Norway (not EU member)

and probably too cold to attract many migrants.

norway pays 800,000,000 euros to the EU per year and has freedom of movement.

Is impossible123 the most ignorant poster on these forums.  I know he has tough competition but he must be up there,

I think the Norwegian government have a different immigration policy to The UK; Chinese migrants are in Far Eastern Russia, and that region is truly inhospitable. Migrants given the opportunity will go anywhere for a better life regardless of climate, vegetable or language even Saudi Arabia or Dubai if permitted too.

But Norwegians understood the consequences of unchecked immigration of The EU. I think it's a no-brainer for citizens of economically deficient EU member states to seek a better future elsewhere esp richer EU members given proximity and probably English the universal language spoken.

Even now very few migrants would want to go to EU countries like Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovenia, Lithuania or Estonia as the numbers showed.

1 in 8 of folk living in estonia are not estonians

But Norwegians understood the consequences of unchecked immigration of The EU

How thick are you?

Norway is in Shengen - open borders with the EU and in the EEA allowing "unchecked immigration" (which is of course a brexit lie as no EU country including the UK has to allow "unchecked immigration").

Yes, I understand all that, and $800m annually (EEA/for trades) is peanuts given their wealth. Norway (maybe in the single-market but it's not identical to that of the EU members; Norway could invoke "safeguard measures" and EU nationals from certain EU members are subject to restrictions and quota eg Croatis, Bulgaria and Romania.

Most importantly their contribution to The EU is not linked to their ever increasing wealth (subject to price of oil/natural gas) eg a percentage of their gdp. Otherwise, Norway would be swamped with immigrants utilising and abusing their welfare state courtesy of their enormous wealth - their negotiated and agreed "safeguards" can be invoked.

Both timse the Norwegians voted against joining The EU; 52% against, pretty similar to ours to exit The EU. But, the Norwegian government understood what this meant and respected the wish of their citizens unlike out sh1tty lot.

Errm, the Norwegian government didn't need to change anything post referendum (unlike ours).

impossible123 - think I'd stop there if I was you.

Farage promoted a "Norway" like deal during referendum, Johnson was always in favour of staying in Single Market - most high-profile Brexiteers said we would stay in Single Market.  Now apparently the "people" voted to for a "no deal"  Brexit.  Did they f*ck. "No deal" is a new concept in relative terms and not a known one during referendum.

Anyway - mention of Norway makes me furious. Similar population as Scotland, same amount of oil. The contrast cant be more stark or tragic. They are one of the wealthiest countries in the world by population and have invested their wealth wisely for the future, we are part of a debt-ridden dysfunctional union.

The only potential consolation is that Johnson's dishonest and unworkable plan will be rightly rejected bu EU - and "no deal" will bring Scottish Independence closer, and we can learn some lessons from the Norwegians however late that might be.

Well done Norwegians, you've retained enormous wealth for yourselves and own country.


While the UK pished away Scottish oil riches.

Wallflower is correct. Norway are in the single market which means they have to follow market rules agreeing to the so called four freedoms which includes freedom of movement of people. They also have to accept ECJ supremacy and pay market fees. They are not in the customs union so can set their own external tariffs and negotiate trade deals with other countries. They are not in the CAP or common fisheries policy.
The Norwegian elites have tried to take them into the EU but the people have voted against so they settled for this "half-way house" situation which is seen as a prelude to eventual full membership.

I don't recall the precise details, but I can remember a Norwegian economist arguing that a Norway style model simply wouldn't work for the UK.
The thrust of his argumnet was the differentuial in both size and elements of the respective economies.

The current sticking point is that not being in the CU doesn't resolve the Irish trade position to the satisfaction of Varadkar.
There is then the issue of free movement and ECJ supremacy which many do not want.

Power hungry monarchs of old could never have anticipated the future problems their thirst for power would present a few centuries down the line

I don't think they cared.
Creating new borders to resolve power struggles often seems to create unforeseen problems. India/Pakistan, the Middle East, Korea N and S
Norn Iron, The (now defunct) Iron curtain.

Why can’t they all just get along

too many jingoistic nationalists using divide as a vote winner