> <i>The No campaign fears losing control over Iceland's prized fishing grounds under the EU's Common Fisheries Policy and has vowed never to share the country's waters with anyone. Brussels has indicated Iceland could earn some kind of exemption, but it is considered potentially the biggest obstacle to any agreement.</i><p>As noted in the article, Iceland's fishing industry makes up something like 40% of their exports. Which is the only way a tiny island nation can afford essential <i>imports.</i> On top of that, Icelandic fishing is apparently carefully regulated to prevent overfishing, with the result that it is supposedly one of the few truly profitable fisheries in the world.<p>So maintaining control over their own fisheries may be a survival-level issue for Iceland.<p>On the other hand, they have a tiny population, no ability to defend themselves, and membership in the fraying NATO military alliance. So I can see why they're debating this issue. Aligning themselves more tightly with Europe doesn't <i>fix</i> their problems, but I can also see not wanting to go it alone.
One of the factors leading them to reconsider EU membership is monetary policy. The Icelandic króna is a very small currency that fluctuates considerably. Switching to the euro would protect them from exchange rate risks with their main trading partner.<p>One solution for Iceland would be to join the eurozone without becoming a member of the EU, as Kosovo and Montenegro have done. However, this would only be desirable if there really is a deadlock over fishing rights.
I love this diagram: <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1tda6wl/european_integration_updated_2026_a_eular_diagram/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1tda6wl/european_in...</a><p>There are so many treaties besides EU.
They don't need to join the EU to use the euro. There are countries that use the U.S. dollar even though they're not the U.S. Sometimes it's just de facto use the dollar. There is technically a local currency and people use it when forced to but they would prefer the dollar. If you're a small country, something like the dollar or the euro is probably your best bet because of the stability it affords. The advantage to joining the EU is Iceland gets a little bit of input on how the euro was run versus if you use the dollar of the euro when you're not a member of their respective country you are partially tying your financial stability to something that you have no input or control over.
This means giving up all the advantages of central banking and is generally only done informally by countries experiencing hyperinflation without capital controls. It's a marker of a failed state.<p>I remember in live TV debates for the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, the Yes leader insisted that Scotland could not be prevented from using the Pound sterling. It's technically true, but a very, very bad idea.
If the króna fluctuates so much, wouldn't that also indicate that demand for the króna just fluctuates a lot? Presumably, in absence of major conflicts between Iceland and its trading partners, as a result of economic imbalances. Those won't go away if Iceland were to join the eurozone, either as a EU member or via the Kosovo/Montenegro route. It might deprive the Icelandic central bank of a valuable tool to stabilize their economy, by weakening or strengthening their currency as economic circumstances demand. This was a big problem for the southern EU economies back in credit crisis times.<p>Now there are of course many other considerations that might offset this downside to joining the eurozone. I would personally welcome our Icelandic friends joining the EU (if they chose to), but it's good for them to have a public debate about both the up- <i>and</i> downsides first.
> If the króna fluctuates so much, wouldn't that also indicate that demand for the króna just fluctuates a lot?<p>Yes, <i>relative to the size of Iceland's economy</i>. Average daily ISK turnover on the interbank market is only 4 or 5 million EUR [1]. A single commercial transaction, like the purchase of a new trawler from abroad, can easily be worth 2-3x that amount and cause the exchange rate to spike due to the lack of liquidity.<p>[1] <a href="https://cb.is/news-and-publications/article/interbank-market-for-foreign-exchange-in-april-2026" rel="nofollow">https://cb.is/news-and-publications/article/interbank-market...</a>
> Presumably, in absence of major conflicts between Iceland and its trading partners, as a result of economic imbalances. Those won't go away if Iceland were to join the eurozone, either as a EU member or via the Kosovo/Montenegro route.<p>Part of it would. There is a cost to maintaining your own currency that can drag down the economy.<p>Counterfeiting is an obvious one, getting software and markets to support is another one, but what parent above you is likely arguing against currency speculators/manipulators.<p>You need to defend it to keep it relatively stable so it stays as a store of value or your companies will just use dollars or euro anyway. If your currency is so small a firm in New York can force your currency to change by 50% in a night, regardless of the fundamentals of the businesses who use the króna, you have a problem. Using the Euro also means businesses do not have to pay conversion costs or deal with additional accounting issues for tracking the fluctuations in the currency.
Iceland had a debt crisis from 2008-2011. Part of the issue is the currency is small relative to global markets, so investments/speculation/shocks from elsewhere have an outsize impact.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932011_Icelandic_financial_crisis" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932011_Icelandic_fi...</a>
A small boat will jump up and down in relatively small waves, while it takes a huge storm to destabilize Oasis of the Seas.<p>And the króna is a very small boat.
Joining the Euro is not the panacea that everyone thinks it is.<p>It comes with some major drawbacks:
- no control of interest rates since these apply to everyone in the Eurozone regardless of the current economic situation of a particular country.
- no more devaluation to get back some competitiveness on international markets
- strict financial guidelines in theory (3% deficit max per year and 60% of GDP/debt ratio)<p>Finally, the biggest problem as it's been highlighted by many economists is that it spreads the risk to the whole Eurozone which sounds great in theory until you find yourself drowning in debt like Greece was in the 2010s or like France is nowadays.<p>Because now your government is borrowing in Euros, the markets move very slowly and the full impact of the finances of any Euro government is completely subdued since in the pool of countries that use the Euro there is Germany which is very good and very trustworthy creditor.<p>Take a look a what happened with Liz Truss in the UK, she made some rather stupid announcements and the markets reacted as they should and that lead to her removal and to a change of plans.<p>In France by contrast, no such changes have happened despite the fact that the French economy has been going downhill for awhile due to their 5%++ yearly deficits and their 120% debt ratio.<p>If France still had the Franc, then the markets would have forced the politicians in charge to either course correct and/or eventually to pass on multiple painful but necessary reforms.<p>Instead what we have is complete political paralysis and many presidential candidates are openly calling for a roll back of more pension reforms, lowering the retirement age to 60, increasing the pay of all the civil servants by 20% and more complete out of control spending.<p>The supposed EU fiscal rules have never been enforced anyway which means that countries don't really have any incentives to curb their spending since the ECB is always backing them.
As I understand it, Kosovo and Montenegro adopted the Euro unilaterally, without agreement from the EU. I don't think that'd be (politically) possible for Iceland (?). So the EU would need to agree to this, which also doesn't seem politically possible (?)
There are a whole host of microstates and more or less autonomous overseas territories that use the euro. If Mayotte can use the euro even though the island is on the brink of collapse, I don’t see why that would be a problem for Iceland.<p>I don’t think this is a problem for the EU – quite the opposite, in fact. It strengthens the euro’s position in international trade, increases the number of users and boosts the volume of trade. More customers for the EU’s financial services sector.<p>There are a number of countries that unofficially use the US dollar as their currency for major transactions without asking anyone’s permission (Cambodia come to mind).
> If Mayotte can use the euro even though the island is on the brink of collapse<p>Isn't Mayotte part of France and been for quite some time? I'd guess they switched to the Euro together with France and all the other French territories, but maybe I'm wrong?
Yes, Mayotte is very much part of France.<p>Monaco, Vatican and San Marino are however sovereign micro-states that switched to the euros because they already had a monetary agreement with France or Italy.
There’s also Ecuador who officially uses the USD as their currency.
Well, it doesn't require EU's approval by definition. Because it means just unilaterally handing out EU a lot of cash.
Not sure for a small country like Iceland if it make sense to use Euro over having control over their currency. Things could get super expensive overnight and it would work when things are smooth, but in current political climate you never know when the next financial crisis going to happen and don’t think they want Brussels to dictate their monetary policy
During the 2010 debt crisis there was much talk of profligate Greece being "thrown out" of the euro zone. In this dark scenario Greek civil servants would get their pay rises in worthless drachma, but Greek homeowners would be left with unpayable euro mortgages. But nobody ever talked about the Montenegro option (similar to Ecuador and USD). I never understood this. What was stopping Greece from defaulting and keeping the euro anyway?
