Iceland in EU. Yes or no?

[Louis VI the Fat]

It is official!!

The oldest parliament in the world has voted 'yes' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8153139.stm) to a future EU membership. :jumping:

Parliament in Iceland has voted by a narrow majority to set in motion an application to join the European Union, after five days of gruelling debate.

Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir of the Social Democrats has also been pushing for the adoption of the euro as the Nordic country's currency.

The bid must now be approved by the EU, after which Iceland's people will be asked to vote on it in a referendum. Ms Sigurdardottir said that several years of negotiations lay ahead.


The main benefits of EU membership at the moment would be the possibility of joining the exchange rate mechanism, and eventually adopting the euro. EU commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso welcomed the vote, saying Iceland was a "European country with long and deep democratic roots".
Opponents of the bid fear EU quotas could hurt Iceland's fishing industry. Correspondents say Iceland, with a population of just 320,000, has traditionally been sceptical about joining the EU.
But many people there have warmed to the idea of membership following the devastating economic meltdown which saw the top Icelandic banks collapse in a matter of days last year. Needless to say, I am very excited by this. Go Vikings!

Plunder Bruxelles at will so long as you send us your women! :iceland:

[HoreTore]

The colonials are acting up again...

The only sensible action for Iceland is, of course, to embrace Norwegian overlordship again. Together we will rule the world!! The monks on England's coast will scream with horror!




Btw Louis, not to crush your hopes, but the woman they will send most is their PM.... And she's gay....

[Viking]

If this is a step towards making Old Norse the sole official language of the EU; then, by all means, I am all for it.

As for the genetical health of the women in such a small populace on an isolated island, uh...I remain unconvinced of the superiority.

[Beskar]

Btw Louis, not to crush your hopes, but the woman they will send most is their PM.... And she's gay....

Great news for LGBT community, a woman and homosexual. Go Iceland.

[Hooahguy]

i dont see why not. are there even any icelanders in the backroom?

[HoreTore]

i dont see why not. are there even any icelanders in the backroom?

As there are only some 300.000 of them, chances are rather low....

EDIT: As to "why not"; it's fishing. That's the main concern for iceland, that the EU will chop up their quotas, drive away the local fishermen and overfish, thus emptying their banks....

[Vladimir]

EDIT: As to "why not"; it's fishing. That's the main concern for iceland, that the EU will chop up their quotas, drive away the local fishermen and overfish, thus emptying their banks....

Too late! :drummer:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

For, because the more the EU expands the more likely it will be to potentially implode.
Against, because I dislike the EU and don't want it expanding in the chance that it has a power increase because of it.

Choices...

[Kralizec]

It's up to them, if they say they want in I say they're welcome.

The fishy issue is worrysome, though.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The fishy issue is worrysome, though.Fishery is an unmitigated environmental catastrophe.

Short-sighted local interests means that the EU fishing quota are set at unsustainable levels. I have some hope Iceland could talk some sense into other countries. Hopefully, but not likely. Which is why the Icelandic Green Party voted 'no' today.

As it stands, any proposed lowering of fish quota to sustainable levels is met everywhere within the EU with furious allegations of intrusive 'Brussels bureaucracy', out to destroy fishing communities. No amount of structural funds to support other means of income can placate the fury. They'll fish and fish until everything is gone.

In Iceland fish stocks are as depleted as foreign bank accounts. For the foreseeable future, fishery won't save Iceland I think. Doesn't matter. All nations that have joined the EU were bankrupt and in need of economic re-structuring upon joining (except the class of 1995). It is what the EU specialises in.


For the sake of fun:

Cod Wars. (http://www.britains-smallwars.com/RRGP/CodWar.htm)

The wars that raged after WWII between Iceland and the UK over fish. Iceland's navy vs the Royal Navy. Iceland won.

There raged a similar war between Norway and Iceland I think.

[Kralizec]

Fishery is an unmitigated environmental catastrophe.

Yes, it is.


As it stands, any proposed lowering of fish quota to sustainable levels is met everywhere within the EU with furious allegations of intrusive 'Brussels bureaucracy', out to destroy fishing communities.

