Iceland rejects EU accession talks plan in referendum
Al Jazeera
Iceland rejects EU accession talks plan in referendum
The 'No' camp had 52.5 percent and the 'Yes' camp had 47.5 percent with only a few ballots left to count, RUV reports.
Sad but not unexpected. The EU doesn’t do influence operations but its adversaries does. I will not be surprised when it comes out that both Russia and the US invested heavily in getting Iceland to vote no.
A shame that they didn’t even want to talk, but at least Trump and Putin got their wish.
THIS is very, very narrow plank to walk on…
They can barely communicate the good things that they openly do, so being able to do covert influence operations is… unlikely.
See how good they are?
🤣
It does.
I think you need more proof than a general hand-wave towards a wikipedia article where some european countries have done some bad things. There’s no coordinated EU wide neocolonialism going on afaik. Feel free to prove me wrong.
CTRL+F "fish" in the article, or you can google "EU fishing West Africa" for more details, but TL;DR: The EU has a number of fishing agreements signed with questionably/non-democratic West African governments, to the detriment of the local population who needs to fish to eat.
Shure, but thats a different thing. The Argument wasnt about “evil” trade or military or demigration deals.
It was about influence campaigns trying to change the voting behaviour of some population.
I mean, the lack of necessity of trying to change the voting behavior (because you're dealing with a dictatorship/oligarchy that doesn't respond to popular opinion) isn't exactly a point for the EU here; getting caught up in the method is missing the forest for the trees. The point is that the EU isn't above forcing using its influence to force bad policy on foreign countries for its own gain, so when it loses the propaganda war with America/Russia it's not due to some moral standard. I absolutely count using its economic clout to force unequal trade deals on weaker countries as "influence operations;" what America and Russia do is just how you do that with democracies. There's also that one time it forced disastrous austerity on Greece. The fact that the EU doesn't have its own Murdoch isn't a testament to its moral integrity.
I think youre fighting a strawman here, nobody said that the eu has moral integrity…
That was never the question, the Mediterranean See ist the most deady border worldwide.
I mean, the parent commenter never explicitly said "the EU doesn't do influence operations due to its moral integrity," but that tends to be the subtext with comparisons like these. Maybe I'm just too paranoid.
I get the fear around the fishing industry, but regardless of Iceland's dependance on them we all need to stop eating fish. We're completely wrecking the ocean ecosystems - it's not sustainable.
I'd love to have Iceland fully join us in the EU.
See, they saw through this and knew Europeans would take their fish away.
They’re wrecked, what we have now is what’s left of an oceanic apocalyptic event.
I read very interesting interview with a fisherman from Iceland. He said that he wanted to join the EU in the past but now it is „economic prison” and he doesn’t want to join it. To me - it really looks like we are loosing propaganda battle with huge empires spreading propaganda against the eu aggressively, without our response. No idea how to change that but I spent half of the morning thinking about it with no result. It really is not based on merit. Like most of politics nowadays. We have the highest standard of living, strong economy etc. Yes - we are getting weaker by sending shit tones of money to our adversaries for LNG which we literally just burn but we can counter that.
Sad, but fair. Door is open if they change their mind
That won’t happen for a generation, and by then, the EU may be a new Warsaw Pact ruled by decree from Moscow or something.
lol. russia will be rebuilding for the next generation or two. They wont be ruling anything except their own potato fields
That would be so if Agent Krasnov hadn’t squandered NATO’s defensive weapons on a stock manipulation scheme in the Hormuz Strait. Russia could bombard Berlin or Brussels with ballistic missiles (of which it has a growing surplus) in the same way it is bombarding Kyiv, as there are no more Patriot interceptors and won’t be.
While the ballistic missiles certainly damage Kyiv and its people, they haven’t pushed them into surrender. I don’t see how spreading out the ballistic missiles Russia has to more countries, who will then join the war more actively, would help them.
You know what Germany did with the Blitz in London in WW2 ? It didnt bring Britain to surrender. Kyiv also does not surrender.
Non Atomic Air Bombardments cause damage but they dont win wars in most cases. Why would they here ?
