On State guarantees and Rules of Competition and State aid in EU/EEA law

This argument was explored by Mr. Liepitz in a mail sent to me. It concerns the territorial limits, the State liability and the rules of competition and state aid in EU law (which are similar in EEA law). As you all can see, we should also consider very well and more in-depth the issue of non-discrimination. I recommend the articles of Stefán Már Stefánnsson and Petur Blöndal in Morgunblaðið in this regard.

 

Just to put this into context. Law is a social science discipline so legal pleadings are all acceptable as long as the legal methodology of fundamenting arguments on law, jurisprudence and doctrine are respected.

 

------------------

 

" It is clear that when the national State extends the garantees to depositors beyond the scheme, this constitutes a form of "State subsidy" and a discrimination problem may occur. If we consider (a bit far fetch, but why not) that it is a social policy, no problem, a State has the right to discriminate in favour of its citizens, or perhaps its residents.  If we consider it is a subsidy to the enterprises and / or national economy, we enter right into the huge ECJ jurisprudence on art 86 and 87 of the Treaty establishing European Communiies, now 106 and 107 in the Lisbon  Treaty 'Functionnig of UE"

(pfiew..)

 

There it is [The new Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union]:

 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:0047:0199:EN:PDF

 

Clearly  the bank system offers a SIEG regulated by Article 106. The aim of government in 2008 was to avoid desapearance of money in Island, a la Argentina, that is a national systemic crisis.

 

But 106 it is a terrible contested terrain, though Lisbon insists on national duties (cf 106- 2, art 14 and related declaration)

 

107 is more clear . You may say (and that would be my own  line) Island has a TERRITORIAL right to discriminate, that is in favour of LOCAL depositors and establishments, not national depositors (for example : it cannot discriminate against a British citizen having his money in a Rekjavik branch) nor national producers (it should garantee deposits of an Islander depositor in a Rekjavik branch of a British bank)

 

Without that territorial limits, a distortion would occur since a big State (or a big scheme) as more power to garantee than a small state

 

Anyway, as you have pointed out in your report, if GB and NL desagree with Island on implementation of art 106 and 107, they go to ECJ

!!! But before that , only   the Commission has a say (art 108a)"

 

------------

Without social justice there is no future for Europe: Open letter to the EU institutions from Iceland

Article by Dr. M. Elvira Méndez-Pinedo.

Associate Professor of European Law. University of Iceland. 

 

These days 317.593 Icelanders have learned the hard way all about the internal market of financial services. They have all become specialists in European law, free movement of capital, free provision of financial services and the European Directive for  the minimum guarantees of deposits. After 9 months of strong and fierce national debates, and deeply worried about their  economic independence, sustainaibility and future, 25% of  voters have requested a direct participation to approve the bilateral agreements negotiated by their government with the UK and Holland for the reimbursement of the national debt. In my view, these so called Ice-save dispute and agreements have to be considered under the light of:

-          The principles of State liability for breaches of EU/EEA law and non-discrimination.

-          The  European integration, the EU and the EEA Agreement and the fundamental rights fof citizens within the internal market.

-          The responsibility and role of all actors in the aftermath of financial crisis: EU, Member States, private banks and financial institutions and general public.

-          The international economic system based on a neo-liberal  approach which freed capitalism of its social responsibilities.

-          The movement of global social justice activism born in 1999 (Seattle) represented by figures such as Noble prize winners Joseph Steiglitz, Amartya Sen and activists/writers such as Susan George and Naomi Klein.

 

My main thesis:

There has been an oversimplification of the responsibilities and factors which led to the financial collapse plus the attribution of debts to Icelandic sole liability. Responsibility is to be found at all levels: European/national, private/public, UK/Iceland/Holland and it has to be determined very carefully. It is essential from a social justice point of view. What Icelanders are requesting is simply to examine the nationalisation of private debt in the light of social rights, democracy, justice and rule of law promised by the Treaty of Lisbon and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Without social justice there is no future for the European integration and the internal market.

Why do I defend this thesis? On the basis of the following arguments:

1. Analysis of the dispute in EU law and the EU internal market compared to a federal market:

-          It is acknowledged by many specialists of EU law that the State liability for a case of systemic bank failure is unclear in the EU Directive incorporated into the EEA legal order. The new EU Directive from 2009 still is unclear on this point. However, the principle of non-discrimination is essential in EU law. Consequence: in principle Iceland should honor its European obligations.

 

-          However, some essential elements should be analysed as they raise deep  ethical questions relating to fundamental rights of both citizens and States. Free movement of capital and free provision of financial services across 27/30 countries was achieved in the 90s without a proper system of supervision, collaboration and assistance between EU/EEA Member States in cases of financial crisis. No obligation to help each other in cross-border situations, no role for European institutions, no role of lender of last resort for the European Central Bank. Supervision was decentralised at national level. Internal market was incomplete in this sense. Unfortunately for Icelanders, crisis has shown how this model was imperfect.

 

-          Financial consequences of economic crisis and banks collapse are now to be paid by the general public/tax payers in Europe without a proper examination of the sustainability of the whole capitalist system plus the responsibilities of public/private actors in the crisis. Once the system has been rescued,“ Business goes on as Usual“.

 

-          EU created internal market and rules but pretends not to have competence nor to be related to the cross-border problems that the financial crisis has created in the same internal market. This is a fallacy and is fundamentally wrong on the basis of EU law. The EU not only has the right to act, it has the obligation to do so. Otherwise it is failing the citizens who will hate the internal market and, by extension, the EU.

2. Analysis of the extension of the internal market to the EEA in the case of the Ice-save cross-border dispute . All these are proven legal facts:

-          Lack of participation of Iceland in the EU legislative process. No possibility to influence the rules to adapt them to the needs of a small country.

-          Lack of access to justice for Icelandic citizens before EU institutions and European Court of Justice.

-          Lack of justice for Iceland. Lack of European Court directly competent on the issue (ECJ/EFTA Court). Lack of international court for economic disputes.

-          Failure of EU and EEA legal systems in this respect and failure so far to reach a political solution which satisfies all parties involved in the dispute and, above all, Icelandic citizens and British/Dutch taxpayers.

3. Analysis of important reasons relevant to the dispute behind Icelandic protesters and  60.000 requests to the President for a national referendum on the Ice-save bill 2.

 Questions:

-          Is it fair that citizens pay the consequences of the European Union/EU/EEA Member States and private companies failures in the internal market?

-          Is it fair that the Icelandic State has to nationalise the debts risking bankrupcy and future sustainaibility in order to comply with European law and satisfy creditors under the strict surveillance of the IMF and being deprived of the legal rights under the European legal order?

-          Isn´it a basic principle of democracy: “no taxation without representation“? Should not tax-payers have a word in the economic governance of the internal market?

 

4. Analysis of protests in Iceland.

-          Request by 60.000 voters  to participate directly in a decision that affects the economic sustainibility and the future of this small isolated country with only 317.593 citizens.

-          Protests during 2008-2009 in Iceland are deeply and logically connected with the movement of global justice activisms that asks for fairness in the economic governance of the world (Steiglitz, A. Sen, Naomi Klein, Susan George, World Bank, NGOs, etc).

-          A window of opportunity  to have a social responsible and new capitalist system in the whole world oppened in 2008 that is closing now: As global justice movement says: "Another world is possible" and we can make it happen only if stand up for it.

-          Otherwise the lesson of the  Ice-save dispute will be like the Principe di Salina said in the film “Il Gatopardo“ from Luchino Visconti: Something had to change so that all could remain the same......

