How do such referenda work in Iceland? Is this a simple Brexit-style yes/no question? Were people provided with context and arguments as to why (presumably?) the goverment was considering joining the EU?
Iceland is already in the EEA and Schengen. The only upside I have read about would be access to adopting the Euro which has a lower inflation rate than the ISK.
The main downside and likely what steered the vote to no are conflicts with Iceland's fishing industry x EU regulations and becoming more vulnerable to foreign ownership and fishing rights.
Fishing represents 40% of Iceland's total exports according to Wikipedia.
My guess is most voters in Reykjavik have near zero exposure to fishing as an industry.
Maybe you are not familiar with the EEA. Iceland already has access to the European single market. Just like Norway, who doesn't seem motivated to join the EU, either.
The referendum was done specifically in two parts - 1. do you want us to try to find a deal with the EU 2. We will thrash out any details, get the best deal we can with the EU and give you another vote.
Seems like Iceland didn't want to even waste the government's time looking into this... I quite like their government treated everyone like adults.
I listened to an interview with the Icelandic PM and this seems pretty much correct. She was pro EU but equally was very clear that there were other things the government could focus on instead.
Do you want us to burn a huge amount of time and effort on this. Or would you prefer us to focus on other problems?
Situations change, asking the same question a few years later is good, not bad. Especially since getting into the EU isn't BAM you're in, but a lengthy process with many exits along the route. I am convinced if a country doesn't want to be in the EU there are many off ramps to not actually be in the EU. And be it some last minute re-negotiation of fishery regulations.
I would be curious to know the age distribution in yesterday's Iceland vote.
In the case of Brexit, the brexiters were mostly old people and the bremainers mostly young; for this reason, the forces of demography are slowly pushing the UK back in the EU's orbit again (looking at the polls). Wondering if the same could apply to Iceland.
It's honestly a smart decision. They already have access to the common market just like Norway. Becoming a full member just means being subject to a EU governing body that has proven itself to be largely ineffective and incompetent, sometimes reaching the realm of "outright harmful" with things like Chat Control. Why would you want to be a part of that, especially if you would also be paying for that privilege?
Disappointing, however why would they when they already have effective access to the single market and other special relationship benefits. There's just no real disincentive to not join.
It is logical if indeed sovereignty was a main issue in the debate even if this vote was officially only about whether to resume "accession talks."
They have the benefit of seeing the situation in the EU and the direction of travel so it is quite clear that any debates on joining the EU is a debate between continuing as an independent country or being absorbed in a federal EU. A very, very big decision to make.
Iceland is one of few countries that can actually afford to have no military. They live on an island. Closest landmass to them is Greenland that's certainly not plotting to annex them and its 300km away.
There's no natutal resources, no anything other than fish and 400,000 human population.
They have a strategic location in the north Atlantic, if the US did not have defacto military control of iceland several other countries have historically been interested in annexing them (germany under WW2, soviet union after that). They also only got their independence from Denmark after WW2.
I think the idea of continuing as an independent country is a bit naive for a country with no army and a population of 400k in a neighborhood full of newly imperial ambitions.
It's either join democratically into a slowly federalizing EU or be eaten up by American imperial ambitions at this point - and I have my doubts the latter option will include the same right to self-determination, considering the Puerto Rico precedent.
The Greenland campaign shows these concerns aren't hyperbole - they're just next in line.
This looks like the usual "plan": frightening people (either because of Russia or Trump) will make them see the "correct path". In fact this is standard EU rhetoric: in today's world there is no choice. This is ironic because in effect this is saying that surrendering sovereignty is the only way to face threats to your sovereignty...
But in reality Iceland is no more at risk of invasion now than it was during the Cold War and is doing extremely well on its own so why give up? I must say I don't follow Icelandic politics but from here it is not clear what they would gain by joining the EU, especially considering that fishing is one of their main industries.
I think the opposite is the plan: Fearmongering against the EU with false talk of sovereignty to butter it up to be eventually be swallowed up by the US.
Greenland wasn't at risk of invasion either, until the US explicitly started threatening it.
It's not the Russians these places need to worry about. Sovereignty will go away either way. The question is whether democratic rule will stay or not. It would as part of the EU. The US has precedent not granting it.
Your point of view is fundamentally anchored to the world of yesterday, when the global landscape looked significantly different and the US was a guarantor of security to Western states, not a threat model. The world has changed since. Old assumptions no longer apply.
