Politics
Norway’s relationship with the EU
Nick Sitter and Ulf Sverdrup look at the lessons that the UK could learn from looking at Norway’s relationship with the European Union.
As the United Kingdom recalibrates its post-Brexit relationship with the European Union, Norway’s experience offers a revealing case study with some important lessons. As a member of the European Economic Area (EEA), Norway (together with Iceland and Liechtenstein) occupies a very distinct position – a member of the single market but excluded from the EU’s political decisionmaking processes.
For British observers, Norway’s case provides a crucial insight: alignment without representation may be a politically stable arrangement, but one with mounting costs that are difficult to sustain in an era of geopolitical turbulence.
Since the narrow defeat of EU membership in a referendum in 1994, Norway has charted an unusual course in European affairs. Its strategy of maximum integration without formal membership has been a triumph of pragmatism over ideology and polarisation. Gro Harlem Brundtland, the Labour Prime Minister at the time, did not resign, but set about salvaging Norway’s relationship with the EU. The EEA agreement between the EU and the EFTA states (minus Switzerland) that had entered into force the year before would prove a durable basis for a workable compromise.
Three decades later Norway has become thoroughly Europeanised, incorporating the vast majority of EU rules and policies in EEA-relevant sectors (agriculture and fisheries are not fully covered; Norway never entered the customs union due to a desire to protect its agricultural sector and maintain independence in foreign economic policy), and fully integrated in terms of free movement of goods, services, capital and labour. Through a raft of additional agreements, Norway has adapted to the EU’s new policy areas. In many cases, it has voluntarily aligned itself with EU standards even in areas where no formal agreements exist. In most sectors, policy developments have largely mirrored those in neighbouring EU members Sweden, Finland and Denmark.
This compromise of participation without representation allows Norway to maintain its formal sovereignty, and the political truce between its pro- and anti-EU blocs. The EEA model has proven a surprisingly durable political compromise, because it rests on stable patterns of Euroscepticism in both the party system and the electorate. The two main parties, the pro-EU Conservatives and somewhat more divided Labour, have both had to rely on Eurosceptic parties to form government coalitions. The 1994 referendum mirrored both the result and voting patterns of the 1972 referendum, and even today opinion polls do not indicate much of a change.
But four other factors have helped sustain the EEA compromise. First, Norway’s fossil fuel-funded prosperity has insulated it from the kind of economic crises that pushed many others along the path to EU membership. Likewise, its NATO membership has provided a security umbrella, and no need to seek EU membership for geopolitical protection.
Second, the EEA model has worked well, enabling economic integration while safeguarding sensitive sectors like fisheries and agriculture that are central to Norwegian identity and the country’s centre-periphery political dynamics. The model has also held together reasonably well constitutionally and administratively.
Third, because the EEA model works well, many struggle to identify compelling additional benefits from full membership. Likewise, a high tolerance has developed for the costs of remaining outside.
Fourth, there is little ideological pressure to join since Europe hardly resonates as a political project in which Norway participates and holds a meaningful position. If anything, the continent has become even more peripheral to Norwegian identity than before.
The main lesson here is the importance that a compromise with a broad political base, anchored in both the political left and right, plays in sustaining an EU arrangement (a lesson lost on UK policymakers in the wake of the Brexit referendum). But it helps if the arrangement works well.
A defining feature of the EEA agreement is that it is a dynamic arrangement. Not only did Norway immediately adopt all relevant EU legislation; it also effectively agreed to adopt all new relevant EU legislation. (Although there is a procedure whereby an EEA state can reserve the right not to adopt a new policy, this is a potential deal-breaker and has consequently never been used.)
However, today Norway faces unprecedented challenges. First, the EU complains about Norway’s backlog in terms of transposition of EU law. The primary irritant in EU relations stems from Norway’s decision not to implement remaining portions of the Fourth Energy Package, because this is a clearly stated government policy rather than an ordinary capacity-induced backlog.
Second, the EU’s changes to its budget may generate unintended problems. If resources shift from areas where Norway does not participate (such as agriculture or cohesion funds) to areas where Norway participates (or wishes to) and contributes on a program-by-program basis, it could mean that the mode of association becomes more complicated and expensive.
