Brussels – The EU enlargement policy may need to shift its focus northward. In the coming years, Iceland, Greenland, and Norway could decide to join the European Union, despite having viewed EU membership for decades as a less advantageous option, both politically and economically.
Currently, EU membership is not a central topic in public debates across the three Nordic countries and territories. However, small but noticeable signs suggest that the situation could be changing soon. Given the geopolitical uncertainty, particularly the potential impact of U.S. President Donald Trump’s second term on Europe and beyond, the prospect of a European Union expanding further north may no longer be a chimera.
However, several factors and challenges need to be addressed, as demonstrated by their complicated path toward—not—joining the EU. These include national identity and sovereignty within the European Union, as well as practical issues such as the potential limitations of existing bilateral agreements, the need to safeguard against future economic crises and uncertainties, and, most notably, the shared ‘elephant in the room’ for Iceland, Greenland, and Norway: fishing quotas and the EU Common Fisheries Policy.
Iceland: Security, fisheries, and an EU referendum
Iceland is the country where these signals are most evident. On 22 December 2024, Reykjavík’s newly formed government announced that it is reconsidering the possibility of resuming EU accession talks. The debate on EU membership was “not very prominent” before and during the parliamentary election campaign, Eiríkur Bergmann, Professor of Politics at Bifröst University, told The New Union Post. However, the election results led to a coalition that includes the two main pro-EU parties—the Liberal Reform Party and the Social Democratic Alliance—and the potential EU application has emerged as “a product” of the national endorsement of this coalition.
Iceland applied for EU membership in 2009 and began accession negotiations the following year. However, following the 2013 general elections, Reykjavík froze the negotiations and, two years later, sent a letter requesting that the EU no longer consider Iceland as an applicant country. Despite this, Reykjavík remains closely linked to the EU through its membership in the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement.
“Almost 90% of what EU membership could offer the country is already in place,” Bergmann pointed out, referring to Reykjavík’s participation in the EEA Agreement, the Single Market, the Schengen Area, and the free-trade guarantees that cover “almost every aspect of EU policies.” Although Iceland can be considered a “de facto member of the EU,” a significant issue remains that could heavily influence the country’s future decision: “We do not sit at the EU table, where the decisions that we accept in the agreements are made.”
According to Bergmann, two main issues could spark a national debate on joining the EU. The first concerns monetary policy, as the Icelandic króna “fluctuates significantly,” and joining the Eurozone “may address some of the problems faced by a small economy like ours.” The second issue relates to security, “which is becoming a concern like never before.” Despite the bilateral defence agreement with the U.S. within the framework of NATO, “Trump’s ambiguity regarding the defence commitment might lead Iceland to rely more on Europe.”
However, two other factors stand in the way. Firstly, the issue of sovereignty and independence, as “Icelanders believe that national identity does not fit very well in a supranational institution like the EU,” Bergmann explained. Above all, “the real problem is always the fisheries policy.” A country that “basically survives on fisheries” cannot accept the Common Fisheries Policy as it currently stands, and “if the EU wants Iceland as a member, they need to offer a solution from the outset.” On the contrary—just as happened in 2013—leaving this issue until the end of negotiations “poisons all the internal debate here in Reykjavík, to the point where the talks cannot continue.”
All this considered, “nobody knows whether public opinion could be in favour of joining the EU.” Bergmann explained that there is “great fluctuation from time to time,” which can depend on the political and economic situation, the overall atmosphere around the topic, and the messages coming from Brussels. As Iceland is now “open-minded” about joining the EU—polls indicate that almost 60% of the population supports restarting the process—”there might be a window of opportunity for EU membership, but it could close very quickly,” Bergmann warned.
Greenland: Trump, the EU budget, and a surprising survey
Greenland has made headlines worldwide after U.S. President Trump threatened to annex the territory at the beginning of 2025. However, just a few weeks earlier, a significant development flew under the radar in Europe. A survey published by Nasiffik – Centre for Foreign & Security Policy in December 2024 revealed for the first time that 60% of Greenlandic citizens would vote in favour of rejoining the EU, up from 40% in 2021. “It was quite surprising, because there is no real public debate about it in Nuuk,” Rasmus Leander Nielsen, Head of Nasiffik and a co-author of the survey, told The New Union Post.
