Ögmundur Jónasson rejects EU membership regardless of exemptions

Iceland should not join the European Union regardless of any exemptions secured in negotiations, Ögmundur Jónasson writes in an opinion article published by Morgunblaðið.

Recent debate about the EU has focused largely on exemptions and whether permanent exemptions could be negotiated to protect Icelandic agriculture and fisheries. Such arrangements would leave decisions on ownership and the right to manage resources in the hands of Icelanders, who could then determine how their resources and society are organised without allowing more self-interested forces access to them.

The same forces that trampled Ireland

I have become convinced that such exemptions could not be permanent unless the EU treaties were amended so that the exemptions were linked to them with the approval of all EU member states, including agricultural and fishing nations. These are the same countries that had a treaty-based right from the Irish at the end of last year.

However, presenting this to enthusiastic supporters of a yes vote is like throwing water on a duck. Many of them seem unable to see anything other than what they want to see. Even when the EU violated the European Economic Area agreement last year by imposing tariffs on ferroalloys for temporary interests unrelated to Iceland, the government did protest, albeit quietly, and then dropped the matter entirely.

Do not forget the fundamental question

The debate about exemptions has become so prominent that the fundamental question has been overshadowed: do we want Iceland to join the European Union, regardless of all reservations and regardless of how much of the rights we already have under the EEA agreement we might retain?

That is the sole purpose of the yes process: not to examine the benefits, but to assess how much we could preserve of what we already have.

It must not be forgotten that this is what will be voted on Saturday: whether we want Iceland to submit to the EU. A yes vote would mean approving an application for membership of the European Union.

No

My answer is no, for many reasons.

The European Union has changed fundamentally since it was founded and also since the EEA agreement was concluded. Membership would therefore not be a logical continuation of something that was decided at that time. In other words, the EEA was not a step on the road to Lisbon.

There are many reasons

During the run-up to the vote, arguments have been made that EU membership would impose restrictions on the labour movement’s struggle. People have even called openly for the European Central Bank in Frankfurt to exercise “discipline” over the labour movement.

Many of us have argued during the campaign that financial forces have gained the upper hand in the EU through strong demands to marketise society’s infrastructure.

We have also argued that by marketising the entire structure of society, as the EU has worked towards, the way would be cleared for profit-driven forces to take control of everything that generates returns, whether that means Gvendarbrunnarnir, Landsvirkjun or other resources where the public interest has been protected through public ownership and operations based on social considerations rather than trade and profit.

Arguments have also been made during the campaign that EU membership would reduce Iceland’s influence at negotiating tables in international relations. At the World Trade Organization, Iceland has one seat, while the 27 EU countries have one seat, speak with one voice and more often than not operate behind a veil of secrecy.