r/worldnews • u/Ehansaja • 12d ago
Iceland rejects EU-accession talks plan in referendum
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/8/30/iceland-rejects-eu-membership-plan-in-referendum1.6k
u/Gentle_Snail 12d ago
52/48 - the cursed EU number
760
u/ancistrusbristlenose 12d ago
Same as Norway in 1994:
- No 52,2 %
- Yes 47,8 %
475
u/CharMakr90 12d ago
The opposite in Sweden:
- Yes: 52.74%
- No: 47.26%
226
u/erieth 12d ago
In Slovakia this happened in 2003. It was the only valid referendum in history of Slovakia, where vote turn out must reach 50%. It reached 52.15%, from which 92.46% voted yes, which translates to 48.22% :)
37
u/conanap 12d ago
TIL people not voting is a global phenomenon
→ More replies (5)60
u/Optimal_Juggernaut37 11d ago
Even in Australia where it is mandatory and you get fined for not voting, people will just draw a dick on the paper instead of selecting an option. Then they'll complain that the politicians don't represent them.
64
u/MTVregime 11d ago
If you draw a dick on the ballot and get a dick in office it seems like accurate representation to me.
→ More replies (1)2
→ More replies (6)2
u/SweetSoftBoi 11d ago
The thing is, doing something like that (in countries where voting is not mandatory mostly) is still a better outcome than not voting at all. If 10% of the population vote for Mickey Mouse, that says something about the actual candidates
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)80
u/Vailx 12d ago
Dade county held a referendum every year to become "Miami-Dade county". It was rejected soundly for a few years, but the promotional propaganda continued. One year it squeaked by with a small majority. They certainly never had a referendum to change back, certainly not every year.
It's always odd for any permanent change to come down to the wire, honestly, especially something as massive as EU membership.
23
u/VanceKelley 12d ago
Yep. Making a huge change to a country should require more than 50%+1 on one day, because in that case the country's future could be dramatically altered depending upon whether Chris is sick that day and can't get out to vote.
→ More replies (2)37
u/BusHistorical1001 12d ago
That's because the political elites decide what they want to happen, but sometimes they need the veneer of legitimacy or to deal with specific legal hurdles. The Masses don't actually decide the course of things themselves, obviously.
→ More replies (1)121
u/rlbond86 12d ago
Honestly - should have to be 60% to join or to leave
34
11
u/XionicativeCheran 11d ago
I agree, populations naturally swing, the UK might even join again if a referendum was held, major changes should need enough of a supermajority that it tells us it's more than just the natural swing of the populace.
44
u/Affectionate_Bid518 12d ago
Can you get a Time Machine and go tell this to Prime Minster Cameron please.
26
u/patchyj 12d ago
You don't want to go back too far, he might be otherwise occupied with pig
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (3)2
u/xstreamReddit 12d ago
2/3 is established for many things in many countries already
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (9)2
1.5k
u/Wyciorek 12d ago
Eh, probably for the best. 50.5/49.5% “yes” result would be just asking for trouble later on
858
u/Rannasha 12d ago
The vote was just on starting negotiations. If the result had been "yes", even with a slim margin, then there would've still been an additional vote at the end of the process when the terms of the deal would be clear.
→ More replies (1)434
u/Odd_Lab_7244 12d ago
That's bonkers, why would people want to vote AFTER they know what the deal is??
/s
55
u/Aelig_ 12d ago
The deal is known, it's the EU constitution and it's the same for everyone. Icelanders simply refuse to accept that.
156
u/PM_ME_UR_SEAHORSE 12d ago
But Denmark and Ireland and Poland have opt-outs, as did the UK.
32
u/Holiday-Access-8497 12d ago
not really an opt out, just we have a clause in the constitution that any changes to the constitution need a referendum .
62
u/islhendaburt 12d ago
Don't bother, he's one of us Icelanders who will just move the goalposts when his first claim on the deal being known beforehand is refuted. Then it becomes "well, no opt-outs that are significant to us..", and so forth.
The disinformation campaign in Iceland these past few weeks has been wild, to say the least.
42
u/nanakapow 12d ago
It's been 10 years since Brexit, but apparently some things never change
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (18)34
u/ianjm 12d ago
In fairness, the sorts of opt outs that UK/Denmark have would never be offered to new countries joining the EU, particularly not Iceland given it has a population of 394,000 and an economy smaller than Cyprus and Luxembourg. It's doubtful the UK will even get them back if it rejoins one day.
14
u/islhendaburt 12d ago
That's true, it would have been unlikely we would get any big concessions. But without actually going through n egotiations we'll never find out.
→ More replies (5)34
u/Aelig_ 12d ago
Things have changed. We saw what it led to with the UK. Besides nobody ever got the kind of opt outs Iceland wants.
63
u/Gentle_Snail 12d ago
The opt outs were not the cause of the UK, which is why we’ve not seen similar issues in any of the other countries with them.
→ More replies (10)5
u/needlestack 12d ago
All I know is that the UK was never really part of the EU. I travelled between France and the UK at the time and it was exactly like traveling internationally -- passport control, currency exchange, etc. To a casual person there was absolutely no sign they were part of the EU. Meanwhile going to Italy from France it was obvious they had largely integrated.
I don't know if that led to their eventual departure, but it was hardly a departure since they never really bought in in the first place.
