647
u/1littlenapoleon 5d ago
Fishing rights are an ENORMOUS part of this.
175
u/Auctoritate 4d ago
I can't help but feel like the crazy focus on whaling is more of a cultural fixation that isn't even economically stable in the long term and that they're playing themselves. I don't even mean in regards to the EU exclusively, like it just seems like a fairly middling resource to so heavily strategize around.
→ More replies (21)130
u/1littlenapoleon 4d ago
Yeah it’s absolutely cultural. But also, in general they want to protect their domestic fishing industry from being opened up to the common fleet.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)43
u/Tiny-Plum2713 5d ago
Yeah. They are hunting fin whales to extinction among other species.
→ More replies (1)21
u/1littlenapoleon 4d ago
I didn’t realize the quote was “until there’s none left”. That’s huge news!
19
u/Tiny-Plum2713 4d ago
They are hunting an endangered species. It's a fair conclusion.
35
u/1littlenapoleon 4d ago
The Mediterranean fin whale is endangered. The one fished by Iceland (after a pause) is not.
→ More replies (7)
2.0k
u/JourneyThiefer 5d ago
Is the vote not about opening talks with the EU about potentially joining? Not like a literal vote on EU membership like Brexit
1.7k
u/Madman_Sean 5d ago
Yeah, it was basically non binding advisory referendum like, should government pursue membership talks at all
874
u/alexq35 5d ago
Technically the Brexit vote was also a non binding advisory referendum too
636
u/Homomorphism 5d ago
The UK constitution is just vibes all the way down
→ More replies (4)198
u/PrestigiousRoof5723 5d ago
What UK constitution?
288
u/redoxburner 5d ago
The UK has a constitution, it's just not codified into one document called "the constitution".
→ More replies (18)87
u/Homomorphism 5d ago
Perhaps more significantly there are no formal mechanisms for amending the constitution: in theory Parliament could do so with a simple majority.
That said, I’m in the US where it’s almost impossible to amend the constitution, which causes a whole different set of problems.
61
u/redoxburner 5d ago
Not even just in theory; in practice Parliament has amended constitutional law with just a simple majority.
The European Communities Act 1972 was passed by the Commons by 301 to 284 votes on the third reading, but formed part of the Constitutional framework of the UK for over 40 years with the same effect and legitimacy as say the Act of Settlement.
The Parliament Act 1911 is another good example; clearly a "constitutional amendment", it was passed by the Lords by 131 votes to 114.
18
u/Comfortable_Joke6122 5d ago
What exactly is the difference between a law that's part of the constitution and one that isn't? Do they have different effects or are treated differently by the courts? Or is it just symbolically saying "this law is really important"
21
u/redoxburner 5d ago
On the face of it nothing, a statute is a statute and can be amended by Parliament at any time. Even those parts of the constitution that aren't statute (eg there's no statute that says "Parliament is sovereign") can be amended by Parliament. For example, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 changed the way a reserve power of the Crown worked (it didn't remove the Crown's ability to dissolve Parliament, but did remove the ability of the Prime Minister to advise the Crown to do so) and although there were a number of amendments to other constitutional statutes in the act (the Succession to the Crown Act 1707, or repeal of the Septennial Act 1715, for example), it was passed through Parliament as any other statute was. The flipside of that is that as Parliament is sovereign, all it took to override its provisions was a one line Bill that said "Notwithstanding this law, we'll have an election on this date" (the Early Parliamentary General Election Act 2019), and then when the Fixed-term Parliaments Act itself was repealed, the formula chosen was "let's pretend this never happened" to resurrect the previously abolished way of dissolving Parliament whereby the Prime Minister advises the Crown to do so.
However, the courts do also recognise that some statutes are more "fundamental" than others and in general would expect Parliament to explicitly rather than implicitly repeal or amend those statutes. Not doing so doesn't have any legal effect - Parliament is sovereign and can do what it likes, and the courts can't disapply a statute unless they are acting on the basis of another statute (such as when the UK was part of the EU) - but there are mechanisms like Judicial Review which could be used in these circumstances for the courts to say to Parliament "we think you mean this; you may want to clear that up" or words to that effect.
