Icelanders Are Considering Whether to Stick Their Heads Into the EU's Mouth
Iceland will likely hold a referendum this August on resuming EU accession negotiations, which concluded in 2013. The enthusiasm of the country’s political elite for this initiative is countered by the undecided population of this country, located on the border between the Americas and Eurasia, with a tiny population of 402,000.
The accession negotiations, which lasted from 2009 to 2013 and cost the small Nordic nation over a billion , nearly paralyzed government and failed to produce the expected result. Iceland refused to tie its fishing boat to a sinking Europe, lose sovereign control of its resources, or risk the self-annihilation of its unique culture and identity in the grinding millstones of the European Union, with its then half a billion inhabitants.
Meanwhile, Iceland has long been in an economic union with the European Union: it has been part of the European Economic Area (EEA) since 1994 and is a member of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). Enthusiastic politicians advocating for Iceland’s full EU membership have failed to explain to their people the benefits of this unequal union.
Aside from vague remarks by some members of the Trump administration about the possible future establishment of control over Iceland, which has existed de facto militarily since the end of World War II, and the desire to shelter under the EU umbrella (does it really exist?), full membership in this union would likely be a suicidal act for Iceland, one that would be cursed by all subsequent generations of Icelanders, who would speak, however, not the fading, beautiful and most archaic language of Europe, but a strange mixture of English and Polish.
Even now, the younger generation of Icelanders prefers to speak English, and 23,000 Polish immigrants make up 31% of the country’s total migrant population. Iceland’s total population at the beginning of 2026 was 402,000, having grown by 82,000 since 2009, primarily due to migrants from other cultures. There was no economic need for such a radical increase, and the country definitely hasn’t turned into an Atlantic Singapore by importing migrants.
The cultural meat grinder, which will quickly destroy the unique identity of Iceland’s indigenous population, will intensify immediately after the country’s accession to the EU. The North Atlantic island will be forced to accept all EU citizens willing to work there, creating chaos in the labor market, and the potential emigration of Icelanders will rapidly destroy what remains of the fading and disappearing Good Old Iceland.
If Iceland joins the EU, it will join the list of member states with populations under one million (Luxembourg 687,448 and Malta 549,011), have four or five members of the European Parliament (Malta 6), and have no influence on decision-making processes. True, several retired Icelandic politicians elected to the European Parliament will be able to puff themselves up with the importance of their involvement in global affairs.
By joining the EU, Iceland will completely lose control over its resources, primarily fish, and its products will be sold on the European market under strict quotas. As Greece and Finland, in particular, are well aware, this could mean the destruction of entire economic sectors (shipbuilding, sugar industry). A small state with a squeaky voice will be ignored in numerous European courts and major European negotiating forums. And Iceland will be able to quickly disappear into the large and insatiable belly of the European Union.
The author of the article cited below rightly doubts that joining the European Union will bring any benefit to Iceland.
It can be assumed that the matter will most likely end in accordance with Eduard Bernstein’s (1899) maxim: “The goal is nothing, the movement is everything,” and everything will end with the same result as in 2013. There were many negotiations, a considerable amount of money and time was spent, but what happened is what happened.
The large countries of the European Union will survive in the near future, and perhaps even preserve their cultural identity, if they curb immigration. A small country like Iceland will certainly not survive the hydrochloric acid of the European Union and its migration policies.
Joining the European Union Will Mean Permanent Subordination
It is clear that there will be a lot of media attention in the run-up to the referendum on whether Icelanders want to apply for membership of the European Union, which will be held, as usual, at the end of August.
Astute readers will probably notice that the language used here is that the referendum is about membership of the European Union. This is no secret, because the elections are precisely about whether Icelanders want to submit to Brussels’ rule permanently.
This is not about looking at any packages or trying on any clothes. If the nation votes to continue the accession negotiations from 2013, they will be entirely about the conditions and timing of the applicant country’s adoption and implementation of the rules of the Union.
Is Iceland’s Negotiating Position Really Strong?
Despite this fact, the media has shown a certain complicity with government ministers who claim that it is particularly clever at this point to apply for membership since Iceland’s negotiating position is so strong.
Thus, Prime Minister Kristrún Frostadóttir said in an interview with Morgunblaðið the other day that Iceland is in a completely different negotiating position than when it applied for membership in 2009.
“We also have a strong identity and we have a strong leadership team that knows what needs to happen if Icelanders want to go there on a different level.”
It is difficult to understand where the Prime Minister is going with these words. Does Kristrún’s assessment that the nation’s identity is in the best shape at the moment change anything about whether Icelanders would receive a permanent exemption from the Common Fisheries Policy, to take a close example? Does the fact that Inga Sæland is in Kristrún’s “strong leadership team” really add anything to that?
