Iceland votes on whether to restart talks on joining EU

So I support the general idea of European integration but boy are there some problems and certain industries or political groups punch way above their weight in terms of influencing these processes. For example, agriculture is a relatively small amount of the French economy but French farmers have outsized political impact on Frech and EU policy.

Fisheries is another of those and we have several data points to show the EU policies have generally been corrupt and a disaster for fisheries management.

1. The UK. As many know, the EU didn't start at the EU. It went through several predecessor organizations post-WW2 including the Common Market, the EEC and the EC. Those really began in the 1950s and the UK at that time declined to join and thus wasn't a founding member. At that point, fisheries weren't a common resource.

The UK began accession talks in 1970 (along with Denmark, Ireland and Norway). Hours before that the EEC changed its rules to make fisheries have common access to member states.

The UK has not always been the best custodian of the fisheries. They were historically overfished. But what's also clear is that the EU has been just as bad. There's a complex system on top of all of this about allowed fishing fleet sizes (by tonnage) and catch quotas. Over the years there have been many stories about how these quotas were increased through opaque (some would say backroom or even corrupt) deals. It hasn't worked;

2. Norway. Fisheries have always been a real sticking point for Norway and they're not open access. Norway didn't join the EU (or the EEC at the time) but instead they carved out an intermediate organization. The EEA I think? Here's a Venn diagram [1];

3. The UK (again). Continued access to fisheries by EU member states was a real sticking point and a major issue in the withdrawal agreement. It was also probably a factor in the Leave vote in fishing towns in the UK affected by all this. I believe the EU negotiated 6+ years of continued access.

That was meant to end this year but a 12 year extension was negotiated taking that to 2038. Think about that: why does this relatively tiny industry command such importance in the EU?

Iceland seemingly has been a relatively good steward for their fisheries. Were they to negotiate joining the EU, I think, much like Norway, it'll become a dealbreaker for both sides. And unlike the 1970s, I don't see the EU expanding the EEA or EFTA ro accomodate Iceland. It's a different time and Iceland just doesn't have Norway's negotiating position. Plus the political climate is different. Norway was NATO's bulwark against the USSR in the Cold War.

If I were an Icelander, I'd oppose any common access to fisheries, even if it meant being unable to join the EU.

[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1qbq43v/european_in...

Not if everyone else starts fishing in them. Take a look at the Common Fisheries Policy. It effectively means everyone else in the EU can show up and fish for it themselves, potentially undermining the export revenue and (more importantly) severely disrupting all the work they've done to make it sustainable.

Sorry I must brake away from HN guidelines here: But this is an infinitely dumb comparison. I can’t even begin to fathom what kind of endless ignorance and prejudges can possess a person to speak such stupid words.

A persons house is not the same as a border. You are comparing apples to grocery stores here. An immigrant can simply build another house next to mine if they want it. You can have open borders and private residence at the same time. One does not exclude the other.

Now please, take your racism somewhere else.

As it happens sovereignty is a binary thing, at least when looked at domain by domain. Either you are sovereign or you are not, there is no half-sovereign.

The EU is going the federalisation way. Even now member countries relinquished sovereignty on key aspects: border control and immigration, monetary policy and currency, trade policy, and then a bunch of other things. This is hugely significant for a country.

This is just a referendum on talks so won't "seal their fate" but kudos to them for holding it.

It highly depends. Everything from "monarchy" to "indirect democracy".

Even the Americans don't elect their president directly, they have a special council inbetween to distribute more power to the sparsely populated states.

Russia is a direct democracy (the people do directly elect their leader) but also the example of why technicalities like that make no difference in how fair politics are.