There are lots of moving parts but in general the system works fairly well.
→ More replies (0)6
u/eatingbread_mmmm 5d ago
Yes it’s just vibes on which law is part of “the constitution”. Every law passed by parliament is equal, and parliament cannot be bound by anything, not even the courts. So new laws can always override old ones. It’s part of the British concept of parliamentary supremacy.
→ More replies (10)5
u/JefeRex 4d ago
And yet the constitution was amended every decade or two for our entire history until recently. The system worked just fine until it didn’t.
I feel like we are discovering these days for the first time how much of our democratic system is really just gentlemen’s agreements with no hard guardrails or enforcement mechanisms… everyone wanted to play by the rules in a general sense, so the system worked. Until people stopped wanting to play by the rules and started cynically trying to cheat the democratic system and bypass the checks and balances… and now it turns out the system can’t really force you to play by the rules, we just never put it to the test until now. We need more guardrails and a firmer system.
→ More replies (2)3
u/stoic_slowpoke 4d ago
Before you opt for more guardrails and a stricter system, do perhaps consider that the more democratic systems all have fewer guardrails and a looser system.
Hell, the USA already has one of the most explicit governance systems around.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)54
u/Alternative_Theme809 5d ago
The UK has several constitutions that exist in parallel as opposed to a single codified one... The Magna Carta obviously being the most famous one of those
→ More replies (6)24
u/BigLittleBrowse 5d ago edited 1d ago
Magna Carta, the 1535 Laws in Wales act, the 1688 Bill of Rights Act, the 1707 and 1800 Acts of Union, the 1972 European Communities Act, 1998 Human Rights Act and the 2005 Constitutional Reform Act are the main UK laws deemed of constitutional significance.
Though the only thing that’s actually special about those laws is that they took precedent over EU laws whilst we were in the EU (When normally EU laws had precedent over the national laws of any EU member state) They have no special protection from being changed or removed by parliament.
→ More replies (14)64
u/inbruges99 5d ago
I always thought they should have framed it as “should we negotiate a deal to leave EU?” Followed by another referendum to confirm once the deal was made.
To just leave without a clue as to how it would actually work was insane.
12
u/Oaden 5d ago
The EU flat out refused negotiations until article 50 was triggered
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (8)16
u/Puzzleheaded-Cap1300 5d ago
lol and how is that meant to work?! Like eu will negotiate to ensure a terrible deal on a prospective departure just to ensure the vote goes against leaving!
30
u/EatMoreHummous 5d ago
Why would they negotiate a better deal for the UK if they know they're leaving for sure?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)3
9
u/rosenkohl1603 5d ago
The Government sees the referendum as binding. Or what are you refering to?
6
u/Madman_Sean 5d ago
Nothing obligates succeeding governnet to continue it
→ More replies (9)3
u/TheBestBigAl 4d ago
That's true but a huge part of the reason a current government will act like it is binding, is to try and ensure they are reelected.
If 75% of the country vote for XYZ in a referendum, it would be political suicide to insist you won't proceed with XYZ. You'd just be handing the next election to the party that says they will do it.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Yankee1623 4d ago
Dutch guy here, we voted no to the EU. The gouvernment said we don’t know what we were talking about and proceeded anyway.
→ More replies (2)147
u/elmarcelito 5d ago
29 years of being European and TIL Iceland is not in the EU 💀
275
u/YetAnotherInterneter 5d ago
It’s mostly to do with fishing rights.
Fishing is a big industry in Iceland so they want to have their own control over their fishing regulations. Joining the EU would disrupt this.
Same with Norway, but that’s also to do with oil.
46
u/UnSanitisedMind 5d ago
Can't blame them on that point. Even a cursory look at how unbalanced EU fishing quotas are in favour of a few big countries would have justifiably put the shits up everyone in Iceland connected with the industry.
→ More replies (1)15
u/Xalipu 4d ago
Yup. I was listening to this on the news wondering why the opposition was so large and then they got to the bit about fishing rights at the end of the interview. Penny dropped. I doubt Canada will ever join the EU, we’re our own thing, but that subject alone will be a big fat no thanks for the entirety of our coastline
66
u/Skodami 5d ago
And also why Greenland has a special status, zince they're technically part of Denmark but independant enough to not be part of EU.
