Slip of the Tongue: Influence

Below the level of volitional, conscious control

A Slip Of The Tongue I noticed on BBC's Newsnight, a number of times, comes up during the subject of "Europe". People can't help slipping into:-

"When I Go To Europe..." or "On the Continent."

Both Pro-EU and Pro-Brexit speakers make these slips of the tongue before being corrected by David Dimblebee: "We are in Europe." And there's nothing exceptional about this common mental model of our place in the world: Britain is a geographical island in the North Atlantic, off the coast of "mainland Europe".

Once again there was clear rejection of The Norway Option,

References: google.co.uk/search?q=The+Norway+Option

Especially vigorously so from Caroline Flint MP (Labour), which was considered in a scorecard style of communication previously:-

One of the core concepts I've promulgated from the very start of this blog is "quality of argument" in particular arguing the central point where it can be established. Another approach is engaging the arguments of the "other side" and a strong way of showing this engagement is to "Speak Their Language" as well as offer the suggestion of alternative conceptual models of understanding.

A cursory inspection of the above scorecards suggests "tally the ticks vs crosses": EFTA/EEA aka Norway Option:-

• Global Council: 6 v 4
• British Influence: 5 v 3

Which is higher than all the other options, assuming equal weighting. So questioning the validity of those x's is perhaps a rational next check on which Brexit to choose:-

• Influence over EU Regulations retained
• Able to adopt own approach to regulation
• Freedom to pursue trade deals independently (FTAs)
• No Contribution to EU budget
• Freedom to impose immigration controls 

We looked at a small sample of VIP politicians in The Columbo Method: Norway previously. But the Legacy News-Media:-

EFTA/EEA Influence on Regulations

In general this can be boiled down to at the most forceful negatives:-

• 100% of the EU Rules with 0% say in how they are made
• All the EU Rules with No Say in how they are made

Quoting Dr. RAE North who references EFTA official sources on the quantity of rules applied:-

EU Referendum: the EEA acquis

"By contrast, the very latest count of the EU laws in force (today) stands at 23,076. As a percentage of that number, the EEA acquis of 4,957 acts currently stands at 21 percent. In effect, the EEA (and thus Norway) only has to adopt one in five of all EU laws – not the three-quarters that is claimed." 

This is hard evidence. As such in any popular debate there's no opinion: It's factual and quantitatively asserted. Onto the actual regulations: Making and Shaping again this was somewhat covered previously.

1. Norway does not have a seat in the EU Institutions with representation to vote on legislative process. However the UK only has:-

• 29/352 votes 8% in the Council of Ministers (requiring q.maj: 252, ~74%)
• Of 73 MEPs in EU Parlliament (9.7%) they do not vote as a block to reach 376/751 for a majority
• According to Dr. North: x30 more legislation by-passes the above normal legislation process in any case "delegated legislation".
• More and more legislation has it's origins at "Global Level" via "international standards bodies"

As for the Acquis Communautaire itself, again as per Dr. RAE North EU law: definitive stupidity and it's origins:-

"A very substantial amount of that law originates with higher bodies, from UNECE to Codex and points south. Of the 6,000 or so laws in the Single Market acquis, potentially 80 percent are of international origin. The rest of the acquis also has international input, which means that a substantial proportion of the so-called "EU laws" would remain in force even if we left the EU."

•  Indirect means of influence applicable to EFTA/EEA: Veto, contest of "EU acts marked as EEA relevant" by EFTA in various commitees (holding-pens as I conceptualize it), case studies include: Oil & Gas, Postal Services, Iceland disputing Bank Charges and Lichtenstein uses EEA provisions on Migration.

 Quoting FLEXCIT: 5.5 Influence in Perspective, p.100 in full now,

"Alongside Norway and other EFTA/EEA members, Britain resumes its place on global and regional "top-tables", and would be able to argue its own positions."

"When it comes to a vote, if the UK objects to a measure, it can either  veto proposed standards or opt out of them. A 27-member EU, once the UK left, would cast as many votes on international councils (see above diagram!), but would have only one veto - giving the UK an exact equivalence with the EU."