Until last year the fishing quota for tuna in the mediteranean was actually very close to what's considered sustaintable. The problem is that most countries have fishing fleets capable of easily exceeding this amount on their own. The fishing quota is a farce; Italian fishermen justify their behaviour by pointing out that the French and Spanish are doing the same. And none of those countries are interested in enforcing the rules.

One of the arguments against Icelandic entry, from their own perspective, is that their own fishing regulations are at least as good and are enforced properly.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Of course, I have some hope that today's vote will have an impact on another small Atlantic Island state...

Almost equally in the grip of fast money made from lax financial and taxation laws, and left almost as ravaged because of it. :idea2:



@Kralizec. Yes, it only ever takes a handful of angry fishermen for Paris or local authorities to cave in.

[Pannonian]

Of course, I have some hope that today's vote will have an impact on another small Atlantic Island state...

Almost equally in the grip of fast money made from lax financial and taxation laws, and left almost as ravaged because of it. :idea2:

Of course, Ireland's problems would be alleviated somewhat if they joined her neighbours to the east, who reside in splendour in the English Ocean.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Of course, Ireland's problems would be alleviated somewhat if they joined her neighbours to the east, who reside in splendour in the English Ocean.Why didn't I think of that!? :wall:

Instead of 'Lisbon: for or against', give them this referendum:
A) Join Europe, free and independent.
B) Join England.

:idea2:

[Beskar]

Would be interesting to see.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As there are only some 300.000 of them, chances are rather low....

EDIT: As to "why not"; it's fishing. That's the main concern for iceland, that the EU will chop up their quotas, drive away the local fishermen and overfish, thus emptying their banks....

Papa always says the Norse (including the insane Vikings in that particular colony) are better at managing fish than anyone else.


Fishery is an unmitigated environmental catastrophe.

Short-sighted local interests means that the EU fishing quota are set at unsustainable levels. I have some hope Iceland could talk some sense into other countries. Hopefully, but not likely. Which is why the Icelandic Green Party voted 'no' today.

As it stands, any proposed lowering of fish quota to sustainable levels is met everywhere within the EU with furious allegations of intrusive 'Brussels bureaucracy', out to destroy fishing communities. No amount of structural funds to support other means of income can placate the fury. They'll fish and fish until everything is gone.

In Iceland fish stocks are as depleted as foreign bank accounts. For the foreseeable future, fishery won't save Iceland I think. Doesn't matter. All nations that have joined the EU were bankrupt and in need of economic re-structuring upon joining (except the class of 1995). It is what the EU specialises in.


For the sake of fun:

Cod Wars. (http://www.britains-smallwars.com/RRGP/CodWar.htm)

The wars that raged after WWII between Iceland and the UK over fish. Iceland's navy vs the Royal Navy. Iceland won.

There raged a similar war between Norway and Iceland I think.

The problem is not quotas, it is the failure to establish no-fish zones, and the way the caps encourage trawlermen to throw back excess of one species and keep fishing, instead of filling up and returning to port with a full hold.

If th EU established large no-fish zones and prosecuted trawlermen found in those zones stocks would begin to recover quite quickly. Instead, we have totally useless quotas.

Edit: I'd like to point out that the Cod Wars hark back to a time when we had 22 Frigates to spare. :thumbsdown:

[KukriKhan]

Iceland. Geo-thermal energy production champion of the world.

Cute, yet sturdy girls.

We shudda offered 'em Statehood.

Dang.

[Don Corleone]

I think we need to start a bidding war for those Icelandic women. NAFTA should make a bid.

[Furunculus]

Voted: "I'm Icelandic but support a Gahyser Union"

because it's not my place to tell the people of iceland what political groupings they should join.

they did very well outside the EU, however the current financial crisis has obviously made icelandic politicians value security more than opportunity, we shall see if the icelandic people hold the same view come the referendum.

[rory_20_uk]

Why didn't I think of that!? :wall:

Instead of 'Lisbon: for or against', give them this referendum:
A) Join Europe, free and independent.
B) Join England.

:idea2:

Is that a joke? Free and independent in Europe? Joint something with Tony Blair as the first President once everyone gets crushed by the re-votes until they get the "right" answer?

