Among the things that were considered unclear were the minister’s answers about the validity of EU law. Asked if there is any doubt that EU law will apply in this country and take precedence over Icelandic legislation and the constitution, should Iceland join the EU, Þorgerður Katrín says:
“There is always an attempt to lock us into some sentences that can then be acted upon. I don’t think it is possible to discuss exactly this except in the context of an agreement.”
Can your answer be taken to mean that you think it is possible to get exemptions from the application of EU law in Iceland upon accession?
“The European Convention has not changed, but on the other hand, the way of working and the approach of, among other things, the Commission in recent years and the last few seasons have changed. We are seeing the various Commissioners, such as just recently the Fisheries Commissioner, who says quite clearly that there are many things to be negotiated, so I think the most important thing is what the outcome of an agreement would be for Iceland. There we can see how our real interests have been taken care of.”
Make the most demands
Another thing that opposition MPs seem to be worried about is that in the majority opinion of the Foreign Affairs Committee, where the goals of the agreement are discussed, Iceland’s full and unchallenged authority over its resources, especially the fisheries resource, is not clearly stipulated. Where is the red line, is there a possibility that you are going to give something up there?
“We will proceed with the highest standards, I have said that, and I will not sign a contract that goes against them.”
What is “extreme requirements”?
“The most demanding requirements are that we have control over the fisheries, that we control this because we have a good fishing and management system and, as I say, here our uniqueness is absolute. No country like Iceland, a heavyweight country in fisheries matters, has applied for membership in the European Union. There is nothing to compare with other nations, with all due respect to them, whether they are the Irish or the Spanish or the British at the time. Our uniqueness is absolute when it comes to fisheries issues, and I hope that the Commission will see that it is not a good idea to boast about a strong and sustainable fisheries management system. Rather, I think that the Commission should look to our system as a certain model in managing fisheries.”
One inevitably thinks of the Irish who found themselves in the process of having their fishing exemption disregarded. How will it be possible to ensure that the exemptions that Iceland gets will be respected when the going gets tough?
“This seems to me to be comparing apples and oranges, but the other thing is that there is also a rule of relative stability in the basic rules of the European Union. It’s all about who can fish here within the territorial waters, and here foreign fishing vessels have only been allowed to fish against agreements, as for example the Faroe Islands have, based on a fisheries management agreement between the countries, been allowed to fish a certain part of the bottom fish that is defined in the agreement. relative stability will not in any way open up anything to Iceland.”
Thanks to the opposition
The amendment proposal of the minority that the agreement goals will be presented to the people no later than a month before the referendum was rejected by the majority. Is it not possible to present the goals of the agreement to the people in a timely manner so that they are informed about what the mandate you are seeking entails?
“I just want to first thank the opposition for trusting the government to set the agreement goals themselves, and secondly, I want to thank the opposition for highlighting the agreement goals. It tells you that they assume that there is something to negotiate because they sometimes pretend that there is nothing to negotiate and have all kinds of doomsday predictions. The other thing is that it is quite clear that both the agreement goals and the criteria are very clear stated, both in the report with the parliamentary resolution but no less in how the majority of the Foreign Affairs Committee highlights the agreement goals in their opinion.”
The majority opinion counts 50 pages, and perhaps it is unlikely that the entire nation will scrutinize it. Isn’t it part of the responsibility in the interest of an informed discussion that the goals of the agreement are highlighted and properly presented to the people before they go to vote?
“We may well do that. It may also be that we specifically highlight the sixth chapter in the committee opinion, where the agreement objectives are reviewed.”
