[HN Gopher] Is Iceland getting ready to join the EU?
___________________________________________________________________
Is Iceland getting ready to join the EU?
Author : mariuz
Score : 123 points
Date : 2024-12-29 14:00 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (mikegalsworthy.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (mikegalsworthy.substack.com)
| philip1209 wrote:
| I wonder if Iceland's debt issues could interfere with this:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932011_Icelandic_fi...
|
| (Though, perhaps it helps that the UK is no longer in the EU).
| icepat wrote:
| No, the debt crisis is long over and sorted.
| sakisv wrote:
| I wonder how things would have played out back in the crisis
| of 2008 if Iceland was a member of the Eurozone:
|
| What they would have been allowed or forced to do and whether
| their response could have been the same.
| eastbound wrote:
| Allowed is one thing, influenced is another. Remember the
| Libdem party in UK? Several of its MPs were elected on
| Boris Johnson's pro-Brexit program, then turned over and
| fought against the Brexit. Yes, after the election. Left
| and joined the opposite party. This is what Europe does to
| its countries.
| smcl wrote:
| People defecting to opposition parties isn't a strictly
| European thing. Hell the next US president and a number
| of his senior appointments are now Republican but were
| previously Democrat
| NikkiA wrote:
| Even boris changed his mind.
|
| https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnsons-secret-remain-
| arti...
| enteeentee wrote:
| Boris never changed his mind, he knew Brexit was bad but
| used it for political gain.
| dcrazy wrote:
| I am confused whether you're mistaken or just speaking
| unclearly. Boris Johnson has always belonged to the
| Conservative party. The Tories formed a coalition with
| the LibDems in 2010 because there was no majority winner
| in the Parliamentary election, but the LibDems were anti-
| Brexit. Even the Tories weren't consistently pro-Brexit.
| aziaziazi wrote:
| _Absolutely Unrelated_ , what is living-systems.is ? Your
| name catch my attention then you're company name catch my
| curiosity. Your site has left me thirsty. If you're doing
| brand/marketing well done but I hope it's something else!
| JPLeRouzic wrote:
| I would compare the performance of small countries in Europe but
| not in the EU, with EU countries in the last decades.
|
| For example, one could look at Germany, in 50 years there was
| only little growth:
|
| https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/profile/DEU
| HPsquared wrote:
| German economy (manufacturing exports) is pretty much the
| opposite to the Iceland economy (primary sector). Iceland would
| be in a similar position to Norway. Basically Europe needs new
| primary sector partners to replace Russia, so Iceland would be
| very welcome and it'd seem a good synergy.
| jfengel wrote:
| Iceland hasn't been a primary sector economy in decades. They
| are now a service economy, especially software and finance.
|
| They are no longer a poor nation of fishermen. They are now
| among the wealthiest countries (per capita) in the world.
| They would not be well suited to taking Russia's role in the
| European economy.
|
| About the closest similarity is that Iceland does have a
| significant energy sector. But it's hydro and geothermal, not
| well suited to export. They might make an awesome data center
| hub.
| yorwba wrote:
| In the World Bank real GDP per capita series (inflation-
| adjusted to 2015 prices),
| https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD?location...
| German GDP per capita grew by a factor of [?]2.20 from 1973 to
| 2023, for the European Union as a whole it grew by a factor of
| [?]2.29 and if you include all of Europe and Central Asia it
| grew by a factor of [?]2.16.
|
| - All of these are decent growth in my eyes.
|
| - Germany might not be the best proxy for the EU economy in
| general.
|
| - EU countries are doing better than non-EU countries in the
| region in aggregate.
| imaginationra wrote:
| 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.
| declan_roberts wrote:
| Don't they already have a market agreement with the EU? Seems
| to me like they have a nice side deal.
| ChocolateGod wrote:
| Iceland is part of the EEA, where you accept most the rules
| of the single market being sent over by a fax machine from
| Brussels.
|
| But this excludes things such as farming and fishing, the
| latter of which has been very important for Iceland because
| the EU has never always got that right in a painful attempt
| to make all member states equally unhappy, and representation
| of where those rules are decided (Council, Parliament) or
| proposed (Commission).
|
| Even outside the EEA, the size of the EU on the continent
| means European countries who want to do large amounts of
| frictional-less trading end up importing the EUs rules (e.g.
| Switzerland, post-Brexit UK) with no say on them.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Being inside offers more effective place to lobby and do
| horse-trading. Iceland is in position with rather specific
| interest so they could easily give up many things that
| don't really matter to them greatly for concessions from
| others.
| GeoAtreides wrote:
| It's more than lobby and horse-trading, being inside
| gives veto powers...
| Oarch wrote:
| It's interesting to wonder what they'd gain from it. Given just
| the geographic distance, would it really affect things like
| trade, movement of people or security cooperation.
|
| My understanding is that they're stable since the financial
| crisis.
| spiderfarmer wrote:
| "Stable since the last crisis" is not very convincing. In the
| EU they would enjoy lower interest rates, a more stable
| currency and voting rights. The last bit will help
| negotiations about trade a lot.
|
| Simply put, they want an inverse Brexit.
| bluGill wrote:
| Nothing stops them from just adopting the euro or dollar.
| It isn't common but some countries have adopted an external
| currancy.