Joining the EU is akain to going to a loanshark in difficult times. Sure, you get the money and a big smile, but then you find you've sold your future.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Is that a joke? Free and independent in Europe? Joint something with Tony Blair as the first President once everyone gets crushed by the re-votes until they get the "right" answer?

Joining the EU is akain to going to a loanshark in difficult times. Sure, you get the money and a big smile, but then you find you've sold your future.

~:smoking:
We in England respect democracy. Once a vote is held, its result matters. However, we may whip you into compliance to ensure the right result comes through.

[rory_20_uk]

Yes, but the government also reserves the right not to vote if it feels it might loose, and hence on some decisions best not give the populace the vote who might vote incorrectly and instead roundly whip the politicians to do the "right" thing... and considering the number in the EU bureaucracy who are washed up domestic MPs or wives (the Kinnocks anyone?) it's hardly a bad thing.

And although the result matters, issues can be "revisited" which amounts to trying to overturn a previous decision.

After all, this is the reason we hadn't yet had an election as by delaying Brown is definitely in power, by holding one he's probably not.

~:smoking:

[Louis VI the Fat]

It is now up to the EU to negotiate terms. I say hit 'em while they're down. My list of demands of puny Iceland:

- Higher education on the island of Iceland must be forbidden. Instead, it will be cumpulsory for all women aged 18-24 to spend these years abroad for their adult education.
- Meanwhile all Icelandic men aged 18-24 must perform compulsory military service in Iceland and do something useful involving ice caps or polar bears or something.
- An end to whaling.
- A treaty that finally settles all territorial disputes with the UK, involving a public statement by Elisabeth II that the Royal Navy was defeated by Iceland.
- Agriculture will not be subsidized. Subsidized agriculture in Iceland is as sensible as subsidized skiing resorts in Sicily.
- Iceland must agree to the following stimulus package and economic restruturing: the EU in Brussels and Strasbourg will need interpreters from Old Norse to and from the other twenty-odd official languages of the EU. This will permanently employ half of the Icelandic working population.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Iceland already got fleeced by politicians, bank officials & business leaders taking advantage of finance deregulation *boy that sounds vaguely familiar too, if only I can put my finger on it*. If those are the terms, I wouldn't be surprised if the Icelanders vote to fart in the EU's general direction.~;)

[Louis VI the Fat]

fart in the EU's general direction.~;)You are just envious they came running to us instead of to you. :book:

But then, we've always had that effect on Viking godesses.


I have not felt this superior since my girlfriend's cat hurt its wee little paw and then rushed over to me for consolation instead of to her. She sat purring on my lap for hours. So I threw her off to see to the cat.

[Kagemusha]

You are just envious they came running to us instead of to you. :book:

But then, we've always had that effect on Viking godesses.


I have not felt this superior since my girlfriend's cat hurt its wee little paw and then rushed over to me for consolation instead of to her. She sat purring on my lap for hours. So I threw her off to see to the cat.

And i was under the impression that in the past it was the vikings carrying your women to their ships while their husbands were performing a strategic retreat or something akin to that. Silly me.:laugh4:

[HoreTore]

You are just envious they came running to us instead of to you. :book:

Hah, they came running to us first!

[Whacker]

Re: Iceland's economy. I agree on the fishing issue, it's way overdone and quotas must be lowered across the board.

Iceland needs to jump on two things it has going for it.

First, it's experience and movement towards being near totally independent from fossil fuel needs. I think they want to be self-sufficient by 2050 but are on target for 2030. Geothermal is a biggie. The sleeping giant that I am hoping for is proof that hydrogen-based personal and public transportation is doable. Still, it'll never happen in the US until Exxon and the other big oil companies can figure out how to monopolize it and charge just as much, if not more than now, for hydrogen than gas.

Second, tourism. Specifically eco/geo-tourism. Where others see barren wastelands, I see gorgeous natural landscapes and tons of active volcanoes. There is a LOT of pure, untouched, unspoiled land there that. If the price were right, I'd absolutely go visit for a chunk of time. They need to figure out how to make that attractive and cheap.

[rory_20_uk]

Re: Iceland's economy. I agree on the fishing issue, it's way overdone and quotas must be lowered across the board.

