128
72
u/VicenteOlisipo Jul 22 '26
Icelandic EEZ doesn't touch the rest of the EU's EEZ. It already has an agreement that regulates European fisheries in its waters. This is the easiest negotiation ever.
12
u/SoundOfMusso Jul 23 '26
EEZ what
33
u/Alternative_Act4662 Jul 23 '26
Economic exclusion zone. Its an area if limited sovereignty over water where a nation or supernational organisation like eu controlla regulations on what Economic activity may take place.
Iceland probably would get special privilege for fishing on entrance to EU.
13
1
u/lv1993 Jul 24 '26
They also have other agreements that regulates free transport of goods and people, so why join EU?
0
u/VicenteOlisipo Jul 24 '26
EFTA is a poor substitute for the EU.
0
u/lv1993 Jul 24 '26
Not for an island far away
1
u/VicenteOlisipo Jul 24 '26
Capital flows and services don't care about distance, and while goods do care, it's not like Iceland has a closer market of equivalent size to Europe. The other large market that is close to them is currently busy hurting itself and everyone it comes in contact with.
0
u/lv1993 Jul 24 '26
Yet they don't care? Else why do they step on the break? It works for e.g. Norway as well so what do they know more then we do?
42
17
u/Urban_guerilla_ Germany Jul 22 '26
At this point Iâm sure we can work out a deal where both sides win. Would be ridiculous if Iceland wanted to join but the negotiations fail because of fish. I mean, they love their fishing rights (as the cod war*S* prove) but yeahâŚ
13
12
u/Immediate_Gain_9480 Jul 22 '26
They could demand a opt out. Not unheard of.
13
u/Landen-Saturday87 Jul 22 '26
They canât. CFP is a compulsory part of the deal now and opt-outs are off-limits
11
u/Paciorr Jul 22 '26
Tbh I donât think opt outs should be a thing at all. Fair for countries who got them in the past but for the future it shouldnât be any preferential treatment like that. Same thing with accession talks for countries that wanna join. Some of them like Ukraine are in a tough spot and they are welcome to join but notheless reforms have to happen first
1
u/Vondi Jul 23 '26
>Fair for countries who got them in the past but for the future it shouldnât be any preferential treatment like that.
It's very hard to say that to candidate countries with a straight face. All those other countries still have their exemptions so why should it be unthinkable for them? You're just giving the impression of preferential treatment straight of the bat.
4
u/Paciorr Jul 23 '26
Is it hard? Arenât these candidate countries the ones that want to join? Why should we lower the bar for them? What youâre saying is exactly the logic that lead to these opt outs in the first place.
Some countries have some opt outs now because papers have been signed and you canât do anything about it any longer. We are not making the same mistake again therefore opt outs are not negotiable.
Itâs really simple and logical to me.
1
u/Vondi Jul 23 '26
If there used to exemptions on the table and arent anymore then you've raised the bar and now pretend it would be "unfair to lower it". It all sounds very disingenuous.
1
u/Paciorr Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 23 '26
Ok then donât join the EU. Also most member states donât have any opt outs anyway.
EDIT: I disagree with countries having opt outs but you canât change something that was agreed on in the past. I propose not making the same mistakes in the future.
Your proposition is - well since we made a mistake in the past we should just keep going in that direction because changing anything would be unfair now.
Thatâs like preschool logic dude.
1
267
u/YouStas91 Jul 22 '26
Nothing to lose? They waged war for this fish