> The No campaign fears losing control over Iceland's prized fishing grounds under the EU's Common Fisheries Policy and has vowed never to share the country's waters with anyone. Brussels has indicated Iceland could earn some kind of exemption, but it is considered potentially the biggest obstacle to any agreement.
As noted in the article, Iceland's fishing industry makes up something like 40% of their exports. Which is the only way a tiny island nation can afford essential imports. On top of that, Icelandic fishing is apparently carefully regulated to prevent overfishing, with the result that it is supposedly one of the few truly profitable fisheries in the world.
So maintaining control over their own fisheries may be a survival-level issue for Iceland.
On the other hand, they have a tiny population, no ability to defend themselves, and membership in the fraying NATO military alliance. So I can see why they're debating this issue. Aligning themselves more tightly with Europe doesn't fix their problems, but I can also see not wanting to go it alone.
One of the factors leading them to reconsider EU membership is monetary policy. The Icelandic króna is a very small currency that fluctuates considerably. Switching to the euro would protect them from exchange rate risks with their main trading partner.
One solution for Iceland would be to join the eurozone without becoming a member of the EU, as Kosovo and Montenegro have done. However, this would only be desirable if there really is a deadlock over fishing rights.
They don't need to join the EU to use the euro. There are countries that use the U.S. dollar even though they're not the U.S. Sometimes it's just de facto use the dollar. There is technically a local currency and people use it when forced to but they would prefer the dollar. If you're a small country, something like the dollar or the euro is probably your best bet because of the stability it affords. The advantage to joining the EU is Iceland gets a little bit of input on how the euro was run versus if you use the dollar of the euro when you're not a member of their respective country you are partially tying your financial stability to something that you have no input or control over.
If the króna fluctuates so much, wouldn't that also indicate that demand for the króna just fluctuates a lot? Presumably, in absence of major conflicts between Iceland and its trading partners, as a result of economic imbalances. Those won't go away if Iceland were to join the eurozone, either as a EU member or via the Kosovo/Montenegro route. It might deprive the Icelandic central bank of a valuable tool to stabilize their economy, by weakening or strengthening their currency as economic circumstances demand. This was a big problem for the southern EU economies back in credit crisis times.
Now there are of course many other considerations that might offset this downside to joining the eurozone. I would personally welcome our Icelandic friends joining the EU (if they chose to), but it's good for them to have a public debate about both the up- and downsides first.
> If the króna fluctuates so much, wouldn't that also indicate that demand for the króna just fluctuates a lot?
Yes, relative to the size of Iceland's economy. Average daily ISK turnover on the interbank market is only 4 or 5 million EUR [1]. A single commercial transaction, like the purchase of a new trawler from abroad, can easily be worth 2-3x that amount and cause the exchange rate to spike due to the lack of liquidity.
> Presumably, in absence of major conflicts between Iceland and its trading partners, as a result of economic imbalances. Those won't go away if Iceland were to join the eurozone, either as a EU member or via the Kosovo/Montenegro route.
Part of it would. There is a cost to maintaining your own currency that can drag down the economy.
Counterfeiting is an obvious one, getting software and markets to support is another one, but what parent above you is likely arguing against currency speculators/manipulators.
You need to defend it to keep it relatively stable so it stays as a store of value or your companies will just use dollars or euro anyway. If your currency is so small a firm in New York can force your currency to change by 50% in a night, regardless of the fundamentals of the businesses who use the króna, you have a problem. Using the Euro also means businesses do not have to pay conversion costs or deal with additional accounting issues for tracking the fluctuations in the currency.
As I understand it, Kosovo and Montenegro adopted the Euro unilaterally, without agreement from the EU. I don't think that'd be (politically) possible for Iceland (?). So the EU would need to agree to this, which also doesn't seem politically possible (?)
There are a whole host of microstates and more or less autonomous overseas territories that use the euro. If Mayotte can use the euro even though the island is on the brink of collapse, I don’t see why that would be a problem for Iceland.
I don’t think this is a problem for the EU – quite the opposite, in fact. It strengthens the euro’s position in international trade, increases the number of users and boosts the volume of trade. More customers for the EU’s financial services sector.
There are a number of countries that unofficially use the US dollar as their currency for major transactions without asking anyone’s permission (Cambodia come to mind).
> If Mayotte can use the euro even though the island is on the brink of collapse
Isn't Mayotte part of France and been for quite some time? I'd guess they switched to the Euro together with France and all the other French territories, but maybe I'm wrong?
Monaco, Vatican and San Marino are however sovereign micro-states that switched to the euros because they already had a monetary agreement with France or Italy.
During the 2010 debt crisis there was much talk of profligate Greece being "thrown out" of the euro zone. In this dark scenario Greek civil servants would get their pay rises in worthless drachma, but Greek homeowners would be left with unpayable euro mortgages. But nobody ever talked about the Montenegro option (similar to Ecuador and USD). I never understood this. What was stopping Greece from defaulting and keeping the euro anyway?
> profligate Greece being "thrown out" of the euro zone. In this dark scenario Greek civil servants would get their pay rises in worthless drachma, but Greek homeowners would be left with unpayable euro mortgages
That was indeed the "mainstream media" (I so hate that expression but it does apply) opinion. The reality is more prosaic: German (and French, but mostly German) banks would be screwed if those debts were defaulted upon.
