Norway & Europe
by Harold S. BIDMEAD
As a Greek dramatist recorded many centuries ago: "Those whom the gods seek to destroy they first make mad."
Norway, whose hostility to European integration threatens to turn her into a protectorate or colony of the Community, recently held a general election in which the declared enemies of unity gained a solid victory.
Norway's madness takes two main forms:
first: the delusion that nations cannot unite and yet remain separate. (Norwegians, like many others, are ignorant of the main principles of federation as an instrument of interpopular coordination.)
second: the illusion (suffered by most self-styled statesmen, politicians and other blind leaders of the blind) that if a government were to sign a promise not to exercise sovereignty it would thereby surrender the ability to do so.
Fooled by this self-deception, Norwegians of all parties thus confuse the treaty-making power of a parliament and government with the more serious business of constitutional amendment. The confusion is compounded by the fact that twenty years ago the Norwegian Labour government, believing then, as it still does, that Norway should join the European Community, held an ostensibly "consultative" referendum which resulted in strong popular support for the idea. Of a participation of 77.7%, 47% voted in favour, a surprisingly high percentage for such a novel proposition. One must bear in mind that the well informed constitute a minority of any ordinary population, and that most good ideas fail to win majority support at the outset. Yet the politicians of all parties, thinking - as they usually do - only as far ahead as the next election, thereupon abandoned their noble intentions and, in flagrant betrayal of their constituents, treated the "consultative" referendum as a binding instruction. They should, of course, have persevered in persuading the populace as to the wisdom of their beliefs. Otherwise, what is the purpose of a system of representative and responsible government. Should elected representatives be the slaves of the ignorant masses? Is this what we mean by democracy? At one time in the recent past, if a state had the word "democratic" in its title, it was assumed to be communist. Is democracy again to become another dirty word because Western "democracies" submit to mob rule?
Compounding the abovementioned crime against the electorate, the same party, again in power, proposes once more to hold a similar referendum and to permit the country to be bound by the results. Its main opponents contest this, but for the wrong reasons, since they have the declared intention to sabotage unification even if the electorate is in favour!
Compacts like the Treaty of Rome and the Maastricht Treaty, like all other attempts at cooperation among governments, are like a house of cards, liable to collapse at any moment. To purport to sign away sovereignty while still retaining full power to exercise it is, if not hypocrisy, at best a declaration of intent. As is well known, the road to hell is a crazy pavement of broken good intentions.
The truth is that populations can be united only by merging electorates. The European Community has admittedly taken a step towards this ideal by establishing the European Parliament, democratic in the sense that it is popularly elected and that voting takes place along party lines, not in national blocs. However, it is still mainly consultative only, though continually winning more power.
In the circumstances, it seems reasonable to allow the parliament and government to make treaties and ratify conventions under customary rules, and to treat consultative referenda as consultative only. If a referendum is to be regarded as binding, it must be so described in advance; the electorate should not be treated as complete fools.
However, once it is a question, after due negotiation, of uniting the people in a union (which must of necessity be federal) to require a qualified majority will be only fair and reasonable, say 67%, or even 75%. (If one could trust the entire electorate to recognize their own best interests, one might almost be justified in demanding a majority approaching 100%!). Unfortunately, however, we have to recognize that in any electorate there will always remain a lunatic fringe of greater or lesser width.
Most patriots who recognize the need for international unity are quite rightly opposed to the idea of a super-state. Federalists, whom Peter Ustinov 1) describes as the truest patriots, agree with them in saying "yes" to Europe but "no" to a super-state. As a life-long federalist I recognize that the treaties of Rome and Maastricht must be federalized before sensible electorates will accept the unification at which they aim. The greater the number of member states, the greater becomes the political necessity to restrict the powers of the federal parliament and government solely to matters that are of common concern, leaving the national parliaments and governments (as at present) in full control of all affairs that are of legitimate national concern.
I predicted above that if Norway persists in her present delusions she will inevitably become a protectorate or colony of the European community. "Dependency" might be a more appropriate word. Be this as it may, second-rate status may be an unavoidable interim stage for the more backward communities in their progress toward European peace and prosperity.
***