| notahacker wrote:
| If you're going to adopt the Euro to get the benefits of
| improved trade with the rest of Europe, you might as well
| join its trading bloc and get votes on its regulatory
| bodies at the same time...
| Symbiote wrote:
| What do you think about the suggestions in the article
| for why this isn't ideal?
| alephnerd wrote:
| Blunting the Common Fisheries Policy would be a significant
| benefit - they need to abide by as part of the EEA, but can't
| change decisions surrounding it.
|
| Also opening EU funding opportunities for plenty of infra
| enhancements.
| whenc wrote:
| Iceland is not in the CFP.
| pfdietz wrote:
| I wonder if they could benefit from CO2 emission controls.
|
| Iceland's energy is highly renewable (hydro, geothermal), and
| they have substantial potential for mineral carbonation of
| CO2. Mafic rocks like basalt, particularly with high olivine
| content, are close to the top for targets for conversion of
| CO2 to carbonates.
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-10003-8
| hannob wrote:
| Iceland is already part of the EEA and through that, joined
| the EU Emission Trading System. Carbfix, the company doing
| the mineralization stuff, is already receiving quite
| substantial funding via the EU Innovation Fund, which
| distributes ETS income to innovative climate technology
| projects.
| coliveira wrote:
| And what would they gain with this? It seems they already have
| plenty of agreements with EU, by joining they will just lose
| their sovereignty.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| Actually the opposite is true.
|
| By joining the EU they have voting power and influence over
| their own destiny which they lack under those agreements.
| Currently they must accept EU rules without being able to
| influence them.
| coliveira wrote:
| > they must accept EU rules without being able to influence
| them
|
| No, they don't really must accept all rules. Only the ones
| that will benefit them. This will cease once they join the
| EU.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| They have negotiated exceptions, but they can also do
| that as EU members.
| mrweasel wrote:
| Influence on the rules that they are practically forced to
| follow. Like Norway Iceland has plenty of agreements with the
| EU, but that translate to copying EU regulations as if they
| where an EU country already, except they have no say in the
| making of those rules.
| dagurp wrote:
| I would also like to be able to use European banks and
| insurance companies.
|
| People here will say that we will lose control of our fishing
| rights but we already lost them to a handful of filthy rich
| families.
| ucha wrote:
| Maybe you're polling the people that wanted to join before
| 2022? Otherwise, how would the jump in support in 2022 be
| explained?
| motohagiography wrote:
| one hopes not. it's literally the forfeiting of national
| governance and autonomy to foreign technocrats who could not win
| elections among their own people. joining the EU has been
| national suicide for every other country that submitted to it,
| and they were betrayed into it by small cadres of activists
| within their own socieities trying to secure power for themselves
| with an external administrative system. the EU succeeds at
| dissolving nations into bureaucratic vassals where the soviets
| and germans in the last century failed. their rhetoric is that
| it's for "peace," but it's simply dominion, homogenization, and
| dissolution.
|
| these people exploit your civility and good intentions. the
| conspiracy theorists may have folk-religious explanations, but
| the hard reality of it is that there exists evil in the world, it
| has an unlimited will to power, supranational movements like
| these are its levers, and it's where those who manifest it pool.
| StefanBatory wrote:
| As a Pole, all I can say to this
|
| " joining the EU has been national suicide for every other
| country that submitted to it"
|
| is lmao.
| semessier wrote:
| The EU has actually been one of history's most successful
| projects for ensuring peace and prosperity in Europe. Looking
| at objective metrics like GDP growth, living standards, and
| decades of peace between former neighboring country
| adversaries over centuries, EU membership has broadly
| benefited its members. Poland itself has seen remarkable
| economic growth and development since joining in 2004. The
| single market, freedom of movement, and shared democratic
| values have created unprecedented opportunities for
| cooperation and development. While the EU isn't perfect,
| characterizing membership as 'national suicide' ignores the
| tremendous gains in stability, prosperity, and quality of
| life that integration has brought to member states. imho.
| coliveira wrote:
| Ok, so let's compare the economy of Europe between 1950 and
| 1995 and from 1995 to 2004. What is the most prosperous? I
| think there is not even a fair comparison. The only places
| where you'll find any improvement are in the eastern
| countries because they literally left communism!
| davidgay wrote:
| The Treaty of Rome is 1957, so those are strange dates to
| select...
| philwelch wrote:
| You're putting the cart before the horse. Countries only
| join the EU after they establish friendly relations with
| the rest of the EU members and become democratic.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| Poland is not at all similar to Iceland, no?
| spiderfarmer wrote:
| That doesn't make it less true.
| arunabha wrote:
| Hmm, the alternative of being a second class participant in
| trade with your biggest trade partners seems to be worse
| though. Britain is finding out just how bad Brexit was for
| them.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| This is the underlying truth for all international trade.
|
| Most countries don't have unique industry/resources in a
| globalized trade world.
|
| Consequently, population size and economy are the final
| arbiters of relative trade power. The EU blocking up to
| create something of comparable negotiating power to the US
| and China is critical.
|
| Nobody is ever thrilled with the sausage making of treaties
| and trade agreements -- that's the definition of compromise.
| But scale does give countries the best chance to strike the
| best deal possible.
| fredoliveira wrote:
| > joining the EU has been national suicide for every other
| country that submitted to it
|
| Care to elaborate with a couple of examples that can help me
| grok your POV? Honestly curious, because my personal
| perspective is nearly diametrically opposed.
