Iceland in EU. Yes or no?

[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.

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.

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.

[HoreTore]

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

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!

[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!

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

[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.

[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

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.

[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.