Iceland Says No: The Role of Fisheries in the EU Referendum

On 29 August 2026, Icelanders rejected a proposal to resume talks on joining the European Union (“EU”) 13 years after they were broken off, with 52.8% voting against and 47.2% in favour. While the referendum debate covered a range of economic and political issues, one subject was particularly prominent throughout: fishing. The result of the referendum on whether to resume negotiations on European Union membership provides a timely reminder that, for fishing nations, fisheries policy is about far more than the management of fish stocks.

Background

Iceland began its application to join the EU in 2009 in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. The application to join was advancing well before talks were put on hold following a change of government in 2013. The major talking point around accession to the EU previously was fishing rights – as they remain today.

The EU debate in Iceland gained traction again due to the recent geopolitical movement around Arctic countries. Iceland, whilst a NATO member, does not have a military of its own, and depends heavily on its allies for defence. The Icelandic government submitted that closer ties with Europe could provide Iceland with greater protection and strengthen its position amid the growing tensions in the region.

Why fishing mattered

Fisheries were not one issue among several in this campaign. They were, by most accounts, the issue. Fisheries are deeply connected with Iceland’s economy, national identity and sovereignty. Iceland currently remains outside the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy. Fish and marine industries account for almost 40% of Iceland's exports, and many No voters were worried that under the EU's Common Fisheries Policy they could cede some control of their lucrative fishing grounds. The industry warned throughout the campaign that the Common Fisheries Policy would open the door to foreign takeovers of Icelandic fishing firms and let large fleets from Spain and the Netherlands into waters the country has controlled since the Cod Wars of the 1970s.

EU Common Fisheries Policy

The EU Common Fisheries Policy is essentially the EU’s common framework for managing fishing and fisheries across EU Member States. Its purpose is to ensure that fish stocks are managed sustainably while also supporting the economic and social interests of fishing communities. If Iceland were to become an EU Member State, its fisheries would therefore have to operate within the EU’s Common Fisheries Framework, subject to whatever arrangements were ultimately negotiated. Therefore, the cause for concern for No voters was in relation to who would have ultimate influence over the management and allocation of Iceland’s fishing opportunities and marine resources.

Conclusion

A Yes vote would not have been a final decision on joining the EU but would have meant a move towards an accession agreement which would then have been decided in a second referendum. Equally, the No vote does not rule out the chance of Iceland resuming talks at some point in the future. However, Icelandic Prime Minister Kristrun Frostadottir, who backed the "Yes" campaign, confirmed that her government was "not going forward with the accession talks this term", but that it would continue ⁠to strengthen ⁠its relationship with the European Economic Area.

What is particularly interesting about the referendum is that it demonstrates how fisheries can become part of a much wider geopolitical discussion. In the North Atlantic and Arctic, where geopolitical interest is increasing, control of marine resources is becoming ever more significant. There are clear parallels for other fishing nations, including the UK. The referendum also demonstrates that fishing is about much more than an economic sector. For the people and communities who depend on it, fishing is closely tied to livelihoods, identity and national interests and Iceland’s result is a clear indication of just how important those issues remain. The influence of fisheries extends well beyond the industry itself, reaching into questions of sovereignty, politics and geopolitics.