| motohagiography wrote:
| Most of these issues have to do with EU immigration quotas,
| being unable to set competitive tax rates, and not being able
| to enforce borders, where if you don't have those, you don't
| have a nation.
|
| I understand this is the point of EU policy, but if you are a
| country with a history and a future, given how it has gone
| for everyone else, why would you give that up?
|
| The examples below are from giving up national accountability
| for their own policies to "harmonized" EU regulations:
|
| - Greece's economic collapse as the consequence of predatory
| ECB lending
|
| - Spain's economic collapse from related causes
|
| - Germany's failure to manage its national energy needs due
| to EU "green" policies made it subject to Russian energy
| dependency. The US had to literally rescue Germany from
| itself by blowing up Nordstream
|
| - Sweden's no-go zones
|
| - Italy's costal humanitarian crisis'
|
| - Ireland's collapse of their "tiger" economy and yet another
| serious migrant crisis
|
| - In France, French people are treated as occupiers in their
| own cities, e.g. Bataclan, Hedbo, etc.
|
| - general anti-family and anti-natalist policies have stopped
| replacement level birthrates in all EU countries.
| mrweasel wrote:
| With the exception of Italy's refugee crisis, which I agree
| is down to a failure of EU country to work together and
| take a joint responsibility, the rest are individual EU
| countries failing to govern themselves in a proper manor,
| and in some of those cases the EU stepping in is literally
| to only thing saving them.
| protomolecule wrote:
| >The US had to literally rescue Germany from itself by
| blowing up Nordstream
|
| I wonder what rescued Germans think about that.
| pavlov wrote:
| EU doesn't set national tax rates.
|
| The rest of your comment is similarly uninformed, just a
| random collection of irrelevant notions picked up from
| media; like arguing that the United States of America was a
| bad idea because traffic in Los Angeles is annoying and
| Florida has too many criminals.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| I am not an europhile, but
|
| "general anti-family and anti-natalist policies have
| stopped replacement level birthrates in all EU countries."
|
| This problem is present everywhere outside Subsaharan
| Africa and Afghanistan, it cannot be pinned down on the EU.
| If Tehran, Beijing and San Francisco have the very same
| problem, it must go deeper than just "anti-natalist
| policies": all sorts of societies, religions and systems
| tend to react to modernity by an almost identical crash in
| births.
| lispm wrote:
| That's a lot of nonsense.
|
| > Germany's failure to manage its national energy needs due
| to EU "green" policies made it subject to Russian energy
| dependency.
|
| Germany did not import EU green policies. It was a driver
| of those.
|
| The offer of cheap energy from Russia combined with the
| corruption following that, caused German politicians
| (CDU/SPD) to make a series of mistakes, like expanding
| energy dependence from Russia without making sure energy
| needs are covered in times of a crisis (AFD and BSW are
| making the same mistake, only worse, worshipping the
| authoritarian & corrupt government of Putin). When Russia
| was invading the Ukraine, suddenly the Gas storages were
| not filled anymore - Russia trying to blackmail Germany.
| Putin influencers like Sarah Wagenknecht denied any Russian
| plans, just days before the invasion when already a huge
| military was waiting at the Ukraine border.
|
| > The US had to literally rescue Germany from itself by
| blowing up Nordstream
|
| The US did not blow up Nordstream. The Nordstream pipelines
| were also useless, since they did not transport gas at that
| time.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| So to you the EU is evil? Advances like ECHR have curtailed the
| ability of countries to act against the basic interests of
| their citizens (like a supranational Bill of Rights)... what
| sort of evil is that?
|
| Actions like directing money to deprived areas, when national
| government would not; supporting cultural projects; supporting
| major infrastructure projects. Encouraging nations to work
| together and increasing mobility of citizens, so far it's
| seemed to be a most beneficial project.
|
| What are your top 3 examples of 'how the EU is evil' (or more
| correctly, to paraphrase your last paragraph 'has evil people
| at the levers')?
| coliveira wrote:
| The main example is a bureaucracy that is trying by every
| means conceivable to get more and more power over national
| governments. Every crisis in the Eurozone is exploited so
| that the EU has more and more to say about how governments
| need to behave and which rules they need to follow. And of
| course, the EU controls the currency, which makes it easier
| to deal with smaller governments.
| cyberpunk wrote:
| The ECHR is unrelated to the EU, it is overseen by the
| Council of Europe which is something else.
| coliveira wrote:
| EU bureaucrats are a bunch of lunatics always looking for ways
| to expand their influence, doesn't matter the cost for the
| participating countries.
| spiderfarmer wrote:
| Meanwhile their rules and regulations are the most citizen
| friendly in the world.
| colinb wrote:
| yeah, this is a hot take that would be rejected by the great
| majority of Europeans. The only country to join the EU and then
| leave now regrets doing so. Incidentally, their economy is on
| fire - not the good kind, they still have lying liars who lie
| trying to push them into leaving the ECJ (not an EU
| institution, but certainly a surrender of some national
| authority for, you know, accountability).
|
| I don't know if you live in the EU. I do, and I like it lots.
|
| I have also lived in the UK during the Brexit campaign, and was
| exposed to such a shower of self-seeking arseholes - some of
| whom still apparently wish to take from others, but grant
| themselves exemptions - will I hope remain a unique experience
| in my life.