WRT sovereignty: I'm sure situations like the recent EPR/PPWR debacle didn't help, where the EU passes bad laws that all EU countries are nevertheless forced to adopt. (Recently discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49419237 )
Joining the EU would be a no-brainer if it didn't micromanage and meddle so much.
The complaint in that article is that "instead of creating a single European system, the PPWR preserves a fragmented national model. A business selling directly to customers across the EU must register and fulfil its obligations separately in every Member State where its packaging becomes waste. For large companies, this is part of the cost of doing business; for micro-businesses selling only a handful of products into each country, the cost and administrative burden can be wildly disproportionate to the amount of packaging involved."
That is not the EU passing bad laws that members are forced to adopt, it's every member state individually deciding that they don't care about microbusinesses that can't even afford the registration fee for their national packaging waste disposal system.
Generally, the EU is a platform for coordination and negotiation between member state governments. So the danger for Icelanders wouldn't be that the Icelandic government is overpowered by the rest of the EU, but that they voluntarily sign up to a deal that benefits some constituencies at the expense of others, and that can't be changed easily anymore because it's now part of an international agreement. That the referendum was rejected is also an indication that Icelanders don't trust their government to negotiate on their behalf.
But that's exactly how it is supposed to work. Primacy of EU law, currency, monetary policy, borders, trade, defence (under way), etc. It is not micromanagement, it is the aim to transfer sovereignty to a federal EU.
There is no way to sugarcoat it. It is no longer the 70s or even 90s when you could claim that this wasn't the situation and aim. So whether people are in favour or opposed to that it has the merit of being clear.
But sovereignty is of the people in a democracy. Why is the arbitrary, much weaker unit of "Iceland" better than the much more powerful, much more defensible unit of "EU"?
No new members until veto is dealt with, thanks.
I'm afraid we'll need more reforms than just a veto reform before the EU would be effective but it's a good start.
How do such referenda work in Iceland? Is this a simple Brexit-style yes/no question? Were people provided with context and arguments as to why (presumably?) the goverment was considering joining the EU?
The vote was for negotiations and not actually joining. Presumably there would have been another vote on joining the EU later.
The telling sign is that the capital Reykjavík voted in favor of negotiations, but rural areas voted against.
Iceland is already in the EEA and Schengen. The only upside I have read about would be access to adopting the Euro which has a lower inflation rate than the ISK.
The main downside and likely what steered the vote to no are conflicts with Iceland's fishing industry x EU regulations and becoming more vulnerable to foreign ownership and fishing rights.
Fishing represents 40% of Iceland's total exports according to Wikipedia.
My guess is most voters in Reykjavik have near zero exposure to fishing as an industry.
And iceland might be forced to limit their business dealings with Russia.
Maybe you are not familiar with the EEA. Iceland already has access to the European single market. Just like Norway, who doesn't seem motivated to join the EU, either.
that's also pretty much what happened in Brexit
The referendum was done specifically in two parts - 1. do you want us to try to find a deal with the EU 2. We will thrash out any details, get the best deal we can with the EU and give you another vote.
Seems like Iceland didn't want to even waste the government's time looking into this... I quite like their government treated everyone like adults.
I listened to an interview with the Icelandic PM and this seems pretty much correct. She was pro EU but equally was very clear that there were other things the government could focus on instead.
Do you want us to burn a huge amount of time and effort on this. Or would you prefer us to focus on other problems?
The exact Icelandic wording printed on the ballot was:
"Á Ísland að hefja á ný aðildarviðræður við Evrópusambandið?" Já/Nei
A very literal English translation is:
"Should Iceland resume accession negotiations with the European Union?" Yes/No
That is the wording formally approved by the Althing (Parliament) on 28 May 2026 and published by Iceland’s National Electoral Commission.
If they were truly meant to be in the EU they would just keep running new referendum until their people choose the "right" answer.
Well I thought your joke was funny.
Situations change, asking the same question a few years later is good, not bad. Especially since getting into the EU isn't BAM you're in, but a lengthy process with many exits along the route. I am convinced if a country doesn't want to be in the EU there are many off ramps to not actually be in the EU. And be it some last minute re-negotiation of fishery regulations.
I would be curious to know the age distribution in yesterday's Iceland vote. In the case of Brexit, the brexiters were mostly old people and the bremainers mostly young; for this reason, the forces of demography are slowly pushing the UK back in the EU's orbit again (looking at the polls). Wondering if the same could apply to Iceland.
It's honestly a smart decision. They already have access to the common market just like Norway. Becoming a full member just means being subject to a EU governing body that has proven itself to be largely ineffective and incompetent, sometimes reaching the realm of "outright harmful" with things like Chat Control. Why would you want to be a part of that, especially if you would also be paying for that privilege?