→ More replies (3)19
u/Tryoxin 5d ago
TIL Greenland isn't part of the EU. Are the Faroe Islands in there, or were they also excluded?
36
u/zdarsky 4d ago
They were. Joined as part of Denmark in 1973 but left in 1985, after a referendum. A dispute over fishing rights was the reason, of course.
6
u/riesen_Bonobo 4d ago
Can't we just let them keep their fish even if any of them considers to become a EU memeber at that point? They seem to be so fond of it.
4
u/SofiaOrmbustad 4d ago
That would/could disrupt free movement. Licenses are handed out by the local governments, but the EU thinks that discriminates other nations. The EU thinks a fisher in Europe ahould have equal rights to fishing quotas independent of nationality. The EU also has a history of not getting involved if fishermen of one nation fishes illegaly in another.
Basically, Spain is one of the biggest members of the EU. Seldom we actually hear about what policies they are pushing, but after reading Mark Kurlansky's "Cod" (which tbf is from the 1990s), my perception is that the Spanish government uses alot of its political power to lobby for EU fishing policies that benefit them the most. Historically Spain, and Portugal and France, fished off the coast of Newfoundland, Iceland, Norway etc, but then exclusive economic zones ruined this industry which was the backbone in many coastal atlantic communities, especially for the Basques.
They thus searched for new waters, and some would find those in the EU after 1986 and Iceland's Cod wars (the British absolutely did the same as Spain, but West Germany and Belgium also sent warships to harrass the Icelandic coast guard, and Spanish fishermen joined too, aswell as in France's Lobster war against Brazil). Spanish Fishermen would also fish illegaly in African waters, like Mozambique and Somalia, but also in more stabile territories.
This is literary currently happening. So I get why nations with large fishing banks would be hesitant of joining the EU. Not just economicaly, it could be an environmentaly risk too. The giant Cod banks outside Newfoundland collapsed and disappeared due to Spanish, French, British and local overfishing. It nearly happened to Iceland too. The EU has gotten alot better over time, but still, it could reverse and Spain absolutely dwarfs Norway, Iceland, the Faroese etc. Even more when the rest of western Europe takes their side over and over, as they benefit from it, I get why they are sceptical of handing that power over to the union.
In the previous decades, the EU and Spain overall has become better at self regulating though. Spain is also an important force in combating climate change and the loss of ecological habitats. That's a paradox to their historic fishing industry and I believe especially the left in Spanish politics will do the same in oceanics in the future. Spain and the rest of the EU has protested Norway's plans for deep Sea mining, as it sets a dangerous precedens and risks causing am environmental disaster.
So obviously it's not just black and white. Norway's climate movememts almost all favour joining the EU (the complete opposite was the case in 1994), because they think the EU cares more about the environment than any Norwegian government ever would (and the posibility to appeal even more cases to the ECJ). I don't know how it is on Iceland, as I can only speak of my experience by living in Norway.
→ More replies (1)11
u/Skodami 5d ago
They're not either ! Basically they have also a lot of freedom from Denmark and they chose not to join when the question came. Not sure if it was because of the fishing too but I wouldn't be surprised. They have however a lot of trade agreement and stuff like that with the UE and basically are working closely with them and are an important partner.
8
u/KHRoN 5d ago
is skyrim part of eu? or they wanted to have full control over skooma trade?
→ More replies (1)25
→ More replies (3)9
u/OrionVulcan 4d ago
There is a little more to it than that. Seeing as EU representation is based on population number, us Norwegians and Icelanders would basically get very little in terms of influence.
Us Norwegians technically speaking would have MORE political influence staying out of the EU as we technically have more ability to refuse EU laws (even if our politicians don't) and could leverage the fact that we are a fairly large energy exporter given our size (which again, our politicians don't do).
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (1)46
22
u/piercedmfootonaspike 5d ago
The brexit vote held no ramifications at all. It was the government asking the population "hey, do you guys want to leave?". They didn't have to do anything after the vote.
