My understanding is that they're stable since the financial crisis.
Simply put, they want an inverse Brexit.
in any case nothing is ideal anyway. The question is what set of pros and cons are the best compromise. That is something for the people of Iceland to answer not outsiders like me (and perhaps you)
Also opening EU funding opportunities for plenty of infra enhancements.
Iceland's energy is highly renewable (hydro, geothermal), and they have substantial potential for mineral carbonation of CO2. Mafic rocks like basalt, particularly with high olivine content, are close to the top for targets for conversion of CO2 to carbonates.
People here will say that we will lose control of our fishing rights but we already lost them to a handful of filthy rich families.
But this excludes things such as farming and fishing, the latter of which has been very important for Iceland because the EU has never always got that right in a painful attempt to make all member states equally unhappy, and representation of where those rules are decided (Council, Parliament) or proposed (Commission).
Even outside the EEA, the size of the EU on the continent means European countries who want to do large amounts of frictional-less trading end up importing the EUs rules (e.g. Switzerland, post-Brexit UK) with no say on them.
If you know you're going to lose 10 no matter what, you might as well trade your opposition for something worth 2 or 3, so you lose less.
that is blatantly false
By joining the EU they have voting power and influence over their own destiny which they lack under those agreements. Currently they must accept EU rules without being able to influence them.
No, they don't really must accept all rules. Only the ones that will benefit them. This will cease once they join the EU.
Implementation is overseen by the EFTA Surveillance Authority who can sue members in the EFTA court.