The Norwegians and the British are on the whole people of similar outlook. Both would be accounted non-European by General de Gaulle.1
This statement by a UK ambassador in 1965 describes Britainâs and Norwayâs relations to European integration during the entire post-war period. Both countries are geographical, cultural and political outsiders of Europe. Situated on the European outskirts, they have traditionally had strong Atlantic ties and distinct national identities. Politically they have shared a fundamental view on the European integration project: a scepticism towards the different continental federalist approaches2 and extensive supranationalism.3 Certainly, there have been âtrue Europeansâ in key positions in both countries who have genuinely believed in joining an integrated Europe. In broad terms, however, the chain of events from the forming of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), via the European Community (EC) to the European Union (EU) has effectively been a development they have been forced to respond to rather unwillingly. This has challenged the ingrained reluctance to surrender national sovereignty to international bodies.
Despite shared fundamental attitudes to European integration, Britain and Norway have not always chosen the same paths. Indeed, British EC entry in 1973 represented a parting of ways, as Norwegians refused membership then and again in 1994. Norway subsequently adopted EU policy to such a degree that in some areas it surpassed Britainâs involvement. With Brexit they are again together on the outside of Europe, but their future European integration relationship will most likely not be as close as it was prior to 1973.
A feeling of being a European outsider, however, has endured in both countries throughout the period from 1945 until today. Britain was described as the most reluctant memberâan awkward partner,4 often obstructing further integration and opting out of various common European policies. Norway, its significant Europeanisation notwithstanding, has remained a formal outsider. Anti-membership sentiments have been strong among Britons and Norwegians. When governments in Oslo and London have sought close cooperation with and membership in the EC/EU, it has fuelled controversy in domestic politics. The European issue has been one of the most divisive of the entire post-war period on both sides of the North Sea. It has divided political parties, forced governments to resign and split people in ways that perhaps no other issue has.
Britain and Norway had traditionally strong trading bonds and cultural ties, and after Norway became a fully sovereign state in 1905 royal relations and security alliances brought them even closer. After 1945, trade, security and political cooperation have been considerable, and the bilateral relationship has been cordial, robust and without serious conflicts, nonetheless with variations. On the whole, the relationship has gradually grown more distant and lost some significance. Today there is no âspecial relationshipâ.
Objectives and approaches
The main aim of this book is to offer a comprehensive account and analysis of Britain and Norway in Europe since after the Second World War. No other work deals with this subject in an equally wide-ranging way in terms of policy areas, with such varied and extensive sources and with such a long-term perspective.
There are two principal objectives behind the book. They are interconnected and mutually important. First, the book provides an in-depth account of British-Norwegian relations with particular focus on European integration from 1945 until today.5 It investigates and discusses the roles Britain and Norway have played for each other and how they have interacted. The book thus examines significant events and developments but also explores long-term perspectives. Important questions are: How did they interact as formal outsiders in the 1950s and 1960s; how did Britainâs EC accession in 1973 change the bilateral relationship; how did they cooperate on questions of European integration after the formation of the EU in the 1990s; and finally, how will Brexit influence their future relationship?
Second, the book comparatively examines how two outsiders have struggled with the European question since it arose after the Second World War.6 It investigates national motives behind key foreign-policy choices, for example joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and seeking EC membership. What have been the main strategies and tactics of Britain and Norway, and have these changed over time? Another aspect is how these issues, in particular EC/EU membership, have played out in domestic politics. What have been the main similarities and differences and what can explain them?
The book does not compare the political systems in general. It is still useful here to point out some differences. In Britain government ministers must be members of the parliament while in Norway an MP must leave parliament when becoming a member of cabinet.7 Norwegian ministers must of course attend the Storting regularly, but the UK government operates closer to parliament. The election method, on the other hand, creates closer links between government and parliament in Norway. The British first-past-the-post system often generates results where one party has a House of Commons majority, typically Labour or the Conservatives. The Norwegian method of multiple MP constituencies opens for more parties in parliament. No party has had a majority alone since 1961, and minority and coalition governments have therefore been common in Norway. Finally, politics in Norway is characterised more by consensus than in Westminster. This makes it easier to reach national compromises. On the other hand, some pundits argue, as the UK Oslo ambassador did about the Norwegians in 1978, that: âthere is lack of bite in their political debateâ.8 This has not been the case for many European issues, however.
When dealing with these two countries, it is important to remember their considerable differences in terms of power. The British population is more than ten times larger and its economy is much bigger. There has also been a huge asymmetry in their military capacities. Historically, Britain has been a world power with its empire and global reach. Norway, conversely, achieved its independence late and has in no way had similar international ambitions.
The process of European integration is an essential element of the book. Here it means European statesâ efforts since the Second World War to seek close economic, trade, political and security cooperation, and the results of these processes. At the centre are the developments that began in the 1950s with the ECSC and led to the European Union of today. Other integration efforts that were connected to this are also important, such as the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) in the 1960s, and the European Economic Area (EEA) in the 1990s.
However, we need to adopt a wider perspective to understand a countryâs European integration policies. Security will always be a stateâs highest priority and often influences its other foreign-policy areas. It is impossible to understand many developments in European integration if the importance of the Second World War and the Cold War is ignored. Specifically for Britain and Norway, the dependence on the USA and NATO is crucial for understanding their European outsiderness. Therefore, their security policies are an important part of the analysis. Cooperation in this field has also been a cornerstone of their bilateral relationship.
Other policy areas are also included. The economy of Britain and Norway and their trade links with each other are significant because they offer explanations as to why they chose certain European policies. For example, Norwayâs large exports to the UK in the 1960s were essential for its decisions to follow British applications for EC membership. Furthermore, the general political relations between the governments are often important when attempting to understand their foreign-policy considerations and actions. Naturally, this has varied for the British-Norwegian relationship during this three-quarters of a century.
So security, trade and political relations are discussed for all periods covered in the book. These topics are interesting in themselves, but importantly, they also increase our ability to analyse the countriesâ choices in European integration. In general, this broader approach strives to explain the countriesâ outsiderness.
The book also covers some specific foreign-policy issues of importance for their ...