Should the UK leave the EU and do a Norway?

Norwegian oil field

There is a growing call for a referendum on whether the UK remains an integral part of the European Union, or leave but remain part of the European Economic Area (the YES/NO question). In a recent article in The Telegraph Harriet Alexander reported that Last week, writing in The Sunday Telegraph, David Cameron raised the possibility of a referendum on Britain's membership. And Norway is often cited as a perfect example of how to leave the EU, yet still thrive.

Also "People worry that if Britain left we would lose access to the Single Market and not be able to travel freely," said Robert Oulds, director of the Bruges Group think tank. “But that is not the case. Britain can cancel its membership of the EU and retain the trade benefits, following Norway’s example. The only thing we will lose is the bureaucracy and expense."

But is Norway a perfect example for the UK to follow? - for a start take it's population of around 4.7 million which is more akin to the population of  Scotland.

The following is from the CIA World Factbook (my emphasis):

The Norwegian economy is a prosperous mixed economy, with a vibrant private sector, a large state sector and an extensive social safety net. The government controls key areas, such as the vital petroleum sector, through extensive regulation and large-scale state-majority-owned enterprises. The country is richly endowed with natural resources - petroleum, hydropower, fish, forests, and minerals - and is highly dependent on the petroleum sector, which accounts for the largest portion of export revenue and about 20% of government revenue. Norway is the world's second-largest gas exporter; and seventh largest oil exporter, making one of its largest offshore oil finds in 2011. Norway opted to stay out of the EU during a referendum in November 1994; nonetheless, as a member of the European Economic Area, it contributes sizably to the EU budget. In anticipation of eventual declines in oil and gas production, Norway saves state revenue from the petroleum sector in the world's second largest sovereign wealth fund, valued at over $500 billion in 2011 and uses the fund's return to help finance public expenses. After solid GDP growth in 2004-07, the economy slowed in 2008, and contracted in 2009, before returning to positive growth in 2010-11, however, the government budget is set to remain in surplus.

It has around 5.7 billion gallons of oil in proven reserves compared to UK of around 2.9 billion. And it has has around 2 trillion cubic meters of gas in proven reserves, compared to 256 billion in the UK.

Norway has prospered well, by careful management of its natural resources. Robert Oulds said above "The only thing we will lose is the bureaucracy and expense." but Norway still contributes sizably to the EU budget and the government controls key areas, such as the vital petroleum sector, through extensive regulation and large-scale state-majority-owned enterprises.

Possibly not what the neoliberals and free-marketers of the right had in mind exactly.

No I don't think the UK could use Norway as an example to follow, although it could be a model for Scotland? - after all Scotland with a population of around 5 million and some oil left, with it's close links to Norway through the oil industry, are already practically neighbours.

Scotland and self-determination

I recently said that the 'controversy' of the proposed referendum in Scotland on whether it wanted full independence or greater devolved powers was a construct of the Conservative party, to divert attention from the dire state of the UK economy.

The official line duly followed by the mainstream media is that the Scottish Parliament does not have the devolved powers to hold such a referendum, but that the UK government would be willing to grant it such powers, as long as the referendum was held on UK government terms.

Some also argue that it should not be down to the people of Scotland alone, and that any referendum held should be for the entire population of the UK.

Or they say that should the Scottish Parliament 'go it alone' and hold a referendum, this could result in legal action that could tie the process down for many years.

All of which rather conveniently forgets Article One of The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.
3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

In an article Understanding Self-Determination: The Basics by Karen Paker, she defines self determination as:

The right to self-determination, a fundamental principle of human rights law, is an individual and collective right to "freely determine . . . political status and [to] freely pursue . . . economic, social and cultural development." The principle of self-determination is generally linked to the de-colonization process that took place after the promulgation of the United Nations Charter of 1945. Of course, the obligation to respect the principle of self-determination is a prominent feature of the Charter, appearing, inter alia, in both Preamble to the Charter and in Article 1.

