The Great Nordic Thread

[politicus]

Iceland goes against the trend in Europe regarding Syrian refugees. There is a growing pressure from the opposition, municipalities, citizen groups and IP/PP backbenchers on the government to take more refugees than the 50 Iceland has promised to take in 2015-16.

IP MP Elín Hirst suggests Iceland takes 500 a year and says the current level is "an embarresment." 

SDA left wing leader Sigríður Ingibjörg Ingadóttir has proposed a new refugee policy, which is so far supported by all of SDA, the Pirates and BF. She wants to take 500 refugees 2015-17 (100/200/200), primarily exposed groups such as gays and single women with children. A long term refugee policy calibrated after economy and population size shall then be decided in 2018.

Minister of Social Affairs Eygló Harðardóttir from PP says refugees will be a long term economic and social gain for Iceland.

More than 20 000 Icelanders have offered to donate clothes, toys, furniture, money for airline tickets and offered accommodation to refugees and to teach them Icelandic. A facebook group suggesting Iceland should take 5 000 refugees (3 x Sweden proportionally) right away has 8 000 members.

Icelandic Red Cross wants Iceland to take 1 600 a year, which would be proportional to Sweden.

IP leader and Minister of Finance Bjarni Benediktsson says that 1 600 are too many, since the situation is likely to continue for several years and there is little chance of repatriation, but he agrees Iceland should "do more".

Several of the biggest municipalities have offered to integrate more refugees. Among them Akureyri, Reykjavík, Hafnarfjörður, Akranes and Garðabær.

Of course all this will be a drop in the ocean because of Icelands size, but will safe a lucky few. Studies show that earlier refugees getting to Iceland have generally been very happy about it because of the living standard, lack of discrimination on the labour market and generally positive welcome they have gotten.

It is a bit nostalgic to see all this Icelandic enthusiasm for helping refugees since it is a reminder of how things once were in mainland Scandinavia - before integration problems, culture clashes and rising crime changed things. I hope for the Icelanders that their idea of targeting gays and single women will help them avoid this. It is in accordance with my thoughts that asylum in Europe should mainly be for vulnerable groups, that are in danger in the refugee camps rather than the strong and healthy, who have the money and stamina to reach Europe, but could handle being in the camps (of course refugees getting to Europe can be a ticket to safety for vulnerable family members, but it is still a dilemma that I think is usually ignored).

They are in the privileged position that they get to pick and choose all of their refugees.

Politically it will be interesting to see how the IP right wing and PP in Reykjavik reacts. The latter led a succesful Islamophobic campaign in the last municipal election. Generally it is the rural traditionalists in PP, who support more refugees (based on Christian ethics) rather than the more hard nosed urban/suburban PP. PM Sigmundur  Gunnlaugsson hails from suburbia, is a nationalist and has run on the risk of foreign criminals entering Iceland etc. So far he is silent about the refugee crisis.

[politicus]

A couple of months after the election there is still not much enthusiasm for LLR as Prime Minister among Danish voters. In a new Norstat poll he is just as far behind the new SD leader Mette Frederiksen as he was behind HTS. While almost a quarter of voters would like to see someone other than the two "bloc leaders" in charge.

Preferred PM:

Mette Frederiksen 35%
Lars Løkke Rasmussen 26%
Another option (unspecified) 23%
Dunno 16%


Among those who would like a third option:

Kristian Thulesen Dahl (DF) 35%
Johanne Schmidt-Nielsen 13%
Anders Samuelsen (LA) 12%
Uffe Elbæk (ALT) 5%
Pia Olsen Dyhr (SF) 4%
Søren Pape Poulsen (K) 3%
Morten Østergaard (R) 3%
Dunno 26%

[politicus]

Bright Future below the threshold again in a new Gallup poll before their congress. They get their worst result in a Gallup poll since right after the party was founded in 2012.

The poll sets several other records:

- SDA gets their worst result in a Gallup poll in 17 years (= since the founding of the alliance)
- IP gets their worst result in a Gallup poll since autumn 2008 during the height of the crash.
- The Pirates are at their highest level ever in a Gallup poll.

The government is below a third and the Right Greens close to their election result on 1.7% after being almost forgotten, so a few anti-refugee votes. The Pirates have an absolute majority of 55.5% among Icelanders aged 18-29!

