Iceland, new EU country? The referendum that divides the country

CopenhagenIceland is preparing to decide its European future in a referendum that could reopen a debate shelved for more than a decade. On August 29, Icelanders will be called to the polls to vote on whether they want the government to resume accession negotiations with the European Union or not. The Nordic country had already applied for membership in 2009, in the midst of the financial crisis, but four years later, with the economy recovered and a change of government, it withdrew from the talks.The center-left government of Prime Minister Kristrún Frostadóttir, at the beginning of its term, wanted to hold the consultation during the year 2027. But from Reykjavík they acknowledge that the threats from the President of the United States, Donald Trump, regarding Greenland (located just 300 kilometers away) have contributed to increasing uncertainty in the North Atlantic, and have weighed on the decision to advance the referendum by one year.From the executive, the vote for yes is defended, justifying that in a moment of turbulent waters in a region disputed between world powers to be the gateway to the Arctic, the country needs the stability and security that the EU can offer. On the side of no are all the opposition parties, who warn of the possible effects of accession on key sectors such as fishing, and warn of the risk of losing national sovereignty before European institutions.One month before the referendum is celebrated, the campaign is gaining intensity and polls show that Icelanders remain deeply divided on the issue. The most recent poll on the public broadcaster Rúv reveals that 54% oppose accession to the EU, compared to 46% who are in favor. Nevertheless, polls by the country's main newspaper, Morgunblaðið, give a narrow victory with 52% of the vote in favor of reopening negotiations with the EU, compared to 48% who oppose it.

Security bursts into the debate

In January, during a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Donald Trump had a slip of the tongue that caused great concern among Icelanders. When speaking about his aspirations for Greenland, the American president confused the island's name with that of Iceland, an error that, despite being unintentional, caused a lot of anger. A similar incident occurred when the new American ambassador to the Nordic country, appointed at the beginning of the year, Billy Long, jokingly said that Iceland would become the 52nd state of the USA and he would be its governor.

Beyond anecdotes, the political scientist from the University of Bifröst, Eiríkur Bergmann, acknowledges that “for the first time the debate about the relationship with the EU revolves around guaranteeing the country's security”. Few Icelanders believe their country is directly threatened, but it should be remembered that the island is the only NATO member without its own army, which is why until now it has relied on a treaty signed in 1951 with Washington for its security. But given the little consideration Trump is showing for international agreements, this has led to “many Icelanders wondering how we can trust the US while they are trying to buy our closest neighbor”, Bergmann assured. In this sense, the efforts of European countries to develop their own security architecture that is autonomous from the US, is one of the arguments “that can make accession more attractive”, said Bergmann.Supporters of a yes vote for the EU also argue that this way Iceland could better defend its interests, since since 1994 the country has been part of the European Economic Area (EEA), and has been part of the Schengen area since 2001, “but with the current status we do not have a seat at the negotiating table in Brussels and our voice is not heard in European decisions which, on the other hand, end up affecting us,” says Bergmann. Another advantage cited by those who want to get closer to European partners is that abandoning the Icelandic krona would improve the economy, since the euro is much more stable and would help control soaring inflation of almost 5.2%, double that in the EU.The common fisheries policy raises doubts

However, the reason why Iceland has never taken the step to become a full member of the European club is due to the common fisheries policy. Supporters of no fear that accession to the EU would cause irreversible damage to the most important economic sector: “This is a red line – points out Bergmann –, no Icelandic government would return from Brussels without an agreement that guarantees control of the fishing grounds, because they know that the population would not approve of it in any way". Beyond fishing, opposition parties also emphasize the defense of national sovereignty, an argument that appeals to the history and character of Icelanders after centuries under the rule of Norway and Denmark. Iceland obtained self-government in 1904 and did not achieve full independence from Copenhagen until 1944.Those who advocate no argue that Iceland already enjoys a large part of the EU's benefits, such as the Erasmus programs or belonging to the single market, which helps that 80% of its foreign trade is with the EU: “These are the pillars of prosperity that Icelanders enjoy, without having to cede powers to Brussels,” assures Bergmann.From Brussels, if the yes won, there is good predisposition to integrate Iceland, as the country would be a net contributor to the EU. However, the government has promised that, if negotiations resume, a second referendum would have to be held to ratify the accession agreement.