4 ms·

Iceland rejects reopening talks on EU entry

62 points by JumpCrisscross 2mo ago

mytailorisrich 2mo ago
It is logical if indeed sovereignty was a main issue in the debate even if this vote was officially only about whether to resume "accession talks." They have the benefit of seeing the situation in the EU and the direction of travel so it is quite clear that any debates on joining the EU is a debate between continuing as an independent country or being absorbed in a federal EU. A very, very big decision to make.
- A_D_E_P_T 2mo ago
  WRT sovereignty: I'm sure situations like the recent EPR/PPWR debacle didn't help, where the EU passes bad laws that all EU countries are nevertheless forced to adopt. (Recently discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49419237 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49419237 ) Joining the EU would be a no-brainer if it didn't micromanage and meddle so much.
  - mytailorisrich 2mo ago
    But that's exactly how it is supposed to work. Primacy of EU law, currency, monetary policy, borders, trade, defence (under way), etc. It is not micromanagement, it is the aim to transfer sovereignty to a federal EU. There is no way to sugarcoat it. It is no longer the 70s or even 90s when you could claim that this wasn't the situation and aim. So whether people are in favour or opposed to that it has the merit of being clear.
    - vrganj 2mo ago
      But sovereignty is of the people in a democracy. Why is the arbitrary, much weaker unit of "Iceland" better than the much more powerful, much more defensible unit of "EU"? The sovereign remains the same, the people. There's also the added wrinkle that Iceland already is in the EEA, so already has the primacy of EU law in a lot of areas. How is it more sovereign to have to follow laws you don't get to decide? Your setup is taking away power from the sovereign that is the people. Or are you advocating exiting the EEA as well? You are aware that would be economic suicide?
      - mytailorisrich 2mo ago
        In the EU Iceland would lose sovereignty because the EU is going federal, and the people of Iceland would lose sovereignty, too as a consequence. You are trying to clutch at straws because you are insisting on denying a fact that is not even controversial. I understand that you think it is worth it but not you should deny it is the case. Iceland is in the EEA (and indeed that's already a loss of sovereignty) not in the EU and a key reason is indeed to maintain sovereignty on key issues and industries (especially fishing, which is excluded from EEA), which they would lose by joining. So again it is very unclear to me what they would gain by joining.
        vrganj 2mo ago
        Why would they lose sovereignty? You haven't established that at all. If we read Rousseau's Social Contract, we see that the sovereign is the people, not the executive power at their service. The people wouldn't stop being the sovereign just because they change the administrative details of executing their sovereign will. You haven't made a successful case to counter this point, instead you've gone to attacking me personally with loaded language ("clutching at straws") to defend your insularism.
        mytailorisrich 2mo ago
        Sovereignty, noun: the power of a country to control its own government. [Cambridge] A country, EU member, Euro, Schengen, etc. does not control its foreign trade, has no currency, does not control its monetary policy, does not control its borders (Iceland is a remore island so possibly less of a practical issue and indeed they are in Schengen), does not control its laws. That's the way it is. This includes the people as citizens of that country. I think you are trying to say that they are still "sovereign" at EU level but obviously that's fallaciously ignoring the whole actual issue of national sovereignty vs. the EU, which isn't just a "change of administrative details", obviously... Interestingly, with your argument they could equally join the US and as long as they have full voting rights they would still be "sovereign", which I don't think many would agree they would be because the whole point is obviously being sovereign as Iceland and Icelandic, not as citizens of whatever other country. That's the issue with discussing the EU within Europe at this point, it has become a religion and it is not possible to discuss religion with religious people.
  - yorwba 2mo ago
    The complaint in that article is that "instead of creating a single European system, the PPWR preserves a fragmented national model. A business selling directly to customers across the EU must register and fulfil its obligations separately in every Member State where its packaging becomes waste. For large companies, this is part of the cost of doing business; for micro-businesses selling only a handful of products into each country, the cost and administrative burden can be wildly disproportionate to the amount of packaging involved." That is not the EU passing bad laws that members are forced to adopt, it's every member state individually deciding that they don't care about microbusinesses that can't even afford the registration fee for their national packaging waste disposal system. Generally, the EU is a platform for coordination and negotiation between member state governments. So the danger for Icelanders wouldn't be that the Icelandic government is overpowered by the rest of the EU, but that they voluntarily sign up to a deal that benefits some constituencies at the expense of others, and that can't be changed easily anymore because it's now part of an international agreement. That the referendum was rejected is also an indication that Icelanders don't trust their government to negotiate on their behalf.
