Reykjavík Grapevine - 18.06.2010, Blaðsíða 31

Styrmir Gunnarson has been at the fore-
front of the Icelandic political landscape
for nearly half a century, including 36
years as editor of the daily newspaper
Morgunblaðið, which has strong ties to
the political right in Iceland. As editor
of this formerly most influential medium
in Iceland, Stymir has been in a unique
position to observe and even shape the
political discourse in this country.

Since retiring his editorial chops in 2008,
Styrmir has been taken a very active part in
the local discourse. Among other things, he
has published two books, one documenting
the collapse of the Icelandic banks (‘The
Siege’), and another detailing his take on the
findings of the Special Investigation Com-
mittee’s report. He is also an active member
of the organisation Heimssýn, “Iceland's ‘No
to EU’ movement, [whose] members agree
that Iceland's interests are best served as an
independent country outside the European
Union.
Founded in 2002 as a cross-political or-
ganisation, Heimssýn's goal has remained
the same: to keep Iceland outside the EU”
(we stole this description off their website).
By your definition what is the EU and
what does it do?
The European Union, in my point of view, was
formed to prevent further wars on the Euro-
pean continent, after two world wars in the
Twentieth century, and many wars in former
centuries. That’s why it came into being. It is
a peace-keeping organisation.
Why do you oppose Iceland joining the
EU?
I am not against the EU itself. I think it is
an important organisation. However, I don’t
think it is in the interest of the Icelandic na-
tion to become a member of the European
Union. I think it is in the interest of the Icelan-
dic nation to keep its independence, which it
fought for many centuries, and to keep con-
trol of its natural resources, which we would
lose if we became members of the EU.
In what way would Iceland lose control
of its independence and natural re-
sources?
For instance, our fishing grounds would be-
come common grounds of the EU. The EU
states that we would not be in any danger
and foreign trawlers would not come back
into Icelandic waters because of the rule of
relative stability, but the EU itself published a
Greenbook in early 2009 in which they them-
selves state that the rule of relative stability
can longer protect fishing grounds from the
intrusion of other nations.
Why do you think EU proponents want
Iceland to join?
Because they don’t believe that we, as a very
small nation, can go it alone. They think, and
have thought for a long time, that we should
be part of the European community, espe-
cially so after the fall of the Icelandic banks.
They think that we cannot go it alone. They
think we have to be part of a bigger com-
munity than the Icelandic nation itself. That
is the main reason they want to become a
member of the Union.
What do you think appeals to them about
the EU?
I think what appeals to them is the same
thing that appeals to a lot of people. From
my point of view, the EU is a wonderful and
noble idea. It’s nice to see the countries on
the continent of Europe that fought between
themselves for so many centuries living in
peace and quiet amongst themselves. But
that is different from our national interests in
Iceland. Iceland has never participated in any
war on the European continent. It has noth-
ing to do with us.
do you think there is no threat of conflict
posed to Iceland, based on precedent?
Of course, there could be a threat, but I do
not think this is a primary concern to the na-
tion.
Many EU proponents we have spoken to
say that opposition to joining is based on
misunderstanding of the Union, or pro-
tection of old power interests. How do
you respond to this?
It’s an absurd argument to say it’s protec-
tion of old power interests. I must say, I have
never heard that argument before you men-
tioned it now. It’s not an argument that has
been used in discussions here in Iceland, so
that’s an absurd argument. The old power
interests simply disappeared with the fall of
the banks. The question of misunderstand-
ing the European Union is simply wrong. I
think I completely understand what the EU
is about and as I’ve said before it’s a positive
thing, but it is not something in our interest
here in Iceland, as a small nation on this is-
land in the North Atlantic.
The Reykjavík Grapevine
Issue 08 — 2010
19
FOCUS ON THE EU
REBECCA LOUdER
jULIA STAPLES
own laws. There is a chance that joining the
European Union and collaborating with other
EU nations could influence the Icelandic so-
ciety and effectively decrease corruption.
THE EU dIdN'T STANd BY ICELANd IN
THE ICESAvE NEGOTIATIONS!
Many Icelanders blame the EU for not sup-
porting Iceland in its fight against the Neth-
erlands and the UK and their “unreasonable
demands for reimbursements for their losses
in the financial crisis,” Political Science
Professor Hannes Hólmsteinn Gissurarson
phrases it.
But how could it? There seem to be peo-
ple out there who still haven't understood the
idea behind the EU. It stands by its members,
even if they are not always right about ev-
erything. And not even Iceland's “friends,”
the Nordic states, supported Iceland in this
fight. “These countries stand together when
it comes to such matters. We are left on our
own, stranded in the North Atlantic,” Bal-
dur Þórhallsson tells us. His conclusion may
sound quite horrible, but there is some truth
in it as long as Iceland doesn't become a
member of the club.
ICELANd WOULd SACRIFICE ITS AGRI-
CULTURE!
Not necessarily. It seems to be a common
fear that by joining the EU, prices of farm
products on the Icelandic market will drop
and everyone will run out to buy Dutch
tomatoes instead of the good old Icelan-
dic ones. There is certainly some truth
in that, people like cheap goods. On the
other hand, however, the EU offers
great opportunities for farm-
ers, like special subsidies
for Northern European
countries, which might
in the end improve con-
ditions for Icelandic farm-
ers.
jOINING THE EU WON'T
MAKE ICELANd'S
ECONOMIC SITUA-
TION ANY BETTER!
True, but it might help avoiding the next
crash, or as Benedikt Jóhannesson, CEO of
publishing company Heimur, puts it: “You
will not grow thin by eating one apple, but
eating apples is still better for you than de-
vouring hamburgers.”
