To join, or not to join?: That is the question! Within this paper I will try to find out if Iceland would, indeed, be better off “staying out of the European Union”, as Iceland’s Minister of Finance Steingrímur J. Sigfússon stated (WSJ Europe 05.05.2011), or joining in, as Iceland’s Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir favours. I will first have a look at the current - economic - situation of the island nation (in context with its latest developments), leaving the detailed examination of the accession controversy for the main part. There, I will analyse the potential advantages and disadvantages that would arise for Iceland with the EU-membership.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The Current Situation
3. Pros & Cons for Iceland joining the European Union
4. Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This paper examines the complex economic and political arguments surrounding Iceland's potential accession to the European Union, specifically evaluating the cost-benefit landscape following the 2008 global financial crisis.
- Analysis of Iceland's economic structure and reliance on the fishing industry.
- Evaluation of the impact of the 2008 financial crisis on the Icelandic economy.
- Assessment of sovereignty concerns and the role of national ideology.
- Comparison of pro-EU arguments (stability, investment) versus contra-arguments (fisheries policy, loss of independence).
Excerpt from the Book
The Pros and Cons for Iceland joining the EU
These are the words that Iceland’s Minister of Foreign Affairs used to welcome the opening of Iceland’s membership negotiations with the EU, simultaneously claiming “to belong” – a view, that has been traditionally unthinkable for the fiercely independent island’s political elites (Kaute, 2010: 4) and that is actually still not exactly shared by everybody. Having already established the circumstances of Icelandic potentates’ shift of mind and the existence of controversy on EU membership in general, I will try to examine the main pro- and contra arguments, which are commonly used by politicians and economists, within this part. I will first give a short overview of the opinions and explain them afterwards in detail.
As we can see, the discussion turns out to be a little deeper than a simple, economic cost-benefit analysis and more of a classical conflict of freedom versus equity: On the one hand Icelanders fear to be left out from the European community (’s benefits), while on the other hand they are bothered by the perspective of giving up their independence.
The question of sovereignty itself is very special to Iceland: Because of its historical struggle for independence, the country developed some kind of nationalistic ideology that gives “predominance to the sovereignty of a nation as a whole” (Bergmann, 2009: 205), thus holding back Iceland from pooling its power with others, by formally joining supra-national unions. Nevertheless, this kind of patriotism did not restrained the country from joining the EEA and embracing about 80% of EU laws through it, while having limited possibilities of influencing the union’s administrative process (Thorhallsson, 2002: 349).
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the research question regarding whether Iceland should remain outside the European Union or pursue membership, introducing the contrasting political perspectives within the nation.
2. The Current Situation: Provides a comprehensive overview of Iceland's economic history, its geographic characteristics, and the severe impact of the 2008 financial crisis on its domestic prosperity.
3. Pros & Cons for Iceland joining the European Union: Examines the primary arguments concerning sovereignty, fishing industry regulations, and economic stability that define the national debate on EU integration.
4. Conclusion: Summarizes that there is no objective answer to the accession question, as benefits and drawbacks affect different social and economic groups in varied ways.
Keywords
Iceland, European Union, EU accession, Sovereignty, Fishing industry, Common Fisheries Policy, Economic crisis, Icelandic Krona, European Economic Area, Macroeconomics, Political independence, Trade agreements, Gross Domestic Product, Financial stability, Integration.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this paper?
The paper investigates the ongoing political and economic debate regarding whether Iceland should become a member of the European Union.
What are the primary thematic areas covered?
The themes include the historical economic development of Iceland, the impact of the 2008 financial crisis, the role of the fishing industry in domestic politics, and the conceptual conflict between national sovereignty and international integration.
What is the central research question?
The core question is whether Iceland would be better off staying outside the EU or pursuing full membership, evaluated through a cost-benefit lens.
Which methodology is employed in this research?
The author utilizes a qualitative analytical approach, reviewing existing literature, political statements, and economic data to synthesize the arguments for and against EU membership.
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The main body covers the economic history of the country, the challenges posed by the global financial crisis, and an in-depth exploration of the pros and cons, including fisheries policy and the potential adoption of the Euro.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include European Union, Iceland, Sovereignty, Fisheries, Financial Crisis, Economic integration, and EEA.
How does the author view the concept of sovereignty in the Icelandic context?
The author notes that Iceland's history of independence has fostered a strong nationalistic ideology, which complicates the idea of joining a supra-national entity despite Iceland already participating in much of the EU legal framework via the EEA.
What specific role does the fishing industry play in the accession debate?
The fishing industry is identified as a critical factor; because the industry is vital to Iceland's GDP and exports, there is significant concern that EU regulations, specifically the Common Fisheries Policy, could harm national interests.
Why was the 2008 financial crisis a turning point for this discussion?
The crisis highlighted the vulnerabilities of the Icelandic economy, leading to a re-evaluation of the costs and benefits of membership, including the potential for a more stable currency compared to the volatile Icelandic Krona.
What is the author's final verdict?
The author concludes that there is no single "correct" answer, as the impact of joining or staying out is subjective and depends heavily on the specific business or individual perspective being considered.
- Quote paper
- Arina T (Author), 2011, Should Iceland join the European Union?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/190054