- general1465 2mo ago
  > It is logical if indeed sovereignty was a main issue in the debate It is kind of hard to take countries without standing armies talking about sovereignty seriously.
  - SXX 2mo ago
    Iceland is one of few countries that can actually afford to have no military. They live on an island. Closest landmass to them is Greenland that's certainly not plotting to annex them and its 300km away. There's no natutal resources, no anything other than fish and 400,000 human population.
    - msh 2mo ago
      They have a strategic location in the north Atlantic, if the US did not have defacto military control of iceland several other countries have historically been interested in annexing them (germany under WW2, soviet union after that). They also only got their independence from Denmark after WW2.
      - epolanski 2mo ago
        And yet they've done fine for 1000+ years. Moreover, this whole narrative of defense is so childlish and asinine, generally spread by people of countries that are always on the attacking side like Americans. It reminds me of the elementary kids in a local school that started to bring knifes to school because others had knifes too.
        vrganj 2mo ago
        I think over the past year or so the calculus has changed dramatically. There was credible threat by the US of invasion of another NATO member in the same neighborhood. It's intellectually dishonest to say things are the same as in the 90s, when the US was defending the sovereignty of these places.
        general1465 2mo ago
- vrganj 2mo ago
  I think the idea of continuing as an independent country is a bit naive for a country with no army and a population of 400k in a neighborhood full of newly imperial ambitions. It's either join democratically into a slowly federalizing EU or be eaten up by American imperial ambitions at this point - and I have my doubts the latter option will include the same right to self-determination, considering the Puerto Rico precedent. The Greenland campaign shows these concerns aren't hyperbole - they're just next in line.
  - mytailorisrich 2mo ago
    This looks like the usual "plan": frightening people (either because of Russia or Trump) will make them see the "correct path". In fact this is standard EU rhetoric: in today's world there is no choice. This is ironic because in effect this is saying that surrendering sovereignty is the only way to face threats to your sovereignty... But in reality Iceland is no more at risk of invasion now than it was during the Cold War and is doing extremely well on its own so why give up? I must say I don't follow Icelandic politics but from here it is not clear what they would gain by joining the EU, especially considering that fishing is one of their main industries.
    - vrganj 2mo ago
      I think the opposite is the plan: Fearmongering against the EU with false talk of sovereignty to butter it up to be eventually be swallowed up by the US. Greenland wasn't at risk of invasion either, until the US explicitly started threatening it. It's not the Russians these places need to worry about. Sovereignty will go away either way. The question is whether democratic rule will stay or not. It would as part of the EU. The US has precedent not granting it. Your point of view is fundamentally anchored to the world of yesterday, when the global landscape looked significantly different and the US was a guarantor of security to Western states, not a threat model. The world has changed since. Old assumptions no longer apply.
    - toyg 2mo ago
      Iceland went basically bankrupt less than 20 years ago, saying they're doing "extremely well" is either misinformed or disingenuous. They do ok on some parameters, bad on others, and their small size makes them fundamentally weak to global economic winds. EU (and particularly Euro) membership would not magically solve all problems, but could make some things a bit clearer and more reliable. Sadly, the voters have spoken and so they'll have to continue doing what they do now.
Raed667 2mo ago
[flagged]
b1n 2mo ago
If they were truly meant to be in the EU they would just keep running new referendum until their people choose the "right" answer.
- 21asdffdsa12 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - jmiskovic 2mo ago
    Have you traveled the EU? Things can always be better, but looking at the rest of the world I'd say we're doing pretty fine.
    - 21asdffdsa12 2mo ago
      [flagged]
  - cr1895 2mo ago
    You're projecting your own bias onto "a ton of Icelanders" and you've nothing to base this on except your own feelings. That's pretty unreasonable!
- atoav 2mo ago
