9 ms·

Iceland votes on whether to restart talks on joining EU

340 points by tosh 2mo ago

ktallett 2mo ago
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.
- ChocolateGod 2mo ago
  It's already in the Schengen. 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.
  - walthamstow 2mo ago
    What do they get in security from the EU that they don't get from NATO? Is it so they can get in on the new joint EU defence funds?
    - ChocolateGod 2mo ago
      The US being an unreliable partner.
- yvdriess 2mo ago
  Iceland already is Schengen
- earthnail 2mo ago
  The Norwegian PM said to Britain back then “don’t repeat our mistake. We need to, in practice, follow all the EU’s rules and don’t get any say in it”
  - mrec 2mo ago
    Important to clarify: IIRC that comment was about Norway's EEA membership. The UK is not an EEA member.
  - magicalhippo 2mo ago
    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. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Norwegian_European_Union_membership_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Norwegian_European_Union_...
    - GeoAtreides 2mo ago
      Since 1994 the will of the people had a lot of time to express itself...
      - magicalhippo 2mo ago
        Polls have consistently been favoring No to EU side since.
        GeoAtreides 2mo ago
        > 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 what polls have to do with it? if the will of the people was against the eu deal, they should've voted against, they had 30 years to do it. norway is a democracy, right?
  - SahAssar 2mo ago
    Except in areas of fishing and agriculture. Especially fishing they really care about, just like iceland.
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
- adamtulinius 2mo ago
  Iceland is already a member of Schengen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Area
- spiderfarmer 2mo ago
  It's a bit different with fishery as the backbone of your economy vs. oil, minerals and banking.
- troupo 2mo ago
  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.
  - kuboble 2mo ago
    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.
    - bsian 2mo ago
      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.
      - kuboble 2mo ago
        Btw - as a eu citizen they can't really deny you. So you can write whatever as a reason to move as long as you have means to support yourself. My point is, that within EU you can freely move around with no restrictions and having to apply for residence permits. And the case I mentioned wasn't even lying but a misunderstanding. In Poland searching for a job is state of mind "I wish someone would hire me". In switzerland it officialy means provably spending your full time effort on the job hunt. The person I know couldn't find a job at first so decided to do an intensive German course (5x a week, 4h a day) to increase her hirability. The immigration officer happily used it as a prove that she actually did not spend all her time looking for job, therefore lied.
- p2detar 2mo ago
  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.
  - fakedang 2mo ago
    [dead]
- Jtarii 2mo ago
  Market integration is a good thing.
- m132 2mo ago
  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.
  - snowpid 2mo ago
    Euro would be a bliss for unstable Islandian currency. Actually Euro is used by the yes camp.
- f6v 2mo ago
  > 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?
- hdx19 2mo ago
  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.
  - eloisant 2mo ago
    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.
- bArray 2mo ago
  > I feel the UK were wrong to leave [..] 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.
  - exceptione 2mo ago
    That mandate has quite changed, even more when you look at the non-retired cohorts. Reintegration with the EU will take plenty of time.
    - bArray 2mo ago
      Has it? It would take another vote to show it for sure, and the current government is simply not wanting to ask the people.
  - snowpid 2mo ago
    The majority of UK inhabitans wants to rejoin the EU. It is indeed democratically legitime.
    - bArray 2mo ago
      If only there was a type of nation-wide poll that could be conducted to make such claims so strongly. Maybe we pick a single day, each side makes their cases to the people, and then they cast their choices to be counted. But I guess it can't be done.
  - flaburgan 2mo ago
    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.
    - bArray 2mo ago
      I remember the UK government at the time spent £9.3 million of taxpayer's money to push a pro-EU leaflet out [1], not to mention a concerted effort from the news media. It's not as if there was not strong campaigning happening on both sides. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-EU_leaflet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-EU_leaflet
- exceptione 2mo ago
  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. 1. https://sifted.eu/articles/switzerland-startup-talent-brain-drain https://sifted.eu/articles/switzerland-startup-talent-brain-... 2. https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/strategy/strategy-research-and-innovation/europe-world/international-cooperation/association-horizon-europe/switzerland_en https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/strategy/strate...
  - ajsnigrutin 2mo ago
    Why do they need the Horizon programs? Switzerland is a rich country, in any pan-EU project scheme, they'd pay more than they'd get back.
    - deleted 2mo ago
      [deleted]
    - nairboon 2mo ago
