> 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.
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 imports. 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.
So maintaining control over their own fisheries may be a survival-level issue for Iceland.
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 fix 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.
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 would claim (both by living in Germany and the posted diagram) that for each of these values, most share this value, but not everybody. The problem is that for each value, the stakeholders who do/don't share it can be different. So, a lot of agreements are very complicated.
This is also in my opinion a central reason for the rising anti-EU sentiments in many countries: the more is dicated from above in Brussels/Strasbourg, the more often it happens that in some group who has a really strong opinion on this topic strong anti-EU sentiments will become socially very accepted in this group.
The solution that I would thus propose to keep these anti-EU sentiments not to escalate would be to keep the areas where the EU has any influence to those areas
- where there is an insanely strong consensus over what is "right" vs "wrong" over the whole EU, and
- which are politically rather uncontroversial (i.e. the opposite of being a political minefield).
As a side note, you cannot escape values even when you are only considering "free trade". As an example, influential EU law cases include questions of promoting abortion as a freedom of service, ban on Sunday sales, ban on sex dolls ... Then free trade clashes with other fundamental rights, such as a right to strike. Arguably this tension is exactly the spill-over effect that made EU project successful – integration in one area (originally steel and coal for obvious post-WWII reasons) creates pressure in an adjacent area to integrate as well.
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.
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.
> 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.
The US did not have a central bank until 1914. And there was zero net inflation from 1800-1914. The central bank introduced endemic inflation, which appeared immediately.
Montenegro unilaterally uses the euro and it doesn't seem to otherwise be a failed state. Besides this being a "marker", what do you think are the actual problems caused? Like why does a small country need its own capital controls when there is a very stable currency available nearby?
Not significantly. Your point that only failed states decide to use another nation's currency is automatically a failed state is simply untrue. It can be a marker, but it's not an automatic mark. Montenegro is not a failed state.
It would, and this has been an issue even with bigger eurozone countries, like Greece.
Basically the same pressure that would have adjusted your exchange rates instead adjusts how much of the fixed-rate currency exists in your country. With fluctuating rates the pain of a financial outflow is more evenly spread than with a government running out of money, unless the government adjusts taxes to compensate.
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.
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- and downsides first.
> If the króna fluctuates so much, wouldn't that also indicate that demand for the króna just fluctuates a lot?
Yes, relative to the size of Iceland's economy. 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.
> 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.
Part of it would. There is a cost to maintaining your own currency that can drag down the economy.
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.
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.
Not sure how it would affect home mortgages but the majority of icelanders are on mortgage plans that the principal remaining rises with inflation(I forget the name, I left a few years ago) - and will never likely pay them off.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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 in the euro zone.
This money was needed for public expenditure and to keep the Greek banking system running.
The biggest creditor banks of the Greek state were, in fact, Greek (ca. 50–60 bn. Euro).
The biggest foreign creditor banks were French (ca. 42 bn. Euro).
Accordingly, France was for more financial support (for Greece) to be payed by all EU member states.
The German banks were only a distant third (ca. 25 bn. Euro). But the German state was the biggest donor among the EU member states.
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).
The whole point of leaving the Euro would have been so the government could continue to pay its civil servants and other bills by printing the money. It would also have used printed Drachma to buy Euros and use those to repay its debts.
Reintroducing the Drachma was a "solution" to the political problem of cutting spending by creating hyperinflation, not anything else. So it makes no sense to default and keep using the Euro. The reason for defaulting is because you don't have enough euros....
> Greek homeowners would be left with unpayable euro mortgages
Just fyi, Hungary had a ton of homeowners with loans in EUR and CHF and when the HUF collapsed the rates became untenable and the government just said "eh, fuck the banks, let's keep the previous exchange rate". The banks survived too.
It's a hard political decision but not an impossible one.
(Disclosure: I deeply disliked that government for other reasons and didn't have a loan, it was just interesting to see populism in action without obvious downsides materializing)
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.
It was though? I remember a default being a real option in the media.
But in the end, it was clear that unlike in Iceland, bankruptcies were not considerable, and so a bailout was going to happen. The only question was how the bailout would be structured.
Yanis Varoufakis made his name back then by going against the grain and proposing a hairsplit, but instead an approach was chosen where Greece never really defaulted, but its population was harshly punished for it.
> 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
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.
Look at the GDP per capita of Greece since 2010. Looks like staying in the Eurozone didn't do them much good either...
Well, Kosovo and Montenegro haven't joined the Eurozone. They just use the Euro, but they have no influence in the monetary (?) policy.
Edit: I'm not the first one to point this out, so to add some new information: both of them used Deutsche Mark prior to Euro, Montenegro even under the union with Serbia.
Kosovo and Montenegro adooted the Euro unilaterally, but various micro countries use the Euro through special treaties (Monaco, San Marino, Vatican etc). Iceland is 10x larger but this in principle possible.
Joining the Euro is not the panacea that everyone thinks it is.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Note that a lot of that stuff still exists when you have your own currency, but it gets absorbed into exchange rate movements instead of being an explicit decision. This is both a blessing because it automatically balances, and a curse because you can accidentally shift it in an unwanted way and it may be hard to notice you're doing so.
