Reykjavík Grapevine - 11.10.2013, Blaðsíða 12

Hraunavinir aren't the only ones
standing up to The Man; as Parlia-
ment opened its autumn session,
protestors gathered in Austurvöl-
lur to demonstrate their dismay
with the men and women of the
ruling coalition. Specifically, it was
a response to what people see as the
shortcomings of the current govern-
ment: delayed help to households in
debt, the revoking of the Nature Pres-
ervation Law, and proposed cutbacks
to healthcare, education and the arts.

Even the birds have been acting out
lately. In particular, ravens in Svínadal
are making very clear their disagree-
ment with shiny things. In the past
year, ravens have removed an
estimated 500 reflective badges
from road signs in the Svínadal
area. A reported 150 more were
stolen just this past week. While the
Icelandic Road and Coastal Admin-
istration is busy fighting battles, the
avian vandals are waging a war.
And just when it seemed like all hope
was lost, the Festival of Hope came
to town! Only it was quickly apparent
that it was not going to bring very
much hope. The festival was met
with resistance when it came to light
that Franklin Graham, an outspoken
homophobic preacher, would be
headlining the event.
All in all, we think that the award for
most creative disruption of the festival
goes to Sigurbo#i Grétarsson, who
was asked to leave the Festival of
Hope after entering the event in
"corpse paint" with an incendiary
bible verse tacked onto the back
of his leather jacket. After stirring
up some mild controversy, Sigurbo!i
was escorted out, whereafter he
proceeded to go get a burger.
Maybe, amidst so much protest and
disruption, it’s best to adopt a motto
similar to Sigurbo!i: just say "to hell
with it" and go get a burger.
NEWS IN BRIEF
SEPTEMBER
Continued...
At the end of August, Minister of Foreign
Affairs Gunnar Bragi Sveinsson disbanded
Iceland’s negotiation committee to EU, effec-
tively halting our application after four years
of work to that end. Some, like chair of pro-
EU Social Democratic Party Árni Páll Árna-
son, claim that the minister was out of line
in arbitrarily discontinuing the negotiations
without consulting parliament, but Gunnar
Bragi has presented legal opinions from his
ministry that support his actions.
In any case, the government has
opened itself up to ridicule by single-
handedly deciding to break up Iceland’s
EU negotiation committee, as the rul-
ing coalition parties had advocated for
a referendum on the continuation of
the EU application when they were in
opposition. To discuss this contradic-
tory behaviour, and the implications
of the minister’s actions, we met with
Gunnar Helgi Kristjánsson, a profes-
sor of political science at the University
of Iceland.
What is Iceland’s EU application
debate, in a nutshell?
I think the EU dispute is not simply
about what domestic markets will look
like in the future, but fundamentally
about what Iceland’s foreign policy
should be. It is about where we want to
be in the world, what kind of society we
want, and who we want to work with.
I think it is safe to say that this gov-
ernment is, generally speaking, more
nationalistic than the previous gov-
ernment in believing that Iceland is
too unique of a country to fit into the
mould of the European Union. The
previous coalition parties may not have
agreed on whether or not Iceland’s in-
terests ultimately coincided with that
of the EU, but they were both interested
in completing the application and see-
ing what kind of offer would come out
of it.
It is obvious that the current gov-
ernment wants to distance itself from
the application, and build Iceland’s for-
eign policy on different foundations,
such as the European Economic Area
agreement that Iceland is a part of, and
other future bilateral agreements.
Taking The High Road
The foreign minister decided,
without including parliament, to
disband the negotiation commit-
tee. Are foreign affairs typically
handled this way in Iceland?
It is important to note that foreign af-
fairs are treated differently than do-
mestic ones. The general principles of
statecraft dictate that many qualities
that are considered good in domes-
tic governance, such as transparency,
have no place in foreign affairs. There
are simply different rules in play when
dealing with uncooperative foreign ne-
gotiators, or delicate situations. This
is why the executive branch has more
leeway to shape its foreign policy and
make decisions than with domestic
matters.
The foreign minister is correct in
that he acted within his legal param-
eters when he disbanded the com-
mittee, but he has not answered how
legitimate his decision was. He would
have proved he had support for doing
this if he had put it up for a vote in par-
liament, and I personally believe that
it would have been the wiser course of
action to take.
Wouldn’t the government have
had a breeze passing such a bill
through parliament?
Indeed, as the coalition has a guaran-
teed majority. Armed with this knowl-
edge, one has to wonder why the for-
eign minister didn’t proceed in this
manner. We can safely estimate from
polls that the majority of the popula-
tion wants to see the outcome of the
application, even if they are doubtful
it will lead to us joining the EU. The
minster acting like he did, it looks like
he’s afraid of the ensuing debate that
would follow a parliamentary vote, and
of having to defend going against the
preference of the general populace.
That is the only explanation I can think
of for bypassing parliament.
What Does It Mean?
Can the opposition do anything
to stop what the foreign minis-
ter has done?
Essentially, no. Putting forward a mo-
tion of no confidence against the min-
ister would be impractical, as failing to
get that passed would result in declar-
ing confidence in the foreign minister
and his actions.
What about disgruntled citizens,
can they oppose the process in
any way?
They have no way of doing so outside
the normal rules of the democratic
process. In between elections, citizens
can hold protests, voice their opinions
online, collect signatures, and demand
referendums. They can then punish
the government for their actions in the
next elections, but that’s only if they
remember to do so... Evidence points
to voters having a very short attention
span.
What consequences, if any, can
Icelanders expect from halting
their EU application?
I think the general goodwill that Ice-
land has had may suffer if we tell the
EU that we are no longer interested in
joining it. Our withdrawal may indi-
rectly have a negative effect on issues
such as the current mackerel dispute
[The EU’s fisheries chief is deciding
whether to impose harsh importa-
tion sanctions on Iceland because of a
long-standing debate over quotas], but I
doubt we will face direct consequences
or punitive measures for halting the
application.
Iceland Gets Cold Feet
Professor Gunnar Helgi Kristjánsson
on our commitment issues with the EU
— By Tómas Gabríel Benjamin
12The Reykjavík Grapevine Issue 16 — 2013
Book online www.bustravel.is or call +354 511 2600
GRAND GOLDEN CIRCLE
GOLDEN CIRCLE Afternoon
GLACIER LAGOON
SOUTH COAST - VIK
BLUE LAGOON Schedule
EXCITING DAY TOURS - BEAUTIFUL PLACES
More Iceland for less money
Politics | The EU
Nanna Dís