LG 11.8%   8
SDA 9.3%   6
Pirates 35.9% 26
BF 4.4% nil
PP 11.1% 8
IP 21.7% 15

Right Greens 1,5%
Solidarity 1,0%
Dawn 0,8%
Democracy Watch 0,6%
Liberals 0,6%
Citizens' Movement 0,6%
The Movement 0,6%
(rounding error 0.1%)


So:

Government 32.8
Pirates - SDA - LG 57.0%
Wasted votes 11.2%


Pirate attack continues

It is now only possibly to build an anti-Pirate coalition if all the other four parties team up in an establishment coalition ranging from the right wing of IP to the LG left wing, while the Pirates can form a majority with any of the other parties. This happens after IP and PP have launched a media offensive against the Pirates, which seems to backfire big time.

The Pirates are now ahead in all constituencies except Northwest, where PP is in front. So the Pirates even beats PP in their traditional heartland in the (mainly) rural Northeast and IP in the conservative rural South. Even so the Pirates are still strongest in the city and are polling at 42% in the two Reykjavik constituencies.



Age cohorts:

18-29 55.5%
30-39 43.4%
40-49 33.8%
50-59 29.7%
60+    21.7%


Constituencies:

Reykjavík 42%
South      37%
Southwest 35%
Northeast 29%
Northwest 20%


The Pirates polling at 20%+ among retired Icelanders is really crazy. They are increasingly a national party with broad support even in rural areas and among seniors.

[politicus]

SDAs executive committee has decided to call a leadership election to be held next autumn. In the meantime they will try to broaden the partys membership and "bring it back to the mass movement it was intended as" to quote party chairman Árni Páll Árnason and among other things go in dialogue with the unions and tenant associations, but SDA has basically no workers among either membership or elected officials, so I doubt they can convince union members to suddenly join a higher middle class party. Even BF probably has more manual workers among its supporters because of the Best Party legacy. The other four parties certainly have.

I think that the postponed leadership election is a risky strategy. A whole year with Árnason as leader on "borrowed time" will create a lot of instability and jockeying for position.

[politicus]

The Danish government has decided to try to deport Helle Thorning-Schmidt to Geneva .. I mean promote her as SG of the UNHCR. Given how serious the global refugee crisis is, I am not sure that would be a good idea.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-04/denmark-former-premier-thorning-schmidt-vies-for-unhcr-top-job

[politicus]

The Danish government has decided to try to deport Helle Thorninng-Schmidt to Geneva .. I mean promote her as SG of the UNHCR. Given how serious the global refugee crisis is, I am not sure that would be a good idea.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-04/denmark-former-premier-thorning-schmidt-vies-for-unhcr-top-job

I saw her as a plausible candidate to become Donald Tusk's successor in 2017. A social democrat from a country that hasn't been too polarizing during the crisis in Greece (only due to the fact that Denmark is not in the eurozone, of course), she might be seen as an acceptable candidate for both North and South, probably more than Mark Rutte, who has been even tougher on Greece than Merkel. This, however, seems like HTS wants to have a nice job out of the spotlights - at the same time, the job is much more serious than the average "lol UN" job.

Why do you think she wouldn't be fit for the job?

HTS was seen as too right wing and too much "Merkel's girl" in the EU context by many SDs in other countries - especially in Southern Europe - aka not a "real" SD, so they preferred using their sloth in the top leadership for Federica Mogherini (her being Italian was of course also crucial to Renzi).

Being Angela Merkel's favourite SD was somehow not a selling point for Hollande and Renzi.

I think she has been fairly inept as a leader. You really need someone with strong leadership and coalition building abilities to head the UNHCR in this situation.

[politicus]

The Danish government has decided to try to deport Helle Thorninng-Schmidt to Geneva .. I mean promote her as SG of the UNHCR. Given how serious the global refugee crisis is, I am not sure that would be a good idea.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-04/denmark-former-premier-thorning-schmidt-vies-for-unhcr-top-job

I saw her as a plausible candidate to become Donald Tusk's successor in 2017. A social democrat from a country that hasn't been too polarizing during the crisis in Greece (only due to the fact that Denmark is not in the eurozone, of course), she might be seen as an acceptable candidate for both North and South, probably more than Mark Rutte, who has been even tougher on Greece than Merkel. This, however, seems like HTS wants to have a nice job out of the spotlights - at the same time, the job is much more serious than the average "lol UN" job.

