Iceland and European attraction capacity
Iceland was the coveted accession for Brussels. A quick and easy negotiation (despite the fisheries chapter), a new net contributor to the community coffers, and a strengthening of the Nordic dimension of the European Union at a time of strategic reconfiguration of the Arctic. But it will not be. Icelanders have rejected, by a narrow margin, the Icelandic government's request to restart accession negotiations with the EU, frozen since 2013. The result: 52.8% voted against and 47.2% in favor, with voters in the capital in favor of integrating into the Union and those in rural areas against. Icelanders have preferred to remain committed neighbors aligned with Europe, but without full accession. A resounding and painful message for an EU obsessed with the immediate future of enlargement.
Iceland is already part of the European Economic Area along with Norway, which means it already has access to the single market and must comply with most community rules. However, as it is not technically a member of the EU, it has no right to vote when defining these rules. The Nordic island is also part of the Schengen area, the emissions trading system (ETS), and the Erasmus program. It is a member of NATO, the Council of Europe, and the Coalition of Volunteers, in support of Ukraine. In other words, Iceland is already part of Europe's economic and legal order, and acts as a reliable and committed partner in various levels of continental cooperation. The door slammed shut over the weekend, however, curbs any attempt to go further and weakens the discourse on the EU's attractiveness.
At a time of global and regional change, Icelanders have chosen to continue as they are. Geopolitics resurrected the idea of a referendum, but it has been the cost of living and the idea of sovereignty that have ultimately decided it. The social democratic prime minister, Kristrún Frostadóttir, opted to bring forward a consultation planned for 2027 partly due to the feeling of deterioration in regional security, fueled by Donald Trump's threats over Greenland (only about 300 kilometers away) and by the fact, more or less anecdotal, that the President of the United States has confused the two islands several times. Thus, the temptation to analyze the referendum from a geopolitical perspective is what has ultimately led to frustration, in Reykjavik and Brussels.
For Icelanders, the economy has taken precedence over security. The political debate ended up focused on one of the country's economic engines: fishing. The wealthy individuals managing 90% of all fishing rights in Icelandic territorial waters were responsible for financing the no campaign. For the "yes" side, on the other hand, the emphasis was placed on adopting the euro as a way to reduce interest rates and offer immediate relief from inflation and mortgage rates. Although Brussels considers the Arctic to be "an increasingly important part of the European security environment", Iceland – a country without an army, despite being a NATO member – has decided from its pocket. Either theirs or others'.
The economy has relegated the security arguments of Brussels or Reykjavik to the background: the thawing that is opening new Arctic routes for maritime trade between China and Europe, Russia's war in Ukraine, or Donald Trump's punitive tariffs, with his threats of annexing Greenland or his aggressiveness towards Canada.
The Arctic, traditionally described as a low-tension area in defense matters, is undergoing a logistical, security, and geopolitical reconfiguration. The region is defined not only by alliances or political competition but by the physical and, above all, climatic reality that is transforming it. It is in this context of uncertainty that fear led to the referendum being precipitated ahead of time; a result not only of the Icelandic government's need to react to the geopolitical anxiety pervading the region; but also of Brussels' urgency to reaffirm its presence in the area given the strategic value of the Arctic and the need to strengthen the strategic value of the Union's expansion.