Disappointing, however why would they when they already have effective access to the single market and other special relationship benefits. There's just no real disincentive to not join.
There are no non paywall articles on this??
It is logical if indeed sovereignty was a main issue in the debate even if this vote was officially only about whether to resume "accession talks."
They have the benefit of seeing the situation in the EU and the direction of travel so it is quite clear that any debates on joining the EU is a debate between continuing as an independent country or being absorbed in a federal EU. A very, very big decision to make.
> It is logical if indeed sovereignty was a main issue in the debate
It is kind of hard to take countries without standing armies talking about sovereignty seriously.
Iceland is one of few countries that can actually afford to have no military. They live on an island. Closest landmass to them is Greenland that's certainly not plotting to annex them and its 300km away.
There's no natutal resources, no anything other than fish and 400,000 human population.
They have a strategic location in the north Atlantic, if the US did not have defacto military control of iceland several other countries have historically been interested in annexing them (germany under WW2, soviet union after that). They also only got their independence from Denmark after WW2.
I think the idea of continuing as an independent country is a bit naive for a country with no army and a population of 400k in a neighborhood full of newly imperial ambitions.
It's either join democratically into a slowly federalizing EU or be eaten up by American imperial ambitions at this point - and I have my doubts the latter option will include the same right to self-determination, considering the Puerto Rico precedent.
The Greenland campaign shows these concerns aren't hyperbole - they're just next in line.
This looks like the usual "plan": frightening people (either because of Russia or Trump) will make them see the "correct path". In fact this is standard EU rhetoric: in today's world there is no choice. This is ironic because in effect this is saying that surrendering sovereignty is the only way to face threats to your sovereignty...
But in reality Iceland is no more at risk of invasion now than it was during the Cold War and is doing extremely well on its own so why give up? I must say I don't follow Icelandic politics but from here it is not clear what they would gain by joining the EU, especially considering that fishing is one of their main industries.
I think the opposite is the plan: Fearmongering against the EU with false talk of sovereignty to butter it up to be eventually be swallowed up by the US.
Greenland wasn't at risk of invasion either, until the US explicitly started threatening it.
It's not the Russians these places need to worry about. Sovereignty will go away either way. The question is whether democratic rule will stay or not. It would as part of the EU. The US has precedent not granting it.
Your point of view is fundamentally anchored to the world of yesterday, when the global landscape looked significantly different and the US was a guarantor of security to Western states, not a threat model. The world has changed since. Old assumptions no longer apply.
WRT sovereignty: I'm sure situations like the recent EPR/PPWR debacle didn't help, where the EU passes bad laws that all EU countries are nevertheless forced to adopt. (Recently discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49419237 )
Joining the EU would be a no-brainer if it didn't micromanage and meddle so much.
The complaint in that article is that "instead of creating a single European system, the PPWR preserves a fragmented national model. A business selling directly to customers across the EU must register and fulfil its obligations separately in every Member State where its packaging becomes waste. For large companies, this is part of the cost of doing business; for micro-businesses selling only a handful of products into each country, the cost and administrative burden can be wildly disproportionate to the amount of packaging involved."
That is not the EU passing bad laws that members are forced to adopt, it's every member state individually deciding that they don't care about microbusinesses that can't even afford the registration fee for their national packaging waste disposal system.
Generally, the EU is a platform for coordination and negotiation between member state governments. So the danger for Icelanders wouldn't be that the Icelandic government is overpowered by the rest of the EU, but that they voluntarily sign up to a deal that benefits some constituencies at the expense of others, and that can't be changed easily anymore because it's now part of an international agreement. That the referendum was rejected is also an indication that Icelanders don't trust their government to negotiate on their behalf.
But that's exactly how it is supposed to work. Primacy of EU law, currency, monetary policy, borders, trade, defence (under way), etc. It is not micromanagement, it is the aim to transfer sovereignty to a federal EU.
There is no way to sugarcoat it. It is no longer the 70s or even 90s when you could claim that this wasn't the situation and aim. So whether people are in favour or opposed to that it has the merit of being clear.
But sovereignty is of the people in a democracy. Why is the arbitrary, much weaker unit of "Iceland" better than the much more powerful, much more defensible unit of "EU"?
The sovereign remains the same, the people.
That’s disappointing :(
Why?
That's the way unless you want to reward the EU for their anti small business moves.
Regarding the shit show that is the EU at the moment, it is obvious that they have nothing to win to join.
How do you mean that the EU is a shit show?