Consider that icelandic mortgage interest rates are currently 9-11% but a few years ago they were 4% which was celebrated as historically extremely low rates.
If we join the EU we’re pretty much guaranteed to lose this exclusive access to our waters, and that will be devastating for the economy, given how the fishing industry is one of very few industries keeping the economy afloat. Especially considering exports to other countries.
you accept the entire body of law or you don't join
the UK and Norway both tried to negotiate away the fisheries policy when they submitted applications in the 70s
the UK "accepted" the CFP and and joined, Norway didn't and still remains outside
given then the odds of Iceland joining the EU are practically zero
I don't think you realise how small the Icelandic economy truly is, and how big an effect fluctuations in fishing quote already have on it.
Iceland already has full access to the single market and Schengen. Historically during times of economic shocks, having our own currency has been useful as it allowed for more flexibility (i.e currency controls, self governance over central bank rates etc). Would taking up the Euro make the island more resilient or less able to respond to shocks? Economists seem to not fully agree on the matter.
I have personally never bought into the scare mongering by the island's quota kings - and fully support making the fishing quota a nationally own resource along with propper utlization fee structures - but having a partner who's doctorate is in fisheries management and having personally had a lifelong interest in the matter my self, I don't believe for a second that our fisheries would be better off dictated by Brussels. I reserve the right to change my mind when, and if, a deal is ever presented that indicates otherwise.
Tourism is already back to pre pandemic levels, so I don't see how anything would change there. Iceland is and always will be a very expensive destination for tourists. Most things need to be shipped in, and joining the Union will not change that in any way.
Aluminum brings in a decent amount, via large scale electrical usage contracts made with the state owned electrical company. While these deals are secret, it is public knowlege that they are tied to the global price of aluminum. Having income in a foreign currency but expenditure in the domestic currency is surely a good thing for the government and all of it's agencies.
Would the government have access to better loans if joining the Union and taking up the euro? Perhaps. However, the loan rating for the Icelandic government is already fairly good, sitting at A+, that I'm not sure that there would be a big impact.
Just to make it clear, I am all for the European Union (heck, I even moved from Iceland and live on mainland Europe) but joining it isn't such a clear cut black/white calculus as your comments have made it sound like.
I also believe it would be better to be an EU member and part of the eurozone instead of having the flaky economic governance we have historically had.
Like you said the economic pillars of Iceland have become broader and more numerous than only the fisheries, and for all the talk of currency devaluation being beneficial, in effect it simply serves to allow the government and largest exporters offload all effects of economic downturns onto the Icelandic people and small businesses.
It is theoretically possible for Iceland to govern itself in such a way that it is stronger outside the EU than inside. Simply adhering to the Maastricht conditions would perhaps be enough, it just does not seem likely to me that there will ever be enough discipline to do so without actually joining the eurozone.
As I understand, part of the reason that Norway wanted to stay out of the EU was to fully control fishing in their territorial waters. I can understand why Iceland may wish to do the same.
Unlike Iceland, fishing is a negligible part of the U.K. economy (c0.1% vs c10%), yet was used by people who couldn’t give a stuff about fishing as a weapon.
The EU has an abysmal history of setting and managing ITQs in its waters, with Iceland having some of the best (but not at all perfect) managed waters in the world.
So there is plenty to be skeptical about when it comes to how negotiations would go on the matter.
No, this is mostly about fishing rights afaik. Britain also kept having issues on that front.
Now, every country joining the EU is expected to join the Euro at some point.
https://economy-finance.ec.europa.eu/euro/enlargement-euro-a...
"Who can join and when?
All EU Member States, except Denmark, are required to adopt the euro and join the euro area. To do this they must meet certain conditions known as 'convergence criteria'."
In theory yes, in practice no. The Swedish government has said repeatedly they don't plan to join despite being legally obliged to do so.
EU law says they have to do it, but it also says it can't be done without their active cooperation, and there is no penalty if they refuse to cooperate. The obligation is essentially toothless.
So Denmark having a formal opt-out from the Euro and Sweden not, is really more of a theoretical difference than a practically relevant one.
Sweden is long in the EU. CURRENTLY the expectation to new member states to join the Euro when joining the EU is different -> much higher.
Sweden was also long not in NATO. Now it is. Similar, support in polls for Euro introduction is rising.
I don't agree. It isn't just Sweden; Poland, Czechia, Hungary, Romania too. The time between EU accession and Euro adoption is normally a decade or more. If a government doesn't want to adopt the Euro, there are heaps of levers they can pull to slow the process down, and there is no way to punish a government for doing that. The easiest is that you have to join ERM II at least two years before adopting the Euro, but nobody can force you to join ERM II – so Sweden, Poland, Czechia, Hungary and Romania have all refused to join it. The only current ERM II members are Denmark (with a formal opt-out), and Bulgaria (which wants to adopt the Euro – it had hoped to do it 1 January 2025, but the ECB says their inflation is too high – 5.1%, the limit is 3.3%). If Bulgaria gets inflation down in 2025, they may succeed in joining on 1 January 2026.
When negotiating to join, the politicians say "sure, we promise we'll adopt the Euro", knowing that they'll likely be retired by the time joining the Euro is a real possibility.
> Sweden was also long not in NATO. Now it is. Similar, support in polls for Euro introduction is rising.
Yes, but that doesn't change the point – an EU member state (present or future) cannot be forced to adopt the Euro, it will only happen if the member state's government is willing, and they'll likely only be willing if it is sufficiently popular with their people.
> an EU member state (present or future) cannot be forced to adopt the Euro
Future members can be forced. They won't become EU members, without a clear will to adopt the policies which lead to the Euro.
Only if they changed the rules to make ERM II membership mandatory and automatic, or if they changed the Euro convergence criteria to remove the need for it. I've heard no talk they are planning to do so.
The non-Euro EU members have a say in the enlargement negotiation process too, and they don’t want new members to be forced into Euro adoption - it might weaken their own ability to resist that pressure in the future, plus additional non-Euro EU members are a potential source of new internal allies
> They won't become EU members, without a clear will to adopt the policies which lead to the Euro.
The government that negotiates to join the EU may do all they can to convince the EU that they want to join the Euro – they might even really mean it. Then, after accession, that government loses an election and get replaced by a new government which is anti-Euro. What can the EU do to stop that? Nothing.