It’s about the Icesave referendum, surprise surprise:
The Icelandic Parliament, Althingi, convened today to debate a Government bill regarding the preparation for a national referendum on the so-called Icesave legislation. This comes in the wake of the President of Iceland´s decision on 5 January not to sign into law a bill which provides for a state guarantee of loan repayments to the British and Dutch governments. According to Article 26 of the Constitution, a national referendum must take place should the President not sign a bill into law.
Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir emphasized to Parliament the importance of respecting the Constitution, adding that all political parties agree that national referendum should take place as soon as possible.
“The draft law is simple and without restrictions. I am confident that the majority of eligible voters will make up their minds and participate in the referendum. I have full trust in the Icelandic voters and know that they will make the right decision. The government will prepare a vote and inform voters carefully, and by that bring the Icesave issue to a close. This is necessary to continue the ongoing economic recovery in Iceland”, she stated during the parliamentary debate.
The draft law before Parliament states that a national referendum should take place no later than Saturday 6 March 2010. The government suggests that the vote should take place on 20 or 27 February, or 6 March, 2010.
Despite the President´s decision not to sign the bill it nevertheless enters into law and remains in force unless rejected in a national referendum.
The Icelandic Government has clearly stated its intention to honor its international obligations and remains fully committed to implementing the bilateral loan agreements with the UK and the Netherlands and thus the state guarantee provided for by the law. Iceland has been in close contact with the Governments of the UK and the Netherlands, other partner countries and the EU and the IMF, to inform counterparties about the latest developments and explain the process triggered by the decision announced by the President on Tuesday.
Reykjavik 8 January 2010
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
Can you ask the PM how saddling the country with an impossible debit is going to foster a recovery? And while you are at it, ask her why she is honoring an agreement made by a criminal and discredited administration? That has confused me all along. Thanks.
On a brighter note, I just watched the 2006 murder mystery thriller Cold Trail on Icelandair this morning. This Icelandic flicker kept me glued to the screen and made the flight to London bearable. The best part of the movie was the ending. A real thriller to the end.
Now back to regular programming…
I’m starting to understand your (previously expressed) weariness with the entire kreppa / IceSave debacle and discussions. It’s getting a little bit tiresome slogging through some of the IWR posts (and especially the long, long, comments) about these issues. Iceland will survive, probably prosper, a few will be hurt, most will not, and the sun will rise and set like it always does.
Seems there will be a referendum after all. I then suggest to send a Brit and a Dutch in every Icelandic home to explain the new agreements and convince them that UK and NL should have their money back.
After all, there aren’t so many Icelanders and it will be a quicker and more democratic way than all those months of pathetic discussions in the Althingi, only to be nullified by the President.
>Can you ask the PM how saddling the country with an impossible debit is going to foster a recovery?
Well, you’re assuming that it’s impossible. That aside, with the exeption of a Norwegian minister, the Nordics have so far stuck to their original “no Icesave, no loans”. The IMF have previously said “no Nordics, no IMF” (although to be fair the delays may have been due to UK/NL/EU pressure).
>And while you are at it, ask her why she is honoring an agreement made by a criminal and discredited administration? That has confused me all along. Thanks.
Sovereign nation etc. You can’t collect deposits and then tell the depositors to chase the IP
.
PeterRRRRRR is correct. In the UK we have had to prop many banks with our tax money. We’ve been screwed by the banks, and we’re going to be paying the money in taxes for years to come. I watched that prog about the Noughties the other night, and the inevitable point was made that we had all been living beyond our means for a long while now. Back to the Real World now. Let’s follow Kipling’s Gods of the Copybook Headings, button up our coats, and try to make sure that it never happens again.
Imitating Al Capp (guv’ment) isn´t endearing !
I wasn’t trying to be endearing.
Eva Joly suggested that the full amount in question could never be repaid by Iceland. That the best solution would be a compromise doing the least damage to the interested parties of the UK, the Dutch, and the citizens of Iceland.
Hi Alda, from London
I haven’t posted on this site before, but I think it’s really great, thanks very much for it. Now my first post is to ask a favour – I’d be very grateful if you or one of your regular visitors could help with a query.
We are currently having a very poorly informed argument on the British ‘Liberal Conspiracy’ website about the Icesave debacle (at http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/01/06/iceland-is-ripping-us-off/ )
[*Health warning* It gets quite rude about Iceland and Icelanders in places...]
After 2-3 days of “debate” we have been completely unable to resolve a fundamental question about the Euro2.6bn/US S3.2bn/GB£2.2bn loan that UK is now claiming repayment on from Iceland. Which is: does this sum cover the cost of reimbursing the first Euro21k/GB£18k of British deposits in Icesave, or is it the cost of reimbursing all the value of deposits in Icesave (every last penny, including those organisations that had millions deposited in Icesave)?????? #
As an example, the Manchester cancer hospital Christies Hospital had £6.5m in charitable donations deposited in Icesave. For that particular account, has the British Government now sent Iceland a bill for £6.5m, or for £18k?
We have had conflicting comments and lots of abuse* but nothing definitive on what is really a simple question. Are you able to help? Many thanks in advance.
(* I really had no idea that there was such anger at Iceland and Icelanders in UK! Maybe that Cod War era propaganda affected us in our formative years…..)
Hope that I will be corrected if I write anything wrong….
Iceland is being asked to cover the minimum compensation level for each individual saver (or couple if it was a joint account). This is up to 20887euros. Also they are asked to pay the interest on the amount as from Jan 1st 2009 and any costs incurred by Britain (or Holland) when Britain (Holland) paid the money out – that would be legal bills and office workers I suppose.
Iceland is not asked to pay 100% of the money lost. Britain chose to pay up to 100% and will make up the difference. I think Holland is paying the extra up to a maximum of 100 000 euros, not totally sure.
In the case of Manchester cancer hospital, I think they would not be classed as an individual saver and so are not covered by the compensation scheme at all. If that is true then I guess they have to wait for the bank’s assets to be wound up and hope that there is a payout to them. There is some prioritisation of claims too which complicates the payouts.
The Icelandic government thrashed out an agreement with the UK and Holland last summer. You can see the agreement to pay in English here: http://www.island.is/media/frettir/01.pdf
Last year the Icelandic parliament passed a law guaranteeing to back this agreement but with some conditions. The UK and Netherlands refused some of the conditions imposed by Iceland so the government rewrote the law and sent it through parliament again. It was passed at the end of December and sent to the president for signing. The president decided that taking everything into consideration he might be going against the will of the people if he signed, so he refused, thereby senting off a process leading to a referendum. Meanwhile the law takes effect.
Icelanders will be asked to vote for the law to continue or to be repealed. If the law continues then it still needs to be OKed by Britain and Holland. If it is rejected then the law from the summer is still on the table but it must be unlikely that the UK and Holland would back down and accept it now, given that they refused it before. I have no idea what would happen then.
Hope that helps. I’m no expert on this and I may have things wrong, but that is how I understand it.