      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.
    - 2mo ago
- fifticon 2mo ago
  switzerland is not currently at risk of a US invasion
  - huhtenberg 2mo ago
    Neither is Iceland as it has no oil ... or any other mineral resources for that matter.
    - nairboon 2mo ago
      But a highly strategic location.
- Towaway69 2mo ago
  Approximately 100 years ago one would have said the same for the UK. Unfortunately the Empire crumbled and the Brits got Magic Thatcher. So perhaps the UK was wrong in joining in the first place.
spiderfarmer 2mo ago
With the state of the world right now they can probably get a very good deal.
- ExoticPearTree 2mo ago
  The best deal is not to join.
  - Foskya 2mo ago
    no?
bilsbie 2mo ago
[flagged]
- earthnail 2mo ago
  Leaving didn’t help the UK much regarding migration, did it?
  - suslik 2mo ago
    A necessary condition is not always sufficient.
  - hdgvhicv 2mo ago
    It increased migration, and switched it from culturally and historically aligned Europeans to culturally different African and South Asian. Exactly as “project fear” predicted.
    - phatfish 2mo ago
      Yup, Farage did more for the great replacement than any other UK politician.
  - znpy 2mo ago
    [flagged]
    - mixdup 2mo ago
      I guess they'll just have to live with your disappointment
      - znpy 2mo ago
        Indeed, and they aren’t doing that well.
- croes 2mo ago
  > How many new cookie banners would their websites get? How many user data do they track? Otherwise cookie banners aren‘t necessary
ekidd 2mo ago
> 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.
- amunozo 2mo ago
  I think the EU should make an exception, which also could draw Norway closer.
  - p-e-w 2mo ago
    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.
    - jrochkind1 2mo ago
      Is the top not an article about a high-income country expressing serious interest in joining the EU?
      - abcd_f 2mo ago
        ... expressing some interest to try and see if joining the EU might be feasible or not. That's literally what the referendum is about.
DocTomoe 2mo ago
[flagged]
- croes 2mo ago
  Do you know how it was before?
  - znpy 2mo ago
    Much better? The main issue i see is the euro as a single currency. Individual nations cannot modulate their monetary policy according to their needs. Most other stuff is okay.
    - croes 2mo ago
      Can you imagine the current US government vs. European countries without the EU?
      - hagbard_c 2mo ago
        Yes, because before the EU there was the EEC [1] which was about trade relations without delusions of grandeur related to a United States of Europe. [1] https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory2/chapter/the-european-economic-community/ https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory2/ch...
- spiderfarmer 2mo ago
  Can you define cult?
  - dosisking 2mo ago
    A cult is a small group driven by extreme devotion to a charismatic leader, a specific idea, or an unorthodox set of beliefs. In this case, the 'small group' is the unelected European Commission (EC) bureaucracy who is desperate to retain power at any cost.
apples_oranges 2mo ago
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.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- OKRainbowKid 2mo ago
  > 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.
  - xboxnolifes 2mo ago
    I imagine every time they see a cookie banner they feel a chunk of the EU crumbling.
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  - bojan 2mo ago
    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.
    - surgical_fire 2mo ago
      This is the reality of this. For larger countries is much easier to deal with Europe when it's a bunch of small countries butting heads with their neighbors.
dosisking 2mo ago
[flagged]
- gonzalohm 2mo ago
  Canada's debt is 103 of their GDP
  - dosisking 2mo ago
    [flagged]
sehw 2mo ago
[flagged]
- hdgvhicv 2mo ago
  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)
  - mrits 2mo ago
    Most parts of an economy are insignificant.
    - hdgvhicv 2mo ago
      Not in icelands case
znpy 2mo ago
I hope whatever they do they don’t adopt the euro as their currency.
- pavlov 2mo ago
  Joining the euro is a hard requirement for new countries entering the union. The only negotiable is the length of the transition period.
  - rgblambda 2mo ago
    As the Polish government have made very clear, the length of the transition period can be indefinite. And it isn't really a negotiable. It's up to the country when it wants to join the Euro. They just have to promise that they'll do it at some unspecified point in the future.
- jochem9 2mo ago
  New joiners are required to eventually adopt. Only members that were so before the Euro are exempt.
- amunozo 2mo ago
  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.
  - DataDive 2mo ago
    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.
    - amunozo 2mo ago
      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.
znpy 2mo ago
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.
- phatfish 2mo ago
  Sounds like the way a certain referendum to do the opposite should have been run.
CurbStomper 2mo ago
[dead]
mixdup 2mo ago
It seems odd to hold a referendum on holding talks. Why not just negotiate an agreement and then hold a referendum on that agreement?
- coldtea 2mo ago
  Because if the people don't want to join in the first place, why hold negotiations to begin with?
  - mixdup 2mo ago
    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
    - coldtea 2mo ago
