A decade following the Brexit vote, European leaders once again chose silence during a significant referendum on EU membership, underscoring how Brussels has failed to grasp lessons from its past errors.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Last Sunday, EU officials processed the outcome of the Icelandic referendum, which narrowly rejected the resumption of EU membership negotiations with a split of 52.8% to 47.2%. The institutional reaction was notably subdued.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen offered no public commentary, allowing an unnamed spokesperson to state merely that Brussels had acknowledged the results.
European Council President António Costa was among the rare voices to break the silence, issuing a statement through his spokesperson affirming that “the EU fully respects the democratic choice of the Icelandic people in today’s referendum. Iceland remains one of the EU’s closest and most trusted partners.”
This restrained approach mirrored the Commission’s low visibility throughout the campaign period, prompting questions about whether the EU’s institutional commitment to neutrality undermines its political interests when the ballot directly concerns the Union itself.
“We had a very harsh campaign. A lot of money. You could almost hear the echoes of Brexit, and the whole Brexit playbook was part of it,” Dagur Eggertsson, MP and former Mayor of Reykjavík, explained to Europe Today.
Maintaining a Low Profile
The Icelandic government explicitly requested that Brussels refrain from interfering in the process.
Responding to a parliamentary inquiry in June, Prime Minister Kristrún Frostadóttir emphasized that “this is a domestic matter, this is domestic politics, and it is the domestic decision of Icelanders to start these talks or not, and of course we do not want unreasonable interference.”
Simultaneously, Frostadóttir acknowledged that if citizens had inquiries regarding the EU, it would be reasonable for Brussels to provide clarifications. This diplomatic approach aligned with the broader pro-EU faction’s measured campaign strategy.
Hulda Þórisdóttir, a professor at the University of Iceland, informed Euronews that the Eurosceptic movement successfully elevated the referendum’s significance, portraying it as a definitive choice on EU membership, whereas the pro-European faction sought to minimize that framing, stressing that the vote concerned only the reopening of negotiations.
“This is not an election about membership and not about adaptation, as there will be another referendum on an accession agreement if the result is yes,” Frostadóttir told the Washington Post before the vote.
Senior EU officials adhered to a comparable playbook. Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos conducted multiple interviews with Icelandic media organizations, including the public broadcaster RÚV, concentrating on the accession process and the practical implications of negotiations.
“The Icelandic vote is a warning for Europe. Fears about fishing and emotional arguments, sometimes false, have defeated the reasons for the ‘Yes’. We respect the vote, but the message is clear: the EU must change,” stated MEP Sandro Gozi (France/Renew).
The Question of Sovereignty
Both campaign sides concentrated on economic considerations. The ‘Yes’ faction contended that EU accession would reduce debt interest rates and mitigate currency volatility, facilitating the eventual adoption of the euro.
The ‘No’ faction countered by cautioning that EU membership would necessitate restructuring the nation’s fisheries and agricultural sectors, critical industries in the rural areas where Eurosceptic sentiment prevailed.
“It wasn’t only about economic interests. It was deeper than that. The arguments of the ‘No’ campaign resonated much more because they were closer to the Icelandic identity,” Þórisdóttir remarked.
For the ‘No’ side, the referendum transcended economic calculations and struck at an existential level: having secured hard-won independence from Denmark in 1944, Iceland was resolved not to relinquish sovereignty to another major power.
“The referendum on August 29th is not just about the European Union. It is about whether we believe the Icelandic people themselves are best placed to determine their future,” wrote Björn Bjarnason, a former minister from the Eurosceptic Independence Party, in a blog post.
The fundamental message of the victorious ‘No’ campaign was that the EU functions not as a safeguard against larger powers, but as one of the powers from which Iceland must maintain its independence to preserve its full sovereignty within the international community.
Meanwhile, Brussels opted to avoid political exposure during the campaign, a decision some interpret as reminiscent of the Brexit referendum, indicating that the EU has yet to internalize the relevant lessons from that experience.
Echoes of Brexit
Similar to Reykjavik’s current position, UK Prime Minister David Cameron previously appealed to EU institutions to refrain from intervention. In both instances, Brussels honored the request.
“I understand the political principle of non-interference in a constitutional referendum of a member state,” Charles Tannock, a former MEP for the UK Conservatives who advocated for Remain, explained to Euronews.
“But I do think it was a mistake, though, not to correct lies and misinformation.”
Brussels’ silence during the Brexit referendum was particularly conspicuous given allegations of foreign financial backing for the Leave campaign, Tannock observed, though he acknowledged that conclusive evidence was never established.
In Iceland, the ‘No’ campaign enjoyed considerably greater financial resources than the ‘Yes’ campaign.
“It was a mistake not to intervene and not to interfere because we would have been the only ones to destroy the lies which were circulated,” European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker told the press in 2019. “I was wrong to be silent at an important moment.”
Naturally, hindsight makes it easier to identify what should have been handled differently, and it remains questionable whether prominent EU officials speaking publicly would have advanced the European integration cause, given the delicate balance required to avoid triggering a backlash.
Nevertheless, on both occasions the EU succeeded in alienating voters by appearing to encroach upon their autonomy over domestic affairs, while simultaneously declining to assume the prominent political role that its critics accused it of seeking.
“The EU has this reputation, rightly or wrongly, of being very top-down, and not really being sensitive about these sorts of arguments regarding protecting national identity and sovereignty,” Tannock commented.
“The EU could have done much more to say it is a project based on member states, and that Iceland would still be Iceland 100%,” he concluded.