  Situations change, asking the same question a few years later is good, not bad. Especially since getting into the EU isn't BAM you're in, but a lengthy process with many exits along the route. I am convinced if a country doesn't want to be in the EU there are many off ramps to not actually be in the EU. And be it some last minute re-negotiation of fishery regulations.
  - blue1 2mo ago
    I would be curious to know the age distribution in yesterday's Iceland vote. In the case of Brexit, the brexiters were mostly old people and the bremainers mostly young; for this reason, the forces of demography are slowly pushing the UK back in the EU's orbit again (looking at the polls). Wondering if the same could apply to Iceland.
elric 2mo ago
How do such referenda work in Iceland? Is this a simple Brexit-style yes/no question? Were people provided with context and arguments as to why (presumably?) the goverment was considering joining the EU?
- uxhacker 2mo ago
  The vote was for negotiations and not actually joining. Presumably there would have been another vote on joining the EU later. The telling sign is that the capital Reykjavík voted in favor of negotiations, but rural areas voted against.
  - ra 2mo ago
    that's also pretty much what happened in Brexit
    - uxhacker 2mo ago
      And not just city versus countryside, but the people most likely to benefit voting against. The EU needs to get better at marketing it self.
      - rsynnott 2mo ago
        It's in an inherently awkward place. National politicians will tend to represent popular EU policies as "look what we did" and unpopular as "look what THEY did". It's really very difficult for the EU to deal with this.
  - discopicante 2mo ago
    Iceland is already in the EEA and Schengen. The only upside I have read about would be access to adopting the Euro which has a lower inflation rate than the ISK. The main downside and likely what steered the vote to no are conflicts with Iceland's fishing industry x EU regulations and becoming more vulnerable to foreign ownership and fishing rights. Fishing represents 40% of Iceland's total exports according to Wikipedia. My guess is most voters in Reykjavik have near zero exposure to fishing as an industry.
altern8 2mo ago
[flagged]
dgellow 2mo ago
That’s disappointing :(
- ZenoArrow 2mo ago
  Why?
- rramon 2mo ago
  That's the way unless you want to reward the EU for their anti small business moves.
  - iLoveOncall 2mo ago
    Have you ever been to Iceland lol? I have. Their isolation actually encourages wealth concentration and they have "big" chains everywhere.
    - rramon 2mo ago
      Big chains are everywhere, including Iceland.
      - iLoveOncall 2mo ago
        My point is that they have their own big chains, and a low number of small independent businesses because their situation benefits big chains and not small businesses.
greatgib 2mo ago
Regarding the shit show that is the EU at the moment, it is obvious that they have nothing to win to join.
- ViewTrick1002 2mo ago
  How do you mean that the EU is a shit show?
  - greatgib 2mo ago
    https://www.euronews.com/next/2026/07/10/chat-control-10-passed-the-european-parliament-through-the-back-door https://www.euronews.com/next/2026/07/10/chat-control-10-pas... https://www.euronews.com/business/2026/05/01/contentious-eu-mercosur-trade-deal-takes-provisional-effect https://www.euronews.com/business/2026/05/01/contentious-eu-... https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/05/07/metsola-threatens-to-sue-commission-over-plan-to-bypass-meps-to-set-up-150-bn-defence-loan https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/05/07/metsola-threat... https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2026/02/11/council-gives-final-green-light-to-new-customs-duty-rules-for-small-parcels/ https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2026...
akmarinov 2mo ago
No new members until veto is dealt with, thanks.
- LaurensBER 2mo ago
  I'm afraid we'll need more reforms than just a veto reform before the EU would be effective but it's a good start.
  - epolanski 2mo ago
    The EU is tremendously effective, is just that the narratives are always about emphasizing the shortcomings.
    - ur-whale 2mo ago
      > The EU is tremendously effective It certainly is, but unfortunately not at very many actually positive things. When it comes to wasting money and being completely ham-fisted with regulation though, I agree with you 100%
    - LaurensBER 2mo ago
      The EU is definitely better than not having an EU but is absolutely not living up to its full potential as is evident by the low trust in it and the lackluster economic growth of the EU.
      - epolanski 2mo ago