      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.
      - mixdup 2mo ago
        I'm not arguing whether or not they should join the EU, just questioning why it needs two stages of referrenda
    - Towaway69 2mo ago
      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. [1] https://www.techtimes.com/articles/320010/20260709/eu-parliament-passes-chat-control-default-314-meps-couldnt-block-scanning-law.htm https://www.techtimes.com/articles/320010/20260709/eu-parlia...
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
hndbwksam7 2mo ago
[flagged]
bluegatty 2mo ago
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.
- xyzelement 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - andrepd 2mo ago
    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...
    - jayGlow 2mo ago
      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.
    - somenameforme 2mo ago
      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. [1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/unauthorized-immigrants-face-public-backlash-in-mexico-survey-finds/2019/07/16/f7fc5d12-a75e-11e9-a3a6-ab670962db05_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/unauthoriz... [1] - https://archive.is/KruVX https://archive.is/KruVX
shrubble 2mo ago
I think Iceland will find that compliance with the EU regulations would be very expensive and not practical, but that’s for them to decide.
- rwmj 2mo ago
  They're in the single market already.
- general1465 2mo ago
  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.
  - surgical_fire 2mo ago
    This is a great example of how people comment very confidently on shit they know nothing about. Iceland complies with EU because it belongs to the EEA. It has nothing to do with "precence of EU across the sea". UK doesn't have to comply with th EU. It has to if it t wants to be able to export stuff there.
    - general1465 2mo ago
      Your comment is a great example of getting triggered and then agreeing with everything what I have written.
      - surgical_fire 2mo ago
        Except, no. Iceland has to comply with EU because it is in the EEA. The situation of Iceland is completely different than the situation of the UK. The UK has to comply with the EU as much as Nicaragua, New Zealand, Namibia, etc.
        general1465 2mo ago
hn5xz7plcj 2mo ago
[dead]
timonoko 2mo ago
[redacted] forgot this is Hacker News.
- gls2ro 2mo ago
  Can you maybe expand this? Are Romanians from North Sea going to fish near Iceland? or did they do that near UK? And let me ask you an even better question: Is Romania the country you see that has so many derogations from EU laws and can do what they like?
tyre 2mo ago
Never forget Iceland defeating Britain in the Cod Wars https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfD3gevx48Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfD3gevx48Y
ExoticPearTree 2mo ago
[flagged]
- runarberg 2mo ago
  Iceland has all the worst parts of EU (the unhindered neo-liberalism and border fascism) anyway.
  - quantummagic 2mo ago
    > border fascism 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.
    - runarberg 2mo ago
      Sorry I must brake away from HN guidelines here: But this is an infinitely dumb comparison. I can’t even begin to fathom what kind of endless ignorance and prejudges can possess a person to speak such stupid words. A persons house is not the same as a border. You are comparing apples to grocery stores here. An immigrant can simply build another house next to mine if they want it. You can have open borders and private residence at the same time. One does not exclude the other. Now please, take your racism somewhere else.
      - quantummagic 2mo ago
        Typical response. Defending my home isn't racist. And your willingness to use that accusation is pathetic and not really worthy of a response... but understand that a border is the same concept be it for a home, for a community, for a city, or for a nation. Your dismissal is not cogent, it just hides utter misunderstanding of reality, and a desire to make other people pay a price you're not willing to pay yourself.
        aniviacat 2mo ago
        > understand that a border is the same concept be it for a home, for a community, for a city, or for a nation People from other cities may enter my city, but people from other homes may not enter my home. These concepts are not the same, nor are they close, nor are they comparable.
throwfaraway135 2mo ago
[flagged]
- pbkompasz 2mo ago
  No one directly votes the Prime Minister in many countries. What's your point?
- ViewTrick1002 2mo ago
  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.
  - latch 2mo ago
    And Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, ...
- latch 2mo ago
  401 people voted directly for her.
- jonkoops 2mo ago
  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.
bradley13 2mo ago
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.
- surgical_fire 2mo ago
  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".
  - fidotron 2mo ago
    > 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.
    - surgical_fire 2mo ago
      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.
saevarom 2mo ago
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.
- seydor 2mo ago
  Low tech enables multiple interested parties to physically oversee the electoral process. That is a good thing.
  - saevarom 2mo ago
    I agree. It is very transparent.
  - s_dev 2mo ago
