Iceland's EU Referendum: Strong Economic Interests Secured Victory for the No Camp, Says Professor

52.8 per cent of Icelanders voted no, while 47.2 per cent voted yes to a new round of negotiations with the EU on membership.

Turnout in the referendum was high. 82.5 per cent of approximately 270,000 eligible voters took part. 

The government respects the result and will not proceed with membership negotiations during this electoral term, Icelandic Prime Minister Kristrún Frostadóttir stated.

In the run-up to the vote, the race between the no and yes camps was close, with particular intense debate over sovereignty, the economy and fisheries. 

"A decisive factor behind the result has been a highly professional and well-funded no campaign that appears to have been backed by powerful economic interests," Rasmus Gjedssø Bertelsen, Professor of Northern Studies at UiT The Arctic University of Norway, tells High North News.

"Historically, Icelandic politics and society have been characterised by economically and politically powerful circles seeking to isolate Iceland in order to maintain their own position of power. This is also clearly evident today: there are circles that benefit from keeping the country outside the EU because they profit from the weak and unstable Icelandic krona. They also benefit from less competition in the Icelandic economy," he continues.

"Made near-absurd claims"

"The No campaign successfully appealed to national sentiments and managed to steer the debate by making near-absurd claims that have required considerable effort to discuss and refute. One example is that Icelanders could be forced into an EU army. Completely unrealistic figures were also presented for how much it would cost Iceland to become a member of the union," the professor outlines.

However, it is not known who specifically financed the No campaign.

"While there is legislation concerning campaign contributions to political parties, there is very little legislation on transparency regarding contributions to popular movements. It is very serious that we have no insight into who the donors are," Bertelsen points out.

He himself believes it is regrettable that the referendum did not result in a yes vote to explore possible Icelandic EU membership.

"In my view, it is regrettable that Iceland will not reopen EU membership negotiations because I believe that the introduction of the euro in particular would have been very good for most Icelanders. But again, it would have been disadvantageous for narrower, powerful economic interests and they therefore successfully engaged in securing a no vote."  

"It could take several decades"

In the wake of the no vote in this referendum, Bertelsen believes it will be a long time before the question of EU membership returns to the Icelandic agenda.

"The current social democratic government sought to create long-term stability around new membership negotiations by making them subject to a referendum. But since the majority voted no, it will be very difficult for a new government to pick up this thread unless circumstances genuinely change. I believe it could take several decades before the EU question is seriously raised again," he says.

The Icelandic no vote will also affect the Norwegian EU debate, Bertelsen believes.

"This will strengthen the camp that wants Norway to remain outside the EU and weaken those who want the country to become a full member of the union."