6 ms·
> 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 w
by 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 agoI think the EU should make an exception, which also could draw Norway closer.
- p-e-w 2mo agoNo 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 agoIs 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.
- amunozo 2mo agoNobody wants to risk when things are going well, obviously. These countries do, however, have a huge number of bilateral agreements, so they find a lot of benefits in joining, at least partially, the EU. Norway already implement most of EU regulation without having any voting powers.
- inigyou 2mo agoare there any more high-income countries in the European geographic area that haven't already joined?
- p-e-w 2mo agoIceland, Norway, Switzerland, Vatican, Liechtenstein.
- inigyou 2mo agoSwitzerland is the only relevant one really. Norway is practically a member in all but name (Not all members use euros) and the rest are microstates.
- Ekaros 2mo agoNorway is a weird one... They have things like Schengen. But some how they are not part of customs union. While Türkiye is member of customs union but not Schengen...
- glimshe 2mo agoThey export good music too (Bjork and Sigur Ros)!
- esperent 2mo agoAlso Ólafur Arnalds. And Múm of course.
- sscaryterry 2mo agoThe best part: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurovision_Song_Contest:_The_Story_of_Fire_Saga https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurovision_Song_Contest:_The_S... (Edit: This is obviously a joke!)
- AlotOfReading 2mo agoWhy should it be a joke? Fire saga is beloved in Húsavík. My sister has this whole tour she does when we bring friends up.
- chicken-stew 2mo agoAnd games.
- Semaphor 2mo agoIncluding a very healthy metal scene, Martröð (50 % icelandic) and Nexion were recent favorites of mine.
- theragra 2mo agoMeh, too pop. Hildur Guðnadóttir!
- cyberpunk 2mo agocheck out solstafir too!
- SyneRyder 2mo agoGus Gus too. And some of us still remember Greta & Jónsi, even out here in Australia.
- lukan 2mo agoIceland doesn't even have a military at all.
- boxed 2mo agoAnd yet they defeated the UK navy several times :P
- ben_w 2mo agoIIRC this was done by threatening to leave NATO, which put pressure on the USA who really didn't want to lose a perfect base location to help monitor/contain the USSR, who in turn put pressure on the UK. But this is from memory; and given the sources I read may have been politicised (I'm British by birth), take with a pinch of salt.
- boxed 2mo agoNah, that wasn't it. It was done by Iceland having shorter supply lines and both sides not willing to start killing each other. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars
- Symbiote 2mo agoThe page you cite says it was due to the threat of Iceland leaving NATO etc.
- Y-bar 2mo agoThey can easily implement a large no-fly zone across Europe, as demonstrated with Eyjafjallajökull in 2010.
- boxed 2mo agoIt's an existential threat not just to Icelandic economy but probably to the entire Atlantic ecosystem as a whole.
- dgacmu 2mo agoThose not familiar with it might find the history of the Cod Wars interesting (and very relevant to this discussion): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars (literally, Iceland having several decades of slightly-military-involved conflict with the UK about fishing near Iceland. Iceland won.)
- mytailorisrich 2mo agoDespite what you might see a lot in the media lately the EU is not a military alliance and has explicitly no involvement in the military. So joining the EU is irrelevant on these issues. The article mentions that sovereignty is a big issue. It should be because joining the EU means giving that up so that, I think, is the really crucial issue they should be thinking long and hard about (including, indeed, with respect to fisheries).
- snowpid 2mo agoEU is indeed a military alliance. They are just no integrated command structures but this is common among most military alliances across the world. SAFE credits are an EU military thing.
- broken-kebab 2mo agoThe mutual assistance clause doesn't oblige member states to support each other with military force even in case of aggression. A member can send blankets, food rations, or even just express diplomatic solidarity. Stretching definitions enough one can call it military alliance, but it is not in any practical form.
- snowpid 2mo agoYou are wrong https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/396620/0a70a7885e83aca60333593f753ccbbf/kollektiver-beistand-in-der-eu-data.pdf https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/396620/0a70a7885e83ac...
- broken-kebab 2mo agoLooks like I'm right. I don't read in German regretfully, but what I get with machine translation fully supports my point - national discretion allows for civilian or humanitarian aid rather than an automatic military response
- 2mo ago
- MrDresden 2mo ago> "Iceland's fishing industry makes up something like 40% of their export." That number includes everything involving the fishing industry, such as equipment manufacturing. The size of the actual fishing and value-addative processing is often reported to be closer to 12-15% as a share of GDP. I say this as an Icelander who voted yes in this vote, but would vote no next time if any deal would lead to us loosing control of our fisheries or having worse management policies pushed on us. edit: spelling
- ekidd 2mo agoThank you for the clarifications! Someone from Iceland tried to explain this all to me once, and if I understood correctly, it had less to do with the GDP (which also includes money circulating within Iceland) and more to do with the balance of trade, where fishing played a bigger role? But my information may have been misunderstood, or it may be out of date. In any case, you have a stunningly gorgeous country and very nice people, and I wish you the best of luck in figuring all this out in a way that benefits Iceland.
