9 min read

The permanent coup d'état: It's time to deal with the EU!

The permanent coup d'état: It's time to deal with the EU!
Photo: Nicolas Economou/NurPhoto/Shutterstock

Resett.no - By Øystein Steiro Sr.- September 3, 2022

It's time to wake up.

This is the so-called 'dynamic element' in the agreement. This means that the Storting has relinquished large parts of its responsibility for the development of law in the country and that the Storting has thereby weakened its function and relevance as a legislative authority. It is increasingly left to the 55,000 bureaucrats in the EU Commission and to the EU Parliament.

Here, both the Norwegian state administration and the Storting are being overrun to such an extent, both legally and in terms of capacity, by the massive bureaucracy in the European Commission. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the various line ministries simply have nothing to say. Here, you just have to "bow, nod, no, turn around..." every time a new EU directive arrives. And they keep doing it. To date, almost 13,000 EU directives and legal acts have been implemented in Norwegian law.

The reality is that the 'dynamic element' in the EEA Agreement involves a gradual, piecemeal, and divided transfer of law and policy-making from the Storting in Oslo to the EU Commission in Brussels. Individually, these legal acts do not have to be of decisive importance for Norwegian sovereignty and thus be in conflict with the Constitution. But this is a cumulative process over time which will eventually result in the Storting's competence as a legislator being lost. Norway's laws are literally gradually being eaten up and replaced by EU laws. Finally, Norwegian law will be almost identical to the EU's legislation and regulations.

Such a development is obviously contrary to the Constitution. While the individual legal acts need not be significant, over time not only a significant, but an almost total transfer of sovereignty takes place. It can be characterized as a permanent coup d'état.advertisement

By way of excuse, it can be said that neither the negotiators in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the other line ministries and the Storting, in their eagerness to join the internal market and in the hope of contributing to lasting peace in Europe, nor the Supreme Court, in their eagerness to win over the Storting, understood the long-term and full consequences of this 'salami tactic' which is gradually undermining the Constitution.

I am not sure whether the Commission understood the full extent of it when the negotiations took place in the early 90s. However, this is the reality today, 28 years after the EEA Agreement was signed.

In any case, it is high time that both the Storting and the Supreme Court now open their eyes and realize that a limit must be set somewhere if we do not want to transfer our sovereignty and self-determination completely to the EU. In that case, we can eventually close down both the Storting and the Supreme Court. With each directive, and as both legislative and judicial powers are transferred to Brussels, they become less and less relevant.

The electricity price crisis and where the dog is buried

The electricity price crisis actualizes the issue above and shows where the dog is buried.

According to art. 25 of the EEA Agreement, we can introduce protective measures and quantitative export restrictions if  "the export may lead to a serious shortage of a product that is of decisive importance to the exporting contracting party." And surely there is no one in the European Commission who can dispute that the emptying of the water reservoirs, as a result of the increased electricity exports to the EU, does not have a decisive importance for Norwegian households and Norwegian power-intensive industry?

According to art. 112, such measures can " be taken unilaterally by a party if serious economic, social or environmental difficulties which may persist are about to arise in a sector or a district". The measures can therefore be implemented not only after the harmful effects have occurred, but also in advance. But the difficulties one protects against must be assumed to have a character which means that they will be of a certain duration. This criterion is also met. The electricity price crisis will persist as long as the electricity grid in southern Norway is connected to the electricity grid in Europe.

The article further stipulates that protective measures must be limited to what is strictly necessary in terms of the extent and duration to rectify the situation. Such measures must be chosen that least interfere with the functioning of the EEA Agreement. The measure must also be aimed at all other contracting parties. If the Norwegian authorities choose to introduce export restrictions on electricity, it will not be in conflict with any of these criteria.

But art. 113 says something about how the measures are to be carried out. The other parties to the agreement must be notified immediately and consultation must take place in the EEA committee with the aim of finding a solution that everyone can accept. And precisely here the dog is buried because the EEA committee works according to the unanimity principle. And as the EEA agreement does not recognize any "right of withdrawal", it requires that the EU's representatives in the EEA committee approve Norway's introduction of export restrictions on electricity to the EU. It is far from certain that they do.

Ultimately a political question

In such a situation, in terms of international law, we cannot immediately terminate the ACER agreement now that the Storting has been approved and the government has ratified the agreement. But as always in foreign policy, this is primarily a political and not a legal issue.

International law formalism will always fall short when it comes to vital interests in the relationship between states, provided that the government does its duty and safeguards national interests to the extent that they conflict with the interests of other countries or, as in this case, the interests of the EU.

It is a question of power and interest politics and to what extent our politicians have the will and courage to draw the line and say enough is enough and look after vital national interests. History shows that the EU is first and foremost a customs union and does not even take five cents to break the principles of free trade in the internal market if they see themselves benefiting from it.

The export of Norwegian salmon has been exposed to four different and obviously illegal dumping regimes on the part of the EU from 1997 until 2007. It has cost the farming industry and Norway three-digit billions in lost export income.

