It is logical if indeed sovereignty was a main issue in the debate even if this vote was officially only about whether to resume "accession talks."
They have the benefit of seeing the situation in the EU and the direction of travel so it is quite clear that any debates on joining the EU is a debate between continuing as an independent country or being absorbed in a federal EU. A very, very big decision to make.
WRT sovereignty: I'm sure situations like the recent EPR/PPWR debacle didn't help, where the EU passes bad laws that all EU countries are nevertheless forced to adopt. (Recently discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49419237 )
Joining the EU would be a no-brainer if it didn't micromanage and meddle so much.
But that's exactly how it is supposed to work. Primacy of EU law, currency, monetary policy, borders, trade, defence (under way), etc. It is not micromanagement, it is the aim to transfer sovereignty to a federal EU.
There is no way to sugarcoat it. It is no longer the 70s or even 90s when you could claim that this wasn't the situation and aim. So whether people are in favour or opposed to that it has the merit of being clear.
Oddly you tend to get quickly downvoted just for writing this, which is only an observation. Perhaps that's also a symptom of how rotten democracy and public discourse have become if it is "wrong" to state that the sky is blue and water is wet (very 1984...)
But sovereignty is of the people in a democracy. Why is the arbitrary, much weaker unit of "Iceland" better than the much more powerful, much more defensible unit of "EU"?
The sovereign remains the same, the people.
There's also the added wrinkle that Iceland already is in the EEA, so already has the primacy of EU law in a lot of areas. How is it more sovereign to have to follow laws you don't get to decide? Your setup is taking away power from the sovereign that is the people. Or are you advocating exiting the EEA as well? You are aware that would be economic suicide?
In the EU Iceland would lose sovereignty because the EU is going federal, and the people of Iceland would lose sovereignty, too as a consequence. You are trying to clutch at straws because you are insisting on denying a fact that is not even controversial. I understand that you think it is worth it but not you should deny it is the case.
Iceland is in the EEA (and indeed that's already a loss of sovereignty) not in the EU and a key reason is indeed to maintain sovereignty on key issues and industries (especially fishing, which is excluded from EEA), which they would lose by joining. So again it is very unclear to me what they would gain by joining.
Why would they lose sovereignty? You haven't established that at all.
If we read Rousseau's Social Contract, we see that the sovereign is the people, not the executive power at their service.
The people wouldn't stop being the sovereign just because they change the administrative details of executing their sovereign will.
You haven't made a successful case to counter this point, instead you've gone to attacking me personally with loaded language ("clutching at straws") to defend your insularism.
Sovereignty, noun: the power of a country to control its own government. [Cambridge]
A country, EU member, Euro, Schengen, etc. does not control its foreign trade, has no currency, does not control its monetary policy, does not control its borders, does not control its laws. That's the way it is. This includes the people as citizens of that country.
I think you are trying to say that they are still "sovereign" at EU level but obviously that's fallaciously ignoring the whole actual issue of national sovereignty vs. the EU, which isn't just a "change of administrative details", obviously...
That's the issue with discussing the EU within Europe at this point, it has become a religion and it is not possible to discuss religion with religious people.
The complaint in that article is that "instead of creating a single European system, the PPWR preserves a fragmented national model. A business selling directly to customers across the EU must register and fulfil its obligations separately in every Member State where its packaging becomes waste. For large companies, this is part of the cost of doing business; for micro-businesses selling only a handful of products into each country, the cost and administrative burden can be wildly disproportionate to the amount of packaging involved."
That is not the EU passing bad laws that members are forced to adopt, it's every member state individually deciding that they don't care about microbusinesses that can't even afford the registration fee for their national packaging waste disposal system.
Iceland is one of few countries that can actually afford to have no military. They live on an island. Closest landmass to them is Greenland that's certainly not plotting to annex them and its 300km away.
There's no natutal resources, no anything other than fish and 400,000 human population.
They have a strategic location in the north Atlantic, if the US did not have defacto military control of iceland several other countries have historically been interested in annexing them (germany under WW2, soviet union after that). They also only got their independence from Denmark after WW2.
