‘A modern-day Icelandic saga’: Political places and negotiating spaces at the northern frontier of ‘EUrope’

Abstract

In this paper we explore the current politico-economic tensions surrounding Iceland’s application for EU membership provoked by the state’s financial trauma of 2008. Through access to high level diplomats, politicians and EU Commission staff involved in preparing and negotiating Icelandic accession to the EU, we examine the difficulties for both sides of overcoming the country’s long-standing antipathy towards European political integration and appeasing the vociferous sectoral interests, especially in farming and fisheries, ranged against membership. The significance of this application far outstrips the size of this small island state since Iceland’s relationship with ‘EUrope’ is long-standing and complex. This national drama is given greater political salience as it is projected against the backdrop of ‘EUrope’s own existential struggles over the post-1945 political project of integration currently underway. Ultimately the saga of Iceland’s membership of the EU may be a relatively short one if Iceland refuses ‘EUrope’, which would effectively mark the final frontier of ‘EUropean’ expansion northwards. This would also mark a distinct stage in the history of ‘European ‘external relations; a candid assessment by a small island state of the value of adopting the structures and policies of an alleged ‘New ‘EUrope’.

Globalization, economic development, and corruption: A cross-lagged contingency perspective

“…With regards to Greece, Westaway ( 2012 ) provides a compelling historical account of the country’s economic challenges following its integration into the European Union (EU), noting that pressures for economic austerity policies – themselves strongly motivated by EU competitive considerations vis-à-vis globalization – were antithetical to the country’s culture of patronage and populism. Iceland experienced a similar trajectory: its application to the EU in 2009 – later withdrawn in 2013 – required Iceland to repay its debts to the UK and the Netherlands, and to implement structural changes to align Iceland’s economy with, among others, the EU’s burdensome capital movement restrictions or the imposition of quotas in the fishing industry, one of the main sources of Iceland’s wealth (Jones & Clark, 2013 ).…”

(Dis‐)ordering the state: territory in Icelandic statecraft

“…‘Maritime Iceland’ allowed the relational state to cohere around fisheries, political autonomy and prosperity, allowing mobilisation by political factions with radically different beliefs. For opponents of EU membership, it offered the means to slow or to stall discussions with the European Commission, by placing strenuous demands during prenegotiations over fisheries (Jones and Clark ). By contrast for EU proponents, if independent management of the EEZ was secured in prenegotiations, ‘Maritime Iceland’ would act as a bridge to EUropean shelter.…”

Europe and an inter-dependent world: Uneven geo-economic and geo-political developments

“…The ENP is at the core of these relations and provides the focus for Casas-Cortes et al (2013) and Bialasiewicz et al’s (2013) contributions to this special issue. However, these frameworks also embody an entanglement of geo-political and geo-economic relations, as do negotiations over potential Icelandic membership of the EU (Jones and Clarke, 2013). This entanglement is witnessed starkly in the disjuncture between constrained labour migration and the management of EU borders and illegal migration (particularly from Africa), while capital and goods flow relatively easily across Mediterranean space.…”

“…In different ways, Jones and Clark (2013) highlight the intermingling of the geo-economic with the geo-political in relation to the EU’s negotiations with Iceland over prospective accession to the EU. The paper raises critical questions in relation to the potential northern extension of the boundaries of the EU as it relates to the redefinition of the European project.…”

“…The paper raises critical questions in relation to the potential northern extension of the boundaries of the EU as it relates to the redefinition of the European project. Jones and Clark (2013) highlight the critical element of the financial crisis and its devastating impacts in Iceland as a motivating force in the initiation of negotiations (see also Benediktsson and Karlsdóttir, 2011; Wade and Sigurgeirsdottir, 2010). Despite the dominance of financial collapse in Iceland, fisheries and agriculture remain the critical elements – and potential stumbling blocks – of negotiations with the EU as ‘Icelandic interests’ (to the extent that there singular identifiable interests) are unable to meet the requirements of EU membership and integration into the Single Market; not least given the reverberations of the financial crisis in how economic elites and the general populace perceive the ability of political elites to ensure the interests of the state and economy.…”