        Which is highly driven by nationalism, and the fixation of every country to impose their regulations instead of going towards a common set of rules. Because when it comes to "hey, what if we make the market actually more open, and easier for Spanish companies to sell in Hungary and viceversa?", we get into: "nope, in Hungary you need to abide to Hungarian laws for shipping. In Hungary you need to abide to Hungarian safety laws. In Hungary you need to register this products with all of this documentation and yada, yada, yada". You can swap Spain and Hungary with most other countries. And the same applies at every level. Data and privacy protection? Nope, each country overrides with its own rules. Sadly, it's very easy for politicians to play the "EU won't tell us how to do X" card, and at the same time "EU don't work!". Uneducated fools, especially those not involved with scaling across EU, whether with physical goods or services simply don't understand those things. It's mini-Brexit-like nonsense all of the time. I see it very vividly as a Polish Italian seeing the same non sense narratives in both countries, while working for a German company that attempts to scale across borders. By the way: 1. trust in EU is generally higher than distrust. 2. economic growth is lackluster in most of the world. Sadly EU has always been fixated on being an export economy so it now pays especially high both energy prices and better competition. It should've been focused instead of creating a strong internal market instead.
dtnm 2mo ago
There are no non paywall articles on this??
-destroy-fascis 2mo ago
[flagged]
dtnm 2mo ago
Disappointing, however why would they when they already have effective access to the single market and other special relationship benefits. There's just no real disincentive to not join.
this_user 2mo ago
It's honestly a smart decision. They already have access to the common market just like Norway. Becoming a full member just means being subject to a EU governing body that has proven itself to be largely ineffective and incompetent, sometimes reaching the realm of "outright harmful" with things like Chat Control. Why would you want to be a part of that, especially if you would also be paying for that privilege?
- N19PEDL2 2mo ago
  I would say it’s the other way round: being in the common market means that they are already subjected to EU regulations, without having any representation in the governing bodies however.
- surgical_fire 2mo ago
  I love how people comment very confidently on shit they clearly know nothing about. Iceland is in the EEA. It already has to comply with pretty much all EU regulations (with some exemptions, such as their fishing thing). It is also a part of Schegen, freedom of movement, etc. Unlike other countries, it doesn't get to vote on those regulations, so it doesn't even get the veto power. I honestly think it may make more sense for Iceland to not be a full EU member, the fishing industry may be too important for a fairly small island nation, etc. But it has nothing to do with the reasons you fantasized about.
- rsynnott 2mo ago
  They are already for practical purposes subject to EU law; joining them would allow them to participate in making it.
grebc 2mo ago
Good on them.
xkbarkar 2mo ago
Even though I voted yes I completely understand the reluctance to join. EU has shown gross incompetence in many questions and with chat control they are downright terrifying. My own yes was because I would have liked to see the strategy and what EU could have on the table. Even if timeconsuming and costly. And it would have been worth it just to scare the living daylights out of the few mafia families in Iceland that currently hold the fishing quota and treat it as their private playthings. But I respect the choice of my countrymen and (hope) perhaps in another decade when we are hypothetically rid of Ursula Leyden and possibly Swedens and Denmarks terrifying need to peak into everones private lives, Iceland can look at negotiations again.
- LaurensBER 2mo ago
  I would agree (not an Icelandic citizen but an EU citizen). Europe (and Iceland) have many, many challenges and we absolutely need something like the EU to effectively tackle them. The EU has tremendous potential but a lot of it's current focus seems to be misguided at best, downright evil at its worst. Let's see if it the EU can tackle the energy and immigration crisis (I'm pro immigration but even I have to admit that the current system is deeply flawed and unsustainable), if it does it would win my respect. Bonus points if we do finally get a (real) single (capital) market.
ur-whale 2mo ago
> Iceland rejects reopening talks on EU entry Good for them. Joining the EU, given the very sorry state that institution is currently in would basically be a pair of concrete shoes at the bottom of the river for Iceland.
iLoveOncall 2mo ago
[flagged]
293725903 2mo ago
[dead]
ggm 2mo ago
Strong city-country divide. City yes. Country No. At best the Yes vote was weakly pro by numbers in the city. Nothing like overwhelming. Probably, very strong influence of the fishing industry, both from sentiment and as a lobby: the EU would have permitted non IS boats into their economic zone, and there would be concerns in the fisher industry community at large about that economically. I think the city thing reflects Youth attitudes to pan-europeanism. Also, "No" just had to say "but our fishing zone" so like "take back control" in Brexit, very simple message. "Yes" had to soft sell positives which were at best nebulous. Unlike brexit I think this has less downsides. The future may change that but for now, I think it won't alter much given that Iceland is already in NATO, already in Schengen, already has security guarantees, has full energy independence. As a complete outsider who has visited recently, I would have loved it to be in the EU but thats an externally driven sentiment view.