- gizajob 2mo agoIf you join the EU you will lose control of your fisheries and have worse management policies pushed on you. Fantasy to think it will be any other way.
- runarberg 2mo agoIcelandic ex-fisherman here: Iceland‘s fisheries are controlled by what we call quota-kings. They are extremely rich owners of fishing quota (similar to USA’s oil barons) who are increasingly anti-social and obviously very unpopular among Iceland’s general public. Iceland’s fishing system is kind of feudal in nature. People are allowed buy and trade and even rent fishing quotas. This means that the quota has accumulated into fewer and fewer hands of extremely rich individuals. The quota is then trickled down to fishing companies, and finally to fisherman, who have to spend a lot of money to rent the quota before they are allowed to fish. This is a terrible system, and obviously the EU loves it (it even tried to copy it to solve the climate-crisis; and failed obviously). It fits smack into EUs neo-liberal trajectory. I don‘t think it is a fantasy at all the EU would adopt Iceland’s management policy at all. Nor do I think Iceland’s workers (including fishermen) have anything to worry about inside the EU. Trading ownership from our own feudal overlords to European bureaucrats would be a net positive in my books, however unlikely I find it. That said I think it is unlikely Iceland will join anyway. Even if ‘yes’ wins. Iceland’s politicians have a history of ignoring the results of a national referendum if they don‘t like the results. They did this back in 2012 when the nation voted in favor of a new constitution (which relevantly would have actually transferred ownership of the fisheries to the Icelandic nation). A new government came to power and simply decided to ignore the results because their loved quota-kings would have lost power. I think something similar is likely to happen again.
- Nursie 2mo agoThis was not argued well during Brexit (what was?) but it was an issue there. As much as Brexit didn’t fix anything for anyone, I do believe the EU operates far too much in the interests of fishing boats and far too little in the interest of conservation and realistic fishery management. So I think Iceland is right to be wary.
- masfuerte 2mo agoYes. Ten years ago mackerel was cheap and abundant but the quota was set in excess of scientists' recommendations. Stocks are dwindling now (surprise!) and mackerel has gone from cheaper than tuna (for a tin) to nearly double. It's absurd.
- Thlom 2mo agoMackerel is a migrating fish which historically have caused difficulties in managing the fish stock. Between 2020 and 2024 there were no agreement between the nations that has been fishing mackerel in the north atlantic. Iceland was f.ex. fishing mackerel in their zone for 15 years without cooperating with other nations. I think there's an agreement between most of the relevant nations now, except Russia but Russia have a general fishing agreement with Norway which might include mackerel. Anyway, managing fisheries sustainably is difficult as a lot of fish migrates across huge distances and a lot of fishing is done in international waters. Ideally you need binding agreements between all states bordering an ocean region, which can be difficult when the states are in geopolitical conflict with each other ...
- ascorbic 2mo agoFishing was a big issue during Brexit, despite contributing less to the UK economy than Warhammer.
- stavros 2mo agoWhy would we (as an EU member) want Iceland to compromise on such a vital issue, though? I understand that it's simpler to have common regulations among all members, but when theirs works, why mess with it? It sounds unreasonable.
- azan_ 2mo agoIt could potentially open doors for other EU states to ask for exempts.
- stavros 2mo agoWell, they should, if they're reasonable.
- azan_ 2mo agoNo, the reasonable position is to hold everyone to same standards. Single market makes no sense if every country is being held to different standards.
- inigyou 2mo agoA single market means a single market, it doesn't mean everything is the same in every country. Single market should mean that Icelandic fish can be sold anywhere in the EU, not that everyone can fish in Iceland without following Icelandic law.
- johannes1234321 2mo agoThe goal of the EU is to form a single economic area. Irish an I elandic fishers should be under same rules when fishing the same waters. EU often is a mechanism to find a compromise (which makes the regulations so convoluted and bureaucratic ...), but too many special clauses to make a country happy means you got a similar debate on next subject.
- Beretta_Vexee 2mo agoOne of the factors leading them to reconsider EU membership is monetary policy. The Icelandic króna is a very small currency that fluctuates considerably. Switching to the euro would protect them from exchange rate risks with their main trading partner. One solution for Iceland would be to join the eurozone without becoming a member of the EU, as Kosovo and Montenegro have done. However, this would only be desirable if there really is a deadlock over fishing rights.
- Doohickey-d 2mo agoAs I understand it, Kosovo and Montenegro adopted the Euro unilaterally, without agreement from the EU. I don't think that'd be (politically) possible for Iceland (?). So the EU would need to agree to this, which also doesn't seem politically possible (?)
- anovikov 2mo agoWell, it doesn't require EU's approval by definition. Because it means just unilaterally handing out EU a lot of cash.