Third, the strategy of patchwork expansion, whereby Norway buys into new arrangements as the EU expands beyond the core single market areas covered by the EEA, is increasingly difficult. This is particularly challenging in substantial new sectors such as health and crisis management, not to mention geopolitics, trade and economic security.
Nevertheless, despite cautious public opinion, Norway’s technical path to full EU membership is very short. Because Norway is so closely aligned to the EU, it satisfies requirements for membership in most of the 35 negotiation chapters involved in accession. Even under the current rules, negotiations could be completed quickly. Moreover, the geopolitical realities brought about by Russia’s war in Ukraine is causing the EU to reconsider its enlargement and accession procedures. Although this is at an early stage, it could lower the membership threshold and create new opportunities for exemptions and flexibility.
For the United Kingdom, the Norwegian experience offers multiple sobering lessons. Alignment is not a fixed state. It is a continuous, demanding process of adaptation that requires constant political attention and administrative capacity – and cross-party support for dynamic alignment. Norway has demonstrated that maintaining a deep, stable relationship with the EU from outside is possible, but costly. Moreover, as global volatility intensifies and the international order fragments, the Norwegian model increasingly looks like a strategic liability – expensive, constraining, and offering diminishing returns.
The path to Norwegian EU membership faces no insurmountable technical obstacles. The barriers are primarily political: a pragmatic calculation of when the costs of remaining outside finally exceed the benefits of the status quo. In the current security environment, with American guarantees uncertain and European integration accelerating in defence and security domains, that inflection point may be approaching more rapidly than anticipated. The question is no longer whether Norway can join the EU, but whether Norway can afford to remain outside.
By Nick Sitter, Professor at the Department of Law and Governance, BI Norwegian Business School and Ulf Sverdrup, Professor at the Department of Law and Governance, BI Norwegian Business School.
This piece first appeared in our report ‘UK-EU alignment and divergence: the road ahead‘.
We hope you love the products we recommend! All of them were independently selected by our editors. Just so you know, HuffPost UK may collect a share of sales or other compensation from the links on this page if you decide to shop from them. Oh, and FYI – prices are accurate and items in stock as of time of publication.
For too long, people have been avoiding the water entirely when they’re menstruating.
After all, when your period hits, the last thing you want to have to deal with is accidental leaks ruining your outfit or your trip to the beach.
Thankfully, you can take the worry out of your swim routine with the help of the period pant pros over at Modibodi.
Modibodi
They’ve partnered with sports brand PUMA to bring us a range of swimwear full of built-in protection that absorbs up to 10 tampons (Super Absorbency).
For example, the Puma X Modibodi Swimwear Zip Front One Piece (£79.99) is practical, soft, and stretchy, and made from Modibodi’s signature recycled fabric. It comes in the colour combo they’re calling Black Orchid, which is black with very cute, retro-inspired teal and pink accents.
If you want something a little flirtier, the Puma X Modibodi Swimwear Hi-Leg Cheeky Bottom (£39.99) is also at the Super Absorbency level, and it matches the Puma X Modibodi Swimwear Scoop Bikini Top (£39.99) to complete the sporty look.
Modibodi
“At Modibodi, we believe performance shouldn’t pause for your period,” said Kerry Cusack, Executive Director at Modibodi. “With the next collection in our Seamfree range and the launch of our first swim collection with PUMA, we’re giving our community even more ways to move freely and confidently – wherever sport takes them.”
I’m something of a pilates princess myself, and nothing shatters the fantasy quite like feeling like you’ve got a diaper on underneath your flared leggings.
Modibodi
But you can also say goodbye to that annoying, bulky VPL with Modibodi’s new Seamfree active underwear range.
It includes buys like the Puma X Modibodi Seamfree Active Hi Waist Cheeky underwear (£22.99), which, at Moderate Absorbency, is super soft and protects you to the tune of up to 6 tampons.
And for days when your flow is light, there’s the versatile, comfortable Puma X Modibodi Seamfree Active Hi Waist Thong (£17.99), which comes in three colours and can absorb up to 4 tampons’ worth of blood.
Of course, there are times when you’ll just want to take it easy on your period. But for the days when you’re feeling up to it and don’t want to be held back, these period pants are there to back you up.
Modibodi
Tommy Birch is a behavioural scientist and Leadership Advisor at House of Birch, a local councillor and CPF Area Leader for Hertfordshire.
