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

Athugasemdir

[Gísli Halldór (IP-tala skráð) 10.1.2010 kl. 11:57]

Brilliant!

So good to hear a voice of reason.

[Kristinn Snævar Jónsson, 10.1.2010 kl. 13:02]

Thank you for taking interest in this matter.

Your conclusions should draw the politicians attention to the issues involved - if they are made aware of them and they read your article.

I think you are right that a crisis like this in Iceland now may be a good warning sign of what the European countries should expect in their own backyard in near future, maybe already this year. When the "ordinary" citizens there begin to realize what burden is being put on their shoulders as taxpayers because of state-subsidies which have been put into their own banking system and companies for their rescue and for the benefit of their owners and capital owners in general they are not going to like it. And, accordingly, not the prime actors in that disastrous play.
When they realize that the EU-regulations were not sufficient nor totally adquate and the controlling institutions within each country not capable of preventing the serious impact of the financial crisis in Europe they are bound to ask serious questions, to say the least.

[Þorkell Guðnason, 10.1.2010 kl. 14:36]

Thank you so much for arguing this topic in our favour.  Your input is very important - and it is of great importance that all citizens of Iceland can understand what you have said and written.  

I believe that it would be in icelandic public interest if some able person (s) would join in and translate this for that purpose.

Thank you again and again.

[Svanur Guðmundsson, 10.1.2010 kl. 14:46]

Thank you for this.

[Þröstur (IP-tala skráð) 10.1.2010 kl. 15:42]

Thank you Elvira. Your knowledge supports us all.

Því miður þá hlustaði Steingrímur J. Sigfússon EKKI á þig á borgarafundi ! Hefði hann gert það þá værum við ekki í þessum vandræðum.

Ótrúlegt hvað Íslensk stjórnvöld eru búinn að láta kúga sig til hlýðni. Við stefndum hraðbyr í það að vera nýlenda Breta og Hollendinga.

Núna stíga upp sérfræðingar út um allann heim sem segja það sem þú alltaf vissir Elvira. Að okkur beri ekki að borga. Í það minnsta bara hluta af þessu. MIklu miklu minna en búið er að setja í svikasamning Icesave.

Thanks !

[Guðmundur Jónsson, 10.1.2010 kl. 18:14]

Skýr greining eins og áður Elvira

Takk kærlega.

[Hjörtur Hjartarson (IP-tala skráð) 10.1.2010 kl. 21:56]

Kærar þakkir Elvira, fyrir upplýsandi, raunsæjan og réttsýnan málflutning.

[gerdur (IP-tala skráð) 10.1.2010 kl. 23:44]

Mig langar að efast um, að það að borga bara innstæðueigendum útibúa á Íslandi, feli í sér mismunun, sem þú virðist telja gefið.
Ástæðurnar eru þessar:

1. Innstæður útlendinga sem eiga innstæður í íslenskum útibúum eru jafnt tryggðar sem þeirra innstæðueigenda sem eru íslenskir, með ríkisábyrgðinni. Grundvöllur/eðli misjafnrar tryggingar innstæðueigenda er því ekki þjóðerni per se.

2.  Tilgangur þess að tryggja innstæðueigendum innstæður í innlendum útibúum var ekki að koma í veg fyrir tap á peningum per se - heldur að koma í veg fyrir bankahrun. Að tryggja hérlendar innstæður til fulls taldist nauðsynlegt til að koma örugglega í veg fyrir bankaáhlaup. Ekki taldist nægjanlegt að tryggja aðeins hluta innstæðanna, til að vera viss um að ná því markmiði að hindra bankaáhlaup og koma þar með í veg fyrir algert hrun bankakerfis. Mögulega hefði þetta takmark náðst með því að tryggja t.d. aðeins 90% innstæða - en alvarlegar afleiðingar þess ef sú ágiskun myndi reynast röng réttlætir að sú áhætta var ekki tekin, og innstæður því tryggðar að fullu.

