The Icelandic miracle

Der Spiegel has an interesting article about the "Icelandic miracle.

What happened in Iceland from 2008 to 2011 is regarded as one of the worst financial crises in history. It seems likely that never before had a country managed to amass such great sums of money per capita, only to lose it again in a short period of time. But Iceland, with a population of just 320,000, has also staged what appears to be the fastest recovery on record. Since 2011, the gross domestic product has been on the rise once again, most recently at 2 percent. What's more, salaries are rising, the national debt is sinking and the government has paid off part of the billions in loans it received in 2008 from the International Monetary Fund ahead of schedule. It's a sign of confidence.

So, asks the journalist, is there anything the rest of us can learn from that tiny country. Well, there is what Paul Krugman called "doing an Iceland".

The rules are as follows: Allow your ailing banks to collapse; devalue your currency if you have one of your own; introduce capital controls; and try to avoid paying back foreign debts.

Is that a good idea?

That may sound like an extremely self-serving recipe -- and it was. Whereas billions of public money was pumped into the banking system in Ireland so that financial institutions could pay back their creditors, Icelanders voted against this route in two separate referenda. They couldn't see why they should pay for the greed of foreign investors who followed the Siren song of high interest rates to the island nation. Jónsson only shakes his head wearily when asked if he has a guilty conscience. He claims to have been one of the few who warned of the currency bubble long before it burst. Now, he is excited about the country's new opportunities, which are remarkably similar to the ones it has always had. "A hard-working populace. A healthy democracy. A high level of education. Tourism. Natural resources, such as wind, hydro-power and geothermal energy. And fisheries. What would we be without the fisheries?"

Well, indeed, what would they do without fisheries or, come to think of it, without their own currency?

ADDENDUM: This is what I was told by an Icelandic friend who is one of the leading opponents of his country joining the EU:

We honoured all the foreign debt we owed. We rejected claims to pay what we believed we did not owe as a nation, the Icesave deposits. As the EFTA Court then later confirmed.

Regarding the recovery we would definitely have had much faster recovery if we would have had another government during that period than the socialist one.

They actively worked against foreign investment and slowed down the economy by raising taxes and making the system all much more complicated including the tax system. Basically what socialists usually do.

Ain't that the truth?

Iceland and the Anglosphere

My friend Hjörtur J. Guðmundsson (well, I think he is my friend but as he came to London and discussed the Anglosphere without bothering to let me know I may have to re-think that) has sent me a link to a piece he wrote on ConHome, which is just as well because I rarely read it, not being that interested in the Conservative Party's internal squabbles.

This piece, however, is of great interest and importance as the  subject under discussion is whether Iceland can be or ought to be part of the Anglosphere. My own view is that countries of Europe that sent little ships out into the wide blue yonder without knowing where that was are a separate breed from those who concentrated on their immediate land borders and that is one reason they cannot really survive for very long in one union. There are three exceptions to this: one is France, which did both but, ultimately, decided that those land borders were more important, perhaps because of such events as the Seven Years War; the second one is Spain that did send ships out but somehow managed to lose intellectual momentum; and Hungary, which did not send ships out but sent people absolutely everywhere from Central Asia to the New World. Mind you, (Hungary also had the Golden Bull in 1224, which lays down almost exactly the same agreements as did the Magna Carta nine years previously and Budapest had the first underground line on the Continent, following London's example.)

Iceland is obviously on the "little ships" side of the divide. This is what Hjörtur J. Guðmundsson has to say:

In a British area of influence

So where does Iceland stand regarding all this? Well, first of all although English is not the native tongue in Iceland most Icelanders nevertheless speak the language, and many have mastered it very well. Iceland was also never a part of the British Empire, but rather the Danish Kingdom until gaining independence in 1944 (although in the early 19th century it was floated that the country be transferred to lie under British rule). Nevertheless, Iceland was for centuries in a British area of influence.

British influence in Iceland culminated during the First World War, as the war resulted in looser political and economic ties with Denmark. That continued in the inter-war period with a growing British interest in Iceland which eventually led to the occupation by British military forces in May 1940 after the outbreak of the Second World War. A year later, the United States agreed to replace the British and defend Iceland, since the United Kingdom needed its forces elsewhere in the war effort.

