Iceland's Referendum: Small Country, Major Consequences
The North Observer joins in celebrating the victory of those opposed to the resumption of Iceland’s EU accession negotiations, which were halted in 2013. In several of our publications, we have noted the negative consequences of the accession of a country with a population of 0.1% of the EU’s total.
BACKGROUND
An alliance between the flea and the euro-elephant could only benefit the elephant, which needed Iceland’s vast marine biological resources and the financial resources of this wealthy country by global standards to finance poor and gluttonous Eastern Europe, not to mention the massive euro-catastrophe that would follow if Ukraine were admitted.
While the informational and emotional dust from the referendum results has yet to settle, I will focus on the obvious geo-economic and geopolitical consequences of the Icelandic referendum, which are emerging right now, regardless of the expectations of those who voted yes or no.
A country of fishermen has emerged as a wild card in the global deck, unexpectedly shifting the balance of economic, political, and military power in the highly competitive North Atlantic, where dominance is contested between former NATO allies—the United States, on one side, and the European Union and Canada, on the other.
Great Britain, it seems, hasn’t yet fully considered its own position in this region, attempting to simultaneously play the American banjo and the German/French accordion while awaiting enlightenment.
One thing is certain: beneath their hats, including cowboy hats, caps, berets, Balmorals, Glengarry caps, and most likely kilts, politicians on both sides of the ocean were sweating profusely yesterday. This small country has created very big problems for them, problems that must be addressed immediately.
The European Union, in its fatal standoff with the United States, which will certainly not end with Trump’s departure in 2029, will not gain a convenient foothold for action in the Arctic in the coming decades, halfway to and against the United States.
Similarly, Europe’s passionate liberal anti-American romance with Canada is losing its key link in the North Atlantic, and France’s dreams of creating a semblance of a transatlantic state with Francophone Quebec (few doubt that this province will become an independent state) could pave the way to an imaginary world of fantasy and illusion.
If the United States establishes some form of control over Greenland, which is highly likely in the foreseeable future, the European Union will be left without an Atlantic dimension in the geopolitical sense of the term. And, of course, without the Arctic, especially if Norway does not join the EU (who can say what that would gain for it?).
In this case, the European Union will transform from an Arctic to a sub-Arctic union, similar to the current status of China, Japan, or the Republic of Korea, and will be deprived of the opportunity to operate economically in the Arctic, the only currently undeveloped part of the Northern Hemisphere with significant potential for economic growth, including mining projects, bioresources, and logistical benefits.
Already resource-deficient Europe will further increase its shortage of all types of resources in this new situation, thereby continuing its sad path to the dustbin of world history as a highly developed part of the world and as a new museum of antiquities visited by representatives of more developed countries, if that is still possible in the context of growing crime driven by rampant migration.
As a consequence of the Icelandic referendum, one can predict a strengthening of the Canadian-European love affair on a shared liberal foundation, which could soon evolve from foreplay to a full-fledged relationship, for which Canada will have to restructure its economy and logistics from a southern to an eastern direction.
Canada’s great pivot to the East, however, could be thwarted by the disintegration of this quasi-state into several parts, with Quebec facing east, and independently determining the mode of communication between the other Canadian provinces and Europe. Europe’s Icelandic fiasco, its Atlantic weakening, could in itself intensify centrifugal processes in Canada, with its lack of a national idea and powerful regionalism.
Europe is right now, before our very eyes, losing its Atlantic Lebensraum. This, coupled with its ailing, technologically backward economy, expensive energy, rapidly aging population, high debts, and deadly inclination toward remilitarization, leaves it with only one option for survival: replacing its defective political elite with its anti-human value system with a new one.
Below, The North Observer has compiled a selection of European press responses to the Icelandic referendum, which essentially amounts to the great cry of a wolf whose prey (Icelandic herring?) it already felt in its stomach has slipped from its jaws. And the most perceptible sentiment in the media is the unrealized Arcticization of the European Union.
Iceland will not enter into accession talks with the European Union, which became clear after the counting of votes in all constituencies in the country was completed this morning. More than 118,000 votes went to the no side, or 52.8%, while the yes side received more than 105,000 votes, or 47.2%.
As the polls had predicted, the battle was very close. For a while, the yes side led. After the final results were announced in the Reykjavík constituencies, which were the first to report final results, there were many indications that the no vote would prevail. As mentioned earlier, that turned out to be the case.
The election result must be considered a shock to the government, as it concerns one of its main policy issues—especially the Liberal Reform Party (Viðreisn). One of the government parties, the People’s Party, has not, however, gone to the grave with its opposition to joining the European Union.
Media’s Reaction
Media across Europe have reacted to the result of the referendum. Some are talking about Iceland closing its doors to the EU, others about the victory of the Independence Party, and still others about the stunning defeat of the Social Democratic Party and the Liberal Reform Party.