It is logical if indeed sovereignty was a main issue in the debate even if this vote was officially only about whether to resume "accession talks." They have the benefit of seeing the situation in the EU and the direction of travel so it is quite clear that any debates on joining the EU is a debate between continuing as an independent country or being absorbed in a federal EU. A very, very big decision to make.

A_D_E_P_T 2mo ago
WRT sovereignty: I'm sure situations like the recent EPR/PPWR debacle didn't help, where the EU passes bad laws that all EU countries are nevertheless forced to adopt. (Recently discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49419237 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49419237 ) Joining the EU would be a no-brainer if it didn't micromanage and meddle so much.
- mytailorisrich 2mo ago
  But that's exactly how it is supposed to work. Primacy of EU law, currency, monetary policy, borders, trade, defence (under way), etc. It is not micromanagement, it is the aim to transfer sovereignty to a federal EU. There is no way to sugarcoat it. It is no longer the 70s or even 90s when you could claim that this wasn't the situation and aim. So whether people are in favour or opposed to that it has the merit of being clear.
  - vrganj 2mo ago
    But sovereignty is of the people in a democracy. Why is the arbitrary, much weaker unit of "Iceland" better than the much more powerful, much more defensible unit of "EU"? The sovereign remains the same, the people. There's also the added wrinkle that Iceland already is in the EEA, so already has the primacy of EU law in a lot of areas. How is it more sovereign to have to follow laws you don't get to decide? Your setup is taking away power from the sovereign that is the people. Or are you advocating exiting the EEA as well? You are aware that would be economic suicide?
    - mytailorisrich 2mo ago
      In the EU Iceland would lose sovereignty because the EU is going federal, and the people of Iceland would lose sovereignty, too as a consequence. You are trying to clutch at straws because you are insisting on denying a fact that is not even controversial. I understand that you think it is worth it but not you should deny it is the case. Iceland is in the EEA (and indeed that's already a loss of sovereignty) not in the EU and a key reason is indeed to maintain sovereignty on key issues and industries (especially fishing, which is excluded from EEA), which they would lose by joining. So again it is very unclear to me what they would gain by joining.
      - vrganj 2mo ago
        Why would they lose sovereignty? You haven't established that at all. If we read Rousseau's Social Contract, we see that the sovereign is the people, not the executive power at their service. The people wouldn't stop being the sovereign just because they change the administrative details of executing their sovereign will. You haven't made a successful case to counter this point, instead you've gone to attacking me personally with loaded language ("clutching at straws") to defend your insularism.
        mytailorisrich 2mo ago
        Sovereignty, noun: the power of a country to control its own government. [Cambridge] A country, EU member, Euro, Schengen, etc. does not control its foreign trade, has no currency, does not control its monetary policy, does not control its borders (Iceland is a remore island so possibly less of a practical issue and indeed they are in Schengen), does not control its laws. That's the way it is. This includes the people as citizens of that country. I think you are trying to say that they are still "sovereign" at EU level but obviously that's fallaciously ignoring the whole actual issue of national sovereignty vs. the EU, which isn't just a "change of administrative details", obviously... Interestingly, with your argument they could equally join the US and as long as they have full voting rights they would still be "sovereign", which I don't think many would agree they would be because the whole point is obviously being sovereign as Iceland and Icelandic, not as citizens of whatever other country. That's the issue with discussing the EU within Europe at this point, it has become a religion and it is not possible to discuss religion with religious people.
- yorwba 2mo ago
