The narrative once again triumphed over data in Iceland's referendum on resuming negotiations for entry into the European Union. The 'no' won by a narrow margin, with 52.8% of the vote, against 47.1% for the 'yes'. On one side, there was a technocratic campaign based on complex arguments such as defense and security, monetary policy, and decision-making capacity on major political issues. In other words, the data. And also, a total lack of vision of what was wanted. Or, as conservative former Minister of Justice and 'no' voter, Björn Barnasson, put it, "essentially, the message was: 'say yes and then we'll see what we do'. The majority of voters decided that this was giving the government a blank check and rejected the proposal."
However, the government was not asking for that "blank check" to join the EU. Only to resume entry negotiations, which have been technically "suspended" for 13 years. In the event that these talks bore fruit, there would have been another consultation to approve or reject the accession agreement.
But the 'no' strategy avoided getting entangled in statistics, geopolitical strategies, or negotiating tactics - or lack of negotiating tactics. Instead, it aimed at the heart of Icelanders with a clear narrative based on possibilities, not facts. According to their arguments, voting yes actually meant joining the EU. And joining the EU meant the loss of sovereignty, the destruction of the country's traditional industries (fishing and agriculture), and the influx of immigrants, which is nonsensical in a country that already has freedom of movement with the EU, so it doesn't matter whether to join it or not for foreign workers to come. All of this was seasoned with outlandish theories about the supposed economic cost that Brussels would impose, and with an argument that is not true: as a member of the European Economic Area (EEA), Iceland already adopts EU legislation almost automatically. In reality, only 13% of Brussels' rules become part of its legal framework.
The narrative ended up prevailing with much better results than those predicted by the polls, which once again connects Iceland with very different countries, such as the United Kingdom or the United States. Perhaps it is a global issue, as Foreign Minister Katrín Gunnarsdóttir, from the Liberal Reform Party and a strong supporter of the 'yes' vote, summed up by stating that "not all politicians understand what people think." Perhaps the most concerning part of her statement is that she said "do not understand," instead of "we do not understand."
Thus, the vote has shown that Iceland, despite having a population slightly smaller than Palma de Mallorca and being crossed at its northern end by the Arctic Circle, has many common elements with any other Western nation. Rural areas, fishing, and lower economic and educational level voters voted no. Reykjavik, the capital with its urban area where 60% of the country's population lives, supported the yes, although not to the extent expected by the coalition government led by the social democratic Prime Minister, Kristrún Frostadóttir.
The referendum has also revealed that the United States under Donald Trump is actively working against the EU's expansion at a discreet level, without making headlines, but effectively. On July 23, five weeks ago, Washington announced new tariffs on 60 economies worldwide. It imposed minimal rates of 10% on EU countries, the same as Norway, which is not part of the bloc. However, Iceland was excluded from the U.S. tariffs, despite having a bilateral trade surplus of $233.5 million.
For some 'yes' supporters, the tariff leniency from Trump was support given to the 'no' vote by the U.S. president. Because the idea of negotiating with Brussels was largely motivated by the fear of the race between the U.S., Russia, and China for the Arctic. The U.S. is negotiating with Denmark for a series of military bases in neighboring Greenland that Washington wants to have almost a colonial nature, after threatening Copenhagen and Nuuk with invasion in January. That is why Reykjavik wanted to diversify its portfolio of international partners with the EU, currently focused on NATO and the U.S.
The Icelandic government fears "allies coercing other allies," in Gunnarsdóttir's words. But Icelanders "clearly feel secure," as Frostadóttir clarified. As with Trump in 2024, one of the big surprises came from the young people, who have shifted from supporting EU membership, even if it means being able to buy a house, to opposing it. According to some preliminary surveys, up to 60% of those under 30 may have voted no.
The referendum is over. But its consequences persist. Iceland has become polarized. Gunnarsdóttir stated on Saturday that threats to politicians are increasing and that the government will consider tightening their security measures, something unprecedented. And there is the economic adjustment, with or without the EU. The prime minister has announced a tough budget adjustment aiming to eliminate the public deficit. As Maria, 27 years old, who voted yes, explained while strolling near Reykjavik City Hall yesterday, "we are facing a challenging period, but EU membership would have been a boost and a blow to the groups that have controlled the country. Now, we will have to do it on our own." Iceland's decision leaves the EU confused, as Brussels expected to use the yes vote as a catalyst for Balkan enlargement.
Perhaps the EU's mistake was trusting the Nordics. Because that region has a striking history of rejecting EU institutions. In fact, 34 years before Brexit, Greenland, under Danish sovereignty, already voted to leave what was then the European Economic Community. Ten years earlier, in July 1972, Norwegians had already voted against joining that organization. In November 1994, they were asked again. And once more, they said no to entering what was already called the EU.
A year and a half earlier, Denmark had nearly sunk the euro creation project when unexpectedly, the country's citizens voted against participating in the single currency. The result was the monetary storms of 1992 that expelled the pound sterling from the currency fluctuation band mechanism, caused four devaluations of the peseta and two of the lira, and turned George Soros into a global finance legend, whose right-hand man in those operations was Scott Bessent, now the U.S. Treasury Secretary. In 2000, the Danes voted, for the second time, against joining the euro. In 2003, Sweden rejected the single currency by no less than 14 points. Twelve years later, Denmark again rejected in a referendum full integration into a key EU cooperation area, this time Justice and Home Affairs.
That Scandinavian rejection remains alive. The best example was Frostadóttir's press conference yesterday, where no Icelandic journalist asked her if she had spoken with any European leaders. But they did ask if she had spoken "with any Nordic prime ministers."