Iceland votes on whether to restart EU talks in a razor-thin referendum

Iceland votes on whether to restart talks on joining EU

Iceland votes on whether to restart EU talks in a razor-thin referendum

Icelanders are voting in a referendum on whether to resume European Union accession talks, 13 years after they were suspended. With a population under 400,000, the outcome is too close to call, with polls showing a near tie. The debate centers on sovereignty, particularly control over Iceland's vital fishing industry, rather than security concerns. A Yes vote would not mean immediate membership but would move toward an accession agreement, subject to a second referendum and parliamentary approval. The No campaign warns against ceding decision-making to Brussels, while the Yes side argues EU membership could bring economic benefits, including lower interest rates.

Prime Minister Kristrún Frostadóttir said joining the EU would be 'one of the biggest risk-reducing steps we can take.'
  1. ekidd

    > 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.

  2. saevarom

    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.

  3. bluegatty

    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.

  4. beloch

    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.

  5. apples_oranges

    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.

  6. bilekas

    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!

  7. xaxbxcxdxe

    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.

  8. alasano

    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.

  9. ghusto

    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.

  10. mixdup

    It seems odd to hold a referendum on holding talks. Why not just negotiate an agreement and then hold a referendum on that agreement?

More from this day

2026-08-29