Britain’s housing debate is often a theatre of convenient myths. One of the most persistent is the idea that our country is cleanly divided into a righteous tribe of “Builders” and a selfish cohort of “Blockers”. In this narrative, the NIMBY is a fixed character: irrational, anti-growth, and fundamentally anti-young. It is a comforting story for politicians because it turns a complex national crisis into a simple moral binary of good versus greed.
It also happens to be wrong. As the party’s current CPF consultation paper on the Housing Crisis notes, the public is not uniformly opposed to building. Polling consistently reveals a far more awkward truth: support for new homes “in principle” often outweighs opposition. Yet, the moment a spade hits the ground, the silent majority vanishes and local resistance dominates the planning process. This is the great housing puzzle: if the majority accepts the need for development in theory, why does NIMBYism win in reality?
The answer is uncomfortable because it suggests that NIMBYism is more than a failure of information and planning law. It is a predictable response produced by the very architecture of human nature. If we are to achieve the national renewal we must first move beyond “better persuasion” and embrace a more sophisticated, biopsychosocial lens to solve what is, at its heart, a behavioural phenomenon.
To understand the NIMBY, we must first look at the biological layer of the problem. A human being is not primarily a truth-seeking machine; we are threat-reducing machines. For most of our evolutionary history, “change” in one’s immediate environment was rarely a harbinger of prosperity; it was usually a sign of danger.
When a large-scale development is proposed, it is not experienced as an abstract national project but as uncertainty landing on one’s own street. Uncertainty activates stress responses that narrow attention and increases risk aversion. In this state, people naturally prefer predictable problems to uncertain improvements. Academics like Helen Bao have explored this through the lens of “loss aversion,” but a biopsychosocial approach goes deeper, recognising that there is an underlying physiological defence mechanism. When the planning system triggers a threat and responds only with cold facts, it creates a misalignment that only hardens resistance.
The second mistake we make is a psychological one: misreading opposition as mere selfishness. Many opponents of development do not experience themselves as “blockers”, they feel they are defending something worthwhile: community, character, and standards. This is what psychologists often call “identity work”. People rarely defend a technical position on housing; they defend what that position protects: their sense of place and their self-image.
This is why the debate is so resistant to data. The conflict is not over numbers; it is over meaning. Once an issue becomes tied to identity, such as the perceived duty of a Conservative to “protect the green belt”, changing one’s mind is no longer a matter of accepting new facts, but of abandoning a deeply held sense of purpose. Katherine Einstein, who have written extensively on the matter, correctly identifies how “Neighbourhood Defenders” capture the planning process, however she often misses the psychological reality that for these residents, resistance is a form of stewardship, however poorly it may serve the national interest.
Finally, we must consider the social layer. Planning battles are not just private preferences expressed publicly; they are social contests. People watch each other, coalitions form, and status is conferred on those seen as protectors of the community. Research in social psychology suggests that when people engage within these like-minded groups, their opinions become more entrenched rather than more open.
The current planning system systematically rewards this socialised objection while penalising support. Those who oppose developments are highly motivated and visible, while the supportive majority stays silent. In this environment, local councillors respond rationally to the signals they receive. If the Right wants to build again, it must stop arguing with human nature and start designing a system that rewards different behaviours.
This is where the vision of Sir Simon Clarke and Build for Britain becomes so vital. By advocating for a pro-growth, pro-ownership agenda, they are seeking to restore the British dream of a property-owning democracy. But to achieve this, we must move from a strategy of “persuasion”, the endless leaflets and consultations that only provide a stage for opposition, to a strategy of design.
A strategy founded in biopsychosocial understanding of the issue means changing the sequence of engagement. We must reduce the perceived biological threat before we make the economic case. This means moving towards models like “Street Votes” or community-led design codes, ideas championed by Sir Simon, that give residents the agency of the “creator” rather than the victim. When people have a hand in the creation of beauty and the mitigation of impact, the threat-response is replaced by a sense of ownership.
Furthermore, we must change the framing. Development presented as “meeting targets” invites resistance, but development framed as strengthening a community invites cooperation. Language that emphasises continuity and stewardship lowers the psychological bar for acceptance.
