The last time I looked, the Netherlands had a royal family and a parliamentary democracy too.
It’s not the relative merits of the various forms of democracy that is important here; the fact is that Iceland is shifting from a parliamentary democracy to a more representative democracy without precedent for how the system will work, and at a pivotal crisis point in Icelandic history. It gives an extra set of things to worry about for all the negotiators.

I think the example of California is very relevent, the voters don’t really face any immediate consequences of their voting habits, so they vote in extra spending but not new taxes, resulting in the state being virtually bankrupt.

For the record, I am hoping for a quick and much less painful solution than is on the table at the moment.

Yes, there is a way for the parliment to impeach the president as stated in the 11th article of the constitution. The motion needs 3/4 vote and has to be confirmed in a referendum. I’ve been advocating for this to be used.

Otherwise you end up with ill-informed and irrational decisions. I mean, who would honestly believe that sensible people would consistently vote for low taxes and high services, yet that’s apparently what’s happened in California.

Perhaps the mistake is in assuming people are sensible?

Given the fact that the referendum process is not fleshed out in the constitution, there’s a good chance that this isn’t either.

However, that didn’t stop the IP when they needed to bypass the prez. They must have read wiki . So I’d suggest waiting until the next Nehru award/Green energy thingy and then push it through.

“The nation’s constitution specifies that when the president cannot perform the duties of the office, such as when he or she is abroad or under anesthesia, the prime minister, the president of the Althingi (Parliament), and the president of the Supreme Court collectively assume the power of the office.”

So by that logic, if Iceland, as a nation, owes a lot of money, then the people are responsible for paying the debt. Ouch!

I am curious as to the President’s interpretation of the Constitution. What exactly are the powers of the government, if the people are supposed to decide?

Also most constitutions have checks and balances built into the system to stop one part of government running away with things.

Can you impeach the President, if you think he is not acting In the best interests of the Icelandic people?

For example, the US has the president, senate and supreme court

Well as ÓRG, our “Lord and Saviour” remarked to Jeremy Paxman, the Parliament in Iceland is but a tool and compared to the UK parliament is not soverign. It is the Icelandic People, the nation that is Sovereign.

so there you go, the people are responsbile for the nation. problem solved!

So the definition of democracy depends on the mood of the sitting president each time.

On top of that there seems to be a more widespread misunderstanding of how parliamentary democracy works. Meaning, few people seem to realize that our elected officials are speaking for the country when they make or break promises.

Also, I’d like to ask if there is an sort of limit on the President’s right to send things to referendum. A quite likely scenario would be a “no” vote in this round, a renegotiation of terms and a new agreement between the governments. Would that decision be sent to referendum too? It makes the job of both sides of the negotiators difficult. The UK/NL side know that the Icelandic negotiators can be overruled after an agreement has been reached, and the Icelandic government side have to keep looking over their shoulders at the president. You can’t really be a parliamentary democracy and a representative democracy at the same time without establishing some limits.