5. When put in this perspective, Icelanders request to submit the new law on Ice-save to a national referendum is simply a request that the EU, EU Member States, Iceland, and even the IMF.... comply with the new Europe that has been promised to citizens:

- A request to advance from economic freedoms into fundamental rights and social justice in the reconstruction of the internal market of financial services. Social justice meaning a social contract or agreement between citizens, States and EU that all efforts will be done so that final debt will be paid by those responsible.

- A request to evaluate the ethical choice of nationalisation of private debt created by a greedy system of neoliberal capitalism that has freed companies, national and European administrations from their social responsibilities.

- A request to reconsider the Ice-save agreements in the light of European fundamental rights which are: democracy, rule of law, economic independence, sovereignty, solidarity between countries and future sustainability of Icelandic nation.

 Conclusions

 You cannot change history. However,  Icelanders now have the choice not to surrender their dignity and protest a methodology of solving this dispute that has aimed to satisfy creditors and looked upon the location of responsibilities both at national and European levels.

Exceptional circumstances call for exceptional thinking, approaches, measures and solutions. No matter what the future departs, Iceland is still an independent nation with a voice. The Presidential decision to submit the entry into force of the new law to national referendum has  called world-attention. Icelanders need to stand together and get the world to understand their point of view. Icelandic referendum will affect the future of the European integration and the internal market. Social rights and social justice must be part of the Europe.

As Jacques Delors has pointed out (El País, Dec. 2009), this  crisis has shown how Europe is missing a historic opportunity to show leadership in the world and lead the citizens into a better future. It is no wonder that President of the European Commission J. M. Barroso had a hard time in the European Parliament (EP) being re-elected for a second term. Critical and angry new elected Members of the EP accused him of creating a Europe for companies and not for citizens. In order to be reappointed, he promised 500 million Europeans a new "social Europe".

Lets go back to basics. European integration is for the benefit of us, common and ordinary people not only multinationals and international creditors. EU, are you listening to European citizens? This time revolts are in Iceland, next time it can be Paris, Madrid, Frankfurt, London, Brussels.....and it will not be thousands but millions of angry voices. Today three European Presidents, Von Rompuy, Barroso and Zapatero promised a new system of economic governance in Europe. I believe that the European integration can bring a better future for all Europeans, no matter where they live, in our out the EU borders. So here is the challenge for  you EU institutions: should not that new system include all of us citizens - or are we too small and ignorant to participate in deciding and financing our economic future?

Telur ósanngjarnt að láta almenning greiða

My contribution to the international media

The constitutional crisis provoked by the Presidential veto to a law in Iceland  is a result from a direct call from the citizens asking for direct democracy and requesting that social justice and human rights are taken into account in the present and future construction of the European internal market.

Did the EU and the EEA fail Iceland?

 

By M. Elvira Mendez-Pinedo, Associate Professor of European Law. University of Iceland

 

There is a present misunderstanding in the foreign media that Icelanders do not want to pay depositors in Europe who lost their savings within the Icelandic banks after their collapse in October 2008. This is not correct as the legal situation stands now. Iceland already passed a law in September 2009 agreeing to pay depositors and honour its international obligations. This law was approved by most political parties but it contained some reservation clauses to protect the economic future, sustainability and even existence of this tiny country composed by rouhgly more than 300.000 inhabitants.

Because the UK and Holland did not agree to Icelandic reservations, new negotiations started and a new law was presented to the Parliament by the Government. This new law was passed on the 30th December 2009 but it deprived Iceland of the previous reservations that guaranteed its economic future and development. Strong fears for a massive exodus out of the country are present in the Icelandic minds. More than 60.000 Icelanders, 25% of the electorate, requested the President to submit this new bill to a national referendum. President of Iceland, Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, announced yesterday his decision not to sign the new Icesave Bill which was passed by Icelandic parliament just before the New Year. It is his intention to send the law to a national referendum as soon as possible.

Under Icelandic law, the President’s decision means that the law approved by the Parliament will go into force; but also that it will be withdrawn again in the event of the Icelandic public voting ‘no’, whenever the referendum goes ahead. If the referendum was to be negative, the previous Icesave-Bill passed by the Icelandic Parliament in September 2009 would then be into force.

At any event, Iceland is assuming its international obligations. What Icelanders are requesting is not to be deprived of the clauses agreed in the summer by their Parliament which guarantee the economic sustainability of one of the smallest countries of Europe.

http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/05/declaration-by-the-president-of-iceland/

At the same time the Government has announced that Iceland is committted to debt repayment.

http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/05/government-iceland-still-committed-to-debt-repayment/

Some more political analysis of the context of the „veto“ expressed by the President of the Republic.

http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=29314&ew_0_a_id=356127

With reference with these events, I would like to send you some background information regarding the views of Icelandic people and why this subject is so controversial. My main worry today is that the foreign media misunderstands what is happening in this country and this is the reason why I am sending you this letter.

I trust you to take account of this background information as it explains the constitutional difficulties of this country in a dispute that will define history between the EU and Iceland.

Icelanders are fighting for social justice in the construction of the internal market. Icelanders are claiming for a European system of governance that respects fundamental rights of citizens and small nations.

Is that so difficult to understand?

Yours sincerely,

Maria Elvira Méndez Pinedo

Doctor in European Law

Associate Professor of European Law

Faculty of Law. University of Iceland.

Sudurgata s/n. Lögberg 306.

101 Reykjavík. Iceland

Tel: [phone]

 

 

 

 

 

It has been referred in the foreign media that Icelanders do not want to compensate depositors in the UK and Holland who missed their savings in the Ice-save accounts from Landsbankinn. This is not exactly true. The situation is far much more rich and complicated and offers a lesson of democracy for the construction of Europe.

To make it short, I think that Icelanders are not protesting per se the European obligations to compensate Dutch and British citizens for the minimum guarantee deposits they are entitled according to the European law. There seems to be fundamental agreement in the society that we have to comply with our international obligations and that is why a previous Ice-save bill was approved in summer 2009 with most of the political parties participating in that bill.

What Icelanders are requesting is social justice.

In fact, I could have agreed with both yes and no votes in the Parliament. This is because  I think that the methodology to solve this dispute is not appropriate. What is very difficult for citizens is to accept the social injustice of the agreement reached, that the Icelandic public bear the losses and covers the debt of private companies while the profits were private and all the assets seem to be now safely stored in tax heavens.

For me the only way to properly solve this dispute which mixes political, economical, legal, ethical and sociological aspects is in a comprehensive way, tackling all issues together and showing Icelandic citizens that justice is also part of the deal. So the current loan agreements are a temporary part of the battle towards final justice.

So, I think everybody agrees that it is fair that Iceland assumes its European obligations towards depositors in the UK and Holland while the legal issues are pending because legal problems take time to be solved. But this is only while the fundamental questions that lie at the core of this issue are tackled. The final goal should be that the responsible individuals and institutions assume responsibility and compensate for the damage caused after the proper criminal/civil research has taken place. The final goal should be that citizens are not directly ordered to pay the bill for the damage caused by private companies.

Any Civil Code in the world states that the one who causes damage to other, by action or inaction, is obliged to pay for the damage caused.

Icelandic citizens are protesting the current Ice-save agreements because they have been sent the final bill of the Ice-save debt without any other alternative being properly explained nor implemented. This is a strong criticism against their own governent. There is also strong criticism against the UK and Holland becuase of their hard stand against Icelandic citizens.

The solution of the Ice-save dispute from a social justice perspective would mean adopting a comprehensive strategy that must include simultaneously all the following elements:

1. Agreement to reimburse the UK and Holland to the equivalent of the deposits plus a reasonable interests. Is 5.5.% a reasonable interest when a European country and its citizens have to pay for it and not commercial banks?

