This is an English translation. Read the Icelandic original
🧭Where do we stand?

Do we have to adapt to the EU before we join?

No. Accession negotiations are a negotiating process, not an adaptation process. Nothing changes in our laws or rules until — and unless — the public approves a finished agreement in a referendum.

It is sometimes claimed that if we decide to resume accession talks with the EU, a forced "adaptation process" kicks in automatically, forcing us to change laws and rules before we even know whether we'll end up joining. This doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

The Copenhagen criteria — and where we stand

The EU sets out clear requirements for new member states, the so-called Copenhagen criteria from 1993. To be admitted, a country must meet three basic conditions:

  1. Political criteria: Stable democracy, rule of law, and protection of human rights.
  2. Economic criteria: A functioning market economy able to compete in the internal market.
  3. Administrative criteria: The ability to take on and enforce EU regulations.

Iceland already meets these criteria. When we applied for membership in 2009, the European Commission issued a formal opinion confirming that Iceland fully satisfied the political and economic criteria — we are, after all, a mature democracy. On top of that, we have already adopted a large share of EU regulations through the EEA Agreement, and we have an administration capable of applying them.

The path to accession depends on where a country starts

For countries in the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which are still building independent courts and market economies, the negotiations really are an adaptation process — they have to prove that the basic criteria have been met before things can move forward. For them, it can take many years of institution-building and rule-of-law reform to reach the Copenhagen criteria.

Our situation is fundamentally different. We meet the criteria from day one. Our negotiations wouldn't be about overhauling our system of government, but about negotiating the areas that fall outside the EEA — chiefly fisheries, agriculture, customs, and monetary policy — along with technical details in a number of other fields.

Negotiations are a negotiating process, not an adaptation process

The goal of the negotiations is to produce a draft accession treaty. That draft would spell out precisely which rules we would need to change, which exemptions we would get, and how implementation would work — if we join.

No such changes take effect during the negotiations. The record bears this out: between 2010 and 2013 formal accession talks took place between Iceland and the EU. A number of chapters were opened and significant progress was made — but no legal changes were made on account of the negotiations themselves. When talks were put on hold in 2013, the Icelandic system of government stood unchanged (apart from changes stemming from the EEA, independent of the negotiations). Indeed, the negotiating parties had agreed "that Iceland would not make changes to its institutions or legislation until after a referendum had been held." (Source here, p. 6.)

It is not until the accession treaty is finalised that it is put to voters in a referendum. If a majority says no, the treaty is shelved (as Norway did in 1994, after their accession agreement had been fully negotiated and signed), and no changes are made on its account.

In short: Negotiations are a chance to see the deal in black and white. Nothing changes unless voters say yes.


Sources and further reading: