Subscribe
On 29 August 2026, a referendum will be held on Iceland’s membership of the European Union. Voters will be asked whether they agree to resume talks on membership that began with Iceland’s 2009 application and were put on hold in 2013. Iceland has been, with Norway and Liechtenstein, a member of the European Economic Area since 1994. EEA membership gives Iceland access to the European internal market, while she retains control over her fisheries, agriculture, foreign trade, monetary affairs, and foreign policy. The question now is why Iceland should take the step out of the EEA and into the EU, especially since Iceland is significantly more prosperous than the average EU country.
The Referendum is about membership
The EU supporters assert that the referendum is not about EU membership, but about determining on which terms Iceland could join, for example, which permanent exemptions (opt-outs) she might receive from the EU legal framework. Opponents of membership respond that, of course, the referendum is about membership: it is about renewing the 2009 application and resuming the application process. EU membership is not like a buffet where one can choose at will. If a country applies for membership, it is because she is serious about becoming a member. Accession talks consist of systematically aligning the applicant state’s legal framework with the EU legal framework, the acquis communautaire. They are only partly about temporary exemptions and special cases.
Iceland may have adopted about 35 per cent of EU legal framework
EU supporters argue that Iceland is already more than half a member of the EU because she has adopted about 70 per cent of the EU’s legal framework, including directives, regulations, and laws, through its membership of the EEA. Opponents of membership counter that this is not entirely accurate. Of the EU legal framework, it is estimated that about half applies to the internal market. This suggests that Iceland has adopted only about 35 per cent of the EU legal framework. Moreover, as a member of the EEA, Iceland is not obliged to adopt all EU directives. If Iceland and the EU disagree on such an issue, it is for a special court to resolve it (the EFTA Court).
Iceland would have negligible influence in the EU
The EU supporters argue that Iceland should join because she would then have a say in the EU’s decision-making process. Opponents of membership note that Iceland’s role in the EU would be negligible. She would receive 6 out of 276 seats in the Parliament, 0.8 per cent. She would receive 0.1 per cent of the weighted votes in the European Council. She would receive 1 out of 28 commissioners and 1 out of 28 judges in the Court of Justice of the European Union, both of whom would be expected to make decisions independently of their countries of origin.
Control of the Fisheries would be transferred to Brussels
The EU supporters assert that Iceland would retain control over her profitable and sustainable fisheries, based on privately held fishing rights. Opponents of membership cite EU Regulation No. 1380/2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, under which (Art. 5) Union fishing vessels should have equal access to all Union waters, except that Member States have temporary control over fishing within 12 miles. They concede that the EU would probably allow Icelanders to continue fishing within their existing 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) to ensure relative stability. But this would not be a right, but rather a goodwill gesture from the EU, and could be revoked at any time.
Iceland’s security ensured by the US, not the EU
The EU supporters argue that Iceland must seek shelter in Europe amid growing uncertainty in the North Atlantic. Opponents of membership note that Iceland has a defence treaty with the United States, a country with incomparably greater military might than the EU countries combined. They say it is unlikely the US would cancel this treaty unless, of course, Iceland becomes a member of the European federal state envisaged by the Brussels bureaucrats.