"[...] Only if proposals get past this filter, and then have a mutually accepted Single Market relevance, would Britain - as an EEA member - have to  consider adopting them. Even then, the States can also refuse to adopt EU law that they consider against their national interests."

Robert Oulds: Chapter 3: A Question Of Influence, p.60

The above also avoids the referal to the ECJ for resolution. Again another side of the coin is EU influence according to it's objectives of Ever Closer Union and increasing members requiring diluting of total percentage per member nation, and her Robert Oulds book helps when we consider that the British Government and in particular MEP's are often Pro-Integration measures and Pro-EU over National Self-Interest, a particular exemplar being the British Commissoner role's oaths to the EU.

I would argue that citizens influence is very low input too in the EU limited to EU Elections and rejected in Major New Treaties!

EFTA/EEA: Free Trade Deals

If we look at British Influence's score-card above it destroys 2 of the x's leaving only FTA's: Can Britain seal decent trade deals if it leaves the EU?

Norway has a  half-in, half-out relationship that gives it free trade with Europe but keeps it out of the EU‘s political institutions. Jonathan Lindsell in a Civitas report New study – the Norwegian model is a viable Brexit option looks at The Norway Option and EFTA/EEA rules on Trade Policy:-

Again the argument would seem to fall down if the UK joined the EFTA/EEA group this would as per FLEXCIT create the 4th largest trade group in the world which would seem to indicate that any talk of requiring to be in a "large club" apart from being highly contentious as per Lindsell's report highly likely to be a redundant argument!

FLEXCIT: 4.3 The "off-the-shelf" Market Solution ~ Dr. RAE North

What should be most satisfactory about the above status and relationship of the UK is that this is what was offered in 1975 as per the wording of the Referendum specifying "Common Market" membership in the EEC.

This has not only the virtue of delivering that which was requested, but also denying the opportunity for further Great Deception by politicians with the stipulation of "ZERO" Political Representation in the EU Political Institutions amounting to 100% TRUST in our Trade dealings with the EU and other equal partners.

Dr. North reveals the tortured history of the EU "what could have been..." discussing an alternative vision for the EU + EEA members in FLEXCIT: Background to the EEA, p.76 once again:-

"The President's vision, at the time, was a of a European village", in which he saw a house called the "European Community." [...] What is so relevant to the current debate is that, at this point, the Community (now EU) was seen by Delors as one "house" in a village, alongside the EFTA "house", with which decision-making could be shared."

EFTA/EEA Cost To Single Market

FLEXCIT: EEA cost and contributions p.82-84:-

EU Referendum: in the deadly grip of "Europe"

"On the other hand, in 2014, the UK gross contributions to the EU were £19.2bn, less £4.9bn rebate. That gives an equivalent gross payment of £14.3bn. After rebates and other receipts, our net contribution was £9.8 bn. 

"With a population of 64 million, that puts our gross contribution (without rebate) at £300 per head, our equivalent gross payment at £223 per head, and our net per capita payment £153 per annum – more than twice the Norwegian payments"

Quoting FLEXCIT for the equivalent cost of Single Market for the UK in the EFTA/EEA arrangement:-

"Budgetary costs attributed to EFTA run to 22,360,000 Swiss Francs (about £16 million),  of which 55 percent is borne by Norway. This includes categories defined as EEA related activities, EFTA/EU   statistical co-operation and EU/EFTA cooperation programmes. That, strictly, is the cost of Single Market.

"Access  which, on a pro-rata basis, would cost the UK less than £200 million per annum."

 EFTA/EEA Migration (Immigration)

Again quoting Dr. RAE North: EU Referendum: the tedium of it all

"Funnily enough, this would be very similar to Articles 112-3 of the EEA Agreement, the so-called "Safeguard Measures" which permit EFTA states unilaterally to take "appropriate measures" if serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectoral or regional nature arise and are liable to persist."

 Further Reading:-

White Wednesday: Norway - Some Bookmarks

In the areas where apparently The Norway Option scores a "cross" it actually does BETTER than the EU! It might be time to create our own Brexit Score-Card?

 EFTA+ UK might start to become: EFTA++

 

 

The Columbo Method: Norway

"Oh Sir/Madame/Dr., just one more thing... ."