  The complaint in that article is that "instead of creating a single European system, the PPWR preserves a fragmented national model. A business selling directly to customers across the EU must register and fulfil its obligations separately in every Member State where its packaging becomes waste. For large companies, this is part of the cost of doing business; for micro-businesses selling only a handful of products into each country, the cost and administrative burden can be wildly disproportionate to the amount of packaging involved." That is not the EU passing bad laws that members are forced to adopt, it's every member state individually deciding that they don't care about microbusinesses that can't even afford the registration fee for their national packaging waste disposal system. Generally, the EU is a platform for coordination and negotiation between member state governments. So the danger for Icelanders wouldn't be that the Icelandic government is overpowered by the rest of the EU, but that they voluntarily sign up to a deal that benefits some constituencies at the expense of others, and that can't be changed easily anymore because it's now part of an international agreement. That the referendum was rejected is also an indication that Icelanders don't trust their government to negotiate on their behalf.
general1465 2mo ago
> It is logical if indeed sovereignty was a main issue in the debate It is kind of hard to take countries without standing armies talking about sovereignty seriously.
- SXX 2mo ago
  Iceland is one of few countries that can actually afford to have no military. They live on an island. Closest landmass to them is Greenland that's certainly not plotting to annex them and its 300km away. There's no natutal resources, no anything other than fish and 400,000 human population.
  - msh 2mo ago
    They have a strategic location in the north Atlantic, if the US did not have defacto military control of iceland several other countries have historically been interested in annexing them (germany under WW2, soviet union after that). They also only got their independence from Denmark after WW2.
    - epolanski 2mo ago
      And yet they've done fine for 1000+ years. Moreover, this whole narrative of defense is so childlish and asinine, generally spread by people of countries that are always on the attacking side like Americans. It reminds me of the elementary kids in a local school that started to bring knifes to school because others had knifes too.
      - vrganj 2mo ago
        I think over the past year or so the calculus has changed dramatically. There was credible threat by the US of invasion of another NATO member in the same neighborhood. It's intellectually dishonest to say things are the same as in the 90s, when the US was defending the sovereignty of these places.
      - general1465 2mo ago
vrganj 2mo ago
I think the idea of continuing as an independent country is a bit naive for a country with no army and a population of 400k in a neighborhood full of newly imperial ambitions. It's either join democratically into a slowly federalizing EU or be eaten up by American imperial ambitions at this point - and I have my doubts the latter option will include the same right to self-determination, considering the Puerto Rico precedent. The Greenland campaign shows these concerns aren't hyperbole - they're just next in line.
- mytailorisrich 2mo ago
  This looks like the usual "plan": frightening people (either because of Russia or Trump) will make them see the "correct path". In fact this is standard EU rhetoric: in today's world there is no choice. This is ironic because in effect this is saying that surrendering sovereignty is the only way to face threats to your sovereignty... But in reality Iceland is no more at risk of invasion now than it was during the Cold War and is doing extremely well on its own so why give up? I must say I don't follow Icelandic politics but from here it is not clear what they would gain by joining the EU, especially considering that fishing is one of their main industries.
  - vrganj 2mo ago
    I think the opposite is the plan: Fearmongering against the EU with false talk of sovereignty to butter it up to be eventually be swallowed up by the US. Greenland wasn't at risk of invasion either, until the US explicitly started threatening it. It's not the Russians these places need to worry about. Sovereignty will go away either way. The question is whether democratic rule will stay or not. It would as part of the EU. The US has precedent not granting it. Your point of view is fundamentally anchored to the world of yesterday, when the global landscape looked significantly different and the US was a guarantor of security to Western states, not a threat model. The world has changed since. Old assumptions no longer apply.
  - toyg 2mo ago
    Iceland went basically bankrupt less than 20 years ago, saying they're doing "extremely well" is either misinformed or disingenuous. They do ok on some parameters, bad on others, and their small size makes them fundamentally weak to global economic winds. EU (and particularly Euro) membership would not magically solve all problems, but could make some things a bit clearer and more reliable. Sadly, the voters have spoken and so they'll have to continue doing what they do now.