2. Agreement that contracts should be based on the principles of European law and that includes fundamental rights both of States and individuals. It is essential not to deprive Iceland the access to justice before the proper European courts who are the only competent to interpret European law in the last instance, let it be the European Court of Justice or the EFTA Court. Is it fair that Iceland has no access to the European Courts in this dispute?

3. Agreement that the EU should exercise a proper mediation role in this dispute, based on the principles of solidarity between European nations, without deriving the issue to the IMF and therefore depriving Iceland of procedural rights under the EEA Agreement. As Eva Joly has pointed out, is it fair that Iceland pays alone for a defective European legislation that lacked proper guarantees and cross-border supervision in the internal market of financial services?

4. Agreement that the Icelandic Government and the EU should properly explain to Icelandic, British and Dutch citizens why the EU is not present at the resolution while this dispute is so closely related to the internal market and the lack of proper European rules on the functioning of the financial markets. Is it fair that Iceland pays alone when the European legislator created a weak system of national guarantees for depositors without the back up of the European Central Banck that could not cope with a systemic bank collapse?

5. Agreement that the EU and the Icelandic Government explain why there is not any macroeconomic assistance to Iceland from the EU such as for other countries (ie: Ukraine 2009) in spite of former Commissioner Joaquín Almunia proposing this in the autumn 2008. Is it fair that Iceland gets worse treatment than other countries in the continent?

6. Agreement that any loan contracts to Iceland should take into account its financial difficulties and should not oblige it to waive its sovereign immunity. Is it fair to that creditors can seize inmediately hospitals, schools, all assets necessary for the normal functioning of the country?

7. Agreement not to waive the right to exercise legal claims for the use of UK anti-terrorist legislation against Iceland. Is it fair that Iceland forgets about this act of legal violence while the British politicians talk about justice?

8. Agreement that the Government and the Althingi and the judicial power in Iceland will aim to transfer the responsibility and the final debt to all those responsible for the bank collapse and the Ice-save debt. This includes freezing as a preventive measure all the assets of people (individuals owners of banks, members of board administrators, people holding public office) who in principle are responsible (active or passively, by fault or negligence) and should be under investigation.

9. Agreement that the Truth Committee Report to be published in 2010 in Iceland will be properly followed by the correspondent criminal or civil claims before the courts so that all assets relating to the Ice-save dispute are recovered.

Furthermore, I suggest that we should consult Mr Jacques Delors who is still today one of the most respected leaders of opinion in Europe. He has the knowledge of the internal market and of the European integration and all the skills needed to give good advice on this dispute. He has published several articles recently criticizing the EU for lacking courage and leadership and missing this historic opportunity to prove that there is a better future for all European citizens. Social justice is needed in the aftermath of the financial crisis and Mr. Delors not only defends social justice but he also knows what is needed to save the future of European integration.

ESB metur Icesave-málið

My contribution to the international press

The constitutional crisis provoked by the Presidential veto to a law in Iceland  is a result from a direct call from the citizens asking for direct democracy and requesting that social justice and human rights are taken into account in the present and future construction of the European internal market.

Did the EU and the EEA failed Iceland?

 

By M. Elvira Mendez-Pinedo, Associate Professor of European Law. University of Iceland

 

There is a present misunderstanding in the foreign media that Icelanders do not want to pay depositors in Europe who lost their savings within the Icelandic banks after their collapse in October 2008. This is not correct as the legal situation stands now. Iceland already passed a law in September 2009 agreeing to pay depositors and honour its international obligations. This law was approved by most political parties but it contained some reservation clauses to protect the economic future, sustainability and even existence of this tiny country composed by rouhgly more than 300.000 inhabitants.

Because the UK and Holland did not agree to Icelandic reservations, new negotiations started and a new law was presented to the Parliament by the Government. This new law was passed on the 30th December 2009 but it deprived Iceland of the previous reservations that guaranteed its economic future and development. Strong fears for a massive exodus out of the country are present in the Icelandic minds. More than 60.000 Icelanders, 25% of the electorate, requested the President to submit this new bill to a national referendum. President of Iceland, Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, announced yesterday his decision not to sign the new Icesave Bill which was passed by Icelandic parliament just before the New Year. It is his intention to send the law to a national referendum as soon as possible.

Under Icelandic law, the President’s decision means that the law approved by the Parliament will go into force; but also that it will be withdrawn again in the event of the Icelandic public voting ‘no’, whenever the referendum goes ahead. If the referendum was to be negative, the previous Icesave-Bill passed by the Icelandic Parliament in September 2009 would then be into force.

At any event, Iceland is assuming its international obligations. What Icelanders are requesting is not to be deprived of the clauses agreed in the summer by their Parliament which guarantee the economic sustainability of one of the smallest countries of Europe.

http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/05/declaration-by-the-president-of-iceland/

At the same time the Government has announced that Iceland is committted to debt repayment.

http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/05/government-iceland-still-committed-to-debt-repayment/

Some more political analysis of the context of the „veto“ expressed by the President of the Republic.

http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=29314&ew_0_a_id=356127

With reference with these events, I would like to send you some background information regarding the views of Icelandic people and why this subject is so controversial. My main worry today is that the foreign media misunderstands what is happening in this country and this is the reason why I am sending you this letter.

I trust you to take account of this background information as it explains the constitutional difficulties of this country in a dispute that will define history between the EU and Iceland. I also send you a copy of the Report I did for the Icelandic Parliament on June 2009 on the issue of State liability for breaches of EEA law and the Ice-save dispute.

 

Yours sincerely,

Maria Elvira Méndez Pinedo

Doctor in European Law

Associate Professor of European Law

Faculty of Law. University of Iceland.

Sudurgata s/n. Lögberg 306.

101 Reykjavík. Iceland

Tel: [phone]

 

 

 

 

 

It has been referred in the foreign media that Icelanders do not want to compensate depositors in the UK and Holland who missed their savings in the Ice-save accounts from Landsbankinn. This is not exactly true. The situation is far much more rich and complicated and offers a lesson of democracy for the construction of Europe.

To make it short, I think that Icelanders are not protesting per se the European obligations to compensate Dutch and British citizens for the minimum guarantee deposits they are entitled according to the European law. There seems to be fundamental agreement in the society that we have to comply with our international obligations and that is why a previous Ice-save bill was approved in summer 2009 with most of the political parties participating in that bill.

What Icelanders are requesting is social justice.

In fact, I could have agreed with both yes and no votes in the Parliament. This is because  I think that the methodology to solve this dispute is not appropriate. What is very difficult for citizens is to accept the social injustice of the agreement reached, that the Icelandic public bear the losses and covers the debt of private companies while the profits were private and all the assets seem to be now safely stored in tax heavens.

For me the only way to properly solve this dispute which mixes political, economical, legal, ethical and sociological aspects is in a comprehensive way, tackling all issues together and showing Icelandic citizens that justice is also part of the deal. So the current loan agreements are a temporary part of the battle towards final justice.

So, I think everybody agrees that it is fair that Iceland assumes its European obligations towards depositors in the UK and Holland while the legal issues are pending because legal problems take time to be solved. But this is only while the fundamental questions that lie at the core of this issue are tackled. The final goal should be that the responsible individuals and institutions assume responsibility and compensate for the damage caused after the proper criminal/civil research has taken place. The final goal should be that citizens are not directly ordered to pay the bill for the damage caused by private companies.

Any Civil Code in the world states that the one who causes damage to other, by action or inaction, is obliged to pay for the damage caused.

Icelandic citizens are protesting the current Ice-save agreements because they have been sent the final bill of the Ice-save debt without any other alternative being properly explained nor implemented. This is a strong criticism against their own governent. There is also strong criticism against the UK and Holland becuase of their hard stand against Icelandic citizens.

