A leading international expert on European Law, Dr Carl Baudenbacher, gave a lecture on Iceland and the EU in the Independence Hall at the Eastern Square (Austurvöllur) in Reykjavík on Monday 10 August 2026. The lecture was organised by the Icelandic Research Centre for Politics and Economics at the University of Iceland, RNH and RSE, the Social and Economic Research Centre, and was sponsored by the movement Áfram Ísland and the Public Book Club which published a book by Dr Baudenbacher and his daughter, Dr Laura M Baudenbacher, also an expert on European Law, Iceland Before the EU Referendum. The meeting was chaired by Dr Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, former Professor of Politics at the University of Iceland and President of Iceland in 1996–2016. The University’s festivities hall had originally been booked for the event, as Dr Baudenbacher has given lectures there and been a visiting professor in European Law at the University. But the rector of the University, Silja Bára Ómarsdóttir, cancelled the booking, giving the reason that the movement Áfram Ísland had (with the Public Book Club) advertised the event.

Baudenbacher said that the referendum on 29 August was not about Europe or isolation, because Iceland was already deeply integrated into Europe through her membership in the European Economic Area, EEA, and in the European Free Trade Association, EFTA. The referendum was whether to continue in the EEA or join the European Union, the EU. Baudenbacher argued that Iceland would have negligible influence in the EU, relatively much less than in the EEA. The EU was confronted by many difficulties, not least in Germany. As an EU member state, Iceland would have to transfer control of her fisheries, agriculture, foreign trade, and monetary affairs to Brussels, whereas these sectors were exempted from the EEA agreement. At present, the EFTA Court decided on cases, but if Iceland joined the EU, judicial power would be transferred to the Court of Justice of the European Union which was known for its tendency to support the European Commission. It was not a plausible argument that Iceland had to join the EU for security reasons. She already had a defence treaty with the United States, and changes in long-term foreign policy were not made on the basis of comments by a US President whose bark was worse than his bite.

Baudenbacher said that if the voters approved of resuming the accession negotiations in the referendum, then there was a danger that the Icelanders would be entrapped in such negotiations which were essentially negotiations about the adjustment of Iceland to the EU legal framework. While formally nothing barred Iceland from rejecting membership, it might be difficult to return to the situation of 2026. A membership application meant not only that a state wanted a discussion, but also that it wanted to join the EU. A Yes in the referendum meant a big step towards membership, not only an exploration of the terms offered.

Baudenbacher recalled the Icesave dispute between the Icelanders on the one hand and the British and the Dutch on the other. It began when the British and the Dutch government unilaterally decided, in the midst of the 2008 Icelandic bank collapse, to compensate deposits in Landsbanki’s Icesave accounts and then demanded that the Icelandic state guaranteed the reimbursement of their outlays, roughly four billion euros, with interest. The Icelandic state rejected this demand as it was the Landsbanki’s estate and the Icelandic Depositors’ Guarentee Fund that were liable for the accounts, and as the Icelandic state had fulfilled all its obligations under European law on financial markets. After the Icelandic voters had twice rejected deals where the liability of the Icelandic state was accepted, if the assets of Landsbanki could not cover its liabilities to depositors, the dispute was referred to the EFTA Court where Baudenbacher presided. The European Commission joined Great Britain and the Netherlands in the case. The EFTA Court rejected a liability of the Icelandic state in the case, as there was no statute to be found that it was financially liable, and as the current European legislation was about bank failures, but not the collapse of a whole banking system.

The meeting hall was packed, and after Baudenbacher’s lecture he got a standing ovation. It was followed by a lively discussion. The chair, Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, quipped that Baudenbacher was probably the only person alive who could prompt the three ex-ministers Jón Baldvin Hannibalsson from the Social Democrats, Gudni Ágústsson from the Agrarians, and Gudlaugur Thór Thórdarson from the Independence Party to attend the same meeting. In one of his responses Baudenbacher pointed out that Brexit had been a great loss for the EU, because the British has developed a strong legal tradition different from that of the continent, especially in France. He quoted the Czech foreign minister Karel Schwarzenbeg who had not wanted a Europe controlled by French dirigisme combined with German thoroughness. Baudenbacher added that Schwarzenberg’s forefather, Karl Philipp, Prince Schwarzenberg, had led the army which defeated Napoleon at Leipzig in October 1813, Napoleon being one of the many despots who had tried to unify Europe.