|
| Yes, yes, the EU has no end of fuckery. Yes, it's true. But
| better that, than bend the knee to the US, or Russia (UK,
| Hungary. Delete as appropriate.)
| zemvpferreira wrote:
| As a Portuguese, I'm 100% convinced that if we hadn't joined
| the EU, we would have impoverished ourselves to a worse
| standard of living than Morocco by now.
|
| The EU has many, many, many faults but at least in our case it
| serves as a crucial dampener to our worst ideas about public
| financing and spending. Homogenisation is a good thing for the
| bottom 50% of participants.
| niemandhier wrote:
| All Easter European countries massively profited from joining
| the EU.
|
| Romanias GDP jumped from 122 billion to 214 billion from 2006
| to 2008 after joining in 2007.
|
| Poland had a similar jump.
|
| In addition eastern countries receive immense financial
| subsidies.
|
| Ireland and Luxemburg more or less monetise the fact that they
| can give companies access to the European market.
|
| For larger countries ( Italy, Germany, France) the benefits are
| less visible, but being able to negotiate with large markets on
| eye level is of immense value to exporting economies.
|
| In addition, if you read the Schuman address you might realise
| that the EU project never was about economics, it was and is
| about lasting peace. The only founding nation of the union that
| saw it as purely economic union was the UK.
|
| Finally, anticipating the matter of immigration: Countries like
| Hungary, Greece and Italy that keep complaining about EU
| immigration policies, fail to acknowledge that in the absence
| of the EU they would be left alone with the arriving immigrants
| from Africa, while the rest of Europe would close its borders.
| tzakl wrote:
| I'd say that there are no benefits for France and Germany.
| They are paying for the whole party and their populations get
| fleeced.
|
| Please restore the old economic union with the core
| countries. Iceland can join, too.
| lispm wrote:
| > no benefits for France and Germany
|
| Peace, friendship, shared values, culture, diversity,
| stability, ...
|
| We have a lot of benefits.
| protomolecule wrote:
| >Romanias GDP jumped from 122 billion to 214 billion from
| 2006 to 2008 after joining in 2007.
|
| Looks like some creative accounting. Real GDP cannot almost
| double in two years.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| While the benefits of the EU for countries that are somewhat
| economically weak (and I include Czechia to the list) are
| obvious, Iceland is a different story. Iceland would be
| joining a union that is, on average, both less rich and less
| economically dynamic than Iceland. This could be economically
| disadvantageous for them; and being very far from the EU
| core, there aren't that many network effects to benefit from.
| Detrytus wrote:
| The problem with this approach is that you're talking about
| the past. Yes, Poland and others did profit from joining the
| EU, initially, but once EU realized that they changed the
| rules of the game. EU is not about economic prosperity
| anymore, it is all about "climate change", immigration and
| similar bullshit. Lisbon Treaty in particular redefined how
| EU works. The best thing to do right now is to leave the EU
| before it collapses.
| madmask wrote:
| Afaik Italy can't close its borders and deport back migrants
| because it's not sovereign anymore and in the eu
| Devasta wrote:
| > joining the EU has been national suicide for every other
| country that submitted to it
|
| _Laughs in Irish_
| delichon wrote:
| I bet they could leverage a better deal from the EU if they get
| an offer from DJT first.
| spiderfarmer wrote:
| Problem is, nobody takes DJT seriously. And rightfully so.
| krapp wrote:
| No, the problem is too many people take him seriously and
| keep voting for him.
| Aachen wrote:
| You seem to be thinking of people and corporations in the
| USA though. It's universally either laughing stock or
| facepalming in every circle I'm a part of or media I read
| or listen to. Nobody expects his influence to turn out well
| for the USA, the climate, the world economy, or anything
| palmfacehn wrote:
| >It's universally either laughing stock or facepalming in
| every circle I'm a part of or media I read or listen to.
|
| Without wading into the partisan morass, I'll gently
| suggest that it might be worth checking in with
| alternative sources once in awhile. You don't have to
| agree, but it is always good to temper your views. If you
| are interested in these topics, it could be worth knowing
| what the stated intentions of an agenda are, as described
| by the proponents.
|
| When I take the time for this my underlying principles
| may not change, but I do find uncharitable
| interpretations and deliberate misrepresentations
| presented by both sides. It helps to diffuse some of the
| most egregious hyperbole.
|
| Otherwise, I find that I'm subjecting myself to the
| echochamber you describe.
| spiderfarmer wrote:
| One side objectively lies more though.
| Aachen wrote:
| From what? Trying to think very hard what geographical region
| Iceland is in that has those initials but I'm coming up blank
| pxeger1 wrote:
| GP meant Donald J. Trump, i.e. the incoming US administration
| dylan604 wrote:
| The same DJT that thinks he can buy Greenland
| Aachen wrote:
| Okay I got curious what/who thinks they can buy countries
| and looked it up. That answer makes sense. Why the PRC-like
| euphemism for Donald Trump though?
| dylan604 wrote:
| What euphemism? It's the man's initials?
| coldblues wrote:
| Iceland has been a pioneer in internet freedom and privacy,
| joining the EU will subjugate all it stands for.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| How do you know that Iceland won't influence the EU in that
| respect?
