64 ms·

> "Iceland's fishing industry makes up something like 40% of their export." That number includes everything involving the fishing industry, such as equipment m

> "Iceland's fishing industry makes up something like 40% of their export." That number includes everything involving the fishing industry, such as equipment manufacturing. The size of the actual fishing and value-addative processing is often reported to be closer to 12-15% as a share of GDP. I say this as an Icelander who voted yes in this vote, but would vote no next time if any deal would lead to us loosing control of our fisheries or having worse management policies pushed on us. edit: spelling

gizajob 19d ago
If you join the EU you will lose control of your fisheries and have worse management policies pushed on you. Fantasy to think it will be any other way.
- runarberg 19d ago
  Icelandic ex-fisherman here: Iceland‘s fisheries are controlled by what we call quota-kings. They are extremely rich owners of fishing quota (similar to USA’s oil barons) who are increasingly anti-social and obviously very unpopular among Iceland’s general public. Iceland’s fishing system is kind of feudal in nature. People are allowed buy and trade and even rent fishing quotas. This means that the quota has accumulated into fewer and fewer hands of extremely rich individuals. The quota is then trickled down to fishing companies, and finally to fisherman, who have to spend a lot of money to rent the quota before they are allowed to fish. This is a terrible system, and obviously the EU loves it (it even tried to copy it to solve the climate-crisis; and failed obviously). It fits smack into EUs neo-liberal trajectory. I don‘t think it is a fantasy at all the EU would adopt Iceland’s management policy at all. Nor do I think Iceland’s workers (including fishermen) have anything to worry about inside the EU. Trading ownership from our own feudal overlords to European bureaucrats would be a net positive in my books, however unlikely I find it. That said I think it is unlikely Iceland will join anyway. Even if ‘yes’ wins. Iceland’s politicians have a history of ignoring the results of a national referendum if they don‘t like the results. They did this back in 2012 when the nation voted in favor of a new constitution (which relevantly would have actually transferred ownership of the fisheries to the Icelandic nation). A new government came to power and simply decided to ignore the results because their loved quota-kings would have lost power. I think something similar is likely to happen again.
  - ViewTrick1002 19d ago
    Shared usage of a limited resource is a hard problem to solve. Given the current system maybe the most honest one would be if the state ”owns” all the quota and then let fishermen bid for fishing rights. But I have a feeling that will quickly become politicized with strange carve outs benefiting a few.
    - inigyou 18d ago
      Bidding for rights is basically an ownership system already. Once you win a bid for a right, then you own the right.
      - ViewTrick1002 18d ago
        Even if time limited? So you bid for 5, 10 years or whatever becomes a good balance between stability to invest in the business and an agile market.
        inigyou 18d ago
        Yes, then you become a landlord for 5 or 10 years. Once the rights are given out by whatever method and set for 10 years, then anyone else who wants one in the next 10 years has to buy or rent one from whoever has one. That's landlordism.
        ViewTrick1002 18d ago
        But that would trend to cutting out the middle man due to the inefficiencies they create. Middlemen will only work if either these middlemen make the utilization more efficient or you make the requirements to bid so onerous that only these specialized middlemen have the competency to do fulfill them.
        inigyou 18d ago
        No, middlemen would happen if it's profitable to be a middleman. Extreme case: one person bids just enough to get all the rights, then charges double that to fishermen to use them.
- inigyou 18d ago
  EU member states can just ignore EU laws, as Hungary did for a decade. The EU is not sovereign.
  - gizajob 18d ago
    Then why join
    - inigyou 18d ago
      For the benefits
ekidd 19d ago
Thank you for the clarifications! Someone from Iceland tried to explain this all to me once, and if I understood correctly, it had less to do with the GDP (which also includes money circulating within Iceland) and more to do with the balance of trade, where fishing played a bigger role? But my information may have been misunderstood, or it may be out of date. In any case, you have a stunningly gorgeous country and very nice people, and I wish you the best of luck in figuring all this out in a way that benefits Iceland.
lkbm 19d ago
Yeah, and the number also is not of all exports, but of goods exports (as opposed to total, which includes both goods and services). In 2024, fishing/marine products was ~18% of total exports, which is still a massive deal, but only half as massive. (I believe tourism, the largest "export", is close to 40% of total exports.)