The Greek state didnʼt just need to get rid of the huge amount of old debts (what a default would have been good for) and was not interested in the currency in itself (keeping the euro outside the euro zone) but needed a lot of more money: new loans and the further payments for being <i>in</i> the euro zone.<p>This money was needed for public expenditure and to keep the Greek banking system running.<p>The biggest creditor banks of the Greek state were, in fact, Greek (ca. 50–60 bn. Euro).<p>The biggest foreign creditor banks were <i>French</i> (ca. 42 bn. Euro).<p>Accordingly, France was for more financial support (for Greece) to be payed by all EU member states.<p>The German <i>banks</i> were only a distant third (ca. 25 bn. Euro). But the German <i>state</i> was the biggest donor among the EU member states.<p>That is why Germany and some other net contributors e.g. the Netherlands were not too keen on keeping Greece in the EU zone at all costs. For them, the solution you named (“defaulting and keeping the euro”) would have been the rather advantageous, but not for Greek nor for other powerful member states. Nor for the Greek oligarchs – remember, Greek is a country of only about 10 million people who were not that well off – in whose hands may have ended most of the 360 bn Euros of the old debt? They liked the toxic fairy tales Varoufakis was telling (married to a member of the Stratos family).
Look into who they were the debtor to. Turns out that a lot of German banks would have needed to scrap debt from their books.
So a Greek default would have created an EU political crisis. Greece would have been in the doghouse. Perhaps the other members would have suspended its structural funds, or even voting rights. Seems impossible it would have been thrown out of the EU, there's not even an obvious way to do that. All very unpleasant, but then there was clearly an upside for Greece. It just seems interesting that the scenario was never really entertained or gamed out in the media.
> profligate Greece being "thrown out" of the euro zone. In this dark scenario Greek civil servants would get their pay rises in worthless drachma, but Greek homeowners would be left with unpayable euro mortgages<p>That was indeed the "mainstream media" (I so hate that expression but it does apply) opinion. The reality is more prosaic: German (and French, but mostly German) banks would be screwed if those debts were defaulted upon.<p>Look at the GDP per capita of Greece since 2010. Looks like staying in the Eurozone didn't do them much good either...
comapre with the trajectory of the GDP per capita of argentina. i think staying in the eurozone did help them
It's supposed to go up, huh? It's back where it started, so there's that...<p><a href="https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=GR&start=2010" rel="nofollow">https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?location...</a>
Can they become part of the eurozone without joining the european union?
Yes their currency suffered a lot in 2008, they would have been protected if they were using the Euro at the time
You can just voluntarily adopt euro. Montenegro isn’t officially in the eurozone. They just unilaterally adopted it.
But then what currency would they use in eve online? How could we replace all of the iskies memes
> One solution for Iceland would be to join the eurozone without becoming a member of the EU, as Kosovo and Montenegro have done.<p>This only makes sense if the primary concern is native (Icelandic) politicians being unable to responsibly manage their currency. Otherwise, there's no advantage over just maintaining a stable exchange rate with the euro.
> <i>"Iceland's fishing industry makes up something like 40% of their export."</i><p>That number includes everything involving the fishing industry, such as equipment manufacturing. The size of the actual fishing and value-addative processing is often reported to be closer to 12-15% as a share of GDP.<p>I say this as an Icelander who voted yes in this vote, but would vote no next time if any deal would lead to us loosing control of our fisheries or having worse management policies pushed on us.<p><i>edit: spelling</i>
Thank you for the clarifications!<p>Someone from Iceland tried to explain this all to me once, and if I understood correctly, it had less to do with the GDP (which also includes money circulating within Iceland) and more to do with the balance of trade, where fishing played a bigger role? But my information may have been misunderstood, or it may be out of date.<p>In any case, you have a stunningly gorgeous country and very nice people, and I wish you the best of luck in figuring all this out in a way that benefits Iceland.
Yeah, and the number also is not of all exports, but of <i>goods</i> exports (as opposed to total, which includes both goods and services).<p>In 2024, fishing/marine products was ~18% of total exports, which is still a massive deal, but only half as massive. (I believe tourism, the largest "export", is close to 40% of total exports.)
If you join the EU you will lose control of your fisheries and have worse management policies pushed on you. Fantasy to think it will be any other way.
Icelandic ex-fisherman here:<p>Iceland‘s fisheries are controlled by what we call quota-kings. They are extremely rich owners of fishing quota (similar to USA’s oil barons) who are increasingly anti-social and obviously very unpopular among Iceland’s general public.<p>Iceland’s fishing system is kind of feudal in nature. People are allowed buy and trade and even rent fishing quotas. This means that the quota has accumulated into fewer and fewer hands of extremely rich individuals. The quota is then trickled down to fishing companies, and finally to fisherman, who have to spend a lot of money to rent the quota before they are allowed to fish.<p>This is a terrible system, and obviously the EU loves it (it even tried to copy it to solve the climate-crisis; and failed obviously). It fits smack into EUs neo-liberal trajectory. I don‘t think it is a fantasy at all the EU would adopt Iceland’s management policy at all. Nor do I think Iceland’s workers (including fishermen) have anything to worry about inside the EU. Trading ownership from our own feudal overlords to European bureaucrats would be a net positive in my books, however unlikely I find it.<p>That said I think it is unlikely Iceland will join anyway. Even if ‘yes’ wins. Iceland’s politicians have a history of ignoring the results of a national referendum if they don‘t like the results. They did this back in 2012 when the nation voted in favor of a new constitution (which relevantly would have actually transferred ownership of the fisheries to the Icelandic nation). A new government came to power and simply decided to ignore the results because their loved quota-kings would have lost power. I think something similar is likely to happen again.
Those not familiar with it might find the history of the Cod Wars interesting (and very relevant to this discussion): <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars</a><p>(literally, Iceland having several decades of slightly-military-involved conflict with the UK about fishing near Iceland. Iceland won.)
Why do you say NATO is fraying? Because of Russia, NATO has increased its membership, increased military budgets, and increased European military cooperation. It probably has never been stronger.
I think the EU should make an exception, which also could draw Norway closer.
They export good music too (Bjork and Sigur Ros)!
Including a very healthy metal scene, Martröð (50 % icelandic) and Nexion were recent favorites of mine.
And Jóhann Jóhannsson (RIP)
Gus Gus too.<p>And some of us still remember Greta & Jónsi, even out here in Australia.
Also Ólafur Arnalds. And Múm of course.
The best part: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurovision_Song_Contest:_The_Story_of_Fire_Saga" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurovision_Song_Contest:_The_S...</a><p>(Edit: This is <i>obviously</i> a joke!)
And GusGus
And games.
check out solstafir too!
Meh, too pop.
Hildur Guðnadóttir!
The thing is, perhaps they'd be more successful in exporting other things if they were part of the EU.
Not if everyone else starts fishing in them. Take a look at the Common Fisheries Policy. It effectively means everyone else in the EU can show up and fish for it themselves, potentially undermining the export revenue and (more importantly) severely disrupting all the work they've done to make it sustainable.
This was not argued well during Brexit (what was?) but it was an issue there. As much as Brexit didn’t fix anything for anyone, I do believe the EU operates far too much in the interests of fishing boats and far too little in the interest of conservation and realistic fishery management.<p>So I think Iceland is right to be wary.
Why would we (as an EU member) want Iceland to compromise on such a vital issue, though? I understand that it's simpler to have common regulations among all members, but when theirs works, why mess with it? It sounds unreasonable.
It's an existential threat not just to Icelandic economy but probably to the entire Atlantic ecosystem as a whole.