And the EU, one one issue where a united implementation would make sense... let individual states set quotas.

The EU isn't there to make hard, unpopular choices! :dizzy2:

~:smoking:

[Louis VI the Fat]

And the EU, one one issue where a united implementation would make sense... let individual states set quotas.

The EU isn't there to make hard, unpopular choices! :dizzy2:

~:smoking:The EU would love love love to make hard, unpopular choices. It can't, owing to the national choruses of 'undermined sovereignity!'. Is there a country where the fishing lobby does not accuse the EU of destroying their livelyhood?

National ministers of fisheries go into the European negotiations with the interests of their fishing industry in mind, not that of fishing in general. Each one trying to get as large a share of the dwindling stocks for his own country as possible.

The fight, in the popular press, is between an evil European bureaucracy that is out to destroy fishing communities and strip them of their sovereign rights to fish 'as they've always done'. Whereas the real fight is that between the one viable solution: pan-national agreements, enforced at that; and the shortsighted interests of fishing industry, otherwise known as plunder, which has unfortunately managed to present its interests as 'national interests'.

This is precisely why I want the EU to move forward. That it can make hard, unpopular choices without having to cater to all these short-sighted national interests.


has become an event almost as traditional as Christmas itself. Each year, just before the holidays, the European Union's fisheries ministers gather to hash out the next year's permitted catches in EU waters.

And each year, the politicians find themselves snagged between the demands of scientists to protect stocks - particularly cod - and those of fishermen to protect their livelihoods. (See, for example, our stories on the meeting from 2004 and 2003.)

The 2006 meeting proved no different, reaching a middle-ground compromise that pleased neither camp. The EU Fisheries Minister Joe Borg said: "The result was a proposal that has been severely criticised by all sides for being too drastic for some and too weak for others." He argues the new quotas represent a "gradual but sustained approach to delivering sustainable fisheries".

But Tom Pickerell, at wildlife campaign group WWF, said: "The scientists must wonder why they bother with their surveys. It amazes me that world-class survey results are treated with such disdain, while anecdotal views from [fishermen] with vested interests in maintaining quotas are often given credence. We will now need a miracle to save cod."

David Read, Vice President of the Royal Society - the UK national academy of science - added: "Yet again we have seen scientific advice on cod quotas being compromised by political decisions. Given the already alarming condition of stocks, European Fisheries Ministers should be clear that they may be presiding over the total collapse of cod in the Atlantic. And if this does happen, we can't be sure that there is any possibility of recovery."

A major study, published in the journal Science in November 2006 predicted that all commercial fisheries may die out by 2050.
newscientist.com (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10845-eu-fishquota-fight-finds-unhappy-compromise.html)

[Beskar]

Evil Europe, trying to safe-guard our future, boo to them!! If we want to mess things up, we should be allowed then, then we come crying to Europe to save us. :furious3::furious3::furious3:

[Furunculus]

Evil Europe, trying to safe-guard our future, boo to them!! If we want to mess things up, we should be allowed then, then we come crying to Europe to save us. :furious3::furious3::furious3:

are you trying to say something, because if you are then i am missing the message......... ?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The EU would love love love to make hard, unpopular choices. It can't, owing to the national choruses of 'undermined sovereignity!'. Is there a country where the fishing lobby does not accuse the EU of destroying their livelyhood?

National ministers of fisheries go into the European negotiations with the interests of their fishing industry in mind, not that of fishing in general. Each one trying to get as large a share of the dwindling stocks for his own country as possible.

The fight, in the popular press, is between an evil European bureaucracy that is out to destroy fishing communities and strip them of their sovereign rights to fish 'as they've always done'. Whereas the real fight is that between the one viable solution: pan-national agreements, enforced at that; and the shortsighted interests of fishing industry, otherwise known as plunder, which has unfortunately managed to present its interests as 'national interests'.

This is precisely why I want the EU to move forward. That it can make hard, unpopular choices without having to cater to all these short-sighted national interests.

newscientist.com (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10845-eu-fishquota-fight-finds-unhappy-compromise.html)

That is a fallacious arguement. If the EU allowed countries rights to their own soverign waters then they could ban other nations from fishing there. Put simply, there is no reason for the British to cut back quotas, as they have in the past, when Spanish trawlers can come in and take the fish anyway.