Moreover, this whole narrative of defense is so childlish and asinine, generally spread by people of countries that are always on the attacking side like Americans.
It reminds me of the elementary kids in a local school that started to bring knifes to school because others had knifes too.
You have a country where there is people still alive who remembers their country getting independence, don’t you think that independence matters to them?
I think the idea of continuing as an independent country is a bit naive for a country with no army and a population of 400k in a neighborhood full of newly imperial ambitions.
It's either join democratically into a slowly federalizing EU or be eaten up by American imperial ambitions at this point - and I have my doubts the latter option will include the same right to self-determination, considering the Puerto Rico precedent.
I think that this is the plan: that frightening people (either because of Russia or Trump) would make them see the "correct path". In fact this is standard EU rhetoric: in today's world there is no choice. This is ironic because in effect this is saying that surrendering sovereignty is the only way to face threats to your sovereignty...
But un reality Iceland is no more at risk of invasion now than it was during the Cold War and is doing extremely well on its own so why give up? I must say I don't follow Icelandic politics but from here it is not clear what they would gain by joining the EU.
Iceland went basically bankrupt less than 20 years ago, saying they're doing "extremely well" is either misinformed or disingenuous. They do ok on some parameters, bad on others, and their small size makes them fundamentally weak to global economic winds. EU (and particularly Euro) membership would not magically solve all problems, but could make some things a bit clearer and more reliable.
Sadly, the voters have spoken and so they'll have to continue doing what they do now.
Everyone went basically bankrupt 20 years ago and while they were hit they also recovered. The Euro can be a big impediment, too, as we have seen.
Iceland ranks 5th globally in nominal GDP per capita, 1st in Europe for average wage, 1st globally for HDI. I think it is a fair assessment to say that they are doing extremely well..
Iceland is the only nation that punished its bankers for their misdeeds, and it’s bounced back from 2008 in very good shape. They still have a strong industrial base thanks to massive hydropower investments, and their people (who are fairly well educated) retain control over their government, which seems less corrupt and/or compromised than other European governments. Their strategic location (GIUK gap) also gives them a lot of negotiation leverage. I’d say they are doing pretty well.
Situations change, asking the same question a few years later is good, not bad. Especially since getting into the EU isn't BAM you're in, but a lengthy process with many exits along the route. I am convinced if a country doesn't want to be in the EU there are many off ramps to not actually be in the EU. And be it some last minute re-negotiation of fishery regulations.
I would be curious to know the age distribution in yesterday's Iceland vote.
In the case of Brexit, the brexiters were mostly old people and the bremainers mostly young; for this reason, the forces of demography are slowly pushing the UK back in the EU's orbit again (looking at the polls). Wondering if the same could apply to Iceland.
Iceland's in a fairly different situation. It's already in the EEA; that is, it's subject to most EU law and gets most of the benefits, but gets to have its own rules around fish.
(This was an option for the UK, and is actually pretty much what a lot of the yes campaign was pushing, but is very much not where the UK ended up.)
It might be seen as this ideologic thing, but I don't think it is to the degree many people believe. I have lived in Iceland. Most Icelanders are pretty open-minded and an astounding amount of them have lived abroad for at least a year.
However their island is somewhat reliant on import (e.g. if you need wood to build something, there is no really useful amount of wood growing there). That means export is really important. And that for many people means fishery.
I could imagine that many young people in Reykjavík have a different experience as many of them can earn a living selling online services internationally.
As a EU citizen I don't see this as a Brexit-like event, it is clear that our Icelandic friends are EU-friendly and aligned with many of our laws and regulations already. The fact that they don't want in does not change that there are existing deep ties to the continent.
There were plenty of calls for a confirmatory vote (aka "Peoples' Vote", as if people didn't vote the first time) after the Brexit result in 2016.
If Remain had won 52% to 48%, you can bet that no second confirmatory vote would have been suggested.
EU treaties were voted against by referendum in Denmark (1992) and Ireland (2001 and 2008). There were second votes where the treaty was subsequently passed in all three cases.