Why do you think she wouldn't be fit for the job?

HTS was seen as too right wing and too much "Merkel's girl" in the EU context by many SDs in other countries - especially in Southern Europe - aka not a "real" SD, so they preferred using their sloth in the top leadership for Federica Mogherini (her being Italian was of course also crucial to Renzi).

Being Angela Merkel's favourite SD was somehow not a selling point for Hollande and Renzi.

I think she has been fairly inept as a leader. You really need someone with strong leadership and coalition building abilities to head the UNHCR in this situation.

Jeroen Dijsselbloem has exactly the same profile as HTS, as a Northern European pro-austerity/pro-Germany social democrat (in name only, some would say), and somehow it didn't hinder him to be elected and re-elected as eurogroup president. HTS' losing to Mogherini doesn't necessarily mean that she can't get another EU top job. Your point regarding her ineptness seems fair - a Dane is better qualified to judge her than I.

The situation was that three top jobs were available and an SD could only get one of them given the centre-right dominance among the governments.

Barosso left as Chairman of the Commission, van Rompuy as President of the European Council and Catherine Ashton as High Representative. In the end Hollande and Renzi preferred to settle for replacing the High Representative (the least important of the three) instead of accepting HTS as the SD card, but sure, that does not block her in a future situation. But she would have been out of the spotlight for a long time in 2017. I think she missed her best chance.

HTS is at least very knowledgeable about EU related matters (which is what she has spent most of her adult life dealing with) and know the "EU-culture" from inside, so she would probably function better in that system. The UN is a whole different ball-game.

[politicus]

She does have a stubborness and pigheadedness, which make her excellent if you want to force something through against the general will of the people working in UNHCR.

Can't really argue with you there

[politicus]

Óttarr Proppé is the new lader of Bright Future elected with acclamation at the Congress yesterday, since no other candidates ran.



So the former Best Party councillor, book store clerk and lead singer in punkbands like Ham and Rass are now in charge of the troubled party.
 
Brynhildur Pétursdóttir, who was the favourite of party co-founder Heiða Kristín Helgadóttir, never ran, but chose to back Proppé and instead became the new chairman of their Althing group. While the Liberal suburban Deputy Mayor Guðlaug Kristjánsdóttir chose to withdraw from the leadership race prior to the congress. She also lost the vote for chairman of the board 75-35 to Brynhildur S. Björnsdóttir. This means that the old Best Party people are now firmly in control of BF, whereas the more mainstream Social Liberals lost out.


The party decided:

- To encourage the government to take significantly more war refugees from Syria.
- Iceland should become a country where no fossil fuels are used (so only electrical cars etc.).
(there would probably be an exception for air travel, they are not that crazy)
- Iceland should stop all searching for oil outside the NE coast.

SDA and LG have also decided to stop oil investigation, but they approved it themselves while in government, so a bit hypocritical.

It looks like BF will try to out-Green the Left Greens with their total outfacing of fossil fuels proposal. EU membership was not even on the agenda at the previously enthusiastically Europhile party.

[politicus]

New Icelandic refugee poll:
http://mmr.is/frettir/birtar-nieurstoeeur/492-taep-90-vilja-taka-a-moti-flottamoennun-fra-syrlandi

How many Syrian war refugees should Iceland take in the next 12 months?

None 11.5
Max 50 19.4 (current quota)
Max 150 14.0
Max 250 10.7
Max 500 14.5 (government pro-refugee ministers estimate)
500-1000 9.0
1000-2000 6.5
More than 2000 14.8 (very high, 1600 is proportionally = Sweden)


Share that wants more than 2000:

BF 36%
Pirates 25%
LG 23%
SDA 19%
PP 7%
IP 2%


Share that wants none:

PP 18%
IP 12%
Pirates 10%
SDA 8%
LG 2%
BF 0%

So it seems BF is in accordance with their voters in wanting more refugees. The Pirate voters are very divided on this. 25% wants either zero refugees or only the current quota of 50, while 25% wants to take more than 2000! So this question could potentially stem the Pirate craze since they have a very pro-refugee policy.

