The meeting hall of the Icelandic House of Museums (Safnahusid) was packed on Saturday 4 October when Students for Liberty Europe and RSE, the Icelandic Research Centre for Social and Economic Affairs, jointly held a conference on ‘The European Union: Friend or Foe of Liberty?’ Breki Atlason, the Icelandic coordinator of Students for Liberty, chaired the meeting, while Professor Emeritus Hannes H. Gissurarson, on behalf of RSE, introduced the speakers and directed the questions and answer period. Julius Viggo Olafsson, economics students at the University of Iceland, gave a short opening address. He said that young people were increasingly rejecting the Left, both in Iceland and elsewhere, but even if some of them turned to national conservatism, it was important that they did not reject economic freedom, the engine of progress. Dr. Eamonn Butler, former Director of the Adam Smith Institute in London and the author of several books on classical liberal themes, spoke first in the former session. He said that Brexit, the exit of Great Britain from the European Union, was for him and other Brexiteers about regaining control of the country, instead of transferring it to a non-transparent, undemocratic bureaucracy in Brussels. Brexit was, he submitted a success in that indeed Great Britain had regained her sovereignty, but what he and other Brexiteers had underestimated was the sheer malevolence of the Brussels bureacrats who had tried to make the process as difficult and cumbersome as possible.
John Fund, editor of National Review and commentator on Fox News, spoke about the rise of populism in North America and Europe. It signified a widespread feeling that the ruling elites on those two continents were ignoring the interests and ideas of ordinary people, not least the worry that religious zealots from afar were imposing their views on others. Fund said that the Icelanders were facing a historic decision about the European Union: whether to transfer control from Reykjavik to Brussels. If they decided to rise up against the elites, it would be noted all over the worlds.
Ragnar Árnason, Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Iceland, pointed out what he regarded as obvious: You only decide to join an association if you think that it will benefit you in some way. In his estimate, the costs for Iceland of joining the European Union were much greater than the benefits. Iceland was one of the most prosperous European countries, like two other non-members, Norway and Switzerland, and therefore she would be a net contributor to the European Union. Moreover, Iceland did not have to join in order to ensure her security: She already had a defence treaty with the United States and was also a member state of NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. If Iceland became a member country, she would have no more say on European affairs than other small nations which had, as everybody could see, negligible influence about them. Árnason added that even if the conclusion would be reached that the benefits would slightly outweigh the costs, there was an additional invisible cost which was that the decision was almost irreversible. Therefore, even if the benefits would outweigh the costs, it would be rational to postpone a decision until it was clear what would happen in the future. There was more to lose from the decision to join if it turned out to be wrong than there was to win from it, even if it turned out to sensible.
A lively discussion followed the first session. Dr. Daniel Mitchell of the Freedom and Prosperity Association in Washington DC spoke first in the second session. He pointed out that the gap between living standards in the United States and the European Union had increased in the last few decades. The EU countries had stagnated, and this was, he submitted, because they enjoyed less economic freedom and suffered higher taxes than the United States. He illustrated this with a lot of graphs whose data were all from respected sources such as the World Bank. The EU was a sinking ship, he said.