The current botched state of the EU is not blame, because less integration would also fix the problem.

[Louis VI the Fat]

If the EU allowed countries rights to their own soverign waters then they could ban other nations from fishing there. Been there, done that. See 'Cod War'.

The way out is through international agreement and enforcement. Preferably global. However, I am not counting on reaching reasonable agreements with the Congo or Burma. Whereas I do think a permanent intitute for international co-operation by medium and small sized European states will function. Much to everbody's benefit. It is also much more efficient to have one agreed and enforced treaty than 27 states having different agreements with the other 26 states.



Also, 'national waters' is not a meaningful concept in sustainable fishing. Fish (like pollution, trade, science etcetera) doesn't recognise national sovereignity.

What if fish spawns in the 'sovereign waters' of country A, spends spring and autumn in country B, and spends winter in C.
If B doesn't allow fishing, then C will harvest all the fish during winter. Unless, of course, A will fish all of it while the fish are young.


A, B, and C will have to reach an agreement.
Together with D, whose rivers are crucial for the ecosystem of the waters of A. And E has traditional cultural fishing rights in the waters of C. The pollution of G affects the waters of C. As does the industry of H. The market for the harvested fish is mainly I. But it is processed in J. And transported through K. Etcetera.
What to do? Meet at a permanent forum and work it out. :yes:

[Furunculus]

i lol at all the people who are "non-icelandic - but in favour of them joining the EU", have you not realised it is none of your business?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100003888/iceland-votes-to-begin-eu-accession-negotiations/


The Icelandic parliament, the Althing, has voted by 33 to 28 to begin accession talks with Brussels. British Europhiles, who have had little enough to cheer lately, are jolly excited about the whole thing. Any moment now, Sunder and Sunny (or do I mean Sunny and Sunder?) will dust off their perennial blog post about how I lack all credibility on the subject, because I failed to predict the Icelandic financial crisis five years before it happened.

Look, chaps, I don’t want to dampen your celebrations, but Iceland won’t join the EU. Its people are too calculating, too hard-headed and too attached to their democratic institutions.

Iceland has voted to start discussing terms, not to accept them. Several of its MPs were elected on the basis of precisely this position: to find out what Brussels might offer. If and when a deal is hammered out, it will be put to a referendum. And there is every chance that, like the Norwegians before them, Icelanders will reject the accession terms that their politicians propose.

In every country in Europe, there is a split between parliament and people on the issue of political union. Eighty-two per cent of Danish MPs voted to adopt the euro, but only 47 per cent of Danes backed them in the subsequent referendum. Ninety-one per cent of Swedish MPs voted for the euro, but only 42 per cent of their constituents agreed. Seventy-seven per cent of French MPs were for the European Constitution Lisbon Treaty, but only 46 per cent of French voters; 84 per cent of Dutch MPs, but 37 per cent of Dutch voters; 92 per cent of Irish MPs, but 47 per cent of Irish voters.

Icelanders, partly because they are few, and partly because they are outside the EU, are not so divorced from their rulers. (I remember, years ago, a politician friend of mine coming in from an evening canvassing in Kópavogur with a stunned expression: “I just met this constituent,” he said incredulously, “and I didn’t know her!”) Even so, it would be strange if Iceland were the only county in the world whose people were less Eurosceptic than their politicians.

Here’s my guess as to what will happen next. Iceland’s Left-wing government will apply formally for membership at the end of this month, and the process will begin in earnest next year. There will be an almighty row about fisheries, which will end with the EU agreeing to a special protocol guaranteeing Iceland the right to its own territorial resources, including energy and fish. Icelandic ministers will claim victory, but sceptics will point out that the protocol is worthless, since it is not included in the main text of the Treaties, which continue to define fish stocks in EU waters as a “common resource” to which all member states have “equal access”.

By this time, Icelanders will have noticed that the EU’s economies are not in great shape. Already, Iceland has started to outperform Ireland. In any case, Icelanders will remember that one of the few parts of their economy that they had already ceded to Brussels before the crash was, er, regulation of financial services.