Look at the GDP per capita of Greece since 2010. Looks like staying in the Eurozone didn't do them much good either...
Not sure for a small country like Iceland if it make sense to use Euro over having control over their currency. Things could get super expensive overnight and it would work when things are smooth, but in current political climate you never know when the next financial crisis going to happen and don’t think they want Brussels to dictate their monetary policy
> One solution for Iceland would be to join the eurozone without becoming a member of the EU, as Kosovo and Montenegro have done.
This only makes sense if the primary concern is native (Icelandic) politicians being unable to responsibly manage their currency. Otherwise, there's no advantage over just maintaining a stable exchange rate with the euro.
> "Iceland's fishing industry makes up something like 40% of their export."
That number includes everything involving the fishing industry, such as equipment manufacturing. The size of the actual fishing and value-addative processing is often reported to be closer to 12-15% as a share of GDP.
I say this as an Icelander who voted yes in this vote, but would vote no next time if any deal would lead to us loosing control of our fisheries or having worse management policies pushed on us.
Someone from Iceland tried to explain this all to me once, and if I understood correctly, it had less to do with the GDP (which also includes money circulating within Iceland) and more to do with the balance of trade, where fishing played a bigger role? But my information may have been misunderstood, or it may be out of date.
In any case, you have a stunningly gorgeous country and very nice people, and I wish you the best of luck in figuring all this out in a way that benefits Iceland.
Yeah, and the number also is not of all exports, but of goods exports (as opposed to total, which includes both goods and services).
In 2024, fishing/marine products was ~18% of total exports, which is still a massive deal, but only half as massive. (I believe tourism, the largest "export", is close to 40% of total exports.)
If you join the EU you will lose control of your fisheries and have worse management policies pushed on you. Fantasy to think it will be any other way.
Iceland‘s fisheries are controlled by what we call quota-kings. They are extremely rich owners of fishing quota (similar to USA’s oil barons) who are increasingly anti-social and obviously very unpopular among Iceland’s general public.
Iceland’s fishing system is kind of feudal in nature. People are allowed buy and trade and even rent fishing quotas. This means that the quota has accumulated into fewer and fewer hands of extremely rich individuals. The quota is then trickled down to fishing companies, and finally to fisherman, who have to spend a lot of money to rent the quota before they are allowed to fish.
This is a terrible system, and obviously the EU loves it (it even tried to copy it to solve the climate-crisis; and failed obviously). It fits smack into EUs neo-liberal trajectory. I don‘t think it is a fantasy at all the EU would adopt Iceland’s management policy at all. Nor do I think Iceland’s workers (including fishermen) have anything to worry about inside the EU. Trading ownership from our own feudal overlords to European bureaucrats would be a net positive in my books, however unlikely I find it.
That said I think it is unlikely Iceland will join anyway. Even if ‘yes’ wins. Iceland’s politicians have a history of ignoring the results of a national referendum if they don‘t like the results. They did this back in 2012 when the nation voted in favor of a new constitution (which relevantly would have actually transferred ownership of the fisheries to the Icelandic nation). A new government came to power and simply decided to ignore the results because their loved quota-kings would have lost power. I think something similar is likely to happen again.
Those not familiar with it might find the history of the Cod Wars interesting (and very relevant to this discussion): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars
(literally, Iceland having several decades of slightly-military-involved conflict with the UK about fishing near Iceland. Iceland won.)
>its fishing and marine industries make up almost 40% of exports.
you:
>Iceland's fishing industry makes up something like 40% of their exports
here we can see how a very small... re-framing (let's be charitable to op) completely changes the argument and subtly promotes a certain... viewpoint (again, let's be charitable and not call it an agenda)
Not if everyone else starts fishing in them. Take a look at the Common Fisheries Policy. It effectively means everyone else in the EU can show up and fish for it themselves, potentially undermining the export revenue and (more importantly) severely disrupting all the work they've done to make it sustainable.
No high-income country has shown serious interest in joining the EU in decades. Norway is a hyper-privileged nation that already has several relevant treaties with the EU and has very little to gain by submitting to a system where the Balkan gets to vote on the measures Norway must implement.
This was not argued well during Brexit (what was?) but it was an issue there. As much as Brexit didn’t fix anything for anyone, I do believe the EU operates far too much in the interests of fishing boats and far too little in the interest of conservation and realistic fishery management.
Yes. Ten years ago mackerel was cheap and abundant but the quota was set in excess of scientists' recommendations. Stocks are dwindling now (surprise!) and mackerel has gone from cheaper than tuna (for a tin) to nearly double. It's absurd.
Mackerel is a migrating fish which historically have caused difficulties in managing the fish stock. Between 2020 and 2024 there were no agreement between the nations that has been fishing mackerel in the north atlantic. Iceland was f.ex. fishing mackerel in their zone for 15 years without cooperating with other nations. I think there's an agreement between most of the relevant nations now, except Russia but Russia have a general fishing agreement with Norway which might include mackerel.
Anyway, managing fisheries sustainably is difficult as a lot of fish migrates across huge distances and a lot of fishing is done in international waters. Ideally you need binding agreements between all states bordering an ocean region, which can be difficult when the states are in geopolitical conflict with each other ...
> and membership in the fraying NATO military alliance
That framing is.. strange.
One member of NATO has lost the plot. For everyone else, it’s stronger than ever.