    The reason low tech works for something as important as voting is because it's expensive and inefficient. That expense and inefficiency is what protects it from fraud. You would need enormous sums of money to overturn an election like this even for a place as small as Iceland and even then, such amount of money wouldn't guarantee the result of future referendums.
- iamflimflam1 2mo ago
  Not much different from the UK to be honest. The constituency and first past the post system means counting is a nicely decoupled distributed system. Each constituency declares the local winner and the only outside impact is the total count of MPs for each party. I would prefer something more complex that does give some of the smaller parties some MPs but no one seems particularly keen to change things.
seydor 2mo ago
I wonder what icelanders think of EU at this time
- Ylpertnodi 2mo ago
  Isn't that what they're going to discuss?
pbkompasz 2mo ago
> 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.
bilekas 2mo ago
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!
tamimio 2mo ago
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.
jmyeet 2mo ago
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. [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1qbq43v/european_integration_2026_a_comprehensive_venn/ https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1qbq43v/european_in...
madhu_ghalame 2mo ago
[dead]
ghusto 2mo ago
What do they gain by joining? Seems like they already have all the benefits they could want, but lose their fishing rights if they joined? > A Yes vote would not be a final decision on joining the EU. It would mean backing a move towards an accession agreement. Any deal would then have to be approved by a second referendum, as well by parliament Makes sense. Which is why I was baffled when the UK just up and left after a referendum, as if it were legally binding or something.
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
adrian_b 2mo ago
> However, there has also been concern at US President Donald Trump's expressed interest in taking over Greenland - especially the fact that he has confused it with Iceland. It is hard to decide whether this is funnier or sadder.
mytailorisrich 2mo ago
The Icelandic people are fortunate to have this discussion and debate now because, in 2026 and seeing what the EU is, it is very clear what the choice is: being an independent country or being a 'state' of a federal EU. It is for them only to decide and they have clarity so they can make an informed decision.
alasano 2mo ago
If in any way this allows me to import Icelandic hot dog sausages to Canada, it's a step in the right direction. Last time I paid something like 25$ per hotdog (w/ buns & toppings) to import them from some guy and it could have gotten seized. Worth every penny though.
xaxbxcxdxe 2mo ago
To join a band of bullies may seem like a good idea, until you get to know the price. If you join the eu, you basically kill your longterm prospect as a nation.
beloch 2mo ago
The EU needs to develop an associate option for close allies unwilling to become full members. Canada, Iceland, and others are very closely aligned with the EU in many respects and all could benefit from closer relationships. Ask a Canadian if they'd favour joining the EU and they'd probably be all for it, until you start talking about what that means. Fully joining the EU involves giving up a lot of sovereignty to a body that's too distant from places like Canada or Iceland. These countries are right to fear that their own concerns would be forgotten or ignored if they were to join the EU. Just as different structures are needed when a company grows past a certain size, the EU needs new structures if it's going to grow its influence beyond continental Europe. A middle ground needs to exist. It also needs to be very clear that associates, close allies, or whatnot are not inferior to full members, just less dependent on Brussels by choice because that's what makes sense for them.
- anal_reactor 2mo ago
  We already have associate options - not joining Schengen, not adopting Euro. Anything more than that results in a horrible mess of legal agreements. Imagine that suddenly each US state gets more sovereignty and they just... make different decisions. California adopts Spanish as second official language, New York adopts metric system, Alabama permits sister/brother marriages, Utah declares Mormonism as official religion, and Wyoming stops contributing to US army. How are you supposed to do business in these conditions.
  - unixfg 2mo ago
    It's more of a patchwork here than you seem to think. Driving through DC with ammunition or mailing mifepristone to TX, as examples. CA would have to amend their constitution, but could pick a second language. NY already prefers metric AL could probably allow those marriages, they're not big on allowing marriages though. UT would be stopped by the establishment clause. https://law.justia.com/constitution/california/article-iii/section-6/ https://law.justia.com/constitution/california/article-iii/s... https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/AGM/177 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/AGM/177
  - dragonwriter 2mo ago
whatever1 2mo ago
EU will be the happy island of human bureaucracy standing against the AI Armageddon.
peebee67 2mo ago
"Remember that pirate fleet that tried to tie weights around our neck when we were taking on water 20 years ago?" "Yes, why?" "Well they're about to sink and I think we should tether our ship to theirs."
ExoticPearTree 2mo ago
Well, no need to argue here anymore. Common sense won and Iceland will stay independent and happy.