Politically more to the right

The United States continued to have troops stationed in Iceland during the Cold War until 2006, when they were finally evacuated entirely from the country. As a result of all this Iceland has become both very Americanized and Anglicized. That also goes for Icelandic politics which are generally more in line with those of the Anglosphere than on continental Europe, including the other Nordic countries. The emphasis is generally more to the right and more economic liberal.

The conservative Independence Party, the dominant party in Icelandic politics for decades, is for example more in line with its sister party the British Conservatives, in its policies than the Danish Conservative Party or the German Christian Democratic Union. The dominating political parties in the other Nordic countries have, however, traditionally been social democratic parties. The Left in Icelandic politics has also tended to be closer to the centre when it comes to its policies.

Individualist national character

Furthermore, the national character of Icelanders has tended to be very individualist, and therefore much in line with the Anglo-Saxon tradition – which in turn has probably contributed to the historically strong position of the Independence Party. This individualism may very well derive at least partly from the fact that Icelanders are islanders, which they of course have in common with the British. There is something which has been referred to as the island mentality.

Finally, and solely as an interesting historical point, the roots of Icelanders happen to be traceable largely to the British Isles – mainly to Celts in Scotland and Ireland. According to an ongoing research based on Iceland’s present population by the company deCODE genetics and the University of Oxford, 20 per cent of male settlers of Iceland more than 1000 years ago had ancestral lines which could be traced to the British Isles and 63 percent of the female settlers. The rest was of Nordic origin.

His conclusion is that while Iceland probably cannot be a full member of the Anglosphere, "there is a good basis for closer co-operation between Iceland and the Anglosphere countries in the future – for example regarding trade, security and defence". Sounds very reasonable to me. Now all we need is for the Conservative Party and its denizens to recognize the importance of the Anglosphere and to understand that it is the obvious way forward.

The EU will do such things ....

... what they are they know not. Actually, the likelihood is that they will impose trade sanctions on Iceland as they have on the Faroe Islands (with, I may add, this country's and its fishermen's support). Iceland has officially withdrawn from accession negotiations.

Iceland said yesterday (22 August) that a recent election which brought eurosceptic parties to power had been interpreted by constitutional advisors as a signal to stop EU accession talks.

The foreign ministry said it had received an opinion from its constitutional advisors that the government was not bound by a 2009 parliamentary vote to launch the membership talks.

How very dare they?

Faroe Islands go to the UN

The Faroe Islands who want the coastal countries that include Russia, Iceland and Norway (but not the UK because we do not negotiate on our behalf) to meet in September and discuss the management of the herring stock, have meanwhile taken the EU to an international tribunal under UNCLOS over those threats of sanctions.

The BBC reports that

A statement from the Faroese prime minister's office said the government had requested an international tribunal to declare the European Union "in breach of its obligations" under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

It asked for EU authorities to be "ordered to refrain from the threat or adoption of coercive economic measures on the Faroe Islands".

Iceland Prime Minister Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson has also demanded the EU withdraws the threats and allows a peaceful settlement to be found under "free negotiations".

European sanctions will be brought in against Faroese herring and mackerel imports from the end of August.

Foolishly, the Scottish fishermen are supporting this high-handed action. Then again, what other options do they have?

Trade sanctions imposed on the Faroe Islands

Oh goody. The EU has picked someone small enough to bully and to Britain's shame its representatives as well as the representatives of fishermen's organizations have joined in.

The Scotsman reports that

THE European Commission today finally moved to impose trade sanctions against the Faroe Islands because of their continued refusal to enter into an international agreement on the division of the North Atlantic herring stock.

A total ban on the import of Faroese catches of both herring and mackerel into European ports is to be brought into force before the end of August in a major blow for the Nordic nation’s fishing industry. Similar sanctions are expected to be imposed in the near future against Iceland on mackerel.

Last year Icelandic vessels landed 123,000 tonnes of mackerel while Faroese boats took 159,000 tonnes of mackerel, one of the most important catches for Scotland’s powerful pelagic fleet.

Member States have agreed to impose sanctions on the trade of both herring and mackerel from the Faroes to the EU. Mackerel has been included in this EU sanctions package because the Faroese catch the mackerel in association with landings of Atlanto-Scandian herring.

And there may be scope under the sanctions deal to introduce further fish products in the trade ban at a later date. Future sanctions could include fishmeal, fish oil and Faroese salmon products because herring is used in the manufacture of their feed.

Well, what fun that is. The EU is determined to destroy the economy of the Faroe Islands and, if possible, that of Iceland. That will teach them not to want to join us. Of course, they might start exporting to other countries and thumb their noses at the EU.