The solution of the Ice-save dispute from a social justice perspective would mean adopting a comprehensive strategy that must include simultaneously all the following elements:

1. Agreement to reimburse the UK and Holland to the equivalent of the deposits plus a reasonable interests. Is 5.5.% a reasonable interest when a European country and its citizens have to pay for it and not commercial banks?

2. Agreement that contracts should be based on the principles of European law and that includes fundamental rights both of States and individuals. It is essential not to deprive Iceland the access to justice before the proper European courts who are the only competent to interpret European law in the last instance, let it be the European Court of Justice or the EFTA Court. Is it fair that Iceland has no access to the European Courts in this dispute?

3. Agreement that the EU should exercise a proper mediation role in this dispute, based on the principles of solidarity between European nations, without deriving the issue to the IMF and therefore depriving Iceland of procedural rights under the EEA Agreement. As Eva Joly has pointed out, is it fair that Iceland pays alone for a defective European legislation that lacked proper guarantees and cross-border supervision in the internal market of financial services?

4. Agreement that the Icelandic Government and the EU should properly explain to Icelandic, British and Dutch citizens why the EU is not present at the resolution while this dispute is so closely related to the internal market and the lack of proper European rules on the functioning of the financial markets. Is it fair that Iceland pays alone when the European legislator created a weak system of national guarantees for depositors without the back up of the European Central Banck that could not cope with a systemic bank collapse?

5. Agreement that the EU and the Icelandic Government explain why there is not any macroeconomic assistance to Iceland from the EU such as for other countries (ie: Ukraine 2009) in spite of former Commissioner Joaquín Almunia proposing this in the autumn 2008. Is it fair that Iceland gets worse treatment than other countries in the continent?

6. Agreement that any loan contracts to Iceland should take into account its financial difficulties and should not oblige it to waive its sovereign immunity. Is it fair to that creditors can seize inmediately hospitals, schools, all assets necessary for the normal functioning of the country?

7. Agreement not to waive the right to exercise legal claims for the use of UK anti-terrorist legislation against Iceland. Is it fair that Iceland forgets about this act of legal violence while the British politicians talk about justice?

8. Agreement that the Government and the Althingi and the judicial power in Iceland will aim to transfer the responsibility and the final debt to all those responsible for the bank collapse and the Ice-save debt. This includes freezing as a preventive measure all the assets of people (individuals owners of banks, members of board administrators, people holding public office) who in principle are responsible (active or passively, by fault or negligence) and should be under investigation.

9. Agreement that the Truth Committee Report to be published in 2010 in Iceland will be properly followed by the correspondent criminal or civil claims before the courts so that all assets relating to the Ice-save dispute are recovered.

Furthermore, I suggest that we should consult Mr Jacques Delors who is still today one of the most respected leaders of opinion in Europe. He has the knowledge of the internal market and of the European integration and all the skills needed to give good advice on this dispute. He has published several articles recently criticizing the EU for lacking courage and leadership and missing this historic opportunity to prove that there is a better future for all European citizens. Social justice is needed in the aftermath of the financial crisis and Mr. Delors not only defends social justice but he also knows what is needed to save the future of European integration.

Vöruðu við afleiðingum synjunar

Artículo - El País - Tribuna : Ramin Jahanbegloo - 29/8/2009

Reproducción del artículo

El temor de los intelectuales a la política

Una "epidemia de conformismo" ha paralizado en los primeros años del siglo XXI la vida pública, donde lo único que importa es el poder del mercado. Los mezquinos intereses personales sustituyen a las voces críticas

Las dos culturas, el conocido ensayo del científico y novelista británico C. P. Snow, salió a la luz en 1959. Snow defendía ahí la tesis de que el colapso de la comunicación entre las dos culturas de la sociedad moderna -las ciencias y las humanidades- era un freno para la resolución de los problemas del mundo. Medio siglo después, el debate iniciado por Snow ha tomado una nueva forma. El siglo XXI representa, en términos generales, la separación de los intelectuales y la política. Pocas veces habían estado tan alejados los intelectuales y el mundo político.

Los intelectuales críticos son hoy una especie en vías de extinción. Temen la política, y se diría que la política muestra una indiferencia absoluta por todo lo que se pueda denominar intelectual. Hay otros muchos que consideran que nos encontramos ante un declive de lo intelectual. Según ellos, la intelectualidad se ha distanciado de la esfera pública para acercarse a un mundo cada vez más profesionalizado y más empresarial. En otras palabras, los intelectuales están perdiendo su autoridad pública para dirigirse al poder, al tiempo que cada vez son más incapaces de realizar sus funciones de una forma independiente y crítica. Nunca se habían mostrado tan profundamente opuestas la conciencia crítica y la esfera pública.

Parece que los intelectuales de hoy pensaran que puesto que todas las verdades morales son relativas, ya no hay necesidad de ser la voz moral de un mundo sin voz. El afán de ciertos intelectuales de aparentar que lo políticamente correcto y sensato es desestimar la importancia que tienen los imperativos morales en la esfera pública no es más que una forma de hacer coincidir las necesidades humanitarias urgentes del mundo en el que vivimos con las necesidades concretas de su carrera o su ascenso profesional. Asalariados, ocupando cátedras o titularidades permanentes, pensionistas, muchos intelectuales se encuentran encadenados a la rueda de una carrera y una profesión respetables que paradójicamente estanca su capacidad para la crítica en un contexto no conflictivo.

Para ser más precisos, los mezquinos intereses personales han destruido los llamados intereses públicos de los intelectuales. Al olvidarse de la política, rápidamente y sin dejar lugar para el arrepentimiento, muchos intelectuales del mundo actual degradaron y abandonaron la idea de la esfera pública, transformándose en defensores de la cultura de masas carentes de todo sentido crítico. Es en virtud de esta falta de sentido crítico con respecto a la vida pública por lo que los politólogos y los expertos culturales han venido a sustituirlos como actores sociológicos en el mundo contemporáneo. A los intelectuales ya no les interesa reflexionar y debatir sobre los valores, su único interés reside en el comentario de los hechos. Así, con la aparición de la aldea global postindustrial, dominada por las redes mediáticas y la comunicación tecnológica, en las que las voces disidentes suelen estar acalladas, una "epidemia de conformismo" ha paralizado al completo la vida pública, convirtiéndola en una entidad impulsada única y exclusivamente por el mercado.

Para investigar la evolución del compromiso de los intelectuales en la historia europea del siglo XX, tenemos que empezar con el affaire Dreyfus y la aparición de la categoría "intelectual". Pese a las diferentes posturas que cristalizaron durante el affaire Dreyfus, ambas partes estaban de acuerdo en que el intelectual tenía que comprometerse. Uno de los que participó a favor de Dreyfus fue Julian Benda, el filósofo judío conocido fundamentalmente como autor de La traición de los intelectuales, donde afirma que "la labor del intelectual es defender los valores universales, por encima de la política del momento". Para Benda, por consiguiente, el intelectual es un sujeto que opera dentro de un marco moral y se atiene a unos valores trascendentales, libre de las impurezas de la política. Probablemente Zola se merece este honor, no por sus novelas, sino porque llegó a ser un intelectual que atacó la injusticia, el prejuicio y la intolerancia en la esfera pública. De este modo restauró la función que Sócrates había reservado para el filósofo: defender la universalidad de la búsqueda de la verdad y luchar contra la violencia.