- Beretta_Vexee 2mo agoThere are a whole host of microstates and more or less autonomous overseas territories that use the euro. If Mayotte can use the euro even though the island is on the brink of collapse, I don’t see why that would be a problem for Iceland. I don’t think this is a problem for the EU – quite the opposite, in fact. It strengthens the euro’s position in international trade, increases the number of users and boosts the volume of trade. More customers for the EU’s financial services sector. There are a number of countries that unofficially use the US dollar as their currency for major transactions without asking anyone’s permission (Cambodia come to mind).
- embedding-shape 2mo ago> If Mayotte can use the euro even though the island is on the brink of collapse Isn't Mayotte part of France and been for quite some time? I'd guess they switched to the Euro together with France and all the other French territories, but maybe I'm wrong?
- testing22321 2mo ago> and membership in the fraying NATO military alliance That framing is.. strange. One member of NATO has lost the plot. For everyone else, it’s stronger than ever. If the US tries to attack a NATO member they’re going to find out just how serious the alliance is. For example, Maersk shipping line in Danish, and carries 15% of the world’s shipping containers. If the US were to invade Greenland it would be illegal for Maersk to keep doing business with them. It’s unlikely NATO members will fight the US with bullets and bombs, but I guarantee they can still seriously hurt them. All NATO members selling all their US treasury bonds instantly would also be devastating.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- jijijijij 2mo ago> It’s unlikely NATO members will fight the US with bullets and bombs, but I guarantee they can still seriously hurt them. I am not even sure the US would be able to completely dominate a conflict. While it obviously has the largest military, it's set up to depend on European military defensive and complementary roles in a large scale conflict. In particular US aggression supply and comms critically depend on Europe as ally. Not to mention nuclear defense and early warning infrastructure. Without Europe, there is a big, big ocean between the US and most everything. For example in terms of military roles, the US lacks the stealthy submarines of European navies. Incidentally, it relies heavily on aircraft carriers for force projection. I think there is a chance European subs could wipe out US carriers and therefore significantly disable US attack abilities straight-away. There is evidence from prior combined exercises, where the US navy was pretty much owned by a single Swedish sub. They are really damn good. So, without deploying ships, what's the US gonna do? Bomb Greenland's tundra? Fly big, slow transporter planes there and hope the European subs won't use their AA missiles? The whole point of those subs is to be a massive pain to aggressive forces and the US assigned that role to Europe... War against Europe means losing comms and nuclear defense/early warning infrastructure located there. The US would also immediately become vulnerable to Russia and China, and every conflict in the middle east too. I think attacking Europe would be pretty idiotic from every perspective. Sadly, that doesn't mean much anymore.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- epolanski 2mo agoThey have been doing fine for more than a thousands years, no need for fear mongering.
- pyb 2mo agoThe thing is, perhaps they'd be more successful in exporting other things if they were part of the EU.
- NBJack 2mo agoNot if everyone else starts fishing in them. Take a look at the Common Fisheries Policy. It effectively means everyone else in the EU can show up and fish for it themselves, potentially undermining the export revenue and (more importantly) severely disrupting all the work they've done to make it sustainable.
- GeoAtreides 2mo agothe article: >its fishing and marine industries make up almost 40% of exports. you: >Iceland's fishing industry makes up something like 40% of their exports here we can see how a very small... re-framing (let's be charitable to op) completely changes the argument and subtly promotes a certain... viewpoint (again, let's be charitable and not call it an agenda)
- jonnybgood 2mo agoWhy do you say NATO is fraying? Because of Russia, NATO has increased its membership, increased military budgets, and increased European military cooperation. It probably has never been stronger.
- badc0ffee 2mo agoThe US keeps talking about leaving.
- petra 2mo agoI hope that Trump doesn't represent US policies in the long term.
- rocqua 2mo agoTrumps short term actions will have long term consequences on the alliance. Specifically on how the alliance views reliance on the US. Trump has shown how unreliable an ally the US can be. Putting that cat bag in the bag doesn’t reverse the realisation that there’s a cat in that bag. This will likely strengthen NATO in the long term. But only if it doesn’t get tested by Russia in the short term.
- petra 2mo agoIt's probably for the better over the long term, I Agree. We might be getting into complicated times, with AI and robotics, so it's much better if Europe would be more self-sufficient, militarily, technologicaly and economicaly.
- Sammi 2mo agoThere are approximately 874 days left in Donald Trump's presidential term as of August 29, 2026. That's if the bugger leaves office and doesn't start an insurrection like last time, and that the insurrection doesn't work like last time. Depends a lot on how much Americans actually want him gone, but alas you Americans seem to keep voting for him no matter how many corruption scandals he's in.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- peebee67 2mo agoThey'd be better off trying to align themselves neutrally and dropping NATO.
- xg15 2mo ago> Which is the only way a tiny island nation can afford essential imports. Shouldn't the imports become cheaper once they are in the EU single market though?