No from Iceland: does the EU have a publicity problem?
The Icelanders have voted by a narrow majority against joining the EU. On Saturday, 52.8 percent rejected the resumption of accession negotiations in a referendum. The Social Democratic government initiated the vote in the hope that EU membership would offer the country better protection against territorial claims such as those made by Trump regarding Greenland. For opponents, national sovereignty and control over fishing waters took precedent.
EU needs better PR
The EU shouldn't take the 'no' vote too personally, says the taz:
“Iceland is a country that values its independence and, as a member of the EEA, already benefits from the advantages of the bloc. The decision there was made from a position of ease. Now everything will remain as pleasant as it already is. But there is one thing Brussels really could do: take this referendum as a cue to seriously review its own PR strategy. The fact that it still seems to be so easy to persuade people time and again to fundamentally and vehemently reject the EU by spreading lies about it is, after all, unacceptable.”
Brussels must change
The EU must become more citizen-oriented, argues Antoine Spillmann, co-founder of the association SwissRespect, in Le Temps:
“Europe should not seek to regulate everything from Brussels. ... We need a Europe based on cooperation rather than centralisation. On accountability rather than bureaucracy. On closeness rather than distance. The UK decided to leave. Iceland has just refused to move one step closer. Switzerland has never agreed to become a member of this system. Perhaps we are not as isolated as some would have us believe. Perhaps we have understood something important: if Brussels wants to save the European project, it must not demand that the people change – Brussels must change.”
Integration takes many forms
El País criticises the interpretations put forward by the far right:
“The euphoric statements by Marine Le Pen and Nigel Farage are misleading: the Icelanders have not called into question their integration into European structures, which is already well advanced thanks to Schengen and the EEA. ... The signal sent by Iceland is not, as these radical leaders claim, a rejection of the European model, but the following: integration can take many forms. This could prove more useful than ever when it comes to anchoring Ukraine within the EU or finding ways to deepen the ties with Canada. ... Europe, which is being challenged from both within and without, can still act as a force for stability and the rule of law in the world.”
There’s still Greenland - and Canada
Denník Postoj reminds readers:
“The EU has undergone seven major enlargements (most recently Croatia in 2013), one withdrawal (Brexit in 2020), and other countries are applying for membership. In recent years these have mainly been poorer, post-communist countries. It's hard to recall the last time the EU was enlarged to include a wealthy country. ... It was probably in 1995, when Austria, Finland and Sweden joined. It would presumably be more interesting for the EU to look westwards for new members. Iceland dropped out of the running on the weekend. But there is still Greenland and, perhaps surprisingly to some, Canada!”
Benefits not explained
The Icelanders were not convinced of the advantages of joining the EU, according to The Irish Times:
“Many were unconvinced that EU membership would offer meaningful protection from Trump, not least because Iceland is already a Nato member. Iceland already benefits from EU links as part of the single market, and of both the European Economic Area (EEA) and the Schengen agreement for passport-free travel. Membership of the EU would have brought it into the customs union and eventually the euro, but the government struggled to sell the additional benefits of this step.”
Hopes of outpost in the Arctic dashed
The EU has failed to secure an important strategic advantage, La Stampa laments:
“The island occupies a key geographical position between Europe, Greenland and North America. ... If the Icelandic stronghold had adopted a clearly pro-European course, the EU's entire defence and security strategy would have gained a strategic advantage: surveillance and control stations could have been established, the Greenland–Iceland–Europe axis could have been strengthened, and measures could have been taken to curb China's ambitions regarding trade and mineral resources in this part of the Arctic.”
A boon for EU sceptics
Instead of rejoicing at the prospect of a potential new EU member, a very different mood is taking hold, Weekendavisen notes:
“Now we must endure the humiliation of seeing the referendum's domestic political opponent rejoice and hail the vote as a major victory in the battle against Brussels. The leader of the British party Reform UK, Nigel Farage – a key figure in the UK's exit from the EU – is delighted that Iceland will 'retain its independence'. And in France, Marine Le Pen has written that the referendum highlights the possibility of a 'Europe of free, sovereign nations'.”
Shelved until the next financial crisis?
The EU is particularly valued in Iceland in times of crisis, writes Rzeczpospolita:
“The last time joining the EU was seriously considered in Reykjavík was during the financial crisis of 2008–2009. When it became apparent that the Icelandic financial system was on the verge of collapse, the protection offered by the Eurozone suddenly seemed attractive. But as soon as the situation had returned to normal the Icelanders turned their backs on Europe. Today, many experts believe that the world is once again on the brink of a financial crash. ... The Icelandic króna, a currency of minor international relevance, could fall victim to this. Perhaps then the Icelanders' desire to join the EU will be revived.”
A misinterpretation of democracy
The Süddeutsche Zeitung criticises the fact that this referendum took place at all:
“Accession talks with the EU are a protracted and tedious business, involving more than 30 areas of discussion. Frostadóttir wanted to secure a negotiating mandate from the people. But it is not the people's job to familiarise themselves with more than 30 policy areas to then make an informed decision. That is the job of a prime minister and her government. It is the politicians who must bear the responsibility for such a momentous decision; that is what they are elected to do. Passing that responsibility on to the people is, as was the case in the UK in 2016, a misinterpretation of democracy.”