hackernews client

Iceland rejects reopening talks on EU entry

50 pointsposted 9 hours ago

78 Comments

b1n

8 hours ago

If they were truly meant to be in the EU they would just keep running new referendum until their people choose the "right" answer.

cheschire

7 hours ago

Well I thought your joke was funny.

user

7 hours ago

[deleted]

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.

hn_throw2025

an hour ago

Isn’t it odd that there are only suggestions for followup confirmatory votes when the pro-EU camp don’t get their way, never the other way around.

blue1

7 hours ago

I would be curious to know the age distribution in yesterday's Iceland vote. In the case of Brexit, the brexiters were mostly old people and the bremainers mostly young; for this reason, the forces of demography are slowly pushing the UK back in the EU's orbit again (looking at the polls). Wondering if the same could apply to Iceland.

rsynnott

5 hours ago

Iceland's in a fairly different situation. It's already in the EEA; that is, it's subject to most EU law and gets most of the benefits, but gets to have its own rules around fish.

(This was an option for the UK, and is actually pretty much what a lot of the yes campaign was pushing, but is very much not where the UK ended up.)

bitcharmer

42 minutes ago

[dead]

21asdffdsa12

7 hours ago

[flagged]

jmiskovic

7 hours ago

Have you traveled the EU? Things can always be better, but looking at the rest of the world I'd say we're doing pretty fine.

21asdffdsa12

7 hours ago

[flagged]

cr1895

7 hours ago

You're projecting your own bias onto "a ton of Icelanders" and you've nothing to base this on except your own feelings.

That's pretty unreasonable!

xkbarkar

7 hours ago

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.

LaurensBER

4 hours ago

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.

elric

8 hours ago

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?

uxhacker

7 hours ago

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.

discopicante

7 hours ago

Iceland is already in the EEA and Schengen. The only upside I have read about would be access to adopting the Euro which has a lower inflation rate than the ISK.

The main downside and likely what steered the vote to no are conflicts with Iceland's fishing industry x EU regulations and becoming more vulnerable to foreign ownership and fishing rights.

Fishing represents 40% of Iceland's total exports according to Wikipedia.

My guess is most voters in Reykjavik have near zero exposure to fishing as an industry.

GeoAtreides

4 hours ago

>Fishing represents 40% of Iceland's total exports according to Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland :

>Iceland's economy depended heavily on fishing, which still provides ~20% of export earnings and employs 7% of the workforce.[77][152] [...] Iceland's economic dependence on fishing is diminishing, from an export share of 90% in the 1960s to 20% in 2020.[153][152]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Iceland :

>[The fishing industry] provides 40% of export income and employs 7.0% of the workforce; therefore, the state of the economy remains sensitive to world prices for fish products.[

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn45vdxyvvlo :

>its fishing and marine industries make up almost 40% of exports.

Note bbc says fishing _and_ _marine_ industries

only god knows what the truth actually is

uxhacker

7 hours ago

One benefit would have been that Iceland would have got to vote on EU Single Market legislation, which it currently has to incorporate into its laws without any say.

Iceland would also benefit from trade deals with non EU countries (currently it is excluded).

It also would have joined the Agricultural policy, which would have meant better access for its farm produce.

rsynnott

5 hours ago

> The only upside I have read about would be access to adopting the Euro which has a lower inflation rate than the ISK.

Strictly speaking, Iceland could do this unilaterally, anyway; Kosovo and Montenegro have done so, and Denmark and a bunch of African countries peg their currency to the euro.

msh

7 hours ago

And iceland might be forced to limit their business dealings with Russia.

discopicante

7 hours ago

Maybe you are not familiar with the EEA. Iceland already has access to the European single market. Just like Norway, who doesn't seem motivated to join the EU, either.

msh

3 hours ago

And how does that relate to what I wrote?

discopicante

an hour ago

It is unclear to me how changing from EEA to EU membership somehow protects Iceland (a founding NATO member) against being 'forced to limit their business dealings with Russia'. That is how it relates. Feel free to help me connect the dots.

msh

30 minutes ago

It was a added downside to the comment I was replying to.

ra

7 hours ago

that's also pretty much what happened in Brexit

uxhacker

7 hours ago

And not just city versus countryside, but the people most likely to benefit voting against.

The EU needs to get better at marketing it self.

rsynnott

5 hours ago

It's in an inherently awkward place. National politicians will tend to represent popular EU policies as "look what we did" and unpopular as "look what THEY did". It's really very difficult for the EU to deal with this.

