In Iceland rn with Icelandic family- polling them and their reasoning for wanting to join the EU has ZERO to do with Putin/Russia/Ukraine etc and everything to do with gaining access to the Euro for economic stability and the fact that they already abide by EU rules/regs but don't have the ability to vote.
It's interesting to wonder what they'd gain from it. Given just the geographic distance, would it really affect things like trade, movement of people or security cooperation.
My understanding is that they're stable since the financial crisis.
"Stable since the last crisis" is not very convincing. In the EU they would enjoy lower interest rates, a more stable currency and voting rights. The last bit will help negotiations about trade a lot.
If you're going to adopt the Euro to get the benefits of improved trade with the rest of Europe, you might as well join its trading bloc and get votes on its regulatory bodies at the same time...
There are pros and cons to that. The euro isn't just about trade, it means your own government cannot manipulate currency (see the banking crisis) and may bring better interest rates.
I'll admit to skiphing section that discuss details that don't interest me but I did't find them.
in any case nothing is ideal anyway. The question is what set of pros and cons are the best compromise. That is something for the people of Iceland to answer not outsiders like me (and perhaps you)
I wonder if they could benefit from CO2 emission controls.
Iceland's energy is highly renewable (hydro, geothermal), and they have substantial potential for mineral carbonation of CO2. Mafic rocks like basalt, particularly with high olivine content, are close to the top for targets for conversion of CO2 to carbonates.
Iceland is already part of the EEA and through that, joined the EU Emission Trading System.
Carbfix, the company doing the mineralization stuff, is already receiving quite substantial funding via the EU Innovation Fund, which distributes ETS income to innovative climate technology projects.
Iceland could leverage geothermal energy to produce green forms of ammonia or hydrogen. Not a jackpot but strategically it is fairly inexpensive to leverage. The EU doesn't have a good alternative to cheap Russian gas at the moment. The price of natural gas in the EU is about five times the price than in the US.
Blunting the Common Fisheries Policy would be a significant benefit - they need to abide by as part of the EEA, but can't change decisions surrounding it.
Also opening EU funding opportunities for plenty of infra enhancements.
Iceland is part of the EEA, where you accept most the rules of the single market being sent over by a fax machine from Brussels.
But this excludes things such as farming and fishing, the latter of which has been very important for Iceland because the EU has never always got that right in a painful attempt to make all member states equally unhappy, and representation of where those rules are decided (Council, Parliament) or proposed (Commission).
Even outside the EEA, the size of the EU on the continent means European countries who want to do large amounts of frictional-less trading end up importing the EUs rules (e.g. Switzerland, post-Brexit UK) with no say on them.
Being inside offers more effective place to lobby and do horse-trading. Iceland is in position with rather specific interest so they could easily give up many things that don't really matter to them greatly for concessions from others.
Vero powers don't exist anymore on almost anything; but if you're vehemently opposed to something you have no chance to actually stop, it's better to be inside so you can trade your nominal opposition for something, anything.
If you know you're going to lose 10 no matter what, you might as well trade your opposition for something worth 2 or 3, so you lose less.
Vetoes are limited to very specific areas, and are often bypassed already even in those areas (because most practical decisions are actually not taken by the organisms where vetoes exist). Even the Hungarian government, which has stretched the interpretation of such definitions to the most awkward limit over the last decades, in practice falls in line pretty much all the time, using it as a bargain chip to ensure this or that subsidy keeps flowing. It's a desperate strategy anyway: like the Visegrad bloc's actions effectively prompted reforms to reduce their leverage, so will Hungary bring about new ways to further diminish even the current simulacra of veto.
By joining the EU they have voting power and influence over their own destiny which they lack under those agreements. Currently they must accept EU rules without being able to influence them.
You might be confusing this with the Switzerland situation. The EEA states (Norway, Lichtenstein, and Iceland) indeed must take all legislation that’s part of the EEA into their domestic law. Sometimes directives and regulations have cave outs for countries but they’re rare.
Implementation is overseen by the EFTA Surveillance Authority who can sue members in the EFTA court.
Influence on the rules that they are practically forced to follow. Like Norway Iceland has plenty of agreements with the EU, but that translate to copying EU regulations as if they where an EU country already, except they have no say in the making of those rules.
