Examining the Misinformation That Influenced Iceland’s EU Membership Referendum

Uncertainty over fishing quotas likely deterred many Icelandic voters from pursuing EU membership.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

On 29 August, the nation voted 52.8% against resuming negotiations with Brussels, halting talks that have remained dormant since 2013.

The campaign was intensely contested and, similar to many pivotal public votes in recent years, was plagued by the circulation of inaccurate claims across online and media channels.

A primary point of contention was the issue of fisheries.

Several media outlets reported on discussions between Iceland’s foreign affairs minister, Þorgerður Katrín Gunnarsdóttir, and Dutch Prime Minister Rob Jetten regarding a special exemption from the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy.

These reports suggested that Gunnarsdóttir asserted such exemptions were discussed, a claim that the Dutch government vehemently denied.

Subsequently, Gunnarsdóttir rejected those claims, leading the press to acknowledge that the story had been largely misreported.

However, it struck a deeply sensitive chord: control over fishing grounds is fiercely protected in Iceland, to the extent that it sparked a series of confrontations between Iceland and the UK in the 1950s and 1970s, known as the Cod Wars.

EU membership would likely require relinquishing a portion of its quota under the Common Fisheries Policy, though there is no consensus on the exact amount Iceland would have to surrender.

Some experts argue the quota would be minimal, primarily involving pelagic fish species—such as herrings, sardines, and mackerel—that migrate across the sea and are not permanently stationed in Icelandic waters.

However, failing to address this sensitive issue early on may have dampened voters’ enthusiasm for EU membership, according to international relations expert Arno Minasian.

“Iceland didn’t get to negotiate fisheries and agriculture in 2009, either,” he told Euronews’ fact-checking team, The Cube. “The EU and Iceland never actually got to those chapters, which is concerning, because those are the really big, important chapters for Iceland.”

With some 4% of Iceland’s workforce employed in fisheries and the sector accounting for roughly 8% of its GDP, “fisheries carry significant economic and political weight,” Minasian added.

“If Iceland and the EU cannot negotiate this in the first place, it is quite unrealistic that Icelanders would agree to impose these quotas through the Common Fisheries Policy,” he stated.

All of the obligations, none of the benefits?

Another misleading claim pertained to Iceland’s EU-related rights as a non-member state.

Some figures, such as former Prime Minister Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson, argued that since Iceland is already part of the European Economic Area, it already enjoys all the benefits of EU membership.

Gunnlaugsson, who currently leads the Centre Party, added that joining the EU would entail only downsides and obligations, with no additional benefits.

While it is true that, as a member of the European Economic Area, Reykjavík already adheres to much of the EU’s economic framework, not being an EU member means it has no seat at the table when rules are established.

Iceland lacks voting rights in the European Parliament and holds no role in the European Commission. It also forgoes certain EU subsidies and funds.

Regarding the cost of EU access, the opposing camps cited drastically different figures.

The “No” camp set the figure as high as €1 billion a year, while prominent pro-EU figures estimated it at just over €50 million.

The latter estimate aligns much more closely with the truth, according to a study by the independent think tank Evropustraumar, which calculated Iceland’s net EU membership cost at roughly €60 million a year.

Source link