How many of the elections you're referring to were contested, called illegitimate or had similar tactics used to effectively call for the same thing? Maybe you can show me that there are a bunch of examples without anything like this, but the way this tactic spread throughout the political right all over the globe in the last ~10 years makes the assumption quite reasonable IMO.
…the difference being that someone like Cummings at the time didn’t have the heft of the Establishment behind him. Anyone can “call” for anything, doesn’t mean it’s going to happen.
The examples I gave were of real re-runs of ballots organised by the state where the outcome was changed.
For instance euro membership is a requirement for new entrants, but Sweden has been fudging the admission criteria just a teeny bit to ensure they do not meet the requirements and keep the krona (as opposed to Denmark, which got an opt-out before the euro became mandatory).
How do such referenda work in Iceland? Is this a simple Brexit-style yes/no question? Were people provided with context and arguments as to why (presumably?) the goverment was considering joining the EU?
I'm not sure whether I agree or not as an European.
I think vetos accomplish exactly what they need to accomplish: unanimity.
Majority arguments are dangerous if then you start to get different factions and tear the EU from the inside. Veto rules are simple and effective.
What I'd like instead is for a proper reform of what can be delegated (and thus not vetoed at all) and what can.
I think, e.g., there should be a larger push to delegate foreign affairs and military to the supranational entity. And it should be achieved in small but decisive, non vetoable steps.
Disappointing, however why would they when they already have effective access to the single market and other special relationship benefits. There's just no real disincentive to not join.
It's honestly a smart decision. They already have access to the common market just like Norway. Becoming a full member just means being subject to a EU governing body that has proven itself to be largely ineffective and incompetent, sometimes reaching the realm of "outright harmful" with things like Chat Control. Why would you want to be a part of that, especially if you would also be paying for that privilege?
I would say it’s the other way round: being in the common market means that they are already subjected to EU regulations, without having any representation in the governing bodies however.
I love how people comment very confidently on shit they clearly know nothing about.
Iceland is in the EEA. It already has to comply with pretty much all EU regulations (with some exemptions, such as their fishing thing). It is also a part of Schegen, freedom of movement, etc.
Unlike other countries, it doesn't get to vote on those regulations, so it doesn't even get the veto power.
I honestly think it may make more sense for Iceland to not be a full EU member, the fishing industry may be too important for a fairly small island nation, etc.
But it has nothing to do with the reasons you fantasized about.
Even though I voted yes I completely understand the reluctance to join.
EU has shown gross incompetence in many questions and with chat control they are downright terrifying.
My own yes was because I would have liked to see the strategy and what EU could have on the table. Even if timeconsuming and costly.
And it would have been worth it just to scare the living daylights out of the few mafia families in Iceland that currently hold the fishing quota and treat it as their private playthings.
But I respect the choice of my countrymen and (hope) perhaps in another decade when we are hypothetically rid of Ursula Leyden and possibly Swedens and Denmarks terrifying need to peak into everones private lives, Iceland can look at negotiations again.
I would agree (not an Icelandic citizen but an EU citizen).
Europe (and Iceland) have many, many challenges and we absolutely need something like the EU to effectively tackle them.
The EU has tremendous potential but a lot of it's current focus seems to be misguided at best, downright evil at its worst.
Let's see if it the EU can tackle the energy and immigration crisis (I'm pro immigration but even I have to admit that the current system is deeply flawed and unsustainable), if it does it would win my respect. Bonus points if we do finally get a (real) single (capital) market.
Joining the EU, given the very sorry state that institution is currently in would basically be a pair of concrete shoes at the bottom of the river for Iceland.
At best the Yes vote was weakly pro by numbers in the city. Nothing like overwhelming.
Probably, very strong influence of the fishing industry, both from sentiment and as a lobby: the EU would have permitted non IS boats into their economic zone, and there would be concerns in the fisher industry community at large about that economically.
I think the city thing reflects Youth attitudes to pan-europeanism.