Economics Professor Thráinn Eggertsson of the University of Iceland passed away on 18 June 2026 at the age of 85. He published two widely read economic treatises, Economic Behaviour and Institutions (1991), and Imperfect Institutions: Possibilities and Limits of Reform (2005). A third book is forthcoming, Digital Revolution and Institutional Change. He also published many research papers. Thráinn had a profound understanding of what economics should be: a searchlight illuminating reality, rather than a bucket into which to collect facts. He was, with Professor Rögnvaldur Hannesson of the Norwegian Business School in Bergen and Professor Ragnar Árnason of the University of Iceland, one of the three best-known Icelandic economists internationally.

One illuminating paper by Thráinn examined how the Icelanders escaped what has been called ‘the tragedy of the commons’. The original settlers, arriving between 874 and 930, found a subarctic island with green valleys reaching the coast, surrounded by mountain pastures. The interior of the country, however, was barren and uninhabitable. The land was mainly suitable for sheep farming. It was relatively easy to establish private property rights over the farms in the valleys, but during the summer, the farmers of each valley jointly utilised the mountain pastures for their sheep. This created a temptation for each farmer to graze more sheep than was optimal, since he alone enjoyed the profit of any additional sheep, whereas the commune bore the loss. The solution was to assign each farm a set number of sheep to graze in the mountain pastures, a quota. The total number of sheep was set so that, when they returned in the autumn, they were as fat as possible, which was the economically correct target.

The quota system in the mountain pastures was relatively efficient. But in another illuminating paper, Thráinn described a disaster: how the Icelanders starved for centuries despite living next to the most fertile fishing grounds in Europe. The reason was that Iceland was long under the Danish crown, which formed an alliance with the landowners (while most farmers were tenants) to stifle the growth of the fisheries: 1) by prohibiting foreigners from staying for the winter, 2) obliging everybody to work and register at a farm (bondage), and 3) issuing royal decrees that priced fish far below its market value. The crown did this to maintain its hold on the country, and the landowners to keep their access to cheap labour. The consequence was a series of famines that only ended in the nineteenth century with free trade, the abolition of bondage, and the growth of the fisheries.

Thráinn was a scholar, not a preacher, but he gave talks on controversial contemporary topics at two RNH international conferences in Reykjavík. One was in 2012, when a left-wing government was trying to dismantle the sustainable and profitable system of individual transferable quotas we had developed in fisheries (in some ways similar to the quota system in mountain pastures). Thráinn gave his full support to the system and sought to explain why some people were bent on reducing wealth. The other talk was at the retirement conference of Professor Hannes H. Gissurarson in 2023, when he spoke about the ‘dictator’s dilemma’ that China’s leader, Xi Jinping, faces. The dilemma is that an authoritarian ruler must choose between the free flow of information, which may weaken his hold on power, and its suppression, which may stifle economic growth. Xi is trying to overcome the problem by leveraging advanced technology and artificial intelligence, hoping to stimulate economic growth without accepting freedom. If he fails (which is likely), Thráinn predicted he would resort to warmongering.

RNH Academic Director Hannes H. Gissurarson, Professor Emeritus of Politics at the University of Iceland, gave an interview on 4 June 2026 at the podcast Thjodolfur, managed by Gústaf Adolf Skúlason. His message was that the Icelanders should maintain friendly relations both with the United States in the West and the European Union in the East, but not become American or European subjects. Iceland’s foreign policy should be first and foremost to sell fish and pursue security, but not to do much beyond that in the international arena. The cost of membership in the European Union would be huge, but the benefits doubtful. It was clear that as a member, Iceland would relinquish control of the fisheries and agriculture and pay much more into the EU than it would receive from it. The experience of the British and the Irish showed that the EU did not fulfil its promises on the fisheries.

On 30 May, the Public Book Club (AB, Almenna bókafélagid) held its 2026 general meeting at its new premises on Skeifan 8, 108 Reykjavík. The Public Book Club was founded on 17 June 1955 to defend national, liberal and democratic values against twentieth-century totalitarianism—national socialism and communism—which still operates under various names and in various guises.