The purpose of these has been to protect a less cost-effective Scottish farming industry. The EU's dumping regime against Norwegian salmon only ended after the Scottish farming companies were bought out by Norwegian salmon farmers. Only then was there an end to the EU's illegal dumping regime, even if in the nature of the EEA Agreement. 26 states in black and white that no anti-dumping measures or protective duties shall be applied in trade in the EEA area. It gave the EU a steady hand.

Now Norway should protect vital Norwegian interests. It is not protectionism to protect natural comparative advantages. And it is not the case that Norway is without a bargaining chip. We have everything the EU needs. We are geopolitically located on the northern flank and of decisive importance for Europe's security. We have ample access to strategic resources that the EU needs. We have gas. We have oil. We have access to fish and proteins in abundant quantities. We have large sea areas with untapped deposits of valuable minerals. And we have access to green electricity. We don't have to stand with a hat in hand.

The problem is that both Jonas and Erna are EU federalists and globalists at heart. They have neither the will nor the courage to admit that they have done something stupid and stand up to the EU. Together with the fact that we in Norway no longer have any real foreign policy opposition, it means that voters have no alternative or anywhere else to go. Therefore, Jonas and Erna do as they please.

The voters' dissatisfaction with Erna benefited Jonas at the last election in the same way that the voters' dissatisfaction with Jonas will now benefit Erna at the next election. She is already back and clearly leading the opinion polls, despite the dissatisfaction earlier.

This is how the Labor Party and the Conservative Party rotate in the revolving doors between the Government and the Storting like Santa on the load and end up as political eunuchs who happily allow themselves to be bought for 30 silver coins or for black limousines (Frp) or the agricultural settlement of the century (Sp).

The Government and Storting should know better

The Government and the Storting should have realized what it would entail linking to the EU's internal energy market. They should have used the right of reservation by not adopting the Energy Directive and not ratifying the ACER agreement. Anyone who knows a little elementary economics understands that electricity prices would go crazy by linking to the EU's energy market.

Even though the energy lobby and the professional authorities, who, out of pure self-interest, carried on with massive lobbying and something that mostly resembled a military information operation bordering on pure disinformation, there were many warnings both from leading economists and from the legal professions.

When northern Norway still has Europe's lowest electricity price while southern Norway has Europe's highest, everyone understands that it is the cables from southern Norway to the EU that are the main reason, even if the politicians and the electricity lobby and large parts of the brain-dead mainstream media continue with explanations and disinformation.

Is the EU lobby about to deceive us again

It is time to settle with the EU. Firstly, if the right of the reservation is to have any meaning, it must also have a retroactive effect. As Gro said in 1992, "the reservation right is for use". It must also apply to directives and legal acts that have already been adopted and which subsequently prove to be in conflict both with the Constitution, popular will, and national interests, as the Energy Directive and the ACER agreement obviously are in this case.

Secondly, it is only necessary to register that the EU's energy market simply does not work as intended. It has gone completely wild, mainly as a result of the green shift and the EU's own failed environmental policy. However, Van der Leyen has signaled changes and structural reform of the energy market. It will probably not be to our advantage.

Presumably, it will take the form of market regulatory measures and a consolidated purchasing cooperation on the EU side to push the price of e.g. Norwegian gas and Norwegian electricity down. In that case, our gas revenues will be greatly reduced. And if something is not done with ACER so that we can limit the export of surplus power as it was before, we will still end up with Europe's highest electricity prices.

And paradoxically, it will happen as a result of the EU itself breaking with its own internal market principles on the free movement of goods. Such purchasing cooperation to push down the purchase price of Norwegian gas and electricity is as protectionist as the dumping regimes against Norwegian salmon to which the EU has previously exposed the EEA country Norway.

In that case, Norway must follow the UK's example and withdraw from the EEA agreement and return to the bilateral trade agreement we had with the EU previously.

It will probably serve Norwegian interests better. In any case, the EU appears as a house of cards that is about to collapse. Clear dissolution trends can be seen along several axes. Dissatisfaction with the overrule of the EU is increasing in several of the member states. Brexit is not a one-off.

If Norway is pressured to sell cheap gas to the EU and is not allowed to have control over its own hydropower resources, the only way is to get out of the EEA first and last!


Editors Comments:



Copy & Paste the link above for Yandex translation to Norwegian.

WHO and WHAT is behind it all? : >

The bottom line is for the people to regain their original, moral principles, which have intentionally been watered out over the past generations by our press, TV, and other media owned by the Illuminati/Bilderberger Group, corrupting our morals by making misbehavior acceptable to our society. Only in this way shall we conquer this oncoming wave of evil.

All articles contained in Human-Synthesis are freely available and collected from the Internet. The interpretation of the contents is left to the readers and does not necessarily represent the views of the Administrator. Disclaimer: The contents of this article are the sole responsibility of the author(s). Human-Synthesis will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. Human-Synthesis grants permission to cross-post original Human-Synthesis articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified.