By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Icelandic parliament is reportedly close to setting a date for a referendum on EU membership, following a series of high-level meetings between Icelandic and EU officials. This potential move towards rejoining accession talks, abandoned in 2015, is fueled by a shifting EU enlargement narrative increasingly focused on security and geopolitical stability. Escalating international tensions, including perceived threats from the United States, have added urgency to discussions about strengthening the partnership between Iceland and the European Union.
Read the original article here
Iceland is reportedly looking to fast-track a vote on joining the European Union, a move that has stirred considerable discussion and debate, both within Iceland and among observers of the geopolitical landscape. This potential shift in Iceland’s international alignment is being viewed through various lenses, with economic stability, political influence, and national sovereignty all emerging as key considerations.
One prominent argument for Iceland’s accession to the EU centers on the perceived instability of its national currency. Given its relatively small economy, the Icelandic Krona can be susceptible to fluctuations driven by export or import imbalances, or even another banking crisis. The adoption of the Euro, a currency used by a much larger economic bloc, would theoretically provide a significant level of financial stability, shielding Iceland from some of the more volatile market swings. This economic security is seen by many as a compelling reason for Iceland to pursue EU membership.
Adding to the sense of urgency for some is the current global political climate. The rise of protectionist sentiments in some major world powers has led to a strengthening of alliances and a desire among nations to consolidate their positions within larger, more cohesive blocs. In this context, the European Union is seen by some as a growing force, potentially stepping into a leadership role on the world stage in the absence of a strong commitment from other traditional allies. Iceland’s potential move to join the EU could be interpreted as a strategic decision to align with this evolving power dynamic and to ensure its voice is heard on the international stage.
Iceland’s existing participation in key European structures, such as the Schengen Area, which allows for free movement of people, already indicates a close relationship with the continent. Many within Iceland already enjoy the benefits of this proximity and shared space. The question, therefore, is whether moving from these existing arrangements to full EU membership offers tangible advantages that outweigh the perceived drawbacks.
However, not everyone is convinced that joining the EU is the right path for Iceland. A significant point of contention revolves around national sovereignty and control over key resources, particularly fishing and mineral exploitation rights. Historical concerns have been raised that joining the EU would necessitate opening up these sectors to equal rights for all EU companies, potentially undermining Iceland’s ability to manage and benefit from its own resources. The fragile nature of Iceland’s environment is also a factor, with a desire to maintain strict regulations in place to protect it.
Furthermore, concerns about representation within the EU are frequently voiced. With a population of around 350,000, Iceland’s voice in the EU’s governing bodies could be perceived as small. While it’s noted that even the smallest member states receive a minimum number of representatives, ensuring a degree of overrepresentation, some fear that such a small delegation would struggle to significantly influence policy within a much larger bureaucracy. The notion of handing over control to what some describe as a “heavily bureaucratic institution” is a deterrent for many, who feel Iceland is currently managing its affairs effectively on its own.
The comparison is often drawn to other smaller nations within the EU, such as Cyprus, where some believe foreign-owned businesses have gained significant influence, leading to a perceived loss of regulatory control. This serves as a cautionary tale for some Icelanders, who fear a similar outcome for their nation. The desire to maintain autonomy and the ability to self-regulate are powerful motivators for those who oppose EU membership.
Another layer to the discussion is Iceland’s membership in NATO. This already provides a form of collective security, and the absence of a standing EU army is often cited as a reason why military protection is not the primary driver for joining. The notion that France’s nuclear arsenal would provide sufficient deterrence for the EU is also mentioned, suggesting that a direct military threat might not be the immediate concern driving this potential accession.
The narrative around the EU itself is also a point of divergence. While some see the EU as a strengthening entity and a desirable destination for civilized countries, others perceive it as being in a “long declining phase” and having handled its affairs poorly. Concerns about mass migration and the potential for the EU to impose its policies, such as “chat control” surveillance measures, on member states are also significant deterrents for some.
Ultimately, the decision for Iceland to fast-track a vote on joining the EU appears to be a complex one, with compelling arguments on both sides. The allure of economic stability offered by the Euro and the desire to be part of a larger, influential bloc are significant draws. However, these must be weighed against genuine concerns about national sovereignty, the potential loss of control over vital resources, and the perceived drawbacks of integrating into a vast bureaucratic system. The outcome of any vote will likely hinge on how these competing visions for Iceland’s future are presented and perceived by the Icelandic people.