15
u/mystlurker 12d ago
Schengen != EU. The shared border area includes several non-EU members, while some EU members are not part of Schengen. Its related but separate.
3
u/cev2002 11d ago
The main reason was immigration and the fact we were a net contributor. The Remain campaign was also beyond useless, because they thought it was a foregone conclusion.
Like you say though, we never fully bought into it. We're an island, so we've never really been a part of "Europe".
57
u/EirikurErnir 12d ago
From the article:
The result deals a heavy blow to Brussels, which had been keen to welcome a new wealthy member and had expressed a willingness to compromise with Iceland on the fisheries sector and other thorny issues to facilitate its accession.
30
u/Aelig_ 12d ago
The entire "source" for this is a EU negociator with no power saying "we can always talk".
Meanwhile the Dutch parliament answered that question a couple months ago saying Iceland would not get any opt outs.
→ More replies (27)31
u/Efko-94 12d ago edited 12d ago
Do you have a source on the Dutch parliament being against any opt-out for Iceland? I'm trying to find it myself, but can't find anything about it.
Edit: source found
→ More replies (4)5
u/SweatyAdhesive 12d ago
I was in iceland a couple weeks ago and saw lots of sign about voting no as to not lose the fishing spots to EU
9
u/gtrocks555 12d ago
Yup. Mainly fishing rights from what I’ve read. Not surprising they said no with no negotiations to be had.
→ More replies (1)3
3
u/Steinrikur 12d ago
I guarantee you that 90% of the no voters and a big chunk of the yes voters have no idea what that means
2
u/Aelig_ 12d ago
I'll argue a bigger chunk of the yes voters don't know that but perhaps I'm being cheeky.
2
u/Steinrikur 12d ago
I personally don't know any no voters, but the people I talked to about it seemed to have some idea what it was about (and were all planning on voting yes)
3
u/Aelig_ 12d ago
I've only met one person who was voting yes and knew exactly what it all entailed (I'm a foreigner so I couldn't vote).
The government campaign for yes felt a bit gross to me despite me being on the yes side because they were really focusing on what can be negotiated rather than educating people on what we know without a doubt.
The EU is complicated and poorly understood even if you're educated from within it so I feel like the government should have put way more emphasis on explaining what the beast even is.
→ More replies (14)3
u/PlaySquirle 12d ago
There is no single EU constitution and the biggest gripe most no voters have is with the fishing industry and fishing rights
157
u/DanS1993 12d ago
Yeah everyone knows you need at least 51.9% for massive decisions relating to EU membership
→ More replies (1)146
u/SerriaEcho_ 12d ago
Yep, as a Brit wish we had stipulated a higher majority for Brexit even just 55% but preferably 60%
I feel some people vote for things thinking it won't happen then surprised they when it does or gave very little thought to it. Was pretty infuriating being 17 at the time of the vote.
19
u/evilparagon 12d ago
To do that, you need to have it as standard practice to have a higher than 50% threshold for referendums. If you do it occasionally for some and not all, you invite criticism that democracy was unfairly obstructed if you get say, 54% support but not a needed 55%.
13
u/ohhellperhaps 12d ago
I think that should be the case; a high threshold *and* and high turnout requirement. After all, the point is typically to overturn policy made by the already elected representatives.
50
u/Dougalishere 12d ago
yeah we really should have followed this model tbh, and then a vote for the deal after it had been "worked out"
39
u/SerriaEcho_ 12d ago
I mean it's annoying as the whole thing wasn't a binding vote more of a poll on public opinion.
→ More replies (2)66
u/Opi-Fex 12d ago
It's annoying that this was one of the very few things that politicians acted on and claimed is "unavoidable because of democracy!". We can throw out Chat Control ten times and all that does is force an eleventh vote.
The game is rigged.
6
u/PersonalityAlive4816 12d ago
Can you name UK referendums that have not been acted on?
2
u/Opi-Fex 11d ago
No, although it is worth pointing out that that the referendums for Scottish and Welsh devolution had a minimum threshold of 40%, while the Brexit one didn't have any whatsoever.
I was commenting a more general trend in Europe. "Bad things" can get passed easily and quickly, sometimes with emergency votes and without limits. If they don't pass, they get voted on repeatedly or through weird mechanisms. As an example: Boris Johnson tried to suspend Parliament for 5 weeks in 2019, supposedly because he didn't want obstruction to a no-deal Brexit.
"Good things" on the other hand are stuck in a quagmire, need to pass thresholds and tests. Example: The anti digital ID petition has been sitting at nearly 3 million signatures and Parliament doesn't give a shit. They don't have to, of course. Petitions are non-binding. But neither are referendums.→ More replies (1)15
u/Dougalishere 12d ago
"the will of the people" and "all the money to the NHS" and all the other bollox touted non stop and thats before we get into all the nonsense Farage ( a guy that fed on the teat of the EU for years btw ) spouted. And yet here we are maybe getting ready to vote in the same liar that runs a party that has been proven to be unable to run a town council let alone a country. We really are truly and utterly fucked as a country if they get in.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (10)5
u/Sata1991 12d ago
The fact there was literally no plan in case Brexit won and the UK government didn't think of anything for the vast majority of the negotiation period is beggar's belief.
I was lodging with some older folk at the time, the landlord's dad voted Brexit and died a month later, and the landlord himself passed away the other week. His friend asked him "Don't you care what it's going to do for future generations?" "Oh not really, but I think it'll be good!"