I'm sure most people are familiar with Lieutenant Columbo detective series on television and his famous/infamous method of uncovering the criminals or to be more accurate, his method in provoking them into uncovering themselves? Apart from his combination of initially appearing to be unassuming and bumbling to gain their mutual rapport and underestimation, he then uses that base to keep plugging a few questions before getting into their heads with suggestions and seeing if they change their story and then again repeating more questions from unexpected places. What's relied on in general is the lack of consistency of the villain's story when the Motive is clear. Columbo usually has to work out the Opportunity and Means from the villain themselves alongside his own detective work and evidence gathering.

Unassuming: Weakness or Strength?

Coming back to The Norway Option which has recently been highlighted in both Brexit For Beginners and  considered under the constructive filter of A Science Of Simplicity as per fulfilling those conditions for example reducing the "Brexit Choices Pie Piece" which then like dominoes knocks on removing and reduces other Pie Pieces which is exactly what we want for The Referendum Day Present Simple People's Choice. After all, blame the politicians for pushing >40yrs of membership into x1 day with poor explanation and development of the subject to the people all this time. And this is what Columbo is dealing with in the villains the audience is presented with: How to disentangle their deception.

Honesty and pragmatism will win the referendum

We almost certainly will not "win" 2017, but if we hold to the above we cannot "lose", either

 In Dr. RAE North's Strategy ten: communication: at EUReferendum.com (see sidebar):-

"But there was something more to it – a lot more. What we were also seeing were the effects of "prestige". On the one side there were the three main party leaders, Wilson, Margaret Thatcher and Jeremy Thorpe, most of the business community and almost every newspaper – plus the BBC. On the other, as Kellner points out, there was "half the Labour party, most trade unions, Enoch Powell and the Scottish National party".

In truth, the issues hardly mattered. Not one in a thousand had any real idea of the political ambitions of the EEC. The majority were prepared to have their opinions handed down to them by people who were endowed with that magical property, "prestige". They were not going to argue with the prevailing wisdom.

Forty-plus years later, if anyone thinks things are going to be any different, they are being delusional. In the information game, one just has to put a big name newspaper report against a blog post (which may be better written, more accurate and with more detail) and the newspaper will win every time.  Simply compare the reach the idiot Boris Johnson with that of lesser mortals." 

 Putting the key evidence together: Opportunity & Means

LeaveHQ also ran another blog post on The Norway Option in reflection of the latest Pro-EU Membership argument to accuse this option as "beneath Britain" in We'd rather have the Norway Option than Stockholm Syndrome which is a top quality play on words (wish I'd said that) as per Stronger In Europe's leader Lord Stuart Rose:-

"no credible alternative has been articulated. Following the path of Norway and Switzerland — who pay for access to the single market but have no influence over the regulations they must accept — would weaken our control over our economic affairs." ~ British Business must not stay silent in the Brexit debate - FT.com, Lord Stuart Rose

"For all practical purposes, Norway is part of the union, but has no influence. Norwegians must wait in the corridor when decisions are being made that affect them. This violates the entire idea of the enlightenment project and the European integration project. Here, everybody should be equal participants in the exercise of popular sovereignty...  No alternative project is in sight in the age of globalisation. With all its flaws and shortcomings, the EU is here to stay. It is ‘the only game in town’...Norwegian citizens have become second-class European citizens... democratic self-harm since our form of affiliation is based on choices that could have been different, and that would have been less harmful in a democratic perspective."  ~ Norway’s rejection of EU membership has given the country less self-determination, not more - LSE Blog, Erik O. Eriksen

"A Britain choosing this track would, in other words, keep paying, it would be “run by Brussels”...Without full European Union membership, however, it would have given up on having a say over EU policies: like Norway, it would have no vote and no presence when crucial decisions that affect the daily lives of its citizens are made... Norway and Switzerland, heavily integrated as we both are in the EU, have simply chosen between the two currently existing options for staying in the outer circle." ~ We pay, but have no say: that’s the reality of Norway’s relationship with the EU - The Guardian Espen Barth Eide

"Some people arguing for Britain to leave the European Union ... have particularly pointed to the position of Norway saying that is a good outcome, Cameron said.

