The calls in 2016 were clear, from every political party except the Liberal Democrats and the SNP, the United Kingdom was going to leave the European Union and take control of their affairs. They were out. The UK was going to be a fully independent country (except for NATO purposes) in terms of trade, military, and immigration. No longer would the United Kingdom be shackeled by the Eurocrats in far away Brussels, appointed not by Britons but by Eastern Europeans and the United Kingdom would be fully independent and sovereign.
That’s the claim made by the Labour/Tory coalition and they won. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is no longer a member state of the European Union and now 5 years later to the day it is very clear that Brexit has devestated the British economy. This is coming from the BBC which I felt had a pro-Brexit bias in 2016.
The United Kingdom has a population of around 66,000,000 people. It has overseas territories around the world today. It used to control India, Canada, Australia, and much of Africa. It’s main language is the most commonly spoken language in the world. Even with all of these enormous advantages, losing membership to the European Union has been devestating to their economy. Trade with the EU makes up the largest share of British imports and exports.
Now imagine what will happen if Greenland were to become independent and lose its preferential trade access to the European Union. With a population of only around 56,000, and a large percentage of their budget coming from Denmark Greenland would be devestated from the loss of access to the EU market far more than the United Kingdom was.
If Greenland were independent it would be the 6th least populated country in the world outside of Europe. It would be close to that of Saint Kitts and Nevis, with a smaller population than Dominica. Of the 20 least populous countries in the world outside of Europe, two are African island nations, the rest are in the Caribbean and Oceania. The five comparable Oceanic nations, Tuvalu, Nauru, Palau, Micronesia, and Tonga are in the tropics and maintain close relations with the US, Australia, and New Zealand giving them preferential trade and migration to and from at least one of those countries. The Caribbean nations form CARICOM, with a unified visa policy and they peg their currency to the United States dollar.
The 20 smallest independent countries outside of Europe have small GDP per capia, with only the Bahamas with a GDP per capita above 20,000. The Bahamas has the fortunate advantage of being a one hour boat ride from Miami. Greenland is extremely remote, with no such advantage.
RealLifeLore is correct, if Greenland were to harness its minerals it runs the risk of looking like Qatar, with a small population and immense mineral wealth. Starting as a democracy should give them an advantage, which Qatar did not have. Look to Guyana, another democracy which has discovered immense oil wealth and see how that impacts their politics over the next 5 years. It’s very rare for small democracies to come across large amounts of natural resources, Guyana is the best example I know of. Maybe Greenland will harness the natural resources similar to how Norway did with their oil wealth if they are independent, but they still only have 1% of the population of Norway and Norway has the advantage of being in the EFTA. Greenland will likely have no such advantage. What will Greenland use as its currency? The smallest developed country with an independent free floating currency today is Iceland, with 5 times the population of Greenland, and they are a member of the EFTA and Schengen Area. If Greenland were to make its own free floating currency, it would be the most minor independnet currency in the world. The second smallest developed country with an independent free-floating currency is New Zealand, with almost 100 times the population of Greenland. There are challenges to going alone. The challenge if they choose to have a free floating currency is it could easily be susceptible to large swings from speculation, in a way no other currency in the world is today. This is why most countries peg their currency or just use a currency from a larger country, which provides stability. I do not expect Greenland would choose to have an independent free-floating currency, but this does come with the tradeoff of reducing Greenland’s independence.
So in terms of freedom and autonomy, what does Greenland have to gain? They right now are fully self-governing in all matters except defense and foreign relations. This gives them all the major advantages of independence without the economic disadvantages. While being fully self-governing they also elect two members to the Danish parliament, on par with other parts of Denmark. They have as much of a voice as someone in Copenhagen.
When it comes to how they left the European Economic Community in 1985 they didn’t fully leave because they remain an Overseas Territory with some trade advantages of that relationship. If they were to sever their relationship with Denmark they would lose this protection.
There are three factors which have to be considered all of which are valuable. Those are independence, economic well-being, and social freedom.
If you maximize independence you end up like Ukraine, a fully independent country without any military defense aside from themselves, no mutual protection pacts. You do not have the advatange of being in a free trade area, you miss out on the advantages of being able to travel freely to other places. Borders pop up if only for customs duties. The increase in trade barriers harms economic well-being, the increase in travel barriers infringes on social freedom. It puts you at risk of invasion. Most countries nowadays do not go for maximum indepdendence. Only fools actively advocate for it.
If you maximize economic well-being you will advocate for open borders with your neighbors, requiring you to establish a common visa policy and external trade policy. Joining organizations like the European Union is the inevitable endpoint of economic maximization. This provides many social and economic advantages, but it also means that you are restricting what laws you can make without violating the treaty.
If you maximize social freedom you are still going to minimize independence because expanded travel freedom through a customs union reduces independence.
What does Greenland value most? There are inevitable tradeoffs to such a decision.
I cannot tell them what to do. But we can learn from history and if I was Greenlandic I would not support any severing of ties with Denmark unless if membership in the European Union is assured. I do not think that is possible, so I think the status quo is probably close to the best deal Greenlanders have available to their massive yet sparsely populated island.