Norway’s Voters Reject Joining European Union

In a move heavy with significance for both Norway and the drive toward a united Europe, Norwegians voting in a national referendum Monday narrowly rejected membership in the European Union.

With 94% of the vote counted, Norwegians were saying “no” by a slim 52.6% to 47.4%.

The result was virtually a repeat of a referendum held on the same issue 22 years ago.

A three-quarters majority in the 165-seat Parliament would be needed to approve membership, and more than the quarter of lawmakers needed to block approval have already said they would oppose it.

Monday’s ballot effectively split the country. The rural, agrarian north, fearful of losing subsidies, had enough “no” votes to counter the urban, business-oriented south, which voted strongly in favor of EU membership.

After several hours of tense vote-counting, Anne Enger Lahnstein, the leader of the agrarian-based Center Party--who was dubbed “The No Queen” during the campaign--gave what amounted to a victory statement.

“We’ve experienced that people at the grass-roots got involved and fought with a will we’ve never seen the likes of before,” she said. “They have worked for the values they believed in. We’ve not said ‘no’ to Europe or ‘no’ to international cooperation; we’ve said ‘no’ to union.”

The biggest personal loser in the referendum is undoubtedly the country’s prime minister, Gro Harlem Brundtland, who risked much of her political prestige in heading the “yes” movement. “The result is a heavy defeat for her,” said Knut Heidar, an Oslo University political scientist.

However, her overall popularity and the absence of any obvious challenger within her party would seem to assure her future as premier for at least the short term.

The implications for Norway and for the drive to create a politically and economically united Europe seem less certain in the wake of Monday’s vote.

For Europe, the impact of Norway’s rejection is likely to be blunted.

It follows strong “yes” votes in three other countries this year--Austria, Sweden and Finland--a development that means the EU will expand in January from 12 to 15 nations.

While the Norwegian rejection must be seen as a psychological setback for advocates of deeper European unity, some analysts argued Monday that it could be a blessing in disguise for them.

Speaking before the results were announced, one Brussels-based political analyst said he was hoping for a “no” vote.

“I prefer Norway to say no,” said Daniel Gross, a senior research fellow at the Center for European Policy Studies in Brussels. “They would be another problem country. It would be a help if they are not at the 1996 conference because they’d just put the brakes on.”

In 1996, the EU is committed to a wholesale review of the Maastricht Treaty that commits member nations to political and economic union. That conference is expected to be a de facto constitutional convention.

“In the end, this is going to make it tougher for Norway than for Europe,” predicted Uwe Nerlich, deputy director of the Ebenhausen Institute, a German think thank near Munich.

Certainly conditions for Norway outside the EU are likely to be much more difficult than they were in the years after its 1972 rejection.

With Sweden and Finland soon to be members, Norway risks being isolated from all its traditional Nordic partners. It would also be outside any EU defense union that might develop over the next few years.

Monday’s vote followed an emotional, sometimes bitter campaign that at times brought tempers to a boil in a country known for its low-keyed approach to life.

In recent days, Brundtland and some other leading figures of the “yes” campaign received veiled threats, including letters containing live ammunition.

For many Norwegians, the vote was about nothing less than the future of the nation--whether their country should now cast its fate with that of mainstream Europe or go forward alone.

Positive referendums in Finland on Oct. 16 and in Sweden on Nov. 13 only tightened the race and heightened the already high political temperature, as “yes” advocates argued that rejection would leave Norway gloriously, but dangerously, isolated.

Opponents warned that a vote to join the EU would deliver Norway into the hands of faraway, insensitive Brussels bureaucrats who would dismantle the nation’s politically sensitive farming and fishing industries.

While the campaign has dominated the Nordic country’s political agenda since the terms of its entry were negotiated in Brussels last winter, the question of whether Norway should become a part of the drive for deeper European integration has dogged the country over a generation.

Charles de Gaulle effectively vetoed two Norwegian applications to join during the 1960s, when he was president of France. In 1972, Norwegians themselves became the only people to reject membership by voting “no” in a national referendum.

With a healthy economy, a comfortable trade balance, enough North Sea oil to last a generation and rich gas fields with reserves that will last another century, Norway hardly needs the EU’s financial assistance.

The country’s wealth supports a liberal welfare system that makes poverty almost nonexistent and provides subsidies that keep farming and fishing communities alive in remote northern areas.