Icelandic government halts EU bid

Scofflaw

The new Icelandic government has told the EU Commission it is putting EU accession on ice:

Iceland's bid to join the EU is over, the country's foreign minister told the European Commission on Thursday (13 June).

"This is how democracy works," said Gunnar Bragi Sveinsson, on his first overseas trip, three weeks after being appointed to the recently elected Icelandic government.

He pointed out that both parties in the new government had campaigned against EU accession.

He commented that the main purpose of the trip had been "to tell the commission that the new government has made decision to put negotiations on hold.

"We are part of Europe and want to strengthen our relationship in other ways," he added.

http://euobserver.com/political/120501

A bit of a pity, but such is democracy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

SeanW

Scofflaw wrote: »

The new Icelandic government has told the EU Commission it is putting EU accession on ice:



http://euobserver.com/political/120501

A bit of a pity, but such is democracy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

How is it a pity? It means Iceland will continue to govern itself versus being effectively ruled from Brussels.

Lou.m

Scofflaw wrote: »

The new Icelandic government has told the EU Commission it is putting EU accession on ice:



http://euobserver.com/political/120501

A bit of a pity, but such is democracy.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Not all European countries are suited to EU membership infact I would argue Iceland and Norway are best as they are. And other Scandies and Nordics are looking toward a more distant relationship. They have always been more self sufficient and independent without being isolationist. Particularly in Norway's case. It is a good balance. Of course they have better civil structures than us by far and better natural resources. I think Sweden is glad it kept the Kronor.

Scofflaw

SeanW wrote: »

How is it a pity? It means Iceland will continue to govern itself versus being effectively ruled from Brussels.

That being what you believe, your point naturally follows.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Lou.m wrote: »

Not all European countries are suited to EU membership infact I would argue Iceland and Norway are best as they are. And other Scandies and Nordics are looking toward a more distant relationship. They have always been more self sufficient and independent without being isolationist. Particularly in Norway's case. It is a good balance. Of course they have better civil structures than us by far and better natural resources. I think Sweden is glad it kept the Kronor.

The Norwegian government would prefer to join the EU rather than accepting the "fax diplomacy" of EFTA/EEA status, but the Norwegian people prefer not to, which makes it right for them pretty much by definition.

cordially,
Scofflaw

markesmith

The current Norwegian government wishes to join - but if the people are not behind it, then it simply shouldn't be allowed to happen.

micosoft

SeanW wrote: »

How is it a pity? It means Iceland will continue to govern itself versus being effectively ruled from Brussels.

Iceland is a member of European Economic Area.

Read the section under Rights & Obligations how they are required to apply a substantial quantum of European law and regulations into their systems without any say in its drafting or approval.

And read how much Money Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are required to pay into the EU every year.

Norway can get away with it due to their unique economic circumstances but I am surprised the Icelandic's are not more open to it. They are a very independent people but I have a feeling they are cutting off their noses on this one.

dlouth15

micosoft wrote: »

Iceland is a member of European Economic Area.

Read the section under Rights & Obligations how they are required to apply a substantial quantum of European law and regulations into their systems without any say in its drafting or approval.

Apparently it is only about 6% of the total EU legislative instruments (directives, regulations, decisions etc.) that are required to be passed into the law of EEA countries and of that 6%, there are exemptions for individual countries. On top of that each country has the right of veto in certain circumstances.

Scofflaw

dlouth15 wrote: »

Apparently it is only about 6% of the total EU legislative instruments (directives, regulations, decisions etc.) that are required to be passed into the law of EEA countries and of that 6%, there are exemptions for individual countries. On top of that each country has the right of veto in certain circumstances.

