All blogs

On Sunday, the results of the Icelandic referendum on reopening EU membership negotiations were announced. Some 225,000 voters took to the polls, representing a turnout of 82.5%, to determine whether the mid-Atlantic nation would resume the accession talks that had been suspended in 2013.

The people of Iceland decided, by a narrow margin of 52.8% to 47.2% to reject the proposal, meaning that membership negotiations will remain suspended and will not be reopened.

The response to the result around Europe was muted. At the request of Reykjavík, the EU remained silent during the campaign leading up to the vote and continued to keep a low profile in response to the results. There was no public statement from Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on the issue, while European Council President António Costa said only that “the EU fully respects the democratic choice of the Icelandic people… Iceland remains one of the EU’s closest and most trusted partners.”

Eurosceptics across the continent have seized the opportunity to claim that the result is a damning indictment of the European Union which proves some fundamental failings of the EU. It’s a predictable response. It’s also a lazy one.

A team from European Movement UK were on the ground in Iceland making a short film about the referendum – which will be released soon – and found that many No voters argued passionately for rejecting the reopening of negotiations while simultaneously affirming their support for Iceland continuing to work closely with Europe.

From being on-the-ground during the vote and listening to Icelanders, the results of Iceland's referendum tell us far more about the domestic situation of the island nation, and the relationship between Reykjavík and Iceland's rural regions, than they do about people's views on Europe.

Motivations for voting No

Despite the misinformation and fear-mongering during the campaign on the cost of EU membership, the loss of sovereignty, and the undermining of Iceland’s proud and deeply historical culture, the concerns of many No voters were far less verbose.

Fisheries were central to the argument for many. The industry employs 4% of the nation’s workforce and accounts for approximately 8% of the national GDP, giving it similar weight to the finance and insurance industry here in the UK. Many No voters expressed concern that, under the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy, Iceland would find its quotas reduced and its control over this central industry restricted by the EU.

Agriculture and farming produced similar concerns. Davíð Clausen Pétursson, a third-generation farmer, told The Guardian that reopening negotiations on EU membership would bring about years of uncertainty and instability to his industry, which has been steadily growing stronger in recent years – a departure from the picture in much of the rest of Europe.

But, like many No voters, Davíð made clear that his vote was not a rejection of the EU, saying “I’m not against anything in the EU at all. I am half Danish, my mother is Danish and we of course buy a lot from Europe.”

This was a more common position than some headlines would have you believe.

In the port town of Akranes, shortly after the results were announced, the team spoke with Gísli who, despite having voted No, told them firmly that “Icelanders are Europeans. [There is] no other way than strengthening the ties with our neighbour nations. On the whole, we are Europeans and we want to have a good cooperation with European nations and the public in Europe.”

Many Icelanders rejected Reykjavík, not Europe

Other interviewees were focused on even more local issues, with wider foreign policy seeming to play little part in their decision-making for the referendum. Familiar concerns were repeatedly raised about the government’s record on infrastructure, jobs, and inflation.

For many, especially in towns and rural areas, the EU was a distant issue by comparison, and they expressed frustration at Reykjavík’s attention having been drawn away from the grassroots issues that impact ordinary Icelanders day-to-day.

For many of these people, the arguments of the Yes campaign were not so much disagreeable as they were irrelevant. The promise of adopting the euro many years into the future, which likely would help ease Iceland’s runaway inflation and proved a popular talking point for young voters, did not sufficiently make up for the lack of action in the present. Arguments about national security, especially in light of Donald Trump’s imperialist ambitions for neighbouring Greenland, paled in comparison to communities’ desperate need for tunnels and roads so their children can reliably get to school.

For many, daily life decided the referendum. Not geopolitics.

There were, of course, less nuanced arguments made during the debate, with inaccurate estimates, exaggerated claims, and emotional propaganda being leveraged throughout the campaign. Many of the No voters in Reykjavík, the urban heartland of the Yes campaign, also told our team that they wanted Iceland to maintain ‘control’ and not cede any powers to the EU.

But these grand statements and sweeping claims were not what decided the result.

"Icelanders are Europeans."

Iceland is in both the European Economic Area and in the Schengen Agreement. It is a nation of around 400,000 people that is historically, culturally, and economically intertwined with the EU in a thousand different ways. And the result of this referendum changes none of that.

As the EU prepares to embark on its biggest enlargement effort for decades, a wealthy country like Iceland agreeing to join the list of active candidate countries would have cemented the bloc as an attractive prospect for all nations, not just those in need of the economic and democratic stability it can provide.

But the referendum should not be taken as a rejection of Europe or of the EU, either. Iceland is in the EU single market. It has freedom of movement and, like Gísli told our team, “Icelanders are Europeans”. The results last weekend present no evidence for that changing.

The lesson for the UK's European future

If pro-EU campaigners are to take anything from this result, it should be to look locally. Whilst high-level arguments of geopolitics, ideological arguments, and international security might be convincing to some, these issues have little cut-through when set against the immediate concerns facing people and their communities.

Here in the UK, we have to learn that too. When we come to a point where the UK is able to join the EU, it will have to be with an overwhelming majority of the country on board, across every city, town, village, and hamlet. It will have to be a movement built on stable domestic politics and arguments that appeal to the majority. Building that majority is the task of the years ahead.

This means making the case for a European future through the things that matter in people's everyday lives: good jobs and thriving local businesses; opportunities for young people to study, travel and work across Europe; stronger communities; greater security; and the freedom to live, work and build a life across our continent.

It also means listening. A successful movement cannot simply tell people why Europe matters. It has to understand what matters to them and demonstrate how a closer relationship with our European neighbours can help deliver it.

Icelanders have had a relatively respectful, national conversation about their relationship with Europe. Yes, the No campaign won but a lot of Icelanders didn’t vote against the EU on Sunday – they voted against Reykjavík. Other voters believe this conversation will continue. 

When the time comes for the UK to have this conversation, we need to make sure that voters feel confident voting for the UK to join the EU, rather than voting against an out-of-touch government in London.

Joining the EU cannot be about going back to the UK of 2016. It has to be about building the UK we want to see in 2036.