With the polls looking evenly balanced, the government will call a referendum – probably in late 2010 or 2011. It will lose. Icelanders will vote “No” for these reasons. You doubt me? Alright: I’ll wager a pound to a euro that Icelanders will still be an independent people five years from now.

[Sarmatian]

i lol at all the people who are "non-icelandic - but in favour of them joining the EU", have you not realised it is none of your business?



But it is. For a person living in the EU, it's perfectly sensible to talk about it when another country wants to join EU. EU can't make the decision for them but whatever Iceland decides, I don't see why people outside of Iceland can't have an opinion about that...

[rory_20_uk]

The EU would love love love to make hard, unpopular choices. It can't, owing to the national choruses of 'undermined sovereignity!'. Is there a country where the fishing lobby does not accuse the EU of destroying their livelyhood?

National ministers of fisheries go into the European negotiations with the interests of their fishing industry in mind, not that of fishing in general. Each one trying to get as large a share of the dwindling stocks for his own country as possible.

The fight, in the popular press, is between an evil European bureaucracy that is out to destroy fishing communities and strip them of their sovereign rights to fish 'as they've always done'. Whereas the real fight is that between the one viable solution: pan-national agreements, enforced at that; and the shortsighted interests of fishing industry, otherwise known as plunder, which has unfortunately managed to present its interests as 'national interests'.

This is precisely why I want the EU to move forward. That it can make hard, unpopular choices without having to cater to all these short-sighted national interests.

And that is a major defect in the EU.

It was not started as a constitution that other countries could join when they agreed to follow it, but a mess of countries whose purpose is always just about to be shown.

This shortsighted vision when the EU was formed hobbled it from the start, and as it gets bigger and increasingly unwieldy these things only get worse.

Short of a miracle there is almost no way to move forward as to reach consensus would be all but impossible. Better get it right with small groups of countries who have a cast iron constitution before starting, not unclear rubbish bolted on a decade or so down the line.

~:smoking:

[Louis VI the Fat]

i lol at all the people who are "non-icelandic - but in favour of them joining the EU", have you not realised it is none of your business?Erm...it is very much our business. In fact, it is our business only and nobody else's.

But it would suit me just fine if British anti-EU sentiment would put its money where its mouth is and adopted the stance that it is none of Britain's business who joins the EU. :wink:



~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~


About that column:
Iceland is a sovereign nation. Iceland is also a democracy - it boasts the oldest parliament in the world. It expressed its sovereign democratic will to start negotiations.

It is not on for Daniel Hannan - an elected MEP himself! - to insist that this ancient parliament is not expressing the will of the Icelandic population. Is Iceland not a democracy? Should we perhaps not take this parliament of Iceland's own choice seriously?
Does that clown Hannan not see both the double standard and the diplomatic affront of his juvenile column? He himself is speaking as an elected member of a parliament. Yet, here he is close to claiming that the elected members of another parliament do not represent their constituency.

My, isn't that a respectful way to start off negotiations with Iceland with!
Hannan ought to understand that being an elected representative of Britain does not always combine well with smug activist blogging activities.

I'll meet his challenge with another one: I'll give him his pound, if he goes to Ireland this October, starts off a rant in his affected posh English, protesting that the Irish democratic institutions are obviously inferior, incapable of representing the sovereign will of Ireland, and expressing the hope that the Irish people will listen to his superior English sentiments instead.
I'll give him another pound if, next time he meets, say, American members of Congress for negotiations, he publicly and in a derisive smug tone, insists that they will lose the next elections anyway, making any negotiations with American democratic representatives an obviously useless excersize.

[HoreTore]

It is not on for Daniel Hannan - an elected MEP himself! - to insist that this ancient parliament is not expressing the will of the Icelandic population. Is Iceland not a democracy? Should we perhaps not take this parliament of Iceland's own choice seriously?
Does that clown Hannan not see both the double standard and the diplomatic affront of his juvenile column? He himself is speaking as an elected member of a parliament. Yet, here he is close to claiming that the elected members of another parliament do not represent their constituency.

His claim is also just plain false and irrelevant.