If the US tries to attack a NATO member they’re going to find out just how serious the alliance is.
For example, Maersk shipping line in Danish, and carries 15% of the world’s shipping containers. If the US were to invade Greenland it would be illegal for Maersk to keep doing business with them. It’s unlikely NATO members will fight the US with bullets and bombs, but I guarantee they can still seriously hurt them.
All NATO members selling all their US treasury bonds instantly would also be devastating.
Why would we (as an EU member) want Iceland to compromise on such a vital issue, though? I understand that it's simpler to have common regulations among all members, but when theirs works, why mess with it? It sounds unreasonable.
Despite what you might see a lot in the media lately the EU is not a military alliance and has explicitly no involvement in the military. So joining the EU is irrelevant on these issues.
The article mentions that sovereignty is a big issue. It should be because joining the EU means giving that up so that, I think, is the really crucial issue they should be thinking long and hard about (including, indeed, with respect to fisheries).
Sovereignty is not a binary thing. And it's also not the case that not being a part of some structure makes you sovereign from it. In some cases it's the opposite - you need to conform anyway and have no input into the decision process. So as usual things are nuanced and not black and white.
As it happens sovereignty is a binary thing, at least when looked at domain by domain.
The EU is going the federalisation way. Even now member country relinquished sovereignty on key aspects: border control and immigration, monetary policy, trade policy,
The mutual assistance clause doesn't oblige member states to support each other with military force even in case of aggression. A member can send blankets, food rations, or even just express diplomatic solidarity. Stretching definitions enough one can call it military alliance, but it is not in any practical form.
Looks like I'm right. I don't read in German regretfully, but what I get with machine translation fully supports my point - national discretion allows for civilian or humanitarian aid rather than an automatic military response
I literally started the discussion from the point that "the mutual assistance clause doesn't oblige member states to support each other with military force" - quoting from the comment just 2 levels above.
I run the count at one of the constituencies. We have about 42.000 people on the electoral register and we'll probably see about 75-80% turnout, so we're going to be counting about 33.000 votes with about 30-35 people on staff, 24 of them doing the actual counting.
For the interest of the HN crowd, here is the technical report:
You'll find that the Icelandic voting system is very low tech.
The electoral registry for each local precinct is printed out and each voter is marked as having voted by hand. Three copies are made and three independent staffers make their own marks in their copy. These registers then come with the ballots to the count site to possibly exclude absentee ballots.
We use a paper ballot, marked using a pencil. Votes are counted by hand using a system of double counting and verification. Numbers are checked and cross checked throughout the process.
The count is added and checked in an Excel sheet and then reported by telephone or sometimes live broadcast to the media. Official reporting is usually via custom reports in Excel to the national electoral commission.
These debates are hard to watch. 'Loss of sovereignty' for some reason is perfectly fine for Iceland, Switzerland and Norway, but not UK or others wanting to leave.
'Fisheries' was a small but founding and perennial concern before and during Brexit but they were labelled 'ugly nationalists'.
The EU has benefits obviously but it's been failing Europe in critical ways for about 20 yeas now, and the crazy paradox is that the nationalist threat of Germany's withdrawal from the Euro itself - for really stupid 'stated' reasons, might actually be beneficial for very smart 'actual' reasons, as the strong currency favours Germany over everyone else.
The EU is in bad need of reform, much like FIFA or IOC or the hopelessly broken 2 party system in the US, it likely never will. Very ugly nationalists may come and tear it apart.
Nominally, I hope Iceland joins but it's not going to help anything very much.
> The EU has benefits obviously but it's been failing Europe in critical ways for about 20 yeas now
I like those benefits: The shared currency, easy travel, they killed roaming fees! Also they're the only ones seriously taking on big tech. They made Apple ditch their dumb ass lightning cable.
That's my point: that's the most marginal thing imaginable, it's borderline tabloid populism - even though yes, admittedly over a lot of issues, it' beneficial obviously.
The 'common market' is pretty valuable and it's what the focus should be.
Literally nobody is against that - it's what everyone agrees on.
As far as travel and roaming fees - you don't need a centralized government for any of that. This is the 'political project' substituting for what you think are benefits of what is mostly shared regulations.
But the 'currency' thing is the most misleading.
Your ability to 'not change currency while on holiday' does not come for free!
It comes with a massive cost, and that is nation states cannot control their own monetary policy.
What 'feels like' some kind of obvious amazing benefit, is possibly the most ugly structural think holding all of Europe back.
The theory is - you cannot have shared currency unless there is absolute political and economic integration.
The 'Euro' can only work if basically you have 'Europe Federal Superstate' - one country.
When it was introduced, the population would 'not yet' accept federal political integration, and it was assumed that the inevitable 'Euro' crisis would be just cause for deeper political integration.
The 'Euro crisis' arrived in early 2010's (it was inevitable) and Europe did not go to 'full federal state' (thankfully), but - it's never recovered from that mess.
When periphery countries joined the Euro, it was kind of assumed that risk would be shared. Nations were given lending rates far below what was appropriate.
That massive building in Spain in the 2000's was caused by Euro integration - was 'low rate' euphoria - money washing over the country.
But it was not sustainable, crashed, and left many countries in a horrible state. No 'bailouts' from German taxpayers, and no 'Eurobonds' or shared risk - and worse - no ability to devalue the currency to spur economic activity.
