The importance of fish in European negotiations. The referendum in Iceland

Brussels. Marta Kos, the Commissioner for Enlargement, has hung a large chart in her office showing the intersection between the countries applying for EU membership and the negotiation chapters that must be opened and closed in order for them to actually join. In addition to Ukraine, Moldova and the countries of the Western Balkans, one of the columns is reserved for Iceland, which is holding a referendum today to decide whether to resume accession negotiations with the EU.

The Commission has kept its distance from the election campaign. “It is a decision for the Icelandic people. We are waiting to hear the results,” said a Commission spokesperson on Thursday. But Iceland’s presence on the Kos scoreboard shows just how much the EU values its accession. President Ursula von der Leyen, who is due to visit Greenland on 6 and 7 September, is set to stop off in Reykjavík to celebrate the resumption of Iceland’s path towards the EU. A ‘yes’ vote would confirm that the EU remains a magnet in a world dominated by brutal leaders such as Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. However, the EU’s aspirations and political narrative risk clashing with the will of the Icelandic people. In a highly uncertain vote, the latest poll published on Thursday by Gallup shows a reversal in the trend: after a campaign marked by a slight lead for the ‘yes’ camp, the ‘no’ camp has taken the lead with 51.6 per cent. Having to negotiate with the EU over fish could be more frightening than Trump.

Iceland’s application for EU membership was submitted on 16 July 2009, at the height of the financial crisis that subsequently engulfed the island’s banks as well. Formal negotiations began a year later. By the end of 2012, 27 of the 35 negotiating chapters had already been opened. Eleven had been concluded in record time. As a member of the European Economic Area, obliged to align itself with much of the EU’s legislation in order to gain access to the single market, Iceland was making rapid progress. That was until a change of government in 2013 led to the suspension of negotiations with Brussels. The current coalition government – comprising the Social Democratic Alliance (Samfylkingin), the Liberal Party (Viðreisn) and the centre-left People’s Party (Flokkur fólksins) – has decided, in the face of Trump’s threats regarding Greenland, to bring forward the referendum on the EU promised in its government programme. A founding member of NATO, Iceland has no standing army and its security depends on the protection of the Alliance, primarily the United States. Unlike the other candidates, Iceland is a country that does not pose any serious problems. “Already part of the single market, it could conclude accession negotiations within one or two years,” Kos explained in a speech in Croatia this week. Iceland is also a member of the Schengen Area. However, fishing accounts for 40 per cent of exports and around 8 per cent of GDP. It is a politically explosive issue, which had already been decisive in the decision to suspend negotiations with the EU in 2013. In the final days of the referendum campaign, fish has once again taken centre stage in the debate and controversy.

During negotiations on the latest package of sanctions against Russia, the High Representative, Kaja Kallas, expressed surprise that “fish carries such geopolitical significance”. Germany and Portugal had just vetoed the ban on imports of Alaskan pollock and Russian cod so as not to jeopardise German fish-finger production and the Portuguese national dish “bacalhau”. The Brexit negotiations were on the verge of collapsing over fishing, with Boris Johnson threatening to send the Royal Navy to block the English Channel, whilst Emmanuel Macron demanded that French fishermen retain access to Britain’s rich waters. Ministers and officials are still spending entire nights in Brussels negotiating each country’s fishing quotas. With Iceland, the Commission has signalled a thaw, suggesting it is prepared to make concessions on the Common Fisheries Policy. But the promise of an exception in the name of ‘fish geopolitics’ may not be enough today.