Former prime minister warns EU talks could weaken EEA ties

In a submitted article published by mbl.is, former Icelandic Prime Minister Geir H. Haarde warns that reopening membership negotiations with the European Union could put Iceland’s participation in the European Economic Area at risk.

Supporters of renewed talks have argued that Iceland could examine the terms of EU membership without taking any risk and withdraw if it failed to secure a favourable agreement. Haarde accepts that Iceland could reject membership if the terms were unacceptable, but says the negotiations would take several years regardless of their outcome.

He also points to possible constitutional changes that would need to be agreed by Iceland’s parliament and approved twice, with parliamentary elections between the votes. The process, he says, would take time.

Haarde says he is concerned that Iceland’s public administration, ministries and institutions could become preoccupied with the membership negotiations and be unable to devote sufficient attention to protecting Iceland’s interests and meeting its obligations under the EEA Agreement.

In a speech to Norway’s parliament on May 12, Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide discussed the effect of Iceland’s membership application on Norway. He said Norway was preparing for the possibility that Iceland could join the EU in 2030.

According to Haarde’s interpretation of Eide’s remarks, the room for Iceland and the European Commission to seek special solutions within the EEA for Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein could gradually diminish once membership talks begin.

Haarde says the comments should concern Icelanders. In his view, they suggest that Norway could choose a different approach if Iceland were unable to handle important EEA matters with full force, including negotiations with the EU on fish tariff concessions. Such concessions are negotiated regularly in return for contributions from the countries to EU development funds supporting poorer member states.

Norway is the main pillar of the EFTA side of the EEA cooperation, Haarde writes. Although Norway is a friend of Iceland and would likely want to support it in talks with the EU, he says every country primarily protects its own interests. Norway would continue to do so in its dealings with the EU, both within and outside the EEA, rather than necessarily acting on Iceland’s behalf.

If Iceland’s negotiations with the EU failed after several years, Haarde says it would not be certain that the EEA framework would remain unchanged. Norway and possibly Liechtenstein might by then have adopted a different approach to protecting their interests.

That, he argues, could weaken the EEA Agreement, which he says has served as an important support for Iceland and brought substantial benefits for more than three decades. He describes the possibility of losing that cooperation and becoming merely another third country in the EU’s eyes as a real risk that voters should consider before the referendum at the end of August.