How Sigríður Þorgeirsdóttir became an EU opponent

Sigríður Þorgeirsdóttir, writing in an opinion article published by mbl.is, says she has changed from supporting Icelandic membership of the European Union to opposing it over the past quarter-century.

She says she rarely feels that election day is a “democratic celebration”. Instead, she often votes strategically to prevent something from happening or chooses the least objectionable option. As a vote on opening membership negotiations with the EU approaches, she says she feels a heaviness in her chest.

She also describes the campaign before elections as difficult, saying she dislikes conversations in which people try to persuade one another. As an ordinary voter, she says she needs to work through an overload of information and be able to remain uncertain while deciding how to vote.

A former vision of Europe

In a 2002 article published in Skírnir, she wrote about the ideas of German philosopher Jürgen Habermas on Europe’s future. At the time, she was enthusiastic about the idea of Europe, as efforts were being made to create and confirm a constitution for the European Union.

That effort failed, she writes. In her view, what had appeared to be a high point for the European ideal became a milestone on the road downward, ending with Brexit and the rise of nationalist movements in countries across Europe.

Had a yes-or-no vote been held at the beginning of the century, she says she would almost certainly have wanted Iceland to join the EU. She describes herself then as cosmopolitan in outlook, confident in the union and convinced that the euro could replace the Icelandic króna.

Globalists and oligarchs

Since the financial crash, she says, the EU’s neoliberal market thinking has become more exposed. In a simplified view, she sees the privileged group among neoliberal supporters of EU membership as capitalist globalists who favour the free movement of labour and capital as long as they profit from it.

She sees the privileged group among neoliberal opponents of membership as people who believe they have priority rights to the country’s marine and energy resources, as though those rights were sacred. She acknowledges that this represents only the part of the electorate with the greatest financial power, but says it also has the most influence.

Her distrust of her former views makes it difficult for her to identify with supporters of EU membership. However, she says she does not particularly want to promote opponents either, many of whom appear to be holders of quota or energy rights.

She adds that it is illogical to decide one’s position on a contentious issue based on who supports or opposes it. Doing so, she says, means handing over one’s position to others instead of thinking independently.

The best of both worlds through the EEA

Although she supported the EU nearly 25 years ago, she says she had already raised concerns in her 2002 article about the union’s democratic deficit. Those concerns have grown over the years.

She argues that supporting membership would be too high a price to pay for Iceland to have less than 0.1 of a representative’s influence in the European Parliament and to place control of its resources in the hands of the EU.

In her view, Iceland already has the best of both worlds through the European Economic Area agreement, membership of the Council of Europe and participation in the European Convention on Human Rights. She says Iceland takes part in European human rights institutions and is active in cultural and scientific cooperation at EU level.