Reykjavík Grapevine - 11.10.2013, Page 12

Reykjavík Grapevine - 11.10.2013, Page 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

x

Reykjavík Grapevine

Direct Links

If you want to link to this newspaper/magazine, please use these links:

Link to this newspaper/magazine: Reykjavík Grapevine
https://timarit.is/publication/943

Link to this issue:

Link to this page:

Link to this article:

Please do not link directly to images or PDFs on Timarit.is as such URLs may change without warning. Please use the URLs provided above for linking to the website.