The Great Power Surrender Debate: An EU-Phobia or an Actual Concern?
Ladies and gentlemen, gather around as we delve into the riveting world of Norwegian politics! Yes, it’s the theatrical drama of “Should we give power to the EU, or should we keep our precious sovereignty?” played out in the Storting, where political intrigue meets constitutional law. A performance so captivating that even Shakespeare would have dropped his quill in awe—or perhaps out of confusion! You see, according to Rødt’s party leader, Marie Sneve Martinussen, it appears that a cheeky little hole in the Constitution has been discovered. A hole so big that you could park Oslo’s city hall inside it!
Now, before you start imagining the Storting clad in hard hats and building a new constitutional addition, let’s untangle the mess a bit. As it stands, the saying goes: “Out of sight, out of mind.” But here, we’re talking about the transfer of authority to Brussels being passed under the radar—effectively bypassing Norway’s own constitutional requirements. Quite the sneaky maneuver, if you ask me! Martinussen claims that elected representatives need to take action. But we all know that when politicians say “action,” they usually mean “let’s form a committee and discuss this over coffee and biscuits.”
The Supreme Court’s Verdict: A Game Changer?
Last autumn, imagine the surprise as Norway’s Supreme Court ruled that this power transfer regarding the EU’s third energy market package was legal. Why? Because apparently, it didn’t “intrude” enough to warrant extra protection from the dreaded three-fourths majority required by the Constitution. It’s as if they were saying, “Listen, you don’t need a full house for this one—it’s just a simple run of the mill power handover. Grab a few friends, maybe half the Storting, and just go for it!”
Instead of the heavyweight constitutional battle we might have expected, they opted for section 26, which allows for a simple majority. Talk about pulling a fast one! Rødt, however, is not keen on letting this become a trend. Nope! They want to slap a big red “STOP” sign on future power transfers, hoping to amend both sections 115 and 26. Good luck with that! Because let’s be real, altering the Constitution is about as easy as getting a cat to take a bath—lots of hissing and scratching, and very little cooperation!
Political Perspectives
As always, political parties have something to say. On one side, we have the Center Party, who think this proposal is “interesting.” Interesting? Come on, Marit Arnstad! Are we talking about a new flavor of ice cream or a constitutional amendment? Meanwhile, the Conservative Party’s Peter Frölich says the proposal is a “sharp tightening” on the Storting’s actions, likening it to tying their hands behind their back and asking them to juggle flaming torches. Sounds dangerous, doesn’t it?
Then, we have the Left, who are quite comfortable with the status quo, throwing in their poker chips and saying, “Nah, we like the way things are.” And let’s not forget the Labor Party, who seem to be playing a game of hide-and-seek with the media—having been asked for their thoughts but remaining conspicuously silent, as if the proposal was as exciting as watching paint dry.
A Broader Picture: Is Sovereignty Up for Grabs?
As the political pot continues to simmer, it becomes clear that Rødt isn’t the only one looking at future power transfers with a suspicious eye. The Progress Party and the Center Party have also voiced their concerns regarding the EU’s energy market package. Does anyone else smell a potential alliance here? Perhaps they should ice off their differences over some classic Norwegian waffles and discuss the treaty of Oslo over a cup of coffee!
Constitutional Law: A Professor’s Perspective
Professor Eirik Holmøyvik has even chimed in, suggesting that we really ought to tidy up the constitutional corners before too many powers start leaking out to Brussels like soda from a punctured can. His stance? If this whole subset of the Constitution allows for authority transfers to EU bodies without proper scrutiny, then it’s time to clean house. And let’s face it, it would be simpler if everything was written down clearly rather than leaving it up for “interpretation”—which in political terms often means just whatever fits one’s agenda at the time.
Conclusion: The Power Tug-of-War Continues
So, there you have it—a chaotic ballet of constitutional law, political maneuvering, and the looming question of sovereignty. Will Norway fortify its defenses and create a solid wall against EU encroachment, or are they content to let power slip away like sand through their fingers? Only time will tell. But one thing is for sure: in the world of politics, it’s always good to keep your eyes peeled and your popcorn ready! Who knows what the next act will bring?
This crafted article weaves a sharp and cheeky tone while delivering robust information about the ongoing political discussion surrounding Norway’s relationship with the EU. Enjoy!