El método de Sócrates para dominar la violencia era el uso del diálogo frente a las convicciones políticas. Con su mayéutica -conócete a ti mismo- Sócrates invitaba a los atenienses a interrogarse. Y aunque sea un fin en sí mismo, aprender a interrogarse es también una condición y un punto de partida para cualquier intelectual que quiera obrar honestamente. La honestidad es abrirse a la pluralidad humana; es cobijar la idea, intrínseca al trabajo de un intelectual dialógico, de que cada persona contiene "multitudes", como dice Whitman en su Canto a mí mismo. Todo intelectual necesita de esta multiplicidad, no sólo para conectar con los otros, sino también para ensalzar y valorar, como un elemento constitutivo del mundo, las diferencias que existen entre las personas. La idea de diferencia presupone otro valor igualmente esencial a la condición de intelectual: el respeto.

Una de las tareas del intelectual es pensar en cómo reformar y mejorar la sociedad. Su empeño primordial debe centrarse en la educación cívica de los otros ciudadanos para la responsabilidad que entraña la auto-gobernanza democrática. ¿No perdería todo el significado que tiene para nosotros el valor supremo de la historia si admitiéramos que son muchos los intelectuales que consideran que lo que denominamos examen crítico de la esfera política es un ejercicio fútil? Si no se lee y se ejerce el espíritu crítico, la historia podría convertirse en una simple repetición de los errores humanos. Por el contrario, cuando se comprometen con la historia, los intelectuales no sólo necesitan una mente abierta, sino también crítica, capaz de entender que las verdades pueden ser parciales; una mente que se interrogue continuamente. Lo importante aquí es que la manera de protegerse contra toda tentación de colaboración con el mal es interrogarse y reflexionar con sentido crítico.

Con este planteamiento, la pregunta es: ¿cómo se puede hablar de preservar la ética en la esfera política y de no caer en el mal cuando han dejado de existir los absolutos morales? Poco después de terminada la guerra, en 1945 y en uno de los primeros ensayos que aparecieron al respecto, Hannah Arendt decía que "el problema del mal será el tema fundamental de la vida intelectual en la Europa de posguerra, de la misma manera que la muerte fue el tema de reflexión fundamental después de la Primera Guerra Mundial". Creo que Arendt estaba en lo cierto, sobre todo porque en el mundo de hoy el problema del mal y sus implicaciones políticas constituye un desafío importante para el estatus público y la integridad moral de los intelectuales.

Cierto es que todos somos moralmente responsables de las calamidades e injusticias del mundo en el que vivimos. Pero no es menos cierto que el papel social y político de los intelectuales conlleva una mayor responsabilidad moral. Como señala Max Weber, el compromiso intelectual requiere la ética del héroe, pues hace falta una gran valentía moral para enfrentarse a las responsabilidades que se adquieren en la esfera pública.

Muchos creen, por supuesto, que ser hoy un intelectual comprometido con la vida pública no es nada del otro mundo, ya que ser demócrata y vivir en una democracia no supone ningún riesgo, ningún desafío. Pero, dado que no puede haber una democratización y una globalización reales si no están acompañadas de una labor crítica real por parte de los intelectuales, en su función de contrapoderes, ser hoy un intelectual crítico significa también ejercer de conciencia moral del mundo globalizado. Por eso, para los intelectuales comprometidos, la verdadera lucha no se limita a estar a favor o en contra de la política, sino que se trata sobre todo de una batalla en defensa de lo humanitario frente a lo inhumano. Se trata de tener la valentía de alzar la voz en nombre de la no violencia y en contra de la injusticia. Por esta razón, aunque el concepto haya perdido hoy la fuerza que tuvo en el momento del caso Dreyfus, se ha de mantener la función del intelectual público. Mientras los humanos sigamos creyendo que la esperanza no es una palabra fútil, los intelectuales no dejarán de ser útiles en todas las sociedades.

From euobserver.com - German Constitutional Court´s ruling on the Treaty of Lisbon

German court gives conditional green light to new treaty

From euobserver.com

30.06.2009 @ 10:48 CET

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS – Germany's highest court on Tuesday ruled that the EU's new treaty is compatible with German law, so long as the role of the national parliament in EU decision-making is strengthened.

"The German constitution says yes to the Lisbon treaty, but on a national level the parliament has to have a stronger say in EU matters", vice-president of the German constitutional court, Andreas Vosskuhle, said on Tuesday after reading the verdict.

The German constitutional court says Lisbon treaty can be fully ratified only if national parliament is strengthened (Photo: Bundesverfassungsgericht)

The court in Karlsruhe also said that the treaty and the German constitution would not allow the creation of an "EU federal state" - one of the concerns of the MPs who filed a complaint.

But the 147 page-long ruling suspends the ratification process of the treaty until the new provisions requested by the court come into force.

Germany's parliament voted overwhelmingly in favour of the treaty last year, but the final step of ratification, signature by President Horst Koehler, had not been taken due to the court challenge.

Tuesday's decision may have an impact on the ratification calendar, with Ireland, Poland and the Czech Republic also not having completed the process.

The German parliament (Bundestag) only has a few days left until summer recess and there are general elections coming up in September.

However, the parliament is planning an extraordinary session on 26 August to examine a draft law on strengthening parliamentary oversight. This should then be voted on 8 September, reports Spiegel Online.

European Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso welcomed the judgement saying "the Treaty of Lisbon is essential for the EU's capacity to act in present times."

He also said he was "confident" that ratification of the document would be completed by all member states "by the autumn."

 Link to the article from euobserver.com

http://euobserver.com/18/28390

 Link to the judgment of the German Constitutional Court

http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/es20090630_2bve000208en.html

 Link to the press release summarising the content of the judgment

http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/pressemitteilungen/bvg09-072en.html

 

Niðurstöður skýrslu minnar um Icesave

Að ósk Borgarahreyfingarinnar vann ég skýrslu um Icesave út frá lagalegum og pólitískum forsendum. Helstu niðurstöður skýrslunnar fara hér á eftir. Ég vil þakka Ólafi Ísberg Hannessyni doktorsnema í Evrópurétti fyrir að þýða niðurstöðurnar yfir á íslensku. 

 

Frá sjónarhóli Evrópuréttar er Icesave deilan og úrlausn hennar flókin. Valkostirnir eiga rætur að rekja til fjölbreyttra lagalegra, efnahagslegra og stjórnmálalegra þátta.

1. Mikil óvissa ríkir um hvort skaðabótaskyldu íslenska ríkisins megi leiða af því að ekki sé nægilegt fjármagn í innistæðutryggingakerfinu til að vernda allar innistæðueigendur í Icesave.

2. Evrópudómstóllinn ætti í krafti valdheimilda sinna að skera úr um hvernig túlka eigi tilskipun Evrópusambandsins um innlánatryggingakerfi nr. 94/19/EB. Þá ætti hann að kveða á um atriði sem mæla fyrir um bótaskyldu eða firrir íslenska ríkið bótaábyrgð í tilviki kerfisbundins brests eins og varð við íslenska bankahrunið. Löggjöf Evrópusambandsins mælir ekki fyrir um tilvik sem þessi. Er því umdeilanlegt hvort almenn skilyrði um ábyrgð ríkja samkvæmt EB/EES-rétti eiga við. Dómur Evrópudómstólsins í máli Paul Paulson frá 2004 er mikilvægur í þessu sambandi og einkum röksemdir sem mörg stjórnvöld lögðu fram meðan á málarekstri stóð sem og athugasemdir Aðallögsögumanns Evrópudómstólsins. Stofnunum sambandsins og fræðimönnum var fullkunnugt um að í tilviki kerfisbundins bankahruns væri rétt beiting reglnanna ekki tryggð. Þannig stafaði óhjákvæmileg hætta af beitingu þeirra yfir landamæri.