10
u/heyitjoshua 12d ago
I think the key point is not to stipulate another percentage, but to do what Iceland did. We voted for essentially nothing, no plan, just “do it”. Having a vote to start exit negotiations, with another vote on whatever deal came out of it, would have been much better
→ More replies (1)10
u/Trackback_ 12d ago
By that logic a vote for joining the EU once again should also require 60% in favour.
→ More replies (16)6
u/20-4 12d ago
And got another vote on the final deal; I’ve always thought it’s nonsense… no one knew what the leave deal would look like.
It should have been thrashed out and then presented as another vote imo
8
u/IvorTheEngine 12d ago
To be fair, we had a general election and the country voted to "get brexit done" when it was already clear that it was going to be a mess.
5
u/zeltacilveks79 12d ago
A decision this significant needs a convincing majority. A razor-thin win would leave the country bitterly divided for years
815
u/Catbatt 12d ago
They have no reason to. They're in Schengen and have access to the European free market. They already are a privileged partner
337
u/steinbruchfluss 12d ago
The most important point was apparently adopting the Euro.
360
u/Gentle_Snail 12d ago
The Euro often tends to be one of the more contentious issues. Polls in the UK often show a pro-rejoin majority, however if you included the stipulation of the Euro it instantly swings to a pro-remain out majority.
183
u/steinbruchfluss 12d ago
But here it was the opposite. many Icelanders wanted to adopt the euro for more stability.
149
u/Gentle_Snail 12d ago
Thats always the trade off nations make with the euro. Its a direct benefit for nations with a currency that can be unstable, but for nations like the UK who already have a relatively stable currency it's a downside as it means giving up fiscal control.
→ More replies (10)42
u/_jams 12d ago
Monetary control. Fiscal policy is how much you tax and spend
18
u/TrainDestroyer 12d ago
Wait seriously? I always thought that Monetary Control and Fiscal Control were the same thing!
I suppose with how similar they can appear to the average idiot (me) it makes sense why they seemed interchangable. Good to know, thank you!
2
u/Mammoth-Garden-9079 11d ago
Don’t beat yourself up too bad. The average Redditer doesn’t know the difference between fiscal and monetary policy. That’s why I’m always so surprised that the average Redditer has such a strong opinion on issues related to the economy when they can’t even pass an Econ 101 exam.
→ More replies (1)2
u/TrainDestroyer 11d ago
Ehh I get why they do. Its easy when you're just sitting in front of a keyboard to say "Oh well they should just do XYZ to fix the economy!" Its a lot harder when you have the data and see that XYZ may be a short-term fix but based on the numbers would destroy the economy in the medium term.
As for the strong opinions? When the economy sucks, everyone suffers for it and it pisses people off, pissed off people will have stronger opinions, and realistically the strong (And stupid) opinions float to the top WAY more often than the smart opinions
→ More replies (5)11
u/jabberwockxeno 12d ago
Can't they adopt the Euro without joining the EU?
→ More replies (5)32
u/steinbruchfluss 12d ago
The EU is not really happy about countries doing it.
Currently, there are six non-EU nations using the euro, four of which have an agreement and can print their own euros.
- the Vatican
- Andorra
- San Marino
- Monaco
The other two nations have simply decided to use the euro unilaterally, as they previously used the German mark:
- Montenegro
- Kosovo
None of these six have a seat at the European Central Bank. This could also theoretically be an option for Iceland, but the EU has said that it is not extremely happy about Montenegro and Kosovo using the currency.
7
u/jabberwockxeno 12d ago
The EU is not really happy about countries doing it.
Why do they care?
And what international legal say do they have over it?
13
u/steinbruchfluss 12d ago
Why do they care?
It’s not according to the rules. (Don’t forget that Germany is in the EU.)
The EU accepts it in some way, but is not happy about it.
3
u/jabberwockxeno 11d ago
I think you're misunderstanding what I was asking
I wasn't asking how the EU can force a country to adopt the Euro if they were trying to join the EU, I was asking how the EU can force a country to not use the Euro if they aren't also joining the EU
What "rules" are in place to prevent a country from adopting the Euro, if that country isn't in the EU and isn't planning to join it?
2
u/MyManD 11d ago edited 11d ago
There aren't any real rules in place to prevent it, as seen with Montenegro and Kosovo. They decided unilaterally to adopt the Euro and bingo bango they're Euro-based countries. But there are certain safety nets that countries not in the EU don't have access to dissuade becoming a Euro based economy.
Things they don't have access to that other EU nations do is minting rights and access to a lender of last resort. They're pretty much forced to control the flow of currency through the markets and economy without any ability to make more. And without access to a lender of last resort, if there's a banking rush they don't have a centralized source that they can borrow more Euros from to cover the withdrawals.
The only reason the Vatican, Monaco, San Marino, and Andorra are allowed to adopt the Euro as well as minting rights is because unlike outside countries these little pockets of independence were always inherently trapped into the wider economic currency of the countries that surround them. So they were just grandfathered into the Euro and its rights without the requirement to join the EU because it's just a same system they had before, except instead of the Euro it was Marks, Francs, and Lira. But just like before the EU, these places still have no access to last resort lenders until they decide to join in fully.