The International Court of Justice refers to the right to self-determination as a right held by people rather than a right held by governments alone. The two important United Nations studies on the right to self-determination set out factors of a people that give rise to possession of right to self-determination: a history of independence or self-rule in an identifiable territory, a distinct culture, and a will and capability to regain self-governance.

The right to self-determination is indisputably a norm of jus cogens [compelling law]. Jus cogens norms are the highest rules of international law and they must be strictly obeyed at all times. Both the International Court of Justice and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States have ruled on cases in a way that supports the view that the principle of self-determination also has the legal status of erga omnes. The term "erga omnes" means "flowing to all." Accordingly, ergas omnes obligations of a State are owed to the international community as a whole: when a principle achieves the status of erga omnes the rest of the international community is under a mandatory duty to respect it in all circumstances in their relations with each other.

In summary Scotland only 'offically' became part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain following the enactment of the Union with England Act of 1707,  just over 303 years ago. Even then Scotland still retained certain powers for its own, such as i.e religion and the law.

Scotland having "a history of independence or self-rule in an identifiable territory, a distinct culture, and a will and capability to regain self-governance" do have the right to self-determination. The right to self-determination does not dictate the outcome, it's not independence or nothing. They would be entirely within their rights in example to decide to remain within the union but have greater powers devolved to them, the so called devo-max option, or what I think the Conservatives call localism.

Scotland you could say has compelling law on its side for the holding of a referendum on self-determination, a fact further supported by the mandate that the SNP gained at the last elections for Scottish Parliament. The attempt by the UK government to force onto the Scottish people a referendum on it's own terms could be said to be interference by an 'outside body' on the basic civil and political rights of the Scottish people.

I suspect this may be a rather strong trump card in the hands of Alex Salmond, First Minister of the Scottish Parliament and Leader of the SNP.

Windfarms in Irleand.

In a recent flyer from the protest group Anglesey against wind turbines they claim:

"Similar developments in Scotland and Ireland have permanently damaged their tourist industry."

I have posted before about the impact of wind farms on tourism in Scotland, see Wind farms and tourism 'compatible'.

But what about Ireland?

Research in 2008 undertaken by Lansdowne Market Research which involved face-to face interviews with 1,300 tourists, both domestic (25%) and overseas (75%) (1,000 in the Republic; 300 in Northern Ireland, for Fáilte Ireland’s Environment Unit says in summary:

Almost three quarters of respondents claim that potentially greater numbers of wind farms would either have no impact on their likelihood to visit or have a strong or fairly strong positive impact on future visits to the island of Ireland.

Of those who feel that a potentially greater number of wind farms would positively impact on their likelihood to visit, the key driver is their support for renewable energy and potential decreased carbon emissions. Those who are negatively disposed are more likely to cite that wind farms look ugly, are noisy and can frighten or damage wildlife. A small number also claim they have preference for other forms of renewable energy.

In terms of the size and composition of wind farms, tourists tended to prefer farms containing fewer turbines. If both produced the same amount of electricity, tourists also preferred wind farms containing a small group of large turbines (55%) to a large group of smaller turbines (18%).

You can download the leaflet from Fáilte Ireland’s Environment Unit.

GVA by 6 industries.

With the May elections for the Welsh Assembly not that far off I though I’d look at how Wales is doing in comparison with the rest of the UK. I start with GVA by industries the first chart being for Anglesey

Then we can compare it with Gwynedd, which in terms of growth is very similar to Anglesey aside for the growth in public administration, education, health and other services

Then if we look at Swansea we can see they have done well in both public administration, education, health and other services and business services and finance

Cheshire in comparison does quite well in many sectors with business services and finance showing the greatest growth

And finally Edinburgh, who as Cheshire have seen the greatest growth in Business services and finance.

Data from ONS and based on 3:8 GVA1,2 by 6 industries (constrained to headline NUTS2) at current basic prices. I add my usual disclaimer about the need when comparing regions based on GVA to exercise caution.