3. Sú leið hefur verið farin á Íslandi að veita eigendum rétt til aðgangs að innlendum innistæðum án nokkurra takmarkana. Það leiðir hinsvegar af reglunni um bann við mismunun að Ísland getur ekki mismunað innstæðueigendum. Reglan um bann við mismunun er ófrávíkjanleg meginregla ESB. Ef til málareksturs kæmi gæti brot á þessari reglu leitt til þess að íslenska ríkið gæti orðið bótaskylt umfram hið ákveðna lágmark sem nefnt er í tilskipuninni og nemur 20.887 evrum. Þetta getur haft mjög alvarlegar afleiðingar.

4. Af því sem að framan er rakið er ljóst að hægt er að rökstyðja þann valkost frá lögfræðilegu, efnahagslegu og stjórnmálalegu sjónarhorni að Íslandi sé veitt lán til að standa undir greiðslum á þessum ábyrgðum meðan alþjóðlegir dómstólar leysa úr því álitaefni hvaða greiðslur íslenska ríkinu beri að greiða. Eftir stendur að íslenska ríkið þarf að taka afstöðu til þess hvort leggja skuli lausn málsins í löng og flókin málaferli fyrir dómstólum  eða sættast á þá málamiðlun að greiða innstæður að hámarksfjárhæð 20.887 evrur. Þetta er mjög erfitt val.

5. Hvað sem öðru líður má ekki takmarka umræðu um lagalegan ágreining við ákvæði í tilskipuninni sjálfri. Með þeirri aðferð er litið fram hjá því að inntak reglunnar ræðst af túlkun og taka þarf tillits til lagaumhverfis ESB og EES sem og því raunverulega umhverfi sem reglurnar gilda í. Í þessu samhengi er rétt að spyrja hvort gríðarlegar skuldbindingar vegna lánananna sem íslenska ríkið þarf að taka til að standa undir þessum fjárhæðum muni íþyngja efnahagslífinu næstu fimmtán árin og grafa undan stöðugleika þjóðarbúsins. Er sanngjarnt í ljósi þeirra grundvallarreglna sem Evrópusambandið starfar eftir að leggja þá bagga á Ísland sem er aðili EES samningsins og þátttakandi í samstarfi ríkja í Evrópu?  

6. Ljóst er að deilan sviptir hulunni af gráu svæði í bandalagsrétti. Hins vegar fellur það undir valdsvið Evrópubandalagsins að skera úr um og ráða fram úr ágreiningi sem á rætur að rekja til bandalagsréttar. Stofnanir Evrópusambandsins geta ekki látið eins og ráða þurfi fram úr ágreiningsefninu á þríhliða grundvelli og að það falli fyrir utan valdsvið bandalagsins. ESB/EES réttur hefur skapað þetta tiltekna vandamál (skortur á samræmingu varðandi atriði sem mæla fyrir um bótaskyldu eða firrir íslenska ríkið bótaábyrgð í tilviki kerfisbundins brests) og ESB/EES stofnanirnar geta ekki skotið sér undan því að leysa úr vandamálinu. Með því eru þær að bregðast hlutverki sínu og væri þá hinn innri markaður Evrópusambandsins í heild orðinn að stórri rökvillu fyrir einstaklinga, lögaðila og ríki.

7. Samningarnir sem nú hafa verið kynntir við Bretland og Holland eru alþjóðlegir viðskiptasamningar sem eru mjög í hag lánveitenda og endurspegla vantraust gagnvart Íslandi (löggjafar-, framkvæmdar- og dómsvaldi). Frá sjónarhóli ESB/EES réttar eru þessir samningar mjög umdeilanlegir.

8. Þar sem ESB veitir fjárhagsaðstoð til ríkja sem eiga í erfiðleikum (bæði aðildarríkja og ríkja utan sambandsins) á höfundur þessarrar skýrslu erfitt með að skilja hvers vegna Ísland á ekki í samningaviðræðum við ESB um lausn málsins. Alþingi ætti að óska eftir lögfræðilegum og stjórnmálalegum skýringum frá ríkisstjórninni.

9. ESB hefur veitt þriðju ríkjunum alþjóðlega fjárhagsaðstoð þegar um er að ræða verulegan halla á greiðslujöfnuði. Þá hefur ESB ennfremur stofnað sjóð sem nefnist Guarantee Fund for External Actions sem tekur að sér að axla ábyrgð er ríki lenda í vanskilum eftir að hafa fengið lán frá ESB og sjá sér ekki fært að verða að fullu við skuldbindingum sínum. Ísland ætti að óska eftir áþekkri meðferð frá ESB.

10. Ákvæði í samningnum sem kynntur hefur verið eru mjög gagnrýniverð. Þau staðfesta valdsvið dómstóla Bretlands til að fjalla um deilur varðandi samninginn og til að framfylgja ákvæðum samningsins ef um vanrækslu verður að ræða. Í honum er fallið frá friðhelgi á grundvelli fullveldis varðandi íslenskar eignir. Þessi ákvæði samræmast ekki þeim stöðlum sem tíðkast í Evrópurétti (t.d. lán þau sem ESB hefur boðið Lettlandi og Ungverjalandi). Ef Íslandi reynist ókleyft að standa undir skuldum samkvæmt samningum ættu að vera fyrir hendi áform um aðstoð og um nýjar samningaviðræður eða frest. Allur ágreiningur varðandi  framkvæmd samningsins ætti að vera borinn undir Evrópudómstólinn skv. ESB/EES rétti. Afsal friðhelgis á grundvelli fullveldis varðandi eignir er ekki til staðar í öðrum ESB samningum.

11. Höfundur leggur til þá pólitísku áætlun að Alþingi hafi samband við stofnanir ESB og EES, sérstaklega hið nýkjörna Evrópuþing sem og hina sameiginlegu EES-þingmannanefnd. Í því skyni ætti sendinefnd að ferðast til Strassborgar og Brussel. Grundvallarspurningin um réttlæti í lausn Icesave deilunnar ætti að vera rædd á viðeigandi evrópskum vettvangi.

12. Þá er ljóst að Ísland hefði sem umsóknarríki um aðild að ESB sterkari stöðu til að sækja um fjárhagsaðstoð og lán frá Evrópusambandinu. Viðræður við ESB um fjárhagsaðstoð yrðu eðli málsins samkvæmt talsvert auðveldari ef íslensk stjórnvöld sýndu vilja til að ganga til samstarfs við sambandið hver svo sem úrslitin yrðu í þjóðaratkvæðagreiðslu.

Icesave-ábyrgð úr ríkisstjórn

From Iceland Review - EU Requests Iceland´s knowledge and assistance on Fisheries

 Link to the Article

http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=29314&ew_0_a_id=324455

------

The European Commissioner for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs Joe Borg specifically requested assistance from Iceland on creating a new and sustainable fisheries policy for the European Union in an article which he wrote for Fréttabladid daily yesterday.

Fishing in Iceland. Copyright: Icelandic Photo Agency.

Borg stated that the EU’s current fisheries policy has failed; nine out of ten fish stocks are being overfished and that one third of fish stocks are in a poor condition. Moreover, demand for fish exceeds supply, Borg pointed out.

“Imagine that the European fishing industry is both a profitable and sustainable industry. Fishermen and others who work in related industries have safe employment and receive an acceptable salary and those who retire can deliver flourishing companies to the next generation.

Similarly, younger generations could look at jobs in the fishing industry as a realistic and favorable option when they seek their future careers. My dream is that this will become a reality in our near future—for example in 2020,” Borg wrote, adding:

“But if we are to safeguard the fishing industry we have to change our fishing methods. It is also clear that we don’t have much time. […] Everyone, not just the European Union, has to clean up in their own backyard and feel responsible towards the fish in the sea.

With these viewpoints in mind, I hereby declare the discussions of the fisheries policy of the European Union to be open. Until December 31, the EU Commission will welcome suggestions and perspectives on how it is best to shape this industry for the future.