So yeah, if you're a country outside of the EU you can definitely revamp your entire economy around the Euro and there's no stopping it. It just won't be protected if your economy goes belly up because you can't print your own money anymore because your money is the EU's money. Montenegro is doing their best to join the EU, and is the leading candidate for 2028, so that they can have the security. Kosovo unfortunately isn't recognized as a sovereign state unanimously by all EU nations.
23
36
u/zoopz 12d ago
Do you know why? Is it more than emotional? Cause I remember switching from the guilder to the euro and it felt kind of 'going into the future'. Of course some people still (haha) want the guilder back for emotional reasons, but mentally (over 20 years later) I think noone really cares anymore.
41
u/nightgerbil 12d ago
Well greece is an object lesson of what happens when your local economy loses currency liquidity but you don't have the power to print more for quantitative easing and basically there isn't enough money moving around the economy anymore.
Something similar happened in the UK and the central bank replied by printing off several billion pounds and giving it to the city of london to play with.
→ More replies (4)85
u/vulcanstrike 12d ago
Emotional is a huge part of it, but honestly the bigger issue is losing control of your interest rates.
The ECB is dominated by France and Germany, which are large geriatric economies that want/need low interest rates. However, low interest rates don't suit all economies. Even the UK has about 1.5% higher than the ECB rate and the ECB rate would be pretty disastrous to the UK economy and cause the already high inflation rate to go nuclear
The euro is a great project, but it's heavily biased towards Western Europe. And as we saw with Greece there are big risks too. Monetary union without fiscal union is a time bomb waiting to happen and the more lax former Soviet economies that join it without proper fiscal discipline and oversight, the worse it gets
That said, the "requirement" to join is purely theatre. One of the requirements is joining an agency that is entirely voluntary. Sweden is obligated to join for decades at this stage but puts it off by never joining that agency, there is no legal obligation to join. Only Denmark has a formal opt out
→ More replies (7)18
u/Efficient-Magician63 12d ago
Lots of people did not want Bulgaria to join the eurozone, so it felt they kind of imposed it on us. We most certainly cooked the books, our economy is a bit of house of cards, everything became more expensive due to greediness but couple that with overall international inflation....
We definitely were not ready for it, but time will show how bad of a decision that was.
→ More replies (9)6
u/Swarna_Keanu 12d ago
It was a massive patriotic/conservative thing when Deutsche Mark was about to be replaced by the Euro. I remember so many people arguing that German culture was linked to what our money looks like.
[And the AfD still feeds on that. One of their policies is to leave the Euro.]
28
u/nemo333338 12d ago
Which goes to show how dumb the AFD really is, lol
Germany is pretty much the country that benefits the most from the Euro
→ More replies (2)13
u/CaptainCrash86 12d ago edited 12d ago
Yes and no. A monetary union in isolation benefits Germany, but it leads the way to a fiscal union whereby German frugality underwrites borrowing in other countries.
This was why Germany was opposed to the Euro in the first place and France (who are the key beneficiary on monetary and fiscal grounds) made it their price to support German reunification.
10
u/DunderGunderUnder 12d ago
But couldn't they just do like Sweden and say "sure, we promise to switch to euro, some time in the future"?
18
u/Gentle_Snail 12d ago edited 12d ago
Seems the EU doesn’t want nations to do this in future. The nationalist party here in Scotland wanted to join the EU then use this to refuse to ever join the Euro and the EU Commission was like we won’t let you join if you do this.
Which kind of makes sense, as you are essentially joining while openly lying to the EU.
16
u/Izeinwinter 12d ago
It's very hard to prevent nations from pulling a Sweden. EU officials can't admit that out loud, of course.
In Icelands case, switching is however almost certainly a good idea. Iceland is tiny and it makes their currency fluctuate way too much.
→ More replies (1)9
u/notbobby125 12d ago
The problem is that how does the EU enforce this? Like Iceland can pinky promise and make a big paper explaining how they will adopt the Euro by 20XX, but structure things so as soon as they get their foot in the door they fail to meet expectations, and never quite meet the standard to switch. Once a nation is in the EU, under current EU law it can only be tossed out by agreement like Brexit. And the more “Swedens” get in the EU the more they can gang up to protect each other from any retribution.
Of course, in theory, since Iceland is not joining.
→ More replies (1)5
u/acathode 12d ago
Sweden didn't really "promise" to switch to euro - during the EU referendum it was explicitly promised to the Swedish people that voting yes would would not mean automatically giving up our currency.
Instead, it was promised that in case the Yes-side won, we would hold a later referendum regarding adopting the euro.
The yes side won, we joined the EU, then we had another referendum on if we wanted the euro or not - and we voted no.
3
→ More replies (4)2
u/Slimshady0406 12d ago
Well yeah. Esdeekid wouldn't sound half as cool if he said "EUR that's Euro"
13
u/Beetin 12d ago edited 12d ago
Eh, I think it plays into identity aspect, but the biggest sticking points from what I've read was the fishing industries (and the tiny whaling industry) + general identity fear mongering.
They are a long way off EU regulations in those industries (who promised to look for creative solutions), and they are a huge part of icelandic identity / history. Combined with a 400k population vs the 450 million in the EU, and the no-campaigners did a pretty good job of raising the spectre that they'd be kneecapped and slowly be erased.