The argument in both cases is that there has been a recent increase in the fish stock in northern Atlantic; I have not yet seen that argument disproved. The EU is merely shouting hysterically that these people are not allowed to fish more than they are allowed to do by the EU though they are not actually members. (The Faroe Islands have a complicated status. They are a "a self-governing country within the Danish Realm" and not part of the European Union. Indeed, Danish citizens who live there are not EU citizens though those of other member states are.)

EurActiv and EUObserver have both published an article by Kaj Leo Holm Johannesen, the Prime Minister of the Faroe Islands, which is worth reading in full. Here are some excerpts:

Underpinning the Commission’s proposal to implement economic measures against the Faroe Islands is the assertion by European Fisheries Commissioner Maria Damanaki that the Faroe Islands have “left the negotiation table” on Atlanto-Scandian herring.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The Faroese government has been repeatedly calling for negotiations between all coastal states to discuss a revision of the sharing arrangement for this important and very valuable shared fish stock in the Northeast Atlantic.

Multilateral management of shared fish stocks should always be based on the best available scientific information on the size and behaviour of the stock. We have been witness in recent years to a marked increase in abundance of herring in Faroese waters, also for longer periods.

Assessments by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) in 2011 and 2012 confirm these new trends and the increased dependency of the herring on maritime areas within Faroese jurisdiction.

...

Despite the virtual absence of Atlanto-Scandian herring in EU waters, the EU became a party to the arrangement, after having set itself a unilateral quota of 150,000 tonnes in 1996, which it could only effectively fish in international waters.

The allocation key was modified again in 2007, after four years without an agreed arrangement, due to Norway’s demands that its share was increased.

In contrast, the Faroese share has remained by far the smallest all these years at just over 5%. This by no means reflects the occurrence of Atlanto-Scandian herring in Faroese waters today, nor the long-standing dependency of the Faroe Islands on fisheries.

Both the Faroese and Danish governments have underlined to the Commission that all options for renegotiating an equitable allocation of the Atlanto-Scandian herring have far from been exhausted. The Faroe Islands have also repeatedly pointed out that we remain ready and willing to resume consultations with the other parties as soon as possible.

We are seeking the opportunity to present a reasoned and justified claim for an increased Faroese share of the Atlanto-Scandian herring stock to be discussed in the appropriate multilateral context.

But all this seems to have fallen on deaf ears in Brussels. The relentless determination to implement measures against the Faroes is being rushed through the EU system with an absolute minimum of time for EU member states to scrutinise and discuss the political rationale and factual details of the proposal.

A meeting between the five coastal States has now been scheduled for 2 and 3 September in London. Regardless of this, the Commission has chosen to proceed with its proposal for measures against the Faroe Islands, aiming for its adoption by the Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture on 31 July.

Why do I find the arguments in this article as well as the account of the EU's behaviour so persuasive? Could it be that they smack of the truth? As I said, read the whole article.

Iceland definitely not coming in

Earlier this month EUObserver reported a speech by the President of Iceland, Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, in which he cast yet more doubt on the idea that Iceland will join the European Union in the foreseeable (or, indeed, less foreseeable) future.

The European Union is not "greatly interested" in concluding negotiations with Iceland in the next few years, president Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson told parliament Thursday. Brussels doesn't want to risk a rejection in a referendum and is unlikely to develop a permanent fisheries policy that Iceland could accept, he said.

Here is the speech delivered to the Icelandic Parliament, the Althingi, on June 6, in full (and in English). Among other things to do with the Constitution of Iceland, its history and continuing importance, the President said:

After the turmoil of the past few years, the Constitution of our Republic is once again firmly in place; the will of the people as the driving force for action and determining the preservation of elements of supreme importance.

The general election delivered important messages regarding the Constitution and also on the future of our sovereignty. A strong majority of the newly-elected parliament is bound by the promise that Iceland will stand outside the European Union and the issue will be placed in the hands of the people.

In a way it was natural, four years ago when ominous uncertainty loomed over our economy and that of the Western world, that the Althingi should see the attractions of opening membership negotiations with the European Union, particularly with regard to the euro, which then seemed to rest on strong foundations; but now we face a different reality. No one knows along what lines the European Union may develop, and the euro zone is mired in a deeper recession than the economies of Northern Europe, America and Asia.