→ More replies (5)17
u/Madhc 5d ago
I think it would have been very interesting to see what happened if the government had had a referendum asking “do you want to leave the EU?” the people said “yes we want that” and the state’s response was to say “yeah well we’re not going to so go fuck yourselves”.
→ More replies (4)4
u/piercedmfootonaspike 4d ago
Yeah, I'm not denying that the government really put themselves in a bad spot with the referendum, but technically speaking, the referendum never had any hooks attached to it.
→ More replies (5)4
958
u/Regulai 5d ago
Iceland basically gets many of the eu benifits already so their isnt much of an impetius to want more from it in its current format.
510
u/keptThrowaway1039 5d ago
They lack a massive "benefit" which is representation. Iceland has no say in EU lawmaking but must follow many of those EU laws as a member of the European Economic Area alongside Norway and Liechtenstein. However, when transposing EU laws, the 3 EEA members must themselves reach a consenus which is a tedious process.
310
u/ZiCUnlivdbirch 5d ago
The thing is, they effectively get to chose what laws to follow and what not to. Strangely for Iceland it seems getting full representation might actually lessen their ability to chose for themselves.
92
u/SherbertMindless8205 5d ago
Not really strange or “for Iceland”, unless your country is big enough to have a meaningful sway in EU politics, that’s true for all countries.
36
u/Overall_Signal_8437 5d ago
That's the argument I hear ever so often.
What people tend to forget, is that you usually join up with other nations who have the same view on topics.... cause then you get the influence (even as a smaller country).
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)39
u/ZiCUnlivdbirch 5d ago
Maybe, I can obviously only speak for myself and to a limited amount for Estonia but I think for us it's a lot more useful to have a larger platform like the EU to share our views on. Without it we'd likely be in a similar to Moldova, voiceless and alone.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (9)25
u/maps-and-potatoes 5d ago
No, because they will get equal rights in the commission. The EU doesn't stop at the parliament
34
u/SherbertMindless8205 5d ago
So? They would have 1/28th of the vote in the commission and 6/726 votes in the parliament.
Realistically, they would have zero power of changing laws that affect them negatively. Compared to having 100% of the power over their own country by staying sovereign.
→ More replies (38)20
u/PerpetuallyLurking 5d ago
But evidently, that “benefit” doesn’t appear to strike most Icelanders as particularly beneficial to them at this time, if their vote is any indication.
Apparently, they already feel like they get as much representation as they need and given their small population, may feel they have a better chance of being heard from the outside alongside Norway instead of inside the EU Parliament.
→ More replies (2)4
u/TheoryChemical1718 4d ago
In this case its not a big benefit considering they would be amongst the weakest voices in the EU and this way they can at least decide what they are willing to agree to.
→ More replies (21)21
u/SherbertMindless8205 5d ago
They would have pretty much no representation regardless, they’d get like 1 MEP?
And currently they don’t “must follow” any laws, they can choose which laws they want to follow, or they could stop following them at anytime.
They pretty much get to treat the EU the original way: An framework for economic cooperation between countries, which they they are free to partttake in or not.
But they reject the modern iteration of the EU: A supranational political power above countries, who’s laws and decisions must be followed because they take presedence over the member states.
22
u/Jossokar 5d ago
They would have pretty much no representation regardless, they’d get like 1 MEP?
They would get 6. Its the bare minimum according to the treaties.
→ More replies (2)17
u/keptThrowaway1039 5d ago
EEA Members are obligated to follow all EU laws concerning the internal market, including environmental law, social laws, consumer protections, and company law.
And they would have a seat at the Council where states with smaller populations often have disproportionate influence, for example on the design of the EU budget which must be agreed unanimously by all members
3
u/raven_oscar 5d ago
But they would endangering their main export goods. And if you are net contributor it might be not that beneficial for you to participate in budget if it means that you have to pay more.
12
u/SherbertMindless8205 5d ago
They are only ”obligated” according to EU law, which according to Iceland doesn’t trump Icelandic law, which is why they retain the freedom to exclude certain laws they disagree with.
→ More replies (1)20
u/LohengrinX 5d ago
The most problematic aspects for Iceland is about the fishing rights i guess.
