2 ms·

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

by mixdup 28d ago

coldtea 28d ago
Because if the people don't want to join in the first place, why hold negotiations to begin with?
- mixdup 28d 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 28d 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 28d ago
      I'm not arguing whether or not they should join the EU, just questioning why it needs two stages of referrenda
  - Towaway69 28d 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...
    - mixdup 28d ago
      As long as they hold a confirmatory referendum before actually joining, it wouldn't matter. Also, if Iceland is a democracy the citizens could simply vote for someone else next time who wouldn't keep trying if that's not what they wanted
      - 1718627440 28d ago
        Concessions, statements and revealed preference in a negotiation, certainly do matter, because they influence future leverage and power.
dgellow 28d ago
Because you’re in a different position to negotiate if you know you have the support of the population? That’s my intuition at least
ajsnigrutin 28d ago
What agreement? To join the EU you must change a lot of internal structures in your own government first, a lor of regulations must be changed to align with EU versions, laws have to be changed, even basics, like drivers licences and other documents. Why spend millions if not billions on all that, impose laws that are maybe bad for normal people, and then figure out that people don't actually want to join the EU?
- mixdup 28d ago
  You would hold the confirmatory vote before you do all of that. You'd go to the EU, agree what joining looks like, and before doing any of the actual implementation you hold the vote
  - bordercontrol 28d ago
    The joining process is already precisely defined.
    - mixdup 28d ago
      Then what are the people voting to negotiate? They should just be presented with an in/out vote
      - 1718627440 28d ago
        The process is defined, not the final agreement.
  - 1718627440 28d ago
    Which is what would be right now? The final agreement is of course signed after all that restructuring took place.
    - mixdup 27d ago
      No, you would sign the agreement before doing all the restructuring. Doing it first would be silly
thih9 28d ago
I guess one does not “just negotiate an agreement” for something like this. And perhaps two referendums and working incrementally is wise in general, given the mess that was Brexit.
- mixdup 28d ago
  But that is quite literally what they are going to do. They're asking the public if they should try to join the EU. If yes, they will negotiate an agreement with the EU. Once the government has agreed a path forward with the EU, they'll then have another vote and if yes they'll actually sign the agreement and join the EU, if no, it ends there and they don't join This first vote isn't committing the country or population to anything
  - thih9 28d ago
    As you say, it is committing the country to negotiate an agreement with the EU.
  - deleted 28d ago
    [deleted]
  - 1718627440 28d ago
    - Do you want to marry me? * How will we handle X? - Like Y. * Sure, then, yes. I'm really looking forward to the wedding tomorrow. - Nice, I never wanted to marry anyone in the first place. ???
saevarom 28d ago
Parliament does not really have a majority vote for continuing talks. But one of the government parties made it one of their election issues so they want to find out if there is a majority support among voters.
- mixdup 28d ago
  Great, this is an actual answer and makes sense. I mean it's a little silly but 100% makes sense
einaralex 28d ago
You have to apply to the EU to start negotiating
Timon3 28d ago
When people negotiate, the terms of the deal are affected by many factors. Imagine Greenland "cashes in" IOUs/goodwill to get better terms, only for the referendum to fail. Then they change their mind a couple years later, maybe because an ally threatens them with invasion - they won't get the same deal again. Making requests to humans is never idempotent.
Ekaros 28d ago
After whole Brexit debacle I think it is prudent to actually first figure out if there is general willingness. EU might have better stuff to do than spend resources on formal talks according to proper procedures. Coming up with agreement and then simply rejecting could postpone next opportunity or make the next agreement come from less hospitable starting point.

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

by mixdup 28d 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 28d ago

Because if the people don't want to join in the first place, why hold negotiations to begin with?

mixdup 28d 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 28d 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 28d ago
    I'm not arguing whether or not they should join the EU, just questioning why it needs two stages of referrenda
- Towaway69 28d 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...
  - mixdup 28d ago
    As long as they hold a confirmatory referendum before actually joining, it wouldn't matter. Also, if Iceland is a democracy the citizens could simply vote for someone else next time who wouldn't keep trying if that's not what they wanted
    - 1718627440 28d ago
      Concessions, statements and revealed preference in a negotiation, certainly do matter, because they influence future leverage and power.

dgellow 28d ago

Because you’re in a different position to negotiate if you know you have the support of the population? That’s my intuition at least

ajsnigrutin 28d ago

What agreement? To join the EU you must change a lot of internal structures in your own government first, a lor of regulations must be changed to align with EU versions, laws have to be changed, even basics, like drivers licences and other documents. Why spend millions if not billions on all that, impose laws that are maybe bad for normal people, and then figure out that people don't actually want to join the EU?

mixdup 28d ago
You would hold the confirmatory vote before you do all of that. You'd go to the EU, agree what joining looks like, and before doing any of the actual implementation you hold the vote
- bordercontrol 28d ago
  The joining process is already precisely defined.
  - mixdup 28d ago
    Then what are the people voting to negotiate? They should just be presented with an in/out vote
    - 1718627440 28d ago
      The process is defined, not the final agreement.
- 1718627440 28d ago
  Which is what would be right now? The final agreement is of course signed after all that restructuring took place.
  - mixdup 27d ago
    No, you would sign the agreement before doing all the restructuring. Doing it first would be silly

thih9 28d ago

I guess one does not “just negotiate an agreement” for something like this. And perhaps two referendums and working incrementally is wise in general, given the mess that was Brexit.

mixdup 28d ago
But that is quite literally what they are going to do. They're asking the public if they should try to join the EU. If yes, they will negotiate an agreement with the EU. Once the government has agreed a path forward with the EU, they'll then have another vote and if yes they'll actually sign the agreement and join the EU, if no, it ends there and they don't join This first vote isn't committing the country or population to anything
- thih9 28d ago
  As you say, it is committing the country to negotiate an agreement with the EU.
- deleted 28d ago
  [deleted]
- 1718627440 28d ago
  - Do you want to marry me? * How will we handle X? - Like Y. * Sure, then, yes. I'm really looking forward to the wedding tomorrow. - Nice, I never wanted to marry anyone in the first place. ???

saevarom 28d ago

Parliament does not really have a majority vote for continuing talks. But one of the government parties made it one of their election issues so they want to find out if there is a majority support among voters.

mixdup 28d ago
Great, this is an actual answer and makes sense. I mean it's a little silly but 100% makes sense

einaralex 28d ago

You have to apply to the EU to start negotiating

Timon3 28d ago

When people negotiate, the terms of the deal are affected by many factors. Imagine Greenland "cashes in" IOUs/goodwill to get better terms, only for the referendum to fail. Then they change their mind a couple years later, maybe because an ally threatens them with invasion - they won't get the same deal again. Making requests to humans is never idempotent.

Ekaros 28d ago

After whole Brexit debacle I think it is prudent to actually first figure out if there is general willingness. EU might have better stuff to do than spend resources on formal talks according to proper procedures. Coming up with agreement and then simply rejecting could postpone next opportunity or make the next agreement come from less hospitable starting point.