For instance you can have a different interest rate when you have your own currency, however it will cause your currency value to shift over time in opposition to the interest rate difference. For instance I think New Zealand had 6%ish rates while the mainstream was 3%ish, as a result the NZ dollar devalued by 3%ish per year. If they wanted a stable currency value, they would've had to maintain interest rates comparable to their trading partners. The fact this isn't happening to Japan is a great mystery to economists because it normally does happen.
I agree that interests rates between trading partners have to somewhat match but the issue here within Europe is that Germany is so big that by default what they say goes.
So, if you have Estonia that is in a slump and needs a boost, it can go to the ECB and say, look we need to lower the interest rates but if Germany is happy with the current rates, the likelihood that Estonia gets its way is basically nil.
Right now Germany is feeling the pain and despite the inflation picking up above the 2% target rate again, the ECB has not raised the rates further, why? My hunch is because Germany can't afford it and neither does France.
A monetary union is great on paper, in reality the big fish still eats the small fish. The only difference is that the small fish can try to do something outside whereas in the union it just goes along and hope for the best.
Finally, another big issue with the Euro is that there is no fiscal union between the states. So if a state like France struggles then if a federal Europe was to happen, the states who have money would give it to France in forms of tax transfers but doing so punishes the countries that have made the reforms, that have invested, that have saved money and reduced their deficits and will only incentivized countries which have not done so to continue having deficits in the future.
How would a German politician or Austrian politician explain to his/her constituents that there is no money for new schools or hospitals but there is cash to bail out Italy or France for the nth time because these countries have refused to do what was necessary to reform their country?
In any case, since the exchange rates are no longer providing the feedback that the markets used to give by repricing the currencies that existed before, the markets now use the interest rates of the debt as proxy for their confidence in each European state. Right now, there is a 85bp difference between France and Germany and its widening as time goes on so something will have to give soon.
Either the ECB caves and lower the rates which can increase inflation or France risk triggering a Euro crisis that will be much much worse than the Greek one.
And since a lot more countries are now in the Euro compared to the 2010s, the spread of the crisis will be greater by default.
Why can't Greece just default on its debt? When you can't paper over your insolvency with currency devaluation, you can still be insolvent but you have to deal with it in more overt ways.
They could but then nobody would lend them more euros. If you default in a situation of structural deficit where you can't print more money, then the only alternative is instant spending cuts to balance the budget.
> One solution for Iceland would be to join the eurozone without becoming a member of the EU, as Kosovo and Montenegro have done.
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.
> "Iceland's fishing industry makes up something like 40% of their export."
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.
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.
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.
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 goods exports (as opposed to total, which includes both goods and services).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The problem is enforcement. The EU system doesn't work because it's not properly enforced. Spanish fishing fleets would regularly fish in British waters and Britain wasn't able to stop them, despite the rules.
This is a general pattern. The EU has many rules that are supposed to be enforced by its own institutions. But the attitude is very much to decide what rules to enforce based on ideological and political concerns, so the laws are largely meaningless.
Yes, then you become a landlord for 5 or 10 years. Once the rights are given out by whatever method and set for 10 years, then anyone else who wants one in the next 10 years has to buy or rent one from whoever has one. That's landlordism.
But that would trend to cutting out the middle man due to the inefficiencies they create.
Middlemen will only work if either these middlemen make the utilization more efficient or you make the requirements to bid so onerous that only these specialized middlemen have the competency to do fulfill them.
No, middlemen would happen if it's profitable to be a middleman. Extreme case: one person bids just enough to get all the rights, then charges double that to fishermen to use them.
Which means in the next bidding round the fishermen would bid somewhere between the double they were charged, and could still apparently have a working businesses with, and what the middleman bid.
All it means is that they were expecting too large profit margins and someone called their bluff.
No idea. But it is quite similar to how public transport works for archipelago ferries in Scandinavia.
15 year contracts when large investments are required. Otherwise 5-10 years.
And you get a ”quota” for a guaranteed traffic to run for that period based on the requirements in the contract.
Just took the same idea and applied to fishing, to prevent the ”legacies” from monopolizing it while giving the public the income of their shared resources.
The difference is that there isn't a limited number of ferry licenses. They aren't rivalrous. Sure the government is paying for one to make sure there's at least one, but anyone could.
Limited port capacity? Erosion? Limit disturbance of wild life?
Either way it is a public resource. On one side access to a countries fishing grounds to make money from it. On the other side access to a countries tax money to make money from it.
I get a feeling that you think fishermen should have some special heritage rights guaranteeing large profit margins rather than having to pay the public for the access to a shared resource.
Those not familiar with it might find the history of the Cod Wars interesting (and very relevant to this discussion): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars
(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 hope this finally motivates the Europeans to step up their game long-term. They should be able to defend themselves without the US and also develop and produce their weapons within Europe. NATO will be better if it's an alliance of equal partners.
Trumps short term actions will have long term consequences on the alliance. Specifically on how the alliance views reliance on the US. Trump has shown how unreliable an ally the US can be. Putting that cat bag in the bag doesn’t reverse the realisation that there’s a cat in that bag.