| philwelch wrote:
| Iceland is one exceptionally small country. The EU consists
| of 27 countries, all or virtually all of which are bigger
| than Iceland.
| WillyWonkaJr wrote:
| Big countries with lots of oligarchs don't listen to small
| countries with small GDPs. </cynicism>
| diggan wrote:
| That sounds backwards. If Iceland is a pioneer and maybe even a
| stronghold for those issues, then Iceland's joining the EU
| would have a better chance of influencing the entire union
| about those things. There are already a number of Piratpartiet
| members in various EU parliaments; adding Iceland would
| hopefully give them larger influence.
| netsharc wrote:
| 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...
| ksec wrote:
| >Arctic turning into the next shipping route
|
| I always wonder how realistic is this? I assume we dont need
| special vessel for this shipping lane and we can somehow always
| clear all the ice before us.
| throw0101d wrote:
| > _I assume we dont need special vessel for this shipping
| lane and we can somehow always clear all the ice before us._
|
| With climate change there are longer and longer times of the
| year when there is no ice. And when it does reform it is
| often not as thick as before, so less robust ships may be
| needed.
| netsharc wrote:
| We've been adjusting the temperature there so ice won't be a
| problem soon...
| GoldenMonkey wrote:
| And yet, there is 26% more extent area with ice than in
| 2012.
|
| https://x.com/TonyClimate/status/1872304912115408920
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| What value does a hub add in this day and age? I imagine most
| ships would sail direct rather than stopping at a hub.
| cyberpunk wrote:
| Isn't it cheaper to refuel than to have to lug enough fuel
| around purely by the weight of it and the additional energy
| required?
|
| Plus your crew may need some downtime sometimes.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| No, because ports have docking fees since port space is at
| a premium.
| cyberpunk wrote:
| I find it hard to believe the cost of docking for a few
| hours to refuel is > the cost of carrying and moving 2x
| the weight of fuel you would need otherwise. Do you have
| some idea of the costs?
| ponector wrote:
| How much heavy fuel does a suezmax vessel carry? Less
| than 1% of the full deadweight, I assume.
|
| Costs of carrying fuel are negligible.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Ships don't use all that much fuel. A Panamax ship has a
| capacity of 2 million gallons of fuel and that would be
| ~2,600 tons. The total tonnage of a Panamax ship is
| ~52,000 tons.
|
| Most cargo shipping saves fuel by just running slower.
| no_wizard wrote:
| This makes me wonder if the Navy nuclear reactors used on
| their ships could be used on shipping vessels to lower
| the cost of shipping in some manner.
|
| Perhaps a sky high dream but wouldn't this effectively
| given ships unlimited fuel?
| wbl wrote:
| We tried it but ports wouldn't let the ships dock and
| they were too small. Now it might be easier.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| That's kinda a thing for aviation: see "intermediate stop
| operations".
|
| Limiting range also lets you use smaller craft with things
| like smaller fuel tanks.
|
| Iceland does quite a business on this sitting between euro
| and American destinations. Greenland might get into this
| too.
|
| Also probably gets some crews at home each night flying the
| leg back instead of needing to stay on the mainland for a
| day/night before doing a later return leg.
| amelius wrote:
| How does the fuel get to Iceland?
| ivan_gammel wrote:
| Closest supplier can be Norway.
|
| A bit of science fiction maybe, but they could use
| geothermal and wind energy to produce hydrogen.
| paranoidrobot wrote:
| (Not a shipping cargo person, so take what I say with a grain
| of salt)
|
| The value is cross-loading delivers greater network effects.
| You have many possible paths to get to your destination, and
| can pick the most optimal for your particular needs at each
| step.
|
| Most container ships are on a sailing schedule - they visit a
| set number of ports, and generally stick to it (absent other
| issues).
|
| So you can get out of your origin country quicker by just
| picking the next ship with the cheapest rates going to
| approximately the right location.
|
| For the shipping lines it's more efficient to just pick up a
| lot of containers at once and visit multiple ports than try
| and get a full load to just one destination.
|
| It also means that each port they visit they're also getting
| paid for new cargo for onward destinations, not running empty
| (or waiting for another full load) to do another trip.
| jessekv wrote:
| Singapore is also an island, but its relevance to global trade
| has more to do with the strait it sits in than in being an
| island. Obviously there are more factors, compare Singapore to
| Peneng, for example.
| bboygravity wrote:
| There are a couple 100 or so more Islands all around
| Singapore. Your comment doesn't say much.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| I think that only proves the point that Singapore is very
| much an exception and there isn't any particular need for
| ships to stop at islands on their way.
| hinkley wrote:
| Do they have good deep water harbors?
| behnamoh wrote:
| That's exactly why Trump wants to annex Greenland. I'm not
| taking sides here, but I see why world powers want to control
| that region, knowing that Russia probably will make incursions
| in that region--they already control the Arctic to some extent
| as if it's part of their territory...
| mrweasel wrote:
| I think you underestimate Singapore. They put a lot of effort
| into not being just a trading hub.
|
| Also, what's the point in loading and unloading in Iceland,
| when you're already fairly close to ports like Rotterdam,
| Antwerp and Hamburg? I get that you could in theory ship around
| the pole, split your containers in Iceland and ship to the US
| and EU from there. It's just that unloading a container ship
| isn't that fast, and we're already shipping so much that the
| load could just be distributed across multiple ships with
| separate destinations.
| bognition wrote:
| Iceland effectively has free electricity. I believe they are
| one of the biggest producers of refined aluminum. Could use
| it as a way station to process raw material that require a
| lot of electricity.
| ponector wrote:
| Free? Half of the world has cheaper electricity than
| Iceland according to
| https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cost-
| of-e...
| Scoundreller wrote:
| I wonder how much that cost is just amortizing delivery
| costs.
|
| If most of the population has district heating, there
| isn't much of a load per residence.