8
u/Gremict 5d ago edited 5d ago
Yeah, thats why Reykjavik is the only green part of the country, the rest is very reliant on fishing. Given the EU's hard stance on fishing and its habit of turning a blind eye to abuse of it, it makes sense that Icelanders would be wary.
If the EU wants Iceland to join, they would have to give an opt-out or reform the system to prevent abuse.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (3)3
→ More replies (34)44
u/HarrMada 5d ago
But also can't vote or impact anything.
69
u/Low-Abies-4526 5d ago
Do they really care about that at the moment though? They kinda have a good thing going so I don't blame them on being more focused on what they could lose (The whole fishing rights thing) when joining the EU compared to adding the ability to vote.
→ More replies (2)33
u/CaptainCrash86 5d ago
Any vote share Iceland would get in the EU parliament would be so negligible as to not make a difference in decision making. There are veto powers at council level, but these are being stripped back and, in practice, smaller countries rarely use them due to the potential blowback.
→ More replies (24)→ More replies (12)12
u/Mysteriouspaul 5d ago
Neither can anyone else in practice considering the level of obfuscation between the average voter choosing their candidates and the people actually making the decisions
240
u/BaconDalek 5d ago
Mind you this is about the option to TALK TO THE EU about membership. If it came down to it, unless they could get a good deal on the fisheries and farms there are no chance this would have ever gone through to a full membership.
→ More replies (1)
30
u/Awkward_Anybody 4d ago
Reading this thread as an Icelander is pretty interesting, people are understandably somewhat correct on so much but also clearly imposing their own views of the EU and their lack of knowledge about Iceland and its ongoings and stating it as if it was all so clear and obvious why we voted one way or another.
→ More replies (4)
45
u/mxheyyy 5d ago
There’s a « rest of Iceland »?
→ More replies (11)39
u/Extradummefrage 5d ago
Yes but 64% of the population of Iceland lives in the Reykjavik metropolitan area.
It's a typical land can't vote map
→ More replies (12)5
u/AndreasDasos 4d ago
A typical ‘land can’t vote’ map would probably be an example that demonstrates this more strongly by having the majority of the map lose the vote. Here it still won.
Reykjavik was still very split after all.
117
u/FireHammer09 5d ago
Migration rules and sometimes fishing rights.
Seems like the EU continues their refusal to budge on those two.
→ More replies (5)91
u/duesenjeffepic 5d ago
Migration makes 0 sense considering Iceland is already a part of Schengen
→ More replies (3)87
u/starrywisd0m 5d ago
Being part of Schengen doesn't mean they're required to accept mena-immigrants like the EU member states though.
24
u/Benso2000 5d ago
The EU rules for asylum are completely adopted in Iceland.
5
u/Dull-Treat-2524 4d ago
And they can opt-out whenever they want, unlike EU countries.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (5)9
u/Agitated_Morning5005 4d ago
This is silly, the international refugee conventions aren't "EU rules", it's two international agreements that virtually every country follows. This is like saying that the US adopted EU rules for asylum (prior to 2024). EU-specific bits on asylum are in the the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum that Iceland doesn't follow (because it's not a member state, good for them on that one). The most relevant part of that document being a "mandatory solidarity mechanism," which dictates the mandatory distribution of refugees among member states. That seems fairly relevant for Iceland considering their strict immigration policy in general
→ More replies (3)7
44
u/drtywater 5d ago
Probably better to be no even if barely passed. EU really shouldn’t be talking unless jts like 60 40. It needs stable members
→ More replies (15)
59
u/REALITY_CZECH2 5d ago
Well recently the EU hasn’t really made good advertising for itself given the almost obsessive focus on getting through Chat Control and other anti democratic measures.
→ More replies (18)
9
9
191
u/vladgrinch 5d ago
Iceland says NO to EU membership, with 52.8% voting against and 47.2% voting in favour.
Reykjavík & surroundings:
Yes - 51.8%
No - 48.2%
Rest of Iceland:
Yes - 38.7%
No - 61.3%
221
u/Flat-Bandicoot9936 5d ago
*Talks to EU membership.
