What been part of E.U. as to do with control natural resources ?
Norway has been in a Union with someone (who is in the EU today, hmm...) from 1400 to 1905. Half a millennium. At no point did Norway have much control of its natural resources.
What been part of E.U. as to do with control natural resources ?
Norway has been in a Union with someone (who is in the EU today, hmm...) from 1400 to 1905. Half a millennium. At no point did Norway have much control of its natural resources.
I know thatThe pubic perception, however, remains sceptical to any kind of overnational control.
Yes that is true.And, the government would have to treat EU companies the same as local ones when they apply for a permit to exploit a waterfall.
Nothing It will still be under Norwegian control,so Norway will be able to decide under what conditions it will be done.Norway will have to comply with the minimum safety requirement of E.U, for oil exploration/explanation. and yes it will have do give the same rights to other E.U, companies.God knows what would happen to the special Norwegian legislation for oil extraction.
Nothing It will still be under Norwegian control,so Norway will be able to decide under what conditions it will be done.Norway will have to comply with the minimum safety requirement of E.U, for oil exploration/explanation. and yes it will have do give the same rights to other E.U, companies.
The European powers of the time were, with one exception, monarchies and those powers were the ones who had a de facto if not a de jure "sign-off" on Norwegian independence.
If the proposed "new" Norwegian nation was going to be a republic, would the European powers have acquiesced to the split as readily as they did?
Norway had already had already declared independence before the referendum, so the constitutional question was an internal matter.
So it was, and international recognition was a matter in the hands of the European powers.
What I'm asking is whether it was somehow "unofficially" made known to Norway by the major powers that a constitutional monarchy was the preferable choice and that a choice perceived as too radical would have consequences.
We're dealing with realpoltik here and not some theoretical nicety. When some nations whistle, other nations jump. That's the way the real world works and has always worked.
Had question about monarchy/republic very big deal on early 20th century?
THere had quiet much republics on this time and monarchies of Europe had recognised them.
So, again, my questions are why would Norway buck this trend and would Norway be allowed to buck this trend? Every other new nation got a king and only one existing nation changed from a constitutional monarchy to a republic.
In fact, initially it was assumed that the country would be a monarchy.
And the king whom the Great Powers already assumed would be king insisted on a vote as a sop to the classical liberal feelings of the period; i.e. We let the people vote and they chose a king.. And, as you noted above, the vote was a foregone conclusion anyway because everyone already assumed there would be a monarchy.The public vote and chance for a republic came about because the prospective King, from a different European royal house, and in a sense representing the great powers in the matter, insisted that he would not take the throne unless democratically elected.
Perhaps they didn't care because of the assumptions you wrote of?The powers, his crowned relatives, etc, seem to have cared not one whit, fig or tottle that he insisted on a monarchy/republic vote.
No pressure because the vote was already a foregone conclusion.So I think there is ample evidence that OTL, there really was no pressure from the great powers to go monarchy.
Exactly and that was my original point regarding the OP's question. Every new state in Europe prior to WW1 was a constitutional monarchy. Why would a republic even be considered? Why would Norway be different?New states went constitutional monarchy because that is what they were familiar with.
Transparent or foregone? And absolutely no pressure because there was no need for any pressure?What I am trying to say here is that Norway itself is a good example of a very transparent process for deciding the monarchy/republic issue, where we see absolutly no pressure or even interest from the great powers.
So, it had already been assumed by the Great Powers that Norway would be a constitutional monarchy?
And the king whom the Great Powers already assumed would be king insisted on a vote as a sop to the classical liberal feelings of the period; i.e. We let the people vote and they chose a king.. And, as you noted above, the vote was a foregone conclusion anyway because everyone already assumed there would be a monarchy.
Exactly and that was my original point regarding the OP's question. Every new state in Europe prior to WW1 was a constitutional monarchy. Why would a republic even be considered? Why would Norway be different?
Transparent or foregone? And absolutely no pressure because there was no need for any pressure?
Keeping those two questions in mind
let's return to the OP's original question. Let's suppose that, for reasons I cannot even begin to guess at, Norway goes to the polls and chooses to become a republic. The king-in-waiting, with the best of classical liberal sentiment and with the results seemingly foregone, insists on a pro forma vote and, instead of measuring the palace for new carpets, finds himself thrown out on his ass. Everyone's assumptions were somehow wrong.
What do the Great Powers do then? They'd expected a monarchy, but the voters didn't do what was expected of them. What happens then? Is Norway so inconsequential that no one is interested?
You're making some extraordinary claims about my countrys declaration of independence here.
No-one expected anything. And Norway was pretty inconsequential.
Norway had already been a constitutional monarchy, formally for 90 years, informally for a 1000. To flip that, you'd need to strengthen the anti-royalist sentiments of parliament during the union, or maybe have a much harsher breakup, with aid from France. More republicans among the luminarries, like Nansen etc would help.
Or you could change the dissolution. Oscar II was assumed to have de facto abdicated. A different issue may have led to the Norwegian parliament, looking for excuses, to assume that Norway was no longer part of the Monarchys power, which would have led to a republic.
If Norway becomes a republic and then Finland goes republic as OTL i guess Sweden will go republic after 1921, but as we always do, we compromise, so that Gustav V is our last monarch.
Then Denmark follow sometime before 1939