Unless there are transfers of wealth or other mechanisms (North Europe will never accept) then ... Mediterranean Europe is stuck in an economic prison due to 'half complete' currency project.
The evidence on the other side is strong: places Sweden and Denmark - that at least maintained their own currencies - are in much better position. Literally those that avoided the Euro are arguably better off.
It's a complicated subject obviously - but my overall point is, the 'psychology of the Euro' aka 'no exchange on holiday' and the sense of unity around common currency etc. can be very misleading. The Euro could very well be one of Europe's worst problems - again - even if it has benefits as well.
'The Euro' might be the best symbol of all over what is 'perceived' to be good for Europe, but what is actually bad.
And 'the answer' is probably not a pendulum of 'more or less integration' - but actually less integration in some areas, more integration in others.
This is true (aside, Iceland has all of these without being an EU member) however EU has more systemic problems and is on a pretty bad trajectory (which Iceland shares as well despite not being a member). These problems include a rapid direction into neo-liberalism. Europe has a rapidly expanding upper class along with growing privatization. The cost of living is growing fast but salaries for working class people are not keeping up. This sucks.
Another problem is border fascism. Europe has open borders internally, but very closed borders externally. The external borders are being militarized and increasingly hostile towards immigrants and asylum seekers. European politicians are showing increasingly fascistic behavior towards the borders. It is bad, and inhumane, and it is braking Europe apart.
I had a similar thought a few weeks ago when the ~50k people from Morocco crossed the border into Ceuta (Spanish town on the African side of the Mediterranean).
European news and sub-Reddits referred to this event as an unacceptable situation and the term "invasion" was thrown about liberally. But often the same texts then tried to distance themselves from the American right who feels the same way about their own border.
In Russian there's an expression "feel it on your own skin" - there's a big difference between a strong opinion about what others should be doing/tolerating and what you actually are willing to handle in your own life.
(This made me remember the story a few years ago how the Governor of one of the American border states sent a plane of migrants to Martha's vineyard - a wealthy and liberal community who is very vocally pro-immigration. MV "deported" those migrants off the island within 24 hours.)
Do you have an example of one of these texts that called the event in Ceuta an "invasion" but at the same time distanced itself from the American Right?
A maneauvor whereupon a foreign power allows as many people into a small enclave as already live there (literally 60k into a territory of 80k) cannot be called anything other than "invasion". When did Mexico conspire to help 60k people breach into Texas? Let me know and we can have that conversation, maybe I missed it.
As a side-note it was the "dangerous communist leftist" Sanchez which swiftly took control of the situation and defended what was in effect an external EU border, while Melloni et al rubbed their hands and tried to score some cheap points while doing fuck all to help. Food for thought if you ask me...
The US situation is more nuanced than you're framing it as. Even in Mexico there's largely negative sentiment against illegal immigration, as they also suffer from it with the caravans composed primarily of large numbers of young unattached males from a mish mash of places in South America pass through Mexico. They don't tend to leave happiness in their wake. The majority of Mexicans (55%) want them forcibly deported with a slightly smaller majority (51%) of supporting using the National Guard to carry out and enforce such deportations. [1]
Nobody knows exactly how many have come over, but there are estimated to be around 15 million illegal immigrants in the US, primarily via the southern border. For scale, the largest city in the US is NYC with about 8.5 million people. The 10th largest is Fort Worth, Texas with about 1 million. And that's after multiple waves of amnesty legalized millions more, which obviously did nothing but further incentivize more illegal immigration, exactly as in Spain.
there are several hundred thousand illegal crossings in Texas every year. the government might not be involved but there certainly are organizations involved in this.
“So people sending requests to my web server is fine, but when I send ten thousand requests per second to other people’s web servers suddenly they call it a DDoS! Very unfair.”
If EU wants to be superpower, we need more European integration and less of national sovereignty. Unfortunately it will never happen and we are doomed to become more and more marginalised.
When the EU was more a coalition of independent nations, it had vastly more influence and power in the world. The efforts to centralize power seem to be exactly what's causing the divisions. You have highly partisan leaders trying to dictate policy to countries that lean in very different directions. That's not going to lead to good things.
Stable empires have always been those that offered the greatest degrees of sovereignty to those under their rule, and I think that this should be somewhat self evident. When you try to enforce conformity across an empire, you're going to face resistance and even the mightiest of empires cannot sustain itself without a solid internal foundation.
> When the EU was more a coalition of independent nations, it had vastly more influence and power in the world.
Good luck showing causality here. Single EU nations have no way of competing with EU or China until we have real single market. In theory we have single market, but in practice every country introduces regulations on top of European ones and extending to other European countries is huge pain in the ass (and costs fortune).
The never ending creeping need for more power tends to have these results.
EU will either collapse or become a mega state that will later collapse, the problem is mostly that people view things in terms of elections, but downfall happens during much longer periods of time.
The most likely outcome is that the EU is more or less what it is now for the decades to come, and the lack of reform costs significantly in terms of progress, and that Europe misses out on leading key industrial elements and becomes less relevant to global affairs especially as a lot of so-called 'global south' countries become more successful.
The dynamic of Europe sending all the talent to US is probably just going to continue as it is.
Angela Merkel used to be my favourite politician because I thought she was so 'pragmatic' but I think in retrospect she was basically 'do nothing, kick the can down the road, don't rock the boat'.
