The Icelanders rejected the EU. Germany does not hide anger

It seems that, in any European capitals, diasmocracy is welcome only if its results correspond to the political expectations of the elite, due to the fact that erstwhile citizens of a country alternatively of enthusiastically marching towards the next stages of the rainbow and the green revolution say "thank you, but we will stay on our own", the search for reasons why their decision is unreasonable, manipulated or even due to an improper knowing of democracy begins immediately.

The Icelanders rejected the EU. The consequence turned out to be highly unpleasant for Euro-Colchoz supporters: 52% of voters opposed the reopening of negotiations, while 47.2% supported the start of negotiations, while attendance exceeded 82%, so it is hard to seriously say that the Icelandic people took the substance indifferently or that the result is an accidental whim of a tiny group of voters.

Part of German media reaction for the result of the Icelandic referendum in a hysterical way. The reaction of the German "Süddeutsche Zeitung" was peculiarly significant, which the commentator argued that the decision to start negotiations should be taken by the Prime Minister and not by the citizens, and that the issue should be given to the referendum as "an economically understood democracy". What a remarkable concept, especially for a political task that has been presented for decades as a community based on democracy, civilian rights and the political subjectivity of nations.

German abroad Minister Johann Wadephul of the CDU besides did not hide disappointment from the vote, claiming that resumption of negotiations would be a "great opportunity" for Iceland and Europe.

Over the years, we have heard that dysmocracy is the foundation of the European project, that the voice of citizens is the most important, and that there should be respect for dismocratic decisions, but there is clearly an interesting exception: erstwhile citizens vote against further integration, 1 can begin to wonder if it would be better if they were not asked at all.

So 1 can maliciously ask why a referendum should be held, since politicians, who, as we know, always know precisely what their constituents need, should decide on matters of real importance. And if voters for any reason vote differently than expected, it is inactive possible to explain to them that they did not truly realize the question.

The Icelandic decision is all the more interesting as this country does not detach itself from Europe and does not intend to build a political wall around it, but belongs to the European economical Area and the Schengen area, has access to the EU's single marketplace and maintains very close economical ties with EU countries.

The Icelandics have thus shown something highly uncomfortable for EU enthusiasts: it is possible to work with the Union, trade with its countries, usage the European marketplace and travel without border controls, but at the same time do not consider that EU membership is essential and to transfer further competences to Brussels.

And here is simply a question that should besides interest Poles: If the European Union is specified a large project, as its supporters have been convincing us for years, why not all of them want to enter it? Who knows, not all citizen of Europe dreams of a Green Order, more and more detailed regulations on the economy, energy, transport and agriculture, as well as further regulations that are expected to improve our lives even erstwhile millions of euros request to be spent earlier to explain to citizens why they truly request them.

Perhaps not everyone is besides delighted by the fact that the European regulatory device can deal with specified fundamental civilisational problems as the construction of a nut with a plastic bottle. possibly actually saving Europe from lost traffic is 1 of the most crucial challenges of the 21st century, although Icelanders seemingly have somewhat different priorities. Or is it Fascism?

For any Europeans, the impact of the EU's migration policy and disputes on the protection of the EU's external borders stay an increasingly serious problem, as the crisis of irregular migration, discussions on the relocation of migrants and many years of border safety problems have shown that a "common policy" does not always should be an effective solution to the problem.

So why would Poles automatically presume that any decision taken in Brussels would be better than the decision taken in Warsaw, since on many issues there can be completely reasonable doubts about both costs and the consequences of subsequent EU ideas? Does each next directive truly mean progress, or does all competence passed on to the EU institutions should be beneficial to the citizen, and is greater centralisation always good just due to the fact that it is called "integration"?

It can be understood, of course, that Berlin's disappointment, due to the fact that if the European integration task is actually as attractive as its most ardent supporters present it, then each country should be in line for Brussels, preferably with a ready-made accession proposal in 1 hand and an EU flag in the other. Meanwhile, the Icelanders had the chance to take another step towards membership and said: No, thank you, we will stay on the current model of cooperation. What's more, they did it with very advanced attendance, so it's hard to say they didn't know what it was about.

The Icelandic referendum is so interesting not because, according to the German media, "Iceland has rejected Europe" — due to the fact that it has not done so — but due to the fact that it has shown that it has been able to operate in very close cooperation with European countries without having to join the European Union.

Perhaps this component should be discussed much further in Poland, due to the fact that over the years we have heard that EU membership is only the right way for our country, a actual good, a symbol of modernity and an exclusive way of development, while anyone who started asking about the costs, limitations or consequences of further integration was presented as individual who does not realize modern Europe or is simply a "Russian agent" and wants to fraternize with Putin and Lukashenko.

However, not all Pole considers the Green Deal as the salvation of the European economy, possibly not everyone dreams of further regulations concerning all aspect of the activity of entrepreneurs, possibly not everyone is delighted with European migration policy, and surely not everyone must feel that the authoritative in Brussels should have an expanding influence on the functioning of the Polish economy, energy, agriculture or border policy. Unfortunately, Brussels assassins and their household media don't understand. For them, dizmocracy is dizmocracy, but results should be "appropriate".

We besides recommend: Israel manipulated AI. Operation scenes revealed