Moreover, the European Union’s negotiations with Iceland have gone very slowly. Already they have lasted longer than when other Nordic EFTA states – Sweden and Finland – made their approaches on membership. The last 3 parliamentary term came to an end before the negotiators had started to examine those aspects of the application that are of central importance for Iceland.

The way events have unfolded, and also my discussions with many influential people in Europe, have convinced me that notwithstanding its friendly declarations, the European Union is not in fact greatly interested in concluding negotiations with us in the next few years.

Although I have been told by representatives of Open Europe that Iceland is clearly looking for a better deal just as Britain is in her "renegotiations", it seems to me that the President was clear in his statement as the people of Iceland had been in the way they had cast their votes. (Yes, I did try to explain yet again to Open Europe that the position of a country that is outside the EU is different from the one inside but I am not sure whether they bothered to listen.)

Yesterday's news is even less equivocal.

Iceland has decided to end its bid to join the European Union (EU). The news was announced by the country's foreign minister, Gunnar Bragi Sveinsson, to the European Commission.

"This is how democracy works," said the minister three weeks after being appointed to the recently elected Icelandic government.

He stated that both parties in the new Icelandic government had fought the idea of EU accession.

In fact, the European Commission was told this on June 13  and took it badly. Well, one member of it took it badly.

Speaking during a frosty press conference with reporters on Thursday (13 June), Stefan Fule, the Czech commissioner responsible for EU membership bids, admitted that Iceland's decision was a personal blow.

"It was not easy for me as a person (to take the decision)," said Fule. But he added: "I am also a professional and I respect without any questions and any doubt, the will of elected representative and citizens".

He also maintained that talks on Iceland's accession to the EU should still be completed. "We remain fully committed to continuing and completing the process."

That would be the process Iceland has just aborted. What exactly is the EU going to continue and complete?

For those who want to read the words of freedom, here is the speech given by Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson, the Prime Minister of Iceland on June 17, the country's National Day.

It's official

Iceland is not coming into the EU and not because the EU does not want them to but because they (for reasons that remain mysterious for many in Brussels and other capitals) have decided that the idea does not appeal to them.

Iceland’s bid to join the EU has come to an end, Iceland’s centre-right independence party leader Bjarni Benediktsson has said.

The eurosceptic politician made the statement in an interview with Icelandic news outlet mbl.is on Tuesday (21 May).

The 43-year old Benediktsson is in discussion to shape a new government with the centrist progressive party, following elections on 27 April. The progressives also oppose joining the EU.

So that's that with regards to that one. Of course, it is much easier to stay out than to get out once you are in.

Bloomberg reports: Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson, who will take over as prime minister this week, has decided that a January decision to freeze EU membership talks will be extended indefinitely, his political adviser Johannes Thor Skulason said in a phone interview today.

“Later in the term there will be a referendum on whether Iceland should continue the talks, although no date has been decided,” Skulason said.

That is the time to have a referendum: when you are still negotiating on whether to continue with those negotiations. Should the Icelanders vote "yes", which is highly unlikely, there will be another referendum after negotiations had been completed on whether to join.

Some news items of interest

First off, Greece. These last couple of years have been quite dizzying for those who follow affairs in that country - never has it been so high up in the news so often before. Well, not since the Battle of Navarino and Lord Byron's demise.

The Greek Parliament has passed a Bill which is supposed to cut the civil service by 15,000 by the end of next year. It seems that this Bill has gone against the constitution, which had guaranteed public sector jobs for life. That, I have to say, is the most bizarre constitutional practice I have ever heard of. In fact, I am rather surprised that the infamous Constitution for Europe a. k. a. the Lisbon Treaty did not have an Article of that kind in it.

Meanwhile, at the other end of the Continent and the spectrum, Iceland has just taken another step away from EU membership.

Centre-right opposition parties in Iceland are set for a return to power with all the votes counted after Saturday's parliamentary election.

The Independence party polled 26.7% and the Progressive party 24.4%, putting them on track to win 38 of the 63 seats.

The ruling Social Democrats' share of the vote dropped to below 13%.

Not only are the two parties that will now negotiate likely to try to concentrate on economic growth, they are also, much more importantly, eurosceptic.

Two new parties performed particularly well: Bright Future, which won six seats, and the Pirate party, with three.

The Social Democrats saw their share of the vote fall dramatically to 12.9% (nine seats) while the Left-Greens' vote fell to 10.9% (seven seats).

