>I put some of Trond's views on the attitudes of Norwegian women to a
>Norwegian woman I know, a psychologist at Manchester University and
>publisher. She was a bit more sceptical about the radical attitudes of
>women in Norway.
>This is what she replied
>
>>Are women more anti-racist? Maybe he is saying that on the basis of more
>>men voting for Carl I Hagen (Fremskritts Partiet - right
>>wing/anti-immigration/for selective repatriation).
No, this follows from Norwegian sociological research, which shows that women are more green, more anti-racist, more against privatisation and more anti-EU than men. I am in Sydney and do not have this research at hand. But the difference between men and women is very clear. There is academic consensus about this.
>>The parties in power at the moment are Kristelig Folkepartiet (Christian
>>People's Party) - very conservative -
Well, somewhat conservative on the issue of familiy policy, gays etc. - but less conservative than the Conservative Party and the big Labour Party, in the sense that they are more green, more willing to support humanitarian projects worldwide, and that they to some degree try to resist the multinationals and defend the principle of economic self-determination. Which the Tony Blair type "Labour" Party doesn't.
>>....and Senter Partiet - very parochial.
>>So if it is true that more females voted for them it is no evidence of them
>>being less conservative. In fact, I think Bonde Partiet (Farmer's Party)
>>may also be in government with the other two!
This is ridiculous. Bonde Partiet (Farmer's Party) changed it's name to Senterpartiet in 1959. So, while Senterpartiet is in gvt., they can't be there twice, i.e. under their 38 year old name. Jim, when was your source last in Norway, and for how long?
>> ..Senter Partiet - very parochial...
>From Webster's dictionary on "parochial"
...limited; narrow. ...."The parochial mind.'' ...."insular attitudes toward foreigners"...
Jim's source here reveals (in addition to her not being very updated) her elitist attitude towards ordinary people in Norway. Of course there are some xenophobic voters for this party. As for other parties, not the least the pro-EU parties. This is also demonstrated by voting results in Parliament, where the pro- EU parties have voted for more strict legislation and practice on immigration and refugee issues than the more humanitarian (on this issue) no-to-EU parties, among them Senter Partiet.
This party's resistance to the EU system was not in the slightest close to the xenophobic LePen type, but based on the principle of defending the right to national self-determination, i.e. upholding Norway as a sovereign state. This is completly legitimate, and it is a progressive policy in today's world, where the main danger comes from the multinationals, which through WTO, the possible Multinational Agreement on Investment, the European Union etc. try to undermine all sorts of popular rights to decide about resources, communities and people's lives in general.
When are you guys in the big EU countries and U.S. going to be able to acquire the slightest understandiing of the extreme importance for small countries being able to stand up against this?? Is it "progressive" if we also end up as the banana republics in South America?
The whole elitist media machinery with their overpaid arrogant urban pundits, "analysts", and the well-funded (in Europe not the least by EU research grants) political science hacks of "the realism school"in the universities, are active in this campaign against ordinary working people in these countries, portraying them as stupid xenophobic rural louts who hardly have been to town in their life. But the "elite" is ill-informed at best, deliberate propagandists at worst. The Norwegian rural and urban populations are the most avid newspaper readers in the world, and are on the average better informed about the workings of the EU system than the populations within the EU countries themselves. We have been discussing and campaigning on this issue for over 30 years, and membership have been turned down in 1962, 1972 and 1994 after popular discussion and campaigns that have intensely engaged and informed the population, more comprehensively than perhaps any other political issue in any other country in Europe after WW2.
So, spare us the "parochial".
>>(women) ore anti-EU? Again does not say much.
>>Much of the anti-EU vote was very parochial.
See above.
>'Radical' youth were anti-EU - much their opposition was part of
>>the anti big business anti unfettered free market sentiment.
What is wrong with that? You put 'radical' in quotes. Why? Is RADICAL without quotes people being *pro* big business?
>>Sections of
>>Arbeider Partiet (labour) were worried about employment rights being
>>compromised.
What is left of grass roots opposition in that party were worried about this, yes. And quite rightly, too. Look at the unemployment figures within the EU, in the 12% to 25% range, not the least due to the austerity policies of the EU governments complying with the so-called convergence criteria for joining the EMU (European Monetary Union).