One AB project has been the republication of anti-communist literature, before and during the Cold War, under the editorship of Hannes H. Gissurarson, Professor Emeritus of Politics at the University of Iceland. The books are printed and also accessible free of charge online, while some have been produced as audiobooks. They include Greinar um kommúnisma (Articles on communism) by philosopher Bertrand Russell, Konur í thraelakistum Stalíns (Women in Stalin’s Slave Camps) by Elinor Lipper and Aino Kuusinen, Úr álögum (Out of the Night) by Jan Valtin (Richard Krebs), Leyniraedan um Stalín (Khruschev’s Secret Speech on Stalin), El campesino  by Valentín Gonzáles and Julián Gorkin, Örlaganótt yfir Eystrasaltslöndum (Baltic Eclipse) by Ants Oras, Eistland. Smathjód undir oki erlends valds (Estland. En studie i imperialism) by Andres Küng, Thjónusta, Thrælkun, flótti (Service, Servitude, Escape) by Aatami Kuortti, Ég kaus frelsid (I Chose Freedom) by Victor Kravchenko, Nytsamur sakleysingi (Nightmare of the Innocents) by Otto Larsen, Til varnar vestrænni menningu (In Defence of the West) by six Icelandic writers, Rádstjórnarríkin: Godsagnir og veruleiki (Soviet Myths and Reality) by Arthur Koestler, Framtíd smáthjodanna (The Future of Small Nations) by Arnulf Øverland. Many of those books, speeches and articles caused controversy in Iceland when communists, often paid by the Kremlin, were still an aggressive force.

Another AB project has been, under the supervision of AB Managing Director, historian Jónas Sigurgeirsson, the publication of books about the traumatic 2008 Icelandic bank collapse:  Búsáhaldabyltingin: sjálfsprottin eða skipulögð? (The Pots and Pans Revolution: Spontaneous or Organised?) by historian Stefán Gunnar Sveinsson, Andersen-skjölin: rannsóknir eða ofsóknir? (The Andersen Files: Investigation or Persecution?) by journalist Eggert Skúlason,  Seðlabankinn gegn Samherja: Eftirlit eða eftirför? (The Central Bank Against Samherji: Supervision or Hunting Expedition) by lawyer Björn Jón Bragason, Gjaldeyriseftirlitid: Vald án eftirlits? (The Currency Control Agency: Power without Control?) by the same author, and Icesave-samningarnir: Afleikur aldarinnar? (The Icesave Deals: the Blunder of the Century?) by journalist Sigurdur Már Jónsson. These books have sold well and been praised by many, although the folks at the Public Broadcasting Service, RÚV, have ignored them.

Managing Director Jónas Sigurgeirsson presented the annual financial report of the Public Book Club, which did well in 2025. Subsequently, the shareholders and special guests enjoyed dinner at the restaurant Tides. From left: Sigríður Snævarr, Ármann Þorvaldsson, Karítas Kvaran, Kjartan Gunnarsson, Hannes H. Gissurarson, Baldur Guðlaugsson, Jónas Sigurgeirsson og Rósa  Guðbjartsdóttir.

Dr. Marek Mutor, President of the Platform.

RNH is a member of The Platform of European Memory and Conscience, established in 2011 in response to a European Parliament resolution calling for the memory of victims of totalitarianism to be kept alive. RNH Academic Director Hannes H. Gissurarson had already in 2009 translated the Black Book of Communism into Icelandic, and in 2011, he published a history of the Icelandic communist movement. The Platform’s 2026 annual meeting was held in Katowice, Poland, 25–27 May, alongside a one-day conference on heroism and remembrance.

It may be recalled that on 27 September 1939, in an Icelandic newspaper, the communist Halldór Laxness (later to receive the Nobel Prize in Literature) applauded Stalin’s annexation of eastern Poland, writing that fifteen million people under medieval feudalism, notorious for its dirt-poor peasants, had ‘smoothly jumped’ into the Soviet republic of workers and farmers. The truth was quite different. While the Nazis certainly behaved with unspeakable cruelty in their part of Poland, it is less well known that the communists did likewise in theirs: they murdered not only 22,000 Polish officers in 1940, but also deported 1.7 million people to Siberia and Kazakhstan, as described in a well-written book reported on by an Icelandic newspaper in 1946, The Dark Side of the Moon by Zoe Zajdlerowa.

The main topic in Katowice was how to convey totalitarian crimes as well as heroic deeds to the younger generation, for whom they were distant and almost unreal, through survivor testimonies, history textbooks, social media, museums, and elsewhere. All too often, for example, the Cold War is described in textbooks as a game played by two superpowers, the Americans and the Soviets. History is not only about numbers. It is also about names. Of course, numbers are important: the Nazis murdered six million Jews, and communism cost about one hundred million lives. But these numbers only come to life when they are attached to people of flesh and blood. Some victims’ voices were heard at the Katowice conference. Kordian Borejko, who was deported by the Soviets in 1940, a one-year-old with his parents to Kazakhstan, and returned to Poland in 1946, gave a moving speech. Antoine Arjakovsky, a French historian and moderator at one of the panels, recalled that his grandfather, a Russian Orthodox priest in France, had died in a Nazi camp, and that several of his Russian relatives had perished in the Soviet Gulag.

