Ögmundur Jónasson argues Iceland should reject EU membership

In a column published by mbl.is, Ögmundur Jónasson says Iceland’s governing parties are failing their voters and argues against European Union membership.

Supporters of joining the EU say Iceland would be better off with a shared currency, greater economic stability and increased prosperity. They also argue that food prices and interest rates would fall, the labour market would become more disciplined under instructions from the European Central Bank in Frankfurt, and Iceland would have an equal say with other EU countries. EU membership, they say, would also strengthen Iceland’s security.

Some supporters favour voting yes in order to see what could emerge from membership negotiations, including how much of the sovereignty Iceland retained under the European Economic Area agreement it might be allowed to keep permanently.

Jónasson responds that no exemptions would be permanent, while the transfer of powers to the EU would be. The European market is already open to Iceland through the EEA, which guarantees freedom to work and reside and allows capital to move freely. He notes that the arrangement provides reciprocal rights, except in Icelandic fisheries.

He says the EEA’s demands for market liberalisation are already too extensive and warns against going further. Decisions on investment in natural resources and infrastructure should remain under Icelandic control rather than being subject to foreign authority, he argues. The labour market should also be free to challenge inequality through trade union action, he writes, calling it strange that anyone would ask Brussels to impose discipline on Icelandic workers.

Jónasson also rejects the idea of seeking security from former colonial powers that want to become great powers again. He refers to a statement by the president of the European Council in March 2024 that European economies needed to be put on a war footing, and says Europe is now moving in that direction.

He argues that European rearmament would inevitably come at the expense of welfare, with Icelanders considered able to contribute financially and therefore expected to bear part of the cost. He also questions what would happen to stability, prosperity, interest rates and human rights, saying those rights are already declining in the EU as they do in societies placed on a war footing.

Iceland’s influence within the EU would be almost nonexistent, Jónasson says, and far weaker than the influence it currently has in the international community. He argues that Iceland should instead act as a promoter of peace abroad.

“That is why I say no to the EU,” he writes.