Also, "No" just had to say "but our fishing zone" so like "take back control" in Brexit, very simple message. "Yes" had to soft sell positives which were at best nebulous. Unlike brexit I think this has less downsides. The future may change that but for now, I think it won't alter much given that Iceland is already in NATO, already in Schengen, already has security guarantees, has full energy independence. As a complete outsider who has visited recently, I would have loved it to be in the EU but thats an externally driven sentiment view.
62 comments
[ 0.25 ms ] story [ 56.6 ms ] threadThey have the benefit of seeing the situation in the EU and the direction of travel so it is quite clear that any debates on joining the EU is a debate between continuing as an independent country or being absorbed in a federal EU. A very, very big decision to make.
Joining the EU would be a no-brainer if it didn't micromanage and meddle so much.
There is no way to sugarcoat it. It is no longer the 70s or even 90s when you could claim that this wasn't the situation and aim. So whether people are in favour or opposed to that it has the merit of being clear.
Oddly you tend to get quickly downvoted just for writing this, which is only an observation. Perhaps that's also a symptom of how rotten democracy and public discourse have become if it is "wrong" to state that the sky is blue and water is wet (very 1984...)
The sovereign remains the same, the people.
There's also the added wrinkle that Iceland already is in the EEA, so already has the primacy of EU law in a lot of areas. How is it more sovereign to have to follow laws you don't get to decide? Your setup is taking away power from the sovereign that is the people. Or are you advocating exiting the EEA as well? You are aware that would be economic suicide?
Iceland is in the EEA (and indeed that's already a loss of sovereignty) not in the EU and a key reason is indeed to maintain sovereignty on key issues and industries (especially fishing, which is excluded from EEA), which they would lose by joining. So again it is very unclear to me what they would gain by joining.
If we read Rousseau's Social Contract, we see that the sovereign is the people, not the executive power at their service.
The people wouldn't stop being the sovereign just because they change the administrative details of executing their sovereign will.
You haven't made a successful case to counter this point, instead you've gone to attacking me personally with loaded language ("clutching at straws") to defend your insularism.
A country, EU member, Euro, Schengen, etc. does not control its foreign trade, has no currency, does not control its monetary policy, does not control its borders, does not control its laws. That's the way it is. This includes the people as citizens of that country.
I think you are trying to say that they are still "sovereign" at EU level but obviously that's fallaciously ignoring the whole actual issue of national sovereignty vs. the EU, which isn't just a "change of administrative details", obviously...
That's the issue with discussing the EU within Europe at this point, it has become a religion and it is not possible to discuss religion with religious people.
That is not the EU passing bad laws that members are forced to adopt, it's every member state individually deciding that they don't care about microbusinesses that can't even afford the registration fee for their national packaging waste disposal system.
It is kind of hard to take countries without standing armies talking about sovereignty seriously.
There's no natutal resources, no anything other than fish and 400,000 human population.
Moreover, this whole narrative of defense is so childlish and asinine, generally spread by people of countries that are always on the attacking side like Americans.
It reminds me of the elementary kids in a local school that started to bring knifes to school because others had knifes too.
It's either join democratically into a slowly federalizing EU or be eaten up by American imperial ambitions at this point - and I have my doubts the latter option will include the same right to self-determination, considering the Puerto Rico precedent.
But un reality Iceland is no more at risk of invasion now than it was during the Cold War and is doing extremely well on its own so why give up? I must say I don't follow Icelandic politics but from here it is not clear what they would gain by joining the EU.
Sadly, the voters have spoken and so they'll have to continue doing what they do now.
Iceland ranks 5th globally in nominal GDP per capita, 1st in Europe for average wage, 1st globally for HDI. I think it is a fair assessment to say that they are doing extremely well..
> either misinformed or disingenuous
That was uncalled for...
Im pretty sure, a ton of icelanders have travelled the EU and seen how unravelled it is- with the ideologues running it into the ground.
(This was an option for the UK, and is actually pretty much what a lot of the yes campaign was pushing, but is very much not where the UK ended up.)
