In all posts about the recent Iceland referendum I keep on hearing that the 'no campaign' had better funding but something still bothers me…
9
Replies
2
Boosts
@ruari Who did fund the No campaign in Iceland?
@ruari just like Brexit, it was built on backdoor actors and social media lies/disinfo/misinfo.
But one thing is for certain: the EU shouldn't waste time and money on people that don't want to be completely in the EU, there are other candidates that really need the accession to continue existing and improving their People's lives.
If the reason Icelanders didn't want Iceland to become an EU member-state was their sovereignty over their waters - it was repeatedly touted as the main reason -, Trump, Putler and Xi will show them their mistake sooner than later and, by then, it'll be to late to become part of the EU.
I will clearly state that I am actually lacking knowledge here and may be wildly off but I get Brexit vibes from this and Brexit was built on lies from bad actors on social media and elsewhere, and some funding that appears to have come from outside the UK.
Maybe I am wrong here and I fully admit to speculation but I would like a nice explanation of why the no campaign would have better funding.
@ruari and a result that end in the famous 48 vs 52 numbers is and will always questionable.
In something like a "Brexit vote" where the country needs to make a big decision. I think a big turnout and at least a 60% vote share for the results to be passed, is needed.
@ruari The only article I've read on this said it was the fishing oligarchs.
@ruari Which is possibly less problematic than other alternatives, but it says something about the power of money. The fishing oligarchs of Iceland are pretty much the richest people there, and they have a huge self-interest in staying out of the EU.
Note that Norway have a similar quota system (creating the fishing oligarchs), but that ours can't really compete with our oil oligarchs.
@larsivi Ok, I hope that is true and they do have money, so it would explain it. Though I still hope that they were basing this on actual logic of what might 'realistically' happen with quotas.
It is hard for me to say 100% that they are wrong as they probably have more insight than me but I remain suspicious.