340 points by tosh 2mo ago

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.

ChocolateGod 2mo ago
It's already in the Schengen. 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.
- walthamstow 2mo ago
  What do they get in security from the EU that they don't get from NATO? Is it so they can get in on the new joint EU defence funds?
  - ChocolateGod 2mo ago
    The US being an unreliable partner.
yvdriess 2mo ago
Iceland already is Schengen
earthnail 2mo ago
The Norwegian PM said to Britain back then “don’t repeat our mistake. We need to, in practice, follow all the EU’s rules and don’t get any say in it”
- mrec 2mo ago
  Important to clarify: IIRC that comment was about Norway's EEA membership. The UK is not an EEA member.
- magicalhippo 2mo ago
  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. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Norwegian_European_Union_membership_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Norwegian_European_Union_...
  - GeoAtreides 2mo ago
    Since 1994 the will of the people had a lot of time to express itself...
    - magicalhippo 2mo ago
      Polls have consistently been favoring No to EU side since.
      - GeoAtreides 2mo ago
        > 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 what polls have to do with it? if the will of the people was against the eu deal, they should've voted against, they had 30 years to do it. norway is a democracy, right?
- SahAssar 2mo ago
  Except in areas of fishing and agriculture. Especially fishing they really care about, just like iceland.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
adamtulinius 2mo ago
Iceland is already a member of Schengen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Area
spiderfarmer 2mo ago
It's a bit different with fishery as the backbone of your economy vs. oil, minerals and banking.
troupo 2mo ago
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.
- kuboble 2mo ago
  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.
  - bsian 2mo ago
    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.
    - kuboble 2mo ago
      Btw - as a eu citizen they can't really deny you. So you can write whatever as a reason to move as long as you have means to support yourself. My point is, that within EU you can freely move around with no restrictions and having to apply for residence permits. And the case I mentioned wasn't even lying but a misunderstanding. In Poland searching for a job is state of mind "I wish someone would hire me". In switzerland it officialy means provably spending your full time effort on the job hunt. The person I know couldn't find a job at first so decided to do an intensive German course (5x a week, 4h a day) to increase her hirability. The immigration officer happily used it as a prove that she actually did not spend all her time looking for job, therefore lied.
p2detar 2mo ago
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.
- fakedang 2mo ago
  [dead]
Jtarii 2mo ago
Market integration is a good thing.
m132 2mo ago
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.
- snowpid 2mo ago
  Euro would be a bliss for unstable Islandian currency. Actually Euro is used by the yes camp.
f6v 2mo ago
> 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?
hdx19 2mo ago
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.
- eloisant 2mo ago
  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.
bArray 2mo ago
> I feel the UK were wrong to leave [..] 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.
- exceptione 2mo ago
  That mandate has quite changed, even more when you look at the non-retired cohorts. Reintegration with the EU will take plenty of time.
  - bArray 2mo ago
    Has it? It would take another vote to show it for sure, and the current government is simply not wanting to ask the people.
- snowpid 2mo ago
  The majority of UK inhabitans wants to rejoin the EU. It is indeed democratically legitime.
  - bArray 2mo ago
    If only there was a type of nation-wide poll that could be conducted to make such claims so strongly. Maybe we pick a single day, each side makes their cases to the people, and then they cast their choices to be counted. But I guess it can't be done.
- flaburgan 2mo ago
  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.
  - bArray 2mo ago
    I remember the UK government at the time spent £9.3 million of taxpayer's money to push a pro-EU leaflet out [1], not to mention a concerted effort from the news media. It's not as if there was not strong campaigning happening on both sides. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-EU_leaflet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-EU_leaflet
exceptione 2mo ago
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. 1. https://sifted.eu/articles/switzerland-startup-talent-brain-drain https://sifted.eu/articles/switzerland-startup-talent-brain-... 2. https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/strategy/strategy-research-and-innovation/europe-world/international-cooperation/association-horizon-europe/switzerland_en https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/strategy/strate...
- ajsnigrutin 2mo ago
  Why do they need the Horizon programs? Switzerland is a rich country, in any pan-EU project scheme, they'd pay more than they'd get back.
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  - nairboon 2mo ago
    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.
  - 2mo ago
fifticon 2mo ago
switzerland is not currently at risk of a US invasion
- huhtenberg 2mo ago
  Neither is Iceland as it has no oil ... or any other mineral resources for that matter.
  - nairboon 2mo ago
    But a highly strategic location.
Towaway69 2mo ago
Approximately 100 years ago one would have said the same for the UK. Unfortunately the Empire crumbled and the Brits got Magic Thatcher. So perhaps the UK was wrong in joining in the first place.

spiderfarmer 2mo ago

With the state of the world right now they can probably get a very good deal.

