According to this interpretation, asking Icelanders if they simply wish to “discuss” matters with Brussels amounts to posing a question that is much less contentious than that of membership itself, while setting in motion a process from which it will subsequently be difficult to withdraw.
Saturday’s referendum is therefore Iceland’s first public vote on the accession process. It takes place in a context radically different from that of 2009.
Iceland is no longer the country weakened by the international banking crisis that it was then. Today, it is a prosperous economy, already very closely integrated into the European market through the European Economic Area (EEA). It is also a member of the Schengen Area and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). But this integration comes with a political trade-off: Reykjavik applies a large portion of the single market’s rules without having a seat in the institutions that draft them.
The current trend now gives a slight edge to the camp opposed to resuming negotiations, but the outcome remains extremely uncertain. The latest Gallup poll, conducted between 24 and 27 August among 4,583 people, shows 51.6% opposed to resuming talks and 48.4% in favor. A Maskína poll conducted just a few days earlier, between 21 and 25 August among 1,019 people, had shown 51.3% in favor of “yes” and 48.7% in favor of “no”. In June, the “yes” camp held a significantly larger lead, which then gradually narrowed.
The momentum is therefore somewhat in favor of those who oppose resuming talks, but it is far from guaranteeing their victory. Above all, the polls show that Icelandic public opinion is less in favor of EU membership itself than of simply opening negotiations. A “yes” vote on Saturday should therefore not be interpreted as a foregone conclusion in favor of the European Union.
Sovereignty, Served with Cod
For opponents, the main issue is sovereignty. In Iceland, sovereignty takes the very concrete form of fishing rights.
Iceland has built part of its national identity around control of its territorial waters. The Cod Wars waged against the United Kingdom from the 1950s to the 1970s helped make control over fishery resources a symbol of national independence. Even today, fishery products account for about 40% of Iceland’s exports.
Opponents of accession therefore fear that Iceland would have to accept the Common Fisheries Policy and lose some of its national control over marine resources. In particular, they fear that Icelandic waters will be opened up to the interests of other member states and that a system they consider essential to the country’s prosperity will be called into question.
In their view, the paradox is obvious: Iceland already benefits greatly from the European market without having to accept all the political constraints of membership. Why give up more sovereignty when the country is functioning well under its current status? Retaining the Icelandic króna is another argument. According to opponents, its flexibility would allow monetary policy to be tailored to the specific needs of the Icelandic economy rather than being subject to the decisions of the European Central Bank.
From the Króna to the Euro
For supporters, remaining on the sidelines is no longer tenable. They believe that Iceland finds itself in a situation that has become inconsistent: it already applies a large part of European rules but does not participate directly in their development.
Membership would give Reykjavik a voice in the European Parliament, the Council and other EU institutions. It could also offer greater economic stability through the euro, whereas the krona remains a particularly volatile currency. “Yes” supporters highlight the prospect of lower interest rates, better-controlled inflation and a more predictable economic environment.
But perhaps the most significant change concerns geopolitics. Iceland is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) but has no army. It occupies a strategic position in the North Atlantic, at the heart of the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom (GIUK) gap – an area critical for monitoring Russian naval movements.
The war in Ukraine and growing tensions in the Arctic have therefore altered Iceland’s perception of security. Donald Trump’s remarks about Greenland – and in particular his repeated confusion between the Danish territory and Iceland – have further heightened these concerns.
For supporters of EU membership, independence no longer necessarily means isolation but could, on the contrary, involve a strengthened presence within the European Union.
Fears of EU Interference
While the government of Social Democratic Prime Minister Kristrún Frostadóttir is campaigning for a “yes” vote, it wants Brussels to remain in the background. The prime minister has warned that no foreign interference will be tolerated in the referendum. According to reports by Euractiv, this warning was even conveyed directly to European officials. The Icelandic government clearly believes that the decision must appear to be exclusively Icelandic, lest it play precisely into the hands of the sovereignty advocates.
The warning is not without reason. Several European officials have visited Iceland this year, and some have publicly advocated for the resumption of negotiations. The European commissioner for fisheries even raised the possibility of finding specific arrangements to accommodate Iceland’s unique circumstances. Brussels therefore has every interest in seeing the “yes” vote prevail, even though the Commission claims not to intervene in national elections.
The tone adopted by the pro-European camp reveals the nervousness surrounding the vote. Foreign Minister Þorgerður Katrín Gunnarsdóttir has publicly expressed fear of a “Brexit moment”, citing the risks of disinformation, foreign interference and AI-generated content used for manipulation.
Her opponents see this as a way to delegitimize a potential “no” victory in advance by equating concerns about sovereignty, fishing or the constitutional consequences of accession with manipulation or disinformation.
The parallel with Brexit is telling: as in the United Kingdom, the European question is becoming less of an abstract debate about integration and more of a clash over a nation’s ability to retain control over its political choices and resources.
For the European Union, the stakes extend far beyond the few hundred thousand Icelanders. The accession of a wealthy, stable country – one that is already largely aligned with European rules and strategically located in the Arctic – would send a positive signal regarding Brussels’ enlargement policy.
For Iceland, however, the issue is more existential. Integrating into Europe without relinquishing what it considers the very essence of its independence seems quite a challenge.
