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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.