3.  Þessi almannahagsmuna-réttlæting er ekki fyrir hendi þegar kemur að því að tryggja innstæður í Bretlandi með íslenskri ríkisábyrgð. Efnahagskerfið þar riðaði ekki til falls, þótt innstæður þar yrðu ekki tryggðar að fullu. Og vegna þess að þessi réttlæting er ekki fyrir hendi má ekki setja slíka tryggingu fyrir þeim innstæðum í lög á Íslandi. Það þarf rök fyrir frávikum af þessu tagi, og hér vantar rökin og réttlætinguna í öðru tilvikinu.
Þetta er grundvallarmunurinn á þessu tvennu. Þetta er ekki spurning um peningaupphæðir og hver átti þær, heldur mismunandi afleiðingar hvorrar tryggingar fyrir sig.

4.  Þegar EFTA dómstóllinn kemst að þeirri niðurstöðu að það feli ekki í sér mismunun, og sé fullkomlega réttlætanlegt, að setja lög um heft flæði fjármagns, þegar það sé gert til að forða heilu efnahagskerfi frá falli, þótt undir venjulegum kringumstæðu sé slíkt bannað - þá hljóta sömu almannaverndarsjónarmið að eiga við á hvaða sviði sem er. Það getur ekki verið að ein og sama réttlætingin - verndun almannahagsmuna - gildi stundum og stundum ekki til þess að víkja frá almennum reglum um bann við mismunun (réttlætingin hér er að bjarga bankakerfi, og þar með efnahagskerfi, frá falli).

Þess vegna get ég ekki séð að lög gegn mismunun hafi verið brotin.

Áhugavert væri í framhaldinu að skoða hver staðan hefði verið ef hagkerfi beggja ríkjanna hefðu verið sambærileg, og að efnahagskerfi hins ríkisins myndi einnig riða til falls ef ekki kæmu til fullar tryggingar innstæðueigenda þar.
En jafnvel í slíku tilfelli, þá sé ég ekki af hverju ríki ætti að vera í því hlutverki að verja almannahagsmuni annars ríkis. Það hlýtur að vera hlutverk hverrar ríkisstjórnar að verja eigin almannahagsmuni. Ef ekki, þá skil ég ekki tilgang þess að afmarka ríki yfirhöfuð. Þá væri í rauninni búið að þurrka út hugtakið ´innlendir hagsmunir´, og þar af leiðandi ´almannahagsmunir´.

Svo er jafnvel hægt að taka þetta enn lengra, og velta fyrir sér þeirri stöðu ef hagkerfi Íslands væri í betri stöðu en útibúsríkið, og ekki riðað til falls, en hitt ríkið aftur á móti (t.d. Færeyjar) stæði frammi fyrir slíku falli, vegna svipaðra kringumstæðna og hér komu upp.
Ætti Ísland þá að borga innstæður að fullu í hinu landinu?
Ég er alls ekkert viss um það.
Viðkomandi ríki hlýtur að eiga að bera ábyrgð á að tryggja sína þegna fyrir áföllum, ef hugtakið ´almannahagsmunir´ á að hafa einhverja þýðingu.

Sanngirnissjónarmið vísa þó alltaf til þess að betur stæð ríki hjálpi  þeim sem verr standa.

Í ljósi alls þessa, verður ekki séð að mismunandi tryggingar hérlendis og erlendis feli í sér mismunun - þótt hún feli í sér mun.

[gerdur (IP-tala skráð) 11.1.2010 kl. 00:38]

Varðandi 3. lið: Hér geng ég í raunar út frá að við berum ábyrgð á almannahagsmunum þegna Bretlands - sem við gerum alls ekki.
En þótt við bærum þá ábyrgð, þá er munur á að vernda almannahagsmuni sem óvarðir gætu valdið algeru hruni heils efnahagskerfis (hér Íslands) á augabragði, og mun minni almannahagsmunum (Bretlands) sem varða fjárhagslegt tap aðila sem verður ekki til þess að knésetja efnahagskerfi þeirra.

