Click here to read petition

indefence.is

4th January 2010                  INDEFENCE

ICELAND INTENDS TO PAY ICESAVE AT REASONABLE TERMS

ICELANDERS RELUCTANTLY AGREED TO PAY DISPUTED ICESAVE

OBLIGATIONS IN AUGUST 2009, BUT THE TERMS IN A NEW

LEGISLATIVE BILL ARE UNREASONABLE.

There has been considerable confusion in the international media about the

implications of a refusal from the Icelandic President to sign a legislative bill that

introduces new terms to the so-called Icesave agreement. Some journalists have

reported that Iceland would thereby refuse to pay the British and Dutch governments

the €3.91 billion needed to settle the dispute. This is factually incorrect.

Rather, a refusal to sign the new legislation would have the following implications.

The government could either face a national referendum on the legislation or

withdraw it. If the new legislation is either rejected in a referendum or withdrawn by

the government, then previous legislation from August 2009 would remain in force.

This older legislative bill outlines Iceland’s reluctant agreement to cover the payment

of the €3.91 billion needed to settle the Icesave dispute and sets out payment

conditions that would protect the Icelandic state from bankruptcy.

It is also important to point out that the Icesave dispute is between the governments of

Iceland, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, not between Iceland and British

and Dutch private Icesave account holders (as some journalists seem to think).

Icesave account holders have already been paid well beyond the stated EU minimum

guarantee of €20,887 by their respective governments. The reluctance of Icelanders to

compensate the British and Dutch governments has two primary causes:

1. The unclear legal basis of the claims under the relevant EU directive and reluctance

of the British and Dutch governments to have them clarified by the European Court of

Justice.

2. The draconian nature of the proposed Icesave settlement and the preceding

aggressive use of anti-terrorism legislation against Iceland by the British government.

And the feeling that larger and more powerful European nations would have been

treated in a very different manner.

———————

For further information, please contact:

Magnús Árni Skúlason, mobile +354-8220401, magnus@reconomics.is

Eiríkur S. Svavarsson, mobile +354-8978087, eirikur@kvasirlogmenn.is

Jóhannes Þ. Skúlason, mobile: +354-664-8334 johannesthor@gmail.com

www.indefence.is

Iceland Review

7th October, 2009

It appears as if a cross-political majority is forming in the Icelandic parliament, Althingi, on reconsidering Iceland’s relations with the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Chairman of the Independence Party Bjarni Benediktsson doubts that it is in Iceland’s best interest to accept further loans.

Read the rest of this entry »

Eva Jolly

Global Research

7th august, 2009

From G8 to G20, many heads of state and government seem to delight in repeating that nothing will ever be the same again. The world is changing, to the point of being turned on its head by the crisis; the way we think and act in terms of financial regulation, international relations and development aid must therefore, according to them, change too. However, numerous examples contradict all this big talk. The situation in which Iceland now finds itself following the implosion of its banking system and the emergency nationalisation of its three main banks (Kaupthing, Landsbanki and Glitnir) is undoubtedly one of the most significant of these examples. This small country of 320,000 inhabitants is now reeling under the weight of billions of Euros of debt, which has absolutely nothing to do with the vast majority of its population and which Iceland cannot afford to pay.

Read the rest of this entry »