First of all, the Icelandic parliament haven't decided to join the EU without putting it to a vote by the public. That's just what they're doing! They have decided to negotiate with the EU so that they can let the people of Iceland decide, by referendum, whether to join or not. The discussion has been whether to have a referendum on beginning negotiations too, but that would've been undemocratic. Why? Because such a referendum would undoubtedly be presented as a for or against the eu-referendum, and without the negotiations, the Icelanders wouldn't know what deal they will get with the EU, and would therefore be asked to make an uninformed decision. While I can see why some capitalist managers would like that option, making uninformed decisions is after all their livelihood, to us others it's rather dumb...

And I say this as a "no"-man. because the EU, while a good idea, are held captive by the market-libby hippies.... get rid of them, and I'll support ya ~;)

[Furunculus]

But it would suit me just fine if British anti-EU sentiment would put its money where its mouth is and adopted the stance that it is none of Britain's business who joins the EU. :wink:


~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~

I'll meet his challenge with another one: I'll give him his pound, if he goes to Ireland this October, starts off a rant in his affected posh English, protesting that the Irish democratic institutions are obviously inferior, incapable of representing the sovereign will of Ireland, and expressing the hope that the Irish people will listen to his superior English sentiments instead.


fine, the more the merrier.

i think the only hope that he would utter on ireland is that its politicians listen to its electorate.

[Furunculus]

His claim is also just plain false and irrelevant.

First of all, the Icelandic parliament haven't decided to join the EU without putting it to a vote by the public. That's just what they're doing! They have decided to negotiate with the EU so that they can let the people of Iceland decide, by referendum, whether to join or not. The discussion has been whether to have a referendum on beginning negotiations too, but that would've been undemocratic. Why? Because such a referendum would undoubtedly be presented as a for or against the eu-referendum, and without the negotiations, the Icelanders wouldn't know what deal they will get with the EU, and would therefore be asked to make an uninformed decision. While I can see why some capitalist managers would like that option, making uninformed decisions is after all their livelihood, to us others it's rather dumb...

And I say this as a "no"-man. because the EU, while a good idea, are held captive by the market-libby hippies.... get rid of them, and I'll support ya ~;)

errr, isn't that what he says too?


Iceland has voted to start discussing terms, not to accept them. Several of its MPs were elected on the basis of precisely this position: to find out what Brussels might offer. If and when a deal is hammered out, it will be put to a referendum. And there is every chance that, like the Norwegians before them, Icelanders will reject the accession terms that their politicians propose.

[Meneldil]

I dunno. I've had enough of these countries joining in because they're going through a difficult economical situation, get fixed partly thanks to EU funds/trade, and then keep complaining about 'teh evil EU bureaucracy'.

Iceland repeatedly said the EU is terrible and what not and that the country is doing fine without it. Now that everything is going wrong in the country, they suddenly think about joining? A tad too easy for me.

Furthermore, we've had way too many new members lately. As Furunculus and other EU-skeptics are hoping, the more members join, the more instable and unworkable the EU becomes.

[HoreTore]

errr, isn't that what he says too?

Mental note to self:

Never trust Louis, always read the source yourself.

[Furunculus]

Furthermore, we've had way too many new members lately. As Furunculus and other EU-skeptics are hoping, the more members join, the more instable and unworkable the EU becomes.

exactly so.

if the EU were merely a glorified trading block then it would not be possible to cause disintegration by increasing entrant countries, but it is not just a trading block, it has political ambitions that I disagree with (because we are in it) so I am delighted to propose entrants that will make political integration more challenging.

[Furunculus]

Mental note to self:

Never trust Louis, always read the source yourself.

Louis has on occasion accused me of having a overly simplistic view of politics, one must ask as to what lens he peers through to get so distorted a view of others?

[Louis VI the Fat]

HoreTore, Furunculus - I'm sorry, but I didn't give a recapitulation of Hannan's blog. I gave a criticism of it.

In which I accused MEP Hannan of losing sight of the fact that Iceland is a sovereign nation, and that Hannan's blog is dangerously close to a diplomatic affront.



~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~


The Fun stuff!!