This will likely strengthen NATO in the long term. But only if it doesn’t get tested by Russia in the short term.
It's probably for the better over the long term, I Agree. We might be getting into complicated times, with AI and robotics, so it's much better if Europe would be more self-sufficient, militarily, technologicaly and economicaly.
There are approximately 874 days left in Donald Trump's presidential term as of August 29, 2026.
That's if the bugger leaves office and doesn't start an insurrection like last time, and that the insurrection doesn't work like last time. Depends a lot on how much Americans actually want him gone, but alas you Americans seem to keep voting for him no matter how many corruption scandals he's in.
I think the majority of “you Americans” that you’re talking about aren’t on HN. The Americans actually on this platform probably have the same concerns you do.
No high-income country has shown serious interest in joining the EU in decades. Norway is a hyper-privileged nation that already has several relevant treaties with the EU and has very little to gain by submitting to a system where the Balkan gets to vote on the measures Norway must implement.
Nobody wants to risk when things are going well, obviously. These countries do, however, have a huge number of bilateral agreements, so they find a lot of benefits in joining, at least partially, the EU. Norway already implement most of EU regulation without having any voting powers.
Norway is a weird one... They have things like Schengen. But some how they are not part of customs union. While Türkiye is member of customs union but not Schengen...
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.
Yes. Ten years ago mackerel was cheap and abundant but the quota was set in excess of scientists' recommendations. Stocks are dwindling now (surprise!) and mackerel has gone from cheaper than tuna (for a tin) to nearly double. It's absurd.
Mackerel is a migrating fish which historically have caused difficulties in managing the fish stock. Between 2020 and 2024 there were no agreement between the nations that has been fishing mackerel in the north atlantic. Iceland was f.ex. fishing mackerel in their zone for 15 years without cooperating with other nations. I think there's an agreement between most of the relevant nations now, except Russia but Russia have a general fishing agreement with Norway which might include mackerel.
Anyway, managing fisheries sustainably is difficult as a lot of fish migrates across huge distances and a lot of fishing is done in international waters. Ideally you need binding agreements between all states bordering an ocean region, which can be difficult when the states are in geopolitical conflict with each other ...
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.
The goal of the EU is to form a single economic area. Irish an I elandic fishers should be under same rules when fishing the same waters.
EU often is a mechanism to find a compromise (which makes the regulations so convoluted and bureaucratic ...), but too many special clauses to make a country happy means you got a similar debate on next subject.
A single market means a single market, it doesn't mean everything is the same in every country. Single market should mean that Icelandic fish can be sold anywhere in the EU, not that everyone can fish in Iceland without following Icelandic law.
> and membership in the fraying NATO military alliance
That framing is.. strange.
One member of NATO has lost the plot. For everyone else, it’s stronger than ever.
If the US tries to attack a NATO member they’re going to find out just how serious the alliance is.
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.
I'm sure that the US and EU are both able to seriously hurt each other a lot. That's also incredibly dumb, and will only help all the other powers in the world.
> It’s unlikely NATO members will fight the US with bullets and bombs, but I guarantee they can still seriously hurt them.
I am not even sure the US would be able to completely dominate a conflict. While it obviously has the largest military, it's set up to depend on European military defensive and complementary roles in a large scale conflict. In particular US aggression supply and comms critically depend on Europe as ally. Not to mention nuclear defense and early warning infrastructure. Without Europe, there is a big, big ocean between the US and most everything.
For example in terms of military roles, the US lacks the stealthy submarines of European navies. Incidentally, it relies heavily on aircraft carriers for force projection. I think there is a chance European subs could wipe out US carriers and therefore significantly disable US attack abilities straight-away. There is evidence from prior combined exercises, where the US navy was pretty much owned by a single Swedish sub. They are really damn good. So, without deploying ships, what's the US gonna do? Bomb Greenland's tundra? Fly big, slow transporter planes there and hope the European subs won't use their AA missiles? The whole point of those subs is to be a massive pain to aggressive forces and the US assigned that role to Europe...
War against Europe means losing comms and nuclear defense/early warning infrastructure located there. The US would also immediately become vulnerable to Russia and China, and every conflict in the middle east too.
I think attacking Europe would be pretty idiotic from every perspective. Sadly, that doesn't mean much anymore.
> I am not even sure the US would be able to completely dominate a conflict
While everything you said may be correct (I’m not an expert), I doubt NATO countries want to get in an energetic war with the US. It’s simply so costly in lives and resources and effort.
Hypothetically if the US “takes” Greenland I fully expect all the NATO countries to declare war on them (as article 5 requires), but not attack with military.
They’ll sell all their bonds and completely shut them out as if they don’t exist. Zero trade. No tech. No services (google, apple, etc). Not a single thing in or out to/from the us.
Yes it would really suck for every country, but I suspect it would suck less than either slowly letting the US walk all over them and slowly take any country they want, or an energetic war.
The US is putting its head in the sand and going backwards on renewables and vehicles and science and tech and so many more things. They’ll become an island if this happens.
