive as opposed to those that

did. Also England is a member but last time I visited there 02 was not accepting Euros Pound Sterling only. Great question.