gizajob 19d ago

If you join the EU you will lose control of your fisheries and have worse management policies pushed on you. Fantasy to think it will be any other way.

runarberg 19d ago
Icelandic ex-fisherman here: Iceland‘s fisheries are controlled by what we call quota-kings. They are extremely rich owners of fishing quota (similar to USA’s oil barons) who are increasingly anti-social and obviously very unpopular among Iceland’s general public. Iceland’s fishing system is kind of feudal in nature. People are allowed buy and trade and even rent fishing quotas. This means that the quota has accumulated into fewer and fewer hands of extremely rich individuals. The quota is then trickled down to fishing companies, and finally to fisherman, who have to spend a lot of money to rent the quota before they are allowed to fish. This is a terrible system, and obviously the EU loves it (it even tried to copy it to solve the climate-crisis; and failed obviously). It fits smack into EUs neo-liberal trajectory. I don‘t think it is a fantasy at all the EU would adopt Iceland’s management policy at all. Nor do I think Iceland’s workers (including fishermen) have anything to worry about inside the EU. Trading ownership from our own feudal overlords to European bureaucrats would be a net positive in my books, however unlikely I find it. That said I think it is unlikely Iceland will join anyway. Even if ‘yes’ wins. Iceland’s politicians have a history of ignoring the results of a national referendum if they don‘t like the results. They did this back in 2012 when the nation voted in favor of a new constitution (which relevantly would have actually transferred ownership of the fisheries to the Icelandic nation). A new government came to power and simply decided to ignore the results because their loved quota-kings would have lost power. I think something similar is likely to happen again.
- ViewTrick1002 19d ago
  Shared usage of a limited resource is a hard problem to solve. Given the current system maybe the most honest one would be if the state ”owns” all the quota and then let fishermen bid for fishing rights. But I have a feeling that will quickly become politicized with strange carve outs benefiting a few.
  - inigyou 18d ago
    Bidding for rights is basically an ownership system already. Once you win a bid for a right, then you own the right.
    - ViewTrick1002 18d ago
      Even if time limited? So you bid for 5, 10 years or whatever becomes a good balance between stability to invest in the business and an agile market.
      - inigyou 18d ago
        Yes, then you become a landlord for 5 or 10 years. Once the rights are given out by whatever method and set for 10 years, then anyone else who wants one in the next 10 years has to buy or rent one from whoever has one. That's landlordism.
        ViewTrick1002 18d ago
        But that would trend to cutting out the middle man due to the inefficiencies they create. Middlemen will only work if either these middlemen make the utilization more efficient or you make the requirements to bid so onerous that only these specialized middlemen have the competency to do fulfill them.
        inigyou 18d ago
        No, middlemen would happen if it's profitable to be a middleman. Extreme case: one person bids just enough to get all the rights, then charges double that to fishermen to use them.
inigyou 18d ago
EU member states can just ignore EU laws, as Hungary did for a decade. The EU is not sovereign.
- gizajob 18d ago
  Then why join
  - inigyou 18d ago
    For the benefits

ekidd 19d ago

Thank you for the clarifications! Someone from Iceland tried to explain this all to me once, and if I understood correctly, it had less to do with the GDP (which also includes money circulating within Iceland) and more to do with the balance of trade, where fishing played a bigger role? But my information may have been misunderstood, or it may be out of date. In any case, you have a stunningly gorgeous country and very nice people, and I wish you the best of luck in figuring all this out in a way that benefits Iceland.

lkbm 19d ago

Yeah, and the number also is not of all exports, but of goods exports (as opposed to total, which includes both goods and services). In 2024, fishing/marine products was ~18% of total exports, which is still a massive deal, but only half as massive. (I believe tourism, the largest "export", is close to 40% of total exports.)