Social Democrat leader Arni Pall Arnason, while disappointed, refused to acknowledge that the two centre-right parties had been given a major vote of confidence. "Their democratic mandate to change society is absolutely zero," he said.

Of course, one needs to talk one's own party up in politics but this is overdoing things somewhat.

Even more iffy

We hear from our friends in Iceland:

The majority of the Foreign Committee of the Icelandic parliament put forth a proposal this morning calling for Iceland's application to join the European Union to be set aside. The matter then should not be addressed again unless accepted in a referendum.

Hmm. Those odds on Iceland joining the EU are not looking good.

More good news for some countries

The euro's popularity has sunk to an all-time low in Sweden. No, that country is not a member of it, having voted against nearly ten years ago but, apparently, surveys of attitude are conducted twice a year and was again last month.

But in Sweden, the euro is on the table twice a year via a survey by the Swedish statistical agency that asks people how they’d vote if a referendum were held “today” on joining the euro. The results of the survey conducted in November just came out. Sobering results: 82.3% would vote against joining the euro, only 9.6% would vote for it, and 8% were betwixt and between. The euro’s descent into utter unpopularity hell set a new record.

Meanwhile, in Iceland

The chairman of the foreign affairs committee of the Icelandic parliament, Árni Þór Sigurðsson, told the Icelandic media yesterday that he thought that Iceland's accession to the European Union should be slowed down until after the general elections scheduled in April next year and even put aside.

Sigurðsson is an MP for the Left Green Movement and a senior member of the party which forms the current Icelandic government with the Social Democratic Alliance. The SDA is the only political party in Iceland that favours EU membership.

This is not all. The President of Iceland has told CNN  that letting the banks fail was the right decision and has helped the Icelandic economy enormously.

Now, according to [President] Grimsson, "Iceland is better placed to benefit by maintaining our present position, rather than to let the EU speak on our behalf."

Apparently, he is not too happy about the future of Icelandic fisheries, should that country join the EU. (And well he might be unhappy. As I keep telling my Icelandic friends, quite unnecessarily, just look at what happened to our fishing.)

The 69-year-old president pointed to Norway and Greenland -- two other Arctic economies and non-European Union members -- as role models.

He said he would not hesitate to veto a parliamentary decision to seek EU membership, a promise he told CNN he had based five successful presidential runs on.

What, I wonder, are the chances of Iceland joining the European project?

To cheer us up

It is becoming increasingly difficult to blog about the EU and stay awake at the same time. Anyway, I thought this would cheer everyone up: the majority of Icelanders have now opposed EU membership for more than three years. What is more, they will vote that way, come that referendum that they are constitutionally required to have.

Iceland's President opposes EU membership

Well, well, well. Iceland has re-elected Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson to the presidency on around 53 per cent of the vote, well ahead of Þóra Arnórsdóttir, who got 33 per cent. A remarkable result, considering this is Mr Grímsson's fifth term. There is, we are told, a good reason for it.

One of the biggest issues debated in the election campaign was whether Iceland should join the European Union or not. Grímsson confirmed early in the campaign that he was absolutely opposed to EU membership while Arnórsdóttir refused to make her opinion on the matter public. She nevertheless said that joining the EU under the current circumstances was like renting a room in a burning building.

Political analysts in Iceland have generally agreed that Grímsson's opposition to EU membership did much to secure his victory while at the same time claims that Arnórsdóttir favoured joining the bloc did not help her campaign. It was e.g. pointed out that she had been active in the European Movement Iceland in the 90s.

What is so odd is that there are still people who consider it a good idea for Iceland to get on this sinking boat.

Small turmoil in Iceland - all well

According to our friend Hjörtur J. Guðmundsson of Iceland and the European Union,

Joining the European Union is in a total turmoil - simply because the support for it keeps decreasing.

Actually, he is not the one to say it: he is quoting "Egill Helgason, a prominent talk show host at the Icelandic state broadcaster which has been known for talking positively about an Icelandic EU membership".

Popular opinion is ever stronger in its opposition to EU membership and how can one blame them. There is some apprehension that negotiations with the EU will not finish before the next general election that will very possibly bring in a completely anti-EU government. Then the Icelanders will have a membership agreement, no government to recommend it and public opinion opposing it. In fact, it will be all dressed up with nowhere to go.

Let me just say two things about Iceland

Firstly, that Iceland is doing rather nicely, thank you financially and is repaying debts ahead of schedule, which is more, much more than one can say about certain other countries.

