Article has some factual errors:<p>> By May 1992, the EEC had been renamed the EEA (European Economic Area) and all 7 member states of EFTA signed “The EEA Agreement” alongside the 12 member states of the EC.<p>The EEC was not renamed the EEA. The Maastricht treaty (signed February 1992, effective November 1993) established the European Union (EU), and renamed the "European Economic Community" (EEC) to the "European Community" (EC). Alongside the EEC-now-EC, there was also the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC, dissolved in 2002) and the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC or Euratom, still exists), and the three linked Communities were known as the "European Communities", which was another expansion of "EC". And the EC formed one of the pillars of the European Union, until the Lisbon treaty (signed December 2007, effective December 2009) merged the European Community into the EU and it ceased to independently exist, although Euratom continues as essentially a subsidiary body of the EU. And then the EEA is a separate arrangement, established by a treaty between the EC, its member states, and the EFTA member states, signed May 1992, effective January 1994. So the EEC was not "renamed" to the EEA. The EEC/EC/EU and EEA are separate but overlapping arrangements – the EEA is geographically broader in scope, but topically narrower (certain EU laws and regulations are excluded from the EEA, and hence the EFTA states do not have to adopt them)
With the Arctic turning into the next shipping route, Iceland could turn to be the Singapore of the North Atlantic, a trading hub. I mentioned this to an Icelander a few months ago, and he said China recently asked if they could build a port in the north of the country...
People in favor of Iceland joining the EU should be honest and transparent that it's a pro inflation policy. In fact, Icelandic inflation would probably skyrocket.<p>Why?<p>Iceland's interest rate is 8.5% <a href="https://www.cb.is/other/key-interest-rate/" rel="nofollow">https://www.cb.is/other/key-interest-rate/</a><p>EU's interest rate is 3% <a href="https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/policy_and_exchange_rates/key_ecb_interest_rates/html/index.en.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/policy_and_exchange_rates/ke...</a><p>The higher Icelandic rate is set for Icelanders by Icelanders in order to bring their 4.8% inflation rate down to the 2.5% target.<p>If Iceland adopted the EU's interest rate which is mainly set for France and Germany, that would be a 5% interest rate cut which is a massive stimulus. Icelandic inflation would skyrocket and there would be no chance of hitting the 2.5% target.<p>People should also look into Optimal Currency Area theory popularized by Paul Krugman eg <a href="https://archive.nytimes.com/krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/revenge-of-the-optimum-currency-area/" rel="nofollow">https://archive.nytimes.com/krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0...</a><p>The US Dollar works because of massive fiscal transfers from states on the coasts to states in the interior. The US also allows whole areas to deindustrialize like Detroit in order to solve the unavailability of currency adjustments between states.<p>Are Icelanders willing to subsidize Greece? Are they willing to forgo their ability to devalue their currency like in 2008? Without devaluation that means deindustrialization.<p>For all the above reasons, Iceland joining the EU would be the stupidest and most economically illiterate decision in it's history.
Bit late to the party. Just today on a Germany political podcast (Phoenix Runde) I was hearing the "experts", the crop of people who are largely responsible for the current economical and political under performance of the union, ... musing on what the solution could be to make Europe great again.<p>Their solution? Create an inner union of the EU countries that really matter (Germany, France, Beneleux ...etc). No I'm not making this up. It's not even the first time this idea was floated around. So to me it seems that the EU as a single block is almost finished.
I visited Iceland in 2013 and between Keflavik and Reykjavik there was a single billboard with the EU emblem and the words “Nei Takk” (no thanks). This article puts a lot of that sentiment in perspective.<p>Our takeaway at the time was that this has to be the most effective billboard in the country as there is only one road between the major international airport and the capital.
I'm all for European unity, but if a country is only half-committed to joining the EU, it probably should not be allowed to join under the assumption that EU support will continue to grow.
While in Iceland I learned from local fisherman who have conflicting thoughts on joining the EU. On one hand it could strengthen relations, but on the other they would not be able to preserve their fisheries from being over fished.
I wonder if Iceland's debt issues could interfere with this:<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932011_Icelandic_financial_crisis" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932011_Icelandic_fi...</a><p>(Though, perhaps it helps that the UK is no longer in the EU).
In Iceland rn with Icelandic family- polling them and their reasoning for wanting to join the EU has ZERO to do with Putin/Russia/Ukraine etc and everything to do with gaining access to the Euro for economic stability and the fact that they already abide by EU rules/regs but don't have the ability to vote.
Dumb question: If Iceland had been part of the EU in 2008, would they have been able not to bail out their bankers and send them to jail? Could the banking industry have been able to go to a supranational court or something?<p><a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/business-35485876" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.com/news/business-35485876</a>
Really dumb question: What does the EU actually do?<p>I’ve read a lot about them and it’s basically always the same as reading information about it here: people saying the EU brings a lot of benefits and another person in reply of that comment saying it’s actually a non-EU treaty/document that’s to thank for that.<p>On the other hand the EU seems like it costs the country a lot of money to be in since the country has to do their part in supporting failing economies that are also part of the EU.
For those who have lived and worked in multiple EU countries, the benefits of EU membership are clear, including the relatively simple process of moving between countries.
I would instead prefer we went back to the idea of a Scandinavian Monetary Union / unified krona with Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Czech Republic.<p>Denmark's krona is also pegged to the Euro.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Monetary_Union" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_Monetary_Union</a>
I think both of the government parties have said they'd support a public vote for whatever EU deal gets proposed, so that's a possibility. "Getting ready to join": perhaps. But that would still take some time.
Why would anyone outside some desperate eastern European countries want to join? EU is going down hard, since 2008 no meaningful GDP growth, flat salaries, no tech companies propelling growth, old population, all the while US and Chinese GDP is exploding. The only thing EU has is regulation and high taxes, everything else is deteriorating quickly and the rate of decline is accelerating. Barcelona, previously a jewel of Europe, now has as many homeless as LA in some areas.
They kinda have to, now that Trump has set his sights on Greenland they know they will be next. And alone they can't fight off the US.<p>Joking aside, I (as EU citizen) personally don't really care whether they join the EU or not. They're a bit too much out of the way, too small etc. And EFTA already covers a lot of it. But if they want to join it'd be nice.<p>If they join they should do it forever though and not change their mind again when another conservative government comes to power. I'm really sick of Britain with all their fussy wheeling and dealing around the Brexit era (and taking attention away from real issues). That can't happen again. For three years Brexit was in the news every day with them asking for stuff they knew was impossible and acting offended when they didn't get it. I'm really glad that's over but if Iceland is so divided on this issue the same could happen again.
We used to travel to Europe and travel from country to country for an entire year. Now, we go to Europe and can spend no more than three months on the whole continent. I guess Iceland will be added to this. Why does Europe discourage long-term travelers from spending money there?
Joining the EU is generally a bad idea. If Iceland does this, its citizens will likely regret it. If you don't see why, try asking Greece, or just watching "The Adults in the Room"<p>(In fact, the people in several states in the EU thought it was a bad idea but their states' parliaments ratified Maastricht anyway.)<p>I'm guessing the EFTA/EEC agreements are nice enough.
I would compare the performance of small countries in Europe but not in the EU, with EU countries in the last decades.<p>For example, one could look at Germany, in 50 years there was only little growth:<p><a href="https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/profile/DEU" rel="nofollow">https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/profile/DEU</a>