[politicus]

The poll is actually not that pro-refugees. Only 44.8% wants to take more than 250 refugees. So still a majority for taking significantly less than mainland Scandinavia (even if Iceland has around 150 spontaneous asylum seekers a yar to top that up). Prime Minister Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson has the most sceptical voters and has said nothing yet, but he also has more of the most pro-refugee voters than IP (Liberals and what you might call Christian ethics rurals) and this group is strong in some (rural) local chapters and overrepresented among his MPs.

52% of PP voters either wants no refugees (18%) or just the current number (34%), while 41% of IP voters do the same (12% none/29% current number).

Surprisingly PP in Reykjavik voted for taking more refugees btw (citing Christian principles), the only negative vote in the city council was an IP councillor who abstained.

[politicus]

New Icelandic refugee poll:
http://mmr.is/frettir/birtar-nieurstoeeur/492-taep-90-vilja-taka-a-moti-flottamoennun-fra-syrlandi

How many Syrian war refugees should Iceland take in the next 12 months?

None 11.5
Max 50 19.4 (current quota)
Max 150 14.0
Max 250 10.7
Max 500 14.5 (government pro-refugee ministers estimate)
500-1000 9.0
1000-2000 6.5
More than 2000 14.8 (very high, 1600 is proportionally = Sweden)


Share that wants more than 2000:

BF 36%
Pirates 25%
LG 23%
SDA 19%
PP 7%
IP 2%


Share that wants none:

PP 18%
IP 12%
Pirates 10%
SDA 8%
LG 2%
BF 0%

So it seems BF is in accordance with their voters in wanting more refugees. The Pirate voters are very divided on this. 25% wants either zero refugees or only the current quota of 50, while 25% wants to take more than 2000! So this question could potentially stem the Pirate craze since they have a very pro-refugee policy.

To put the numbers in perspective, if Iceland had 33 million people, instead of 330 000, add two zeros, so the last option would correspond to more than 200 000 refugees. Also, the comparison with Sweden would be 1000, Sweden has 30 times the population of Iceland and had 30 000 Syrians refugees last year. I haven't seen any similar poll for any other country, but would guess that the numbers are fairly typical, or perhaps a bit more pro-refugee than other countries. I would interpret it as 30 % would like Iceland to receive no more refugees than the current level, 30-40 % would like a bit more and 30 % would like many more.

Would have been interesting if they had let those polled rank the importance of the question. I would guess that this would not be only issue in which pirate party voters can be found on both sides.

I am a bit surprised that the numbers for men and women are pretty similar, would assume that in general men are more anti-refugees. The age divide on other hand is fairly substantial..

Men are more anti-refugees in the poll "pretty similar" is an interpretation. Fx. 14% of men wants no refugees vs. only 9% of women.

I think your interpretation is flawed, you are lumping too many options together.

No refugees means no refugees, not keeping the current level. If you take seniors fx. there is a big group on 30% in favor of keeping the current level (more than any other group), while only 5% wants no refugees (lowest for any age group) - this is the generation where Christian ethics and "we have to help" norms are strong even among those that do not really like the thought of getting more foreigners in. While younger generations have higher numbers for zero refugees, but less support for the current level. It would be more legitimate to say zero in younger generations and I see no reason why zero doesn't mean zero when there is a current level option. It is more likely that there is a "shy zero" factor among the olds.

Pirate Party voters include a large chunk of low income voters and they are the most anti-refugee (by far), so that likely explains most of the split from the creative class/higher middle class progressives.

The 1600 figure is a comparison made by a Swedish journalist in Iceland I normally trust, and is not solely based on Syrians, but total number of refugees.

[politicus]

LLR now gives up sending Syrian refugees in Denmark back to Germany - and recognize the Dublin convention is de facto defunct by now and that "the European asylum system has collapsed".

DPP demands three things to accept this:

1) Reintroduction of border control.

2) That refugees be housed in state run refugee centers until they can return.

3) More aid to refugee producing areas (that development aid be moved from Asia to Africa).

[politicus]

LLR is also now in favor of "a common EU solution" despite his previous resistance to a common European refugee policy. Even if such a solution will not formally mean Denmark entering a common policy, it will de facto do so.