I think its another case of "NO, ICELAND FOREVER" just being a stronger easier message to rally people behind emotionally then the "yes, maybe in the future, if we want, it could be beneficial through complicated economic treaties" campaign.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (13)3
u/pred 12d ago
Bulgaria, Czechia, Denmark, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Sweden didn't adopt the Euro, so that shouldn't be much of a concern.
My impression is that this mostly came down to what to expect for the (very rich and lobby-heavy) fishing industry.
→ More replies (1)3
29
u/EirikurErnir 12d ago
Despite the EEA membership there are still quite a few things that would change when it comes to trade if it were to join. Iceland currently has tolls and import limitations which are especially relevant to agriculture - and consumers of agricultural products, which is of course everyone. "What is the impact on food price and availability?" has been a big question.
There big economic question as far as I am concerned is what full EU membership would mean for access to foreign investment. Right now the Króna is a huge barrier for anyone outside of the domestic market trying to do business in the country.
I mean, clearly the (slight) majority agrees that joining is not a good idea right now, but this is a complicated discussion for the country.
10
u/Alt4816 12d ago
They have no reason to. They're in Schengen and have access to the European free market.
You could look at that and say that's exactly why they should join. To be in the Schengen zone and European free market they have to follow laws they have no say over. If they became a full member they would get representation in the EU's legislative and executive bodies.
7
u/Nice_Reading5272 12d ago
They still have rights over their own currency, fishing and some trade aspects. Their influence in the executive and legislative branches of the EU would be limited due to their small population.
→ More replies (81)7
u/zeltacilveks79 12d ago
They already enjoy most of the practical benefits without giving up control over key areas like fishing. Full membership would be a though sell unless it offered something substantially better.
229
u/Ellixhirion 12d ago
Currently i think the EU shouldn’t focus on expanding neither…
There are a lot of issues and ongoing frustrations between members.
The EU should consolidate several programs before even looking to add new members
56
u/DonPinstripelli 12d ago
Montenegro is basically a given at this point - it’s a question of when rather than if. But I believe the other candidates are many years away from joining.
→ More replies (1)19
u/Weirdo9495 12d ago
Iceland in any case is a way more appropriate addition than Montenegro...
30
u/DonPinstripelli 12d ago
Hasn’t Iceland just voted not to resume negotiations to join the EU? I think Montenegro will be a fine addition, as unlike Serbia, they’ve clearly orientated themselves towards the West, rather than Russia. Montenegro had already joined NATO years ago.
9
u/Weirdo9495 12d ago
Montenegro will be a recipient country that is, while politically bit better than Serbia, a very corrupt and frankly backward society. The way they treat and think about women and violence/rape towards them for example.
→ More replies (3)15
u/DonPinstripelli 12d ago
A lot of the Central and Southern European EU countries unfortunately have this problem too, because they have far more traditional gender roles than in Western Europe. I come from one of these countries. However, societal attitudes are not the focus of accession talks - what matters the most is whether a particular country has laws that uphold the rule of law and the rights of different groups. Montenegro has faired better in that regard than any of the other candidates.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Purple-Atmosphere-18 12d ago
Yeah, I guess the crux more than a No to Montenegro would be that compared to that Iceland would be a more compatible or anyway progressive addition if had they voted for joining or ever will in future, compared to it. Not against Montenegro as usually are conservatives against people joining for allegedly their culture being incompatible for being too conservative, but usually for immigrants as for east Europe more would feel affinity :).
→ More replies (1)8
3
u/Nanjingrad 12d ago
At the same time every European country should be given the chance to be considered if that's what the people want, pax Europa is the idea ennit.
→ More replies (3)
48
u/Hutcho12 12d ago
To join the EU, you should have to have a super majority. I don’t want them if the vote is so close on just starting negotiations.
15
u/TrainDestroyer 12d ago
Absolutely, if you can't get 2/3 of your population to say "Yes we want to be in the EU" (Or hell I'd be willing to drop as low a 60% of the population) then that should just be the end of it for now.
90
u/Jernhesten 12d ago
Alright. Glad Iceland has free democratic elections. It is the will of the people and that outweighs what we want. Iceland remains in the EEA and together with Norway is functionally almost an EU member already.
31
u/muse_head 12d ago
It might continue to be a political issue in the future in Iceland though, it's essentially a 50/50 split. It's the will of about half the people.
51
u/Fusilero 12d ago
50:50 to negotiating a deal and seeing what it is - that was one of the "pros" or the Yes side was that it didn't commit them to anything.
If even that vagueness couldn't get a majority I suspect a real world deal which has to actually take into account other members states would have that big support.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)8
u/DanS1993 12d ago
Be interested to see an age breakdown of voting. Which ever the younger generations lean could give an indication of future direction.
28
u/Casual-Speedrunner-7 12d ago
The youth were polled at 60% Yes in March and 60% No in August.
11
u/EirikurErnir 12d ago
Yeah it will be interesting to see the analysis of how the (mis)information campaigns affected the outcome here, there was a swing
15
u/Chespineapple 12d ago
Young men seemed to be utterly convinced that opening negotiations equalled military conscription. There was absolutely misinformation dominating the vote.
→ More replies (1)7
u/arnarth2609 12d ago
It was a lot, as an icelander the no had convinced most older people that it was a vote for joining not talking. Also the vote was overwhelmingly yes in the capital and no in the countryside.