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| I'm always interested in how reality can be different
| from the popular notions. Sure, they have plenty of
| geothermal energy but it's not free to turn that heat
| into electricity. And many other things are pretty
| expensive on that island so it's not surprising that the
| cost of generators and other machinery is also expensive.
|
| But we can dream that it's free, right?
| buckle8017 wrote:
| Electricity in Iceland is very political.
|
| The aluminum smelters are paying something like
| $0.02/kWh.
|
| Foreign buyers who setup real industry will pay about
| $0.05/kWh.
|
| Bitcoin miners will pay $0.10/kWh.
|
| The real cost to produce from volcanic sources is under
| $0.01/kWh.
| Symbiote wrote:
| Those are residential consumer prices.
|
| Denmark's 35C//kWh for households is only 9C//kWh for
| industrial users, and (from another site) even less for
| "very large industrial" users.
|
| Iceland's figure isn't given.
|
| https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
| explained/index.php...
| LtWorf wrote:
| But not unlimited
| debesyla wrote:
| Isn't it geothermal? So just drill deeper..? Or
| something? (I am a dummy at this topic, just asking.)
| MrDresden wrote:
| This is nothing new. 5-7 years ago there were "plans" announced
| involving a German conglomerate wanting to create a giant
| container port in the east of the island.
| casenmgreen wrote:
| I'd like them to be in.
|
| They're Europeans, and a nice bunch.
| spiderfarmer wrote:
| Fully agreed.
| danielfoster wrote:
| 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.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| That rules out pretty much every member of the EU, then. Across
| the EU, support for EU membership is only 60%.
| kamaitachi wrote:
| It varies, as you'd expect but the number is about right
|
| Here are 2 recent reports
|
| https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/10/24/people-
| br...
|
| https://encompass-europe.com/comment/clear-support-for-eu-
| me...
| behnamoh wrote:
| EU is not that big a deal anyway--its stupid AI regulations are
| keeping it back...
| sschueller wrote:
| We don't allow AIs to make healthcare decisions, how is that
| a bad thing? How many people die in the US because their care
| was denied by an AI?
|
| IMO the EU regulation doesn't go far enough as it excludes
| banning AI for "military use".
| af78 wrote:
| Most EU countries banned certain categories of weapons like
| cluster munitions and antipersonnel mines, and as a result
| were unable to provide them to Ukraine. russia had no such
| qualms. Fortunately non-EU countries were able to supply
| Ukraine with these useful weapons: the EU was dependent on
| non-EU countries for its security.
|
| Had russia attacked a NATO country of the EU directly, said
| country would have been at a disadvantage.
|
| There have been reports of experiments with autonomous
| drones in the russia-Ukraine war.
|
| If the EU bans AI for military uses and our adversaries do
| not, I am afraid someday we will regret our mistake. But it
| will be too late.
| lpapez wrote:
| I guess we can agree to disagree.
|
| I hope to see even more "stupid AI regulation" in the future,
| fingers crossed.
|
| Recently I benefited from a "stupid regulation" mandating
| minimum Internet speeds carriers need to provide. How dare
| the policy makers interfere with the extortionate prices
| every single ISP in the market colluded to impose on the
| population. Muh liberty!
| sunaookami wrote:
| Plus the undemocratic law making process and the unelected EU
| commission that is an authoritarian institution without
| anyone keeping it in check. The DSA is a censorship law with
| an added backdoor (look up "emergency response" and its
| implications). And tethered caps are just annoying ;)
| RandomThoughts3 wrote:
| The council, composed of representatives of governments
| elected in their own state, nominates the commission and
| proposes laws which are then voted by the parliament where
| deputies who have been directly elected by European sit.
| The parliament also confirms the commission.
|
| Care to explain how any of that is undemocratic?
| tugu77 wrote:
| That's a lot of BS.
|
| The European Parliament is elected every few years by
| citizens in all member states.
|
| The European Commission is nominated by the European
| Council and and confirmed by the European Parliament.
|
| The European Council consists of government officials from
| the member states where they have been chosen by national
| democratic processes.
|
| It may be a little complicated, but it's all rooted in
| democratic processes. Please stick to the facts and keep
| the populistic anti-EU nationalistic propaganda to
| yourself.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| You could say this for pretty much every important decision in
| every democracy ever. It's seldom things get settled with
| percentage support starting with anything other than a 5.
| sobellian wrote:
| It's a form of institutional hysteresis. If a major change
| can get implemented by a simple majority, it has zero noise
| margin. If it requires (say) two thirds, then it has a noise
| margin of 33 percentage points.
|
| I am still stunned that Brexit was left to a 50% + epsilon
| referendum.
