Icelanders will decide on 29 August whether their country should restart negotiations on joining the European Union. Polls show no clear favourite, with the difference between supporters and opponents within the margin of error. The return of the accession debate has been driven partly by US claims concerning Greenland and growing concerns about Arctic security. Opponents, meanwhile, warn about the costs of membership and the impact of the EU’s common fisheries policy on Iceland’s fishing industry.
“The question of a referendum on returning to EU membership talks came back for two reasons. First, the governing coalition included a referendum by the end of 2027 in its coalition agreement. Second, around the turn of 2025 and 2026, US threats and demands concerning Greenland intensified. This caused concern in Iceland and raised questions about the role of the United States as a security guarantor in the region. Icelanders began looking for other guarantees, and the European Union may prove to be one of them,” Tomasz Żornaczuk, an EU enlargement analyst at the Polish Institute of International Affairs, told Newseria.
Iceland applied for EU membership in July 2009 after the financial crisis that caused the collapse of its banking system. Negotiations began a year later. By the time talks were suspended in 2013, 27 of 35 negotiating chapters had been opened and 11 provisionally closed. In 2015, the Icelandic government asked the EU not to list the country as a candidate, although the application itself was never formally withdrawn.
In the referendum scheduled for 29 August, Icelanders will answer whether the country should resume accession negotiations with the European Union. If talks eventually produce agreed membership terms, those terms would be put to voters in another referendum. According to a memorandum by Iceland’s foreign ministry, negotiations could begin again by the end of 2026 and last 18–24 months.
“The result cannot be predicted on the basis of current polling because the difference remains within the margin of error. Until recently the sides were exactly even, and in the past one side or the other has sometimes held a slightly larger lead. We therefore have to wait for the referendum and the official result,” Żornaczuk said.
A Maskína poll conducted between 21 and 25 August found 51.3% support for resuming negotiations and 48.7% opposition. On 13 August, the split had been 52.2% to 47.8%. A Gallup survey published on 17 August showed 51.5% in favour and 48.5% against, with a 2.5 percentage-point margin of error.
“Eurosceptics point to a number of economic and sovereignty arguments. Iceland is wealthier than the average EU member state, so joining would make it a net contributor and create a real financial cost. They pay particular attention to fisheries, which are a fundamental part of the Icelandic economy and, depending on the year, generate between around 10% and the mid-teens of national income,” the PISM analyst explained.
The fisheries chapter was never opened during the 2010–2013 talks. Fish and fish products currently account for close to 40% of Iceland’s merchandise exports, while fishing and processing are the main source of income in many smaller coastal communities. Opponents of EU membership are particularly concerned about losing full national control over fishing quotas and marine-resource management.
“Some of the arguments concern sovereignty and identity. Iceland has traditionally pursued an independent foreign policy and, after joining the European Union, would have to conduct that policy within the framework of EU membership,” Żornaczuk said.
Iceland is already closely integrated with the European Union. It has belonged to the European Economic Area since 1994, giving it access to the single market, and it has been part of the Schengen area since 2001. It adopts a large part of EU internal-market legislation but has no vote when those rules are adopted by EU institutions.
“Supporters also make an economic argument: if we are already in the European Economic Area, already meet many membership conditions and already bear some of the costs of participation, then it may make sense to sit at the same table and have influence over decisions. Unlike the previous accession debate, which followed an economic crisis, supporters of restarting talks now mainly point to security — including increasingly aggressive US rhetoric toward Greenland and uncertainty about the future of Arctic security,” Żornaczuk said.
Full membership would give Iceland a role in EU decision-making. It would also mean joining the customs union and could open a path toward adopting the euro.
“Iceland is very well prepared in the areas where candidate countries usually face the greatest problems: freedom, justice, security, human rights and the judiciary. In these areas Iceland has been close to EU standards for decades, so aligning law and practice would not present major difficulties,” Żornaczuk said.
Despite this high degree of alignment, accession would still require changes in several fields. In addition to fisheries, these would include trade policy and the revision of some international agreements.
“Fisheries are crucial not only to national GDP. In small communities they can account for several dozen percent of local income, and much of industry and services is geared toward fishing. There is also another issue: some international agreements would need to be revised. One of them is Iceland’s free-trade agreement with China, which the country would have to give up before joining the European Union,” the PISM analyst added.
