After the vote
Interview with Dimitris Givisis, journalist for the newspaper Epohi.
English original:
1) Why did Iceland decide to review its relations with the European Union?
Iceland decided to review its relations with the EU because, in 2024, a Pro-European government came to office. In 2009, after the 2008 financial collapse, the Icelandic parliament applied for EU membership and began negotiations, which a new Eurosceptic parliament put on ice in 2013 without withdrawing the original application. In 2025, Ursula van der Leyen, President of the European Commission, officially acknowledged that Iceland´s application was still valid and that negotiations could resume without further ado. The government opted to consult the nation in a referendum before resuming the unfinished negotiations on EU membership from 2009-2013. Legally speaking, the referendum was not necessary.
2) What do you think were the most important reasons that contributed to the NO vote?
Put simply, this was basically a repeat of the Brexit debate in the UK in 2016. With plenty of unregulated money to spend, the NO side sputtered all kinds of misinformation. Enough voters fell for it. Nigel Farage was the first foreigner to congratulate the winners.
3) How do you explain the fact that a large part of Icelandic society does not want deeper European integration?
Unlike much of the YES side, the NO side has not given up hope that Iceland can get inflation and interest rates under control without adopting the euro. Moreover, the oligarchs in the fishing industry, who keep their books and sell their fish in euro, want to be able to pay their workers in Icelandic currency, which since 1939 has lost 99.95% of its value vis-à-vis the Danish mother currency. The oligarchs, a small but powerful elite of nouveau riche Icelanders with privileged access to Iceland´s rich fishing grounds, have reason to fear that it would be more difficult for them to hold on to their privileges if Iceland became a full member of the EU. The oligarchs own the sole remaining printed daily newspaper, which fought tooth and nail for the NO side. Further, with membership, Iceland´s employers would find it more difficult to maintain their oligopolies and so on. You will recognize the pattern. Let me be blunt. Switzerland would, were it a member of the EU, probably find it more difficult to maintain its bank secrecy laws.
4) Many say that the Icelandic citizens who voted YES see membership in the European Union as a shield of political, economic and trade protection against the US’s ambitions and Trump’s continued aggression. What is your opinion?
The YES side stressed, correctly, that the referendum was only about whether to resume negotiations. The government promised a new referendum on the finished deal if a deal could be reached. The NO side claimed that the referendum was really about membership. A NO vote was meant to deny the rest of us the possibility of seeing what kind of a deal could be negotiated. The YES side emphasized economic and political arguments, including the importance of having a “seat at the table” rather than risk landing on the menu. The NO side stated that full membership would entail a sacrifice of sovereignty; for them, sharing means sacrifice. On the contrary, the YES side stressed that a “seat at the table” would strengthen sovereignty by giving Iceland a say in the laws and regulations that our EEA membership obliges us to adopt. Geopolitical arguments, including worries about U.S. threats to Greenland and the visibly weakening U.S. commitment to NATO, were not prominent in the debates, but they were no doubt on the minds of many voters. I am pretty sure that the presidents of the U.S. and Russia, like Mr. Farage, welcome the victory of the NO side, even if they have not issued congratulatory declarations.
5) What problems do you think Iceland is likely to face in the future due to its non-membership in the European Union?
If Norway applies for EU membership for its own good as well as for the benefit of Europe on mostly geopolitical grounds, then Iceland and Liechtenstein would be left alone as non-EU members of the European Economic Area. Most probably, the EEA would then cease to function for lack of funds and external interest, weakening Iceland´s position without external help. In such a scenario, Iceland might quickly change its mind rather than be left out in the cold practically alone. But whether or not Norway also drags its feet, both Iceland and Norway face new dangers to their security in view of Russia´s prolonged war against Ukraine. Icelanders and Norwegians alike ought to be mindful of the maxim “It is better to give than to receive.” The EU needs them both as full members.