I don’t put it past trump to try. It’s exactly the kind of “emergency” he needs to give himself emergency powers and stay in office indefinitely.
There would be tripwire forces located in Greenland. The US would likely be required to directly engage European troops. I would expect Europe to let the carrier know it got no chance before it even starts shit, in the above scenario. Like when the US under Biden surfaced a nuclear triad sub in the Baltic Sea to dampen Russia's nuclear threats against Europe, early in the Ukraine war.
Not sure Europe could afford to abstain from a military response after being actually attacked. It would look extremely weak, disrespectful to their attacked/fallen troops and puts their military deterrent in question globally. You can wreak the economy only once cutting ties with the US and it got more impact domestically with a costly war starting. To deescalate, US society's pain expectations must max out immediately, before the people, media and economy can adapt to a new normal/narrative. Look at Ukraine, a slow, reluctant response makes everything worse. If Europe/US had maxed out their support immediately, Russia would have like pulled out. Years of extreme pain must be the message, another costly war dragging on forever, something Americans understand and feel tired of.
And I presume Canada would also not be too pleased, potentially having to up the stakes for a war in their neighborhood. A war which may just as well have fallen onto their own soil. It would be wise for them to stand with Europe, if they want to keep their own independence.
The US military leadership actually having to plan an all-out war with Europe, possibly Canada, may prompt some introspection and a chance for internal conflict. Rumor has it, behind the scenes, the US NATO generals already apologized to their European counterparts for Trump's remarks on Greenland. There is probably a non-zero chance, any attack order would cause a coup rather than a war with Europe. Domestic revolt will only happen, if such conflict is credibly the stupidest thing imaginable on every axis and when relevant actors are actually confronted with that reality.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is just a referendum on talks so won't "seal their fate" but kudos to them for holding it.
Well there are not. And they did relinquish sovereignty on borders: Schengen means you do not control your border and we've seen exactly that over the years. This is factual, not an opinion. Even just free movement is a big reduction of sovereign border control and certainly of immigration (in effect you no longer have control of that). We can discuss the pros and cons but not the facts.
Well, no they are not. And some very punctual, limited measures like Italy is doing right now for the show obviously does not mean they have control, as already said (and obvious).
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.
Looks like I'm right. I don't read in German regretfully, but what I get with machine translation fully supports my point - national discretion allows for civilian or humanitarian aid rather than an automatic military response
I literally started the discussion from the point that "the mutual assistance clause doesn't oblige member states to support each other with military force" - quoting from the comment just 2 levels above.
OK, the Treaty of the EU does have a mutual defence clause but the military is specifically out of scope.
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.
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.
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.
Nah, that wasn't it. It was done by Iceland having shorter supply lines and both sides not willing to start killing each other. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars
>its fishing and marine industries make up almost 40% of exports.
you:
>Iceland's fishing industry makes up something like 40% of their exports
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.
For the interest of the HN crowd, here is the technical report:
You'll find that the Icelandic voting system is very low tech.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
But then, in a country of 300 plus million people like the U.S., there is a demand for getting election results as soon as possible, because without quick results, it opens the window for bad actors to claim the election was rigged. That's part of the reason why there was a motivation for digital systems. Furthermore, the U.S. In particular does a lot more than just voting for candidates. Often the ballots have referendum questions on them. There's so much voting happening that some localities vote for some of the smallest positions. I wouldnt be surprised if dogcatcher was on a ballot somewhere. As a result, the ballot size can be multiple pages in length, which just increases the amount of effort required to tally it. With the demand for very quick results, computerization naturally emerged.
I'm not sure if you are U.S. based or not, but if not, you need to understand the context as to why that system came to be. It wasn't all just nefarious. Voting intregity activists have argued for a two way verification system. Having paper ballots to provide a record that can be audited, as well as digital input so that you can achieve the goals of quick results. Obviously, two verification steps need to occur.
After the 2016 election, a lot of activists started pushing for each state to adopt this sort of system. In my particular state, NJ there used to be only electronic recording to a memory card which obviously can be tampered with. Now they have systems where you still input the votes digitally on a giant touchpad, but as soon as you make your selections, the choices you made are printed on paper and shown to you. Once you confirm that they are the selections you made, the paper is cut and dropped into a ballot box, giving you a paper record plus the digital copy.
The thing that NJ has not fully implemented is automatic two way verification. From my understading as of now results are still digitally tallied. I think Colorado has done in interesting process of mandatory risk limiting audits of the paper ballots to ensure no anamolies are present else the results are recounted manually. The problem with not doing some sort of two way verification is that the only time NJ would look back at the paper is if there's an obvious discrepancy or if a lawsuit gets filed. I'd argue that they need to take it a step further and do automatic two-way verification. Activists have proposed statistical risk auditing be implemented everywhere, so if there's any deviation, a full recount is automatically performed.
The biggest problem that I see right now is in a lot of the southern states or swing states that matter, the governments are not taking this issue seriously. And so they are still using direct electronic recording. So my frustration is: what's the point of putting in all this work if the states that really matter are not taking this seriously?