[politicus]

DPP demands three things to accept this:

1) Reintroduction of border control.

2) That refugees be housed in state run refugee centers until they can return.

3) More aid to refugee producing areas (that development aid be moved from Asia to Africa).

Is this going to happen?

The shift from Asia to Africa is. I expect the rest will as well. He can't really afford to cross DPP in the middle of a turnaround on refugee policy (after de facto having promised fewer refugees during the election campaign).

[politicus]

I personal expect that 2 won't happen (the Syrian refugees will never go home), but DPP will get something which make it look like a victory for them.

That does not mean you can not put them in state run centers - outside of the normal refugee system - to begin with. So I am not so sure on that.

You could potentially also make a deal with the Greenlandic government about setting up asylum centers in abandoned settlements, or something similar. They are strapped for cash and might be willing to do it (even if Greenlanders generally hate the idea of being a "penal colony"). Kim Kielsen is a pragmatic guy - unlike Hammond.

DPP will need something that signals: "Those people will never be integrated in Danish society". Anything else will basically mean the rise of Danish Unity and a potential split by elements on the DPP right wing. They are already unhappy with the leadership moderating.

[politicus]

Honestly, I find all this talk of "cultural identity" frivolous to offensive. What is Swedish culture? Swedish culture is probably 90% the same as culture in any other rich country, they watch the Avengers and eat McDonalds like everyone else. Sure, they also like terrible fish shaped candy and terrible rotten canned fish and they like synths slightly more than is usual. None of that is ultimately that important though. If that's all that was under threat from immigration, I don't think anyone would care and rightly so. The main danger with immigration is that it will lead to cuts in welfare and a decline in living standards.

Even issues like homophobia and misogyny, which are linked to culture, if you could someone take those things out of Arab and African culture, what's left would be harmless.  

You have said that before, and it is a very American way of looking at things, that is not really politically relevant in Europe.

There are many things you can not make a 100% clear definition of, such as love and music, but we all know they exist anyway. That is the way most Danes or Swedes etc. have it with our national culture. We can not define it, but we know more or less what we are talking about and are attached to it (that is true for even those that deny they are).

Basically if you want to understand Europe you need to recognize that the cultural roots are deeper than in the more floating and changeable American culture.

Scandinavian societies are also build on a very high level of social trust, which gives us a lot of advantages and makes things run smoothly, and this is mostly based on cultural homogeneity. So to maintain it require either assimilation of immigrants or high (or rather deep) level of integration (on the level of our Jewish minorities).

[politicus]

It's not really an American way of looking at things. America very much has its own culture, probably a stronger more defined culture than anywhere in Europe, because it doesn't get as many outside influences. It's a culture of country music, Protestant Christianity, fried food, guns, and showy nationalism. I'm over it though. Most people who go to college are over it. I'm frankly surprised there are any educated people who aren't over their own petty local culture.

At first I figured you guys were just using this language as an argument tactic, like obviously everyone who is in favor of immigration thinks that Islamic culture is great, so you can pull the rug out from under them by forcing them to admit that Danish or Swedish culture or whatever must be great too.

If you really believe this stuff though, it's just weird. You sound like Edmund Stoiber dancing to polka music in lederhosen while most other people are living in the city like it's the 21st century.

This post just proves you do not have even the most basic understanding of this issue, but fail to realize just how ignorant you are, so I will just let it be.

[politicus]

Well "culture" is all fluid and constantly changing. European culture is dynamic enough to survive in a changed form. This isn't like the Native Americans or Abroginals Australians, whose culture was obliterated along with them.

Sure, but a bit besides the point.

[politicus]

Iceland is qualified for the European Championship for the first time ever:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=28&v=VIVenuCA1uw

[politicus]

Three Greenlandic MPs (Per Rosing-Petersen (Naleraq), Jens Immanuelsen (Siumut) and Aqqaluaq B. Egede (IA) have submitted a joint proposal to the Speaker that parliament should request Naalakkersuisut (the government) to appoint a Constitutional Commission.

(controversial because it would contradict the Danish 1953 Constitution if they get their own)

So opposition/government backbencher cooperation on this.

The parliamentary autumn session starts September 25 - a much needed modern disability legislation is also on the agenda.