It's really hard to tell where things are going from here (one important but difficult question being which European countries will or won't go full Nazi), but that is not happening. The Eastern Bloc was the result of aggressive industrialization and modernization during the interwar period by the USSR; Putin isn't interested in anything like that (because it requires not being tremendously corrupt) and nobody interested in anything like that is in a position to succeed him.
So, change is constant. Got it.
well of course the fishing industry us scared because they are disgusting whale murderers.
From what I know, it’s only one guy who still does that and most of the meat becomes dog food
yes but the country is not only unable to stop him but its authorities are actively helping.
This is an update from the Captain Paul Watson Foundation whose detained ship I saw in Reykjavik when I was there three weeks ago.
So how is that justified and necessary then?
No but probably not the reason for the outcome of the referendum as a majority of Icelanders is against whaling
I expected them to vote as much. Iceland is a tiny country that relies mainly on fishing. And it’s not like the smaller mainland European nations, who heavily rely on their larger neighbors for trade and defense.
The vote also seems to have been prompted by fears of US aggression. Iceland is already in NATO so (on paper) it benefits from collective defense. Joining the EU might cement defense commitments by mainland countries, but Iceland will still need to invest heavily in national defense for that to realistically protect them from a belligerent America.
To me this just doesn’t seem feasible for a country like Iceland. Imo there is a threshold that needs to be reached before any level of protection is achieved and imo Taiwan is basically the only small country that managed to reach this point. But what it took to get there is being the linchpin for the most important global industry.
It’s pretty stupid to not even look at the offer EU would make
Yeah, not even looking at the offer seems stupid. Unless maybe you think that it leads to consequences before you get the chance to voice your opinion again. I’m not sure how it was communicated in the lead up to this referendum, at what stage in the process the next one would be.
The EU shouldn’t come to the protection of countries that actively reject them then (this includes Greenland who left in 1983).
greenland isn’t a country
Still left the European Community in 1983. No amount of downvoting changes this fact.
That’s true - but Greenland’s defense is managed by Denmark, who is indeed a member of the EU, so your argument doesn’t really hold.
Go ask Denmark then, not other EU countries when Trump comes for you, Greenland.
They are. It was Denmark who asked other EU countries to help.
Under the current rules, the Greenland premier isn’t even allowed to talk to foreign leaders without a Danish representative present.
In a sense, Greenland has no foreign relations beyond those mediated by Denmark.
What did Greenland do to piss you off?
And our tax money shouldn’t go to Greenland’s defense. Become member and contribute.
What tax money? Greenland’s defense is funded by Denmark. If your country uses its military to aid Denmark and Greenland that’s not Greenland’s or EU’s fault, that’s a decision made by your government.
Not if Denmark demands help from other EU nations to defend their non-EU territory that made the conscious decision to leave us.
Denmark demands nothing, where are you getting that from?
Any troops or military aid sent to Greenland were sent freely and independently by individual states.
What exactly do you think has happened?
Iceland is part of EEA, so it hasn’t really rejected EU I’d say, they just don’t want to talk about giving up sovereignty.
It doesn’t. EU doesn’t even protect its members. EU doesn’t have any army or common defense policy. Maybe you’re confusing it with NATO?
yes it does, look up Article 42.7 TEU
" This assistance can, for example, range from diplomatic support and technical or medical assistance to civilian or military aid, among others."
So it’s “assistance”, not “defense” mechanism. Each member can decide what type of assistance they will provide but they are not mandated to “protect” anyone. That’s what NATO is for.
The EU article is even stronger. NATO Article 5 says
“deeming necessary” can be anything, really.
The EU one states
Having an “obligation” and being obligated to use “all the means in their power” is stronger than the “deeming necessary” of the NATO.
You’re actually right, EU does have common defence policy: en.wikipedia.org/…/Common_Security_and_Defence_Po…
It’s funny because I was reading a report on EU defense preparedness the other day (fundacionalternativas.org/…/INFORME_DEFENSA_2026.…) and it was describing how UK, France and Germany never agreed on how to respond to wars in the Balkans, Iraq and Syria (some countries wanted to intervene and some didn’t, depending on their internal politics). In the most important cases EU was never able to present a common front and respond cohesively. But yes, technically EU is able to conduct military missions and it did in some cases.
It does, the Common Security and Defense Policy.