> <i>and membership in the fraying NATO military alliance</i><p>That framing is.. strange.<p>One member of NATO has lost the plot. For everyone else, it’s stronger than ever.<p>If the US tries to attack a NATO member they’re going to find out just how serious the alliance is.<p>For example, Maersk shipping line in Danish, and carries 15% of the world’s shipping containers. If the US were to invade Greenland it would be illegal for Maersk to keep doing business with them. It’s unlikely NATO members will fight the US with bullets and bombs, but I guarantee they can still seriously hurt them.
All NATO members selling all their US treasury bonds instantly would also be devastating.
Despite what you might see a lot in the media lately the EU is not a military alliance and has explicitly no involvement in the military. So joining the EU is irrelevant on these issues.<p>The article mentions that sovereignty is a big issue. It should be because joining the EU means giving that up so that, I think, is the really crucial issue they should be thinking long and hard about (including, indeed, with respect to fisheries).
Sovereignty is not a binary thing. And it's also not the case that not being a part of some structure makes you sovereign from it. In some cases it's the opposite - you need to conform anyway and have no input into the decision process. So as usual things are nuanced and not black and white.
As it happens sovereignty is a binary thing, at least when looked at domain by domain. Either you are sovereign or you are not, there is no half-sovereign.<p>The EU is going the federalisation way. Even now member countries relinquished sovereignty on key aspects: border control and immigration, monetary policy and currency, trade policy, and then a bunch of other things. This is hugely significant for a country.<p>This is just a referendum on talks so won't "seal their fate" but kudos to them for holding it.
EU is indeed a military alliance. They are just no integrated command structures but this is common among most military alliances across the world.<p>SAFE credits are an EU military thing.
The mutual assistance clause doesn't oblige member states to support each other with military force even in case of aggression. A member can send blankets, food rations, or even just express diplomatic solidarity. Stretching definitions enough one can call it military alliance, but it is not in any practical form.
OK, the Treaty of the EU does have a mutual defence clause but the military is specifically out of scope.<p>Considering the huge ramifications of EU membership in all areas it still does seem ridiculously onerous if you are "just" after security and NATO-like alliances.
They have been doing fine for more than a thousands years, no need for fear mongering.
Iceland doesn't even have a military at all.
They can easily implement a large no-fly zone across Europe, as demonstrated with Eyjafjallajökull in 2010.
And yet they defeated the UK navy several times :P
IIRC this was done by threatening to leave NATO, which put pressure on the USA who really didn't want to lose a perfect base location to help monitor/contain the USSR, who in turn put pressure on the UK.<p>But this is from memory; and given the sources I read may have been politicised (I'm British by birth), take with a pinch of salt.
the article:<p>>its fishing and marine industries make up almost 40% of exports.<p>you:<p>>Iceland's fishing industry makes up something like 40% of their exports<p>here we can see how a very small... re-framing (let's be charitable to op) completely changes the argument and subtly promotes a certain... viewpoint (again, let's be charitable and not call it an agenda)
I run the count at one of the constituencies. We have about 42.000 people on the electoral register and we'll probably see about 75-80% turnout, so we're going to be counting about 33.000 votes with about 30-35 people on staff, 24 of them doing the actual counting.<p>For the interest of the HN crowd, here is the technical report:<p>You'll find that the Icelandic voting system is very low tech.<p>The electoral registry for each local precinct is printed out and each voter is marked as having voted by hand. Three copies are made and three independent staffers make their own marks in their copy. These registers then come with the ballots to the count site to possibly exclude absentee ballots.<p>We use a paper ballot, marked using a pencil. Votes are counted by hand using a system of double counting and verification. Numbers are checked and cross checked throughout the process.<p>The count is added and checked in an Excel sheet and then reported by telephone or sometimes live broadcast to the media. Official reporting is usually via custom reports in Excel to the national electoral commission.
Low tech enables multiple interested parties to physically oversee the electoral process. That is a good thing.
The reason low tech works for something as important as voting is because it's expensive and inefficient. That expense and inefficiency is what protects it from fraud. You would need enormous sums of money to overturn an election like this even for a place as small as Iceland and even then, such amount of money wouldn't guarantee the result of future referendums.
I agree. It is very transparent.
We should never allow digital voting ever. Machines should only be allowed to help count with the ability to hand count the paper. There are so many exploits and leverage for software/hardware in any system (even closed ones) that has to be updated every year. It becomes very very hard to create a million "passable" paper votes out of thin air. It is trivial to do with a digital system.
Not much different from the UK to be honest. The constituency and first past the post system means counting is a nicely decoupled distributed system.<p>Each constituency declares the local winner and the only outside impact is the total count of MPs for each party.<p>I would prefer something more complex that does give some of the smaller parties some MPs but no one seems particularly keen to change things.
We count votes in Czechia in very similar way and IMHO this beats any digital system by a mile. You don't have be an IT person to verify the count and trust the process, and the results for the entire country of 11 million are usually known in 3-4 hours.
These debates are hard to watch. 'Loss of sovereignty' for some reason is perfectly fine for Iceland, Switzerland and Norway, but not UK or others wanting to leave.<p>'Fisheries' was a small but founding and perennial concern before and during Brexit but they were labelled 'ugly nationalists'.<p>The EU has benefits obviously but it's been failing Europe in critical ways for about 20 yeas now, and the crazy paradox is that the nationalist threat of Germany's withdrawal from the Euro itself - for really stupid 'stated' reasons, might actually be beneficial for very smart 'actual' reasons, as the strong currency favours Germany over everyone else.<p>The EU is in bad need of reform, much like FIFA or IOC or the hopelessly broken 2 party system in the US, it likely never will. Very ugly nationalists may come and tear it apart.<p>Nominally, I hope Iceland joins but it's not going to help anything very much.
> The EU has benefits obviously but it's been failing Europe in critical ways for about 20 yeas now<p>I like those benefits: The shared currency, easy travel, they killed roaming fees! Also they're the only ones seriously taking on big tech. They made Apple ditch their dumb ass lightning cable.
They did not really ditched the roaming fees. You get some free roaming with any plan, and if you go over it, you get charged.<p>Yes, it is nice for a day or two in another EU country, but pretty much that’s it.
Isn't easy travel already covered with their Schengen membership?
'roaming fees' :)<p>That's my point: that's the most marginal thing imaginable, it's borderline tabloid populism - even though yes, admittedly over a lot of issues, it' beneficial obviously.<p>The 'common market' is pretty valuable and it's what the focus should be.<p>Literally nobody is against that - it's what everyone agrees on.<p>As far as travel and roaming fees - you don't need a centralized government for any of that. This is the 'political project' substituting for what you think are benefits of what is mostly shared regulations.<p>But the 'currency' thing is the most misleading.<p>Your ability to 'not change currency while on holiday' does not come for free!<p>It comes with a massive cost, and that is nation states cannot control their own monetary policy.<p>What 'feels like' some kind of obvious amazing benefit, is possibly the most ugly structural think holding all of Europe back.<p>The theory is - you cannot have shared currency unless there is absolute political and economic integration.<p>The 'Euro' can only work if basically you have 'Europe Federal Superstate' - one country.<p>When it was introduced, the population would 'not yet' accept federal political integration, and it was assumed that the inevitable 'Euro' crisis would be just cause for deeper political integration.<p>The 'Euro crisis' arrived in early 2010's (it was inevitable) and Europe did not go to 'full federal state' (thankfully), but - it's never recovered from that mess.<p>When periphery countries joined the Euro, it was kind of assumed that risk would be shared. Nations were given lending rates far below what was appropriate.<p>That massive building in Spain in the 2000's was caused by Euro integration - was 'low rate' euphoria - money washing over the country.<p>But it was not sustainable, crashed, and left many countries in a horrible state. No 'bailouts' from German taxpayers, and no 'Eurobonds' or shared risk - and worse - no ability to devalue the currency to spur economic activity.<p>Unless there are transfers of wealth or other mechanisms (North Europe will never accept) then ... Mediterranean Europe is stuck in an economic prison due to 'half complete' currency project.<p>The evidence on the other side is strong: places Sweden and Denmark - that at least maintained their own currencies - are in much better position. Literally those that <i>avoided</i> the Euro are arguably better off.<p>It's a complicated subject obviously - but my overall point is, the 'psychology of the Euro' aka 'no exchange on holiday' and the sense of unity around common currency etc. can be very misleading. The Euro could very well be one of Europe's worst problems - again - even if it has benefits as well.<p>'The Euro' might be the best symbol of all over what is 'perceived' to be good for Europe, but what is actually bad.<p>And 'the answer' is probably not a pendulum of 'more or less integration' - but actually less integration in some areas, more integration in others.
