Right now, there are around 500 people stationed out at Bessastaðir, the President’s residence, to urge him to veto the Icesave bill that was [finally!] passed in parliament just before midnight on December 30.
The Prez said on the 31st that he would meet with members of the In Defence group before making a decision whether or not to ratify the bill.
If the President does veto the bill, it will be referred to a national referendum, and it is almost certain that the majority of the nation want to reject the Icesave agreement.
Three days ago, In Defence claimed that 53,000 Icelanders had already signed a petition urging the President to veto the bill. Now, suddenly, there are over 60,000 people who have signed.
Egill Helgason, TV host and Iceland’s most popular blogger, writes on his blog that he’s done a quick investigation of the names that have been added to the petition during that time, and out of the last 100 names added he found 19 that were underage, and therefore not eligible to vote in a referendum.
In other words, this sudden growth spurt in the petition is a little suspicious.
Obviously I am not one of the ones stationed outside Bessasataðir right now, for the very simple reason that I am not convinced that vetoing the Icesave bill is the right thing to do. All options concerning the matter are bad – it’s simply a matter of choosing which is marginally best, and believe me, I would not want to be the individual having to make that decision.
I suspect the President feels the same – which is why he may very well veto the bill and refer it to the will of the people. Yet even in that case he will be deciding, since he probably knows that, in that instance, the Icesave agreement will be rejected.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch: I’ll be announcing some changes to this blog very soon. Nothing too radical, though. Stay tuned.
{ 26 comments… read them below or add one }
Se should spend a week on a quiet Caribbean island to think it all over. Eat some crayfish, drink some rum, get some sun, and let his mind wander for a while. Then make the biggest decision of his life…
Why? This is time after Google after all.
I think you have same number of visitor monthly (or more) – but I doubt you find it suspicious, Alda
And it’s way more effective than 500 people jumping in cold out there.
First of all, InDefence never claimed their site was eligible for anything.
Second, Egill Helgason has a secure future whilst those underage will be eligible to pay for IceSave and all other mess, right? So it’s their right to say what they think about the matter. But Egill has no reasons to worry about it – their voices won’t be counted anyway.
And even less I want to be the one paying for others debts.
Well, finally he has do something – for so many years of very pleasant life paid by his fellow Icelanders.
No matter of the options – I think it’s absolutely wrong when 63 people decided the fate of nation on the late evening of December 30. They could use coin for that rather than wasting so much time for nothing. Or close yeas before hitting the buttons
Anyway it will be for those underage to bear the consequences.
Oops!
Should be “close eyes” instead of that suspicious “yeas” of course…
I’m from the UK, but I can’t understand why he doesn’t simply refuse to sign it and let Icelanders vote on it. Sure there will be left wing spin, trying to scare people – it the same agenda, same rubbish all the time – much of it generated by freeloaders at the EU. Iceland should simply ignore it. Otherwise instead of paying debts, Iceland will be doing what all European countries do: pay for French farming interests and subsidise continually Southern Europe.
But … what’s the weather doing?
I wonder, if those people, who demand a national referendum on the Icesave matter – and apparently intend to vote ‘No’ – are prepared to face the consequences. I really doubt it. There is definitely no ‘good’ choice to be made, but I find it irritating, that all too often the arguments against paying are supplemented by a pinch of xenophobia against UK, Holland and the EU and by blaming the unfairness of other nations.
Alda,
I suspect that you are an agent of Brussels, feigning indecision.
It’s true that when European nations are given a referendum on surrendering independence they vote no. The cowardly champagne-and-caviar crowds sitting in parliaments nevertheless vote yes.
Do you really want to put your family and future generations on the hook for the crimes of money launderers and swindlers? Do you really think that an armada of Spanish fishing vessels won’t drain territorial waters of the last cod?
Which side are you on?
As an Icelander I find this unfair, i will vote no if I get the chance.
The EU directive for the fund guaranteeing loans never had a state guarantee, the EU even made a statement in mars or april i think to itterate on this matter.
Ask yourself, why on earth does Iceland citicens suddenly have to pay for an international private company? and what does that mean for your international citizenship.
The fund was set up by EU directive, for countries not to need to take the fall from private companies, that legislation is not working as intended.
