Opening address by the Prime Minister at a  Conference on Norway, the EEA and the European Single Market

Checked against delivery

The reports by Enrico Letta and Line Eldring

Good morning, dear friends,

It's great to see all of you gathered here, the diplomatic corps, business community, and others, in this building (Folkets Hus), which has so much history of political decisions. And I'm happy that we are gathered on this very issue – the EEA, which is key and important for Norway.

I'm particularly proud to see Enrico Letta and Line Eldring here. We're going to discuss the EEA and Norway's future on the best basis that Europe can provide: Two very solid pieces of work, looking ahead, looking into the past, looking into the present, to see where we come from, what is the future. – And there is no doubt about it, the Inner Market, Europe's future, is part of Norway's future, we are here; it's going to provide us with opportunities and challenges. – It is our Europe; this is the European market that we are part of today.

What Enrico Letta has done in his report is looking ahead; what are the challenges. I think it is a very important piece of work, especially because it goes back to 1985; when Jacques Delors started to work on the Internal Market. And you told me this morning, Enrico Letta, about your meeting with Jacques Delors before you started your work on the report, and he gave you some insight on where he ‘missed out’; and so, what we do need to get things right, and I think that all of that is part of the big picture.

And also – thank you to Line Eldring – for having brought together a very representative group reflecting over where Norway comes from, what does the EEA really mean for us, and then concluding – very clearly – that the EEA has been good to Norway. But this is not a conclusion without challenges regarding how to move ahead and move forward now.

The society model in Europe

I read over the weekend an article by Nicholas Kristof, the commentator in European press, and it was a piece where he said; you know – as an American liberal I have always stood for Europe, and its society model has been attractive. There is more job security, there is more welfare security, you can bring your children to education, pre-education, there is the idea of free insurance, a sort of free healthcare system, and a number of other issues, where he says, you know, Europe is a kind of a model, a more benign society model than the US model.

But now I'm starting to have some fears, because now I see that Europe is falling behind in some of the big economic and technological changes happening. Kristof was pointing to the big tech firms; they are all American tech firms. And he was pointing at other structures in terms of regulations in the US versus in Europe.

At the Offshore Northern Seas (ONS) last week in Stavanger, we had some who were complaining about the energy transition, commenting; that it takes a large number of decisions and a lot of time to get the decisions right in Europe. And, I can add, also in my country. We need more electricity. And it is very hard to get it built, and to get any decisions made in order to get it built.

On the other hand, we see in the US how rapid such decisions are getting through, and this is something we cannot simply ‘gloss over’ and say well, it doesn't concern us, because it really does. And we have to discuss that from a European perspective, and I – as Prime Minister of Norway – have to discuss it from a Norwegian perspective.

The EEA – 30 years

So, a big welcome to all of you to this morning, here at the ‘Folkets Hus’. I believe it's going to be a good discussion. It's been more than 30 years since the EEA came into effect. When we celebrated the EEA 30 years a few months ago, the Prime Ministers from the EFTA states and the EU, we were all invited together, with our European colleagues. I made a remark in my intervention that I think I was the only one left from those negotiations, when we were negotiating the EEA, but then there was one woman sitting next to the President of the Commission, and she said; ‘No, no, I was also there!’ So, there were me and the woman. – Big negotiation efforts by the EFTA states and the EU led by Jacques Delors, building a two-pillar system of the EEA. 

And while we were working, most EFTA states joined the EU, and Norway decided not to do so. In any case, the EEA was there, and it has been our partnership with Europe ever since. – A pragmatic solution, an adaptable solution, and we’ve had a number of challenges confronting us along the way. We've been able to find solutions with the European Union on the basis of the structure of the EEA, which I think is a very solid proof of the relevance of this agreement, still. Although, I think that if we had compared what we agreed back in 1993-94-95 with the state of relations now, we would be surprised. It would be hard to guess; looking at all the relations we have built.

But I think it speaks to both the EU and to Norway that we have been able – pragmatically – to find a way. And I think this will continue to be Norway's trademark; that we are pragmatic on these issues. We belong to this market. We are implementing more ‘acquis’ than some of the EU member states themselves. We have a more open economy than most EU member states. There is always a debate on whether we are implementing ‘acquis’ immediately or not, because it's our tradition to always implement the ‘acquis’. – But we do, in time and in good sequence, and we will continue to do so.

