Iceland review - 2014, Side 69

ICELAND REVIEW 67
street outside? various explanations have been posited, and here
three hypotheses will be discussed, none of which entirely rules
out the others.
The first hypothesis is that this was just a mistake born out
of impatience. The government for all intents and purposes
just wanted the europe issue off its horizon. This is difficult to
believe, especially in light of the fact that the issue and events that
have followed have in many ways become a serious political and
personal trauma for the government leaders, first and foremost
the independence party leader, Bjarni Benediktsson, the Minister
of Finance. Bjarni’s position is all the more sensitive due to sus-
picions that people other than himself have been dictating the
government’s course.
The second hypothesis is that the government wanted to show
singular commitment and strength on the issue. it wanted to
keep the initiative and believed it was a good option to instigate
a controversial debate, among other things to draw attention to
this issue away from several others. This hypothesis is especially
invocative of the attitude of prime Minister Sigmundur davíð
Gunnlaugsson, leader of the progressive party. Some feel, how-
ever, that the issue and debate have cast a shadow over him and
shown him as a heavy-handed authoritarian and a bickerer, rather
than a young, progressive world leader.
The third hypothesis is that the government’s insiders in fisher-
ies and agriculture believed that a good and acceptable accession
treaty between iceland and the eu was looming on the horizon;
an accession treaty that would be likely to receive the backing of
a majority of voters in the country. As a direct result it was con-
sidered necessary to stop the issue at full stop, and as quickly as
possible. There has long been strong opposition to membership
in those two industries, and among their industry organizations/
unions. There has also been strong opposition in the two indus-
tries for details of the fisheries quota system and the agricultural
subsidies system to be opened up to scrutiny in any international
contract. Both industries’ leaders believe that that would limit
their ability to freely form their own opinions, plans and
actions in the future, and that would damage their long-held
landlord grip over the icelandic nation.
A Historic MistAke
if there is any truth at all to this last hypothesis, then this truly
is the most serious mistake these two powerful forces in soci-
ety have ever made. it is quite clear that the public will hear
about it, and the majority of the icelandic nation will never
forget or forgive. it will be a historic parting of ways, whereby
the icelandic people’s old automatic support of these two
industries on all levels will diminish and disappear. in short, a
landmark in the nation’s cultural history.
opinion polls have shown that a massive majority of
icelanders want the eu accession talks to carry on, and for
the accession treaty to be put forward as a bill which will then
be voted on in a referendum. This group also includes a large
proportion of government supporters. it has been notable
how many well-known supporters of the government have
taken part in the public protests. it is also of note how many
protesters have not made up their minds about eu member-
ship but want to publicly protest the government’s conduct
and emphasize that they want the opportunity to speak on the
issue in a referendum.
in the second week of March, heated parliamentary debate
on the issue started again. it is clearly not over by any means,
and many unexpected twists lie ahead. in all likelihood the
issue will be seen as a dramatic mistake by leaders and lobby-
ists. nobody yet knows the eventual outcome. *
The author is a former chairman of the Progressive Party,
government minister and director of the Central Bank.
“Why did the government choose the
option which would most likely stir up the
hardest criticism, society-wide debate and
protests on the street outside?”