High participation in Iceland's referendum to reopen the EU accession process

Barcelona"Should Iceland resume accession negotiations with the European Union?". This is the question in the referendum this Saturday in the Arctic country, which will determine not its entry into the community bloc but the resumption of talks that were halted ten years ago, with the arrival of Eurosceptic forces in government. By midday, turnout exceeded that of the last legislative elections held in 2024. In the Reykjavík North constituency, 13.7% of the electorate had voted by midday, compared to just over 10% in the 2024 elections; in Reykjavík South, turnout was slightly over 14%, three points higher than in the legislative elections. More than 20% of voters had already voted early, according to Icelandic public broadcaster RÚV.

A very tight result is expected. Proponents of EU accession argue that it is in Iceland's interest to move closer to its European neighbors to address cross-border issues such as climate change. They also maintain that the euro would provide more stability than the volatile Icelandic krona and would curb both rising inflation (5.6%) and high interest rates. There are also geopolitical reasons: the unpredictability of Donald Trump and his threats to seize neighboring Greenland – which he has confused with Iceland on several occasions – have heightened the islanders' concerns. Russia's invasion of Ukraine has shaken established security doctrines: the island occupies a strategic position in the sub-Arctic region, has no army, and depends on NATO and a bilateral defense agreement signed in 1951 with the United States.

Opponents, on the other hand, consider that Iceland already enjoys all the advantages of European integration without having to assume the concessions of sovereignty that accession entails: it is a member of the European Economic Area (like Norway and Liechtenstein), and also forms part of the European Free Trade Association, and the Schengen Area for the free movement of people. They also cite trade agreements, such as the one the country has with China, which they consider more favorable. The issue of fishing – one of the pillars of the Icelandic economy and a sector over which Reykjavik wants to maintain exclusive control – would have to be negotiated with Brussels, and those affected assure that the quota system does not adapt to their reality of isolation nor to the characteristics of this sector. The mackerel war of 2010 is still remembered, when the EU and Norway clashed with Iceland and the Faroe Islands over the unilateral increase in their catches, following the emigration of fish to the north due to climate change. Livestock farming, which is also a pillar of activity on the island, is also reluctant to have to submit to the requirements of the single market.

The appeal of the community project

The cost of the yes, however, is less significant, as any agreement emerging from negotiations with Brussels, should they resume, would be subject to a second referendum. The triumph of the no, on the other hand, is more definitive, because politically the pro-Europeans would have to wait a few years to recover from the defeat. The country, with just under 400,000 inhabitants, applied for EU membership following the 2009 financial crisis, which devastated its economy and led to a popular revolt and the rise of the left to power. Accession negotiations were suspended in 2013, with a change in government. Neither the start of negotiations nor their suspension were put to a referendum, and this time Prime Minister Kristrún Frostadóttir wanted to consult the public first.

For the European Union, the result is also important: still reeling from the United Kingdom's departure with Brexit, it has not incorporated any wealthy country that can contribute to the community budget since 1995. A triumph of the yes would be a political victory for Brussels and would demonstrate that the community project can still be attractive to high-income countries. In the geostrategic sphere, it would strengthen the EU's position in the Arctic and within NATO. A triumph of the no, on the other hand, would give even more impetus to Eurosceptic parties and movements.