The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Looking in the recent posts there one finds things such as: The National Referendum: Not About IceSave March 4th, 2010
If you are a foreigner taking a look at the national referendum this Saturday, please don´t make the mistake of thinking it is about IceSave. It is all about internal, Icelandic politics. Those who will vote yes are voting for the government to stay on (Social Democrats and those who still think Steingrimur J. Sigfusson is the leader of the Left/Greens). Those who vote no are voting for the Independence Party and the Progressive Party (People who would absolutely love for it to still be 2007).
It is all about internal, Icelandic politics.
Those who will vote yes are voting for the government to stay on (Social Democrats and those who still think Steingrimur J. Sigfusson is the leader of the Left/Greens).
Those who vote no are voting for the Independence Party and the Progressive Party (People who would absolutely love for it to still be 2007).
Of course I would say no to paying for the insane way Landsbankinn went about its business. Today, Halldor J. Kristjansson, one of their CEO's is on record saying that there were meetings in February 2008 between the banks and the government about an impending collapse, yet they continued on to open the IceSave accounts in the Netherlands two months later. But in a discussion dominated by the frantics, Bryndis Hlodversdottir, law professor at Bifrost University has come up with the most rational input regarding the referendum so far. In order for it to be democratic the following has to apply: ... None of these parameters are met with this ridiculous referendum. So for the first time since I was old enough to vote I will stay away from the voting booth. This farce served up by a lame-duck president and a Progressive Party pressure group called InDefence has nothing to do with democracy and I want nothing to do with it.
But in a discussion dominated by the frantics, Bryndis Hlodversdottir, law professor at Bifrost University has come up with the most rational input regarding the referendum so far. In order for it to be democratic the following has to apply:
...
None of these parameters are met with this ridiculous referendum. So for the first time since I was old enough to vote I will stay away from the voting booth. This farce served up by a lame-duck president and a Progressive Party pressure group called InDefence has nothing to do with democracy and I want nothing to do with it.
Three likely scenarios a) The government keeps going and attempts to find a solution with the UK and Holland on the grounds that "people are against paying these debts". Why would the UK and Holland see that as an argument? Those countries can wait. The IMF loans could wait as well. The government is backed into a corner and has little options but to resign. b) The government keeps going and attempts to find a solution with the UK and Holland on which the opposition can agree to. Which is unlikely, because the opposition can wait until things are so tight that it can assume power on a wave of discontent. c) The government resigns. The current opposition resumes negotiations and quickly finds an "acceptable deal" with minor adjustments which they will take credit for. The new opposition kicks up a storm. Then what? A new national referendum on that deal? It is really a whole big mess. ...
a) The government keeps going and attempts to find a solution with the UK and Holland on the grounds that "people are against paying these debts". Why would the UK and Holland see that as an argument? Those countries can wait. The IMF loans could wait as well. The government is backed into a corner and has little options but to resign.
b) The government keeps going and attempts to find a solution with the UK and Holland on which the opposition can agree to. Which is unlikely, because the opposition can wait until things are so tight that it can assume power on a wave of discontent.
c) The government resigns. The current opposition resumes negotiations and quickly finds an "acceptable deal" with minor adjustments which they will take credit for. The new opposition kicks up a storm. Then what? A new national referendum on that deal?
It is really a whole big mess. ...
Of course the conduct of Landsbanki in creating and managing Icesave was unconscionable, and the Icelandic government's blanket guarantee of all of the icelandic banks' foreign liabilities foolhardy, but the UK and the Netherlands are making a lot of fuss over peanuts. En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
(yes, you can actually troll-rate this comment) En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
Economic Disaster Area: What Have You Done? (January 7th, 2010)
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.
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.
by gmoke - Aug 14 5 comments
by gmoke - Aug 19
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 12 8 comments
by Oui - Aug 12 28 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 1 20 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 3 4 comments
by Oui - Jul 12 53 comments
by gmoke - Aug 1
by Oui - Aug 193 comments
by Oui - Aug 1720 comments
by Oui - Aug 169 comments
by Oui - Aug 151 comment
by gmoke - Aug 145 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 128 comments
by Oui - Aug 1228 comments
by Oui - Aug 952 comments
by Oui - Aug 718 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 34 comments
by Oui - Aug 31 comment
by Oui - Aug 211 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 120 comments
by gmoke - Jul 313 comments
by Oui - Jul 3016 comments
by Oui - Jul 30
by Oui - Jul 261 comment
by Oui - Jul 253 comments