A DEAL to allow Iceland to join the EU swiftly could pave the way for a relatively quick agreement for an independent Scotland, according to Dr Kirsty Hughes, former director of the European Centre on European Relations.
Iceland’s possible speedy accession to the EU also casts doubt over any policy which favours an independent Scotland joining the European Economic Area (EEA) rather than applying for full membership of the EU, she believes.
The EEA is favoured by some in the independence movement, including the Alba Party, as the future for an independent Scotland.
At the moment, Iceland, Norway and Lichtenstein are outside the EU but members of the EEA and the European Free Trade Agreement (EFTA).
The countries within the EU are also EEA members but it is argued that if the only remaining members of both EFTA and the EEA are Norway and Lichtenstein then there would be little enthusiasm to maintain the EEA.
Iceland’s new government has stated its intention to hold a referendum “on the continuation of Iceland’s European Union accession talks” no later than 2027. Iceland’s new prime minister, Kristrún Frostadóttir, also wants to set up an expert panel on the pros and cons of joining the euro.
If Iceland votes in favour of full membership of the EU rather than remaining in the EEA, the process could move quickly, Hughes (above) points out.
As it is already in the EEA, it already meets the single market criteria that are core to EU membership.
“An Iceland accession process moving ahead of all the other current candidates is quite likely,” says Hughes in her blog.
“A swift process for Iceland would demonstrate that an independent Scotland applying to join the EU could move relatively fast too.”
She acknowledges that Scotland, given Brexit, no longer meets all the EU single market criteria and the Scottish Government has not kept to its goal of keeping aligned to EU laws in environment and agriculture.
“But Scotland would still, for now, be in a relatively good position to have a fairly speedy accession process,” says Hughes.
However, she said Iceland’s possible entry into the EU raised questions over the future of the EEA.
“No state has ever aimed to join the EEA since its initial founding in 1994 when the three states – Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein – became members,” she points out.
“In that same time period, the EU has expanded by 16 members (and then lost one, the UK) – and the EU, today, has 10 actual and potential candidate countries wishing to join.”
Hughes adds: “If one of the three EEA/EFTA countries were to shift to the EU, it certainly raises questions about the EEA’s future. And it underlines the already existing question of why an independent Scotland would choose to be a passive rule-taker in the EEA, rather than have a seat at the table in the EU.
“Some have suggested that the EEA route would be quicker for an independent Scotland. But none of the EU’s candidate countries since the EEA was formed three decades ago have chosen to go the EEA route. Rather, they’ve gone straight for EU talks – agreeing trade and association agreements with the EU while the accession process unfolds.”
Hughes points out that the 30 states in the EEA (the EU 27 and the EEA/EFTA three) would have to agree unanimously if Scotland did, “bizarrely”, go down the EEA route.
“And there would be equally tough accession talks on all dimensions of the EU’s single market in order to join,” she says.
“All of these arguments have been set out often enough in Scotland’s independence debate. But if Iceland does take up its EU accession talks again soon, then that will highlight even more the weakness of the ‘independence in the EEA’ arguments.”
The moves by Iceland also show that joining the euro is “not a question to be simply kicked into touch, as the Scottish Government is wont to do”, according to Hughes.
“It may be the case that once in the EU, a member state cannot be forced to join the euro. But it certainly has to make a genuine political commitment to do that before joining.
“Iceland’s new government clearly sees that the political benefits of having a seat at the EU table, and a voice and a vote are desirable compared to being a rule-taker in the EEA.
“If a country more than 10 times smaller than Scotland by population sees political benefits from being in the club, why wouldn’t Scotland?”
