Hacker News Reader

Comment by mixdup | Hacker News Reader

It seems odd to hold a referendum on holding talks. Why not just negotiate an agreement and then hold a referendum on that agreement?

View on HN

Because if the people don't want to join in the first place, why hold negotiations to begin with?

Polling would be good enough I would think here, do a poll and if you're within 10% of a majority being in favor, just do it and then let them decide on the final agreement. Be public with that stance so that the EU and the population know that the public will have the final say and we (the gov) aren't trying to railroad this

Maybe in a country the size of Iceland it's not as big a deal to run an election but it seems like a lot of work for what is just an advisory vote

It's not a big deal given the major decision regarding even considering losing most of their national soveregnity to one of the most incompetent bureucracies the world has ever seen for hardly any upsides that they can't negotiate individually as a sovereign country.

I'm not arguing whether or not they should join the EU, just questioning why it needs two stages of referrenda

This reminds me of a recent vote in the EU parlament where the No vote had to reach a certain value above 50% to carry the day. Even though the vote did end up with a No majority, it passed because the No vote didn't reach the required negativity!

Now that's true democracy.

If Icelanders don't want to join a democracy like that, negotiate until they do! After all, the politicians know what is best for the populace.

[1] https://www.techtimes.com/articles/320010/20260709/eu-parlia...

As long as they hold a confirmatory referendum before actually joining, it wouldn't matter. Also, if Iceland is a democracy the citizens could simply vote for someone else next time who wouldn't keep trying if that's not what they wanted

Concessions, statements and revealed preference in a negotiation, certainly do matter, because they influence future leverage and power.

When people negotiate, the terms of the deal are affected by many factors. Imagine Greenland "cashes in" IOUs/goodwill to get better terms, only for the referendum to fail. Then they change their mind a couple years later, maybe because an ally threatens them with invasion - they won't get the same deal again.

Making requests to humans is never idempotent.

Parliament does not really have a majority vote for continuing talks. But one of the government parties made it one of their election issues so they want to find out if there is a majority support among voters.

Great, this is an actual answer and makes sense. I mean it's a little silly but 100% makes sense

What agreement? To join the EU you must change a lot of internal structures in your own government first, a lor of regulations must be changed to align with EU versions, laws have to be changed, even basics, like drivers licences and other documents.

Why spend millions if not billions on all that, impose laws that are maybe bad for normal people, and then figure out that people don't actually want to join the EU?

You would hold the confirmatory vote before you do all of that. You'd go to the EU, agree what joining looks like, and before doing any of the actual implementation you hold the vote

The joining process is already precisely defined.

Then what are the people voting to negotiate? They should just be presented with an in/out vote

The process is defined, not the final agreement.

Which is what would be right now? The final agreement is of course signed after all that restructuring took place.

No, you would sign the agreement before doing all the restructuring. Doing it first would be silly

Except that the EU wouldn't let that happen. You need to do the restructuring before you become an EU member, the other way around would be rather silly for the EU.

Because you’re in a different position to negotiate if you know you have the support of the population? That’s my intuition at least

After whole Brexit debacle I think it is prudent to actually first figure out if there is general willingness. EU might have better stuff to do than spend resources on formal talks according to proper procedures.

Coming up with agreement and then simply rejecting could postpone next opportunity or make the next agreement come from less hospitable starting point.

You have to apply to the EU to start negotiating

I guess one does not “just negotiate an agreement” for something like this.

And perhaps two referendums and working incrementally is wise in general, given the mess that was Brexit.

But that is quite literally what they are going to do. They're asking the public if they should try to join the EU. If yes, they will negotiate an agreement with the EU. Once the government has agreed a path forward with the EU, they'll then have another vote and if yes they'll actually sign the agreement and join the EU, if no, it ends there and they don't join

This first vote isn't committing the country or population to anything

As you say, it is committing the country to negotiate an agreement with the EU.

- Do you want to marry me?

* How will we handle X?

- Like Y.

* Sure, then, yes. I'm really looking forward to the wedding tomorrow.

- Nice, I never wanted to marry anyone in the first place.

???

Reply on news.ycombinator.com