> The 'common market' is pretty valuable and it's what the focus should be.<p>There is no such thing. Every country still has its own rules. You can’t even have the same Netflix across the EU, it is still fragmented at country level.<p>I could go on, but there is no single market.
Yeah you're probably right. I see everything through my little consumer perspective and don't really understand the macroeconomics. But if the euro is so obviously bad, why are Greece, Spain, etc not ditching it? Surely there are some macroeconomic benefits after all.
It's Hotel California - nary impossible to leave.<p>The 'good countries' that are effectively managed and where the citizens trust their own gov. more than European gov. - maybe.<p>But Europe will threaten to existentially punish those that leave.<p>Greece ... citizens would not trust their own government, and would dump national currency for flight to EU.<p>There would be a run on Greek banks to move their money to European banks.<p>In this case, the 'German straighjacket' may be preferrable.<p>And of course switching costs - it's massive, takes 5 years of planning and 10 years to implement.<p>What might work is a 'Greek Euro' - where there are some central controls and oversight but it's a national currency.<p>Very easily exchanged for other national Euros etc.
The mismatch between the existing <i>monetary</i> union and the lack of <i>fiscal</i> integration (ie, not even any imaginary authoritarian eurofederalism) indeed is the economic macro issue above everything else, and remains a major unsolved tension even after the acute years of the Eurocrisis. Basically, if you take it as described, we're in a highly suboptimal state with two radically different directions to go to try to fix it. Politically, it's a nightmare, at least in terms of having much hope for m sensible public debate and deliberation.<p>I wasn't aware of these things back then, but I've been sad to find out it's not like we weren't seriously warned about exactly this way back in the 90s when the crucial first steps were taken. Including by Paul Krugman, of all people!<p>Of course, it was the 1990s, from "Winds of Change" to Western neoliberalism as the End of History. And the elite belief in integration advancing "one crisis at a time" was well-established by then. Easy to say now, but did they really think public debt crises and bailing out national governments would create better conditions for having a mature discussion about EU-level fiscal transfers and taxation without drawing in the worst of our national stereotypes and trust issues, zero-sum thinking, and widespread beliefs about the Brussels bureaucrats completely detached from the realities of the common man, issuing directives about the correct curvature range of cucumbers while shoveling regional aid funds to smooth-talking Neapolitan gangsters to promote more sustainable EU waste management strategies, or whatever?
[flagged]
"Another problem is border fascism. Europe has open borders internally, but very closed borders externally. The external borders are being militarized and increasingly hostile towards immigrants and asylum seekers. European politicians are showing increasingly fascistic behavior towards the borders. It is bad, and inhumane, and it is braking Europe apart."<p>What planet are you living on? Border fascism? What?<p>70,000 'migrants' crossed into Cueta a short while back and the place is in turmoil now.<p>"European politicians are showing increasingly fascistic behavior towards the borders"<p>Where do people like you come from? I'm always interested in this utterly surreal take on enforcing the border of your own country, like that's now fascist. What's going on here?<p>There's not many positions that leave me utterly perplexed. I'm sincerely asking, how you hold your position on this? What have you experienced in life to end up with these opinions? What benefit is flooding Europe with literally anyone from all the backward cultured shit holes from around the world?
What I have experienced is being in an international relationship and having to have to go through the (legal) immigration process twice. First by my married spouse immigrating to Iceland, and then again by me, and Icelandic citizen moving to the USA.<p>What I have heard are people being deported from Europe, immigrants unable to move to the place they want to seek better life, asylum seekers sent back to the dangerous situations they were fleeing, or worse to third countries they have no relations with, exile being used as punishment against some criminals based on their country of origin, etc. etc.<p>Europe is increasingly becoming a surveillance hellhole, personal rights are being stripped away, privacy is being abolished under the guise of “protecting our borders”. This is border fascism, and Europe is better off without it. Immigrants, no matter how many millions, can never cause the same harm to a fellow working European as a politician who stripes away your human rights.
I find it really amusing just how different our perspectives on the EU are.<p>You accuse the EU of being neo-liberal, I accuse it of being a micromanaging bureaucratic behemoth heaping endless new regulations on everything including wrapping paper (this is our current outrage of the day), endlessly distrustful towards people who what just to take care of themselves and be left alone.<p>It is hard to believe that we are both describing the same entity. Reminds me of the fable of an elephant and three blind men.<p>Also, when it comes to borders, you probably know that if they were guarded as much as the European population wants, the situation would have been a lot stricter than it is. The EU is more left-wing in this regard than the median European voter.
[flagged]
The UK's problem with Brexit was that the sovereignty issues under discussion were mostly lies (not merely false, but knowingly false, with incompatible stories told to different voters). The UK had opt-outs for a lot, wide-ranging veto powers, and for much of the rest the UK's trade gravity reality meant it had to follow the rules regardless of if it was in or out.<p>So far as I'm concerned, if it had been about sovereignty, it's of course fine to say "we know leaving is expensive but we want out anyway". That's what money is <i>for</i>.<p>The changes due to having left also means that rejoining is likely to be as disconnected from the reality of the situation as leaving itself was: the opt-outs are unlikely to be permitted, the vetos are already being reduced for practical reasons.<p>> The EU is in bad need of reform, much like FIFA or IOC or the hopelessly broken 2 party system in the US, it likely never will. Very ugly nationalists may come and tear it apart.<p>Indeed, though it remains to be seen if those nationalists are within or without.<p>A threat from outside could be the trigger needed for reform, turning this free-trade union into something more like a nation. One on the inside could just end it.
The mood is very much for re-joining in the UK.BREXIT was supposed to be the first domino that killed the EU but it very much didn't work because the average European likes a lot of what the EU has done for them. There are critiques sure but its not a dead system.
Depends who you talk to. I have a mixed bag of UK friends, and it's about half-half.<p>One thing I think myself is that there was an ugly _hope_ that the UK would suffer as a result. A hope which, as far as I can see, wasn't realised. Living in Europe, I saw a lot on the news about how the UK had shot itself in the foot and things were going badly, but when I visit friends, not so much.
If EU wants to be superpower, we need more European integration and less of national sovereignty. Unfortunately it will never happen and we are doomed to become more and more marginalised.
When the EU was more a coalition of independent nations, it had vastly more influence and power in the world. The efforts to centralize power seem to be exactly what's causing the divisions. You have highly partisan leaders trying to dictate policy to countries that lean in very different directions. That's not going to lead to good things.<p>Stable empires have always been those that offered the greatest degrees of sovereignty to those under their rule, and I think that this should be somewhat self evident. When you try to enforce conformity across an empire, you're going to face resistance and even the mightiest of empires cannot sustain itself without a solid internal foundation.
When was that coalition of nations?<p>European countries were literally at each other throats until 1945, then we gradually built the European Union.