Unsurprisingly, the "6%" figure is a political one, rather than meaningful as some kind of overall measure. The Norwegians, as part of a parliamentary review of EEA membership, looked into this question in detail. The translated version of their page is here - if that doesn't work, the original Norwegian is here: http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/ud/dok/nou-er/2012/nou-2012-2/26.html?id=669821

The Norwegians make the point that quantitative comparison of legislation is tricky and possibly quite meaningless, which I'd agree with from my own efforts in the area. The Norwegians put their finger on this aspect here:

This means that the number of acts is a little apposite measure if one wants to understand the material scope of EU law or the EEA Agreement. It is also rather inappropriate to compare the EU and the EEA, if the intention is to say something striking about the proportion of EU cooperation Norway has undertaken to follow.

Put another way, it is far more important areas which Norway is affiliated, and the main rules over all, than how many acts there are in each field. For example, the free movement of workers is only governed by the general rules and a fairly small number of acts (under one percent of the total), which in turn is very important. By comparison, the common agricultural policy for over 40 percent of the number of new directives and regulations within the EU - without it thus in no way be said to be over 40 times more important than the regulation of the common labor market.

Free movement of workers, which doesn't itself count as even a single legislative Act, but is rather part of the EEA Treaty, impacts a lot of domestic Norwegian legislation - it has ancillary legislation, which consists of not many acts, but each of wide jurisdiction. The EU's agricultural policy, on the other hand, constantly spawns very narrow or temporary legislation - "Commission Regulation (EU) No 9/2011 of 6 January 2011 fixing the minimum selling price for skimmed milk powder for the 13th individual invitation to tender within the tendering procedure opened by Regulation (EU) No 447/2010", for example, is clearly not equivalent in weight to "Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States", but each one is one piece of legislation.

The Norwegian figures are broken down into different types of EU legislation, which allows a rather better comparison:

Acts|European Union 1.7.2008|EEA 31/12/2010|Percentage
Directives|1965|1369|69.7
Regulations|7720|1349|17.5
Total legislative acts|9685|2718|28.1

The figure shows that about 70 percent of all European Union Directives also apply to Norway through the EEA. While the EU had 1965 applicable directives, there were 1369 Directive in the EEA. This shows that the directives are a widely used legal instrument on the subject areas covered by the EEA Agreement.

The number of ordinances is the ratio lower. Approximately 17.5 percent of EU regulations are incorporated into the EEA Agreement. While the EU had 7720 current regulations, subject to the EEA Agreement 1349 applicable regulations. The main reason why the ratio is much lower here, is that a large proportion of EU regulations can be found in areas where Norway does not participate.

Overall, the 9685 directives and regulations in force in the EU, while it was 2718 in force in the EEA. In total, this amounted to about 28 percent.

So, 70% of Directives, 17.5% of Regulations, overall 28.1% - definitely not 6.5%. And you can't come to that figure of 6.5% - unless you divided the number of EU legislative acts ever adopted by the EEA by the number of legislative acts of all kinds (that is, including Decisions and other minor legislative actions aimed at particular countries) that the EU has ever produced . That would give you a figure somewhere around Oddson's, but it would be really really meaningless.

As to vetoes - no, EEA countries don't have any veto over EU legislative acts that apply to them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

micosoft

Great post Scofflaw.

I doubt it will put the "Iceland/Norway are great outside the EU" proposition to bed but the Confederation of British Business (hardly a bastian of Europhiles) conducted a field trip to Norway, gritted their teeth, and strongly recommended that the UK stay in the EU and that the Norway/Iceland model of half in half out would not work for the UK, and in fact does not really work for them either.

Have a gander at the PDF which posits the alternatives to the UK from a source that wants to be Euroskeptical but are fundamentally business minded and the cold hard facts are that EU membership is best financially for UK Business. It really blows the "we'd have a better economy except for the EU" argument out of the water given they represent 240,000 UK Businesses at all levels.