There are three important issues I would just like to mention briefly, before we hear Enrico and Line sharing their views.

Security

The first one, I believe, is that the EEA agreement, as I see it now, much clearer than then; today – it is also about security. The EEA is for Norway also a security agreement. Because being part of the same market, with the same rules and rights and obligations, the surveillance mechanism and the mechanism to solve disputes, in this world, where globalization is hitting challenges, and where we are being challenged by states, by hybrid attacks on our social model, I believe this is a very important part of the EEA.

Not only because there is a war happening in Europe, where our neighbor Russia is in a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, but also because security is a much larger issue now, relating directly to the EEA. When I'm heading to China in a few days, this will be the main issue I'm discussing with our Chinese colleagues, and when Norway approaches China – very much as part of a European approach – to this major economic power that we are going to deal with, trade with, find solutions with; and at the same time be very clear about where the boundaries go and where we also need to warn about how things really are.

It's about security – what we need to defend, the defense industry cooperation, where NATO and Europe are going to find better coordination – in the way we deliver on the latest discussions in NATO, on decisions, a new command structure, new regional defense plans.

And you know, all of you, that we have just agreed, in the Parliament, on a new 12-years defense plan, strengthening our defense sector, and that is going to be in very close cooperation, of course, with our European partners. – Not least with our regional European partners, Sweden and Finland in the north, all Nordic countries, all five are members of NATO now, but also in the northern hemisphere of Europe where we coordinate on defense and security.

The joint expeditionary force (JEF) – the UK, Netherlands, Baltic States, the Nordics, working together; this is going to be a very clear expression of regional security, and not only security – but also on economy and industry development. Norway has many contributions made. We have concluded agreements with EU on security policy, on industrial cooperation on defense, and that have been based on the European concept that the new Commission will focus more on defense in the future. It's not going to be Europe as an alternative to NATO. Let us not forget that 80 percent of the defense capacity is non-EU. It is U.S., Canada, Turkey, UK, Norway. So, we have to work together and not see that as two separate parts.

The EEA has served us well

My second remark is that who knows what the future will bring – in terms of decisions on how we belong and relate to the European Union. I believe that for the time being, and that's where we're looking at now, the EEA is our point of departure. And it's a very flexible and good point of departure. We are able to find pragmatic solutions.

You may always come up with the question about being present at the (EU) table or not being present at the table. – An interesting and important debate. I believe that the EEA agreement, and good work towards the Commission and member states, is the tool with which we have to develop our relationship. And I believe that the support of it tells us that by and large it works well, but it's not something we can just sit back and be passive and expect that things will happen. We will have to work on it – in all parts and also spread the knowledge.

The energy transition

And that's my third point, which I think will be an interesting part of today's discussions. Where do we need to think differently? Where do we need to do new things? We will hear from Enrico about where to look ahead for the Internal market, the Single market. – Where the challenges are, where there are areas where we have not done enough, areas where we are lacking the ability.

And where Nicholas Kristof and others, who are looking at us from the outside, will say that; in Europe you have some real challenges. And, if they are European challenges, they are also Norwegian challenges. So, we have to discuss how we maintain our ambition of having access to a market and at the same time having labor laws and labor standards and social standards that are reflecting how we see our welfare state in the coming years. This is the balance; we want the open market, but at the same time we all want to see social standards not going in the wrong way.

And finally, I think that on the very issue – which was there back in 1994, and much more so now – the energy transition and the climate challenge are something that we have to deal with together, and we have to acknowledge that all this is going to require new decisions and some new structures to succeed. – No doubt about it. I think the energy transition is the most profound development we face now, because it challenges so many structures. We have the Green alliance with the European Union. I think the EU signed the first with Japan, then Norway. It is a very important document, dear friends. – And all issues, such as hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, new networks, new grids, offshore wind; all of that is a major challenge for Europe. – And opportunities.

I think this morning's debate will make us a wiser on how we are going to take on that role, the energy transition. Thank you.