On a crisp election weekend in Reykjavik, Iceland’s 400,000 eligible voters headed to the polls to decide one of the most consequential questions in the small Nordic nation’s modern history: whether to restart accession negotiations for membership in the European Union. What many observers did not expect was that a series of offhand remarks from former U.S. President Donald Trump would accelerate the vote and shift the tone of the entire national debate.
Earlier this year, as Trump pushed repeatedly for the U.S. to gain control of Greenland, the self-governing Danish territory bordering Iceland, he made a repeated public gaffe: he called the territory “Iceland” no fewer than four times, describing it as “a piece of ice, cold and poorly located” that he wanted to acquire. The mistake sent immediate shockwaves through Icelandic public opinion. Even though Trump’s target was Greenland, not Iceland, the blunder stoked long-simmering anxieties about great power interference in the small Arctic nation’s sovereignty. The government, which had originally planned to hold the referendum by 2025, moved the vote up to Saturday, citing shifting geopolitical risks that demanded an urgent decision.
The anxiety was compounded by a separate misstep from the incoming U.S. ambassador to Iceland, William Long, who joked shortly after his appointment that he hoped Iceland would become the 51st U.S. state, and he would serve as its governor. Though Long quickly apologized for the offhand comment, it prompted thousands of angry Icelanders to sign a public petition calling on the prime minister to reject his credentials. For pro-EU campaigners, the two incidents crystallized a core argument: in an era of unpredictable great power competition, Iceland’s hard-won independence is better protected within a unified European bloc than going it alone.
“We can’t really trust the U.S. anymore,” said Hildur Knútsdóttir, an Icelandic horror fiction writer who plans to vote in favor of restarting accession talks. “Trump was not joking about Greenland. There was a lot of fear here in Iceland because if he takes Greenland with force, we’re probably going to be next.”
Iceland already has deep ties to the European bloc: as a member of NATO, it participates in the EU’s single market through the European Economic Area agreement and is part of the Schengen Area, which allows unrestricted cross-border travel across most of Europe. Proponents of full membership argue that joining the EU would insulate Iceland from growing global geopolitical instability, deliver tangible economic benefits including a more stable currency, lower long-term interest rates, and reduced inflation, while strengthening the nation’s sovereignty through collective European security guarantees.
Foreign and Defense Minister Thorgerdur Katrín Gunnarsdóttir, a leading proponent of EU membership, notes that small European member states report no erosion of their sovereign authority. “When I ask people from smaller countries such as Ireland, Finland or Luxembourg, whether they feel they’ve lost their sovereignty, they look at me like I’m a crazy woman and say membership has made them stronger,” she explained. Gunnarsdóttir added that Trump’s saber-rattling over Greenland underscored the value of collective European action: “That is so important for us to see a group of like-minded nations stand together on principles and values. That is also what I’m looking at when I see the European Union in this volatile world.”
But for Euroskeptic opponents, the core issue remains sovereignty, which they argue Iceland already holds in full after winning independence from Denmark in 1944. The nation has thrived as an independent state outside the EU, enjoying all the economic benefits of European single market access without being subject to EU laws and regulatory authority. Opponents see no reason to surrender that autonomy, particularly when Iceland’s economy is already performing strongly.
“The independence of Iceland is the most precious resource that we have,” said Haraldur Olafsson, a physics professor and chairman of Heimssýn, Iceland’s leading Euroskeptic advocacy group. “The possibility of making your own law and deciding how things are done is essential.”
University of Iceland political science professor Hulda Thorisdottir explains that sovereignty frames the entire debate, with both sides framing their position as the best defense of Iceland’s national autonomy. “For both sides of the debate, it’s really a matter of sovereignty,” she said. “Opponents argue that the nation that won its independence in 1944 enjoys all the benefits of European integration with no drawbacks. Why surrender that when they’re doing so well? EU proponents, however, see it through the lens of a rapidly changing world in which shifting alliances pose a security risk. Being outside the EU makes Iceland vulnerable and that threatens its sovereignty.”
This is not Iceland’s first flirtation with EU membership. The country first applied for membership in 2009, shortly after its entire overleveraged banking sector collapsed in the 2008 global financial crisis. At the time, no public referendum was held to authorize the application bid. Accession negotiations began but were suspended in 2013 after a center-right Euroskeptic government took power, and talks were formally ended in 2015. The current center-left coalition government led by Prime Minister Kristrun Frostadottir was elected in 2024 on a platform that promised a public vote on restarting negotiations, delivering on that promise with Saturday’s referendum.
Voters are being asked a simple yes-or-no question: Should Iceland resume accession negotiations with the European Union? A no vote would take the issue of EU membership off the national agenda for the foreseeable future. A yes vote would launch a multiyear negotiating process, where the European Commission would assess Iceland’s alignment with 35 separate EU policy sets, ranging from financial regulation and fisheries management to transport infrastructure, agricultural rules, and fundamental freedoms of speech and religion. Any final accession agreement would require approval from all 27 current EU member states, followed by a second final public referendum in Iceland for final approval.
The single biggest sticking point in any future negotiations is almost certain to be Iceland’s fishing industry, which is not just the nation’s most valuable economic sector but a core part of its cultural identity as a descendant of Viking maritime communities. Iceland fought two hard-fought “Cod Wars” against the United Kingdom in the 1970s to secure full control over its exclusive economic zone and rich North Atlantic fishing grounds, and any deal that forces Iceland to open its waters to other EU fishing vessels under the bloc’s Common Fisheries Policy is widely seen as politically untenable.
Pro-EU officials insist they will not accept any deal that does not guarantee full Icelandic control over its fisheries. “We are a superpower when it comes to fisheries,” Gunnarsdóttir said. “We will not sign any agreement which will not underline our sovereignty and full control of our fisheries.” Heiðrun Lind Marteinsdóttir, CEO of the industry trade group Fisheries Iceland, says the sector does not oppose EU membership outright, but only if Iceland secures a permanent opt-out from the Common Fisheries Policy – a concession that has never been granted to any previous accession candidate. “I think we need to be very realistic on the negotiation process and what we can get out of the negotiations,” she said. “To be honest, I think, we’re aiming high.”
Still, many industry leaders remain skeptical that any protections for Icelandic fisheries would hold up over time, particularly for highly migratory open-ocean species such as herring, capelin, and mackerel that move freely between international fishing zones. “We are going to see European fishing vessels here in Iceland,” predicted Einar Sigurdsson, chairman of leading Icelandic fishing firm Isfelag.
