Yesterday I spoke to two grown up, salt of the earth people who had signed the InDefence petition. They were adamant that they had signed against Iceland paying the IceSave debt. Their understanding of the issue was that a national referendum would give the nation an opportunity to say no to paying the debt.
What could have been so hard to misunderstand about the InDefence petition’s opening statement?
“I challenge the president of Iceland, Mr. Olafur Ragnar Grimsson to reject the new IceSave bill. I think that it is fair to demand that the economic burden imposed on the Icelandic public and the future generations of this country will be put to a national referendum where the Icelandic nation gets to vote on it.”
The front page of Frettabladid also reveals an interesting turnabout. Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson and especially Bjarni Benediktsson are now against a national referendum. They would prefer the bill to be revoked and new negotiations should take place between Iceland and the UK and Netherlands. Petur Blondal, the Independence Party MP who sponsored a bill a couple of weeks ago asking for a national referendum said yesterday that “MP’s have to sponsor bills all the time which they don’t necessarily agree on wholeheartedly” as he now claims that a national referendum would be less preferable to renegotiating.
What could have been so hard to misunderstand a few days ago when these very politicians sponsored and voted on a bill for a national referendum?
Related posts:
Blubber
7 months ago
LOL I was nearly hurled out of a moving vehicle for suggesting that “indefence” was nothing but populist, self serving BS.
Alas, lo and behold, suddenly the idea of a referendum is no longer palatable.
The Chosan
7 months ago
Indefence strikes again….interesting
JP
7 months ago
Well, Dadi, I follow your blog since the beginning.
In many ways it opened my eyes on what have been going on in Iceland for the past decade.
But I can’t understand this histeric and panic attitude after decision of the president of Iceland.
So far, nothing bad happen (except for ratings – which are worthless anyway) – money from IMF will flow according to previous agreements, money from Nordic countries also, even the world press never been warmer about Iceland and Icesave issue as now.
So, in fact, what are you heading on with crying over spilt milk ?
I signed InDefence and I am convinced that I did right.
The international regulations regarding bank expansion and bank activity should be changed. It is rather big luck for the world that Icesave was relatively small event concerning banks of UK or other countries that expands their activity abroad.
Boggi
7 months ago
Completly agree with JP.
I mean Dadi, its almost looking and desperate.
I have talked to alot of people this days and all of them are very happy they signed InDefence, I have been reading the news abroad, and more and more countries and people are sideing with Iceland in this case.
Dadi
7 months ago
JP and Boggi,
“The international regulations regarding bank expansion and bank activity should be changed. It is rather big luck for the world that Icesave was relatively small event concerning banks of UK or other countries that expands their activity abroad.”
I agree completely. And I have referred on several occasions to Daniel Gros’ warning to the UK about their own financial giants which could implode.
You have to ask a lot of questions regarding IceSave though. Even if some people are happy they signed the InDefence petition I am not sure a large majority were thinking “it is time to restructure the international finance and banking system”. It is more likely they followed those they usually follow politically.
If you sign petitions then I would ask that you know what you are signing and for whose benefit. I for example would not sign my name under anything unless I knew who is behind the organization of the petition and had a good grasp of the issue (see the petition to end all petitions here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw)
Then it is the president who seems to think it is his personal matter to shape the role of Icelandic democracy to his own liking. What is the benchmark now on national referendums? If we get enough people to sign up to a Facebook group, say 20.000 or 30.000 can we challenge every bill from Althingi with his help? This does not say democracy, it says demagoguery.
Did you see his press conference yesterday. There he did not sound like he had taken a calculated decision on international politics, he was backtracking and refusing to answer questions honestly. He is playing a massive risk with Iceland’s foreign relations, and hopefully people don’t underestimate that.
But the issue of more countries and people siding with Iceland now is interesting , I’ll have some thoughts on that later.
Bromley86
7 months ago
>except for ratings – which are worthless anyway
Whatever would give you that opinion? I’ve seen people far more knowledgeable than, I assume, you and I say that this will make borrowing to service non-Icesave debts more expensive for Iceland.
>money from Nordic countries also
Although the Norwegian FM seems to have broken rank, so far every Nordic that I’ve seen make a public statement has said that it will affect the Nordic review. The IMF has been less expressive, but they’ve used the Nordic requirement for Icesave to be resolved to delay before.
Blubber
7 months ago
My knee jerk reaction to indefence a year ago was two main issues, first off the whole “Do I look like a terrorist?” campaign. It implies that there are people who look like terrorists, something I for one will not sign off on. If nothing else, there are a couple of pictures there that could easily be mistaken for Timothy McVeigh.
Secondly, the furor over the use of the anti terrorism law. What was Britain supposed to do in order to stop the Icelandic banks from moving money? Ask nicely? Well, they had asked nicely if Iceland could guarantee the deposits, and many Icelandic government officials had said yes. But the actions of the banks did not match those words.
Thirdly, the way it looks to other nations is that we blame everyone but ourselves. Losing the goodwill that comes with shouldering responsibility may have cost us more than whatever percentages might be up for grabs in new negotiations.
Fourth, IceSave is a fraction of what the country now owes, but it is the only fraction so far that is clearly being paid by taxpayers in the UK and Holland. Yes, the €50 that it comes out to per taxpayer in those countries is far less of a burden, but it would be better PR to share the burden if nothing else.
Fifth, IceSave is only a fraction of what the country owes, so why is indefence focusing on that? The discussion is clearly being manipulated away from other issues.
JP
7 months ago
Dadi & Blubber
Well, the future will show whose predictions are closer to the truth.
Anyway, you failed to predict the president move and its reactions, thus the influence of Indefence movement (or the visible power of those who controls this movement and the president secret plans).
So, let’s hope for the best of the bad that is going to be swallowed.
Today’s letter of Dr Michael Waibel in FT shows further support for closer examination of the Icesave case in terms of international law.
I think that even though Iceland has poor PR on international stage now, some lawyers and institutions will treat this case as purely ambitious task to solve that matter.
I strongly believe that Icesave case will contribute to improvement of international regulations of banking law.
And last but not least – I am aware that Icesave case is only a peak of an iceberg of Iceland problems.
Blubber
7 months ago
JP –
The consequences for international banking law could be interesting, absolutely.
However, IF there had been a law to keep IceSave from happening, Icelandic bankers and politicians would have whined to no end about how unfair it was that the brilliant Icelandic economic wunderkinds were halted by international regulations from performing their miracles. Much like how they told every expert who warned Iceland to shut up.
And why didn’t anyone double check that we really could ensure the deposits? It’s not like deposit insurance is a novel idea, it’s been around for a while.
And on top of that, even if international law regarding deposit insurance is pure nonsense, there are those super irritating films, tapes and letters of Icelandic government officials guaranteeing the deposits.
I think it is unfair and disgusting that I have to pay for this crap. But my anger is directed at the people who got me in this mess, not some foreign scapegoat who is merely protecting his own people and behind.
Dadi
7 months ago
JP, correct I didn’t predict that he wouldn’t sign… I just found it unthinkable that he would be so self-absorbed and willing to play chicken with the country’s financial well-being.
if things had gone the other way round than they have this week (and they still might) that might have serious consequences for Icelandic households (if the currency plunges further or any economic action by the EU, Dutch and UK because usually the international system keeps renegades in check) and I find it amazing how eager the politicians are to play around with the financial well being of their citizens.
right or wrong about the fairness of IceSave, I think it is very dangerous how our politicians have manipulated their offices to their own personal benefit, the governments of Iceland and now Olafur.