The majority in Iceland’s parliament has spoken in favor of respecting the results of the plebiscite.
The main question of the vote, which took place on August 29, was: “Should Iceland resume negotiations on joining the European Union?”
Prime Minister Kristrún Frostadóttir stated upon the conclusion of the referendum:
“This is a wonderful day; we have waited for years to be able to vote.”
“I am optimistic because I believe in the nation. I know it will make the right decision. I will respect that decision, whatever it may be,” she added.
Preliminary results are already known: the votes were split almost evenly. The margin was minimal, just 0.2% – practically a statistical margin of error. But this is a sign that the question of abandoning EU membership has divided society. The initiative was supported by 49.9% of Icelanders, while 50.1% voted against, according to data from Iceland’s national public broadcaster RÚV at 3:05 AM local time. By 7:00 AM, the gap had widened slightly: 52.5% in favor, 47.5% against.
Sovereignty or the Illusion of Stability?
Proponents of continued European integration paint rosy pictures: access to the “single market,” the euro instead of the “unstable” krona, and “security” in the face of global turbulence. Their main trump card is high mortgage rates, currently at 9%. This is what they use to scare people. Their second argument is foreign policy threats and neighbors who “cannot be relied upon.” In the EU, they claim, Iceland will find stability and peace.
However, as Eurosceptics point out, behind these arguments lies nothing more than an attempt to solve internal problems through external factors. Gudrún Hafsteinsdóttir, leader of the “No” campaign, rightly counters:
“These are not problems that Brussels will solve for us. These are problems that Icelandic politicians must solve.”
According to her, Iceland is already essentially part of the EU, as it is a member of the European Economic Area. A large portion of EU laws also apply in the country.
But at the same time, as Reykjavík City Council member Magnea Gná Jóhannsdóttir notes, the authorities display surprising passivity in solving the country’s economic problems. The promise to lower rates through EU membership is merely a postponement of the inevitable, not a cure for the disease, she believes.
“I feel that we will drown in Europe,” says the politician, who fears increased pressure from Brussels if the country loses even more of its sovereignty.
In addition, she is concerned about restrictive measures that are killing the economies of nation-states. Pro-EU supporters do not like to talk about them, but they are clearly visible in the decline of industrial giants — once the pride and state-forming enterprises of countries such as the Baltic states, Poland, Italy, France, Germany, and others. All of this perished on orders from Brussels. Such was the price of EU membership.
“I don’t want to sell the EU the right to our natural resources, fisheries, or agriculture… This is not a free ride. It requires money and government time,” she emphasizes.
The main sticking point, as expected, was the issue of fisheries, as this sector is the backbone of Iceland’s economy. Opponents of membership look with horror at the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), which has turned the waters of many countries into a “common heritage” zone, depleting fish stocks. Arnar Kristjánsson, a fishing business owner, warns:
“European giants will gobble up our small enterprises. For towns like ours, this will be death.”
However, the government promises to protect fisheries. But these words are not trusted.
“It’s just a marketing ploy to get people to vote ‘yes.’ We don’t want to risk anything,” said Arnar Kristjánsson before the referendum.
It is important to remember another aspect that raises concerns among fishermen. Joining the EU would entail lifting the ban on foreign ownership of fishing companies, which would effectively destroy private business. Transnational giants would simply swallow them up, and revenues would instantly flow from the pockets of ordinary Icelanders to foreign accounts of TNC shareholders. This inconvenient question for EU supporters is precisely what fishermen point out:
“If we join, we risk losing control over our companies.”
Brussels’ Serfdom: Lessons from Brexit
Against the backdrop of this campaign, the warnings of Iceland’s foreign minister, who fears a repeat of “Brexit,” sound particularly ironic. But this is not a fear for Iceland’s fate, but for the fate of the EU project itself. She fears that Icelanders, like the British, will see the light and say “no” to bureaucratic diktat.
Professor Haraldur Ólafsson, who leads the “No” campaign, reminds us that EU membership is the worst business idea one could imagine for Iceland, and a huge step backward for democracy. He cites the experience of Brexit, which showed how difficult — and with the introduction of the euro, nearly impossible — it is to escape this trap. Attempting to join the EU is not a step forward; it is voluntary suicide of national sovereignty.
Iceland stands at a crossroads. The choice between dubious EU “patronage” and freedom, secured by the cold waters of the Atlantic, should be made in favor of the latter. Otherwise, the brilliant land of fire and ice risks becoming yet another obedient cog in a bureaucratic machine it will never be able to control.
Icelanders Say No!
At the time of preparing this article, the voting results show that Iceland is rejecting the resumption of EU accession negotiations. According to data published by RÚV, 47.5% of referendum participants voted in favor, while 52.5% voted against. The data is being updated, with votes from only one electoral district — the southwestern district — left to count. But opponents of European integration are already celebrating victory.