In some ways, the 'second most dangerous' kind of politician because it's so alluring to even reasonable people.
The kinds of reforms that the EU needs ... which both re-instill a sense of national dynamism but at the same time provide even deeper integration other areas aka capital markets, defence ... almost nobody is talking about.
5 years into a conflict right on the borders, still can't get full sanctions, still buying Russian carbons, still can't get real access to that $100B Russian money, still totally dependent on the US, still have no proper munitions inventory, still don't have proper defence against ballistic missiles aka huge existential gaps in defence capabilities when the wolf is right at the door.
The CIA had to visit Kremlin few days ago to warn against NATO attack is basically admission that Europe, 80 years after WW2 is not fully sovereign. It was daddy DJT that still to this day, is the one at the table, doing the talking. Not Von Der Leyen, not anyone from Europe ... but an American.
The rise of 'ugly nationalism' may cause pro-EU people to rally and defend broken systems instead of reforming. There is a path through that storm that is a wining outcome however...
If their economy meet the requirements, which I believe they do, then I would like to see it. They can have agreements made prior to their current fisheries that are clearly a huge part of their exports and gdp. They can also negotiate when/if to move to the Euro, or they could go another direction and retain their EEC agreements. Europe Union is not really an "All or nothing" as many seem to thing. It's more a regulatory decision, when countries already align, it's usually a few extra guarantees and trade. As an Irish I understand how different it can seem especially without the Schengen, with out issues in Norther Ireland, Brexit required a lot. But Europe was the only reason we were able to avoid complete poverty. As I see it, Iceland has a far better economy that would help us too. So I'm all for it.
But I wont be upset at them if they decided to keep the status quo with us!
> The arguments that some put forward against the eu are as educated as the people declaring fiat money a scam back in the Bitcoin hype phase.
>
> While there are reasons not to join, most commenters against it have no clue what they are talking about.
Indeed! As I just learned in this comment, the EU is about to collapse and Iceland would be stupid to board an already sinking.
Makes me wonder where these commenters get their information about Europe/EU from, and whether these comments are a projection of either ignorant or ideologically motivated animosity towards the EU.
There are obscene amounts of money involved in financing anti-EU marketing. The European unity is a thorn in the eyes of Russia, the US and China. A (reasonably) united Europe is the fourth major player on the global scene. 27 individual states aren't influential by themselves and are much easier to be influenced.
Currently, the EU is in a de facto war with Russia, in a trade war with the USA and China, and previous colonies don't seem to care too much for the West either.
The USA would like to see nothing more than an explosive end to the EU and the Russians have been trying to kill any united front against their invasion plans for longer than the EU has been around.
Every major world power has the money and motive to spread misinformation about the EU. They're influencing extremist European parties to repeat their talking points so they can point at a source on the "inside" as well.
The more people think the EU is some kind of awful oppressive regime, the more power the other world powers will gain over Europeans.
The thing is I don’t see you asking that same question to the other Americans in the comment section here making stupid claims, with clearly zero clue on how the EU actually functions.
So my question is: why? Why does this comment in particular deserves your attention as a “source your claims” flag, but the other one below about the eu commission being a dictatorship does not?
> The thing is I don’t see you asking that same question to the other Americans in the comment section here making stupid claims, with clearly zero clue on how the EU actually functions.
Well it’s just because I bumped into that comment first, really.
While I agree on the fact that sometimes comments aimed to the EU are overblown and inaccurate it’s also true that lazy answers like “people don’t know what they’re talking about” are not proving anything wrong
> The No campaign fears losing control over Iceland's prized fishing grounds under the EU's Common Fisheries Policy and has vowed never to share the country's waters with anyone.
What about losing to a madman who, over the last two years, started multiple wars, invaded several countries, and repeatedly mentioned Greenland? Who's to say he will stop there and not take Iceland too? After all, it's free real estate.
So I support the general idea of European integration but boy are there some problems and certain industries or political groups punch way above their weight in terms of influencing these processes. For example, agriculture is a relatively small amount of the French economy but French farmers have outsized political impact on Frech and EU policy.
Fisheries is another of those and we have several data points to show the EU policies have generally been corrupt and a disaster for fisheries management.
1. The UK. As many know, the EU didn't start at the EU. It went through several predecessor organizations post-WW2 including the Common Market, the EEC and the EC. Those really began in the 1950s and the UK at that time declined to join and thus wasn't a founding member. At that point, fisheries weren't a common resource.
The UK began accession talks in 1970 (along with Denmark, Ireland and Norway). Hours before that the EEC changed its rules to make fisheries have common access to member states.
The UK has not always been the best custodian of the fisheries. They were historically overfished. But what's also clear is that the EU has been just as bad. There's a complex system on top of all of this about allowed fishing fleet sizes (by tonnage) and catch quotas. Over the years there have been many stories about how these quotas were increased through opaque (some would say backroom or even corrupt) deals. It hasn't worked;
2. Norway. Fisheries have always been a real sticking point for Norway and they're not open access. Norway didn't join the EU (or the EEC at the time) but instead they carved out an intermediate organization. The EEA I think? Here's a Venn diagram [1];
3. The UK (again). Continued access to fisheries by EU member states was a real sticking point and a major issue in the withdrawal agreement. It was also probably a factor in the Leave vote in fishing towns in the UK affected by all this. I believe the EU negotiated 6+ years of continued access.