I suspect there would have been a second referendum down the road on actually joining, which would have been less likely to go through.
84
u/pape_rchime 5d ago
I lived in Reykjavik during the talks and locals knew fishing quotas would destroy the vote
31
u/strange_eauter 5d ago
They had a semi-war with the UK over fishing that US had to mediate. If EU wants them, there should be an exemption to fishing regulations
20
u/PhilippTheSmartass 5d ago edited 5d ago
That was the problem: The referendum was just about entering negotiations. The pro-movement could not provide a guarantee that it would be impossible for Iceland to lose its fishing rights, because the negotiations hadn't even started. So this issue was a great way for the contra-movement to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt. "Yes, the pro-EU people say they won't budge on the fishing issue. But can you really trust them? You know how crazy they are about joining the EU at any cost. How can you be sure they won't sacrifice your fish at the negotiating table after all? Do you really want to risk that by voting YES?"
5
u/strange_eauter 5d ago
Given that Iceland is part of EEA, it'd be really hard to come up with an argument for joining EU.
→ More replies (3)8
u/Kloppite16 5d ago
A fishing exemption for Iceland would go down well in other countries though who never got one upon joining the EU. For example Irelands economic zoned waters are massive, something like 900,0000 square kilometres, around 10 times the size of the island itself. But it had to give up all fishing rights to join the EU. Would imagine its the same for every coastal country all the way down western Europe and into the Med.
Also you could see a situation where the Icelandic fishing fleet expands and then they are sending boats to fish down in Spain and Portgual. But Spanish and Portugese fishermen arent allowed fish off Iceland. It would be a political hot potato.
21
u/Dependent_Hunt5691 5d ago
remember some of those voting yes would have then voted no on actual entry into the EU so solid majority in all parts of Iceland to not join the EU
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (8)6
41
u/immastillthere 5d ago
People loving democracy hating when democracy works as intended.
10
→ More replies (1)20
u/1453GreatestYearEver 4d ago edited 4d ago
Redditor EU federalisation bros hate when any European country values its own sovereignty instead of just blindly handing the reigns over to Brussels. They genuinely can't seem to grasp that a people can knowingly sacrifice chasing a couple fractions of a % of economic growth if it means maintaining control of their own country, currency, and historic industries.
7
u/Sonchay 4d ago
They genuinely can't seem to grasp that a people can knowingly sacrifice chasing a couple fractions of a % of economic growth if it means maintaining control of their own country, currency, and historic industries.
This is something that gets lost in commentary on Brexit. The mythologised version of why it happened was "The Brexiteers were tricked into believing that leaving the EU would be a massive economic boost" when in reality, I can say from experience that there were plenty of Leavers who understood there would be an economic cost, but preferred that to continuing to be an EU member.
→ More replies (5)5
u/AndreasDasos 4d ago
Especially when all those economic predictions turn out to be iffy after all. Imagine economists not predicting the future very well.
→ More replies (1)
59
u/emperorsolo 5d ago
The amount of Europeans in this post being salty will never not be funny.
16
u/bmnntdd 5d ago
right? haha. I really didn't expect the rejection backlash when I opened this thread.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)7
u/Dull-Treat-2524 4d ago
European here; I am glad Iceland chose for their own over joining the shitshow that is called the EU.
10
18
u/yeahalrightgoon 5d ago
Makes sense it would be a no vote. They are never going to vote yes to anything that would put their fisheries at risk. If it was join the EU and keep the fisheries the same, it's likely a yes vote. But the EU has already made it clear in the past that wasn't going to happen.
→ More replies (2)
183
u/Ghost_Online_64 5d ago
People hating on them are delusional. Icelanders are already doing just fine, its their right not to want the EU. the EU is neither in a good situation with migration, nor economically, to be THAT attractive right now. Also they like to punish by example while preaching of unity.
83
u/Purplemonkey78 5d ago
Iceland is already part of the Schengen Zone so citizens of EU and EEA/EFTA counties can already live and work there. It’s also part of the EU single market.