>>And then there was Bondepartiet (farmers) - remember Norway is
>>very rural - who were opposed to it due to loosing their large govt
>>subsidies.
Are we stuck in a pre-1960 time warp here? See above about "Bonde partiet".
And what the fuck is so illegitimate for "progressives" about ag subsidies? Norway is below 50% self-sufficient in ag foodstuffs, and we do not export ag products. Because of climate, small units, etc. this agriculture cannot compete with EU continental agriculture. But it produces less polluted foodstuffs, in a more sustainable way. All the environmental mass organizations, including the radical activist one, were against the EU, and *for* continued subsidies and protection of Norwegian agriculture. So tell me, why is it so damn "radical" tearing down Norway's agricultural production which is for domestic consumption, and making the country even more dependent upon food imports from large-scale industrial-type EU agriculture?
I include a piece below about "why the Norwegian NO sentiment" that I wrote for the net just before the 1994 referendum, i.e. I did not know the result (52.2% NO) then.
Trond Andresen
******************
(This was written in the autumn of 1994, before the referendum:)
The stable and very well-informed NO majority in our country may IMO be explained by several factors:
- 30 years of on-and-off EU discussions in Norway, and especially the struggle in 1972 when a majority of 53.5% voted NO to membership. The average Norwegian thus knows more about the workings of the EU system than the average EU citizen. It is very interesting that the EU resistance in Finland, Sweden and Norway is weaker the less people know about the EU system. The people of Finland lacks knowledge the most, then comes Sweden, then Norway. Level of resistance is in the opposite order. This may sound arrogant from a Norwegian, but it is nevertheless true: Sweden, and to a larger degree, Finland, haven't had the motive to inform themselves on the EU system until last, or even this, year.
- The propaganda from the YES faction in 1972 was full of threats of what would happen if we voted NO: No petrochemical industry in Norway, barriers to Norwegian exports to the EEC (the name of the EU in 1972), etc. These threats showed themselves to be false afterwards, we concluded a trade agreement in 1973 which has given us tariff-free access to the EU for 95% of our exports until this day. We have built up among other things, petrochemical industries. So when the power and business elites repeat similar threats today, they are not considered very credible.
- Norway's history, being a province under Denmark for 400 years until 1814, then in a union under Sweden until 1905, occupied by Germany from 1940 - 1945. This has lead to a strong tradition of national self-determination.
- Norway's rich natural resources, which we want to decide over ourselves: Oil and gas, fisheries, hydroelectricity. The fishery population is 95% NO to the EU. They are very well informed on the 20-year experience with catastrophic common fishery policies in the EU, which have nearly emptied the seas around these countries. The only country in Western Europe today with large and non-depleted fish resources is Norway. This is due to a strong regulatory policy. With EU membership, our 200-mile zone will become common seas for the whole EU.
- Our protected agriculture, which due to climate and topography consists of very small units compared to the EU average. It will not be able to compete with the warmer-climate, large scale industry-type agriculture and husbandry in the EU, since protection is forbidden in connection with membership. 400.000 (10% of the population) people are directly or indirectly dependent upon agriculture and related industry in Norway.
- No historical feudal tradition in Norway (as opposed to Sweden and Denmark), again due to topography and climate. Smaller units in agriculture and fishing, owned by the farmers and fishers themselves, have historically grown a mentality of self-determination and skepticism vs authorities.
- A general high level of education, and mass media that are quite diversified. No other country has such a high number and circulationof newspapers compared to population size. This means that even if all the large papers are YES, there is a diversified undergrowth of anti-EU medium and small papers. Therefore it is quite easy to get hold of alternative info.
- Strong resistance in the trade unions grass roots, combined with a very high percent of employees being organized. The Central Trade Union Congress recently voted no the EU, albeit with a small margin. But this was sensational all the same since most of the top leadership campaigned strongly for YES (they are members of the ruling social democrat party of Ms. Brundtland, and collaborate with them to achieve a YES). The result surprised commentators, and is considered an important defeat for the YES side.
- 140.000 Norwegians are members of Nei til EU, which is the Norwegian anti-membership organization. This is a very large organization, compared to a population of 4.3 million. The corresponding organization for YES has 30.000 members.
*****
(I should have added all the women in the big public sector as a NO factor, too).