”A Huge Defeat” for Pro-European Parties
The results of the referendum were covered in European media on August 30. Overall, the media agree on the main points of contention in the election campaign, with the yes side talking about the public’s wishes while the no side is raising sovereignty and fisheries issues. Some media say that Iceland has “closed the door” with this, and others call the result a disappointment or even a setback for the EU.
Much has been said in foreign media coverage in recent weeks that the decision to hold a referendum is directly related to US President Donald Trump’s threats against Greenland. The results have therefore received some coverage in Danish media.
Danes Consider the Greenland Angle
The Danish public broadcaster, DR, says that the election campaign has divided the nation into factions and the election results have proven this. It is also pointed out that other EU countries have avoided getting involved in the debate in the run-up to the elections. The coverage claims that this is a “tremendous defeat” for both the Social Democratic Party and the Liberal Reform Party.
Jyllands-Posten then reports that voter turnout was the highest since the parliamentary elections held in April 2009, following the economic collapse. The newspaper puts Trump’s threats against Greenlanders in context and reminds its readers that Iceland is actually closer to Greenland than to mainland Denmark.
Norwegians Are Concerned about EFTA
The issue has also attracted coverage in the Norwegian media, but for different reasons. If the yes vote had won here in Iceland, it could have had an impact in Norway, where, in addition to the two countries mentioned above, Liechtenstein and Switzerland together make up the group of four EFTA countries. It was therefore foreseen that cooperation would take a hit if Iceland were to become the 28th EU member state.
The Norwegian public broadcaster, NRK, has been running a news alert on its website. It says the debate in Iceland has created deep divisions. It is noteworthy that the original headline of NRK’s report on the election results spoke of the “EU drama” in Iceland, but this has since been changed.
The Norwegian daily Verdens Gang (VG) reports that the Norwegian no-movement is delighted with the result and has congratulated Icelanders on it. The leader of the yes-movement, on the other hand, said in a written response to the media outlet that the result in Iceland should have no significance in Norway. It is not right to raise a debate on the current issue, since the passing of King Harald V of Norway is now the focus of the entire nation. Harald died on Friday morning at the age of 89.
Credit the Independence Party with the Victory
The French newspaper Le Monde reports that it was 3:15 a.m. last night that the no vote took over and the situation has not changed since then. The newspaper credits the Independence Party and the influence of the fishing industry in Iceland with the victory and says that the outcome of the voting is the result of differences of opinion between the two Reykjavík constituencies and the other four. Earlier this week, the newspaper had made the country’s demilitarization a topic of discussion and how Iceland relies on NATO when it comes to defense.
Talk of “Flexibility” Was Not Enough
The Spanish newspaper El País says that Iceland has closed the door to further integration with Europe. The main issues of the election campaign were the people’s choice, sovereignty, and fishing. The newspaper speaks of dashed hopes for the Union, which had envisioned adding a state that both provided greater access to the Arctic and had a strong economic position.
The majority of Icelanders refuse to sit down at the negotiating table in Brussels, says El País. The newspaper then highlights the fact that despite the promises of Costas Kadis, the EU’s fisheries commissioner, and Marta Kos, the enlargement commissioner, about “flexibility” in fisheries matters, the Icelandic public has chosen to retain sole control over the country’s economic zone.
Uncertainty in International Affairs and the Door Closed
The British public broadcaster, BBC, says that the Icelandic government has called the election due to tensions in international affairs, including US President Donald Trump’s threats against Greenland. The BBC says that economic issues have been at the forefront of the discussion, but there are concerns in Iceland about increased Russian activity.
The Swedish public broadcaster, SVT, also says that Iceland is closing the door to membership. In a report analyzing the situation, it talks about a setback for Brussels, as a stone has been laid in the way of the Union’s expansion plans.
Iceland’s EU Decision Is a Loss of Reputation for the EU
The result was a loss of reputation for Iceland’s Prime Minister Kristrún Frostadóttir, who has supported EU membership. The Prime Minister, representing the Social Democratic Alliance, has stressed that the matter will be decided by the Icelandic people.
More than half of Icelanders think that an economically prosperous, stable democracy does not need the Union for anything. Iceland does not have the same need to become a member as, say, Ukraine.
Iceland is already a member of the European Economic Area and the Schengen area of free movement.
The no side feared that membership would mean Iceland would lose its right to determine its own fishing waters and catches. Farmers believed they would be left behind in the EU.
The result was a loss of reputation for the EU. The Nordic country’s intention to join would have changed the narrative of the Union’s enlargement: it would have also reached out to the West, not just the East.
The Union’s foothold near the Arctic sea routes, halfway to the United States, also remained a dream.
Sources:
- Vísir (in Icelandic)
- Vísir (in Icelandic)
- Viðskiptablaðið (in Icelandic)
- Yle (in Finnish)