| mppm wrote:
| Yes, there really needs to be some margin for really big
| and costly changes. One of the main reasons for Brexit
| being such a clusterfuck was that, once the going got
| tough, majority support evaporated and the exit was pushed
| through by what was effectively a minority government at
| that point, with parliament trying to make their lives as
| difficult as possible. It could have been less painful
| overall if there had been more robust agreement to go ahead
| with it, and therefore some degree of cooperation. Maybe
| 2/3 majority is overkill, but a 60-40 split should be a
| requirement for serious changes to the future of a country.
| isbvhodnvemrwvn wrote:
| The problem is that many decisions in the EU require
| _exactly_ 100% support of member states, which is a problem
| if you have a country with wildly different ideas than others
| (now Hungary, a few years ago Poland).
| Cumpiler69 wrote:
| _> you have a country with wildly different ideas than
| others (now Hungary, a few years ago Poland)_
|
| Why single out Hungary and Poland specifically? Is it worse
| than when Austria, Netherlands, France, etc. have a
| different opinion to the rest of the union and torpedo
| progress just to pander to the right wingers in their
| country?
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| Yes, they are (or in the case of Poland were) worse. The
| act like typical authoritarians. In Hungry democracy is
| essential neutered.
| Cumpiler69 wrote:
| How are they authoritans? Do you just look at the optics,
| or do you look at the damage done to the EU in monetary
| terms? Because those are two different things?
| caseyy wrote:
| Not really. I've always observed that in countries with high
| adult literacy rates [0], referendums often have a 70%+
| majority. I think people can fact-check things a bit more
| there and everyone's more on the same page (pun not
| intended). Well, that's my theory, anyways:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Lithuanian_European_Union.
| ..
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Lithuanian_independence_r.
| ..
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Lithuanian_privatisation_.
| ..
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Lithuanian_nuclear_power_.
| ..
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Latvian_constitutional_re.
| ..
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Latvian_parliamentary_dis.
| ..
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Latvian_independence_and_.
| ..
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Uzbek_constitutional_refe.
| ..
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Uzbek_constitutional_refe.
| ..
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Uzbek_presidential_term_r.
| ..
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Estonian_referendum
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Estonian_independence_ref.
| ..
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Slovenian_fertility_treat.
| ..
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_Slovenian_independence_re.
| ..
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2011_Slovenian_referendum
|
| ... and so on. Some referendums are still around 50% of
| course, but it's very common to have large majority
| referendums.
|
| Having lived in one of these countries, there was always a
| strong sense for how people would vote in the referendums.
| There was a lot of alignment, and there were periods of time
| when everyone was doing their homework ahead of each
| referendum, to be informed.
|
| I didn't see much of that prior to Brexit in the UK, for
| example. It seemed then as if people were confused about even
| some basic facts around the EU. I think reading
| comprehension, particularly in understanding unfamiliar texts
| like legislation[1], determines how much people make sense of
| the issue at hand - and whether they vote randomly (in which
| case you'd see a 50%/50% split on Yes/No votes) or based on
| some sort of prevailing sense making.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_litera
| cy_...
|
| [1] https://literacytrust.org.uk/parents-and-families/adult-
| lite...
| ksec wrote:
| So UK will basically be surrounded by EU members top and bottom?
| jessekv wrote:
| Strangely enough, Faroe Islands are not EU.
| grecy wrote:
| They'll never join because it would put an end to their
| horrific fishing practices. (I just spent a week there)
| skunkworker wrote:
| 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.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| They could presumably strike some deal, if there is political
| will on both sides.
|
| UK and Scandinavia got to opt out of the Euro, for example.
| smhg wrote:
| You mean Sweden and Denmark, not Scandinavia. And both have
| different ideas about joining the Eurozone. Norway isn't part
| of the EU. Finland is using the Euro.
| diplocorp wrote:
| Finland is Nordic but not Scandinavia. Because Norway is
| not an EU member, discussing a euro opt out doesn't make
| sense. Thus, OP is accurate in stating that Scandinavia got
| a Euro opt-out.
| Hamuko wrote:
| Sweden and Denmark are the only Scandinavian countries in
| the EU.
| xenospn wrote:
| What about whale hunting? I assume the EU would like a say
| about that as well?
| throw-qqqqq wrote:
| Are you perhaps thinking of the Faroe Islands and their
| killing of pilot whales? (Grindadrap, killing hundreds of
| whales)
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_the_Faroe_Islands
| Swenrekcah wrote:
| That is a myth propagated by the owners of the fishing
| companies. The real reason they oppose the EU is that they
| benefit immensely from having income and debts in Euros and
| dollars, while their expenses and interest bearing assets are
| in the weak and high-interest ISK.
|
| Consider that icelandic mortgage interest rates are currently
| 9-11% but a few years ago they were 4% which was celebrated as
| historically extremely low rates.
| MrDresden wrote:
| That's not entirely correct.
|
| The EU has an abysmal history of setting and managing ITQs in
| its waters, with Iceland having some of the best (but not at
| all perfect) managed waters in the world.
|
| So there is plenty to be skeptical about when it comes to how
| negotiations would go on the matter.
| twright wrote:
| 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.
|
| 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.
| silexia wrote:
| Iceland would be far smarter to join the United States. The USA
| is the primarily military might of NATO, which is what makes the
| EU attractive. The USA has a far stronger economy and the global
| reserve currency. The incoming US president is open to making
| Iceland the 51st state.