I am referring to the past when there was less divisive leadership. I think the good things EU offers are generally a great idea - ease of transport, trade, common markets, common currency (* - not so certain on this one, but I'm tentatively positive), and so on.<p>But when you do things like force countries to accept immigrants they may not want to accept, or demand cultural conformity on issues that are not well received, you're undermining your union. Historically religion is a great example here, as it was always the thing that divided people the most. And the Empires that thrived were those that allowed people to maintain and practice their own religion. In modern times socio-political values largely act in the same role, and also form the same divisions. The only difference is it just comes from personal ideology instead of scripture. Unfortunately we still seem largely stuck at the era of calling each other blasphemers and calling for crusades.
> When the EU was more a coalition of independent nations, it had vastly more influence and power in the world.<p>Good luck showing causality here. Single EU nations have no way of competing with EU or China until we have real single market. In theory we have single market, but in practice every country introduces regulations on top of European ones and extending to other European countries is huge pain in the ass (and costs fortune).
> but not UK or others wanting to leave.<p>I don't think there are any others wanting to leave after Brexit! Politicians like Le Pen don't campaign to leave any more.
It's become serious in German, Austria, and Czechia. The sentiment in France is not insignificant either.<p>I hear a lot about how the UK has suffered after Brexit, but none of my experiences there support it. Not the people I talk to, not my own experiences from before vs. after. I think people _want_ it to be true, which I find ugly.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Do you have an example of one of these texts that called the event in Ceuta an "invasion" but at the same time distanced itself from the American Right?
What a coincidence that someone posting anti-EU stuff would use Russian expression
“So people sending requests to my web server is fine, but when I send ten thousand requests per second to other people’s web servers suddenly they call it a DDoS! Very unfair.”
A maneauvor whereupon a foreign power allows as many people into a small enclave as already live there (literally 60k into a territory of 80k) cannot be called anything other than "invasion". When did Mexico conspire to help 60k people breach into Texas? Let me know and we can have that conversation, maybe I missed it.<p>As a side-note it was the "dangerous communist leftist" Sanchez which swiftly took control of the situation and defended what was in effect an external EU border, while Melloni et al rubbed their hands and tried to score some cheap points while doing fuck all to help. Food for thought if you ask me...
The US situation is more nuanced than you're framing it as. Even in Mexico there's largely negative sentiment against illegal immigration, as they also suffer from it with the caravans composed primarily of large numbers of young unattached males from a mish mash of places in South America pass through Mexico. They don't tend to leave happiness in their wake. The majority of Mexicans (55%) want them forcibly deported with a slightly smaller majority (51%) of supporting using the National Guard to carry out and enforce such deportations. [1]<p>Nobody knows exactly how many have come over, but there are estimated to be around 15 million illegal immigrants in the US, primarily via the southern border. For scale, the largest city in the US is NYC with about 8.5 million people. The 10th largest is Fort Worth, Texas with about 1 million. And that's after multiple waves of amnesty legalized millions more, which obviously did nothing but further incentivize more illegal immigration, exactly as in Spain.<p>[1] - <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/unauthorized-immigrants-face-public-backlash-in-mexico-survey-finds/2019/07/16/f7fc5d12-a75e-11e9-a3a6-ab670962db05_story.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/unauthoriz...</a><p>[1] - <a href="https://archive.is/KruVX" rel="nofollow">https://archive.is/KruVX</a>
there are several hundred thousand illegal crossings in Texas every year. the government might not be involved but there certainly are organizations involved in this.
The never ending creeping need for more power tends to have these results.
EU will either collapse or become a mega state that will later collapse, the problem is mostly that people view things in terms of elections, but downfall happens during much longer periods of time.
The most likely outcome is that the EU is more or less what it is now for the decades to come, and the lack of reform costs significantly in terms of progress, and that Europe misses out on leading key industrial elements and becomes less relevant to global affairs especially as a lot of so-called 'global south' countries become more successful.<p>The dynamic of Europe sending all the talent to US is probably just going to continue as it is.<p>Angela Merkel used to be my favourite politician because I thought she was so 'pragmatic' but I think in retrospect she was basically 'do nothing, kick the can down the road, don't rock the boat'.<p>In some ways, the 'second most dangerous' kind of politician because it's so alluring to even reasonable people.<p>The kinds of reforms that the EU needs ... which both re-instill a sense of national dynamism but at the same time provide even deeper integration other areas aka capital markets, defence ... almost nobody is talking about.<p>5 years into a conflict right on the borders, still can't get full sanctions, still buying Russian carbons, still can't get real access to that $100B Russian money, still totally dependent on the US, still have no proper munitions inventory, still don't have proper defence against ballistic missiles aka <i>huge</i> existential gaps in defence capabilities when the wolf is right at the door.<p>The CIA had to visit Kremlin few days ago to warn against NATO attack is basically admission that Europe, 80 years after WW2 is not fully sovereign. It was daddy DJT that <i>still</i> to this day, is the one at the table, doing the talking. Not Von Der Leyen, not anyone from Europe ... but an American.<p>The rise of 'ugly nationalism' may cause pro-EU people to rally and defend broken systems instead of reforming. There is a path through that storm that is a wining outcome however...
The EU is cooked unless they can figure out domestic industry. They currently have a US tech stack because they strangled Euro tech in the cradle, and now that things are rough with the US, they are looking to China to be their new, err, "trading partner". Anything other than realize they went way to far with "kill enterprise, embrace relaxation" mindset.<p>Trust beyond anything else, when money gets to be tight, and the lavish promised benefits of the state start to dry up, the member states will pull swords on each other faster than anyone else.
You know what, there is something about China i see people are failing to realize, but china is creating dependcy more than competency, they first makes you me and everyone depend on them, then, they will start to make rules at a point where no one will be able to object
The arguments that some put forward against the eu are as educated as the people declaring fiat money a scam back in the Bitcoin hype phase.<p>While there are reasons not to join, most commenters against it have no clue what they are talking about.
> The arguments that some put forward against the eu are as educated as the people declaring fiat money a scam back in the Bitcoin hype phase.
>
> While there are reasons not to join, most commenters against it have no clue what they are talking about.<p>Indeed! As I just learned in this comment, the EU is about to collapse and Iceland would be stupid to board an already sinking.<p>Makes me wonder where these commenters get their information about Europe/EU from, and whether these comments are a projection of either ignorant or ideologically motivated animosity towards the EU.
There are obscene amounts of money involved in financing anti-EU marketing. The European unity is a thorn in the eyes of Russia, the US and China. A (reasonably) united Europe is the fourth major player on the global scene. 27 individual states aren't influential by themselves and are much easier to be influenced.
Why do you think you're not biased towards the EU? The EU's share of the global economy has fallen from something like 30% to around 13% (PPP). Not all that long ago they even had a larger economy than the US. They've already had the third largest economy within the EU leave, approved overthrowing the results of an election that would have viably set another [strategically critical] country on its way out, and now the EU's largest economy is having an anti-EU party gradually come to be the top party in the country.<p>Here's another interesting datum. In 2004, 3 of the top 5 economies in the world were part of the EU. [1] Today? 0. [2] So you have sharp decreases in global relevance paired with significant increases in internal issues and pressures. Perhaps you think the EU will overcome this, but to me at least - that's the view that doesn't align, at least not in an 'obvious' fashion, with the data.<p>[1] - <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)&oldid=2517776" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries...</a><p>[2] - <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)</a>
I imagine every time they see a cookie banner they feel a chunk of the EU crumbling.
Currently, the EU is in a de facto war with Russia, in a trade war with the USA and China, and previous colonies don't seem to care too much for the West either.<p>The USA would like to see nothing more than an explosive end to the EU and the Russians have been trying to kill any united front against their invasion plans for longer than the EU has been around.<p>Every major world power has the money and motive to spread misinformation about the EU. They're influencing extremist European parties to repeat their talking points so they can point at a source on the "inside" as well.<p>The more people think the EU is some kind of awful oppressive regime, the more power the other world powers will gain over Europeans.
