Philip Ward / Sep 2026
Photo: Wikimedia Commons
Icelandic voters’ recent decision not to reopen talks to join the European Union (EU) was identified by Martin Sandbu in the Financial Times on 6 September as a warning to Brussels to revisit its attitude to third countries (‘Iceland “no” exposes EU complacency’).
Historically, EU policymakers have treated integration mainly as an admissions process, assuming that potential members will inevitably accept the acquis communautaire. Rather than viewing the democratic pushback in Iceland as the end of the road for deeper cooperative relations, it should instead be treated as an opportunity to redesign how the EU engages with its neighbours at a time of geopolitical uncertainty.
The crux of the matter is the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) - an organisation which non-EU member states must be part of to join the EU’s single market through the European Economic Area (EEA) - and which includes Liechtenstein and Norway, as well as Iceland. Arguably, the EEA operates on an unbalanced premise: EFTA members largely function as administrative rule-takers, adopting EU legislation without having a meaningful say in its creation. The same logic applies to potential EU members until they are granted admission, as would have been the case for Iceland had its vote gone the other way. The actual outcome suggests that this approach needs rethinking.
Going Back to First Principles
The aim of this paper is to argue that, instead of keeping to a lopsided dynamic, we need a fresh start based on a broader, truly equal framework, a Euro-Atlantic Partnership (EAP), encompassing not only the EEA, but also open to Canada, Greenland, Switzerland and the UK, all liberal democracies valuing close ties to the EU.
To build a sustainable architecture, we have to start by asking a fundamental question: what does the EU actually want from these neighbours, and what do they seek from Brussels? This means identifying the modern equivalent of coal and steel in 1950, the vital, shared material interest that makes cooperation indispensable.
Today, that core area of focus can be summed up as comprehensive security, broadly defined as a mutual commitment to the absolute resilience of critical resources and of the supporting infrastructure. Vulnerabilities in these areas become more obvious by the day, as does the inability of middle powers to manage them effectively in isolation. Only by working together can they guarantee their citizens’ continued well-being.
An Equal Partnership
To break away from the asymmetric drawbacks of the current institutional set-up, the EAP must grant its non-EU members the right to be in the room (decision-shaping) when the EU is developing new rules that affect the wider bloc.This is not a theoretical abstraction. It mirrors the precedent Switzerland secured in its third-generation bilateral treaties with the EU currently moving through ratification, proving that institutionalised consultation prior to legislation is entirely workable.
By embedding decision-shaping into the architecture of the EAP, non-EU partners transition from passive rule-takers into active co-creators, establishing a genuinely shared future within the EAP’s defined scope of activities. To avoid any misunderstanding, decision-shaping is not a veto right. It is merely the right to be heard. Thus can better-informed decisions be made. If, however, a non-EU member were dissatisfied with the eventual outcome, it would retain the sovereign right to withdraw from the area of cooperation affected by the new rule under consideration.
Grounded in Monnet, Distinct from Enlargement
The EAP approach would sit entirely outside the traditional EU accession track, respecting the political reality that none of the governments concerned currently seek EU membership. Instead, the dialogue would draw direct inspiration from Jean Monnet’s original method, focusing on joint problem-solving in specific, vital sectors. By aligning efforts around mutually-assured resilience, the EAP creates a natural gravity pull toward integration based on shared objectives.
To start the process, a group of government delegates set up along the lines of the 1955 Spaak committee would make proposals to define the specific areas of focus for closer integration within the EAP, eg raw material supplies, renewable energy, critical resources, undersea cables, communications technology and data centres. The process would start with an assessment of collective needs and investment capabilities, Monnet’s balance-sheet analysis. The committee’s recommendations would then be debated and adopted by those governments willing to join the EAP.
Strategic Benefits for All Participants
Rethinking integration through this wider lens offers distinct, pragmatic advantages for each participant:
- Canada: fulfils long-standing strategic ambitions for deeper, more institutionalised transatlantic cooperation, bringing it closer to Europe. Broadens current bilateral talks leading up to Prime Minister Mark Carney’s visit to the European Parliament on 16-17 September and the Canada-EU summit on 29-30 October.
- The EU: demonstrates proactive leadership, signalling to its immediate neighbourhood and key partners that it is capable of developing a sophisticated, flexible vision of shared governance rather than insisting on a single path eventually culminating in membership.
- Greenland: provides a multilateral framework to its relationship with the EU, gives it a seat at the table alongside its neighbours and expands funding sources for its economic development.
- Iceland: empowers the government to respond constructively to domestic democratic sentiment while building on the proven economic success of the EEA framework.
- Norway: provides a secure, pragmatic channel to advance parallel European interests without reigniting polarising domestic debates over EU membership.
- Switzerland: validates its bilateral treaty template - including decision-shapingRights - by anchoring it within a wider multilateral context, potentially easing the ongoing domestic adoption process.
- The UK: offers political cover for a pragmatic rapprochement with Brussels by embedding UK-EU talks within a broader, multilateral dialogue rather than leaving London isolated in bilateral negotiations, such as the current reset talks to remove border checks on British food and drink exports to the EU.
A Path Forward
The vote in Iceland is a symptom of a broader structural fatigue with the traditional pattern of EU enlargement. Brussels can choose to ignore this signal and risk seeing its outer ring of fragmented partnerships fray, or it can seize the moment to innovate and create a new dynamic.
By establishing a partnership based on an equal footing, shared security interests and genuine decision-shaping rights, the EU and its like-minded neighbours can build a durable, stable architecture fit for today’s geopolitical realities.