The CPF consultation rightly asks how the party can address the challenges facing prospective homeowners. The answer lies in realising that home ownership is the greatest engine of social mobility we possess. Yet, for too long, the party has been caught between national necessity and local revolt.
Treating NIMBYism as a planning technicality is no longer tenable. It is a lived political crisis that is shaping the political allegiance of a generation. NIMBYism is not proof that the public is unreachable; it is proof that policy-makers have ignored a fundamental rule: if you want different behaviour, you need a different system.
Behavioural insight is not a “nice-to-have”; it is a fundamental part of the machinery of government. As Margaret Thatcher famously observed, “the facts of life are conservative”. If we are to build for Britain, we must start by taking human nature seriously. Our housing crisis will not be solved by louder arguments, but by a strategy that finally aligns the instincts of the individual with the renewal of the nation.
Ever since I’ve learned that some Italians add baking soda as well as sugar to tomato sauce to lessen its acidity, I’ve never gone back. The same goes for “salamoia Bolognese,” a herb mix that put my “Italian seasoning” to shame.
And while I’m very much on the pro-garlic side of Italy’s allicin divide, I’m pretty sold on the country’s subtler “aglio in camicia” approach in some dishes.
What does “in camicia” mean?
The technique, which literally translates to “in a shirt”, involves frying garlic with its skin still on.
Then, you remove the clove after it’s imparted the olive oil with its flavour.
It gives the cloves a “delicate, sweet and smoky flavour” (Iand saves you time), Roman chef Emiliano Amore shared on Instagram Reels.
In Italian food vlogger Ilaria’s TikTok video, meanwhile, a cook said, “The garlic is useless if you don’t put it with the skin. The skin has all the flavour”.
Because the flavour is gentler and less bitter, it can’t overwhelm dishes like seafood.
Chef David Rocco said it’s perfect for cooking garlic at higher temps, too.
Speaking to cookware company Ruffoni, he said the skin “covers the garlic so it doesn’t get burnt”, calling it “the best way to get that garlic flavour, but not that bitter… burnt flavour”.
Italian restaurant Angelini Osteria called the technique a “classic Italian cooking method”.
How can I make “aglio in camicia”?
Simply add garlic cloves to olive oil over medium heat (bash them first for extra flavour if you like) and cook for five minutes, until golden brown.
This can happen while you’re cooking meat for at least the amount of time it takes for the garlic to turn brown, too.
Some like to eat the insides of the cooked cloves separately. But for the dishes themselves, the flesh never becomes a part of the dish; garlic skin infuses the oil instead.
Which dishes suit “aglio in camicia”?
If you don’t want the flavour of garlic to overpower your food, the method is perfect.
That may be the case for seafood (Angelini Osteria uses the technique for an octopus dish), but it works for simpler dishes too.
It makes for a pretty great spaghetti dish, for instance. One recipe relies only on oil, a garlic clove, spaghetti, red peppers, and salt for a satisfying meal.
And because of that protective skin, it works when you’re searing meat, fish, or veggies, too.
4 min read
Whitehall should look to local government as a model for embracing AI.
The Ministry of Justice has sent a clear signal to the legal world: the era of the dusty ledger is over. The government is, rhetorically at least, leaning into the potential of technology to tackle the Crown Court backlog, as it has in other departments. As a founder who has spent years building tools to navigate these very challenges, I back the intent.
It’s a vision the Prime Minister feels strongly about.
He has publicly shared his frustration with the culture of paper files during his time running the Crown Prosecution Service. I’ve spoken with him directly about the truly transformational potential home grown technology has for public sector reform.
However, as any founder who has tried to sell a transformative idea to a government department will tell you, the “what” is often inspiring, but the “how” remains the bottleneck.
While Whitehall stumbles forward, there is revolution brewing in town halls. Local authorities across the UK are increasing spending on UK-born innovative technology at a rate that puts central departments to shame.
AI is increasingly being used by social care teams to create accurate, compliant social care documentation, saving over-stretched frontline workers over a day per week. Faced with the tightest budgets in a generation, councils have become the ultimate friends of innovation. Their fiscal constraints and little press coverage for their work show they don’t harness new technology to make a point or because it gives them a headline. They buy it because it secures them much-needed efficiencies, enhances their thin resources, and improves their services for the people they represent. It allows them to do more with less.
