By the close of August, Iceland's people will vote in a referendum on starting EU accession talks. The prior effort took place in 2009 after the worldwide financial crisis that hit Iceland hard the previous year and brought down the nation's three biggest banks.

Backers of EU entry saw the economic upheaval and voter frustration as a chance to push Iceland's bid for bloc membership, even amid tough conditions.

Thórdís Kolbrún Gylfadóttir, Iceland's former foreign minister, shares views on how the country is adjusting to fresh pressures in a fast-evolving geopolitical scene.

On 29 August Icelanders will vote in a referendum on restarting accession talks with the EU. For years the EU served mainly as an economic partner with talks focused on trade issues. Has the picture shifted toward a geopolitical focus?

It forms only a small part of current discussion, though it should feature more alongside economic factors. Many shifts lie ahead with uncertainty across multiple areas.

Geopolitical strains and US policy changes under the present administration blend economic questions with security and defence matters. All elements are closely linked. On the trade side, threats of tariffs from abroad now carry wider reach than they did 15 years ago.

Why has the issue not yet become more geopolitical?

Security and defence talk stays more limited in Iceland than in nearby nations. This stems partly from distance to the main risk posed by Russia and the country's island status. Even as a founding Nato member without its own military forces, such topics sit less deeply in national culture than elsewhere. As a result Icelanders appear somewhat shielded from surrounding events.

The narrower debate here makes sense to a degree, since security now covers hybrid threats beyond outright war. Any further escalation on European soil would affect Iceland, not through direct attack but via sea disruptions or other breaks that would hit the economy and daily life. The country needs time to process events and hold open talks on the best path to protect its lifestyle and prosperity.

In a Europe marked by war near its edges, what political benefits would Iceland gain as a Nato member by joining the EU table?

Benefits for Iceland depend on the viewpoint. Major EU states must handle domestic political uncertainty. Much discussion centres on the Draghi report and efforts to cut bureaucracy and boost competitiveness, topics that also matter in Iceland.

Inside the EU both unity in actions and the difficulties of 27 sovereign states with distinct foreign policies appear clearly.

The government's choice to hold a referendum on opening EU talks shows that next steps hinge on the result.

This raises questions about gains and losses, with the public holding the final say. Some voters see full fisheries control as the core issue.

Iceland runs a strongly export-led economy that thrives on sales abroad. Any major shifts could therefore influence the country.

Many Icelanders worry about sovereignty, especially over fisheries. Coastal communities view control of the sector as vital to independence and success. What would you tell voters who see deeper EU ties as a risk to that control?

This ranks among the central concerns. The outcome rests on negotiations and the EU's willingness to accommodate Iceland. It touches practical, economic and cultural aspects, since the quota system underpins sustainable fishing without subsidies, unlike most OECD nations. Many therefore insist on retaining full authority.

Fisheries form part of national identity and history, placing the topic among the top three issues for many voters.

What would the other two issues be?

The first involves fisheries and all natural resources. Iceland also holds substantial green energy capacity. As an isolated grid without interconnectors, the situation differs sharply from Norway, for example.