Analysis
Definitely
no or maybe yes: what tipped the Icelandic referendum
Miranda
Bryant
in
Reykjavík
The no
campaign was well-funded and accused of scaremongering, but the wording of the
question may also have made a difference
Sun 30
Aug 2026 10.37 BST
It was
always going to be a close contest. But on the night, the figures showed just
how divided Iceland was on the issue of whether or not to restart negotiations
with the European Union.
After a
nail-biting overnight count, the well-funded no campaign rejoiced on Sunday
morning as the broadcaster RUV declared it the winner with about 52.8% of the
vote. Given the size of Iceland’s population – barely 400,000 – the margins
were tiny.
Opponents
had criticised the no campaign as fearmongering, its tactics compared by some
to those deployed by Brexit activists in the UK’s 2016 referendum. Its
depiction of fishing and farming, two issues inextricably tied to Icelandic
national identity, as threatened by EU membership were central to its success.
Results showed a big split between voters in the capital region and the rest of
the largely rural country, where among some there is a sense that national
identity is at risk of being forgotten.
But it
was perhaps also the question on the ballot paper that, despite the allure of a
closer relationship with Europe at a time of global volatility and an erratic
US president threatening Iceland’s larger neighbour, Greenland, helped the no
voters win the day.
The
question Icelanders were asked was “Should Iceland resume accession
negotiations with the European Union?”. A second referendum was to be held once
a deal had been reached. Iceland, it is important to note, is already a member
of the European Economic Area (EEA) and the Schengen passport-free travel area.
This
meant that a vote yes would have actually been a “yes, maybe”, whereas a no
vote was always a clearer, more decisive move. One of the “yes, maybe”
campaign’s slogans was “Já til að sjá” (“yes to see”), which felt vague in
comparison to the bullish claims of the no campaign. Among the “no” campaign’s
claims were that the EU would act as a “new superpower” over Iceland and that
it could turn the country into a “quota-free fishing village” where foreign
companies could invest in Iceland’s prized and highly valuable fishing
industry, putting fishing rights and profits in the hands of external parties.
At a yes
campaign party at Reykjavík Art Museum in the Icelandic capital’s downtown
area, at a point in the election night where yes seemed to have edged ahead,
Þòrir Snoor, a yes supporter, said: “The no side has done a lot of
fearmongering and done it very very well.”
While he
had a lot of peers who, like him, thought the euro could be the solution to the
country’s high inflation and high interest rates, the 25-year-old admitted: “A
lot of my friends have said they are scared of the European Union.”
Wearing a
blue EU cap, Snædis Inga Rúnarsdóttir, 30, agreed that the no campaign had been
louder – and better funded. She said she would have to make peace with a
potential win by no, but hit out at a swirl of misinformation around the
referendum.
/ Iceland’s foreign minister, Þorgerður Katrín Gunnarsdóttir,
had previously said she feared her country faced a “Brexit moment” amid
warnings over the potential influence of misinformation, foreign interference and AI in the referendum. Just before
midnight when votes were still being counted, she told the Guardian that
whatever the result, “at least Icelandic people have shown it was the right
thing to have a vote”.
Before
being ushered deeper on to the dancefloor, she added: “And what I like the most
is now foreign policy is, everything is, on the agenda.”
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário