Fćrsluflokkur: English, texts in

Athugasemd mín á umrćđuvefnum um greinina í Die Zeit: Islands Recht und britischer Unrecht

HÉR átti ég eftirfarandi athugasemd á vefslóđ Zeit, fyrst í örstuttu máli á minni klaufsku ţýzku, en bćtti svo viđ ţađ grein minni á vef The Economist um daginn:

Islands Recht und britischer Unrecht

Ein dr. juris, Gunnar Jonsson, hat gestern gesagt, daß in dieser Sache die alte Göbbels-Methode angewendet ist, ohne Ende zu schreien: "Ihr seid schuldig, ihr seid schuldig, ihr seid schuldig!" und die isländische Regierung hat mit einer vollständiger Kapitulation respondiert. Das Wert dieser Pseudo-Schuld ist gleichmäßig mit ALLEN Wohnungen auf Island oder zehn Schiffe wie Queen Victoria (90.000 Tonne, nehmt 2000 Passagiere), und wir sind nur 319.000 auf dieser Insel!

Ich hinweise auf diesen Artikel auf dieser Economist-Webseite (oder hier):

 

INNOCENT ICELAND WILL RESIST AND RISE AGAIN

We Icelanders appreciate the understanding, shown by some of the British in the media, of our frightful predicament in connection with the Icesave dispute, which threatens our very chance of economic survival in the next 15 years. Along with Ms. Eva Joly's Daily Telegraph article, the keen sense of justice witnessed by the editorial of The Financial Times on Aug. 11, as well as a few informative articles there and in this valuable magazine, have shown us the lie of our own defeatist cabinet, led by two socialists whose willful choice it was to try and make us believe that European opinion was united against us in the question of our rights in the Icesave dispute with Great Britain and the Netherlands.

Our timid, co-dependent leaders have failed to defend us, even Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir who defected our firm ground of innocence and legality in her article in your paper on August 13. Our foreign minister and the minister of the treasury chose to hide the legal opinion of two solicitors' offices (Mishcon de Reya in London [briefing paper here: http://www.island.is/media/frettir/MB_290309.pdf], and Schjödt in Bruxelles [http://www.island.is/media/frettir/14.pdf], which both attested to our legal rights in the dispute) – for which unlawful cover-up the foreign minister apologized in Parliament (Althingi) on July 9, but only when urged to do so by the leader of the largest opposition party.

Even more serious, theirs is the blame not to have used and appealed to our fundamental ground of legal defense, viz., directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit guarantee schemes which says, "Whereas this Directive may NOT result in the Member States' or their competent authorities' being made liable in respect of depositors if they have ensured that one or more schemes guaranteeing deposits or credit institutions themselves and ensuring the compensation or protection of depositors under the conditions prescribed in this Directive have been introduced and officially recognized; ..." This is actually what Iceland, partner in the European Economic Area, did, legally setting up such an independent fund guaranteeing deposits, as from year 2000, thus fulfilling its strict obligations in this regard.

Accordingly, we as a nation, and our treasury, are in fact not at all liable to pay for the lost savings in the privately-owned Landsbankinn, nor to take over the responsibility of that Deposits Guarantee Fund – yet this is what the U.K. and the Netherlands are forcing us into, in their 250 times greater strength in terms of population and power. The whole lot will amount to some 11,000 pounds sterling for every Icelander, from newborns to those at the gate of death.

The Icesave 'agreement', and the soon to be expected state guarantee, practically enforced under threat, will be a constant reminder of the gross injustice of an LP-led, ex-colonial power exerting its superior might against a small nation denied by its own political leaders the right to defend itself.

We Icelanders can only rise from here to our just and rightful place among free nations, in our brave, unavoidable resistance. The leaders of Great Britain, and their accomplices the IMF and the EU, will not be partners to our restoration.

Jon Valur Jensson, theologian and researcher, Reykjavik. 


mbl.is Hegđun Breta og Hollendinga ekki sćmandi
Tilkynna um óviđeigandi tengingu viđ frétt

Innocent Iceland will resist and rise again – A letter to the editor of The Financial Times


Innocent Iceland will resist and rise again


Sir, We Icelanders appreciate the understanding, shown by the Financial Times, of our frightful predicament in connection with the Icesave dispute, which threatens our very chance of economic survival in the next 15 years. Along with Ms. Eva Joly's Telegraph article, the keen sense of justice witnessed by your editorial of Aug. 11, as well as Mr Andrew Ward's informative articles, have shown us the lie of our own defeatist cabinet, led by two socialists whose willful choice it was to try and make us believe that European opinion was united against us in the question of our rights in the Icesave dispute with Great Britain and the Netherlands.