I've attended a few UK vote counts. Pencil is also used - but you can bring your own pen if you'd like.
I think it's mainly to prevent smudges as the paper is folded to be put into the ballot box. Pencils are also more reliable than pens, and have a longer shelf life between votes, I'd imagine?
At the polling stations & counts I've been to and overseen there is pretty much zero opportunity (or interest) in changing people's votes on the papers. I'd imagine this is the same in most first-world countries. In fact, once I spotted and got corrected a paper missed for a candidate opposing the candidate I was a counting agent for.
Last time I voted in person in Germany it worked like that. I think a lot of the (supposed?) issues with voting in the US come from trying to automate it.
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.
'Fisheries' was a small but founding and perennial concern before and during Brexit but they were labelled 'ugly nationalists'.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
The 'common market' is pretty valuable and it's what the focus should be.
Literally nobody is against that - it's what everyone agrees on.
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.
But the 'currency' thing is the most misleading.
Your ability to 'not change currency while on holiday' does not come for free!
It comes with a massive cost, and that is nation states cannot control their own monetary policy.
What 'feels like' some kind of obvious amazing benefit, is possibly the most ugly structural think holding all of Europe back.
The theory is - you cannot have shared currency unless there is absolute political and economic integration.
The 'Euro' can only work if basically you have 'Europe Federal Superstate' - one country.
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.
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.
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.
That massive building in Spain in the 2000's was caused by Euro integration - was 'low rate' euphoria - money washing over the country.
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.
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.
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 avoided the Euro are arguably better off.
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.
'The Euro' might be the best symbol of all over what is 'perceived' to be good for Europe, but what is actually bad.
And 'the answer' is probably not a pendulum of 'more or less integration' - but actually less integration in some areas, more integration in others.
Using Denmark as an example of somewhere doing well because they didn't adapt the euro would be wrong though. They pegged the Danish krone to the euro decades ago, and have as far as I know had to follow the European central banks interest rates fairly closely as a consequence.
> The 'common market' is pretty valuable and it's what the focus should be.
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.
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.
The mismatch between the existing monetary union and the lack of fiscal 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 sensible public debate and deliberation, let alone giving politicians the potentially necessary wide room of maneuvre.
I wasn't aware of these things back then, but I've been sad to find out it's not like we weren't warned about exactly this way back in the 90s when the crucial first steps were taken. Including by Paul Krugman, of all people!
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?
Yes, this is it. And add to that the ugly pull of naive pro-EU populists (who are deceiving because they're generally a nice lot) and the other populists, borderline nazis who will burn a lot of things down.
And monetary union etc. is a very difficult concept to describe to regular people.
It's rational that people are attached to the 'concept of Europe' and worry about it being taken away from them, even though 'The EU is not Europe'.
One solution: a 'Periphery EU' status for UK, Norway, Switzerland - but ALSO - Morocco, Algeria, Turkey, Armenia, Georgia etc..
'EU light' could give the option for other states like Greece to downgrade into, maybe something could come out of that.
A more open Europe that somehow got over the 'immigration' problem could really integrate these huge new middle eastern areas, and maybe even a couple of African States.
those are just conveniences relevant to relatively wealthy citizens. i regularly travel to places outside of EU and none of these missing "benefits" have ever posed more than minor challenges.
Instead, some telecoms give you a generous number of "credits" for calls, transfer, etc, and sometimes try to limit these to your own country. Then you have to pay overage fees (the same in your home country or elsewhere within EU).
The legality (or ToS language around this) is dubious, but the fact that telecoms try to skirt around the rules doesn't mean they don't work - switch to a better provider.
I just spent a week in another EU country and didn't think for a second about data usage, calls, fees, etc.
Combined with not having to do fx or even carry a passport (national ID is enough), minimal queues at the airport and zero customs annoyance, travelling across continent was as much hassle going to the next town (modulo actual travel time).
(Not to mention the actual benefits of membership, in this case, EU institutions slowly but surely cleaning up house).
They're required to grant roaming credits proportional to your monthly payment, but those are usually lower than you get in your own country for the same monthly payment. But they're also usually enough, and free to you. Which is much better than the previous status quo.
I find it really amusing just how different our perspectives on the EU are.
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.
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.
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.
"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."
What planet are you living on? Border fascism? What?
70,000 'migrants' crossed into Cueta a short while back and the place is in turmoil now.
"European politicians are showing increasingly fascistic behavior towards the borders"
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 for.
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.
> 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.
Indeed, though it remains to be seen if those nationalists are within or without.
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.
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.
> I have a mixed bag of UK friends, and it's about half-half.
Polls show the population regrets Brexit. [1]
> 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.
The UK took a big hit to GDP as a result of Brexit [2], it drastically raised export costs [3] and ordinary people have faced steeper household bills ever since. [4] Meanwhile it led to increased immigration [5] with consequent social tensions.
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.
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.
But the EU was never meant to be a loose forum of nations. From the very beginning, the Single European Act made it clear that the intention was to integrate the member states into a single union, "speaking ever increasingly with one voice".[0]
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.
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.
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).
