SFS director says permanent EU fisheries exemptions are unrealistic

Permanent exemptions from the European Union’s common fisheries policy are unknown and not a realistic expectation for Iceland, Heiðrún Lind Marteinsdóttir, director of SFS, told mbl.is.

She was commenting on a legal opinion by three law professors commissioned by the Prime Minister’s Office ahead of a referendum on negotiations with the EU.

“It is in many ways unusual to publish what could be called an instructional guide to European law just over a week before an election,” Heiðrún said. The opinion’s authors had stated as strongly as they felt able that it was not realistic to expect permanent exemptions.

Heiðrún said such a detailed legal opinion on fundamental aspects of European law concerning natural resources should have been available during the government’s preparatory work, before the parliamentary resolution was submitted to parliament.

She said Iceland’s current rule limiting foreign ownership in fishing companies to 25% would change if the country joined the EU. According to Heiðrún, the rule is a deviation from the principle of free movement of capital and from the union’s fundamental rules, as it differentiates on the basis of nationality.

Although the fisheries chapter was not opened during the previous attempt at negotiations, the issue was discussed, she said. The EU had made clear that Iceland would have to change the rules and remove the restrictions for membership to become possible.

Heiðrún also questioned reliance on the principle of relative stability, which governs the allocation of fishing opportunities. She said the principle is not part of the EU’s primary law but of secondary legislation, meaning that a qualified majority of the Council of the EU can amend the rules.

She said she had seen European Commission white papers stating that there was now an urgent need to change the principle because it was not achieving its intended goals. Iceland would therefore be taking an unnecessary risk by joining the EU while relying on a principle that was not more secure than that, she said.