IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/poango/v9y2021i1p79-89.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is the Grass Greener on the Other Side? Norwegians’ Assessments of Brexit

Author

Listed:
  • John Erik Fossum

    (ARENA, University of Oslo, Norway)

  • Joachim Vigrestad

    (ARENA, University of Oslo, Norway)

Abstract

To what extent has Brexit affected Norwegians’ perceptions of their current relationship with the EU? What are the considerations that central political and societal actors bring up to explain their stances? What are the broader lessons for the EU’s relations with non-members? We argue that Norway’s EU affiliation is so close that we can draw on Catherine De Vries’ benchmark theory to assess whether Brexit affects Norwegians’ assessments of Norway’s relationship with the EU. We focus on the Norwegian government’s stance. Further, we consider opinion polls to understand the strength of domestic support for the EEA Agreement, and whether that support has changed as a consequence of Brexit. We thereafter look for political entrepreneurs or political change agents, in political parties, in interest groups, and among civil society activists. We find that Brexit has not served as a benchmark. It has not set in motion efforts to change Norway’s EU affiliation. Opponents diverge on alternatives, although share concerns about what they see as the EU’s neoliberal orientation. The analysis shows that we cannot assess Brexit as a benchmark without paying attention to the sheer size and magnitude of the EU–Norway power asymmetry.

Suggested Citation

  • John Erik Fossum & Joachim Vigrestad, 2021. "Is the Grass Greener on the Other Side? Norwegians’ Assessments of Brexit," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(1), pages 79-89.
    • Handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v9:y:2021:i:1:p:79-89
    DOI: 10.17645/pag.v9i1.3713
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/3713
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17645/pag.v9i1.3713?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Catherine E. De Vries, 2017. "Benchmarking Brexit: How the British Decision to Leave Shapes EU Public Opinion," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55, pages 38-53, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Edoardo Bressanelli & Nicola Chelotti, 2021. "Assessing What Brexit Means for Europe: Implications for EU Institutions and Actors," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(1), pages 1-4.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Joshua C Fjelstul, 2022. "Explaining public opinion on the enforcement of the Stability and Growth Pact during the European sovereign debt crisis," European Union Politics, , vol. 23(2), pages 192-211, June.
    2. Stefanie Walter, 2021. "EU‐27 Public Opinion on Brexit," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(3), pages 569-588, May.
    3. Averell Schmidt, 2024. "Treaty withdrawal and the development of international law," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 785-808, October.
    4. Pierre Philippe Balestrini, 2021. "Counterterrorism Evaluation and Citizens: More Than about Policing?," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-18, August.
    5. Christoph Mikulaschek, 2023. "The responsive public: How European Union decisions shape public opinion on salient policies," European Union Politics, , vol. 24(4), pages 645-665, December.
    6. Giorgio Malet & Stefanie Walter, 2024. "The reverberations of British Brexit politics abroad," European Union Politics, , vol. 25(1), pages 63-85, March.
    7. Inken Borzyskowski & Felicity Vabulas, 2024. "Public support for withdrawal from international organizations: Experimental evidence from the US," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 809-845, October.
    8. Markus Gastinger, 2021. "Introducing the EU exit index measuring each member state’s propensity to leave the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(3), pages 566-585, September.
    9. Martijn Huysmans & Sven Van Kerckhoven, 2023. "The Causes and Modes of European Disintegration," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 11(3), pages 1-4.
    10. John Erik Fossum & Joachim Vigrestad, 2021. "Is the Grass Greener on the Other Side? Norwegians’ Assessments of Brexit," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(1), pages 79-89.
    11. Reinhard Heinisch & Duncan McDonnell & Annika Werner, 2021. "Equivocal Euroscepticism: How Populist Radical Right Parties Can Have Their EU Cake and Eat It," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(2), pages 189-205, March.
    12. Martijn Huysmans & Sven Van Kerckhoven, 2023. "The Causes and Modes of European Disintegration," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 11(3), pages 1-4.
    13. Andreas C Goldberg & Erika J van Elsas & Claes H de Vreese, 2021. "One union, different futures? Public preferences for the EU's future and their explanations in 10 EU countries," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(4), pages 721-740, December.
    14. Rikard Forslid & Sten Nyberg, 2021. "Brexit: How to Reach an Amicable Divorce," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 123(3), pages 966-994, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v9:y:2021:i:1:p:79-89. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.