-destroy-fascis

7 hours ago

[flagged]

andy_ppp

7 hours ago

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.

iamflimflam1

7 hours ago

I listened to an interview with the Icelandic PM and this seems pretty much correct. She was pro EU but equally was very clear that there were other things the government could focus on instead.

Do you want us to burn a huge amount of time and effort on this. Or would you prefer us to focus on other problems?

spwa4

7 hours ago

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.

akmarinov

7 hours ago

No new members until veto is dealt with, thanks.

LaurensBER

7 hours ago

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.

epolanski

7 hours ago

The EU is tremendously effective, is just that the narratives are always about emphasizing the shortcomings.

LaurensBER

4 hours ago

The EU is definitely better than not having an EU but is absolutely not living up to its full potential as is evident by the low trust in it and the lackluster economic growth of the EU.

ur-whale

7 hours ago

> The EU is tremendously effective

It certainly is, but unfortunately not at very many actually positive things.

When it comes to wasting money and being completely ham-fisted with regulation though, I agree with you 100%

epolanski

7 hours ago

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.

this_user

7 hours ago

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?

N19PEDL2

6 hours ago

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.

rsynnott

5 hours ago

They are already for practical purposes subject to EU law; joining them would allow them to participate in making it.

surgical_fire

5 hours ago

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.

dtnm

7 hours ago

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.

dtnm

7 hours ago

There are no non paywall articles on this??

mytailorisrich

9 hours ago

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.

vrganj

7 hours ago

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.

mytailorisrich

7 hours ago

This looks like the usual "plan": frightening people (either because of Russia or Trump) will make them see the "correct path". In fact this is standard EU rhetoric: in today's world there is no choice. This is ironic because in effect this is saying that surrendering sovereignty is the only way to face threats to your sovereignty...

But in reality Iceland is no more at risk of invasion now than it was during the Cold War and is doing extremely well on its own so why give up? I must say I don't follow Icelandic politics but from here it is not clear what they would gain by joining the EU, especially considering that fishing is one of their main industries.

toyg

7 hours ago

Iceland went basically bankrupt less than 20 years ago, saying they're doing "extremely well" is either misinformed or disingenuous. They do ok on some parameters, bad on others, and their small size makes them fundamentally weak to global economic winds. EU (and particularly Euro) membership would not magically solve all problems, but could make some things a bit clearer and more reliable.

Sadly, the voters have spoken and so they'll have to continue doing what they do now.

iamnothere

4 hours ago

Iceland is the only nation that punished its bankers for their misdeeds, and it’s bounced back from 2008 in very good shape. They still have a strong industrial base thanks to massive hydropower investments, and their people (who are fairly well educated) retain control over their government, which seems more democratically responsive than other European governments. Their strategic location (GIUK gap) also gives them a lot of negotiation leverage. I’d say they are doing pretty well.

mytailorisrich

6 hours ago

Everyone went basically bankrupt 20 years ago and while they were hit they also recovered. The Euro can be a big impediment, too, as we have seen.

Iceland ranks 5th globally in nominal GDP per capita, 1st in Europe for average wage, 1st globally for HDI. I think it is a fair assessment to say that they are doing extremely well..

> either misinformed or disingenuous

That was uncalled for...

vrganj

7 hours ago

I think the opposite is the plan: Fearmongering against the EU with false talk of sovereignty to butter it up to be eventually be swallowed up by the US.

Greenland wasn't at risk of invasion either, until the US explicitly started threatening it.

It's not the Russians these places need to worry about. Sovereignty will go away either way. The question is whether democratic rule will stay or not. It would as part of the EU. The US has precedent not granting it.

Your point of view is fundamentally anchored to the world of yesterday, when the global landscape looked significantly different and the US was a guarantor of security to Western states, not a threat model. The world has changed since. Old assumptions no longer apply.

general1465

7 hours ago

> 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.

SXX

7 hours ago

Iceland is one of few countries that can actually afford to have no military. They live on an island. Closest landmass to them is Greenland that's certainly not plotting to annex them and its 300km away.

There's no natutal resources, no anything other than fish and 400,000 human population.

msh

7 hours ago

They have a strategic location in the north Atlantic, if the US did not have defacto military control of iceland several other countries have historically been interested in annexing them (germany under WW2, soviet union after that). They also only got their independence from Denmark after WW2.

epolanski

7 hours ago

And yet they've done fine for 1000+ years.

Moreover, this whole narrative of defense is so childlish and asinine, generally spread by people of countries that are always on the attacking side like Americans.