> Loss of sovereignty' for some reason is perfectly fine for Iceland, Switzerland and Norway, but not UK or others wanting to leave.
Kind of rich to say after the "Labour" PM of the UK said he would not allow the six occupied counties of north Ireland have a border poll, reneging on the Good Friday Agreement.
I think a big difference is that Iceland, like Norway, has agreements in place that give it most of the real benefits of EU membership. The UK had to go the other route, lose all the benefits and hope they can get the good parts back.
They are already de facto inside. Hence the argument to have a vote at least.
They are already paying the price for not being de jure members. (Currency exchange costs, rate hedging is also costly, and they don't benefit from EU unified foreign policy - the current Trump scare for Greenland could come for them too - hence the argument to join.)
It's become serious in German, Austria, and Czechia. The sentiment in France is not insignificant either.
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.
The AFD is openly campaigning on it and they are currently the most popular parti in Germany.
The French RN is not openly campaigning on leaving anymore since its pretty scary to the voters but the intention of Le Pen is to hold a referendum to ask the French people to recognize the supreme rule of French law above EU law which would act as a soft exit since that means that France would no longer be bound by directives and other regulations which it doesnt agree with.
The other major parti France unbowed is even more direct and wants to set "fire" to some of the debt which would most likely trigger a Euro/Eu crisis and force either the ECB to bail out France or force France out of the Euro.
The core purpose of EU was not to have a war with each other. I think on that front it's been astounding success - there have been zero wars recorded between EU countries.
This might sound like low bar, but my grandma was literally genocided.
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?
“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.
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]
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.
So the question becomes, since Mexico is really really huge, why doesn’t the Mexican governemt do anything about these caravans? Not to mention that Mexico is pretty narrow at its southern end.
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.
The dynamic of Europe sending all the talent to US is probably just going to continue as it is.
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'.
In some ways, the 'second most dangerous' kind of politician because it's so alluring to even reasonable people.
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.
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 huge existential gaps in defence capabilities when the wolf is right at the door.
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 still to this day, is the one at the table, doing the talking. Not Von Der Leyen, not anyone from Europe ... but an American.
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.
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
It is not so much that "things are bad with US". Issue is that US is being destroyed by tech and techs money. The rise of US tech companies is literally one of main contributors to its descend.
EU should have been more protective and aggressive against US companies. But, reproducing US economy choices would just make EU get loose democracy sooner.
> 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.
Indeed! As I just learned in this comment, the EU is about to collapse and Iceland would be stupid to board an already sinking.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The more people think the EU is some kind of awful oppressive regime, the more power the other world powers will gain over Europeans.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well it’s just because I bumped into that comment first, really.
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
Now that's true democracy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
You would hold the confirmatory vote before you do all of that. You'd go to the EU, agree what joining looks like, and before doing any of the actual implementation you hold the vote
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.
There are two main problems with the EU, both political.
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 not allowed to propose legislation, only the Commission.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You're both right. The problem is it's the commission that sets the agenda for the parliament.
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.
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.
The way the EU is composed right now, it is designed to be kneecapped by the national governments every time.
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.
> However, there has also been concern at US President Donald Trump's expressed interest in taking over Greenland - especially the fact that he has confused it with Iceland.
It is hard to decide whether this is funnier or sadder.
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.
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.
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
Yes, but the average Swiss voter is very proud of its direct democracy, and scared that joining the EU would significantly weaken it.
Therefore, having to follow EU law in some very specific areas, while remaining independent in others is a decent path, and a compromise very typical of Swiss policy
Far from it, EU law would need to be transposed in some very specific areas covered by the agreement, and mechanisms are in place to limit what retorsions can be put in place if Switzerland refuses such transposition.
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.
Because Swiss scientists and businesses want to collaborate and trade with European partner networks of science and industries.
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.
Also, be aware that your question easily leads to a follow-up question:
"Why don't we fund our own research and innovation?"
=> "Why do we fund research and innovation?"
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].
Not saying some of our export companies aren't enjoying the access to EU, but the people was against it.
> 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
what polls have to do with it? if the will of the people was against the eu deal, they should've voted against, they had 30 years to do it. norway is a democracy, right?
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.
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.
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.
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
Well, one sits on vast amounts of oil and the other has been doing some dodgy financial stuff for very long time.
> Iceland is probably better off joining the Schengen but not EU.
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?
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.
Is far from being fully integrated into EU.
You have to pay customs on shipments, which can be delayed for weeks on borders.
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.
Switzerland still have bottles of water without permanently attached lid.
It's integrated in many ways but still far from being a member state.
They should have considered not lying in their residence permit applications. I mean, what you are saying sounds like completely reasonable reasons to deport someone. They lied because they knew their application would’ve been denied had they said the truth.
> You need to apply for the residence permit and you can lose it for trivially sounding reasons. - E.g. lying on the application
"Trivially sounding reasons".... lying on the application.
Lol.
----
Yes, I hyperbolized a little in my comment. But I'm tired of people oretending that Norway and Switzerland are somehow completely separate from the EU.
Quote: "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."
They are not "without". They are integrated through and through.