| senko wrote:
| The US can't even make Puerto Rico a US state.
| Hamuko wrote:
| Or its own capital, whose citizens still have no real
| representation.
| philwelch wrote:
| DC was built on lands ceded from the states of Maryland and
| Virginia for the explicit purpose of creating a national
| capital that was neutral ground between the various states.
| The residents of the District are free to vote for
| retrocession back to Maryland if they want representation.
| kristjansson wrote:
| Iceland is a founding member of NATO.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| Yes I'm sure Iceland, a typical northern European social
| democracy, would be very happy as part of the US.
| cromka wrote:
| Anyone who's been to Iceland can see that it is not, in fact,
| a typical Northern European society. It really feels like a
| strange mix of US and EU. Besides, the north-east US states
| can easily be described as social democracies as well.
|
| As EU-ropean, I'd much rather see Iceland a member, but I can
| see them becoming a US state or territory and it wouldn't
| really be that far-fetched to be honest.
| mg74 wrote:
| Your nations politics are depressing enough from afar; I would
| not choose to have it affect me more directly than it does now.
| based2 wrote:
| https://www.government.is/topics/foreign-affairs/iceland-in-...
| Simon_O_Rourke wrote:
| I'm actually surprised Iceland isn't in the EU already, I had
| assumed it was. Is Greenland being a Danish protectorate also in
| the EU?
| moffkalast wrote:
| Well yes but actually no:
|
| > As Greenland is one of the Overseas Countries and Territories
| of the European Union, citizens of Greenland are European Union
| citizens.
|
| > In 1985, Greenland left the European Economic Community
| (EEC), unlike Denmark, which remains a member. The EEC later
| became the European Union (EU, renamed and expanded in scope in
| 1992). Greenland retains some ties through its associated
| relationship with the EU. However, EU law largely does not
| apply to Greenland except in the area of trade. Greenland is
| designated as a member of the Overseas Countries and
| Territories (OCT) and is thus officially not a part of the
| European Union, though Greenland can and does receive support
| from the European Development Fund, Multiannual Financial
| Framework, European Investment Bank and EU Programmes.
|
| Similar to French and other oversees territories, they can move
| to and work in the EU, but other EU citizens can't do the
| reverse. Don't have to follow the laws, yet get funding
| regardless. Pretty sweet deal.
| delfinom wrote:
| To be fair, Greenland basically has its own version of Native
| Americans, complete with a history of Europeans trying to
| genocide them. There's historical context why EU citizens
| can't freely flood into Greenland lol
|
| One of the issues they had with the EEC was basically
| European fishing fleets coming over and decimating their
| fishing stocks and thus food supplies and jobs.
| infocleaner wrote:
| An utterly strange comparison.
|
| The current Inuits are no more "native" than the Norse
| settlers, and in fact arrived later than the Scandinavians.
|
| Comparing the treatment of Greenlanders in any way to
| "genocide" is terrible. A "misguided" Western intervention,
| perhaps, but mostly at the wish of the Greenlandic heads.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| It is even possible, though far from certain, that the
| ancestors of current Inuit exterminated the Norse
| settlers in the 15th century.
|
| History rarely walks the paths prescribed by modern
| ideologues.
| cess11 wrote:
| Some norse dropping by in the 10th century means Norway
| is right to give away an island with an inuit population
| to Denmark in 1814 or whatever?
|
| Forcing contraceptives and massacres are common methods
| of genocide, and while it's unlikely we'll find evidence
| of genocidal intent the danish has acted very much like a
| typical colonial power.
| RandomThoughts3 wrote:
| Greenland isn't a Danish protectorate. It's an autonomous
| territory which is to say an autonomous administrative region
| of Danemark. Greenland very much is part of Danemark and its
| inhabitants are Danish citizen. Nothing to do with a
| protectorate.
| jbverschoor wrote:
| Just our savings on IceSave
| thomasahle wrote:
| Shared fishing rights in the EU has traditionally been a deal
| breaker for both Iceland and Greenland to join.
| pornel wrote:
| It's a touchy topic throughout the EU.
|
| "They're stealing _our_ fish! " gets voters riled up, even in
| countries where the fishing industry is economically
| insignificant and/or unprofitable.
| RandomThoughts3 wrote:
| Wasn't that mostly a UK thing? I don't think I have heard
| fishing rights mentioned since Brexit.
| grahamj wrote:
| Canada here, can we join too?
| burcs wrote:
| I heard you all will be joining a different union of sorts here
| soon enough.
| grahamj wrote:
| I've always joked about joining Europe because I feel we have
| more in common with them then our neighbour to the South, but
| recent comments from said neighbour's upcoming Fuhrer have
| made the jokes just a tad more serious.
| grecy wrote:
| I think it more likely we'll burn the White House down.
| Again.
| chgs wrote:
| What does your governor say?
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Our 7 farmers will put a stop to anything like that.
| brubs wrote:
| I think Germany is getting ready to get out of the EU!
| simulosius wrote:
| What makes you think such a nonsense?
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| How about NAFTA?
| ChumpGPT wrote:
| 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?
| Ecstatify wrote:
| 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.
| aramattamara wrote:
| That's Schengen zone, some countries are in Schengen but not in
| EU.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-12-29 23:00 UTC)