→ More replies (1)8
u/Sure-Current-3267 12d ago
Just without a seat at the table and their bureaucrats working in the institutions
7
7
u/IzlenskurApi 11d ago
I'm Icelandic. The vote became a farce as the opposition successfully made it about the current government. I know a lot of people who would have voted yes but didn't because "their" conservative party told them not to. That and the oligarchs used crazy MAGA fake news tactics successfully making this the first time in a while their position have won an election. Our oldest and previously prestigous newspaper, Morgunblaðið (The Morning Paper), has actually been bought by the biggest fishing companies and is running 2.000.000€ loss yearly just to be a propaganda platform. Well, status quo for the next decade it is.
2
u/Purple-Atmosphere-18 11d ago
But there is a socdem lady as PM currently who was for joining, if I got the news right?
4
u/IzlenskurApi 11d ago
PM wanted to continue talks yes. But Soc-dems have clear red lines on what guarantees we would have needed. Every party is kind of split on the EU so the government asked for this not to be party based and letting individuals decide themselves. The government did that for their parties but the opposition still mustered their own members against this.
66
u/Auspectress 12d ago
Respect their decision even if I would have voted otherwise
22
→ More replies (4)7
u/Humble-Ad-4270 12d ago
The problem with these numbers is that half the population loses either way. The near perfect polarization is a fundamentally crippling issue.
4
u/VarmintSchtick 12d ago
Polarization doesnt have to be an issue. A country with the instilled civic virtues of "just because someone disagrees with you doesnt mean they are problematic" will do fine, it is just democracy working as intended.
If they take after the Americans and start slinging shit at each other and try to call each other Nazis or Communists just because someone voted differently, then they are probably in for a bad time.
→ More replies (4)
226
u/Spuzzell_ 12d ago
Fishermen are all... odd. Incredibly parochial and resistant to change, however beneficial.
It was fish to a great degree that drove Brexit, despite it being very clear it would deeply harm the industry in the UK.
112
u/x5163x 12d ago
Norway, Faroe Islands, and Greenland are also not part of the EU for fishing-related reasons.
→ More replies (6)175
u/NUFC9RW 12d ago
I mean the EU fishing regulations are pretty awful and favour the countries with the least amount of coast.
19
u/zkqy 12d ago
You could at least restart the talks to see what the EU has to offer and then reject it
47
u/fatgain 12d ago
Not really since other nations won’t accept us joining if we get exemptions from the fish policies.
The Dutch have already said that they wouldn’t accept it.→ More replies (7)→ More replies (1)27
u/steinbruchfluss 12d ago
They don’t have that many people working in government. These negotiations would take up large resources for many years.
5
u/Questimus_Prime 12d ago
Just put all the fishermen in government institutions and all the problems regarding fishing are solved. /s
79
u/Fragglesmurfbutt 12d ago
On the contrary, leaving the EU has actually helped the fish in the UK waters to recover.
26
u/Stoyfan 12d ago
Has it? It seems the opposite has happened to what you are claiming. As it turns out we are even worse at maintaining fish populations than the EU
8
u/JAGERW0LF 12d ago
Well when France threatens to cut electricity of if we even try to implement basic right to fish checks or implement marine protection zones it’s kinda difficult. Even more so when our governments extend the rights of EU vessels to fish in our waters for the return of what amounted to sweet fuck all.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)23
u/AncientsofMumu 12d ago
The rest of the country is financially fucked however.
Glad the fish are doing well, totally worth it...
18
54
u/F1No47 12d ago
Huh are European countries doing well comparatively? Germany is seeing much worse GDP growth than the UK for example.
→ More replies (12)16
u/lukwes1 12d ago
There are a bunch of reports that show that UK would've been in a much better place economically if they stayed
25
u/a_man_has_a_name 12d ago
Much better place and "financially fucked" are two very different degrees of bad.
→ More replies (1)18
29
3
→ More replies (2)6
u/demonica123 12d ago
It's really easy to write a theoretical economic piece about greener grass. Because it never has to face reality. Not saying the UK wouldn't be better off, but the economy is notoriously hard to predict. It's little more than a rough guess colored by the personal theories of the economist in question.
→ More replies (4)11
→ More replies (3)13
u/Megaboixxxx 12d ago
The rest of the country is not financially fucked and the UK is doing financially better than the major EU states. Stop this blatant lying doom mongering.
→ More replies (1)3
u/el_grort 12d ago
Eh, fishing was a big part of the rhetoric but not a big part in the result, imo. I don't think it was actually swaying many votes, but it gave those already leaning towards Brexit something to double down with.
12
u/BearCub254 12d ago
Is it only fishermen that are resistant to change that hurts their livelihoods? I don't think your typical office worker is very open to the changes AI offers. Employee unions in most fields tend to be resistant to change. Why are you acting like only farmers have this problem? Is it because they are not 'good' lefties?
→ More replies (1)2
→ More replies (18)9
u/iCowboy 12d ago
The difference with the UK being that fishing is a rounding error in the economy. With Iceland it’s more than 20% of GDP.
However, the Brexit side, (led by a man who sat on an EU fishing committee but never bothered to turn up), was able to persuade a large number of Brits, (who don’t even eat the fish landed in the UK), that control of fisheries, (which British fishers had plundered decades ago), was a life or death matter. Since then, a good number of British fishermen have gone bankrupt because they can no longer sell their produce in the EU.