Adopting Euro would stabilise Iceland’s
economy, and thus help Iceland get the for-
eign investors back that would otherwise
probably not take the risk of investing in this
country again. Or, as Baldur Þórhallsson puts
it, “we will simply be stuck in the mess and
forever remain second-class citizens in Eu-
rope.”
This statement shouldn’t surprise you if
you compare the Icelandic living standard to
other European countries: The interest rates
are extremely high, properties have been de-
valued by half, wages have been halved and
at the same time, food prices are very high
in comparison with other European nations.
And they are constantly rising. How is an
Icelandic family ever going to have the same
standard of living as, say, a Swedish one?
They can't buy a house because the in-
terest rates on their mortgages are too high,
their wages too low and because they have
to spend the little money they have on the
far too expensive food in order to somehow
keep their kids alive? Alright, I admit that
goes a little bit too far but the point is clear:
I believe that without adopting the Euro, Ice-
landic households are never going to reach
the same living standard as their European
neighbours.
ICELANdIC WATERS WILL BE OvER-
FISHEd!
This concern is actually the most understand-
able one. If Iceland joins the EU, it might lose
the control over its waters. According to the
rule of “relative stability,” access rights and
catches are currently allocated on the basis
of historical catch records, which means Ice-
landic waters wouldn't be in danger of being
overfished by European trawlers, as many
Icelanders are afraid of.
The EU has discussed amending this
rule, however, allowing for fishing rights to
be traded between nations. The rule of “rela-
tive stability” does therefore not stand on
safe grounds.
However, according to Baldur Þórhalls-
son, it is likely that Iceland can make a deal
with Brussels concerning fisheries. For ex-
ample, Finland remains in control over the
nation’s timber industry.
Thus, the question is: why are some Ice-
landers still terrified of losing the control
over their waters if they haven't even
tried negotiating?
Might be there is a
slight influence coming
from the local fishery
interest group, LÍÚ. Bal-
dur Þórhallsson states
that “powerful inter-
est groups like the
agricultural and
fishing ones, have
been able and are
still able to lay
out the regulation
framework for their
own industries.”
Why would they
want to give
their power to
some institution in Belgium?
There is certainly a danger of Icelandic
waters getting overfished but as long as no
Icelandic politician has tried to negotiate a
special agreement with the EU, worrying
about it is useless.
ICELANd WILL LOSE ITS AUTONOMY!
Actually, Iceland would gain autonomy. As
member of the EEA, Iceland implements
all the laws of the common market, except
for the agreements on fisheries, agriculture
and regional policy. That is, the majority of
Icelandic laws are already decided upon in
Brussels, but Iceland has no influence on
making them. According to Baldur, this is
“extremely undemocratic.” By joining the EU,
Iceland could gain this influence and thus
more autonomy.
lined up some key talking points of the EU
debate, and then she tried her hand at re-
sponding to them, using her helpers’ handy
quotes and thoughts to build on. What fol-
lows is a sort of opinion piece backed by
quotes from interviews, which details So-
phia’s findings on the subject. It is in favour
of the EU, and should be read keeping that in
mind. It’s also real fun. Take it away, Sophia!
According to a recent opinion poll by MMR,
57% of Icelanders are in favour of their na-
tion withdrawing its application to join the
EU. Coming from a EU-country. I wonder why
that is. What follows are some of the most
frequently pronounced fears Icelanders
seem to have towards joining the EU, and a
EU-citizens attempt at responding to them,
with the help of some local opinion-makers.
ICELANd IS TOO SMALL A COUNTRY TO
HAvE A SAY IN EUROPEAN POLITICS!
It is true, Iceland is a small country and there
are big countries in Europe that pay lots of
money to the EU and have a big influence on
its politics. Germany and France, for instance.
But as Baldur Þórhallsson, professor of Politi-
cal Science at the University of Iceland—who
has done some excellent research in the field
of small countries within the EU—told me:
“Small states are doing quite well within the
EU. Of course they don't get everything they
want from the membership, but most politi-
cians in these small states have been of the
opinion that the EU-membership has served
the states' interests.”
Baldur emphasises that most decisions
made within the European Council and the
EU are taken unanimously, which according
to him indicates that “EU decision-making is
about solidarity,” and not about ousting small
nations or working against their interests.
ICELANd dOESN'T NEEd THE EU!
This argument is as wrong as can
be, as far as I can tell. Iceland
needs a powerful ally, because
otherwise no one will come to
the rescue when the Taliban blow
up Vatnajökull or when wicked
citizens of evil countries like Britain
or the Netherlands come to claim their
money?
As Baldur Þórhallsson puts it:
“All small states need an ally.”
Now, you might try to argue that this ally
needn’t necessarily be the European Union.
But then, who else? The United States, who
ditched Iceland as soon as ceased to be stra-
tegically important? Or, as some have pro-
posed, the kingdom of Norway, with its pop-
ulation of 4,8 million and an army of 16.000?
If this is the ally Icelanders want, they might
as well go back to their dark past as part of
Denmark.
Iceland needs economic partners, and
since 83% of its exports go to EEA (European
Economic Area) countries and 65% of its im-
ports come from EEA countries, wouldn’t it
make sense to join them in a union?
In our conversation, Baldur also told me
of another problem Iceland has, namely the
“widespread corruption within ministries and
governmental institutions, where relatives
and friends or party members are hired over
of qualified people.” He argues that there are
powerful interest groups (for example in the
financial and fishing sectors) that make their
A Noble Idea, That’s Not Quite Suitable For Iceland
Former Morgunblaðið Editor
Styrmir Gunnarsson on why
Iceland should not join the EU
Feature | The European Union