Hannan was, until recently a very outspoken admirer of the economic system of...Iceland! That's right, the very ultra-liberalised system that led to the current deep economic crisis in Iceland. (No, not a crisis like the one that rages in Europe or the US. But one that has shook Iceland to the core and swept away the foundation of the country. Iceland is bankrupt.)


Being outside the EU, Iceland has been able to cut taxes and regulation, and to open up its economy. For 70 years the Althing has been dominated by the splendidly named Independence party, which has pursued the kind of Thatcherite agenda that is off limits to EU members
For years, Hannan has written (http://www.spectator.co.uk/print/the-magazine/cartoons/12658/blueeyed-sheikhs.thtml) that Iceland should serve as the example to the EU. Whereas, as it stands, currentl Iceland is bankrupt and has just applied for EU membership.

Is this, perchance, the reason why Hannan reacts so irritable about Iceland negotiations to join the EU and the euro? Why he writes blogs that border on the diplomatic affront? :beam:


Hannan has been a regular visitor to Iceland for 15 years. His best man organised his stag night there to celebrate its refusal to join the European Union, and has declared Icelanders to be the sturdiest and most self-reliant people he knows. Hannan's critics have pointed to his extravagant praise for Iceland's economic miracle prior to the 2008 crash, in which he advocated that other countries should emulate the Icelandic model of minimal national and international regulation as their model.

In an October 2004 piece for the Spectator, entitled Blue-Eyed Shiekhs, Hannan wrote "For 70 years the Althing has been dominated by the splendidly named Independence Party, which has pursued the kind of Thatcherite agenda that is off limits to EU members ... Icelanders have no more desire to submit to international than to national regulation. That attitude has made them the happiest, freest and wealthiest people on earth. Long may they remain so":laugh4:



~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~


I wonder what Hannan's new overlord has to say about all of this, the leader of the British Conservatives in Europe, that nationalist Pole - what's his name. :smash:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Louis has on occasion accused me of having a overly simplistic view of politics, one must ask as to what lens he peers through to get so distorted a view of others?That is not true!! :drama1:

I don't accuse you of having a simplistic view of politics. Only of having an elaborate view of politics that is wrong all the time.

Look, I'm sorry, I don't know what it is about Hannan. There is a certain self-absorbed smugness in his face that just creeps me out. I can't help myself.



I dunno. I've had enough of these countries joining in because they're going through a difficult economical situation, get fixed partly thanks to EU funds/trade, and then keep complaining about 'teh evil EU bureaucracy'.

Iceland repeatedly said the EU is terrible and what not and that the country is doing fine without it. Now that everything is going wrong in the country, they suddenly think about joining? A tad too easy for me.

Furthermore, we've had way too many new members lately. As Furunculus and other EU-skeptics are hoping, the more members join, the more instable and unworkable the EU becomes.Yes, I too am not happy about cleaning up Iceland's mess. It is too easy indeed. Iceland has enjoyed a free ride of EU regulations up until now. Cherry-picking what served the interests of Iceland, without accepting expenses or responsibilities.

But, except for the class of '95, this has been the practise for just about all countries upon joining. And for many, to varying degrees, after joining.

Iceland, despite everything, is a sober and sensible nation. Its membership will strengthen the EU. Quality above quantity.

[Kagemusha]

I will wellcome Iceland to EU with open arms. While i am not friend of deeper integration. I believe economically EU is a good organisation for its member states and i would not mind Norway and Switzerland joining either.

[InsaneApache]

Blair for president should just about put the cap on it.

[HoreTore]

HoreTore, Furunculus - I'm sorry, but I didn't give a recapitulation of Hannan's blog. I gave a criticism of it.

In which I accused MEP Hannan of losing sight of the fact that Iceland is a sovereign nation, and that Hannan's blog is dangerously close to a diplomatic affront.

I based my post on your criticism, but reading his article I just can't see where he's "losing sight of the fact that Iceland is a sovereign nation".... He asserts that the people of Iceland wants to negotiate with the EU, but he also asserts that the majority in Iceland stills says no to the EU....


I will wellcome Iceland to EU with open arms. While i am not friend of deeper integration. I believe economically EU is a good organisation for its member states and i would not mind Norway and Switzerland joining either.

Assassinate your market-libby hippies, and I'll have no problem joining.