They are proving that harnessing tested and secure technology isn’t about replacing the soul of public service. It is about stripping away the administrative sludge that prevents human beings from doing their jobs.
My own experience with government procurement has been a mixed bag, which is a sentiment shared by many in the tech ecosystem. On one hand, there is a genuine desire to engage with SMEs. On the other, state machinery still favours the safe, the slow, and the scale of legacy providers.
The centre of government talks a good game about harnessing technology in its quest to bring services closer to people. In some areas, there’s been decent progress. The use of Claude in the gov.uk app is one. But there is a massive opportunity being missed by treating tech as a procurement exercise rather than a partnership. To truly reform public services, we must move beyond the buyer-vendor dynamic. We need a system that values the speed of a startup and the sovereignty of British-built AI, rather than one that bogs us down in eighteen-month tender cycles that risk outliving the technology itself.
This byzantine system is not only holding back government ambition. It also risks undermining the ambition of UK tech founders. Many of my fellow founders are ramping up focus on selling technology in the US, Europe and Australia, where it is already driving public service reform. It is somewhat absurd that UK tech is driving efficiencies in over a dozen countries around the world before Whitehall wakes up.
Political will is needed to demand change in the boiler room of Whitehall.
The whole of the UK tech ecosystem has ideas about how to jump this barrier, including changes to the procurement process so specialist startups can compete; increased risk tolerance, accepting that not every pilot will work, but the ones that do will save billions; and a call for buying in proven technologies to be considered on level pegging with building from scratch in-house.
Systemic change is needed, but the first step is in many ways far simpler. We need to ensure Whitehall allows a turbocharged AI-enabled reform of services, to be accompanied by a celebration of UK innovation. UK plc stands ready.
Alex Stephany is founder and CEO of Beam
Politics
Kemi Badenoch: “Targeting voters on the basis of their ethnicity or religion is neither healthy or British”
Brit Award winner Jacob Alon made a display of solidarity with Palestine during Sharon Osbourne’s speech at this year’s ceremony.
On Saturday night, Jacob attended the 2026 Brits at Manchester’s Co-Op Live arena, after becoming the latest recipient of the coveted Critics’ Choice prize, recognising emerging British talent.
Towards the end of the ceremony, Sharon delivered a speech to honour her late husband Ozzy Osbourne, in commemoration of his posthumous Lifetime Achievement win.
During Sharon’s speech, the Brits’ cameras panned to Jacob in the audience, who was seen holding up a Palestinian keffiyeh at their table.
In recent years, both Sharon and Ozzy had repeatedly made headlines with their vocal pro-Israel stance.
Last year, months before his death, the Black Sabbath frontman and his wife were two of 200 public figures who co-signed an open letter calling for an investigation into supposed anti-Israel bias at the BBC.
Sharon, meanwhile, had previously voiced her belief that the Irish musical group Kneecap should have their US work visas revoked over remarks they made in support of Palestine at the Coachella music festival in 2025.
Jacob is a staunch supporter of Palestine, and as part of their performance at the Mercury Music Prize last year, they sang “Free Palestine” during a rendition of their song Fairy In A Bottle.
Meanwhile, earlier in the ceremony, many Brit Awards viewers voiced their upset on social media when the awards show appeared to censor an acceptance speech made by Geese musician Max Bassin, in which he said: “Free Palestine, fuck ICE, go Geese.”
It was later indicated to HuffPost UK that this censorship was due to Max’s strong language after his pro-Palestine message, rather than his speech’s political content.
!function(n){if(!window.cnx){window.cnx={},window.cnx.cmd=[];var t=n.createElement(‘iframe’);t.display=’none’,t.onload=function(){var n=t.contentWindow.document,c=n.createElement(‘script’);c.src=”//cd.connatix.com/connatix.player.js”,c.setAttribute(‘async’,’1′),c.setAttribute(‘type’,’text/javascript’),n.body.appendChild(c)},n.head.appendChild(t)}}(document);(new Image()).src=”https://capi.connatix.com/tr/si?token=19654b65-409c-4b38-90db-80cbdea02cf4″;cnx.cmd.push(function(){cnx({“playerId”:”19654b65-409c-4b38-90db-80cbdea02cf4″,”mediaId”:”0d2116b2-73ae-4559-bd30-a65a05490593″}).render(“69a59a55e4b0d383f5041e83”);});
Iran says it has bombed wanted war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu’s office in Israel. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps are also claiming that they have attacked the Israeli air force headquarters.