> While there are reasons not to join, most commenters against it have no clue what they are talking about.<p>Are we supposed to believe you know something about it? Would be helpful to have a different perspective from people who <i>know better</i> or claim to.
The thing is I don’t see you asking that same question to the other Americans in the comment section here making stupid claims, with clearly zero clue on how the EU actually functions.<p>So my question is: why? Why does this comment in particular deserves your attention as a “source your claims” flag, but the other one below about the eu commission being a dictatorship does not?
> The thing is I don’t see you asking that same question to the other Americans in the comment section here making stupid claims, with clearly zero clue on how the EU actually functions.<p>Well it’s just because I bumped into that comment first, really.<p>While I agree on the fact that sometimes comments aimed to the EU are overblown and inaccurate it’s also true that lazy answers like “people don’t know what they’re talking about” are not proving anything wrong
That is quite a textbook straw man argument.
[flagged]
Fiat money literally is a scam though after the gold standard was abandoned.<p><a href="https://elements.visualcapitalist.com/purchasing-power-of-the-u-s-dollar-over-time/" rel="nofollow">https://elements.visualcapitalist.com/purchasing-power-of-th...</a><p><a href="https://www.visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2016/6/1/us-inflation-1790-2015" rel="nofollow">https://www.visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2016/6/1/us-inflat...</a>
If their economy meet the requirements, which I believe they do, then I would like to see it. They can have agreements made prior to their current fisheries that are clearly a huge part of their exports and gdp. They can also negotiate when/if to move to the Euro, or they could go another direction and retain their EEC agreements. Europe Union is not really an "All or nothing" as many seem to thing. It's more a regulatory decision, when countries already align, it's usually a few extra guarantees and trade. As an Irish I understand how different it can seem especially without the Schengen, with out issues in Norther Ireland, Brexit required a lot. But Europe was the only reason we were able to avoid complete poverty. As I see it, Iceland has a far better economy that would help us too. So I'm all for it.<p>But I wont be upset at them if they decided to keep the status quo with us!
What do they gain by joining? Seems like they already have all the benefits they could want, but lose their fishing rights if they joined?<p>> A Yes vote would not be a final decision on joining the EU. It would mean backing a move towards an accession agreement. Any deal would then have to be approved by a second referendum, as well by parliament<p>Makes sense. Which is why I was baffled when the UK just up and left after a referendum, as if it were legally binding or something.
> However, there has also been concern at US President Donald Trump's expressed interest in taking over Greenland - <i>especially the fact that he has confused it with Iceland</i>.<p>It is hard to decide whether this is funnier or sadder.
> The No campaign fears losing control over Iceland's prized fishing grounds under the EU's Common Fisheries Policy and has vowed never to share the country's waters with anyone.<p>What about losing to a madman who, over the last two years, started multiple wars, invaded several countries, and repeatedly mentioned Greenland? Who's to say he will stop there and not take Iceland too? After all, it's free real estate.
It seems odd to hold a referendum on holding talks. Why not just negotiate an agreement and then hold a referendum on that agreement?
Because if the people don't want to join in the first place, why hold negotiations to begin with?
Polling would be good enough I would think here, do a poll and if you're within 10% of a majority being in favor, just do it and then let them decide on the final agreement. Be public with that stance so that the EU and the population know that the public will have the final say and we (the gov) aren't trying to railroad this<p>Maybe in a country the size of Iceland it's not as big a deal to run an election but it seems like a lot of work for what is just an advisory vote
This reminds me of a recent vote in the EU parlament where the No vote had to reach a certain value above 50% to carry the day. Even though the vote did end up with a No majority, it passed because the No vote didn't reach the required negativity!<p>Now that's true democracy.<p>If Icelanders don't want to join a democracy like that, negotiate until they do! After all, the politicians know what is best for the populace.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.techtimes.com/articles/320010/20260709/eu-parliament-passes-chat-control-default-314-meps-couldnt-block-scanning-law.htm" rel="nofollow">https://www.techtimes.com/articles/320010/20260709/eu-parlia...</a>
As long as they hold a confirmatory referendum before actually joining, it wouldn't matter. Also, if Iceland is a democracy the citizens could simply vote for someone else next time who wouldn't keep trying if that's not what they wanted
It's not a big deal given the major decision regarding even considering losing most of their national soveregnity to one of the most incompetent bureucracies the world has ever seen for hardly any upsides that they can't negotiate individually as a sovereign country.
Parliament does not really have a majority vote for continuing talks. But one of the government parties made it one of their election issues so they want to find out if there is a majority support among voters.
When people negotiate, the terms of the deal are affected by many factors. Imagine Greenland "cashes in" IOUs/goodwill to get better terms, only for the referendum to fail. Then they change their mind a couple years later, maybe because an ally threatens them with invasion - they won't get the same deal again.<p>Making requests to humans is never idempotent.
You have to apply to the EU to start negotiating
Because you’re in a different position to negotiate if you know you have the support of the population? That’s my intuition at least
I guess one does not “just negotiate an agreement” for something like this.<p>And perhaps two referendums and working incrementally is wise in general, given the mess that was Brexit.
But that is quite literally what they are going to do. They're asking the public if they should try to join the EU. If yes, they will negotiate an agreement with the EU. Once the government has agreed a path forward with the EU, they'll then have another vote and if yes they'll actually sign the agreement and join the EU, if no, it ends there and they don't join<p>This first vote isn't committing the country or population to anything
What agreement? To join the EU you must change a lot of internal structures in your own government first, a lor of regulations must be changed to align with EU versions, laws have to be changed, even basics, like drivers licences and other documents.<p>Why spend millions if not billions on all that, impose laws that are maybe bad for normal people, and then figure out that people don't actually want to join the EU?
Never forget Iceland defeating Britain in the Cod Wars<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfD3gevx48Y" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfD3gevx48Y</a>
Btw this referendum is about starting the talks, not about joining or not joining.<p>If the result is “yes” then a proposal with all terms and conditions for joining will be written down, and the Icelanders will vote again on whether to accept those terms and conditions or not.
I wonder what icelanders think of EU at this time
So I support the general idea of European integration but boy are there some problems and certain industries or political groups punch way above their weight in terms of influencing these processes. For example, agriculture is a relatively small amount of the French economy but French farmers have outsized political impact on Frech and EU policy.<p>Fisheries is another of those and we have several data points to show the EU policies have generally been corrupt and a disaster for fisheries management.<p>1. The UK. As many know, the EU didn't start at the EU. It went through several predecessor organizations post-WW2 including the Common Market, the EEC and the EC. Those really began in the 1950s and the UK at that time declined to join and thus wasn't a founding member. At that point, fisheries weren't a common resource.<p>The UK began accession talks in 1970 (along with Denmark, Ireland and Norway). Hours before that the EEC changed its rules to make fisheries have common access to member states.<p>The UK has not always been the best custodian of the fisheries. They were historically overfished. But what's also clear is that the EU has been just as bad. There's a complex system on top of all of this about allowed fishing fleet sizes (by tonnage) and catch quotas. Over the years there have been many stories about how these quotas were increased through opaque (some would say backroom or even corrupt) deals. It hasn't worked;<p>2. Norway. Fisheries have always been a real sticking point for Norway and they're not open access. Norway didn't join the EU (or the EEC at the time) but instead they carved out an intermediate organization. The EEA I think? Here's a Venn diagram [1];<p>3. The UK (again). Continued access to fisheries by EU member states was a real sticking point and a major issue in the withdrawal agreement. It was also probably a factor in the Leave vote in fishing towns in the UK affected by all this. I believe the EU negotiated 6+ years of continued access.<p>That was meant to end this year but a 12 year extension was negotiated taking that to 2038. Think about that: why does this relatively tiny industry command such importance in the EU?<p>Iceland seemingly has been a relatively good steward for their fisheries. Were they to negotiate joining the EU, I think, much like Norway, it'll become a dealbreaker for both sides. And unlike the 1970s, I don't see the EU expanding the EEA or EFTA ro accomodate Iceland. It's a different time and Iceland just doesn't have Norway's negotiating position. Plus the political climate is different. Norway was NATO's bulwark against the USSR in the Cold War.<p>If I were an Icelander, I'd oppose any common access to fisheries, even if it meant being unable to join the EU.<p>[1]: <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1qbq43v/european_integration_2026_a_comprehensive_venn/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1qbq43v/european_in...</a>
I think what’s better (wishful thinking) that Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Canada make a new union together, like “united arctic” or something, that way all get protected from US lunatics politicians and from absurd EU bureaucratic laws.
