EDITORIAL | Collective delusion over the EU Agreement: Andorra’s Government now sees a victory even in Iceland’s ‘No’ vote

The Andorran Government seems determined to turn virtually any development in Europe into an argument in favour of the Association Agreement, even when doing so requires stretching the conclusions far beyond what the facts actually support. The latest example is Iceland’s referendum and the interpretation offered by Foreign Minister Imma Tor.

Icelanders were called to vote on the possibility of moving towards the European Union, and the result was against that option. It is a significant political decision and one that deserves to be analysed.

But turning that result into some form of indirect validation of the model advocated by the Andorran Government is, at the very least, a self-serving interpretation.

Because Iceland was not voting on whether it wanted to remain in the European Economic Area (EEA). That question was not on the ballot.

And therein lies the problem.

What was not being voted on matters too

Foreign Minister Imma Tor has interpreted the result by arguing that the Icelandic people have given a clear answer and that their intention is to remain within the framework of the European Economic Area.

But that conclusion goes beyond the question actually put to voters. Icelanders could have rejected moving towards EU membership for many different reasons. What they could not do with that ballot was express an opinion on whether they wanted to remain in the EEA, because that was simply not at issue.

Presenting the result as a choice between EU membership and maintaining Iceland’s current model of European integration creates a false dichotomy that the referendum itself did not pose.

And attempting to transpose that interpretation onto Andorra’s debate is even more questionable.

Andorra is not debating whether it wants to become a member state of the European Union. That has never been the alternative presented to its citizens. The real debate is whether the Principality should accept or reject a specific Association Agreement negotiated with Brussels.

These are different questions, different contexts and different models.

Iceland is not Andorra

Iceland is part of the European Economic Area and the European Free Trade Association. Andorra, by contrast, is finalising an Association Agreement with the European Union with its own legal architecture and specific obligations.

Using the Icelandic result to suggest that it confirms that an association model is preferable to full EU membership therefore means comparing two countries that are not in the same position.

Moreover, nobody knows how Icelanders would have voted if they had been asked a different question.

Claiming that they would have rejected an association agreement would be speculation. But claiming that their vote confirms the merits of an association model is equally speculative.

What the result does show is that there are significant reservations about deeper political integration with the European Union. That should encourage the Andorran Government to exercise caution, rather than turning Reykjavík into propaganda material for Andorra’s domestic political debate.

Not everything that happens in Europe validates the Agreement

For some time now, the Government has given the impression that virtually any development in Europe can somehow be turned into proof that the Association Agreement is the only reasonable path forward for Andorra.

If a country moves closer to Brussels, Europe is the future. If a country rejects moving towards EU membership, then that too is presented as evidence that association is the future.

By that logic, every possible outcome ends up proving the Government right.

And under those circumstances, it becomes impossible to maintain a serious political debate.

The Association Agreement is important enough to be defended on its own merits, opportunities and consequences. It does not need strained interpretations of referendums held thousands of kilometres away from Andorra.