And the I have to ask, what in the world does it take to enforce a “force de major” if not the whole economy meltown of a nation?.
Why do you doubt? What about those people who apparently intend to vote ‘Yes’ – are they prepared to face the consequences?
And I’m sure the politicians do NOT intend to face the consequences in any case (as usual).
Where did you get this impression? From UK media, Joerg? Then they lied to you
There is “xenophobia” … against bankers and politicians (both Icelandic, EU, UK, NL) who want to solve their problems at the expenses of people. So an old trick is used – they gave to you someone to be accused of. In our case – ” greedy stupid ignorant Icelanders”.
The “problem” – the one you haven’t figured out yet – is rather simple. Icelanders don’t want to pay for something they don’t owe/borrow.
So if you deposited 10,000 pounds at Icesave – I’m not the one you should go after. Sorry.
In my own country, it would be huge news if that high a fraction of the population had all signed the same petition.
Is it normal in Iceland to have that large a response?
Another point of view, which I express no opinion about:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/iris-lee/icesave-agreement-just-si_b_409479.html
Look on the bright side Icelanders it will soon be 2035 and the whole thing will be over, I would vote no to get a european court case the thing that the British gov. was loathe to go down to when this whole thing started. Then if that fails well there is always the above mentioned ICY financial deal at 5.5% (does the british govermento pay that on its borrowings hmmmmm) And as from what I understand the Icesave punters have been reimbursed, So the 5 billion is easily affordable for UK plc ,I mean just look at the zillions that they have wasted in Iraq on non existent weapons of mass distraction, So princess Tony Blair can make a few million on the after dinner speech circuit with his pals in texas. Remember comrade citizens keep the red flag flying there!!
I would have thought one way through this would be to ask “What would Doddsson do?” and then do the opposite.
I suspect quite a lot of the people who have signed the petition think that by vetoing the bill and subsequently nationally voting it out we get of scot free and don’t have to pay for IceSave. Unfortunately it isn’t so, the IceSave debt won’t go away that easily.
get off! not of…
This morning in the Telegraph Business here in the UK I read how the UK Financial Services Authority stood by and allowed Kaupthing to set in UK *KNOWING* that it had liquidity problems and only 8 months before it fell. Apparently it believed it would help it’s liquidity problems. So the UK government was actually complicit in creating the situation it now requires the Icelandic population to pay for. The Serious Fraud Office is also looking at the Icelandic Bank dealings.
I hope Iceland has a referendum and sticks two fingers up to the deal. You have the opportunity to stand up for the truth of this matter which is as many have said that debts created by criminal private individuals should not be paid for by the general population.
I wish we had the unity of voice and leadership somewhere here in the UK to make the same stand.
hello, love your blog
and I apologise for the length of this comment
here goes
I’m English and I really hope he vetoes it; clearly it will not be passed in any referendum where sane people will be voting. For me Britain is a nation of 60 or so million people and one of the richest countries in the world, it could easily afford to write off the money spent in the icesave affair
(it’s probably not even a month’s worth of ‘quantative easing’).
It sickens me that we should be doing something like this to a small country especially as it is the British regulatory authorities who are as much to blame as anyone for the debacle not least for their failure to bring icesave into the British deposit insurance programme
I know it is difficult to choose between the threat of international isolation and selling your country into third world style debt bondage but in isolation at least you and your children in their turn would have freedom to control our own country. If Iceland agrees to pay back a debt which cannot be paid Brittan, Holland, the IMF and lord knows who, will almost certainly use it as leverage to
(over time) acquire everything of worth from your country and grind its people into the dirt, just like they do in the third world.
If Iceland chooses to say no and is threatened with isolation what will that mean, really.
You still have huge natural resources (relative to population size) fish, cheap power, various metal ores, a highly educated and industrious population… All of these are things that people want; it’s inconceivable that nobody will want to trade.
Also Iceland is in a key strategic position on the periphery of Europe and with legal claim to the arctic area, reported to be free of ice in summertime in the next few years and surely destined to become one of the major shipping routes in the world.
Also who the hell wants to join the European union anyway anybody who thinks that this will grantee any kind of standard of living or safety only need look at Greece where the government has just been told by the European union that its drastic programme of tax rises and public spending cuts that will cut living standards for millions is not enough.