I promise a wide-reaching and open discussion and I certainly hope for good contributions and proposals from as many directions as possible. I especially request assistance from Iceland, because of the experience and knowledge Iceland has in this field,” Borg concluded.

Iceland’s Minister of Fisheries Jón Bjarnason said Borg’s request shows how little reason there is for Iceland to join the EU. “It seems to me that he is describing the problems of the EU in these matters,” Bjarnason said in an interview with Stöd 2.

Bjarnason said that the problems are of a political nature and are caused by the fact that power in the EU is centralized in Brussels. The minister added that he finds it unlikely that Iceland can contribute towards solving these problems and that they have to be solved internally.

“However, it is welcome to offer [Borg] counseling if a formal request is received,” Bjarnason said, concluding that it is a little to optimistic to believe that Iceland will ever participate in forming the EU’s fisheries policy and changing the basic foundation of the EU.

Eiga kvótaeigendur að hafa sjálfdæmi um framtíð Íslands? Grein eftir J.B.H.

Eiga kvótaeigendur að hafa sjálfdæmi um framtíð Íslands?
Jón Baldvin Hannibalsson skrifar þessa grein.

--- --- ---

Ísland og sjávarútvegsstefna ESB:

EIGA KVÓTAEIGENDUR AÐ HAFA SJÁLFDÆMI UM FRAMTÍÐ ÍSLANDS?

Það var vel mætt í auditorium í Tæknigarði í hádeginu, 30. apríl. Umræðuefnið var: Sjávarútvegsstsefna ESB – hvað með fiskinn í sjónum? Munu vondir útlendingar taka hann frá okkur, ef við göngum í Evrópusambandið?

Fundurinn var haldinn á vegum Alþjóðamálastofnunar háskólans og Rannsóknarseturs um smáríki. Ólafur Harðarson, prófessor, stýrði fundi, en framsögumenn voru Friðrik Arngrímsson frá LÍÚ, og Bjarni Þór Harðarson, hagfræðingur Samtaka iðnaðarins. Loks áttu fulltrúar flokkanna að tala máli sinna flokka, þar sem þeir sátu fyrir svörum.

Hvað kom út úr þessum fundi? Stóra spurningin sem var ósvarað var þessi: Eiga sérhagsmunaklíkur að hafa sjálfdæmi um það, hvort Íslendingar kjósi að ganga í Evrópusambandið eða ekki? Er það víst, að almannahagsmunir fari saman við þröngt hagsmunamat atvinnurekenda (eða öllu heldur lítils hluta þeirra í þessu máli)? Þeir sem hafa heyrt framkvæmdastjóra LÍÚ fara með ræðuna sína gegn Evrópusambandsaðild kunna hana orðið utanbókar. Rullan er svona:

Íslendingar munu glata yfirráðum yfir auðlindinni; Brüssel mun ráða fiskveiðistefnunni og úthluta kvóta; Íslendingar, fáir og smáir, munu engu ráða í eigin málum. Það er engin trygging fyrir því, að Íslendingar verði ekki beittir meirihlutavaldi, sem geti þýtt að útgerðin færist í hendur útlendinga; og arðurinn með þeim úr landi. Það er alveg sama, hversu oft þessi hræðsluáróður íslenskra kvótaeigenda hefur verið leiðréttur – það er eins og að skvetta vatni á gæs. Hræðsluáróðurinn er endurtekinn í síbylju, sérstaklega á landsbyggðinni. Fólk er farið að trúa fleiprinu. Þar með er vitiborin umræða kæfð í fæðingunni.

Hverjum í hag?

Rómverjar hinir fornu spurðu gjarnan: Qui bono? Hverjum í hag? – þegar þeir lögðu mat á málflutning manna í senatinu. Sambærilegt húsráð hjá Ameríkönum er: Follow the money. Það er vert að hafa þetta í huga, þegar áróður útgerðarmanna er gegnumlýstur. Lítum á eftirfarandi:

Skv. lögum er fiskveiðiauðlindin sameign þjóðarinnar. Til að taka af tvímæli um það tókst 80-daga stjórninni að binda þetta ákvæði í stjórnarskrá. Íslensk stjórnvöld hafa því ekki heimild til að semja frá sér eignarréttinn á auðlindum þjóðarinnar, þar með talið fiskimiðunum. Þetta breytir ekki því, að ríkið úthlutar veiðiheimildum til útgerðarmanna, án endurgjalds. Fámennur hópur útgerðarmanna fékk á sínum tíma þau forréttindi að fá einkarétt á nýtingu auðlindarinnar, fyrir ekkert. Þessu til viðbótar fengu útgerðarmenn rétt til að selja eða leigja veiðiheimildirnar, sem þeir eiga ekki, - án þess að eigandinn fái nokkuð í sinn hlut.

Þessi úthlutun gjafakvóta, í skjóli pólitísks valds, er siðlaus stjórnsýsla. Þessar aðfarir eru skýrt brot á grundvallarreglum stjórnskipunar Íslands, sem kveða á um jafnræði fyrir lögum og atvinnufrelsi. Vera má, að réttlæta megi þetta stjórnkerfi til skamms tíma, í nafni neyðarréttar, nefnilega til þess að forða útrýmingu fiskistofna. Nú hefur reynslan hins vegar leitt í ljós, að hið yfirlýsta markmið um uppbyggingu fiskistofna, með því að takmarka sóknina, hefur mistekist. Hugsanlegar forsendur neyðarréttar gilda því ekki lengur. Tímabundinn neyðarréttur getur ekki til frambúðar vikið frá grundvallarreglum stjórnskipunar ríkisins. Það er valdníðsla.

Hvernig hafa íslenskir útgerðarmenn farið með þau forréttindi, sem þeim voru gefin af flokkum sínum, Sjálfstæðis- og Framsóknarflokknum? Yfirlýst markmið kvótakerfisins var hagræðing. Kvótakerfi með framsali átti að þýða færri skip til að sækja úthlutaðan afla. M.ö.o.. það átti að lækka tilkostnað og auka hagnað. Yfirlýstur tilgangur var m.ö.o. tvíþættur: Verndun fiskistofna og aukin arðsemi.

Hver er árangurinn?

Hver er árangurinn? Veiðiheimildirnar hafa að sönnu sífellt færst á færri hendur. Tiltölulega fá og stór útgerðarfyrirtæki ráða nú yfir kvótanum. Þessi fyrirtæki hafa veðsett óveiddan fisk í sjó hjá bankakerfinu, (þ.e. þrotabúum gömlu bankanna) fyrir lánum til að kaupa aðra út úr greininni. Þannig hefur orðið mikið fjárstreymi út úr greininni. Fyrir því má færa rök að þarna sé að finna uppruna pappírsauðsins, sem síðan var nýttur í fjárhættuspilinu í útlöndum og að lokum kom Íslandi á hausinn. Hversu mikið af veiðiheimildum á Íslandsmiðum er þar með komið í hendur erlendra banka? Eru þetta ekki sömu mennirnir, sem vara þjóðina við því að vondir menn í útlöndum muni stela kvótanum, ef við göngum í ESB?

Sum þessara útgerðarfélaga hafa nú þegar meiri hluta tekna sinna af umsvifum í útlöndum. Það eru þessir sömu kvótaeigendur sem reka LÍÚ og kosta áróðurinn um að veiðiheimildirnar og hagnaðurinn muni færast í hendur útlendinga, ef Ísland gengur í ESB. Það eru þessi sömu kvótaeigendur, sem með kvótabraski sínu hafa sökkt sjávarútvegsfyrirtækjunum upp fyrir haus í skuldir. Skuldir þeirra nema nú allt að aflaverðmæti þriggja ára.

