[kreykjalin]

No, it’s a very real threat. Icelandic waters can only be fished by Icelandic vessels. That’s what the cod wars were about; protecting our right to be the only ones to fish our waters.

If we join the EU we’re pretty much guaranteed to lose this exclusive access to our waters, and that will be devastating for the economy, given how the fishing industry is one of very few industries keeping the economy afloat. Especially considering exports to other countries.

[chgs]

A high profile campaign during Brexit was about U.K. fishing. U.K. fishing rights were sold by local fishermen to large multinational companies who are more economically efficient (at least in the short term - sustainability is a bad word) many years ago.

Unlike Iceland, fishing is a negligible part of the U.K. economy (c0.1% vs c10%), yet was used by people who couldn’t give a stuff about fishing as a weapon.

[throwaway2037]

Have there been any studies on the effect upon local fishing industry when a country joins the EU? I bet that ECB has some studies about it. I could only find this admittedly weak article: https://ireland.representation.ec.europa.eu/news-and-events/...

As I understand, part of the reason that Norway wanted to stay out of the EU was to fully control fishing in their territorial waters. I can understand why Iceland may wish to do the same.

[Swenrekcah]

Access to fishing and the quota system will definitely be one of if not the most important items to sort out, but it will not be devastating for the Icelandic economy if a portion of the quota is allocated to other EU members.

[MrDresden]

" but it will not be devastating for the Icelandic economy if a portion of the quota is allocated to other EU members."

I don't think you realise how small the Icelandic economy truly is, and how big an effect fluctuations in fishing quote already have on it.

[Swenrekcah]

Oh I realise how small it is, which is why it makes better sense to join the EU.

[MrDresden]

So you say, but could you please name some examples?

Iceland already has full access to the single market and Schengen. Historically during times of economic shocks, having our own currency has been useful as it allowed for more flexibility (i.e currency controls, self governance over central bank rates etc). Would taking up the Euro make the island more resilient or less able to respond to shocks? Economists seem to not fully agree on the matter.

I have personally never bought into the scare mongering by the island's quota kings - and fully support making the fishing quota a nationally own resource along with propper utlization fee structures - but having a partner who's doctorate is in fisheries management and having personally had a lifelong interest in the matter my self, I don't believe for a second that our fisheries would be better off dictated by Brussels. I reserve the right to change my mind when, and if, a deal is ever presented that indicates otherwise.

Tourism is already back to pre pandemic levels, so I don't see how anything would change there. Iceland is and always will be a very expensive destination for tourists. Most things need to be shipped in, and joining the Union will not change that in any way.

Aluminum brings in a decent amount, via large scale electrical usage contracts made with the state owned electrical company. While these deals are secret, it is public knowlege that they are tied to the global price of aluminum. Having income in a foreign currency but expenditure in the domestic currency is surely a good thing for the government and all of it's agencies.

Would the government have access to better loans if joining the Union and taking up the euro? Perhaps. However, the loan rating for the Icelandic government is already fairly good, sitting at A+, that I'm not sure that there would be a big impact.

Just to make it clear, I am all for the European Union (heck, I even moved from Iceland and live on mainland Europe) but joining it isn't such a clear cut black/white calculus as your comments have made it sound like.

[Swenrekcah]

I don't believe I have said it is a black/white matter. However I do believe that on balance it would be better to be a full EU member instead of being a quasi-member without any say at all.

I also believe it would be better to be an EU member and part of the eurozone instead of having the flaky economic governance we have historically had.

Like you said the economic pillars of Iceland have become broader and more numerous than only the fisheries, and for all the talk of currency devaluation being beneficial, in effect it simply serves to allow the government and largest exporters offload all effects of economic downturns onto the Icelandic people and small businesses.

It is theoretically possible for Iceland to govern itself in such a way that it is stronger outside the EU than inside. Simply adhering to the Maastricht conditions would perhaps be enough, it just does not seem likely to me that there will ever be enough discipline to do so without actually joining the eurozone.

[blibble]

exceptions to the "acquis" have not once been made to new members

you accept the entire body of law or you don't join

the UK and Norway both tried to negotiate away the fisheries policy when they submitted applications in the 70s

the UK "accepted" the CFP and and joined, Norway didn't and still remains outside

given then the odds of Iceland joining the EU are practically zero