The Iceland Referendum and the Georgian Perspective

By Malkhaz Matsaberidze

Friday, September 18, 2025

The referendum held in Iceland, in which voters rejected reopening negotiations with the European Union, drew an active response from representatives of Georgia's ruling Georgian Dream party. Government leaders used the result to bolster their own positions on relations with the EU and the issue of sovereignty.

The referendum on Iceland's relations with and membership in the European Union ended with those opposed to reopening membership negotiations emerging victorious. Some 52.8% of voters rejected reopening EU accession negotiations, while 47.2% voted in favor.

The referendum asked citizens whether Iceland's EU accession process, which had been suspended a decade ago, should be resumed. The capital, Reykjavik, supported reopening the negotiations, while the regions and rural population strongly rejected the initiative. The main arguments against reopening the talks were the preservation of national sovereignty and fears that the EU's common fisheries policy could weaken Iceland's control over its powerful and strategically important fishing sector. Although Iceland is not an EU member, it already maintains close ties with the bloc through the European Economic Area (EEA), and those relations remain unchanged.

Representatives of the ruling party said Iceland's example confirmed what Georgian Dream had long been saying: that "there are serious problems in Brussels." Georgian Dream-led Parliament Speaker Shalva Papuashvili described the Icelandic referendum result as "the failure of the policies of the current leadership in Brussels." According to Papuashvili, even when a country is highly integrated, as a member of the European Economic Area and NATO, its citizens can have profound distrust of Brussels because of fears of losing sovereignty.

Georgian Dream Government representatives, including Levan Makashvili and Irakli Kirchkhalia, said that this was the independent decision of a developed, sovereign country and should be respected, adding that "Brussels should respect other peoples as well, and not selectively."

Other members of the ruling party said Iceland's decision showed how a developed and strong sovereign country acts when it protects its own interests.

The ruling party used the example to argue that integration into European structures - or rejecting such integration - should be based on strict protection of a country's national interests and sovereignty.

Some opposition figures and critical experts, however, focused on the context and the differences between Iceland and Georgia. In their view, Iceland's decision was rooted in a completely different economic and social reality, including strong national interests surrounding fisheries and the protection of natural resources. They argue that Georgian Dream's use of the result is an attempt to discredit Georgia's European integration process.

A strategy in which European integration is not rejected verbally, but practical steps and reforms are brought to a halt, effectively puts the country's future at a dead end. On this issue, things are practically black and white.

The European path means difficult, fundamental and radical reforms that Georgian Dream has rejected in areas such as the rule of law, democratic institutions and an independent judiciary.

Rejecting the European Union means making the explicit political choice that the ruling party has increasingly been hinting at in its rhetoric in recent months.

This uncertainty and double game leave the country with little more than stagnation and international isolation. The European Union will not lower its conditions, while a society that wants a European future will not easily accept such a pause.

Among experts and journalists, a question has emerged: could Georgian Dream consider organizing a similar referendum?

The year 2028 is approaching, when Georgian Dream is expected to resume negotiations with the European Union and, according to its stated promise, for Georgia to become an EU member by 2030. That is the promise. But in reality, this is an ambiguous position and a strategy of "buying time," in which European integration is not rejected verbally while practical steps and reforms are brought to a halt.

If negotiations are resumed, the EU's existing demands will once again return to the agenda, and new ones will likely be added. The EU's enlargement and integration policy is a dynamic process in which standards, requirements and criteria become increasingly demanding over time rather than less so.

The EU consistently requires candidate countries to deepen reforms in areas such as the rule of law, judicial independence, anti-corruption mechanisms and fundamental rights. Delaying the process means that the volume of obligations still to be addressed continues to grow.

Experts often point out that suspending negotiations or putting the process on "pause" effectively serves to prolong the process while reducing it to a minimum, making the prospect of genuine integration increasingly difficult.

Some believe that the ruling party may be tempted to hold a referendum similar to Iceland's and thereby free itself from the obligations of integration into the European Union.

On the one hand, a similar referendum in Georgia appears unlikely. Yet different views and political considerations exist around the issue.

An overwhelming majority of Georgia's population has consistently supported the country's EU membership. According to various opinion polls, support has ranged between 70% and 80%. There is also a constitutional provision: Article 78 of the Constitution of Georgia obliges constitutional bodies to "take all measures within the scope of their competences to ensure the full integration of Georgia into the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization."

Consequently, official steps aimed at rejecting European integration, or a referendum directed toward that end, would contradict the country's supreme law.

Although Georgian Dream frequently criticizes individual EU representatives and the bloc's bureaucracy, the ruling party officially maintains that its goal remains European integration-but with "sovereign dignity and the protection of national interests."

But since Georgian Dream keeps winning elections, what if it also tried to win a referendum, even by 1%? Such a referendum would give the ruling party the opportunity to reject Europe.

This is precisely the darkest and riskiest scenario that critics and experts are openly discussing. A formally legitimate but controlled referendum would give the government the means to say: "This was the sovereign decision of the people." It could then attempt to present its actions as legitimate both domestically and on the international stage.

Such a process could be used as a mechanism to legally halt Georgia's integration with the European Union once and for all and completely change the country's geopolitical direction, while formally placing responsibility once again on the voters.

Those parts of Georgian society that support a European orientation would regard such a referendum as fraudulent. Since Article 78 of the Georgian Constitution establishes an obligation on constitutional bodies to do everything necessary to ensure integration into the EU and NATO, such a referendum would directly contradict that article and plunge the country into a full-scale domestic political and constitutional crisis.