A great quote in the document from a Norwegian MP as follows:

"If you want to run the EU, stay in the EU. If you want to be run by the EU, feel free to join us in the EEA". Nikolai Astrup, MP

dlouth15

micosoft wrote: »

Have a gander at the PDF which posits the alternatives to the UK from a source that wants to be Euroskeptical

What's the basis for your assumption that the CBI "wants to be Euroskeptical"?

petronius

Europe would benefit from having Iceland and Norway as full members of the EU.
In one was the EU are quite accommodating to them by allowing them many of the facilities and privileges of membership by their association with the EEA(EFTA).
I fell it was a bit selfish of iceland to seek the EU safety net following their financial woes - but when things settled have seemingly moved aways
Sure there are many issues which which Iceland would be fearful of the EU, such as their undemocratic behaviour in relation to Nice, EU Constitution and Lisbon Treaties, also any EU encroachment on Iceland(and Norway) regarding Whale fishing which they see as their own decision, meaning they don't wish to be dictated to by the EU, is quite a strong argument against membership.
For Iceland if a small country like Ireland was bullied by the EU re Nice and Lisbon, how could an even smaller country like Iceland manage.

oscarBravo

petronius wrote: »

...if a small country like Ireland was bullied by the EU re Nice and Lisbon...

Happily, it wasn't, so the point is moot.

SeanW

The EU avoids referenda like the plague, when unfortunately for them they occur and produce a "No" vote, that is not acceptable.

Let's look at the E.U. Constitution. It was put to two democratic referenda in France and the Netherlands, both rejected it.

Then the Eurocrats brought up a word processor and made cosmetic changes to it, mainly replacing "European Constitution" with "Lisbon Treaty" for the explicit purpose of giving the two fingers to Dutch and French voters. But Ireland had to vote on it, and we did so, only to be told - as usual - that we had to do it again because we didn't give the Eurocrats the "right" answer.

Iceland is also in some degree of economic recovery because even if they had wanted to bail out their banks, the problem was too large. Here in Ireland, we've sacrificed the future of the next 3 generations in what can only be described as a "no bondholder left behind" policy that was explicitly supported and promoted by our so-called "friends" in the European Union. And we have nothing to show for it except a broke banking system, whereas Iceland presumably has new banks.

It should also be pointed out that the same government that wanted Iceland to join the EU was the one that wanted to have extreme laws on pornography and Chinese style Internet censorship to please the feminist-left.

The Icelandic people are better off that they got rid of them.

beeftotheheels

I find it amusing that people are championing Iceland deciding not to join when a major sticking point to them joining is their rustling of our mackerel stocks via unilaterally increasing their quota to unsustainable levels that jeopardize, amongst others, the Irish fishing fleet for whom mackerel is the most important catch.

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/other-sports/angling-notes-eu-ready-to-act-over-faroe-islands-and-iceland-s-mackerel-catch-1.1483193

oscarBravo

SeanW wrote: »

The EU avoids referenda like the plague...

The EU doesn't hold referendums, doesn't avoid referendums, doesn't ask its member states to run, not run, or re-run referendums, doesn't have any hand, act, part or influence on whether or not any of its member states ever run referendums.

SeanW

You're serious? It's little short of provable fact that Eurocrats don't like it when people say NO to their plans.

Scofflaw

SeanW wrote: »

You're serious? It's little short of provable fact that Eurocrats don't like it when people say NO to their plans.

"Eurocrats" don't write treaties, and don't call referendums on those treaties. Governments write the treaties, and call the referendums, and re-run those referendums if they think they'll get a Yes second time round.

And that's easily discoverable fact, if one takes the time to find out how the system actually works.

But then, to be fair, governments have over the years done a pretty good job of pretending that all the stuff they agree in Brussels is somehow imposed on them, and that they're just helpless passengers hitched to the EU wagon. And funnily enough it's relatively easy to get the ignorant lined up clamouring for "repatriation of powers", but there's virtually no pressure at all for stronger mechanisms of control over governments' actions in the EU.

Cui bono, one might ask?

cordially,
Scofflaw