Iceland votes on whether to restart talks on joining EU • Hacker News Board

Re: Iceland votes on whether to restart talks on joining EU

#331

Post by jijijijij » Sat, Aug 29, 2026, 3:50 PM UTC

testing22321 wrote: post #168

ekidd wrote: post #7

> The No campaign fears losing control over Iceland's prized fishing grounds under the EU's Common Fisheries Policy and has vowed never to share the country's waters with anyone. Brussels has indicated Iceland could earn some kind of exemption, but it is considered potentially the biggest obstacle to any agreement. As noted in the article, Iceland's fishing industry makes up something like 40% of their exports. Which…

> and membership in the fraying NATO military alliance That framing is.. strange. One member of NATO has lost the plot. For everyone else, it’s stronger than ever. If the US tries to attack a NATO member they’re going to find out just how serious the alliance is. For example, Maersk shipping line in Danish, and carries 15% of the world’s shipping containers. If the US were to invade Greenland it would be illegal for…

> It’s unlikely NATO members will fight the US with bullets and bombs, but I guarantee they can still seriously hurt them.

I am not even sure the US would be able to completely dominate a conflict. While it obviously has the largest military, it's set up to depend on European military defensive and complementary roles in a large scale conflict. In particular US aggression supply and comms critically depend on Europe as ally. Not to mention nuclear defense and early warning infrastructure. Without Europe, there is a big, big ocean between the US and most everything.

For example in terms of military roles, the US lacks the stealthy submarines of European navies. Incidentally, it relies heavily on aircraft carriers for force projection. I think there is a chance European subs could wipe out US carriers and therefore significantly disable US attack abilities straight-away. There is evidence from prior combined exercises, where the US navy was pretty much owned by a single Swedish sub. They are really damn good. So, without deploying ships, what's the US gonna do? Bomb Greenland's tundra? Fly big, slow transporter planes there and hope the European subs won't use their AA missiles? The whole point of those subs is to be a massive pain to aggressive forces and the US assigned that role to Europe...

War against Europe means losing comms and nuclear defense/early warning infrastructure located there. The US would also immediately become vulnerable to Russia and China, and every conflict in the middle east too.

I think attacking Europe would be pretty idiotic from every perspective. Sadly, that doesn't mean much anymore.

Re: Iceland votes on whether to restart talks on joining EU

#332

Post by vixen99 » Sat, Aug 29, 2026, 3:54 PM UTC

apples_oranges wrote: post #23

The arguments that some put forward against the eu are as educated as the people declaring fiat money a scam back in the Bitcoin hype phase. While there are reasons not to join, most commenters against it have no clue what they are talking about.

Why not give an example instead of expecting me to believe your assertion. You may be right or wrong; I have no idea.

Re: Iceland votes on whether to restart talks on joining EU

#333

Post by petra » Sat, Aug 29, 2026, 3:54 PM UTC

badc0ffee wrote: post #303

jonnybgood wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you say NATO is fraying? Because of Russia, NATO has increased its membership, increased military budgets, and increased European military cooperation. It probably has never been stronger.

The US keeps talking about leaving.

I hope that Trump doesn't represent US policies in the long term.

Re: Iceland votes on whether to restart talks on joining EU

#334

Post by realty_geek » Sat, Aug 29, 2026, 3:55 PM UTC

saevarom wrote: post #181

I run the count at one of the constituencies. We have about 42.000 people on the electoral register and we'll probably see about 75-80% turnout, so we're going to be counting about 33.000 votes with about 30-35 people on staff, 24 of them doing the actual counting. 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…

"marked using a pencil"

Why would you not want to mark paper ballots with pens / ink which will be harder to change?

Re: Iceland votes on whether to restart talks on joining EU

#335

Post by ajmurmann » Sat, Aug 29, 2026, 3:56 PM UTC

saevarom wrote: post #181

I run the count at one of the constituencies. We have about 42.000 people on the electoral register and we'll probably see about 75-80% turnout, so we're going to be counting about 33.000 votes with about 30-35 people on staff, 24 of them doing the actual counting. 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…

Last time I voted in person in Germany it worked like that. I think a lot of the (supposed?) issues with voting in the US come from trying to automate it.

Re: Iceland votes on whether to restart talks on joining EU

#336

Post by senko » Sat, Aug 29, 2026, 3:58 PM UTC

ExoticPearTree wrote: post #320

ngruhn wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The EU has benefits obviously but it's been failing Europe in critical ways for about 20 yeas now I like those benefits: The shared currency, easy travel, they killed roaming fees! Also they're the only ones seriously taking on big tech. They made Apple ditch their dumb ass lightning cable.

They did not really ditched the roaming fees. You get some free roaming with any plan, and if you go over it, you get charged. Yes, it is nice for a day or two in another EU country, but pretty much that’s it.