ExoticPearTree 2mo ago
The best deal is not to join.
- Foskya 2mo ago
  no?

bilsbie 2mo ago

[flagged]

earthnail 2mo ago
Leaving didn’t help the UK much regarding migration, did it?
- suslik 2mo ago
  A necessary condition is not always sufficient.
- hdgvhicv 2mo ago
  It increased migration, and switched it from culturally and historically aligned Europeans to culturally different African and South Asian. Exactly as “project fear” predicted.
  - phatfish 2mo ago
    Yup, Farage did more for the great replacement than any other UK politician.
- znpy 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - mixdup 2mo ago
    I guess they'll just have to live with your disappointment
    - znpy 2mo ago
      Indeed, and they aren’t doing that well.
croes 2mo ago
> How many new cookie banners would their websites get? How many user data do they track? Otherwise cookie banners aren‘t necessary

ekidd 2mo ago

> 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.

amunozo 2mo ago
I think the EU should make an exception, which also could draw Norway closer.
- p-e-w 2mo ago
  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.
  - jrochkind1 2mo ago
    Is the top not an article about a high-income country expressing serious interest in joining the EU?
    - abcd_f 2mo ago
      ... expressing some interest to try and see if joining the EU might be feasible or not. That's literally what the referendum is about.

DocTomoe 2mo ago

[flagged]

croes 2mo ago
Do you know how it was before?
- znpy 2mo ago
  Much better? The main issue i see is the euro as a single currency. Individual nations cannot modulate their monetary policy according to their needs. Most other stuff is okay.
  - croes 2mo ago
    Can you imagine the current US government vs. European countries without the EU?
    - hagbard_c 2mo ago
      Yes, because before the EU there was the EEC [1] which was about trade relations without delusions of grandeur related to a United States of Europe. [1] https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory2/chapter/the-european-economic-community/ https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory2/ch...
spiderfarmer 2mo ago
Can you define cult?
- dosisking 2mo ago
  A cult is a small group driven by extreme devotion to a charismatic leader, a specific idea, or an unorthodox set of beliefs. In this case, the 'small group' is the unelected European Commission (EC) bureaucracy who is desperate to retain power at any cost.

apples_oranges 2mo ago

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.

deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
OKRainbowKid 2mo ago
> 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.
- xboxnolifes 2mo ago
  I imagine every time they see a cookie banner they feel a chunk of the EU crumbling.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- bojan 2mo ago
  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.
  - surgical_fire 2mo ago
    This is the reality of this. For larger countries is much easier to deal with Europe when it's a bunch of small countries butting heads with their neighbors.

dosisking 2mo ago

[flagged]

gonzalohm 2mo ago
Canada's debt is 103 of their GDP
- dosisking 2mo ago
  [flagged]

sehw 2mo ago

[flagged]

hdgvhicv 2mo ago
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)
- mrits 2mo ago
  Most parts of an economy are insignificant.
  - hdgvhicv 2mo ago
    Not in icelands case

znpy 2mo ago

I hope whatever they do they don’t adopt the euro as their currency.

pavlov 2mo ago
Joining the euro is a hard requirement for new countries entering the union. The only negotiable is the length of the transition period.
- rgblambda 2mo ago
  As the Polish government have made very clear, the length of the transition period can be indefinite. And it isn't really a negotiable. It's up to the country when it wants to join the Euro. They just have to promise that they'll do it at some unspecified point in the future.
jochem9 2mo ago
New joiners are required to eventually adopt. Only members that were so before the Euro are exempt.
amunozo 2mo ago
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.
- DataDive 2mo ago
  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.
  - amunozo 2mo ago
    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.

znpy 2mo ago

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.

phatfish 2mo ago
Sounds like the way a certain referendum to do the opposite should have been run.