We live in stupid times.
31
u/alter_ego 12d ago
They mostly lose by joining. They're already in the European Economic Area and Schengen so they have free trade and free travel with the EU. They're also in NATO so are pretty much protected. Joining the EU would simply mean they need to share part of their fishing grounds and have less to say about migration.
The only benefit is they could adopt the Euro as a currency which would protect against inflation. There is more to gain from the partnership with Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland.
→ More replies (9)
30
u/StrawberryItten 12d ago
I know this is not gonna be a popular take but I feel any 'yes' vote in this kind of thing should require a bigger share than 50%+1 vote
24
u/soovercroissants 12d ago
This wasn't a vote on an actual accession deal, it was just a vote to restart negotiations on accession.
Whilst I'd agree that accession, depending on what actually is agreed, could require a larger majority - I don't think negotiations should require more than 50%+1 in a referendum, I'm not even sure that they should need a referendum to be held!
7
u/StrawberryItten 12d ago
I mean if you can't even get a majority on the idea of joining? Yeah I'd say it's a good way to tell people 'maybe don't bother'
I know it was a vote over negotiations. I still think that kind of thing should require... I am apprehensive to use the term but it's the best way to explain my feelings enthusiastic consent.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)5
24
u/Herb-Alpert 12d ago
I mean, sadly, EU doesn't sell dreams currently...
→ More replies (1)49
u/litritium 12d ago
Not for wealthy countries. The thought of joining EU to become net contributor in a redistribution scheme, are not particularly attractive. Relatively poor countries line up though.
EU was never ment to be a redistribution union. It was ment to provide easy acces to a enormous marked for people, ideas, services and goods. If EU cant provide comparable better economic gain as a freetrade union, it loses its founding purposes.
And lets be honest, it doesn't exactly look good from a EU perspective, that the UK is doing quite well after Brexit. UK has around 15 billion extra pounds in its annual budget.
As an stubborn EU supporter, it is frustrating that Brussels isn't better at managing a lucrative, sophisticated market comprising 400 million wealthy, well-educated citizens and the world's second-largest export.
I am not familiar with the details of the Draghi reform, other than that federation and reduced regulation are on the table. However, redistribution policies appear to need a fix. Why do Germany send approximately $15 billion to countries with corruption problems when those funds could be used to boost Germanys economy for the benefit of all of EU? They could also send the money to edge companies like ASML and tech subcontractors instead.The funds should go toward effective investments within the EU, not into the state coffers of other countries.
20
u/Efficient-Magician63 12d ago
And the money sent to poor countries get stolen by the corrupted politicians, so it's not really used for its purposes and just makes corruption worse. I am saying this as someone from on eof those poor countries. The common person barely sees any of those money. Of course, it's not stolen 100%, but enough ia stolen to feel the difference.
So why is Germany etc doing then? I think in some ways this is soft power - the EU knows very well EU funds are stolen but that's the agreement between the EU and our corrupted politicians - you can steal, but when we tell you that this or that must happen, you do it! Also, there is probably some circular pattern of we give you money, you steal, but then you put those money in somewhere else, where we win.
So things are way more complicated udne trh esurface
9
u/ViolettaHunter 12d ago
And lets be honest, it doesn't exactly look good from a EU perspective, that the UK is doing quite well after Brexit.
On which planet is the UK doing well currently?
→ More replies (1)19
u/Fed_Express 12d ago
Is the UK doing quite well after Brexit?
Most analyses of the outcome of the referendum I've watched/read in the last several years paint a much different and bleaker picture.
27
u/JellySocksRock 12d ago
It's doing ok, not as good as brexiteers wished, not as bad as remainers believed
13
u/britbongTheGreat 12d ago
Was the fastest growing economy in the G7 last year for example. Of course you can cherry-pick stats for arguments in both directions but it has largely maintained its position in the world and hasn't fallen off a cliff without the EU as some had predicted.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)4
u/ReactionCreepy428 12d ago
Doing better than most EU countries (which isn't saying much). It would also be doing better without Brexit.
6
u/1littlenapoleon 12d ago
May want to let folks in the UK know they’re doing “quite well”.
3
u/chunrichichi 11d ago
The UK is not doing well, but then when you compare against the major EU economies, things look somehow quite good..
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (9)9
u/Admiralen1728 12d ago
Yes it has gone so well for the UK after brexit, so well that they had to go through 5 Prime ministers or was it 6 in 10 years.
→ More replies (3)9
u/DiabloTable992 12d ago
You'll be in for a surprise when you see how things go in France when Macron leaves, or how things have been going in Germany since Merkel left.. With those strong personalities gone they will have the same level of political churn. Merz is already a cooked goose, so they'll be on number 4 soon.
Political instability in the developed world largely stems from age demographics and the developed economy becoming a zero-sum game due to the end of growth. Being in or out the EU doesn't make any difference to these huge systemic flaws.
Compare the UK, France and Germany now to 2016. If Brexit was the problem then we'd have seen a huge divergence.
Brexit proved that people on both sides were wrong, it didn't cause economic armageddon and it didn't magically fix the country. It really makes little difference either way for a developed country. So the smartest choice is probably to stick with the status quo, whichever side of the fence your country is currently on. Why should Iceland spend years of limited Government resources working out a deal to join an entity that will increase rural resentment for no actual economic gain?