But they are not IN the EU, and the UK doing a Brexit (aka. leaving the EU) does not make them incapable of having the same arrangement as Norway and Switzerland.
As we all know, being somewhere makes you instantly know everything there is to know about that particular there. Of course, this is the inly way to know anything.
My comment hyperbolizes the integration, but it's not too far from the truth.
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.
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 current UK government have a mandate with regards to running the UK more generally, but leaving the EU was its own very clear message. There was a vote in 1975 to continue EU membership, and again in 2016 [1]. It very much feels likely something that should only be undone on another vote.
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.
And there was considerable debate prior to the referendum within the Leave camp as to whether to go for a "soft Brexit" (close regulatory alignment) or "hard Brexit" (what the final deal ended up being).
Indeed parts of the leave movement explicitly used as an argument that a soft Brexit was possible, including explicitly airing the possibility of a Norway-style EEA membership. Given how close the result was, it's highly unlikely that there wouldn't have been greater support for a very soft option than for what we got.
I'd fully support a vote if rejoining was one of the options. It's pretty clear from polls that support to rejoin is far stronger than the support for Brexit was (in June, it was 55% for vs. 34% against, vs. 59% in support of a closer relationship and 20% against, and 29% supporting the current relationship).
But in the meantime it is also entirely unambiguous that there is a clear mandate for a closer relationship - the gap is so huge (much larger than the support for the current status quo ever was) that there's no real need for another vote for that and voters can punish parties that support it at the next general election.
Does that mean when a government is elected by a low turnout, that it is also not democratic? The current UK government was elected on a 59.7% electorate turnout [1], whereas Brexit was decided based on a 72.2% electorate turnout [2].
It wasn't binding so the normal procedure and checks around a referendum could be ignored. Like disenfranchising the British citizens living in the EU.
It was just an exercise in testing the mood of the nation, don't you see? Just like a general election, if the electorate vote the wrong party, it is perfectly fine to just ignore the result.
The vote was non-binding due to the sovereignty of parliament [1]. It means that if a war broke out or the economy crashed, they would not be forced to continue at great detriment to the UK. But it doesn't mean that the vote was a mere suggestion - anybody who suggests such doesn't understand democracy.
If only there was a type of nation-wide poll that could be conducted to make such claims so strongly. Maybe we pick a single day, each side makes their cases to the people, and then they cast their choices to be counted. But I guess it can't be done.
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.
I remember the UK government at the time spent £9.3 million of taxpayer's money to push a pro-EU leaflet out [1], not to mention a concerted effort from the news media. It's not as if there was not strong campaigning happening on both sides.
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.
The Icelandic people are fortunate to have this discussion and debate now because, in 2026 and seeing what the EU is, it is very clear what the choice is: being an independent country or being a 'state' of a federal EU.
It is for them only to decide and they have clarity so they can make an informed decision.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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;
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];
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.
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?
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.
If I were an Icelander, I'd oppose any common access to fisheries, even if it meant being unable to join the EU.
> And unlike the 1970s, I don't see the EU expanding the EEA or EFTA ro accomodate Iceland.
Iceland is already a member of the EEA agreement, alongside Norway and a Liechtenstein [1]. As I have seen it, the EU have been quite friendly and accommodating towards the EEA countries.
Firstly, fishing is naturally an important issues for island nations and countries with a long coastline.
Secondly, it is an important issue since it is one of the key industries that can sustain people in rural areas. So if you have a policy to promote people living in rural areas and prevent extreme urbanization, then fishing is one of if not the number one issue. So even if it's economic impact is minimal, it is an extremely important part of the overall political landscape for countries that want to sustain a independent food source and rural population.
But others have pointed out, the fishing rights have been largely bought up by a few wealthy people, so giving that up to EU does not matter that much to a lot of people anymore as the ones that owns it now are not liked and already run jt in a very EU like style, so there is not that much to loose, but a lot to gain. At least thats one prominent perspective.
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.
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.
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, …
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.
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.
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.
What do you call a state with an unelected president? This role has come about with no citizens in the EU being asked to approve it or vote for it. Being selected by a handful of bureaucrats is a creepy technocracy with zero pretensions for being a functioning democracy. Foolishness to see it any other way.
It highly depends. Everything from "monarchy" to "indirect democracy".
Even the Americans don't elect their president directly, they have a special council inbetween to distribute more power to the sparsely populated states.
Russia is a direct democracy (the people do directly elect their leader) but also the example of why technicalities like that make no difference in how fair politics are.
Who, in Europe, even knew they were getting a de facto president who they could not choose? This is meant to be a rationalised organisation with lofty egalitarian ideals, and yet it has to struggle to compete against descents into chaos and corruption in USA and Russia.
In most European countries we don’t vote for prime minister/presidents.
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.
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.
Do you understand that a massive project like the EU has pros and cons, and things are not unidimensional? I am against chat control, but there is more to the EU than that.
No internal customs, easy trade and travel between the multiple relatively small countries, and a very stable common monetary unit, are "nothing to show for"??
If you had lived in an EU country that wasn't in the EU 20-30 years ago, you would've known damn well what's there today to show for. You either don't live in the EU or you've got amnesia and can't remember what it used to be like. Cut your bullshit.