Palestine Chronicle reported that:
According to Tasnim News Agency, the Public Relations office of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps announced that the office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the location of the commander of the Israeli air force were attacked in what it described as “targeted and surprise attacks.”
The Times of Israel has reported that:
Israel says there were no injuries in the strikes.
And, Netanyahu’s office have dismissed Iran’s claims that the “fate” of the Israeli PM is unclear. As yet, details remain entirely unclear – Iran’s assertions have not been verified, nor has Netanyahu’s location.
At the weekend, Netanyahu – along with various co-criminal Western leaders – crowed about the assassination of Iranian leader Ali Khamenei and his family. It’s hard to argue that turnabout is not fair play. However, it will be no surprise to see Keir Starmer and other ‘leaders’ condemn Iran for ‘disproportionately’ retaliating for what Israel did to it – just as Starmer did on 1 March after the US and Israel slaughtered Iranian schoolchildren and bombed hospitals.
Featured image via the Canary
Watching hacks tried a few questions on Mandelson, now out on bail, as he left his home and entered a waiting black cab. No dice…
The US military has admitted that its ally Kuwait shot down three US fighter jets that crashed in Kuwait in a so-called ‘friendly fire’ incident.
Footage of one of the fighters as it crashed also appeared to show pilots ejecting via parachute. The BBC reported that:
US Central Command has just now said three of its F-15 jets “flying in support of Operation Epic Fury” – the US operation against Iran – “went down over Kuwait due to an apparent friendly fire incident”.
All six crew ejected safely and have been recovered, it says.
The news is a massive embarrassment for the US, though it may suggest its other allies may have taken a leaf out of Israel’s book. The genocidal colony murdered hundreds of its own people on 7 October 2023 under its ‘Hannibal directive’. This was admitted by former Israeli defence secretary Yoav Gallant and has been common knowledge in Israel since a few weeks after it happened. Israel also killed the Bibas family, three escaping Israeli captives and numerous other Israelis in Gaza.
However, UK and other western media continue to ignore both facts.
Featured image via
Leeds Building Society hits million-member milestone as revenues rise
Which Crypto Would Suffer the Most? (4 AIs Respond)
Justin Bieber Celebrates Turning 32 In Private Moment With Hailey
-
Sports7 days agoWomen’s college basketball rankings: Iowa reenters top 10, Auriemma makes history
-
Politics7 days agoNick Reiner Enters Plea In Deaths Of Parents Rob And Michele
-
Fashion3 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Iris Top
-
Business6 days agoTrue Citrus debuts functional drink mix collection
-
Politics4 days agoITV enters Gaza with IDF amid ongoing genocide
-
Tech1 day agoUnihertz’s Titan 2 Elite Arrives Just as Physical Keyboards Refuse to Fade Away
-
Sports2 days ago
The Vikings Need a Duck
-
Crypto World6 days agoXRP price enters “dead zone” as Binance leverage hits lows
-
NewsBeat5 days agoCuba says its forces have killed four on US-registered speedboat | World News
-
NewsBeat2 days agoDubai flights cancelled as Brit told airspace closed ’10 minutes after boarding’
-
Tech6 days agoUnsurprisingly, Apple's board gets what it wants in 2026 shareholder meeting
-
NewsBeat5 days agoManchester Central Mosque issues statement as it imposes new measures ‘with immediate effect’ after armed men enter
-
NewsBeat2 days agoThe empty pub on busy Cambridge road that has been boarded up for years
-
NewsBeat1 day ago‘Significant’ damage to boarded-up Horden house after fire
-
NewsBeat2 days agoAbusive parents will now be treated like sex offenders and placed on a ‘child cruelty register’ | News UK
-
NewsBeat6 days agoPolice latest as search for missing woman enters day nine
-
Entertainment7 hours agoBaby Gear Guide: Strollers, Car Seats
-
Business4 days agoDiscord Pushes Implementation of Global Age Checks to Second Half of 2026
-
Business4 days agoOnly 4% of women globally reside in countries that offer almost complete legal equality
-
Tech3 days agoNASA Reveals Identity of Astronaut Who Suffered Medical Incident Aboard ISS