CurbStomper 2mo ago

[dead]

mixdup 2mo ago

It seems odd to hold a referendum on holding talks. Why not just negotiate an agreement and then hold a referendum on that agreement?

coldtea 2mo ago
Because if the people don't want to join in the first place, why hold negotiations to begin with?
- mixdup 2mo ago
  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
  - coldtea 2mo ago
    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.
    - mixdup 2mo ago
      I'm not arguing whether or not they should join the EU, just questioning why it needs two stages of referrenda
  - Towaway69 2mo ago
    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. [1] https://www.techtimes.com/articles/320010/20260709/eu-parliament-passes-chat-control-default-314-meps-couldnt-block-scanning-law.htm https://www.techtimes.com/articles/320010/20260709/eu-parlia...

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

hndbwksam7 2mo ago

[flagged]

bluegatty 2mo ago

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.

xyzelement 2mo ago
[flagged]
- andrepd 2mo ago
  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...
  - jayGlow 2mo ago
    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.
  - somenameforme 2mo ago
    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. [1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/unauthorized-immigrants-face-public-backlash-in-mexico-survey-finds/2019/07/16/f7fc5d12-a75e-11e9-a3a6-ab670962db05_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/unauthoriz... [1] - https://archive.is/KruVX https://archive.is/KruVX

shrubble 2mo ago

I think Iceland will find that compliance with the EU regulations would be very expensive and not practical, but that’s for them to decide.

rwmj 2mo ago
They're in the single market already.
general1465 2mo ago
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.
- surgical_fire 2mo ago
  This is a great example of how people comment very confidently on shit they know nothing about. Iceland complies with EU because it belongs to the EEA. It has nothing to do with "precence of EU across the sea". UK doesn't have to comply with th EU. It has to if it t wants to be able to export stuff there.
  - general1465 2mo ago
    Your comment is a great example of getting triggered and then agreeing with everything what I have written.
    - surgical_fire 2mo ago
      Except, no. Iceland has to comply with EU because it is in the EEA. The situation of Iceland is completely different than the situation of the UK. The UK has to comply with the EU as much as Nicaragua, New Zealand, Namibia, etc.
      - general1465 2mo ago

hn5xz7plcj 2mo ago

[dead]

timonoko 2mo ago

[redacted] forgot this is Hacker News.

gls2ro 2mo ago
Can you maybe expand this? Are Romanians from North Sea going to fish near Iceland? or did they do that near UK? And let me ask you an even better question: Is Romania the country you see that has so many derogations from EU laws and can do what they like?

tyre 2mo ago

Never forget Iceland defeating Britain in the Cod Wars https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfD3gevx48Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfD3gevx48Y

ExoticPearTree 2mo ago

[flagged]

runarberg 2mo ago
Iceland has all the worst parts of EU (the unhindered neo-liberalism and border fascism) anyway.
- quantummagic 2mo ago
  > border fascism 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.
  - runarberg 2mo ago
    Sorry I must brake away from HN guidelines here: But this is an infinitely dumb comparison. I can’t even begin to fathom what kind of endless ignorance and prejudges can possess a person to speak such stupid words. A persons house is not the same as a border. You are comparing apples to grocery stores here. An immigrant can simply build another house next to mine if they want it. You can have open borders and private residence at the same time. One does not exclude the other. Now please, take your racism somewhere else.
    - quantummagic 2mo ago
      Typical response. Defending my home isn't racist. And your willingness to use that accusation is pathetic and not really worthy of a response... but understand that a border is the same concept be it for a home, for a community, for a city, or for a nation. Your dismissal is not cogent, it just hides utter misunderstanding of reality, and a desire to make other people pay a price you're not willing to pay yourself.
      - aniviacat 2mo ago
        > understand that a border is the same concept be it for a home, for a community, for a city, or for a nation People from other cities may enter my city, but people from other homes may not enter my home. These concepts are not the same, nor are they close, nor are they comparable.

throwfaraway135 2mo ago

[flagged]

pbkompasz 2mo ago
No one directly votes the Prime Minister in many countries. What's your point?
ViewTrick1002 2mo ago
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.
- latch 2mo ago
  And Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, ...
latch 2mo ago
401 people voted directly for her.
jonkoops 2mo ago
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.

bradley13 2mo ago

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.

surgical_fire 2mo ago
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".
- fidotron 2mo ago
  > 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.
  - surgical_fire 2mo ago
    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.

saevarom 2mo ago

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.