With the state of the world right now they can probably get a very good deal.
It's a hard one. I feel the UK were wrong to leave but Norway and Switzerland have a fantastic overall quality of life without and I'm not sure the benefits of membership unless you are financially poor country. Iceland is probably better off joining the Schengen but not EU.
In practice, these countries implement already a lot of EU law. It isn't that difficult for say a Switzerland to join the EU and they have good reasons to, as access to programs like Horizon is a huge benefit. The economies of these countries are quite interwoven with the second largest economy of the world. The EU market comes with rules but is is a very big win for neighboring countries. In fact, Switzerland backtracking on previous accession tracks and thus not qualifying anymore for Horizon etc is causing some serious regrets, so I won't be surprised if Switzerland bites the bullet somewhere in the future.<p>Secondly, the world got a lot more unstable since the US is pushing for a lawless might-makes-right world and taking an increasingly predatory posture there. From that perspective, the EU is becoming even more relevant. Poignant example is Canada taking more and more steps to integrate their economy with the EU, as well as to become part of its security architecture.<p>UPDATE: Leaving the Horizon program has apparently been too painful [1], seems the Swiss were retroactively allowed back from 2025 [2]. I don't know about Horizon 2028 though.<p>1. <a href="https://sifted.eu/articles/switzerland-startup-talent-brain-drain" rel="nofollow">https://sifted.eu/articles/switzerland-startup-talent-brain-...</a><p>2. <a href="https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/strategy/strategy-research-and-innovation/europe-world/international-cooperation/association-horizon-europe/switzerland_en" rel="nofollow">https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/strategy/strate...</a>
Switzerland is currently in the process of implementing a third wave of bilateral agreements with the EU, and the federal government has indicated that in their opinion the "bilateral way" is the best of both worlds in terms of sovereignty and integration, so I don't think joining the EU will be on the agenda anytime soon
You can see it as "the best of both world", or you can see it as having to follow EU rules without having a say in those rules because no EMP.
The new agreement basically being the same thing as being in the EU, and aligning further with EU institutions, without actually having a say.
Why do they need the Horizon programs? Switzerland is a rich country, in any pan-EU project scheme, they'd pay more than they'd get back.
Because Swiss scientists and businesses want to collaborate and trade with European partner networks of science and industries.<p>One of the EU main principles is collaboration and win-win. It is not zero sum. Example: The Netherlands is wealthy and a net contributor, but would be poorer off from not being in the EU.<p>Also, be aware that your question easily leads to a follow-up question:<p><pre><code> "Why don't we fund our own research and innovation?"
=> "Why do we fund research and innovation?"</code></pre>
Switzerland has been kicked out of Horizon programs so many times and had to build alternatives. By now everyone involved knows, Horizon is high risk program and access can be pulled at any time for political reasons, so it hasn't that much appeal anymore.
The Norwegian PM said to Britain back then “don’t repeat our mistake. We need to, in practice, follow all the EU’s rules and don’t get any say in it”
That's because the PM's party brokered that half-way deal with EU against the will of the people, after they had voted no to EU for the second time[1].<p>Not saying some of our export companies aren't enjoying the access to EU, but the people was against it.<p>[1]: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Norwegian_European_Union_membership_referendum" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Norwegian_European_Union_...</a>
Important to clarify: IIRC that comment was about Norway's EEA membership. The UK is not an EEA member.
Except in areas of fishing and agriculture. Especially fishing they really care about, just like iceland.
It's already in the Schengen.<p>Iceland already heavily integrated into the EU, the only outliers are currency, foreign policy, security, political institutions, customs and some trading sectors like fishing.<p>Currency (since the exchange rate to the Euro is what sets pricing in Iceland) and security are the reasons many want to get closer.
Norway gets all the money it wanted from offshore gas, and Switzerland from being the bank of Europe when world wars happened (not mentioning gold nor laundering). When money is handed down to you like this by geography or history, the benefit of joining the eu and paying more for others is probably not given for the population.
Yes, Luxembourg has a higher GDP per capita than Switzerland, also for banking reasons.<p>If anything when your economy is based on European countries relying on your banking services, being part of EU makes it even easier for said countries to pour their money to your banks.
Iceland is already a member of Schengen.
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Area" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Area</a>
Approximately 100 years ago one would have said the same for the UK. Unfortunately the Empire crumbled and the Brits got Magic Thatcher.<p>So perhaps the UK was wrong in joining in the first place.
Yes, these are bad examples. Norway - rich beyond belief due to its energy resources. Switzerland - rich beyond belief because of its developed banking sector. Not sure how Iceland stacks up here. Fishing will be an issue for them, no doubt here.
> Norway and Switzerland have a fantastic overall quality of life<p>Well, one sits on vast amounts of oil and the other has been doing some dodgy financial stuff for very long time.<p>> Iceland is probably better off joining the Schengen but not EU.<p>It irritates me so much how some countries get to pick and choose. It's just ridiculous how some countries refuse to join Eurozone. The UK used to be in the EU, but wasn't part of Schengen. Now it's not part of anything, but is still in Horizon Europe?
switzerland is not currently at risk of a US invasion
Norway and Switzerland are in the EU in all but final signatures ar this point: they are fully ibtegrated into EU economy, apply EU's laws and regulations and even pay into EU funds.
Speaking of Switzerland - no it absolutely is not.<p>Is far from being fully integrated into EU.
You have to pay customs on shipments, which can be delayed for weeks on borders.<p>You need to apply for the residence permit and you can lose it for trivially sounding reasons.
- E.g. lying on the application which could mean " you mentioned in the application you wull look for job but lied and went to learn the language instead".
- also look at the recent case of a woman and her daughter abused by some Swiss politician facing deportation because she moved to Switzerland for work officially, but in reality she moved to live with her Swiss romantic partner.<p>Switzerland still have bottles of water without permanently attached lid.<p>It's integrated in many ways but still far from being a member state.
Stop claiming this. It's complete bullshit and you probably have never even been here.
Iceland already is Schengen
Market integration is a good thing.
It's a bit different with fishery as the backbone of your economy vs. oil, minerals and banking.
Iceland is already part of Schengen, EFTA, and NATO. They're in the best position there is, having negotiated the best the EU has to offer but not the bad parts, such as the Euro, Pfizer deals, the migration and asylum pact, or age verification. I can't imagine them joining the EU being anything but a massive downgrade for them.
> I feel the UK were wrong to leave [..]<p>Whether it was the correct decision or not, it was done via a democratic vote. Now the leaders of the UK look to entangle the UK into the EU structure that is evidently against their mandate.
The current UK government was also elected by democratic vote, so they have a mandate that postdates the referendum.<p>You can argue their mandate is invalid due to the first-past-the-post system, but in that case the original decision to hold a referendum, and all subsequent governments that negotiated the terms of the EU exit are also invalid, since they all derived from first-past-the-post elections.
The vote was to leave or stay - there was no mandate for or against a specific relationship to the EU before even considering how drastically opinions have shifted since.
That mandate has quite changed, even more when you look at the non-retired cohorts. Reintegration with the EU will take plenty of time.
