RU version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
68% Positive
Analyzed from 1894 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#iceland#sovereignty#already#vote#fishing#more#joining#countries#actually#why
Discussion (56 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
(This was an option for the UK, and is actually pretty much what a lot of the yes campaign was pushing, but is very much not where the UK ended up.)
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.
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%
I think vetos accomplish exactly what they need to accomplish: unanimity.
Majority arguments are dangerous if then you start to get different factions and tear the EU from the inside. Veto rules are simple and effective.
What I'd like instead is for a proper reform of what can be delegated (and thus not vetoed at all) and what can.
I think, e.g., there should be a larger push to delegate foreign affairs and military to the supranational entity. And it should be achieved in small but decisive, non vetoable steps.
The telling sign is that the capital Reykjavík voted in favor of negotiations, but rural areas voted against.
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.
Strictly speaking, Iceland could do this unilaterally, anyway; Kosovo and Montenegro have done so, and Denmark and a bunch of African countries peg their currency to the euro.
Iceland would also benefit from trade deals with non EU countries (currently it is excluded).
It also would have joined the Agricultural policy, which would have meant better access for its farm produce.
The EU needs to get better at marketing it self.
Seems like Iceland didn't want to even waste the government's time looking into this... I quite like their government treated everyone like adults.
Do you want us to burn a huge amount of time and effort on this. Or would you prefer us to focus on other problems?
"Á Ísland að hefja á ný aðildarviðræður við Evrópusambandið?" Já/Nei
A very literal English translation is:
"Should Iceland resume accession negotiations with the European Union?" Yes/No
That is the wording formally approved by the Althing (Parliament) on 28 May 2026 and published by Iceland’s National Electoral Commission.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sadly, the voters have spoken and so they'll have to continue doing what they do now.
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.
It is kind of hard to take countries without standing armies talking about sovereignty seriously.
There's no natutal resources, no anything other than fish and 400,000 human population.
Joining the EU would be a no-brainer if it didn't micromanage and meddle so much.
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.
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.
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?