That was meant to end this year but a 12 year extension was negotiated taking that to 2038. Think about that: why does this relatively tiny industry command such importance in the EU?
Iceland seemingly has been a relatively good steward for their fisheries. Were they to negotiate joining the EU, I think, much like Norway, it'll become a dealbreaker for both sides. And unlike the 1970s, I don't see the EU expanding the EEA or EFTA ro accomodate Iceland. It's a different time and Iceland just doesn't have Norway's negotiating position. Plus the political climate is different. Norway was NATO's bulwark against the USSR in the Cold War.
If I were an Icelander, I'd oppose any common access to fisheries, even if it meant being unable to join the EU.
When people negotiate, the terms of the deal are affected by many factors. Imagine Greenland "cashes in" IOUs/goodwill to get better terms, only for the referendum to fail. Then they change their mind a couple years later, maybe because an ally threatens them with invasion - they won't get the same deal again.
Polling would be good enough I would think here, do a poll and if you're within 10% of a majority being in favor, just do it and then let them decide on the final agreement. Be public with that stance so that the EU and the population know that the public will have the final say and we (the gov) aren't trying to railroad this
Maybe in a country the size of Iceland it's not as big a deal to run an election but it seems like a lot of work for what is just an advisory vote
This reminds me of a recent vote in the EU parlament where the No vote had to reach a certain value above 50% to carry the day. Even though the vote did end up with a No majority, it passed because the No vote didn't reach the required negativity!
Now that's true democracy.
If Icelanders don't want to join a democracy like that, negotiate until they do! After all, the politicians know what is best for the populace.
As long as they hold a confirmatory referendum before actually joining, it wouldn't matter. Also, if Iceland is a democracy the citizens could simply vote for someone else next time who wouldn't keep trying if that's not what they wanted
It's not a big deal given the major decision regarding even considering losing most of their national soveregnity to one of the most incompetent bureucracies the world has ever seen for hardly any upsides that they can't negotiate individually as a sovereign country.
Parliament does not really have a majority vote for continuing talks. But one of the government parties made it one of their election issues so they want to find out if there is a majority support among voters.
But that is quite literally what they are going to do. They're asking the public if they should try to join the EU. If yes, they will negotiate an agreement with the EU. Once the government has agreed a path forward with the EU, they'll then have another vote and if yes they'll actually sign the agreement and join the EU, if no, it ends there and they don't join
This first vote isn't committing the country or population to anything
What agreement? To join the EU you must change a lot of internal structures in your own government first, a lor of regulations must be changed to align with EU versions, laws have to be changed, even basics, like drivers licences and other documents.
Why spend millions if not billions on all that, impose laws that are maybe bad for normal people, and then figure out that people don't actually want to join the EU?
You would hold the confirmatory vote before you do all of that. You'd go to the EU, agree what joining looks like, and before doing any of the actual implementation you hold the vote
The EU is fundamentally broken, you have someone like Ursula von der Leyen who has more political power than most head of states but no one has directly voted for her.
Comments like this one are always funny to read, cause they obviously are from a person that couldn’t imagine any governments chief executive not being elected in some large media event that gives a large section of the population the believe the chief executive is solely their choice. Ironic, as it most frequently comes from US citizens who are both unwilling to engage in other political systems and ironically don’t even realize that the head of state isn’t elected by the people in the US either, thanks to the electoral college.
If the EU is fundamentally broken because the head of the Commission isn’t a direct vote, then so are the US, Austria, the UK, Germany, Canada, …
You clearly have no idea how the EU works; she is the head of the Commission, which is nominated by the Council (27 elected heads of state), and needs to be approved in by the Parliament (directly elected). So sure, yeah, she isn't directly elected, but she still needs a massive amount of multinational political support.
Even then, all the power is in the Commission; the Commission is split in areas (competition, energy, trade, etc.), and each country nominates a commissioner in each area, and the total Commission gets approved once again by democratically elected Parliament. The head of the Commission has only one single vote, and a majority vote decides if anything passes, and even the Parliament has to approve it. That said, I think we all want Parliament to have the ability to propose legislation.
So don't take this ignorant take in here and present it as some kind of dictatorship and a fundamental flaw of the EU that undermines it all; the EU has been a massive positive force for the continent, and people like you just like to shit on it.
What do you call a state with an unelected president? This role has come about with no citizens in the EU being asked to approve it or vote for it. Being selected by a handful of bureaucrats is a creepy technocracy with zero pretensions for being a functioning democracy. Foolishness to see it any other way.
The problem is not really the power she has, the problem is that both the heads of state of all EU countries along with the entire EU Parliament approved her. Twice. They want her there to push what EPP wants to do, while taking all the bad press, somehow erasing the common knowledge that they've almost hijacked the EU as much as Republicans have the US. Put a clown on stage, let them take all the heat, then freely make all the shitty changes in the background.
In most European countries we don’t vote for prime minister/presidents.
The representatives from the parties are free to choose whoever they want, but generally it becomes a leader of the largest party in the governing party/coalition.
I think what’s better (wishful thinking) that Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Canada make a new union together, like “united arctic” or something, that way all get protected from US lunatics politicians and from absurd EU bureaucratic laws.