[politicus]

Why is it that a Greenlandic (and Faroese) constitution would be so problematic as long as the content doesn't contradict the Danish constitution? The conflict about which one should be higher in importance, perhaps?

The Danish Realm is not a federation, but a unitary state where two areas have gotten widespread autonomy through devolution, so it is an odd and contradictory construction. You combine a unitary state with what is increasingly two small nation states, and then you have the additional complicating factor that part of it is being in EU and part of it outside.

The Danish centre-right - and especially DPP - are not interested in a new Constitution since it would bring up questions like making it easier to cede sovereignty to the EU (the establishment would like that - but not everybody in VK) and the paragraph saying "the Evangelical-Lutheran church is the Danish peoples church and therefore supported by the state" etc. The role of the monarchy is also a topic - the left and Social Liberals would like to completely "depoliticize" the Monarchs role like in Sweden. Leftists/SocLibs also want to include a very broad and specific list of human rights - incl. some rights that would make right wing policies hard (economic, social, environmental rights).

It is hard to modernize the Community of the Realm not only because of EU, but also simply because 98% lives in Denmark. You can not really create a federation or confederation with an Upper House/Senate with, say, 50% Danish reps, 25% Faroese ad 25% Greenlandic and make it responsible for defence, foreign policy and monetary policy. It is just too lopsided (in more than one way, Greenland has 98% of the territory ). Only the Red Greens are willing to et the North Atlantic countries co-determine Danish foreign policy (the Faroese government fx thinks that DK should not be able to partake in military actions without their agreement).

I think something like the NZ/Cook Islands free association will be the end result (moderate separatists on the Faroes and Siumut in Greenland wants this). But the process will be tricky and bumpy and right now both Greenlanders and Faroese are planning unilateral action on this, while most Danish pols just dont seem to care.

EDIT: Closest parallel is UK, but with much greater powers devolved and a legally recognized right to unilaterally secede (Greenlanders and Faroese recognized as sovereign peoples as defined by international law). Plus England is 85% of UKs population, not 98% (and Scotland and Wales are not micro-nations). In theory we also have the West Lothian question, even if it rarely applies because they only have 4 seats.

[politicus]

Eight out of Iceland's 76 municipalities have now agree to take refugees, but about 2/3 of the population lives in those eight. Three out of the last holdouts in the Top 10 are the affluent and IP dominated Reykjavik suburbs Reykjanesbær, Garðabær, Mosfellsbær. The last two are the wealthiest municipalities in Iceland. While the town council in Árborg likely just hasn't gotten around to discussing it. The opposition in the IP strongholds in suburbia might influence the IP leadership.

1. Reykjavíkurborg 118 326   
2. Kópavogur 30 357
3. Hafnarfjörður 25 913
4. Akureyri 17 573
5. Reykjanesbær 14 091
6. Garðabær 10 643
7. Mosfellsbær 8 553
8. Árborg 7 814
9. Akranes 6 549
10. Fjarðabyggð 4 641
11. Seltjarnarnes 4 395
12. Vestmannaeyjar 4 135
13. Skagafjörður 4 131
14. Ísafjarðarbær 3 899
15. Borgarbyggði 3 542   
16. Fljótsdalshérað 3 467
17. Norðurþing 2 926
18. Grindavík 2 837   
19. Álftanes 2 523   
20. Hveragerði 2 291   
21. Hornafjörður 2 086   
23. Sveitarfélagið ölfus 1 952   
24. Dalvíkurbyggð 1 949   
25. Rangárþing eystra 1 745
26. Sandgerðid 1 710   
27. Snæfellsbær 1 702

Blönduós (NW) (39. 882),  Dalabyggð W (42. 694),  Bolungarvík (Westfiords) (34. 970)

Tiny Súðavík (63) with 202 inhabitants in the Westfjords in the remote NW is the only rural municipality that has offered to take refugees so far, while Ísafjörður is also in the Westfjords.

Meanwhile PM Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson (PP) keeps mum about this issue and has only said that it should be easier for Icelandic families to adopt Syrian orphans, but not whether he is prepared to accept regular refugees.