[gerdur (IP-tala skráð) 11.1.2010 kl. 01:08]

En svo reyndu Bretar að skapa þær aðstæður að rök til að vernda fall íslenska ríkisins ættu við - með því að hóta að koma okkur á kné efnahagslega.
Og það tókst: Það eru þessar hótanir sem eru forsendan fyrir núverandi settum IceSave-lögum (bæði gömlu og nýju).

En aðstæður þegar ákvörðunin um þessa meintu mismunun var tekin, réttlættu á þeim tíma bara að tryggingar hérlendis yrðu tryggðar - og var því ekki mismunun.

Getur mismunun virkað aftur í tímann?

Afsakið langlokuna, en ég er bara að reyna að fá botn í þetta, og vona að höfundur bloggsins (eða einhver annar) geti sagt mér hvort, og þá af hverju, ofangreint er rangt athugað hjá mér.

[M. Elvira Mendez Pinedo (IP-tala skráð) 11.1.2010 kl. 10:37]

Dear Gerður,

 Thank you for your long letter and comments. You are defending a legal position that Icelandic Government could argue before the European Court of Justice and I respect it because in a litigation case like this all parties have the right to argue the best they can their position. You have very good arguments.

I will read your mail again with great attention tonight. However, after having thought about it for a long time last June, and on the basis of the jurisprudence of the ECJ during 50 years which is a source of EU law, I have very serious doubts that this argument would convince the Court.

Why: because the doctrine of non-discrimination in EU law goes very deep, is incredibly wide and covers non only direct but also indirect discrimination. The Court looks at the facts and consequences in real life of legislation, not at the intentions or reasons behind the law. If figures and statistics show that a large group of people have been victims of a legislation and that this group shares common grounds such as nationality or sex.....,  the legislation is struck down.

 I cannot change this jurisprudence. I refer to you to the work of Christa Tobler which is an expert in indirect discrimination in EU law and to other classic books such as P.Craig and De Burca, from Oxford Univesity Press, 2007.

See for instance the jurisprudence Gebhard:

Principles established by the ECJ lately (non-obstacle approach):

National measures liable to hinder/affect the four fundamental freedoms:

1) must be non-discriminatory in theory or in practice (direct or indirect discrimination). There is no justification for discrimination whatsoever.

2) must be justified by public interest, imperative requirements, objective justifications.... all non-economic reason allowed in the general interest (whatever the name used by the EU Treaty or the jurisprudence)3) must be suitable to attain objectives aimed  at4) must respect principle of proportionality5) must respect European fundamental rights (newest test introduced by the ECJ)

[Jakob Þór Haraldsson, 11.1.2010 kl. 11:34]

Frábærar greinar frá þér tengt Icesave umræðunni - innilega takk fyrir að láta þitt sjónarmið koma fram!  Sérstaklega tek ég undir það sjónarmið að "social justice" sé eitthvað sem Evrópubandalagið verði að taka alvarlega þegar þeir endursemja banka lög & reglur. 

kv. Heilbrigð skynsemi (fun.blog.is)

[Björn Jónasson (IP-tala skráð) 11.1.2010 kl. 12:26]

Can you tell us whether Iceland is regarded as a "third country" in relation to the directives 2000/12/EC and 77/780/EEC?

[gerdur (IP-tala skráð) 11.1.2010 kl. 13:15]

Thank you so very much for answering!
And thank you for pointing out further information on the matter.

About 2) I stumble on "all non-economic reason allowed ..." mentioned here, since the EFTA court, which rules according to ECJ, and ECJ looks at them as well in their interpretations, has said in an opinion, that laws that ´hindra flæði fjármagns" (don´t know the english), which is surely economic in nature, can be justifiable when a fundamental institution in society, as a bank system, is in danger of collapsing.

Furthermore, there is no personal characteristic that can be connected to the people who lost the money in England that is the reason for them not getting the extra insurance. It is not because they are white, black, of a certain nationality, female, homosexual, muslim or whatever. They might all be old Icelandic ladies, as this is concerned. The same applies to the owners of the icelandic bank accounts. It was not because the owners there were icelandic that they got extra guarantee. They might just as well have been rich arabs.