Our timid, co-dependent leaders have failed to defend us, even our PM Johanna Sigurdardottir who defected our firm ground of innocence and legality in her article in your paper on August 13. Our foreign minister and the minister of the treasury chose to hide the legal opinion of two solicitors' offices (Mishcon de Reya in London [briefing paper here: http://www.island.is/media/frettir/MB_290309.pdf], and Schjödt in Bruxelles [http://www.island.is/media/frettir/14.pdf], which both attested to our legal rights in the dispute) – for which unlawful cover-up the foreign minister apologized in Parliament (Althingi) on July 9. 


Even more serious, theirs is the blame not to have used and appealed to our fundamental ground of legal defense, viz., directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit guarantee schemes which says, "Whereas this Directive may NOT result in the Member States' or their competent authorities' being made liable in respect of depositors if they have ensured that one or more schemes guaranteeing deposits or credit institutions themselves and ensuring the compensation or protection of depositors under the conditions prescribed in this Directive have been introduced and officially recognized; ..." This is actually what Iceland, partner in the European Economic Area, did, legally setting up such an independent fund guaranteeing deposits, as from year 2000, thus fulfilling its strict obligations in this regard. 


Accordingly, we as a nation, and our treasury, are in fact not at all liable to pay for the lost savings in the privately-owned Landsbankinn, nor to take over the responsibility of that Deposits Guarantee Fund – yet this is what the U.K. and the Netherlands are forcing us into, in their 250 times greater strength in terms of population and power. The whole lot will amount to some 11,000 pounds sterling for every Icelander, from newborns to those at the gate of death. 


The Icesave 'agreement', and the soon to be expected state guarantee, practically enforced under threat, will be a constant reminder of the gross injustice of an LP-led, ex-colonial power exerting its superior might against a small nation denied by its own political leaders the right to defend itself. 


We Icelanders can only rise from here to our just and rightful place among free nations, in our brave, unavoidable resistance. The UK, and the accomplices the IMF and the EU, will not be partners to our restoration.


Jon Valur Jensson,

Reykjavik, Iceland.


"Wir müßen Großmacht werden!" – stórveldisdraumur Evrópubandalagsins

  • M. Jacques Delors – the one whom Mr Hannibalsson (perhaps rightly) calls "still today the greatest of the EU-presidents" – served as President of the European Commission in 1985–1995. So it can hardly be denied that he, if anyone, could act as a spokesman for the EU and the European Commission. Accidentally, he is the same who declared in an interview in Der Spiegel in November 1991: "Wir müßen Großmacht werden!", viz.: We have to become a Super-Power! (cfr. Ragnar Arnalds, ex-minister of finance and of culture, Iceland: Sjálfstćđiđ er sístćđ auđlind, Reykjavík 1998, p. 102).

Ţetta var framlag mitt til vefsíđu Jón Baldvins Hannibalssonar: DELORS´S BABY. Hér segir frá ţví, ađ Jacques Delors hafi veriđ forseti framkvćmdastjórnar Evrópubandalagsins (ćđsti embćttismađur ţess, á árunum 1985–1995), og mćrir Jón Baldvin hann sem hinn frábćrasta í ţví starfi. Orđin Delors's Baby vísa hjá honum til ţess, ađ Jón kallar kann föđur Evrópska efnahagssvćđisins. En af öllu er ljóst, ađ Delors var talsmađur Evrópubandalagsins, ef nokkur var ţađ, ţegar hann áriđ 1991 dró saman kjarnann í markmiđum Maastricht-samningsins í ţessum orđum í Spiegel-viđtali: "Wir müßen Großmacht werden!" – viđ verđum ađ gerast stórveldi!

Nú er ađ sjá, hvernig Jón Baldvin bregzt viđ ţeirri athugasemd minni, sem frá greinir hér ofar, á ţví mjög svo virka vefsvćđi, sem hann hefur nýlega stofnađ til. Vitađ er, ađ hann er einhver einstrengingslegasti predikari EB-sćluríkisins hér á landi, en fer oft rangt međ í ţví sambandi, og ţađ á líka viđ um greinar hans nú, eins og séra Svavar A. Jónsson tekur sér fyrir hendur ađ gera athugasemdir viđ í vefgrein frá í gćr: Ţeir upplýstu hafa skođun, hinum er borgađ. Svo ósvífinn er Jón ađ halda ţví fram, ađ ţeir sem fari hamförum gegn ađild Íslands ađ ESB séu ađallega einstaklingar sem fái borgađ fyrir ţađ! Ţetta er nú einmitt ţađ, sem mađur hefur látiđ sér detta í hug um ýmsa einstaklingana, sem skrifađ hafa í ţágu Evrópubandalagsins og löngunar ráđamanna ţar til ađ innlima Ísland, enda eru ţar ćrnir sjóđir (7% útgjalda EB), sem hvergi er gerđ grein fyrir, og ekki hefur bandalagiđ látiđ endurskođa reikninga sína síđustu 14 árin.

