Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- That’s disappointing :(by dgellow
- That's the way unless you want to reward the EU for their anti small business moves.by rramon
- Why?by ZenoArrow
- Disappointing, however why would they when they already have effective access to the single market and other special relationship benefits. There's just no real disincentive to not join.by dtnm
- There are no non paywall articles on this??by dtnm
- It's honestly a smart decision. They already have access to the common market just like Norway. Becoming a full member just means being subject to a EU governing body that has proven itself to be largely ineffective and incompetent, sometimes reaching the realm of "outright harmful" with things like Chat Control. Why would you want to be a part of that, especially if you would also be paying for that privilege?by this_user
- They are already for practical purposes subject to EU law; joining them would allow them to participate in making it.by rsynnott
- I would say it’s the other way round: being in the common market means that they are already subjected to EU regulations, without having any representation in the governing bodies however.by N19PEDL2
- I love how people comment very confidently on shit they clearly know nothing about.
Iceland is in the EEA. It already has to comply with pretty much all EU regulations (with some exemptions, such as their fishing thing). It is also a part of Schegen, freedom of movement, etc.
Unlike other countries, it doesn't get to vote on those regulations, so it doesn't even get the veto power.
I honestly think it may make more sense for Iceland to not be a full EU member, the fishing industry may be too important for a fairly small island nation, etc.
But it has nothing to do with the reasons you fantasized about.
- It is logical if indeed sovereignty was a main issue in the debate even if this vote was officially only about whether to resume "accession talks."
They have the benefit of seeing the situation in the EU and the direction of travel so it is quite clear that any debates on joining the EU is a debate between continuing as an independent country or being absorbed in a federal EU. A very, very big decision to make.
- WRT sovereignty: I'm sure situations like the recent EPR/PPWR debacle didn't help, where the EU passes bad laws that all EU countries are nevertheless forced to adopt. (Recently discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49419237 )
Joining the EU would be a no-brainer if it didn't micromanage and meddle so much.
by A_D_E_P_T - > It is logical if indeed sovereignty was a main issue in the debate
It is kind of hard to take countries without standing armies talking about sovereignty seriously.
by general1465 - I think the idea of continuing as an independent country is a bit naive for a country with no army and a population of 400k in a neighborhood full of newly imperial ambitions.
It's either join democratically into a slowly federalizing EU or be eaten up by American imperial ambitions at this point - and I have my doubts the latter option will include the same right to self-determination, considering the Puerto Rico precedent.
The Greenland campaign shows these concerns aren't hyperbole - they're just next in line.
by vrganj - > Iceland rejects reopening talks on EU entry
Good for them.
Joining the EU, given the very sorry state that institution is currently in would basically be a pair of concrete shoes at the bottom of the river for Iceland.
by ur-whale - No new members until veto is dealt with, thanks.by akmarinov
- I'm afraid we'll need more reforms than just a veto reform before the EU would be effective but it's a good start.by LaurensBER
- I'm not sure whether I agree or not as an European.
I think vetos accomplish exactly what they need to accomplish: unanimity.
Majority arguments are dangerous if then you start to get different factions and tear the EU from the inside. Veto rules are simple and effective.
What I'd like instead is for a proper reform of what can be delegated (and thus not vetoed at all) and what can.
I think, e.g., there should be a larger push to delegate foreign affairs and military to the supranational entity. And it should be achieved in small but decisive, non vetoable steps.
by epolanski - Strong city-country divide. City yes. Country No.
At best the Yes vote was weakly pro by numbers in the city. Nothing like overwhelming.
Probably, very strong influence of the fishing industry, both from sentiment and as a lobby: the EU would have permitted non IS boats into their economic zone, and there would be concerns in the fisher industry community at large about that economically.
I think the city thing reflects Youth attitudes to pan-europeanism.
Also, "No" just had to say "but our fishing zone" so like "take back control" in Brexit, very simple message. "Yes" had to soft sell positives which were at best nebulous. Unlike brexit I think this has less downsides. The future may change that but for now, I think it won't alter much given that Iceland is already in NATO, already in Schengen, already has security guarantees, has full energy independence. As a complete outsider who has visited recently, I would have loved it to be in the EU but thats an externally driven sentiment view.
by ggm - How do such referenda work in Iceland? Is this a simple Brexit-style yes/no question? Were people provided with context and arguments as to why (presumably?) the goverment was considering joining the EU?by elric
- The exact Icelandic wording printed on the ballot was:
"Á Ísland að hefja á ný aðildarviðræður við Evrópusambandið?" Já/Nei
A very literal English translation is:
"Should Iceland resume accession negotiations with the European Union?" Yes/No
That is the wording formally approved by the Althing (Parliament) on 28 May 2026 and published by Iceland’s National Electoral Commission.
by spwa4 - The referendum was done specifically in two parts - 1. do you want us to try to find a deal with the EU 2. We will thrash out any details, get the best deal we can with the EU and give you another vote.
Seems like Iceland didn't want to even waste the government's time looking into this... I quite like their government treated everyone like adults.
by andy_ppp - The vote was for negotiations and not actually joining. Presumably there would have been another vote on joining the EU later.
The telling sign is that the capital Reykjavík voted in favor of negotiations, but rural areas voted against.
by uxhacker - If they were truly meant to be in the EU they would just keep running new referendum until their people choose the "right" answer.by b1n
- I thought that’s what we did in the uk because we were truly meant to be out?by maxldn
- Situations change, asking the same question a few years later is good, not bad. Especially since getting into the EU isn't BAM you're in, but a lengthy process with many exits along the route. I am convinced if a country doesn't want to be in the EU there are many off ramps to not actually be in the EU. And be it some last minute re-negotiation of fishery regulations.by atoav
- Well I thought your joke was funny.by cheschire
- Even though I voted yes I completely understand the reluctance to join. EU has shown gross incompetence in many questions and with chat control they are downright terrifying.
My own yes was because I would have liked to see the strategy and what EU could have on the table. Even if timeconsuming and costly.
And it would have been worth it just to scare the living daylights out of the few mafia families in Iceland that currently hold the fishing quota and treat it as their private playthings.
But I respect the choice of my countrymen and (hope) perhaps in another decade when we are hypothetically rid of Ursula Leyden and possibly Swedens and Denmarks terrifying need to peak into everones private lives, Iceland can look at negotiations again.
by xkbarkar - I would agree (not an Icelandic citizen but an EU citizen).
Europe (and Iceland) have many, many challenges and we absolutely need something like the EU to effectively tackle them.
The EU has tremendous potential but a lot of it's current focus seems to be misguided at best, downright evil at its worst.
Let's see if it the EU can tackle the energy and immigration crisis (I'm pro immigration but even I have to admit that the current system is deeply flawed and unsustainable), if it does it would win my respect. Bonus points if we do finally get a (real) single (capital) market.
by LaurensBER