It reminds me of the elementary kids in a local school that started to bring knifes to school because others had knifes too.

msh

3 hours ago

You have a country where there is people still alive who remembers their country getting independence, don’t you think that independence matters to them?

general1465

6 hours ago

> And yet they've done fine for 1000+ years.

They got their independence after WW2, they have been either annexed or colonized by other powers since 1262.

vrganj

6 hours ago

I think over the past year or so the calculus has changed dramatically. There was credible threat by the US of invasion of another NATO member in the same neighborhood. It's intellectually dishonest to say things are the same as in the 90s, when the US was defending the sovereignty of these places.

A_D_E_P_T

8 hours ago

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.

yorwba

7 hours ago

The complaint in that article is that "instead of creating a single European system, the PPWR preserves a fragmented national model. A business selling directly to customers across the EU must register and fulfil its obligations separately in every Member State where its packaging becomes waste. For large companies, this is part of the cost of doing business; for micro-businesses selling only a handful of products into each country, the cost and administrative burden can be wildly disproportionate to the amount of packaging involved."

That is not the EU passing bad laws that members are forced to adopt, it's every member state individually deciding that they don't care about microbusinesses that can't even afford the registration fee for their national packaging waste disposal system.

Generally, the EU is a platform for coordination and negotiation between member state governments. So the danger for Icelanders wouldn't be that the Icelandic government is overpowered by the rest of the EU, but that they voluntarily sign up to a deal that benefits some constituencies at the expense of others, and that can't be changed easily anymore because it's now part of an international agreement. That the referendum was rejected is also an indication that Icelanders don't trust their government to negotiate on their behalf.

mytailorisrich

8 hours ago

But that's exactly how it is supposed to work. Primacy of EU law, currency, monetary policy, borders, trade, defence (under way), etc. It is not micromanagement, it is the aim to transfer sovereignty to a federal EU.

There is no way to sugarcoat it. It is no longer the 70s or even 90s when you could claim that this wasn't the situation and aim. So whether people are in favour or opposed to that it has the merit of being clear.

vrganj

7 hours ago

But sovereignty is of the people in a democracy. Why is the arbitrary, much weaker unit of "Iceland" better than the much more powerful, much more defensible unit of "EU"?

The sovereign remains the same, the people.

There's also the added wrinkle that Iceland already is in the EEA, so already has the primacy of EU law in a lot of areas. How is it more sovereign to have to follow laws you don't get to decide? Your setup is taking away power from the sovereign that is the people. Or are you advocating exiting the EEA as well? You are aware that would be economic suicide?

mytailorisrich

6 hours ago

In the EU Iceland would lose sovereignty because the EU is going federal, and the people of Iceland would lose sovereignty, too as a consequence. You are trying to clutch at straws because you are insisting on denying a fact that is not even controversial. I understand that you think it is worth it but not you should deny it is the case.

Iceland is in the EEA (and indeed that's already a loss of sovereignty) not in the EU and a key reason is indeed to maintain sovereignty on key issues and industries (especially fishing, which is excluded from EEA), which they would lose by joining. So again it is very unclear to me what they would gain by joining.

vrganj

5 hours ago

Why would they lose sovereignty? You haven't established that at all.

If we read Rousseau's Social Contract, we see that the sovereign is the people, not the executive power at their service.

The people wouldn't stop being the sovereign just because they change the administrative details of executing their sovereign will.

You haven't made a successful case to counter this point, instead you've gone to attacking me personally with loaded language ("clutching at straws") to defend your insularism.

mytailorisrich

5 hours ago

Sovereignty, noun: the power of a country to control its own government. [Cambridge]

A country, EU member, Euro, Schengen, etc. does not control its foreign trade, has no currency, does not control its monetary policy, does not control its borders (Iceland is a remore island so possibly less of a practical issue and indeed they are in Schengen), does not control its laws. That's the way it is. This includes the people as citizens of that country.

I think you are trying to say that they are still "sovereign" at EU level but obviously that's fallaciously ignoring the whole actual issue of national sovereignty vs. the EU, which isn't just a "change of administrative details", obviously...

Interestingly, with your argument they could equally join the US and as long as they have full voting rights they would still be "sovereign", which I don't think many would agree they would be because the whole point is obviously being sovereign as Iceland and Icelandic, not as citizens of whatever other country.

That's the issue with discussing the EU within Europe at this point, it has become a religion and it is not possible to discuss religion with religious people.

vrganj

4 hours ago

[flagged]

ur-whale

7 hours ago

> 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.