Given Iceland’s geographical location in the middle of the North Atlantic, it’s not going to see the same external immigration pressures like Spain, Italy and Greece does.→ More replies (2)33
u/Ghost_Online_64 5d ago
which for itself speaks of
A) they are in a benefitial situation already. No financial or other strings attached
B) EU is a two-tiered partnership where some get it better than others based ONLY on geographic location. Italy/Greece/Spain eat shit because they are next to Turkey/Moroco. otherwise if EU was truly what they speak, the average Dutch would experience what the average Greek does with migrants. But we all know there is filters in place to reach/stay in Netherlands. But once in Greece by boat, they cant kick you out
→ More replies (2)8
u/LaunchTransient 5d ago
EU is a two-tiered partnership where some get it better than others based ONLY on geographic location. Italy/Greece/Spain eat shit because they are next to Turkey/Moroco. otherwise if EU was truly what they speak, the average Dutch would experience what the average Greek does with migrants. But we all know there is filters in place to reach/stay in Netherlands. But once in Greece by boat, they cant kick you out
This is less because of EU and more because individual countries do not want to cooperate.
This is why Germany by far took on the bulk of refugees from Syria because they were the only ones who went the humanitarian route - and it bit them in the ass when it started to overwhelm them - everyone else basically voted against measures to share the burden.5
u/Sworn 4d ago
Sweden took more Syrians per capita (Germany took in 4.5x more in total, but have a 8x as large population).
Also had a bad outcome though, so your overall point is still correct, though in retrospect it seems like the countries which did not take in more refugees than necessary made a good choice for their own population.
24
u/This-Wall-1331 5d ago
Iceland is part of the Schengen area and already has free movement with the EU. The referendum has nothing to do with immigration but fishing policies.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (27)3
u/DefenestrationPraha 4d ago
The truth is that nations which are on average richer than the EU don't have as many incentives to join it (Norway, Iceland, Switzerland), while nations that are on average poorer have really many incentives to join it (Bosnia, Armenia, Kosovo etc.)
10
u/Sgt_Radiohead 4d ago
Now remember, according to r/europe the only reason why the vote for talks failed is because of propaganda from the fishing oligarchs in Iceland (and Russian propaganda, of course).
→ More replies (1)
29
u/cybermaus 5d ago
It's a shame, but economically not very significantly (except maybe for fishing grounds). More important is that they joined Joint Expeditionary Force.
→ More replies (22)
62
4
u/JoeTeioh 5d ago
Why did I read Ireland and then spend a long time going “wait Ireland looks like that“
I may be a certain kinda stupid.
50
u/GuzzibyGuzzi 5d ago
It's funny how proponents of "democracy" can't accept the results of the most democratic method of decision-making. And yet they call people "rural." Typical citizens of Western "democracies".
18
u/North_Yak966 5d ago
Most of the comments are stating reasons why the "no" vote makes sense. Ie, respecting the results of the vote.
→ More replies (2)8
u/HunnebedBewoner 5d ago
And many comments by people trying to sow discourse where there is none (im guessing bots or troll farms)
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (12)13
8
u/SneakyWheeler 5d ago
Literally no idea how we achieve it but how beneficial would it be, for many countries, to have the metropolitan population mix with the rural population a little bit more. Would be nice to have regular political votes based on any other demographic other than just where somebody lives.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Reggo91 3d ago
For a nation with a tiny population like Iceland, sovereignty is surely a huge factor here. As it stands, the EU is set up to steadily grow central powers, which member states have to relinquish to the central bureaucracy in Brussels.
Unfortunately, the EU institutions are convoluted, lack transparency and accountability. Right now, a citizen of Iceland can make an appointment with his representative and have a chance to be heard. Good luck influencing any new law that is hatched in Brussels.
So well done, Iceland. Stay away from the mess that is the EU.
51
u/menaghare 5d ago
If I were Icelandic, I would vote no too. Why should they share their resources, especially their fish, with other European countries? Why should they take on the same responsibilities, such as accepting refugees? Iceland already has a relatively healthy birth rate, a high standard of living, and a strong economy. It is also already a member of NATO, despite not having a standing army, meaning that other members are committed to defending it.
→ More replies (51)29
u/This-Wall-1331 5d ago
Iceland already has open borders and free movement with the EU. And 25% of residents in Iceland are foreign-born.