The vote wasn’t binding and had a low turnout. Not really a good example to point to for democratic voting
The majority of UK inhabitans wants to rejoin the EU. It is indeed democratically legitime.
Democratic vote which has since then been proved to be heavily influenced by the Cambridge Analytica campaign, so which probably did not reflect the actual opinion of the population. It was a manipulated vote.
[redacted] forgot this is Hacker News.
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
As an EUian: Do it. It's worth it. It's once in a century opportunity and maybe the only viable path for Europe.<p>Honestly, I'm old enough to remember how it was before EU and I can't imagine going back too that.
Do you know how it was before?
Can you define cult?
A cult is a small group driven by extreme devotion to a charismatic leader, a specific idea, or an unorthodox set of beliefs.<p>In this case, the 'small group' is the unelected European Commission (EC) bureaucracy who is desperate to retain power at any cost.
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
Comments like this one are always funny to read, cause they obviously are from a person that couldn’t imagine any governments chief executive not being elected in some large media event that gives a large section of the population the believe the chief executive is solely their choice. Ironic, as it most frequently comes from US citizens who are both unwilling to engage in other political systems and ironically don’t even realize that the head of state isn’t elected by the people in the US either, thanks to the electoral college.<p>If the EU is fundamentally broken because the head of the Commission isn’t a direct vote, then so are the US, Austria, the UK, Germany, Canada, …
> so are the US, Austria, the UK, Germany, Canada, …<p>Now you get it
You clearly have no idea how the EU works; she is the head of the Commission, which is nominated by the Council (27 elected heads of state), and needs to be approved in by the Parliament (directly elected). So sure, yeah, she isn't directly elected, but she still needs a massive amount of multinational political support.<p>Even then, all the power is in the Commission; the Commission is split in areas (competition, energy, trade, etc.), and each country nominates a commissioner in each area, and the total Commission gets approved once again by democratically elected Parliament. The head of the Commission has only one single vote, and a majority vote decides if anything passes, and even the Parliament has to approve it. That said, I think we all want Parliament to have the ability to propose legislation.<p>So don't take this ignorant take in here and present it as some kind of dictatorship and a fundamental flaw of the EU that undermines it all; the EU has been a massive positive force for the continent, and people like you just like to shit on it.
In most European countries we don’t vote for prime minister/presidents.<p>The representatives from the parties are free to choose whoever they want, but generally it becomes a leader of the largest party in the governing party/coalition.
And Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, ...
No one directly votes the Prime Minister in many countries. What's your point?
401 people voted directly for her.
The problem is not really the power she has, the problem is that both the heads of state of all EU countries along with the entire EU Parliament approved her. Twice. They want her there to push what EPP wants to do, while taking all the bad press, somehow erasing the common knowledge that they've almost hijacked the EU as much as Republicans have the US. Put a clown on stage, let them take all the heat, then freely make all the shitty changes in the background.
[flagged]
Leaving didn’t help the UK much regarding migration, did it?
It increased migration, and switched it from culturally and historically aligned Europeans to culturally different African and South Asian.<p>Exactly as “project fear” predicted.
A necessary condition is not always sufficient.
[flagged]
How many years before you understand what cookie banners are?
How many devices with replaceable batteries will they get to own?
> How many new cookie banners would their websites get?<p>How many user data do they track?<p>Otherwise cookie banners aren‘t necessary
[flagged]
[flagged]
I hope whatever they do they don’t adopt the euro as their currency.
The Euro is actually one of the reasons they want to join; even their prime minister stated it explicitly. It would be a more stable currency than their own.
Have you seen how bad is the Icelandic crown, their prices and their borrowing rates? Adopting the euro is one of the main arguments in favor of joining the EU.
Ok, but why is it the Icelandic crown "bad"? What is the economic cause of it?<p>I do not know much about Iceland, only that, like New Zealand (and Canada), it is sometimes painted as some sort of progressive heaven that the US should aspire to.<p>Then, as you learn more, it turns out life isn't that great there.
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_kr%C3%B3na#2008_financial_crisis" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_kr%C3%B3na#2008_fina...</a>
No idea, I think that being such as small economy its currency fluctuates a lot, more than it is bad per se. That is why joining the Euro would give them a lot of stability, according to campaigners in favor of joining the EU.
Look what happened to their currency in 2008, at the time they really wished they were using the euro.
> Look what happened to their currency in 2008, at the time they really wished they were using the euro.<p>Alright, after looking at that, look at what happened to Greece (who adopter Euro as their currency).
New joiners are required to eventually adopt. Only members that were so before the Euro are exempt.
Joining the euro is a hard requirement for new countries entering the union.<p>The only negotiable is the length of the transition period.
Can I ask why you have this sentiment? I think the Euro has been a great achievement. It seems quite stable compared to its predecessor currencies and it’s convenient for trade across the union.
This is one of the main reasons for the discussions. The Icelandic króna is a very small currency that fluctuates significantly. It is a small economy, and the difference in currency complicates access to European financial services.
Switching to the euro would enable them to eliminate exchange rate risk with their main trading partners.<p>There are countries outside the EU that have switched to the euro for this reason, such as Montenegro and Kosovo.
Been burned by this exact thing before
Iceland should stay out of the EU.<p>The EU was a nice dream about 20-30 years ago, but now ot has mutated into the worst thing it could happen to any country.
I think Iceland will find that compliance with the EU regulations would be very expensive and not practical, but that’s for them to decide.
They're in the single market already.
Iceland is in EEA. EEA is already EU-lite, where they have to comply with plenty of EU regulations, don't get a vote on those regulations, but get some exemptions (such as their fishing thing).<p>Other two countries in EEA are Norway and Liechtenstein.
The presence of EU across the sea is making their exporters to comply, same goes for UK. Does not matter if you are a member or not. You can either comply with the roles or not export to EU.
There are two main problems with the EU, both political.<p>First, the EU Commission has way too much power, and honestly wants to play dictator. Look at ChatControl: Voted down more than once, but the Commission just repackages and resubmits, with some dirty backdoor tricks, until they get it through. Parliament is <i>not allowed</i> to propose legislation, only the Commission.<p>Second, regulatory hell. The continual avalanche of regulations out of Brussels cannot be overstated. People make fun of the bottle caps, but those are absolutely illustrative of how literally everything is over-regulated. This is one of the main reasons that European industry is struggling.
> bottle caps.<p>Oh, the humanity!
And the lack of bottle tops in the streets.<p>I'd move to the US, but your lack of regulations scares the piss out of me. And your cops, and your electoral system, overall crime stats....<p>Your first paragraph rings true.
The EU commission is just a way for national governments to launder their authoritarian desires through the EU. The commissioner for each country is choser by national governments. It's them pushing that shit.<p>The main problem with it, is that when you vote on national elections, typically you are concerned with local issues. Housing, healthcare, transportation, employment, immigration, etc.<p>Nobody is really thinking "who will this party behave on the EU level?" Then they do shit like this and hide behind "we have to comply with the EU".
> The EU commission is just a way for national governments to launder their authoritarian desires through the EU. The commissioner for each country is choser by national governments. It's them pushing that shit.<p>You're both right. The problem is it's the commission that sets the agenda for the parliament.<p>If you inverted it and had the elected parliament set the agenda for the national government appointed commission it would be far more likely to reflect the will of the people, which is precisely why it is the way it is.<p>Europe still hasn't learned the lessons of the French revolution, and is destined to keep repeating it.
I am as pro-EU as it gets, and I really would prefer if it worked as a true parliament. Instead of commissioners chosen by national governments and a head commissioner, a premier minister chosen by the parliament, and a commission that would only have the power to approve of veto laws that come from the parliament. Hell, the parliament should even have the power to override vetoes.<p>The way the EU is composed right now, it is designed to be kneecapped by the national governments every time.