– In practice, a hole has emerged in the Constitution that changing governments have created to ask the Storting to give up power to the EU without having the necessary three-fourths majority, says party leader Marie Sneve Martinussen in Rødt to NTB.
– Now the elected representatives must take action, she adds.
Last autumn, No to the EU suffered defeat when the Supreme Court ruled that Norway’s approval of the EU’s third energy market package and enrollment in Acer was legal. The Supreme Court said that the transfer of authority to Brussels was not intrusive and therefore did not trigger any requirement for a three-quarters majority from at least two-thirds present in the parliament, as section 115 of the Constitution states.
Instead, section 26 of the Constitution, which only requires a simple majority, was used.
Now Rødt wants to prevent more future transfers of power to the EU or other bodies outside Norway and the Storting. In a constitutional proposal, the party is in favor of amending both sections 115 and 26. They want the Storting in future to have a three-quarters majority behind it and that at least two-thirds of the Storting’s representatives must be present during votes.
The article continues below the advertisementThe article continues below the advertisement
– This is how we avoid that major transfers of authority can bypass the Constitution by being carried out bit by bit, says Martinussen.
Be video: Throws iron bars out from the 20th floor
Q: Interesting suggestion
The end of September was the last deadline for the parties in the Storting to submit constitutional proposals to be taken up for consideration in the next parliamentary term.
The article continues below the advertisementThe article continues below the advertisement
– This is more of a proposal in principle about relinquishing sovereignty than a proposal related to a single case. SP thinks the proposal is interesting, says parliamentary leader Marit Arnstad in the Center Party to NTB.
The Conservative Party, on the other hand, has a rather different view of the proposal. Leader Peter Frölich of the control and constitution committee tells NTB that everyone agrees that there must be minority protection against major transfers of authority. But, he adds, the majority in the Storting must be able to make effective decisions in ordinary matters.
The article continues below the ad
– Democratic problem
– I do not want to speculate on Rødt’s motives, but the proposal is a sharp tightening of the Storting’s room for action. It is actually so powerful that I think it could become a democratic problem, says Frølich.
Nor does the Left see any reason to change the current practice.
– This is of course a desire for an Acer rematch, but the fact is that the Storting has had a fixed practice over many years when it comes to section 26. The Supreme Court has confirmed that the Storting has applied this correctly, says Grunde Almeland to NTB.
The Labor Party has been asked for its thoughts on the Red proposal, but has not responded to NTB’s inquiries.
Be video: Explodes at the bottom of the ocean
Will be interpreted away
Rødt is not alone in wanting strictures in the practice of transferring authority across national borders. Both the FRP and the Center Party have previously expressed clearly that they will oppose the introduction of the fourth energy market package which the EU itself has long since introduced. SV and KrF have also taken a critical stance.
The article continues below the advertisementThe article continues below the advertisement
The Center Party in the Storting has been clear in its opposition to handing over national control, and Arnstad will not reject the proposal. It will be SP’s parliamentary group after the election that must take a position on the proposal.
– Surrendering sovereignty has in too many cases concerning the EU been “interpreted” away by the Labor Party and the Conservative Party. This applies to both participation in the EU’s financial supervision and Acer, she says.
Carl I. Hagen, who sits on the control and constitutional committee for the Progress Party, will not advance what his party colleagues will advocate for in the next parliamentary term. However, he points out that the train for Norway’s participation in Acer has passed.
– It is the group after the election that decides, says Hagen.
– I think similar proposals have been put forward a number of times before, and that SV has voted for it. But I have not seen the specific proposal, so I cannot say anything more about it now, replies Audun Lysbakken, who meets in the control committee for SV.
The article continues below the ad
The Supreme Court has drawn a line
Professor of constitutional law Eirik Holmøyvik at the University of Bergen thinks it is good that Rødt raises the debate. He points out that the way decisions and power are now lifted out of Norway as a result of the obligations in the EEA Agreement cannot automatically see its anchoring in the text of the Constitution, which he says is unfortunate.
– Important rules in the Constitution should be able to be read and followed from the text itself, says Holmøyvik to NTB.
According to the law professor, the most orderly thing, not least politically, would be to clarify this practice by amending the Constitution.
– There is good reason to clean up. If the Storting is to be able to transfer authority to EU bodies and without a qualified majority, then it should be written into the Constitution, but they do not want that. The text, as it stands today, does not really allow us to transfer authority to EU bodies because we are not a member, he explains.