Only Five Percent of the Terms Can Be Negotiated
The Icelandic national broadcaster saved its lungs from the evening news last Friday in a discussion of the parliamentary resolution proposal on the continuation of accession negotiations with the EU. Among other things, an expert on enlargement issues named Heather Grabbe was interviewed. A reporter asked her if there was anything to negotiate in the adaptation negotiations between Iceland and the EU. She replied:
“95% of the EU rulebook is non-negotiable because the rules have already been approved by the 27 member states of the union. Others have joined the union and had to agree to everything. But a country that wants membership can always negotiate a timeline for the implementation of EU rules and regulations. At the same time, the EU will want to set some kind of timeline for the implementation of benefits. For example, Polish farmers had to wait a decade to receive all their subsidies under the EU’s common agricultural policy. It is therefore possible to negotiate an adaptation period, but there are no exemptions available anymore.”
Iceland’s “Healthy Identity” Won’t Help
This is consistent with the experience of Icelanders and what pundits say about the nature of the accession negotiations. The alleged experience of government officials about the nation’s healthy identity and a “strong leadership team” does not change anything in this regard.
Minister of Foreign Affairs Þorgerður Katrín Gunnarsdóttir has been quite categorical in her remarks about the accession negotiations. At a press conference she hosted with Kristrún and Inga where the parliamentary resolution proposal was presented, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that she would “never sign a waiver of Iceland’s sovereignty over its natural resources.”
Well done.
The Most Important Conditions for Joining the EU Were Never Discussed
It is worth noting that when Iceland applied for membership of the European Union in 2009, negotiations could not be opened on important chapters such as fisheries, agriculture and justice and home affairs, as the European Union considered that Iceland simply did not meet the opening conditions set by the Union for adaptation negotiations on these important issues.
It is obvious that the fisheries chapter was never opened in the negotiations that took place from 2009 to 2013 because the Icelandic government had no intention of accepting the EU’s common fisheries policy. Erna Bjarnadóttir, an economist who sat on the negotiating teams representing the Farmers’ Union during the negotiations, described the adjustment negotiations as follows in an excellent article published in Morgunblaðið recently:
“Before a negotiation chapter is opened, an applicant country must meet the so-called opening benchmarks. These criteria are predefined criteria set by the EU Commission before formal negotiations begin. They can include a requirement for legal compliance with the EU acquis, the submission of a credible adjustment plan, the development of regulatory institutions or changes to existing national legislation that is not in line with the fundamental principles of the Union.
A negotiation chapter is not opened until the opening benchmarks are deemed to be met.”
The Foreign Minister Believes in a Non-Existent Reality
The Minister of Foreign Affairs has said that if the referendum in August approves the application for membership of the European Union, negotiations could begin again at the beginning of the year. She was interviewed on Kristján Kristjánsson’s Sprengisandi on Bylgjan on Sunday. There she said:
“I think it is quite likely that it will start immediately with the fisheries chapter. I will not accept an agreement and I will not sign it if it does not include undisputed Icelandic sovereignty over the fisheries jurisdiction.”
Here we need an answer to the question of what changes have occurred since 2013 that make it possible for the Minister of Foreign Affairs to believe that it will be possible to open the fisheries chapter in accession negotiations in the new year. Have the European Union’s conditions for opening the chapter changed? Has the Icelandic government’s position on the EU’s common fisheries policy changed?
This needs to be clarified, and the same applies to other chapters that could not be opened in the last accession negotiations between Iceland and the EU. This aspect of the matter was discussed in this forum a week ago. It said:
“In the accession negotiations that lasted from 2009 to 2013, important negotiation chapters in matters such as fisheries, agriculture and justice and home affairs were never opened because the EU considered that the Icelandic state did not meet the opening conditions.”
No Decisive Support among the Population for Membership
Has anything changed in this regard? Does Þorgerður Katrín believe that Iceland’s changed negotiating position means that the government can negotiate different opening conditions, which are, according to Erna, indispensable, in these chapters than the EU did at the time? It is urgent to get answers to these questions.”
On Friday, the Icelandic state broadcaster covered extensively the Gallup poll that showed that the majority of the population was in favor of holding a referendum on the continuation of accession negotiations with the European Union.
The state broadcaster did less to address the fact that the poll did not show decisive support among the population for membership. The nation seems to be divided on the issue. After all, there is no majority in parliament for membership.
Now government members are trying to make it look like the accession negotiations are some kind of shopping trip to the mall where something is grabbed that the person in question likes, and not a commitment to comply with the EU’s requirements in order for membership to occur.
The Game of Deception
This game of deception is not a good one to manage. This is a considerable commitment that will cost a lot of money and take up a lot of time from the administration in the coming years. The total cost of the accession negotiations in the years 2009–2013 amounted to almost a billion krónur, and at that time there were many complaints that other issues were moving slowly in the government system because of the strain that the adjustment negotiations created on the system. The opportunity cost of the accession process is significant, no matter how it is counted.
This aspect of the issue has been poorly discussed and needs to be improved. The discussion could also turn to how the Icelandic government’s negotiating committees will be composed, and in particular whether negotiators will be required to renounce their right to accept employment with the European Union and its institutions after the negotiations are concluded.
Source: VB (in Icelandic)