I hope you keep to your principles and make sure not to lock your doors at night, and don't deny anyone the right to live in your house with you for free if they desire.
"Advocating open national borders means you must let random strangers live in your house" a truly reasonable and not at all disingenuous argument. On par with "advocating socialism means you must let random strangers use your toothbrush".
Misrepresenting the argument is not a good look. The argument is that everyone believes in borders. And that borders aren't racist. The only question is where we personally accept them being drawn. But NOBODY believes they're inherently all bad. Not even the people who pretend to do so, and are all too happy to throw around accusations of fascism and racism, to appeal to base emotion rather than logical and practical arguments.
But the person you are responding to didn't say "any and all borders are racist, including borders in your own home". You are the one misrepresenting their argument.
I don't know if you're being intentionally obtuse, or you genuinely believe what you're saying. I was the one saying that a border is a border, and you had better have a good explanation as to why the national border is fundamentally different from your home. If it's okay to protect your home, why is it WRONG to protect your country? See? I was putting the OP to the test: why is one just fine, but the other reprehensible? Instead, the OP responded with accusations of racism.
There is a lot of space in my country that is not actively used as living space. On the other hand, 100% of the space in my home is actively used as living space.
Comparing a country and a home is a poor comparison.
Sorry I must brake away from HN guidelines here: But this is an infinitely dumb comparison. I can’t even begin to fathom what kind of endless ignorance and prejudges can possess a person to speak such stupid words.
A persons house is not the same as a border. You are comparing apples to grocery stores here. An immigrant can simply build another house next to mine if they want it. You can have open borders and private residence at the same time. One does not exclude the other.
Typical response. Defending my home isn't racist. And your willingness to use that accusation is pathetic and not really worthy of a response... but understand that a border is the same concept be it for a home, for a community, for a city, or for a nation. Your dismissal is not cogent, it just hides utter misunderstanding of reality, and a desire to make other people pay a price you're not willing to pay yourself.
> understand that a border is the same concept be it for a home, for a community, for a city, or for a nation
People from other cities may enter my city, but people from other homes may not enter my home. These concepts are not the same, nor are they close, nor are they comparable.
Fishing. Their IQ is high enough to understand it’s not a clear cut answer (unlike say the U.K where fishing is an insignificant part of the economy that was mainly sold off by British fishermen when they retired)
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?
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.
Then, as you learn more, it turns out life isn't that great there.
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.
As the Polish government have made very clear, the length of the transition period can be indefinite.
And it isn't really a negotiable. It's up to the country when it wants to join the Euro. They just have to promise that they'll do it at some unspecified point in the future.
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.
Countries have wildly different needs regarding monetary policy. Those interests are sometimes in conflict. When push comes to shove, unsurprisingly the powerful dictate the rules: see the 2010s Eurozone crises.
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.
There are countries outside the EU that have switched to the euro for this reason, such as Montenegro and Kosovo.
The euro is very stable because it's a used by some big countries (in population and economy). So prices can fluctuate but less because there is little currency-related fluctuation.
Also yes, a country can adopt the euro unilaterally, that's the case for Kosovo and Montenegro.
But that's a tough situation because they're not represented at the CBE, they don't get a say in how much money gets created, banks can't get financing from the CBE...
Yes the Euro is/was stable but not because there are many big countries using it.
The Euro is/was stable because behind it there was stable and relatively well managed democracy named Germany. Unfortunately Germany is not doing so well at the moment and that could deteriorate even faster in the future with the right wing populist gaining grounds who are openly campaigning on leaving the EU and the euro.
As you can imagine, without Germany, there is no euro.
The Euro also spreads the risk to other countries which means that one state's failure can propagate to others.
Look at what happened with Greece and the panic that it caused at the time and that was for a small country witha small GDP. Now look at France who is indebted to its eyeballs and on the verge of electing either a far-right or far-left president who both are EU-skeptics and will try to work around the EU if not completely undermine it.
What happens then? As always in a chain, you are only as strong as your weakest link and unfortunately for the Eurozone, France and Germany are both doing badly at the same time and it doesnt seem that there is any light at the end of the tunnel for both of them currently.
Italy is doing slightly better but its economy is smaller and it is still heavily indebted and it will not be able to carry the Euro itself if either France or Germany decide or are forced somehow to exit the Euro.
To join a band of bullies may seem like a good idea, until you get to know the price. If you join the eu, you basically kill your longterm prospect as a nation.
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).
Other two countries in EEA are Norway and Liechtenstein.
I'm not saying that Iceland should join the EU. Nor that it shouldn't. I don't live in Iceland.
I was explaining to the commenter above me that Iceland already has to comply to EU regulations, because he seemed unaware of that.
Unsurprisingly, every thread on HN that mention EU seems to attract all sorts of people that have absolutely no idea of what the hell they are talking about.
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.
> 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.
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.
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 imports. 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.
So maintaining control over their own fisheries may be a survival-level issue for Iceland.
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 fix their problems, but I can also see not wanting to go it alone.
reply