Do you get paid by a regime-aligned "N"GO to defend voting for and against chat control as many times as it takes until this totalitarian's wet dream passed the alibi vote?
I hope you keep to your principles and make sure not to lock your doors at night, and don't deny anyone the right to live in your house with you for free if they desire.
Btw this referendum is about starting the talks, not about joining or not joining.
If the result is “yes” then a proposal with all terms and conditions for joining will be written down, and the Icelanders will vote again on whether to accept those terms and conditions or not.
It's a hard one. I feel the UK were wrong to leave but Norway and Switzerland have a fantastic overall quality of life without and I'm not sure the benefits of membership unless you are financially poor country. Iceland is probably better off joining the Schengen but not EU.
In practice, these countries implement already a lot of EU law. It isn't that difficult for say a Switzerland to join the EU and they have good reasons to, as access to programs like Horizon is a huge benefit. The economies of these countries are quite interwoven with the second largest economy of the world. The EU market comes with rules but is is a very big win for neighboring countries. In fact, Switzerland backtracking on previous accession tracks and thus not qualifying anymore for Horizon etc is causing some serious regrets, so I won't be surprised if Switzerland bites the bullet somewhere in the future.
Secondly, the world got a lot more unstable since the US is pushing for a lawless might-makes-right world and taking an increasingly predatory posture there. From that perspective, the EU is becoming even more relevant. Poignant example is Canada taking more and more steps to integrate their economy with the EU, as well as to become part of its security architecture.
UPDATE: Leaving the Horizon program has apparently been too painful [1], seems the Swiss were retroactively allowed back from 2025 [2]. I don't know about Horizon 2028 though.
Switzerland is currently in the process of implementing a third wave of bilateral agreements with the EU, and the federal government has indicated that in their opinion the "bilateral way" is the best of both worlds in terms of sovereignty and integration, so I don't think joining the EU will be on the agenda anytime soon
Because Swiss scientists and businesses want to collaborate and trade with European partner networks of science and industries.
One of the EU main principles is collaboration and win-win. It is not zero sum. Example: The Netherlands is wealthy and a net contributor, but would be poorer off from not being in the EU.
Also, be aware that your question easily leads to a follow-up question:
"Why don't we fund our own research and innovation?"
=> "Why do we fund research and innovation?"
Switzerland has been kicked out of Horizon programs so many times and had to build alternatives. By now everyone involved knows, Horizon is high risk program and access can be pulled at any time for political reasons, so it hasn't that much appeal anymore.
That's because the PM's party brokered that half-way deal with EU against the will of the people, after they had voted no to EU for the second time[1].
Not saying some of our export companies aren't enjoying the access to EU, but the people was against it.
Iceland already heavily integrated into the EU, the only outliers are currency, foreign policy, security, political institutions, customs and some trading sectors like fishing.
Currency (since the exchange rate to the Euro is what sets pricing in Iceland) and security are the reasons many want to get closer.
Norway gets all the money it wanted from offshore gas, and Switzerland from being the bank of Europe when world wars happened (not mentioning gold nor laundering). When money is handed down to you like this by geography or history, the benefit of joining the eu and paying more for others is probably not given for the population.
Yes, Luxembourg has a higher GDP per capita than Switzerland, also for banking reasons.
If anything when your economy is based on European countries relying on your banking services, being part of EU makes it even easier for said countries to pour their money to your banks.
Yes, these are bad examples. Norway - rich beyond belief due to its energy resources. Switzerland - rich beyond belief because of its developed banking sector. Not sure how Iceland stacks up here. Fishing will be an issue for them, no doubt here.
> Norway and Switzerland have a fantastic overall quality of life
Well, one sits on vast amounts of oil and the other has been doing some dodgy financial stuff for very long time.
> Iceland is probably better off joining the Schengen but not EU.
It irritates me so much how some countries get to pick and choose. It's just ridiculous how some countries refuse to join Eurozone. The UK used to be in the EU, but wasn't part of Schengen. Now it's not part of anything, but is still in Horizon Europe?
Norway and Switzerland are in the EU in all but final signatures ar this point: they are fully ibtegrated into EU economy, apply EU's laws and regulations and even pay into EU funds.
Speaking of Switzerland - no it absolutely is not.
Is far from being fully integrated into EU.
You have to pay customs on shipments, which can be delayed for weeks on borders.
You need to apply for the residence permit and you can lose it for trivially sounding reasons.
- E.g. lying on the application which could mean " you mentioned in the application you wull look for job but lied and went to learn the language instead".
- also look at the recent case of a woman and her daughter abused by some Swiss politician facing deportation because she moved to Switzerland for work officially, but in reality she moved to live with her Swiss romantic partner.
Switzerland still have bottles of water without permanently attached lid.
It's integrated in many ways but still far from being a member state.
They should have considered not lying in their residence permit applications. I mean, what you are saying sounds like completely reasonable reasons to deport someone. They lied because they knew their application would’ve been denied had they said the truth.
Iceland is already part of Schengen, EFTA, and NATO. They're in the best position there is, having negotiated the best the EU has to offer but not the bad parts, such as the Euro, Pfizer deals, the migration and asylum pact, or age verification. I can't imagine them joining the EU being anything but a massive downgrade for them.
Whether it was the correct decision or not, it was done via a democratic vote. Now the leaders of the UK look to entangle the UK into the EU structure that is evidently against their mandate.