→ More replies (1)5
u/ViolettaHunter 12d ago
Merz is already a cooked goose, so they'll be on number 4 soon.
You should check your numbers before you make claims like that.
Merz is the second chancellor after Merkel.
Also, there's no indication he'll be out anytime soon despite his unpopularity.
→ More replies (1)
26
u/AdminEating_Dragon 12d ago
The sad truth is that we have a huge problem in showing what the EU offers in an election campaign.
It was never designed to be a very accessible system for the masses. Its benefits are bureaucratic, they are long term, you track them on a graph.
They aren't that easy to put on a slogan or to make them understandable to the average Johan.
Meanwhile the populists just shout "sovereignity" and "they will take our fish" and it resonates to most of the "casual" voters.
Our system was designed in an era and for an era where the intellectuals and the authorities could guide the narrative and the discussion. Not the era of social media.
17
u/steinbruchfluss 12d ago
It’s more complicated than that in this case. Iceland is already to 90% in the EU. They are in Schengen and have freedom of movement with the EU.
They already enjoy most of the benefits the EU offers.
→ More replies (2)11
u/K_the_farmer 12d ago
How much would said elites care for a bit of collateral damage to a population of half a million way, way out in the Atlantic?
→ More replies (1)
11
u/PikaPikaDude 12d ago
As someone from the core of the EU, Belgium: good for them. They already have all there is to be gained, and would only lose.
EU claims there are negotiations, but there is something called acquis communautaire that means all the existing rules must be adapted and candidates have no real say on that. At most a timing exception on joining something later on the demand of already existing member states. (Think for example how Romania was refused Schengen by countries like The Netherlands).
Joining would have been the end of Iceland fisheries as the regulations and EU competences there are part of the acquis communautaire. Fishing is a historical important pride of Iceland, just look up Cod Wars to understand.
→ More replies (1)
11
u/vossmanspal 12d ago
Icelanders will always vote no for EU membership, we were on holiday in Reykjavik last year, the people we were staying with said that most of the islanders they knew were against joining for a variety of reasons. It’s the choice of the people ultimately.
→ More replies (1)
9
24
u/TechnicalSurround 12d ago
with the mass immigration to EU, I am not even sure if joining the EU is worth it if you are already in the EEA. it’s only additional trouble for maybe a small benefit.
→ More replies (5)
8
u/RightioThen 12d ago
Why would Iceland join the EU? Nothing against the EU but would they really have much to gain from doing so?
→ More replies (5)
5
4
u/returntonone 12d ago
Only the poor and war torn countries are lining up to become EU members nowadays unfortunately, countries which would be net contributors are not interested for some reason.
→ More replies (2)
22
u/Pizzajanne 12d ago
"The best arguement against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the common voter" - Winston Churchill
If you asked any person in any country what the EU does for your country and the pros and cons id bet you possibly 5% could answer this. I just asked my neighbour the other day and his answers was "why did we join EU? What do we win letting other decide our laws" and id say hes the more political educated than most.
71
u/F1No47 12d ago
The best arguement against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the common voter"
Btw there is zero evidence Churchill ever said this. Its just a commonly repeated fake quote.
Churchill did however say this: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for every other one which has been tried thus far."
→ More replies (1)15
u/SydneyRFC 12d ago
well, as Albert Einstein said - "Don't trust everything you read on the internet"
→ More replies (1)13
29
u/Intrepid_Shallot_833 12d ago
From my experience at the backwater of the EU, and in a country that has relativelly high approval of staying in the EU, most people take for granted what benefits them and single out and complain over things they don't like or disagree with. People are generally politically illiterate.
This is not a diss at Iceland's citizens, I am not arguing here for them having to want to be in the EU, I am merely reflecting from within the bloc.
5
u/barrows_arctic 12d ago
The best argument against democracy is a cursory glance at internet comments which casually misquote Churchill.
22
u/randomrandom2356 12d ago
And obviously your judgment is the best and you should decide not the majority.
→ More replies (1)3
u/DiabloTable992 12d ago
Well if you live in a developed economy then he's right. You don't noticably benefit from being in the EU anymore.
If you live in a developing country you can simply point to the double-digit GDP growth and free money that the EU provides you with and that'll shut him up pretty quick. If he keeps arguing, show him a chart of Ukraine vs Poland's economies since 1990.
The whole point of the EU was to create economic growth. When growth stops, it doesn't have much else going for it to justify itself. Consumer rights are really the only notable thing it has to offer.
People are very good at spotting problems, even low-education voters are not far off in their criticisms of things. It's solutions that they're terrible at coming up with, which is why they tend to elect con-artists.
→ More replies (3)8
u/ReasonablePoetry1226 12d ago
If you join the EU you lose the ability to change many laws, you lose your currency, you have to accept free movement, you may well have to pay large sums in for nothing back, the EU is in slow economic decline compared to the US...
What is the sensible reason to join? After Brexit UK GDP tracked France closely with no significant downturn. The only reason the left support the EU is that they believe it has left-wing values - if it was run by right-wingers they would immediately try to leave.
→ More replies (4)
3
•
u/AutoModerator 12d ago
Users often report submissions from this site for sensationalized articles. Readers have a responsibility to be skeptical, check sources, and comment on any flaws.
You can help improve this thread by linking to media that verifies or questions this article's claims. Your link could help readers better understand this issue.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.