Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- Never forget Iceland defeating Britain in the Cod Warsby tyre
- If in any way this allows me to import Icelandic hot dog sausages to Canada, it's a step in the right direction.
Last time I paid something like 25$ per hotdog (w/ buns & toppings) to import them from some guy and it could have gotten seized. Worth every penny though.
by alasano - It seems odd to hold a referendum on holding talks. Why not just negotiate an agreement and then hold a referendum on that agreement?by mixdup
- I guess one does not “just negotiate an agreement” for something like this.
And perhaps two referendums and working incrementally is wise in general, given the mess that was Brexit.
by thih9 - You have to apply to the EU to start negotiatingby einaralex
- After whole Brexit debacle I think it is prudent to actually first figure out if there is general willingness. EU might have better stuff to do than spend resources on formal talks according to proper procedures.
Coming up with agreement and then simply rejecting could postpone next opportunity or make the next agreement come from less hospitable starting point.
by Ekaros - Because you’re in a different position to negotiate if you know you have the support of the population? That’s my intuition at leastby dgellow
- 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.
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?
by ajsnigrutin - 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.by saevarom
- 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.
Making requests to humans is never idempotent.
by Timon3 - Because if the people don't want to join in the first place, why hold negotiations to begin with?by coldtea
- The EU needs to develop an associate option for close allies unwilling to become full members. Canada, Iceland, and others are very closely aligned with the EU in many respects and all could benefit from closer relationships. Ask a Canadian if they'd favour joining the EU and they'd probably be all for it, until you start talking about what that means.
Fully joining the EU involves giving up a lot of sovereignty to a body that's too distant from places like Canada or Iceland. These countries are right to fear that their own concerns would be forgotten or ignored if they were to join the EU. Just as different structures are needed when a company grows past a certain size, the EU needs new structures if it's going to grow its influence beyond continental Europe. A middle ground needs to exist.
It also needs to be very clear that associates, close allies, or whatnot are not inferior to full members, just less dependent on Brussels by choice because that's what makes sense for them.
by beloch - Yeah, this already exists in various forms.by jankubica
- We already have associate options - not joining Schengen, not adopting Euro. Anything more than that results in a horrible mess of legal agreements.
Imagine that suddenly each US state gets more sovereignty and they just... make different decisions. California adopts Spanish as second official language, New York adopts metric system, Alabama permits sister/brother marriages, Utah declares Mormonism as official religion, and Wyoming stops contributing to US army. How are you supposed to do business in these conditions.
by anal_reactor - 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?
> 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
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.
by ghusto - 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.by ktallett
- Approximately 100 years ago one would have said the same for the UK. Unfortunately the Empire crumbled and the Brits got Magic Thatcher.
So perhaps the UK was wrong in joining in the first place.
by Towaway69 - 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.by p2detar
- 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.by troupo
- Iceland is already a member of Schengen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Areaby adamtulinius
- 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.by hdx19
- It's already in the Schengen.
Iceland already heavily integrated into the EU, the only outliers are currency, foreign policy, security, political institutions, customs and some trading sectors like fishing.
Currency (since the exchange rate to the Euro is what sets pricing in Iceland) and security are the reasons many want to get closer.
by ChocolateGod - 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”by earthnail
- 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.
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.
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.
1. https://sifted.eu/articles/switzerland-startup-talent-brain-...
2. https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/strategy/strate...
by exceptione - 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.
But I wont be upset at them if they decided to keep the status quo with us!
by bilekas - Btw this referendum is about starting the talks, not about joining or not joining.
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.
by znpy - Sounds like the way a certain referendum to do the opposite should have been run.by phatfish
- 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.
- Why not give an example instead of expecting me to believe your assertion. You may be right or wrong; I have no idea.by vixen99
- Fiat money literally is a scam though after the gold standard was abandoned.
https://elements.visualcapitalist.com/purchasing-power-of-th...
https://www.visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2016/6/1/us-inflat...
by Mistletoe