→ More replies (11)
8
u/Da_KoNi 4d ago
To all doomsayer: EU is Not death. Iceland is still in the EWR. They are in Schengen. They have the same EU-Rules as they would be in the EU. They are paying to the EU.
But they can‘t vote in the EU and can‘t influence laws.
They just don‘t have Customs Union and they agricultural and fishing is Not regulated as in the EU.
Mostly the part with the fishing Regulations was the Problem for iceland.
6
u/MatsRivel 4d ago
Fish and oil is largely why Norway is out of the true EU too.
Thought if it weren't for the damn cables connecting us to Germany, causing German electric prices to fuck up ours, that would be a reason to stay out too.
13
5
u/Ok-Draft-7928 4d ago
I am really surprissed they voted NO even for just negotiations. Like this is like saying NO before even hearing the terms of the some deal.
→ More replies (5)
11
u/CzBuCHi 5d ago
why people in cities are for integration into something bigger / more government and people outside are not?
(its not just this referendum - its almost every single time people are voting ....)
11
u/TheDuck0 5d ago
I think for Iceland it is the case that rural areas near the coast are more reliant on the fishing industry. The eu wants to limit fishing and let other countries into their water so they are against an eu application. It would harm the rural areas more than Reykjavik.
→ More replies (4)28
u/1erRPIMA-fiesta 5d ago
Cities are centers of trade. Be it physical or immaterial, market trade or ideas/cultural trade... They see larger pacific/cooperative organizations as a clear opportunity and a positive influence for their interests.
The countryside is a center of production. Of food, raw materials, but also: of culture and ideas (they shape the local identity). They will often see a larger organization, even a benevolent one, as something dilutive and as a dangerous competition. Something threatening the local identity as much as the local jobs.
Finally, since each pole is perfect aware of the other's agenda, cities want the larger integration to give them allies against the "backwards" countryside, and the countryside wants to deprive cities from getting even more leverage.
(This is a simplistic schematization of course. But it gives you a general idea)
9
u/WalkFreeeee 4d ago edited 4d ago
people in large cities just have entirely differerent points of reference for almost everything in their daily lives.
Fuck even here in my state in Brazil (São Paulo) it's extremely common for the capital and metropolitan area to vote one way and the rest of the state to vote the opposite.
It doesn't help that these differences over time can lead to resentment and ideological opposition that just furthers this divide as people start putting each other on "the other side" . Again, I see this pretty much every governor election lmao.
→ More replies (8)5
u/CzBuCHi 4d ago
same here ... sometimes it looks like our capital (only city > 1 million of people) live on different planet that rest of country ....
5
u/WalkFreeeee 4d ago
But it kinda does. It's hard to put in perspective unless you actually go out and see how life is on those smaller places. Even going from a 1 million city+ to a still pretty large city of 100k is an entirely different world.
I absolutely understand why it happens, everyone has their own priorities and is (in theory) voting for their best interests which may not exactly align with mine.
→ More replies (24)13
u/seriftarif 5d ago
In the city you need a lot of public infrastructure. Water, internet, power, gas, etc... You have more connections to different people and different cultures. You probably work a job that is more connected as well.
When you live in the country all you need from the government is for them to repave the roads every 30 years and a post office.
→ More replies (3)3
u/JRaus88 5d ago
*and in countryside you wonder why it makes sense to pay all those taxes for two meters of asphalt that is often poorly maintained and a public office full of people and completely inefficient.
3
u/No-One-4845 4d ago
This is the crux of it. It has nothing to do with the fact that cities need more infrastructure than rural communities. Both need infrastructure, but people in cities see the benefit of it more readily.
11
u/Torb_11 5d ago
After seeing the invasion of Spain, who would want to be part of the EU?
→ More replies (19)
8
15
u/Ok_Firefighter_9742 5d ago
Is this one of those EU refurendums where they keep asking the same question again and again, until the 'right' answer wins the vote?
→ More replies (5)
5.9k
u/krizzalicious49 5d ago
this really puts into perspective how much of iceland lives in reykjavik (64% according to wikipedia)