However their island is somewhat reliant on import (e.g. if you need wood to build something, there is no really useful amount of wood growing there). That means export is really important. And that for many people means fishery.
I could imagine that many young people in Reykjavík have a different experience as many of them can earn a living selling online services internationally.
As a EU citizen I don't see this as a Brexit-like event, it is clear that our Icelandic friends are EU-friendly and aligned with many of our laws and regulations already. The fact that they don't want in does not change that there are existing deep ties to the continent.
If Remain had won 52% to 48%, you can bet that no second confirmatory vote would have been suggested.
EU treaties were voted against by referendum in Denmark (1992) and Ireland (2001 and 2008). There were second votes where the treaty was subsequently passed in all three cases.
Do you understand my point now?
You can bet that it would have: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/14/dominic-cum...
How many of the elections you're referring to were contested, called illegitimate or had similar tactics used to effectively call for the same thing? Maybe you can show me that there are a bunch of examples without anything like this, but the way this tactic spread throughout the political right all over the globe in the last ~10 years makes the assumption quite reasonable IMO.
The examples I gave were of real re-runs of ballots organised by the state where the outcome was changed.
Either way, of course you won't find counter-examples if you conveniently define things so the requests made by the anti-EU side simply don't count.
I think vetos accomplish exactly what they need to accomplish: unanimity.
Majority arguments are dangerous if then you start to get different factions and tear the EU from the inside. Veto rules are simple and effective.
What I'd like instead is for a proper reform of what can be delegated (and thus not vetoed at all) and what can.
I think, e.g., there should be a larger push to delegate foreign affairs and military to the supranational entity. And it should be achieved in small but decisive, non vetoable steps.
Iceland is in the EEA. It already has to comply with pretty much all EU regulations (with some exemptions, such as their fishing thing). It is also a part of Schegen, freedom of movement, etc.
Unlike other countries, it doesn't get to vote on those regulations, so it doesn't even get the veto power.
I honestly think it may make more sense for Iceland to not be a full EU member, the fishing industry may be too important for a fairly small island nation, etc.
But it has nothing to do with the reasons you fantasized about.
My own yes was because I would have liked to see the strategy and what EU could have on the table. Even if timeconsuming and costly.
And it would have been worth it just to scare the living daylights out of the few mafia families in Iceland that currently hold the fishing quota and treat it as their private playthings.
But I respect the choice of my countrymen and (hope) perhaps in another decade when we are hypothetically rid of Ursula Leyden and possibly Swedens and Denmarks terrifying need to peak into everones private lives, Iceland can look at negotiations again.
Europe (and Iceland) have many, many challenges and we absolutely need something like the EU to effectively tackle them.
The EU has tremendous potential but a lot of it's current focus seems to be misguided at best, downright evil at its worst.
Let's see if it the EU can tackle the energy and immigration crisis (I'm pro immigration but even I have to admit that the current system is deeply flawed and unsustainable), if it does it would win my respect. Bonus points if we do finally get a (real) single (capital) market.
Good for them.
Joining the EU, given the very sorry state that institution is currently in would basically be a pair of concrete shoes at the bottom of the river for Iceland.
It's obviously a huge loss for the Icelandic people that they don't join the EU.
Once again the educated population of the capital voted "yes" and the uneducated / racist population of the rural areas voted "no".
At best the Yes vote was weakly pro by numbers in the city. Nothing like overwhelming.
Probably, very strong influence of the fishing industry, both from sentiment and as a lobby: the EU would have permitted non IS boats into their economic zone, and there would be concerns in the fisher industry community at large about that economically.
I think the city thing reflects Youth attitudes to pan-europeanism.
Also, "No" just had to say "but our fishing zone" so like "take back control" in Brexit, very simple message. "Yes" had to soft sell positives which were at best nebulous. Unlike brexit I think this has less downsides. The future may change that but for now, I think it won't alter much given that Iceland is already in NATO, already in Schengen, already has security guarantees, has full energy independence. As a complete outsider who has visited recently, I would have loved it to be in the EU but thats an externally driven sentiment view.