Iceland EU fisheries could become the decisive test of Reykjavík’s renewed European debate, as the country prepares for an August referendum on whether to reopen accession talks with the European Union.
Stefán Haukur Jóhannesson, Iceland’s ambassador in Brussels and former chief negotiator in the country’s EU accession talks between 2009 and 2013, says Iceland’s negotiating position may now be stronger than it was more than a decade ago. Speaking on RÚV’s political programme Silfrið, he argued that Iceland’s specific geography, fishing model and existing integration with EU law could support a special fisheries arrangement if talks resume.
Iceland’s EU talks would start from an unusually advanced position
Iceland is not starting from outside the European framework. Through the European Economic Area (EEA), Reykjavík has already adopted a large part of EU legislation, while remaining outside the Union’s political institutions, customs union, Common Agricultural Policy and Common Fisheries Policy.
Jóhannesson said Iceland has already implemented EU law “in all or large part” in 21 or 22 of the 35 negotiation chapters used in accession talks. During the previous talks, Iceland had closed 11 chapters, opened 16 more, submitted negotiating positions on four others and left four unopened.
That does not mean the old talks could simply be resumed where they stopped. EU law and Icelandic law would need to be compared again, and previously closed chapters would likely have to be reviewed. But the former negotiator’s point is that Iceland’s administrative and legal starting point remains very different from that of many candidate countries.
In practical terms, the hardest questions would not be technical alignment with EU rules. They would be political: fisheries, agriculture, currency, regional policy and the customs union.
Why Iceland EU fisheries are different from most accession cases
Fisheries are expected to be the most sensitive part of any new talks. For Iceland, control over marine resources is both an economic priority and a core political issue. For the EU, fisheries are regulated through the Common Fisheries Policy, which manages access, quotas and sustainability rules across member states.
Jóhannesson’s argument is that Iceland’s case is structurally different from that of EU coastal states. The exclusive economic zones of many EU countries border each other, requiring a shared system to manage stocks that move across waters. Iceland’s exclusive economic zone is geographically separate from those of EU member states.
According to Jóhannesson, around 70% of the catch value around Iceland comes from local stocks that do not leave Icelandic waters. Iceland has been the only country fishing those stocks in recent decades. On that basis, he argues that no EU member state would have a historical claim to fishing rights over them.
This is the basis for the case for a permanent or tailored fisheries exemption. The EU has previously negotiated temporary and permanent special arrangements with new member states. Jóhannesson said that during the 2009–2013 talks, Icelandic negotiators believed they had a convincing case that “it was logical to negotiate a special solution for Iceland.”
A two-step referendum before any EU membership decision
The debate is now moving toward voters. Iceland’s parliament has approved a referendum for 29 August 2026 on whether to resume EU accession negotiations. The vote will not decide EU membership itself. If voters say yes, Reykjavík would reopen talks. Any final accession treaty would then require a second referendum.
That two-step structure matters politically. It allows voters to separate the question of whether Iceland should know the terms of membership from the separate question of whether it should join the EU.
Foreign Minister Þorgerður Katrín Gunnarsdóttir has said Iceland could move quickly if talks restart, while also identifying fisheries and agriculture as the toughest issues. Jóhannesson said it is difficult to predict the timeline, but noted that government expectations appear to point to substantive talks lasting 18 to 24 months, depending on how smoothly special arrangements can be negotiated.
Brussels may be more open than in 2009
Jóhannesson also believes Iceland may now face a more favourable political environment in Brussels. He said there is “great goodwill” toward Iceland among EU officials and colleagues, and that the country’s negotiating position is in many ways better than it was during the previous accession process.
The broader context has changed. Iceland’s EU debate is no longer shaped only by the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. It now takes place against a backdrop of Russia’s war in Ukraine, rising security concerns in the North Atlantic, economic pressure and renewed discussion about the geopolitical role of small European countries.
For the EU, Iceland would bring strategic weight in the North Atlantic and the Arctic. For Iceland, membership could offer a direct voice in rules it already applies through the EEA. The central question is whether Reykjavík can secure enough protection for fisheries and other sensitive sectors to make accession politically viable at home.
The coming campaign is therefore likely to focus less on abstract ideas of Europe and more on concrete terms: who controls Iceland’s fish stocks, how much flexibility Brussels is ready to grant, and whether a small Nordic country can turn its unique position into a unique deal.