seydor 2mo ago
Low tech enables multiple interested parties to physically oversee the electoral process. That is a good thing.
- saevarom 2mo ago
  I agree. It is very transparent.
- s_dev 2mo ago
  The reason low tech works for something as important as voting is because it's expensive and inefficient. That expense and inefficiency is what protects it from fraud. You would need enormous sums of money to overturn an election like this even for a place as small as Iceland and even then, such amount of money wouldn't guarantee the result of future referendums.
iamflimflam1 2mo ago
Not much different from the UK to be honest. The constituency and first past the post system means counting is a nicely decoupled distributed system. Each constituency declares the local winner and the only outside impact is the total count of MPs for each party. I would prefer something more complex that does give some of the smaller parties some MPs but no one seems particularly keen to change things.

seydor 2mo ago

I wonder what icelanders think of EU at this time

Ylpertnodi 2mo ago
Isn't that what they're going to discuss?

pbkompasz 2mo ago

> 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.

bilekas 2mo ago

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!

tamimio 2mo ago

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.

jmyeet 2mo ago

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. [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1qbq43v/european_integration_2026_a_comprehensive_venn/ https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1qbq43v/european_in...

madhu_ghalame 2mo ago

[dead]

ghusto 2mo ago

What do they gain by joining? Seems like they already have all the benefits they could want, but lose their fishing rights if they joined? > A Yes vote would not be a final decision on joining the EU. It would mean backing a move towards an accession agreement. Any deal would then have to be approved by a second referendum, as well by parliament Makes sense. Which is why I was baffled when the UK just up and left after a referendum, as if it were legally binding or something.

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

adrian_b 2mo ago

> However, there has also been concern at US President Donald Trump's expressed interest in taking over Greenland - especially the fact that he has confused it with Iceland. It is hard to decide whether this is funnier or sadder.

mytailorisrich 2mo ago

The Icelandic people are fortunate to have this discussion and debate now because, in 2026 and seeing what the EU is, it is very clear what the choice is: being an independent country or being a 'state' of a federal EU. It is for them only to decide and they have clarity so they can make an informed decision.

alasano 2mo ago

If in any way this allows me to import Icelandic hot dog sausages to Canada, it's a step in the right direction. Last time I paid something like 25$ per hotdog (w/ buns & toppings) to import them from some guy and it could have gotten seized. Worth every penny though.

xaxbxcxdxe 2mo ago

To join a band of bullies may seem like a good idea, until you get to know the price. If you join the eu, you basically kill your longterm prospect as a nation.

beloch 2mo ago

The EU needs to develop an associate option for close allies unwilling to become full members. Canada, Iceland, and others are very closely aligned with the EU in many respects and all could benefit from closer relationships. Ask a Canadian if they'd favour joining the EU and they'd probably be all for it, until you start talking about what that means. Fully joining the EU involves giving up a lot of sovereignty to a body that's too distant from places like Canada or Iceland. These countries are right to fear that their own concerns would be forgotten or ignored if they were to join the EU. Just as different structures are needed when a company grows past a certain size, the EU needs new structures if it's going to grow its influence beyond continental Europe. A middle ground needs to exist. It also needs to be very clear that associates, close allies, or whatnot are not inferior to full members, just less dependent on Brussels by choice because that's what makes sense for them.

anal_reactor 2mo ago
We already have associate options - not joining Schengen, not adopting Euro. Anything more than that results in a horrible mess of legal agreements. Imagine that suddenly each US state gets more sovereignty and they just... make different decisions. California adopts Spanish as second official language, New York adopts metric system, Alabama permits sister/brother marriages, Utah declares Mormonism as official religion, and Wyoming stops contributing to US army. How are you supposed to do business in these conditions.
- unixfg 2mo ago
  It's more of a patchwork here than you seem to think. Driving through DC with ammunition or mailing mifepristone to TX, as examples. CA would have to amend their constitution, but could pick a second language. NY already prefers metric AL could probably allow those marriages, they're not big on allowing marriages though. UT would be stopped by the establishment clause. https://law.justia.com/constitution/california/article-iii/section-6/ https://law.justia.com/constitution/california/article-iii/s... https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/AGM/177 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/AGM/177
- dragonwriter 2mo ago

whatever1 2mo ago

EU will be the happy island of human bureaucracy standing against the AI Armageddon.

peebee67 2mo ago

"Remember that pirate fleet that tried to tie weights around our neck when we were taking on water 20 years ago?" "Yes, why?" "Well they're about to sink and I think we should tether our ship to theirs."

ExoticPearTree 2mo ago

Well, no need to argue here anymore. Common sense won and Iceland will stay independent and happy.