Also Joerg
I appreciate that what you say may be true but I would like to think that any sane Icelandic person would feel a pinch of prejudice towards Brittan, Holland and the EU, seeing as the sovereign governments of those entities are trying to bully and blackmail Iceland into paying a huge unpayable debt which will likely ruin their country. (The role of the british authorities is a whole differnt post)
I hope it gets the boot.
don’t give the money to us, our government will just give it to our banks.
good luck Iceland.
Reading Joerg’s comments here and other places in this blog, I am impressed with the near-vehemence with which he has taken the side of the EU: that entry to that institution will make all things hunky-dory, that you will face utter darkness and ruin outside it, etc. Nary a bad word to be seen, to put it mildly.
Without criticizing him personally, I would like to make the observation – gleaned from many years of foreign travel – of how struck I am by the degree of indoctrination regarding the EU shown by under-50s Germans and others whom I have met. Obviously, the school systems in many EU lands have been hard at work in exposing their charges to one-sided pro-EU propaganda, with the result that it is neigh impossible to engage in any meaningful discourse critical of the EU with Germans of recent generations, so effective has the brainwashing been.
Nonethess, I would venture the following: the EU is a non-democratic supranational entity whose current reason for existence is the furtherance of business interests and profits in return for support in maintaining politicians in power. By insulating the Commission from accountability, a smokescreen is set up whereby any dissension from those decisions imposed on the electorate by fiat can deflected. National politicians can always hide behind the excuse that “their hands are tied, they are bound by treaties, there is nothing to be done, etc.”, while they, in cahoots with greedy business, work to subvert consumers’ rights and the democratic process.
Now as long as countries like Iceland, Norway and Switzerland remain outside the EU, a bit of nagging doubt will remain in the minds of the hoi polloi – i.e. could things have been better outside the EU? Any dictatorship – benevolent or otherwise, can ill afford any doubt among the masses. And that is one reason why Iceland is being subjected to the good-cop/bad-cop blandishments and threats from the EU and its hired hands. The EU needs to round up any mavericks like Iceland, since these represent a small, but distinct threat to the current Brussels hegemony.
Furthermore, Brussels, on purely practical grounds, would like to place the remaining North Sea oil and gas of independent Norway under its direct control. If Iceland falls to the EU, Norway will be harder put to stand alone. The plum, then, for the EU is not Iceland, so much as it is Norway.
The current play against Iceland, in other words, is an instrument with which to weaken hitherto strong Norwegian resistance towards joining what appears to be – on the face of it – a failing European Union.
It would be supremely ironic if Iceland – threatened, cajoled, and intimidated into leaving one sinking ship – were only to step on board another, but this is what is likely to to happen, should it join the foundering EU.
Iceland, take heed of the lesson of Jacob and Esau, and do not sell your birthright for a bowl of pottage.
whatever, are you talking about the report from the French bank? The first part of the sentence has been used here but people tend not to turn the page and read the rest, which comes after the comma. Or at least they conveniently forget.
“It is accepted that deposit guarantee schemes are neither meant nor able to deal with systemic banking crises, which fall within the remit of other parts of the “safety net”, e.g. supervisors, central bank, government.”
“Where did you get this impression? From UK media, Joerg?”
As a rule, Alexander, I don’t get my views on Icelandic politics and other matters from UK media – which is unfortunate in this case, as it would have been a good excuse.
“Reading Joerg’s comments here and other places in this blog, I am impressed with the near-vehemence with which he has taken the side of the EU”
That’s the oddest misperception I have ever encountered in this place. And my comment to this post I didn’t even contain anything pro-EU, not least because it is not the topic of this post to take a pro- or anti-EU stance.
And let me inform you, that the EU has never been high on the agenda in school for the “under-50s Germans”, let alone be an issue of brainwashing. I live here and I hear many critical voices on particular matters in connection with EU in Germany, too. But ok, you might rather find the opinion that the EU is a source of peace after centuries of quarrels in Europe than having it considered the source of all evil. That kind of fear mongering doesn’t work here.
What’s so suprising, Fred?
It’s very small country with all people connected.
And – most important – people do care here. At least to click a button
Well, Joerg, what are your views based on?
Or what?
maybe some British tourists were rejected to be served in hotel?