Another topic at the conference was the distinction between perpetrators, accomplices and collaborators. Arjakovsky mentioned the mass arrest of more than 13,000 Jews in Paris on 16–17 July 1942 (which Gissurarson have also written about). It was carried out by the French police at the initiative of the Nazi occupiers. The victims were confined at the Vélodrome d’Hiver, a sports arena, and subsequently deported to Auschwitz and other Nazi concentration camps. None of the 3,900 children survived. Later, French President François Mitterand refused to apologise for this action, but his successor, Jacques Chirac, did so in 1995.

European Students for Liberty held their annual conference, LibertyCon, in Madrid on 24–26 April 2026, where RNH Academic Director, Hannes H. Gissurarson, Professor Emeritus of Politics at the University of Iceland, presented a new book that he has edited and introduced, Conservative-Liberal Thought in the Nordic Countries, 946–1945: An Anthology. It is 468 pages long, of which Hannes’ introduction is 267 pages. It was published by the think tank New Direction in Brussels.

The book’s first selections are from the writings of Icelandic historians Ari the Learned and Snorri Sturluson. In a famous speech at the Icelandic Parliament in the year 1000, the Lawspeaker, Thorgeir from Brightlake District, emphasised, according to Ari the Learned, that the Icelanders had no king but the law, unlike the other Nordic nations where kings waged endless wars and imposed heavy taxes. The same theme was found in Snorri’s account of another famous speech, by the farmer Einar from Thverá at the Parliament in the year 1024. In Snorri’s Heimskringla, the history of the Norwegian kings, two ancient Germanic principles are taken for granted: government by consent and the right of rebellion. Later, the English philosopher John Locke built a systematic defence of liberty on those two principles.

Hannes said that the three most remarkable Nordic conservative-liberal thinkers were Snorri, the Swedish pastor and politician Anders Chydenius, and the Danish pastor and poet N. F. S. Grundtvig. In 1765, Chydenius had anticipated the two powerful ideas articulated eleven years later in Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations: that one man’s profit need not be another man’s loss; and that order could arise spontaneously, without commands. In the nineteenth century, Grundtvig had argued, much in the same manner as the French writer Alexis de Tocqueville, for free associations that could serve as both guardians and outlets for individuals, such as congregations, people’s high schools, various societies, collectives, cooperatives, and private companies.

The audience included the Icelandic Ambassador to Spain, Kristján Andri Stefánsson, and a lively discussion followed Hannes’ talk. The Czech student Jonáš Kurus asked about the connection of religion to the Germanic political tradition. Hannes replied that the roots of Germanic tribal self-government were pre-Christian, just as the Roman chronicler Tacitus had described in the first century AD. Admittedly, a principle of Roman law was that what affected all should be decided by all, Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus approbetur, but this had not been a general principle as in the customary law of the Germanic tribes. However, St. Thomas Aquinas accepted the right to rebel if and when kings became tyrants. Natural law in the Thomist tradition certainly had acted as a restraint on kings, but not to the same extent as Germanic customary law.

From left: Hannes, Breki, Schweiger and Tyler.

The German student Anne Struffmann asked what other nations could learn from the Nordic example. Hannes replied that the relative success of the Nordic countries was not because, but in spite of, social democracy. The Nordic heritage of liberty had been strong enough to withstand both the past assaults by kings invoking the grace of God and the modern assaults by social democrats invoking the will of the People. The success of the Nordic countries rested, Hannes said, on three pillars: the rule of law, including strong protection of private property rights, free trade, and social cohesion, which implied a robust civic spirit. But such a social cohesion could not be constructed. It developed over a long time, through compromises and mutual adjustments.  Nevertheless, newly liberated nations in the South could learn from Grundtvig to try and transform peasants into responsible citizens and the masses into self-conscious nations by means of people’s high schools.

Other speakers at the conferences included three friends of Iceland who have often visited: Professor David D. Friedman, Dr. Tom G. Palmer 0f the Atlas Network, and Robert Tyler of New Direction. They have all studied the Icelandic chronicles and sagas. The conference was attended by two other Icelanders, Lukas Schweiger, former Chairman of European Students for Liberty, and Breki Atlason, the Icelandic coordinator of European Students for Liberty.