In all posts about the recent Iceland referendum I keep on hearing that the 'no campaign' had better funding but something still bothers me…
16
Replies
2
Boosts
@ruari Who did fund the No campaign in Iceland?
RE: https://snabelen.no/@larsivi/117189346366737700
@lyda Rich people who own/control the local fishing industry, I am told
@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.
@jt_rebelo I take your point but I kinda hope not. I don't think people who may have been tricked should be punished for it.
@ruari it's not punishment, it's using the money to help those that want to be helped.
The EU budget is constrained, the coming French presidential elections might make it even worse, we have an hybrid war being waged by russia against the whole EU, money has to be used where it is really needed, to bring the convergence of European values and the European People to those that want to belong to it.
You either want to be in the EU, or not, as the Icelandic Prime-Minister putt it, it was "now or never". They voted "no", Democracy has spoken.
In 2009, after the global market crash, they wanted EU's help (and got it), when things stabilised in 2013 they elected an "Euro-sceptic" government that stopped the accession process, that's what they wanted, and now they voted "no" on the referendum. They said at least two times that they do not want to be in the EU. There's no problem with that, but furrher talks should stop where they are for some time (at least until after the next EU expansion), Iceland can keep Single Market and Schengen free-travel zone access, but the EU should take care (monetarily and whatever else) of candidates that do want to be member-states, not "candidates of circunstance" (like the UK is after Brexit, already missing a big part of the convergence criteria).
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.
@woollypigs Apparently it had a registered voters/turnout of 82.52%. 😉
@ruari now that's a fantastic turn out.
@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.
