Bjarnadóttir challenges analysis of Iceland’s EU referendum

Erna Bjarnadóttir questions the evidence behind a claim that opponents of EU accession talks shaped the debate over Iceland’s August 29 referendum. In an opinion article published by Morgunblaðið, she argues that a review of the campaign must consider the arguments and sources available at the time.

Maximilian Conrad, a professor at the University of Iceland, published an article on the TEPSA platform on September 22 interpreting the referendum and the campaign arguments. He wrote that opponents of accession talks had framed the vote as a referendum on EU membership, making it harder for supporters of talks to get their message across.

Bjarnadóttir asks what sources support that conclusion and why Conrad’s analysis does not address extensive contemporaneous material on the arguments he discusses. Since the start of the year, she says, she had published numerous articles on the EU accession process, its negotiating framework, special arrangements and economic issues. A collection of her writings, titled AFSAL, was published in late July, before the referendum.

Arguments left out of the account

Conrad wrote that references to exemptions granted to Finland and Sweden did not change the arguments made by opponents of accession talks. But Bjarnadóttir says the disagreement was not only about whether the two countries received special arrangements. It also concerned their nature and legal effect, and whether precedents from 1995 could apply to Iceland in 2026.

Her coverage, she says, drew in part on research by Stefán Már Stefánsson, a professor of law. In 2011, she edited his book on European Union and European Economic Area agricultural legislation, published by the Farmers Association of Iceland.

In his book European law: the rules of the European Union, Stefán Már distinguishes between different types of exemptions and special arrangements. He explains that exemptions are legally possible, but that securing permanent exemptions can be difficult, particularly in agriculture and fisheries. He also discusses the conditions for long-term agricultural support in Finland.

Iceland’s 2010 negotiating framework was based on adopting EU rules and provided for transitional measures that were to be limited in scope and duration. Bjarnadóttir also wrote about changes to the EU’s methodology from 2020. In an article published by Vísir on August 24, she asked which negotiating framework and methodology would apply if talks with Iceland resumed. It was not clear how the changes would be applied to Iceland.

These were substantive questions raised before the vote, Bjarnadóttir writes, and the public debate extended beyond opponents of accession talks. She argues that saying references to Finland and Sweden did not change one side’s arguments reveals little about how the precedents were examined, what counterarguments were made or why participants reached different conclusions. Assessing that requires examining the debate itself.

When a conclusion becomes an explanation

Bjarnadóttir questions the central conclusion that opponents of accession talks framed the debate as a vote on EU membership and thereby made it harder for supporters of talks to communicate. She asks what evidence establishes that causal link.

Discussing the possible consequences of EU membership is not the same as arguing that a referendum on resuming negotiations amounts to approval of membership.