IRRESPONSIBLE / Centuries-old olive trees light fires to keep warm, police: They will be prosecuted!

 Kliko këtu për të tjera
Voxpress:

Iceland said 'no' to the EU, but why the vote is not another Brexit

2026-09-02 21:31:11Pikëpamje SHKRUAR NGA JON HENLEY, THE GUARDIAN
The front that was for "yes-us" in the EU

Jon Henley, The Guardian

With 52.8% of votes against and 47.2% in favor, Icelanders have rejected the reopening of negotiations for membership in the European Union.

At first glance, the result may seem like another victory for Eurosceptic forces and a blow to the European project. But a closer reading reveals a much more complex reality.

Iceland did not vote to leave Europe, to restore border controls, or to sever relations with the EU. It voted to maintain a relationship that already offers it most of the benefits of membership, without the full obligations that joining the Union would bring.

This makes the Icelandic case markedly different from Brexit.

Through membership in the European Economic Area and Schengen, Iceland is now deeply integrated into European structures.

Goods, capital, services and people move freely, while important sectors of the Icelandic economy operate under EU rules. The country also transposes around 75% of European legislation into its national laws.

So the question for Icelanders was not whether they want Europe or not. To a large extent, they are already part of it. The question was whether they want to take this integration a step further and become full members of the EU.

The small majority said no.

One of the main reasons is related to fishing. The industry is vital to the Icelandic economy, and opponents of membership have warned that inclusion in the EU's Common Fisheries Policy could limit the country's control over one of its most important resources.

Herein lies one of the biggest differences between Iceland and the countries currently seeking EU membership, particularly in the Western Balkans. For many of these countries, membership promises investment, funding, greater economic access and improved living standards. Iceland, one of Europe’s richest countries per capita, does not have the same economic need for these benefits.

In fact, for Icelanders the dilemma is the opposite: what do they gain most by becoming full members and what do they risk losing?

The result also highlighted a geographical divide. Reykjavík was more open to the idea of ??membership, while the rest of the country, where fishing and agriculture play a greater role, voted overwhelmingly against. For the capital’s citizens, in a period of international uncertainty and tensions between major powers, the EU is also seen as an additional source of security. For many residents outside the capital, maintaining control over strategic sectors seems more important.

This is precisely where Brussels' biggest concern lies. If even a country so integrated into European structures sees no need for full membership, this shows that the current EU model has a problem to explain: what additional benefit does membership bring when a large part of the benefits can also be obtained outside the Union?

For countries outside the European Economic Area, EU membership can be transformative. For Iceland, many of these advantages are already a reality.

Therefore, the Icelandic “no” should not be read as a rejection of European integration. It is more of a vote for the status quo. A vote that says that for now, the relationship with Europe is close enough without the need for full membership.

And this is exactly what Brussels should take seriously. Not because Iceland is leaving Europe, but because it is showing that you can be very close to the EU and still not want to be part of it.


Në përputhje me standarded JTI

Video

SHIKO KANALIN NE YOUTUBE
×