Blönduós, Seltjarnarnes, Mosfellsbær, Reykjanesbær, Sandgerði, Borgarbyggð, Dalabyggð, Snæfellsbær, Bolungarvík, Skagafjörður, Norðurþing, Fljótsdalshérað, Hornafjörður, Hveragerði och Árborg.

15. Borgarbyggði 3 542   
16. Fljótsdalshérað 3 467   
17. Norðurþing 2 926   
18. Grindavík 2 837   
19. Álftanes 2 523   
20. Hveragerði 2 291   
21. Hornafjörður 2 086   
23. Sveitarfélagið ölfus 1 952   
24. Dalvíkurbyggð 1 949   
25. Rangárþing eystra
26. Sandgerðid   1 710   
27. Snæfellsbær 1 702
28. Rangárþing ytra 1 543
29. Garður 1 515   
30. Sveitarfélagið Vogar 1 206   
31. Húnaþing vestra 1 116
32. Stykkishólmur 1 092   
33. Eyjafjarðarsveit 1 025

[politicus]

A united Icelandic opposition has now proposed the country takes 100 UN refugees this year, 200 in 2016, 200 in 2017 and then create a comprehensive refugee policy starting from 2018, but the government is so far not accepting this moderate compromise proposal (would be 4x current level).

The Ministry of Foreign affairs Gunnar Bragi Sveinsson (PP) has called it irresponsible to put a definite quota"  (sic). Meanwhile 23 of 76 municipalities have said yes to taking refugees. Including 20 of the 27 biggest. In the rich suburbs Mosfellsbær has caved, but Gardabær still refuses. The second most populated uncommitted municipality is another IP stronghold, the conservative Vestmanna Islands.
All the small places accepting refugees are either in the Westfiords or in areas bordering the Westfiords, which is probably due to religion. 6 of 7 holdouts among the 1700+ municipalities are IP strongholds in suburbia or the rural South, while the last is a PP stronghold in the rural NE. All other PP dominated areas in the NE and East with "sizable" population (all is relative..) are among the Yes municipalities. Looks like IP has more of a problem - the Christian ethics-factor seems to dominate PP outside of the Althing - even if their voters are the most skeptical. Several MPs of course also positive.



Updated refugee acceptance list:

1. Reykjavíkurborg 118 326    
2. Kópavogur 30 357 (suburbia)
3. Hafnarfjörður 25 913 (suburbia)
4. Akureyri 17 573 (town in the NE)
5. Reykjanesbær 14 091 (exurb)
6. Garðabær 10 643 (suburbia)
7. Mosfellsbær 8 553 (suburbia)
8. Árborg 7 814 (exurb)
9. Akranes 6 549 (smalltown)
10. Fjarðabyggð 4 641 (East - 50% in Egilsstaðir town)
11. Seltjarnarnes 4 395 (suburbia)
12. Vestmannaeyjar 4 135 (rural South)
13. Skagafjörður 4 131 (rural NW)
14. Ísafjarðarbær 3 899 (Westfiords)
15. Borgarbyggði 3 542    (rural West)
16. Fljótsdalshérað 3 467 (rural East)
17. Norðurþing 2 926 (rural NE)
18. Grindavík 2 837 (SW/Reykjavik region)
19. Álftanes 2 523 (suburbia)   
20. Hveragerði 2 291 (S - bordering Reykjavik region)
21. Hornafjörður 2 086 (rural East)
23. Sveitarfélagið ölfus 1 952 (rural South)
24. Dalvíkurbyggð 1 949 (rural NE)   
25. Rangárþing eystra 1 745 (South - bordering Reykjavik region)
26. Sandgerðid 1 710 (SW/Reykjavik region)
27. Snæfellsbær 1 702 (rural West)


Small:
34. Bolungarvík 970 (Westfiords) (970)
39. Blönduós 882 (NW - bordering Westfiords)
42. Dalabyggð 694 (W - bordering Westfiords)


Tiny:
63. Súðavík 202 (Westfiords)

[politicus]

The Lord Mayor of German border town Flensburg Simon Faber from the Danish minority party SSW now also argues for reintroducing border control temporarily - saying the situation is out of control and the security risk of continuing without control is too big. Faber was very nervous after the good DPP election that border control would be reintroduced, but has changed his mind given the extraordinary circumstances.

LLR still says the situation is under control and there is no reason to reintroduce border control.