"Norway actually pays as much per head to the EU as we do, they actually take twice as many per head migrants as we do in this country but of course they have no seat at the table, no ability to negotiate."  Cameron admits Norway no model for Britain in Europe ~ Euractiv, David Cameron

 “We [Norway] are fully integrated into the EU single market as members of the EEA, but what we don’t have is the right to vote on those regulations that are incorporated into our law when they are made by the council of ministers.”

“We now have the Norwegian Europe minister himself telling us to get a grip, get real and get involved in shaping Europe. Little England cannot be an option,” Wilding said. ~ Britain will lose influence in the world if it quits the EU, says Norway - The Guardian, Vidar Helgesen

Mr Brende today insisted ‘Britain can have more influence inside the EU than outside’. He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: ‘On the directives from the EU, we implement those in Norway. ‘We are one of the countries in Europe that are the fastest ones in doing so because the single market is so important for us. ‘Our arrangement being part of the European Economic Area is that we have to implement all the EU directives. ‘We are not around the table when these are discussed in Brussels.’ He said Britain could be a ‘no nonsense’ voice in Brussels on cutting red tape and regulation. ~ We implement Brussels rules faster than anyone, Norway warns UK Eurosceptics who want to copy Scandinavians outside EU The Daily Mail, Børge Brende

"Of course, we must tell the truth about the 3 million jobs, 25,000 companies, £200bn of annual exports and £​450bn of inward investment linked to Europe; and how the “Britzerland” or Norwegian alternatives (even Norwegians oppose the Norwegian option) leave us subject to EU rules, but denied a vote in shaping them." ~ The truly patriotic British view on Europe? We must lead from within - The Guardian, Gordon Brown

"Excellent... excellent..."

"This works for Norway’s economy, built on plentiful natural resources and with a far smaller population than Britain, but would be no good for an economy as complex as ours.
 
In return, Norway, under prime minister Erna Solberg, is the 10th-highest contributor to the EU budget, but it lacks any clout over EU decision-making because it has no seat at the table: no commissioner, no MEPs and no ministers attending European Council meetings." ~ Five reasons for staying within a reformed EU - John Cridland is CBI director-general The Daily Telegraph, John Cridland

"Norway has seen "extensive Europeanisation" in the past 20 years despite being outside the EU, a government-commissioned report says.
While it sees the economic benefits as largely positive, the report expresses concern at the political consequences as Norway is bound, in practice, to adopt EU policies "without voting rights".
 
Mr Sejersted calls this a "great democratic deficit... but this is a kind of national compromise since Norway decided it did not want to join the EU"
Some British eurosceptics, including Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan, have argued that the UK should be like Norway, outside the EU, but according to this report Norway is both "outside and inside" the EU and just "one or two steps behind".

 "Fax-Democracy", 2001: The source of origin itself

"The EEA gives it access to the EU's internal market and its “four freedoms”: freedom of movement for goods, services, people and capital. But this comes at a price. The Norwegians are obliged to accept every single piece of internal-market legislation, and they have no vote on these laws...
 
All this has led many to conclude that Norway would actually be better off joining the EU. At least it would have some say over all the legislation it is forced to adopt. Jens Stoltenberg, leader of Norway's opposition Labour Party, bemoans his country's “fax democracy”, in which officials sit by the fax machine waiting for the latest directive from Brussels to arrive." ~ The Norwegian option: Those strange European countries that have kept out of the European Union The Economist, 2004 - Jens Stoltenberg

  
Nick Clegg: 'Groomed' for the EU

"And heading to the exit would be the surest way to diminish the UK. Because what then? Become the next Norway or Switzerland? Advocates of repatriation point to these nations and say they have the best of both worlds: success to Europe’s markets without an assault on their sovereignty.

But these countries sit and wait for bills and directives from Brussels, duly paying their bit, changing their laws, but with absolutely no say over Europe’s rules. No political representation, no national voting rights, no voice at all.

They work by fax democracy: you find your instructions on the machine in the morning, and you follow them. They have no meaningful sovereignty in the EU. Norway has had to implement three quarters of all EU legislation, including the Working Time Directive.