Any group can be found to have something in common, that separates them from another group. Here for example that their money was given less guarantee than the other group (which is of course the result of the decision, not the reason), and because of the location of the bank have a majority of certain nationality. You might even find that because of the type of the savings offered there, certain types of people or companies would have taken the offer rather that others, which would give them ´common characteristics´ (old people, charity funds etc). The fact might also just as well have been that the owners of the accounts abroad were of Icelandic  nationality.
But the reason behind the decision was not because of the personal attributes of the account owners.
Even, if you had chosen the group at random, like give 20% of all bankaccount owners of the same bank extra guarantee, you might say that what they have in common is being every fourth on the list of the random system, and what separates them from the other.

As long as the court ruling doesn´t say that measures have to be taken randomly, there will most likely always be something in common with one group, compared to the other.
If I understand ´discrimination´ correctly, that has to do with personal attributes, and decisions based on them.
And that is not the fact here.

[gerdur (IP-tala skráð) 11.1.2010 kl. 13:49]

The question is really this:

Can the mere fact, not letting the same rules apply to local companies as to companies abroad, be a basis for discrimination - when discrimination has to do with personal characteristic of the bank account owners?
Am I not the same person, when I put my money in a bank in Iceland, and when I put my  money in a bank abroad?
Can putting my money in a bank account abroad, change my personal characteristics?
That doesn´t make sense.
Should the fact where I invest my money be used to define my person?
If so, the power of money has gone to far.

[gerdur (IP-tala skráð) 11.1.2010 kl. 14:58]

I think I may perhaps have been taking somewhat too narrow aproach to the word ´discrimination´. But I find it leading to the same results.

Would the differences that arise from the fact that customers, or company, in another country pay a different tax  (since paying according to their local tax law), from the tax paid by customers for their savings in Iceland - be considered discrimination?
As it turns out: No.
The rulings I find so far, considering differences that at first glance might be considered discrimination, are all in one direction:
You can have differences and deviate from the general rule of treating everybody everywhere the same, if they are justified by a greater good.
For example, differences in taxation between same company in different countries can be justified by the need of keeping a whole tax system intact.

The greater good of preventing collapse from a whole economy, must overrule any rules that might under normal conditions be considered discrimination.
And it is not justifiable to go further than absolutely neccessary - which resulted in depositors only in Iceland being guaranteed, and not abroad.

[gerdur (IP-tala skráð) 11.1.2010 kl. 15:28]

We deviate from rules
to save an economy from collapsing
(by making a  normally forbidden government guarantee),

but then,

in order to comply with non-discrimination rules
(which are, of course, important too)
we make further government-guarantees -

which will result in the economy collapsing!?

Exactly the consequenses that were justification from the deviance in the first place!

Please explain how this can be right.

[Maria Elvira Méndez Pinedo, 12.1.2010 kl. 00:23]

Dear Gerdur,

 As I promised I thought again about your comments and talked to somebody about this and I have reached a further conclusion which I could argue quite comfortably.

 As you very well argue we could discuss wheter the need from saving a national economy from collapse authorised a country under EU/EEA law from treating differently deposits in Iceland than deposits of Icelandic branches in the UK and Holland. The EFTA Surveillance Authority will have to give a legal opinion on this isuse very soon. As this is a new problem in EU law I totally ignore how the ECJ or the EFTA Court would rule on this problem.

However, the point is that the UK and Holland and all other European countries seemed to do exactly the same than Iceland in the autumn 2008 to save their banking systems: they guaranteed the deposits in their territories.

By focusingn on territory they discriminated too. We could argue then that, by doing so, they have lost the right to raise this argument as a legal defense against us.

The point is that all countries acted for their citizens because the European system did not impose any obligations in cases of cross-border financial crisis. The supervision and security of the system was fragmented because EU law wanted it like that so it is unfair that Iceland is condemned in advance for something they all did.