Hrun krónunnar – sem þessi menn þykjast vilja standa vörð um – hefur hækkað skuldirnar upp úr öllu valdi. Sjávarútvegurinn undir þeirra stjórn er sokkinn í skuldir. Þótt gengishrun krónunnar bæti samkeppnisstöðuna á erlendum mörkuðum, hækkar það skuldirnar um leið. Eina leiðin, úr því sem komið er, til þess að aflétta erlendum skuldum af sjávarútvegsfyrirtækjunum er sennilega sú að ganga í Evrópusambandið. Þar með yrði sjávarútveginum, eins og öðrum atvinnuvegum, leyft að afla hlutafjár gegnum erlenda fjárfestingu. Sjávarútvegurinn sæti þá við sama borð og aðrar atvinnugreinar. Þrátt fyrir erlenda hlutafjáreign hafa íslensk stjórnvöld ótal ráð sem duga til að tryggja, að arðurinn af útgerð og vinnslu héldist í landinu.

Það er kominn tími til, að almenningur á Íslandi fari að sjá í gegnum hræðsluáróður kvótaeigendanna í LÍÚ. Það er augljóst mál, að kvótahafarnir óttast það helst að missa forréttindi sín, ef gengið verður í ESB. Það er að vísu á misskilningi byggt, að ESB aðild breyti nokkru um fiskveiðistjórnun á Íslandi og framkvæmd hennar. Embættismenn í Brüssel hafa ekkert með það að gera. Við þurfum sjálf, í nafni almannahagsmuna, að afnema þessi forréttindi, einfaldlega af því að þau eru hvort tveggja, löglaus og siðlaus.Nú reynir á vinstri-stjórnina, hvort hún rís undir nafni: Ætlar hún að standa við stóru orðin og skila þjóðinni aftur arði af eign sinni – sjávarauðlindinni?

Almannahagur gegn sérhagsmunum

Svo þurfum við að átta okkur á því, að hagsmunir sjómanna og fiskverkafólks í landi fara ekki saman við hagsmuni kvótahafanna. Fjöldinn allur af þeim, sem áður voru sjálfstæðir atvinnurekendur í íslenskum sjávaraútvegi, eru nú orðnir að leiguliðum forréttindaaðalsins. Það þarf að leysa þá úr fjötrum og fá þeim aftur stjórnarskrárvarið atvinnufrelsi. Lénsveldið leið undir lok í Evrópu með frönsku byltingunni. Þurfum við nýja byltingu til þess að afnema það í íslenskum sjávarútvegi?

Innganga í ESB mundi þýða, að aftur yrði hagkvæmt að fullvinna sjávarafurðir á Íslandi. Ástæðan er sú, að fullunnar afurðir yrðu tollfrjálsar (sem þær ekki eru nú). Þetta mundi skapa atvinnu, sem ekki veitir af eftir hrun. Þetta eru augljós dæmi um það að hagsmunir sjómanna og fiskverkafólks fara ekki saman með hagsmunum kvótahafanna.

Þegar þetta bætist við þá staðreynd, að hræðsluáróður LÍÚ er mestan part staðleysustafir frá upphafi til enda, standa vonir til, að almenningur í landinu muni láta almannahag ráða afstöðu sinni í þessu máli, fremur en að láta blekkjast af hræðsluáróðri forréttindaliðsins. Hverjir eru þá hagsmunir almennings í þessu máli? Hrunið hefur kennt okkur það the hard way: Stöðugt gengi, traustur gjaldmiðill, lágir vextir, afnám verðtryggingar og lægra verð á lífsnauðsynjum. Aðild Íslands að Evrópusambandinu snýst um lífskjör almennings í framtíðinni.

(Höf. Var formaður Alþýðuflokksins, sem beitti sér fyrir 1. gr. fiskveiðistjórnarlaganna um þjóðareign á sjávarauðlindinni)

------

From the euobserver.com. Nordic Council recomends that Nordic states reconsider joining the € zone and the EU

Nordic Council report backs EU and euro entry - 27.02.2009 -

---------------------------------------------------------------------

As the prime ministers of all the Nordic countries met in Iceland to discuss the financial crisis, a report published by the Nordic Council on Wednesday said the crisis should lead to a review of whether all Nordic states should join the eurozone and the EU

 

Link to the news

 

http://euobserver.com/9/27684/?rk=1

 

ARTICLE FROM THE EUOBSERVER.COM

 

EUOBSERVER / BLAA LONID - As the prime ministers of all the Nordic countries met in Iceland to discuss the financial crisis, a report published by the Nordic Council on Thursday (26 February) said the crisis should lead to a review of whether all Nordic states should join the eurozone and the EU.

"The experience of the Nordic countries in the current crisis ...leads to a need to review whether the other Nordic countries would be better off to follow the Finnish example and join the euro-zone," reads the Nordic Globalisation Barometer 2009 report, Global Pressure - Nordic Solutions?

The Nordic Council of Ministers, bringing together the premiers of all the Nordic countries as well as delegations from associate members Greenland, the Faroe Islands and the Aland Islands, is currently meeting just outside Reykjavik for its second annual globalisation forum.

Finland is the sole Nordic nation to belong to both the EU and the eurozone. Sweden and Denmark are also members of the bloc, but have maintained their domestic currencies. Norway and Iceland remain outside both.

Although this year's themes were intended to be innovation and climate change, the focus has been hi-jacked by the mounting economic crisis, with the Icelandic venue for the meeting only highlighting the situation, as delegates passed "Liquidation" and "Closing Down Sale" signs plastered on shops surrounding their hotels.

Also focussing minds at the event, the Swedish krona fell to a fresh all-time low against the euro on Wednesday.

The report, authored by Christian Ketels of the Harvard Business School and the Stockholm School of Economics, reflects the views of the authors and not the official line of the Nordic Council.

"The Nordic countries will have to discuss whether the changes in the global economy suggest more fundamental changes in their economic policy architecture," it said. "The balance of costs and benefits from operating an independent currency and staying outside the European Union might have shifted."

The prime ministers themselves, all personally backers of both euro and EU membership, spent time discussing their options on Wednesday, but, apart from Finland, face considerable political obstacles on the EU path.

"We find ourselves in the situation where Sweden in 2003 held a referendum [on the euro] and the answer was 'No.' The party chair [of the governing coalition senior partner, the centre-right Moderate Party] has said that he understands that to be a '10-year No,' and the opposition leader said she also doesn't expect a return to the question until 2014," Sweden's prime minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt, said.

"However, the crisis has effected considerable change," he added. "So we are following the ongoing discussions in Denmark very closely."

A referendum on the introduction of the euro in Denmark is expected some time ahead of the next general election, due in 2011.

"We have announced we want a referendum at some point in this term of office," Danish prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen told reporters. "But the question is when, and we need clarification of the situation first, which means how the Irish referendum falls out."

Ireland will hold another referendum on the EU's Lisbon treaty later this year, after having rejected it first time around in June.

Norway's premier, Jens Stoltenberg, issued a curt "We lost a referendum on the EU and so it is not on the agenda now."

Oslo has held two referendums on the matter, one in 1974 after negotiating an accession agreement and another in 1994. Both times membership was narrowly rejected.

Icelandic Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir said that as part of the coalition agreement her centre-left Social Democratic Alliance had signed with the far-left Left Green Movement, the current caretaker government would not apply for membership of the EU.

"But let's see what happens after the elections," she said. "At the same time, we need 30,000 Icelanders to demand a referendum."

Nordic Council secretary-general Asgrimsson, asked about previous remarks that Iceland would join the EU by 2015, said: "I believed it then and I believe it even more now."