Iceland votes on whether to restart talks on joining EU

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.

Even then, all the power is in the Commission; the Commission is split in areas (competition, energy, trade, etc.), and each country nominates a commissioner in each area, and the total Commission gets approved once again by democratically elected Parliament. The head of the Commission has only one single vote, and a majority vote decides if anything passes, and even the Parliament has to approve it. That said, I think we all want Parliament to have the ability to propose legislation.

So don't take this ignorant take in here and present it as some kind of dictatorship and a fundamental flaw of the EU that undermines it all; the EU has been a massive positive force for the continent, and people like you just like to shit on it.

That's my point: that's the most marginal thing imaginable, it's borderline tabloid populism - even though yes, admittedly over a lot of issues, it' beneficial obviously.

The 'common market' is pretty valuable and it's what the focus should be.

Literally nobody is against that - it's what everyone agrees on.

As far as travel and roaming fees - you don't need a centralized government for any of that. This is the 'political project' substituting for what you think are benefits of what is mostly shared regulations.

But the 'currency' thing is the most misleading.

Your ability to 'not change currency while on holiday' does not come for free!

It comes with a massive cost, and that is nation states cannot control their own monetary policy.

What 'feels like' some kind of obvious amazing benefit, is possibly the most ugly structural think holding all of Europe back.

The theory is - you cannot have shared currency unless there is absolute political and economic integration.

The 'Euro' can only work if basically you have 'Europe Federal Superstate' - one country.

When it was introduced, the population would 'not yet' accept federal political integration, and it was assumed that the inevitable 'Euro' crisis would be just cause for deeper political integration.

The 'Euro crisis' arrived in early 2010's (it was inevitable) and Europe did not go to 'full federal state' (thankfully), but - it's never recovered from that mess.

When periphery countries joined the Euro, it was kind of assumed that risk would be shared. Nations were given lending rates far below what was appropriate.

That massive building in Spain in the 2000's was caused by Euro integration - was 'low rate' euphoria - money washing over the country.

But it was not sustainable, crashed, and left many countries in a horrible state. No 'bailouts' from German taxpayers, and no 'Eurobonds' or shared risk - and worse - no ability to devalue the currency to spur economic activity.

Unless there are transfers of wealth or other mechanisms (North Europe will never accept) then ... Mediterranean Europe is stuck in an economic prison due to 'half complete' currency project.

The evidence on the other side is strong: places Sweden and Denmark - that at least maintained their own currencies - are in much better position. Literally those that avoided the Euro are arguably better off.

It's a complicated subject obviously - but my overall point is, the 'psychology of the Euro' aka 'no exchange on holiday' and the sense of unity around common currency etc. can be very misleading. The Euro could very well be one of Europe's worst problems - again - even if it has benefits as well.

'The Euro' might be the best symbol of all over what is 'perceived' to be good for Europe, but what is actually bad.

And 'the answer' is probably not a pendulum of 'more or less integration' - but actually less integration in some areas, more integration in others.