To go down that route would be a catastrophic loss of sovereignty for this nation. I want better for the UK, and our other allies want better for us too. They pay into the EU Budget: for the specific programmes they participate in and for development grants to new member states." ~ Nick Clegg EU budget speech in full - recorded in Politics.co.uk, Nick Clegg

I tried to read a lot of books, for enjoyment and for education. I've not read a lot of detective fiction genre, but I have got to say, writing up this particular blog post has been exceedingly enjoyable! The thrill of the detective clues and linking up all the bits of evidence, I can see why/how people get hooked on this genre! What's noticeable:-

• Prestige of all the contributors hammering home how aweful Norway is
• Visibility of a free pass in the press and no fact checking done since <2001!
• Motive: This is the key: They're all Pro-EU big-shots who buy into the EU; particularly the last 2: The big cheese in NATO and Nick Clegg the model EU student in British Politics.

In my quick research online I only found x1 article that mentioned The Bruges Group paper The Norway Option above in contention to the prestige of all the above speakers who get a free pass in the legacy news-media; despite google results bringinig it up on the front page along with Jonathan Lindsell's Civitas work on The Norway Option:-

The Norwegian Way: A case study for Britain’s future relationship with the EU

New study – the Norwegian model is a viable Brexit option: 13 February 2015 by Jonathan Lindsell

Norway itself actually provides plenty of information:- Norway Government: 6 The EEA and Norway’s room for manoeuvre and EFTA itself via Decision-Making and Decision-Shaping.

The Boiling Frog covers this some more: EU Referendum: EEA Ruled by Fax? Iceland Said No as well as White Wednesday's useful bookmark resources for The Norway Option: Some Bookmarks and of course it comprises merely one part of FLEXCIT:

"And  one point, he  adds, "which  is  almost  always overlooked",  is  that  the  founding  charter  of  the  EEA,  the  Lisbon  Treaty, enshrines  the  EU's  jurisdiction  as  it  stood  on  2  May  1992.  It  provides  no mechanism  to  impose  on  Norway,  Iceland  or  Liechtenstein  the  extensions  of EU power  that  have  happened  in  subsequent  treaties,  notably  in  the  fields  of
employment  law,  social  policy  and  justice  and  home  affairs.  It  is  up  to  these countries to  decide whether  they wish  to alter  their  own law  to keep pace with the EU in these areas."

 FLEXCIT p.94: Two-Pillar System: Multiple EFTA-EU contacts at early stage of legislative process

"In  fact,  this  phenomenon  is  more  commonly  called "fax  democracy" a label coined by Norwegian Prime Minister, Jens Stoltenberg, in February 2001. He  was  seeking  to  promote  full  EU  membership  to  his  reluctant  countrymen, who  had  already  twice  rejected  membership." p.

We've finally completed our detective work: We've seen how prestige of these hugely important individuals gives them free access to the legacy news-media and then we see a huge component of the Norwegian Pro-EU Political Class and the British Pro-EU Political Class dominating the debate because of their shared motives to prevent both Norwegian people and British people in seeing how disruptive to further EU Integration The Norway Option for Britain would be.

From the various additional areas of research we see this:-

The Authority of the prestigious individuals allows their Pro-EU motive to manipulate public understanding of the Brexit options. What's interesting is this is backed up by polls of Norwegians themselves to add to our previous poll on British people in A Political Mirror: People:-

Despite all the prestige and pomp and power: The people hold the power in Norway over EU representation and they don't see either the dangers of non-membership nor the riches of representation in the EU Political Union promised and threatened by the politicians, equally.

The politicians have exerted vast powers of influence and political persuasion and propaganda to convince people to not vote for The Norway Option, apart from infrequent and perhaps calculated concessions such as Dear Britain, there is life outside the EU. Brexiteers and so-called "eurosceptics" may like to take note of the Pro-EU's efforts and equally anyone else might like to question their received arguments from authority, too.

Combining all the quotes by the Pro-EU on The Norway Option and the people who make them provides an impressive pattern from which to include in our arguments as demonstration of "changing the story" and inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the "story" growing the more the fabricated story is retold and retold to us. Just like Columbo, we can rely on the liar to trip themselves up over their own lies, when we persist in asking:-

"Just One More Thing..."