Secondly, 67 per cent of the country's population would reject EU membership. Can't imagine why.

The news from Iceland is good

Unlike the news from Greece, Italy and a host of other countries. In Iceland, as Ambrose Evans-Pritchard says, things are looking up, which probably means that they are even less likely to want to get on this sinking ship:

Fitch has upgraded the country to investment grade BBB – with stable outlook, expecting government debt to peak at 100pc of GDP.

The OECD's latest forecast said growth will be 2.4pc this year, after 2.9pc in 2011. Unemployment will fall from 7pc last year to 6.1pc this year and then 5.3pc in 2013.

The current account deficit was 11.2pc in 2010. It will shrink to 3.4pc this year, and will be almost disappear next year.

The strategy of devaluation behind capital controls has rescued the economy. (Yes, I know there is a dispute about exchange controls, but that is a detail.) The country has held its Nordic welfare together and preserved social cohesion. It is slowly prospering again, though private debt weighs heavy.

Nobody is forcing the elected government out of office or appointing technocrats as prime minister. The Althingi sits untrammeled in its island glory, the oldest parliament in the world (930 AD).

Of course, there is the minor detail that the Althingi did not voluntarily give up its right to sit untrammelled in its island glory.

Well, it could be the answer

Forget the EU and the ill-fated euro, says the Progressive Party in Iceland. Why should we not adopt the Canadian dollar (the loonie?). Why not go the whole hog, say I, and join NAFTA? After all, they are in the North Atlantic. Or, even better, why not unite EFTA and NAFTA?

Iceland refuses to do as it is told

Not being absolutely sure about Ambrose Evans-Pritchard's information and analysis I checked this one out with my friend Hjörtur J. Guðmundsson, a leading Icelandic eurosceptic and author of the blog Iceland and the European Union. He said that as far as he knew this was true. So here goes.

The OECD has come very close to predicting a depression for Europe unless EU leaders conjure up a lender-of-last resort very quickly, and somehow manage to make the world believe that the EFSF bail-out fund really exists.

Even if disaster is avoided, the eurozone growth forecast is dreadful. Italy, Portugal, Greece will all contract through 2012, while Spain, France, Netherlands, and Germany will bounce along the bottom.

Unemployment will reach 18.5pc in Greece, 22.9pc in Spain, 14.1pc in Ireland, 13.8pc in Portugal.

Yet Iceland stands out, with 2.4pc growth and unemployment tumbling to 6.1. Well, well.

As the man said: well, well.

In fact, Iceland seems cocky enough to reject a Chinese businessman's offer to buy a 115 square mile tourist farm in the north-east of the country, citing security concerns. So why the Icelandic Parliament should use the country's obviously strong position to be the first Western country to recognize the Palestinian state "within the 1967 borders" when there was no Palestine and Gaza belonged to Egypt while the West Bank to Jordan, is a mystery. Perhaps, they are just cocking a snook at everyone.

Meanwhile, back in the free world

The majority of Icelanders want their government to withdraw Iceland's application to join the EU (and who can blame them). According to EU News from Iceland

The majority of Icelanders want to withdraw Iceland's application to join the European Union according to a fresh opinion poll produced by Capacent Gallup for Heimssýn, the Icelandic No-movement.

51 percent favour withdrawal of the application, 38.5 percent want to carry on with it, and 10.5 percent have not made up their minds. If only those in favour or opposed to withdrawing the application are counted about 57 percent want to withdraw it.

You mean the project is not so attractive after all?

May they continue to be independent

Today is Iceland's Independence Day, which celebrates the creation of the Republic of Iceland, separated from the Kingdom of Denmark, in 1944. May this island with its splendid history continue to be independent for many many years to come. This blog salutes the people of Iceland.

Fancy feeling sorry for the EU

That is what Hjörtur J. Guðmundsson, who has been mentioned on this blog a few times before (eg here) seems to feel in his article that appeared on the Brussels Journal site and among the Telegraph blogs.

There are naturally many things that the European Union should never have done and one of them was to accept Iceland’s application to join the bloc. But Brussels can be pitied up to a certain point as it was deceived to think that the Icelandic people desired membership. Nothing, however, could be further from the reality. The Icelandic people have never wished to become members of the EU and never as little as today. As much as two thirds oppose membership according to successive opinion polls by various polling companies. An eventual accession treaty, if it comes to that, will have to go through a referendum in Iceland.

Time to give up on that now, I'd say.