Northern EU enlargement in sight? Seizing momentum in uncertain times

Key findings:

• A geopolitical window of opportunity has opened up: the new strategic context created by Russia’s war and Trump’s return have prompted shifts in public opinion in Iceland, Norway and Greenland. Northern EU accession is becoming a political possibility that requires attention.

• Bundling enlargement could help build momentum. A carefully sequenced enlargement round that includes both Nordic and southeastern and eastern candidates could reinvigorate a fatigued debate. In particular, pairing Ukraine’s accession with Norway’s could shift the narrative from burden to opportunity.

• Fisheries remain a political fault line for the Nordics. This means the EU should make an offer too good to ignore. However, the EU needs to be careful to only incentivise, rather than push, EU accession. An EU signal towards Iceland, which intends to hold a referendum by 2027, could help sustain domestic momentum, while Denmark’s EU Council presidency could particularly elevate the issue.

Norway contributes significantly into the budgets of the EU programmes and agencies it has chosen to participate in, such as Frontex and the EU border and coast guard agency. Based on a framework agreement from 2004, Norway has also participated in a number of both military and civilian EU crisis management operations. Norway contributes to the European Defence Fund and the European Peace Facility. In 2024, Norway signed a partnership agreement on security and defence with the EU.

In short, Norway has chosen the closest possible partnership with the EU just below the threshold of membership, much like Finland and Sweden’s relationship with NATO was until accession in 2023 and 2024, respectively. And like its neighbours with regard to NATO, Norway is facing the disadvantages of participation without membership: in January 2025, the government collapsed over the implementation of the EU’s energy market rules. Another concrete example that highlights the urgency to make Norway’s “situationship” with the EU official is the danger of being caught in the crossfire of the tariff war between the US and the EU. This contingency prompted a large Norwegian delegation, including 30 business leaders, to travel to Brussels in April 2025 to ensure goodwill in the EU.7 There is awareness in Norway that the current EEA deal comes with a lack of influence, but a majority of Norwegians remains fine with it, as the EEA agreement has been sufficiently beneficial – until now.8

Recommendations

That Iceland is potentially moving towards EU membership and in Greenland there is already a majority for rejoining is good, but Norway needs to get on board as well. Despite the positive momentum in EU–Norway relations, Norwegian politicians remain hesitant to take up the issue as the country is heading to elections in September 2025.

Just like in Finland and Sweden with NATO membership until 2022, in Norwegian politics there have been no points to be scored by advocating EU membership. Thus, all parties would benefit from the following recommendations:

1. Link the Nordic EU enlargement to Ukraine

Among the three prospective new EU additions, Iceland would be able to join the EU particularly fast. Iceland never formally withdrew its EU application, which means accession talks could be resumed swiftly from where they left off.

Norway, in particular, would have significant weight in the EU thanks to its role as Europe’s main gas supplier.9 But while the Nordic countries would be nice-to-have members, for Ukraine (and to an extent Moldova as well) the question of EU membership is existential. Despite the geopolitical urgency, Ukraine’s EU integration is bound to be a bumpy ride due to the impact its accession will have on the EU’s Common Agriculture Policy. By coupling Ukraine’s (and Moldova’s) accession to a Nordic enlargement round, the EU can change the narrative into a net positive one. Norway could especially tip the scale if it decided to link its accession to Ukraine’s. 

2. The EU should make an offer that cannot be declined (and get over the fish) 

As so often in the EU’s relations with coastal non-member European countries, the biggest issue between the EU and Greenland, Norway and Iceland is fisheries. Greenland left the EU due to the Common Fisheries Policy, in Iceland the fishing lobby is already mobilising against EU accession, and despite all the reasons to ensure that the EU and the UK are working closely together on defence, fisheries very nearly got in the way of a recent landmark agreement.10

Although fish is an easy emotional argument against EU membership, especially where coastal communities in Norway are concerned, the industry itself sees potential for a better fisheries deal through membership.11 Therefore, the EU should be forthcoming in proactively offering the prospective members a good deal on fish.

3. Norway needs to get the North on board

Support for EU membership has traditionally been an urban affair in Norway, with strongest opposition in rural parts of the country. Given the shifting geopolitical landscape and rising tensions in sparsely populated Northern Norway, driven by Russia’s increasingly reckless behaviour, it is imperative to highlight the benefits of EU membership for the region. Getting the northern regions to lead the debate on EU membership would turn the tables on the traditional yes and no camps.

Additionally, making Norway part of the same enlargement round as Ukraine would buy Norwegian politicians time for the domestic debate, as Ukraine’s EU integration process will inevitably take some years – and perhaps some good will from the voters who are strongly supportive of Ukraine.12

4. Nordic peer pressure to speed things up

In the Swedish NATO debate, one important argument was that if Finland was set on joining, Sweden could not remain the sole Nordic country outside of the alliance. Iceland moving towards EU membership could create similar momentum in Norway, especially if accompanied by a Greenlandic decision to rejoin the EU. While Norwegians remained negative towards EU membership despite Iceland’s integration attempt last time, the geopolitical situation has increased the urgency for the Nordics to stick together.

Denmark, Finland and Sweden can help by highlighting the possibilities alignment on EU membership would open up in the Nordic and Nordic–Baltic cooperation, drawing from the positive experience since Finland and Sweden’s NATO accession. The incoming Danish EU Council presidency could help nudge the process in Iceland, potentially creating some pull effect for Norway as well.

5. Timing is everything

Finally, initiating the EU accession process can open windows of opportunity for malign influence by foreign actors. Iceland has announced the intention to hold a referendum, and ‘yes or no’ referendum campaigns can easily be manipulated to polarise public opinion, as was the case in Moldova in 2024.13 The EU could help the Icelandic ‘yes’ campaign by signalling willingness to make a constructive offer, especially by addressing the concerns the energy and fishing lobbies are mobilising on.

In Norway, a debate on the complex issue of EU membership would ideally require a public information campaign as a first step. It is therefore best to save opening a discussion for after the September 2025 parliamentary elections, to prevent oversimplified and polarising positions from taking over the public discourse, and to allow citizens to make an informed decision if a referendum is to follow. 
Greenland recently elected a new parliament, where cooler heads on the independence question prevailed. In Greenland’s case, it is particularly important to avoid framing EU membership as an alternative in opposition to Greenland’s current status or a closer relationship with the US. Rather, the EU should be presented as compatible with, and beneficial to, Greenland’s other geopolitical considerations.