The current UK government was also elected by democratic vote, so they have a mandate that postdates the referendum.
You can argue their mandate is invalid due to the first-past-the-post system, but in that case the original decision to hold a referendum, and all subsequent governments that negotiated the terms of the EU exit are also invalid, since they all derived from first-past-the-post elections.
The vote was to leave or stay - there was no mandate for or against a specific relationship to the EU before even considering how drastically opinions have shifted since.
It wasn't binding so the normal procedure and checks around a referendum could be ignored. Like disenfranchising the British citizens living in the EU.
Democratic vote which has since then been proved to be heavily influenced by the Cambridge Analytica campaign, so which probably did not reflect the actual opinion of the population. It was a manipulated vote.
Fishing. Their IQ is high enough to understand it’s not a clear cut answer (unlike say the U.K where fishing is an insignificant part of the economy that was mainly sold off by British fishermen when they retired)
The Euro is actually one of the reasons they want to join; even their prime minister stated it explicitly. It would be a more stable currency than their own.
Have you seen how bad is the Icelandic crown, their prices and their borrowing rates? Adopting the euro is one of the main arguments in favor of joining the EU.
Ok, but why is it the Icelandic crown "bad"? What is the economic cause of it?
I do not know much about Iceland, only that, like New Zealand (and Canada), it is sometimes painted as some sort of progressive heaven that the US should aspire to.
Then, as you learn more, it turns out life isn't that great there.
No idea, I think that being such as small economy its currency fluctuates a lot, more than it is bad per se. That is why joining the Euro would give them a lot of stability, according to campaigners in favor of joining the EU.
Can I ask why you have this sentiment? I think the Euro has been a great achievement. It seems quite stable compared to its predecessor currencies and it’s convenient for trade across the union.
Countries have wildly different needs regarding monetary policy. Those interests are sometimes in conflict. When push comes to shove, unsurprisingly the powerful dictate the rules: see the 2010s Eurozone crises.
This is one of the main reasons for the discussions. The Icelandic króna is a very small currency that fluctuates significantly. It is a small economy, and the difference in currency complicates access to European financial services.
Switching to the euro would enable them to eliminate exchange rate risk with their main trading partners.
There are countries outside the EU that have switched to the euro for this reason, such as Montenegro and Kosovo.
The euro is very stable because it's a used by some big countries (in population and economy). So prices can fluctuate but less because there is little currency-related fluctuation.
Also yes, a country can adopt the euro unilaterally, that's the case for Kosovo and Montenegro.
But that's a tough situation because they're not represented at the CBE, they don't get a say in how much money gets created, banks can't get financing from the CBE...
Iceland is in EEA. EEA is already EU-lite, where they have to comply with plenty of EU regulations, don't get a vote on those regulations, but get some exemptions (such as their fishing thing).
Other two countries in EEA are Norway and Liechtenstein.
The presence of EU across the sea is making their exporters to comply, same goes for UK. Does not matter if you are a member or not. You can either comply with the roles or not export to EU.
There are two main problems with the EU, both political.
First, the EU Commission has way too much power, and honestly wants to play dictator. Look at ChatControl: Voted down more than once, but the Commission just repackages and resubmits, with some dirty backdoor tricks, until they get it through. Parliament is not allowed to propose legislation, only the Commission.
Second, regulatory hell. The continual avalanche of regulations out of Brussels cannot be overstated. People make fun of the bottle caps, but those are absolutely illustrative of how literally everything is over-regulated. This is one of the main reasons that European industry is struggling.
The EU commission is just a way for national governments to launder their authoritarian desires through the EU. The commissioner for each country is choser by national governments. It's them pushing that shit.
The main problem with it, is that when you vote on national elections, typically you are concerned with local issues. Housing, healthcare, transportation, employment, immigration, etc.
Nobody is really thinking "who will this party behave on the EU level?" Then they do shit like this and hide behind "we have to comply with the EU".
> The EU commission is just a way for national governments to launder their authoritarian desires through the EU. The commissioner for each country is choser by national governments. It's them pushing that shit.
You're both right. The problem is it's the commission that sets the agenda for the parliament.
If you inverted it and had the elected parliament set the agenda for the national government appointed commission it would be far more likely to reflect the will of the people, which is precisely why it is the way it is.
Europe still hasn't learned the lessons of the French revolution, and is destined to keep repeating it.
I am as pro-EU as it gets, and I really would prefer if it worked as a true parliament. Instead of commissioners chosen by national governments and a head commissioner, a premier minister chosen by the parliament, and a commission that would only have the power to approve of veto laws that come from the parliament. Hell, the parliament should even have the power to override vetoes.
The way the EU is composed right now, it is designed to be kneecapped by the national governments every time.
As noted in the article, Iceland's fishing industry makes up something like 40% of their exports. Which is the only way a tiny island nation can afford essential imports. On top of that, Icelandic fishing is apparently carefully regulated to prevent overfishing, with the result that it is supposedly one of the few truly profitable fisheries in the world.
So maintaining control over their own fisheries may be a survival-level issue for Iceland.
On the other hand, they have a tiny population, no ability to defend themselves, and membership in the fraying NATO military alliance. So I can see why they're debating this issue. Aligning themselves more tightly with Europe doesn't fix their problems, but I can also see not wanting to go it alone.
reply