Greenland joined the European Union in 1973 as part of the Kingdom of Denmark. However, after gaining autonomy in 1979, Nuuk withdrew its EU membership in 1985. Despite no longer being a member, since then it has maintained close ties with Brussels and is officially classified as an Overseas Territory associated with the EU. “This status works well for receiving structural funds and funds for education, as well as for green energy and mining,” Nielsen noted.
When it comes to security, “Greenlanders consider themselves to live in one of the most secure parts of the world,” with cooperation within the Arctic Council remaining a top priority for the Danish autonomous territory. This is why Nielsen said he would be “surprised” if there were a major push for EU membership in the near future, but “you never know, especially with Trump’s administration.” Undoubtedly, the EU’s decision to open an office in Nuuk in March 2024 brought renewed attention to its contributions. “While the US gets a lot of publicity without really paying any money, in purely economic terms, the EU is much more important for Greenland.”
Like other Nordic countries that have chosen to remain outside the EU, “fisheries is an important variable” for Nuuk. The first agreement dates back to 1985, with the most recent renewal signed in December 2024. Given the significant role of economics and fisheries in relations between the two parties, “Greenland will be part of the process” in the re-negotiation of the next EU Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). “In the past, it was only about self-interested fisheries interests, but now other aspects of the negotiations are being considered,” Nielsen confirmed. As for the prospect of rejoining the EU, “it is hard to say if it will happen,” but it would be “easy” to do so—”with a new referendum.”
Norway: U.S. tariffs, the EEA Agreement, and external factors
After nearly 60 years of a complex relationship with EU membership, might soon revisit the possibility of joining the European Union. “We have seen before that external factors have triggered EU debates,” Kjetil Alstadheim, editor of political news at Aftenposten and author of the book Everyone Got it Wrong: On Norway as an EU Nation, told The New Union Post. This occurred in 1961-1962, when the United Kingdom first tried join; in 1973, when Denmark and the UK became members; and in 1995, when Austria, Finland, and Sweden followed suit. “An Icelandic membership would likely spark renewed discussions, at least regarding its impact on the fisheries sector,” Alstadheim emphasised.
Norway applied for EU membership in 1967 and entered accession negotiations. However, popular referendums rejected the Accession Treaty twice: first in 1972 and again in 1994, following a second application in 1992. Since then, Oslo’s application has remained frozen but not withdrawn, it remains closely linked to the EU through its membership in the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement. As Alstadheim explained, “there is currently no debate in Norway on joining the EU,” as a majority of citizens oppose it. However, recent polls show “a slow but steady increase in the share of people in favour of membership.”
The Russian war in Ukraine and growing security concerns “could have an impact,” but so too could the implications of Trump’s policies, “including tariffs, trade wars, and the unpredictability of the new U.S. administration.” Although the EEA Agreement has been “a success” over the past 30 years, it does not cover tariffs, leaving Oslo potentially “squeezed between the EU and the U.S.,” Alstadheim warned. During Trump’s first-term trade war, the EU granted Norway an exemption, “but this cannot be taken for granted” this time. As a result, “depending on what happens,” this issue could prompt further discussions about the benefits of EU membership.
Economics also plays a key role in the debate. As Norway’s oil and gas sector becomes less significant in the future, its economy “will resemble that of other European countries, which could trigger a debate on the Norwegian krone, a currency that remains consistently weak.” Alstadheim also pointed out that discussions also extend to agriculture—a sector “heavily subsidised”—and fisheries, “a highly thorny issue,” as evidenced by the “significant tensions” during negotiations on fishing quotas prompted by the Brexit Agreement.
Like Iceland, Norway adopts a “massive” number of regulations decided by the EU. Alstadheim explained that the debate in Oslo “is about whether it is more democratic to stay outside the EU and just accept the regulations, or to join and have a voice in the room.” Moreover, the EEA Agreement “is becoming more complicated” with large policy packages—such as those on energy and climate—not fully covered by the agreement. While Norway would like to join areas like health cooperation or secure connectivity with satellites, it suffers from the consequences of Brexit, with Brussels unwilling to accept cherry-picking. ‘All these issues could show the weaknesses of being outside the European Union.”