And do you consider Gordon Brown&Co. and UK citizens as “UK”?
Joerg,
You mention “fear mongering” when referring to my comments regarding the EU browbeating poor Iceland into submission.
However, your statement: “I wonder, if those people, who demand a national referendum on the Icesave matter – and apparently intend to vote ‘No’ – are prepared to face the consequences” can itself easily be read as a sort of veiled threat. If that is not fear mongering, what is?
Whether you realise it or not, you are stating that outside the EU, there is no salvation, and woe be those who dare go against it.
Nonetheless, you have in a way proved one of my points – that pro-EU/Common Market arguments have so infused the tone of German discourse over a half -century, that they have become as the air one breathes – one remains unconscious of them, and only becomes aware of the degree of the penetration of such ideas, when confronted with them by an outsider.
Or more commonly, in response to such criticism, one forms the wagons into a circle, rifles at the ready.
Iceland has got a raw deal, and the EU, acting in a reprehensible fashion, is using the opportunity of the Icelandic crisis to assimilate one of the last bastions of independence in Europe, for the single purpose of grabbing Icelandic and – ultimately Norwegian – resources.
And as far as the EU as a source of European peace goes – well, we have no need to look further than EU poltroonery during the Serbian wars.
No, Iceland would be much better off resisting blackmail and staying outside the EU, which in any case is likely to collapse over the next ten years or so.
Can I take it you’re just a little Euro-sceptic them, RD?
The fact that you take it as a threat, to paraphrase something someone once said to me, tells me more about you than it does about Joerg. Of course at the time that didn’t endear that person to me, but it was still true.
If you reread Joerg’s post from a neutral position, it’s quite clearly all about the absence of intelligent discussion in the media rather than a threat that “our EU will beat up your nation”. Stating, or discussing, a reality does not consitute a threat.
For example, in all this time has a single Icelandic paper run an article on the pros and cons of the IMF loans? As I don’t read Icelandic, the answer may be yes. But if it is, it’s not been reported or discussed on the common English sites.
“Well, Joerg, what are your views based on?
maybe some British tourists were rejected to be served in hotel? Or what?”
Alexander, you don’t seem to like British tourists. Are you, say, xenophobic?
There has been an intrinsic problem about Icesave from the beginning. I can understand everybody not wanting to pay for the debts of the crashed Icelandic banks. I don’t enjoy having my taxes spent on the rescue of the failed German banks either. But as far as Icesave is concerned, everybody should be prepared to take a stand, if and why it should be acceptable to have domestic deposits in Icelandic banks, regulated by Icelandic authorities, guaranteed by the state, while those of foreigners not. And the fact that the Icesave issue has been taking such a precedence over other debt-related issues might be questionable in itself. It’s a very thin line. We in Germany are just lucky, that a similiar problem with Kaupthingedge accounts has been solved without direct involvement of taxpayers’ money. Apart from this, I don’t seem to be the only one with the perception mentioned above. You might refer to Daði’s EA and related links, also in the comment’s section. And carefully reading the comments above might indicate traces of what I said.
And bankers work in banks, which usually operate within a regulatory framework provided by politicians, who have been elected by a majority of the people. I don’t blame anybody, but there is always room for self-reflection.
On a completely different matter – I would like to thank for the visual supplements of Icelandic weather in the forums. I enjoy watching those pics.
roughdoggo, this post is not about the EU, so I won’t involve in a discourse about it. I have not been brainwashed enough not to see the shortcomings of the EU but I wouldn’t take such a negative stand on it. And if you are just aspiring to have a personal dogma confirmed, I can easily honour this view without having to share it.
My remark about the EU as source of peace is probably more understandable for the “not-so-much-under-50s-Germans-or-even-a-little-above”, who can still cherish the concept of talking and negotiating as opposed to shooting at each other, like it had been for centuries before.
And, btw, I am not “taking the side of the EU”, I am just clarifying my personal view, which I consider being pro-Icelandic – to sign and move on appears to be the better of two bad choices. And, please, no paranoia – there is apparently no “veiled threat” involved – who am I to threaten anybody? As it has been said several times before in the comments, even by Icelanders, – saying ‘No’ won’t make the whole mess disappear.
{ 1 trackback }