That's incorrect. There are no roaming fees.

Instead, some telecoms give you a generous number of "credits" for calls, transfer, etc, and sometimes try to limit these to your own country. Then you have to pay overage fees (the same in your home country or elsewhere within EU).

The legality (or ToS language around this) is dubious, but the fact that telecoms try to skirt around the rules doesn't mean they don't work - switch to a better provider.

I just spent a week in another EU country and didn't think for a second about data usage, calls, fees, etc.

Combined with not having to do fx or even carry a passport (national ID is enough), minimal queues at the airport and zero customs annoyance, travelling across continent was as much hassle going to the next town (modulo actual travel time).

(Not to mention the actual benefits of membership, in this case, EU institutions slowly but surely cleaning up house).

Re: Iceland votes on whether to restart talks on joining EU

#337

Post by owebmaster » Sat, Aug 29, 2026, 3:59 PM UTC

ghusto wrote: post #307

northernsausage wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mood is very much for re-joining in the UK.BREXIT was supposed to be the first domino that killed the EU but it very much didn't work because the average European likes a lot of what the EU has done for them. There are critiques sure but its not a dead system.

Depends who you talk to. I have a mixed bag of UK friends, and it's about half-half. One thing I think myself is that there was an ugly _hope_ that the UK would suffer as a result. A hope which, as far as I can see, wasn't realised. Living in Europe, I saw a lot on the news about how the UK had shot itself in the foot and things were going badly, but when I visit friends, not so much.

What got better in the UK after Brexit?

Re: Iceland votes on whether to restart talks on joining EU

#338

Post by ajmurmann » Sat, Aug 29, 2026, 3:59 PM UTC

bluegatty wrote: post #108

These debates are hard to watch. 'Loss of sovereignty' for some reason is perfectly fine for Iceland, Switzerland and Norway, but not UK or others wanting to leave. 'Fisheries' was a small but founding and perennial concern before and during Brexit but they were labelled 'ugly nationalists'. The EU has benefits obviously but it's been failing Europe in critical ways for about 20 yeas now, and the crazy paradox is tha…

I think a big difference is that Iceland, like Norway, has agreements in place that give it most of the real benefits of EU membership. The UK had to go the other route, lose all the benefits and hope they can get the good parts back.

Re: Iceland votes on whether to restart talks on joining EU

#339

Post by owebmaster » Sat, Aug 29, 2026, 4:02 PM UTC

somenameforme wrote: post #312

eloisant wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When was that coalition of nations? European countries were literally at each other throats until 1945, then we gradually built the European Union.

I am referring to the past when there was less divisive leadership. I think the good things EU offers are generally a great idea - ease of transport, trade, common markets, common currency (* - not so certain on this one, but I'm tentatively positive), and so on. But when you do things like force countries to accept immigrants they may not want to accept, or demand cultural conformity on issues that are not well rece…

> Iam referring to the past when there was less divisive leadership.

Are you referring to what period?

Re: Iceland votes on whether to restart talks on joining EU

#340

Post by rdm_blackhole » Sat, Aug 29, 2026, 4:08 PM UTC

eloisant wrote: post #225

DataDive wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wouldn't the price also fluctuate if it is in Euros? Doesn't the price fluctuation reflect an economic reality? Related: couldn't a country adopt euros voluntarily without joining the EU? Like Ecuador adopted US dollars.

The euro is very stable because it's a used by some big countries (in population and economy). So prices can fluctuate but less because there is little currency-related fluctuation. Also yes, a country can adopt the euro unilaterally, that's the case for Kosovo and Montenegro. But that's a tough situation because they're not represented at the CBE, they don't get a say in how much money gets created, banks can't get…

I think your analysis is not complete.

Yes the Euro is/was stable but not because there are many big countries using it.

The Euro is/was stable because behind it there was stable and relatively well managed democracy named Germany. Unfortunately Germany is not doing so well at the moment and that could deteriorate even faster in the future with the right wing populist gaining grounds who are openly campaigning on leaving the EU and the euro.

As you can imagine, without Germany, there is no euro.

The Euro also spreads the risk to other countries which means that one state's failure can propagate to others.

Look at what happened with Greece and the panic that it caused at the time and that was for a small country witha small GDP. Now look at France who is indebted to its eyeballs and on the verge of electing either a far-right or far-left president who both are EU-skeptics and will try to work around the EU if not completely undermine it.

What happens then? As always in a chain, you are only as strong as your weakest link and unfortunately for the Eurozone, France and Germany are both doing badly at the same time and it doesnt seem that there is any light at the end of the tunnel for both of them currently.

Italy is doing slightly better but its economy is smaller and it is still heavily indebted and it will not be able to carry the Euro itself if either France or Germany decide or are forced somehow to exit the Euro.