Raed667 2mo ago

[flagged]

b1n 2mo ago

If they were truly meant to be in the EU they would just keep running new referendum until their people choose the "right" answer.

21asdffdsa12 2mo ago
[flagged]
- jmiskovic 2mo ago
  Have you traveled the EU? Things can always be better, but looking at the rest of the world I'd say we're doing pretty fine.
  - 21asdffdsa12 2mo ago
    [flagged]
- cr1895 2mo ago
  You're projecting your own bias onto "a ton of Icelanders" and you've nothing to base this on except your own feelings. That's pretty unreasonable!
atoav 2mo ago
Situations change, asking the same question a few years later is good, not bad. Especially since getting into the EU isn't BAM you're in, but a lengthy process with many exits along the route. I am convinced if a country doesn't want to be in the EU there are many off ramps to not actually be in the EU. And be it some last minute re-negotiation of fishery regulations.
- blue1 2mo ago
  I would be curious to know the age distribution in yesterday's Iceland vote. In the case of Brexit, the brexiters were mostly old people and the bremainers mostly young; for this reason, the forces of demography are slowly pushing the UK back in the EU's orbit again (looking at the polls). Wondering if the same could apply to Iceland.

elric 2mo ago

How do such referenda work in Iceland? Is this a simple Brexit-style yes/no question? Were people provided with context and arguments as to why (presumably?) the goverment was considering joining the EU?

uxhacker 2mo ago
The vote was for negotiations and not actually joining. Presumably there would have been another vote on joining the EU later. The telling sign is that the capital Reykjavík voted in favor of negotiations, but rural areas voted against.
- ra 2mo ago
  that's also pretty much what happened in Brexit
  - uxhacker 2mo ago
    And not just city versus countryside, but the people most likely to benefit voting against. The EU needs to get better at marketing it self.
    - rsynnott 2mo ago
      It's in an inherently awkward place. National politicians will tend to represent popular EU policies as "look what we did" and unpopular as "look what THEY did". It's really very difficult for the EU to deal with this.
- discopicante 2mo ago
  Iceland is already in the EEA and Schengen. The only upside I have read about would be access to adopting the Euro which has a lower inflation rate than the ISK. The main downside and likely what steered the vote to no are conflicts with Iceland's fishing industry x EU regulations and becoming more vulnerable to foreign ownership and fishing rights. Fishing represents 40% of Iceland's total exports according to Wikipedia. My guess is most voters in Reykjavik have near zero exposure to fishing as an industry.

altern8 2mo ago

[flagged]

dgellow 2mo ago

That’s disappointing :(

ZenoArrow 2mo ago
Why?
rramon 2mo ago
That's the way unless you want to reward the EU for their anti small business moves.
- iLoveOncall 2mo ago
  Have you ever been to Iceland lol? I have. Their isolation actually encourages wealth concentration and they have "big" chains everywhere.
  - rramon 2mo ago
    Big chains are everywhere, including Iceland.
    - iLoveOncall 2mo ago
      My point is that they have their own big chains, and a low number of small independent businesses because their situation benefits big chains and not small businesses.

greatgib 2mo ago

Regarding the shit show that is the EU at the moment, it is obvious that they have nothing to win to join.

ViewTrick1002 2mo ago
How do you mean that the EU is a shit show?
- greatgib 2mo ago
  https://www.euronews.com/next/2026/07/10/chat-control-10-passed-the-european-parliament-through-the-back-door https://www.euronews.com/next/2026/07/10/chat-control-10-pas... https://www.euronews.com/business/2026/05/01/contentious-eu-mercosur-trade-deal-takes-provisional-effect https://www.euronews.com/business/2026/05/01/contentious-eu-... https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/05/07/metsola-threatens-to-sue-commission-over-plan-to-bypass-meps-to-set-up-150-bn-defence-loan https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/05/07/metsola-threat... https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2026/02/11/council-gives-final-green-light-to-new-customs-duty-rules-for-small-parcels/ https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2026...

akmarinov 2mo ago

No new members until veto is dealt with, thanks.

LaurensBER 2mo ago
I'm afraid we'll need more reforms than just a veto reform before the EU would be effective but it's a good start.
- epolanski 2mo ago
  The EU is tremendously effective, is just that the narratives are always about emphasizing the shortcomings.
  - ur-whale 2mo ago
    > The EU is tremendously effective It certainly is, but unfortunately not at very many actually positive things. When it comes to wasting money and being completely ham-fisted with regulation though, I agree with you 100%
  - LaurensBER 2mo ago
    The EU is definitely better than not having an EU but is absolutely not living up to its full potential as is evident by the low trust in it and the lackluster economic growth of the EU.
    - epolanski 2mo ago
      Which is highly driven by nationalism, and the fixation of every country to impose their regulations instead of going towards a common set of rules. Because when it comes to "hey, what if we make the market actually more open, and easier for Spanish companies to sell in Hungary and viceversa?", we get into: "nope, in Hungary you need to abide to Hungarian laws for shipping. In Hungary you need to abide to Hungarian safety laws. In Hungary you need to register this products with all of this documentation and yada, yada, yada". You can swap Spain and Hungary with most other countries. And the same applies at every level. Data and privacy protection? Nope, each country overrides with its own rules. Sadly, it's very easy for politicians to play the "EU won't tell us how to do X" card, and at the same time "EU don't work!". Uneducated fools, especially those not involved with scaling across EU, whether with physical goods or services simply don't understand those things. It's mini-Brexit-like nonsense all of the time. I see it very vividly as a Polish Italian seeing the same non sense narratives in both countries, while working for a German company that attempts to scale across borders. By the way: 1. trust in EU is generally higher than distrust. 2. economic growth is lackluster in most of the world. Sadly EU has always been fixated on being an export economy so it now pays especially high both energy prices and better competition. It should've been focused instead of creating a strong internal market instead.