 I would still have to find evidence in other EU countries about this.

And then we should hope that we convince all 25 countries that still need to be convinced! 

 Thank you for your comments, they made me reconsider my initial conclusion. Best regards, Elvira

[gerdur (IP-tala skráð) 12.1.2010 kl. 09:55]

Dear Elvira.

Thank you.

Gerður Rósa Gunnarsdóttir

[Gunnar Tómasson (IP-tala skráð) 12.1.2010 kl. 16:01]

Maria Elvira,

Thanks for your thoughtful contributions to the Icesave debate.

I thought I should share with you the following comments which I posted today to a trans-atlantic group of economists (Gang8) of which I am a founding member.

Gunnar Tómasson

***  

I did detailed research into the formal/legal aspects of the UK actions in the case, beginning on October 8, 2008.

(The results were posted last July/August in ten or eleven parts at http://www.vald.org)

Such formal/legal aspects are of the essence when the rights and obligations of all parties to a case are defined with reference to applicable laws and regulations.

A Memorandum of Understanding agreed and signed by Icelandic and UK officials in October 2006 states that the “initiative” in compensating depositors in failed Icelandic banks lies with the Icelandic side.

That is, the private Deposit Insurance Fund whose legal and regulatory provisions were a matter of record at the time.

Beginning on October 8, 2008, the UK Government acted unilaterally to compensate Icesave depositors through the UK Treasury.

And, of course, the UK Government had every right to do so – and, as an afterthought, presented Iceland with the bill!

The question then arises:

Must the UK Government itself bear the cost of its sovereign action outside the applicable international formal/legal framework?

[Robert Gustafson (IP-tala skráð) 12.1.2010 kl. 18:33]

What was the wording of the contracts given to the investors before they made their investment?

In those contracts, what was to happen if the investor's money were lost?

-------

People lose money on investments all the time. Should any government pay back any of Bernie Madoff's investors?

Just because the UK and NL goverments decided to reimburse their residents who lost money in Icesave is no reason that Icelandic citizens should reimburse the UK and NL governments.

-------

There are rules describing a settlement between the Icesave estate and their investors.They are in the investor's contract.

Changing the contract to fit a new reality should not be allowed if the world wants cross-border investment to continue.

[Auður (IP-tala skráð) 12.1.2010 kl. 20:50]

If this discrimination issue is so deeply important that it has judicial effects even in indirect sense, why does it then not matter that the icesave debt made by the private company will cost one Icelandic citizen around 12000€ and citizen from UK or Netherlands around 50€. If the discrimination law is so strong and stands above other laws in this matter, wouldn´t it be most fair that Iceland, UK and Netherland share the debt in a way so the amount for every citizen in these 3 countries is the same? And shouldn´t it especially be so if there are laws that state that the responsibility for supervising the private businesses lies not within only one of the countries, or if the laws on that issue are unclear?

[Auður (IP-tala skráð) 12.1.2010 kl. 20:54]

Oh, I´m sorry Elvira, I forgot to thank you in my comment above for your wonderful work.  I am very grateful and think many are, both in Iceland and Europe as whole.

[Júlíus Björnsson, 19.1.2010 kl. 03:29]

The EU Directive of the deposit assurance system refers to solidarity amongst the competing branches in the same Member State's territory. Also with the emphasis on the saver both as a consumer and founding.

All the Member States them selfs in their competition internal do they not apply to the same solidarity under the Commission? 

The Icelandic version renames depositor with the owner of the deposit. After reading the French EU constitution I have the feeling this is not the only example of such an uncompatibilty.

Also the EU law defined Comission is refered to as comite with same respect as to the 350 consultatives ones  with mandate[commission] from their Member state.

I reckon Iceland sufferes from this lack of discipline and accuracy. I ask me self how can my people establish serious conventional contract deprived perspective as mastering the principles?

Discriminations of countries in competition , also branches in competition. The claimer of a territory must be responsible for its supervision, he can not transfer the charge to claimer  of an other territory. That is like the stork and the fox.