dtnm 2mo ago

There are no non paywall articles on this??

-destroy-fascis 2mo ago

[flagged]

dtnm 2mo ago

Disappointing, however why would they when they already have effective access to the single market and other special relationship benefits. There's just no real disincentive to not join.

this_user 2mo ago

It's honestly a smart decision. They already have access to the common market just like Norway. Becoming a full member just means being subject to a EU governing body that has proven itself to be largely ineffective and incompetent, sometimes reaching the realm of "outright harmful" with things like Chat Control. Why would you want to be a part of that, especially if you would also be paying for that privilege?

N19PEDL2 2mo ago
I would say it’s the other way round: being in the common market means that they are already subjected to EU regulations, without having any representation in the governing bodies however.
surgical_fire 2mo ago
I love how people comment very confidently on shit they clearly know nothing about. Iceland is in the EEA. It already has to comply with pretty much all EU regulations (with some exemptions, such as their fishing thing). It is also a part of Schegen, freedom of movement, etc. Unlike other countries, it doesn't get to vote on those regulations, so it doesn't even get the veto power. I honestly think it may make more sense for Iceland to not be a full EU member, the fishing industry may be too important for a fairly small island nation, etc. But it has nothing to do with the reasons you fantasized about.
rsynnott 2mo ago
They are already for practical purposes subject to EU law; joining them would allow them to participate in making it.

grebc 2mo ago

Good on them.

xkbarkar 2mo ago

Even though I voted yes I completely understand the reluctance to join. EU has shown gross incompetence in many questions and with chat control they are downright terrifying. My own yes was because I would have liked to see the strategy and what EU could have on the table. Even if timeconsuming and costly. And it would have been worth it just to scare the living daylights out of the few mafia families in Iceland that currently hold the fishing quota and treat it as their private playthings. But I respect the choice of my countrymen and (hope) perhaps in another decade when we are hypothetically rid of Ursula Leyden and possibly Swedens and Denmarks terrifying need to peak into everones private lives, Iceland can look at negotiations again.

LaurensBER 2mo ago
I would agree (not an Icelandic citizen but an EU citizen). Europe (and Iceland) have many, many challenges and we absolutely need something like the EU to effectively tackle them. The EU has tremendous potential but a lot of it's current focus seems to be misguided at best, downright evil at its worst. Let's see if it the EU can tackle the energy and immigration crisis (I'm pro immigration but even I have to admit that the current system is deeply flawed and unsustainable), if it does it would win my respect. Bonus points if we do finally get a (real) single (capital) market.

ur-whale 2mo ago

> Iceland rejects reopening talks on EU entry Good for them. Joining the EU, given the very sorry state that institution is currently in would basically be a pair of concrete shoes at the bottom of the river for Iceland.

iLoveOncall 2mo ago

[flagged]

293725903 2mo ago

[dead]

ggm 2mo ago

Strong city-country divide. City yes. Country No. At best the Yes vote was weakly pro by numbers in the city. Nothing like overwhelming. Probably, very strong influence of the fishing industry, both from sentiment and as a lobby: the EU would have permitted non IS boats into their economic zone, and there would be concerns in the fisher industry community at large about that economically. I think the city thing reflects Youth attitudes to pan-europeanism. Also, "No" just had to say "but our fishing zone" so like "take back control" in Brexit, very simple message. "Yes" had to soft sell positives which were at best nebulous. Unlike brexit I think this has less downsides. The future may change that but for now, I think it won't alter much given that Iceland is already in NATO, already in Schengen, already has security guarantees, has full energy independence. As a complete outsider who has visited recently, I would have loved it to be in the EU but thats an externally driven sentiment view.