Engan einstakling ţekki ég, sem borgađ sé fyrir ađ skrifa eđa tala eđa beita sér "gegn ađild Íslands ađ ESB," og sjálfur hef ég aldrei ţegiđ eina einustu krónu fyrir eitt eđa neitt af ţví sem frá mér hefur komiđ um ţau mál öll.

Sjálfur furđa ég mig á fjölda rangfćrslna í greinum Jóns Baldvins á vefsetrinu – og á grófleika ţeirra. Hann telur sig kannski fullsćmdan af ţeim sem bírćfinn valdapólitíkus, en eitt er víst, ađ ekki er ţađ hlutlćgur frćđimađur, sem ţar birtist, né heimildamađur sem mark verđi tekiđ á.

En fróđlegt verđur ađ sjá, hvernig Jón Baldvin og hans skođanasystkin bregđast viđ mínu innleggi, sem greinir frá stórveldisdraumum ćđsta fulltrúa eđa leiđtoga Evrópubandalagsins um ţađ leyti sem ţađ hafđi tekiđ ţann eindregna miđstýringar- og valdasamsöfnunarkúrs, sem fólginn er í Maastricht-samningnum og ţví samrunaferli sem fylgt hefur í kjölfariđ.


Evrópubandalags-reglugerđ vill sjaríalög fyrir múslima í löndum EBé!

Frétt í dag í Daily Mail (EU judges want Sharia law applied in British courts) hermir ađ dómarar í Bretlandi gćtu ţurft ađ beygja sig fyrir sjaría-lögum í skilnađarmálum. Áćtlun EB skorar á dómstóla í fjölskyldumálum ađ nota lög upprunalands hjóna til ađ fjalla um mál ţeirra. Ţetta gćti merkt, ađ dómstóll í Englandi gćti ţurft ađ byggja á frönskum lögum eđa jafnvel saúdí-arabískum sjaríalögum.

Hugmyndaveita (think tank) The Centre for Social Justice gerđi í dag árás á ţessar s.k. "Rómar III-endurbćtur" sem hlćgilegar (ludicrous) og varađi viđ ţví, ađ ţćr fćlu í sér tafir á málum, aukinn kostnađ og gćtu leitt til ranglátra niđurstađna, jafnvel ađ stefnt gegn hagsmunum fjölskyldunnar.

Lesiđ nánar fréttina sjálfa, en nú ţegar eru a.m.k. níu EB-ríki (ţriđja hvert) búin ađ ákveđa ađ heimfćra ţessar "Rómar III-endurbćtur".

Brezkir lesendur bregđast hvumsa og reiđir viđ fregninni. Ég sendi eftirfarandi viđbrögđ inn á vefsíđu Daily Mail í morgun:

  • This shows you Brits and others in Europe how ill-advised and unfortunate it was to create that monstrous, exacting super-state of the EU and to yield to its demands to supreme judiciary powers in all its member-states.
  • We Icelanders, 1670 times smaller in numbers than the EU, do now have to defend ourselves against persistent propaganda for our inclusion in that Super-state which expects us to yield our sovereign legislative power, jurisdiction and supreme command over our natural resources.
  • "Wir müssen ein Großstaat werden!" (We, the EU, have to become a Great Power on the world arena!), these are the words of Jacques Delors, President of the European Commission 1985–1995. Their superpower ambitions are obvious, and the enforced legislation on each member state can only have as a corollary the unified infliction of "political correctness" throughout EU lands, for the benefit of Sharia law if it suits those bosses in Bruxelles!
  • Exit the EU, independent-thinking people of Gt Britain!
  • Jón Valur Jensson. 

A welcome to specialist observers of the OSCE: You have work to do in this country!

These are among the things that the representatives of OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) should advisably investigate concerning the forthcoming parliamentary elections in Iceland:

  1. The totally unjust, artificial and undemocratic division of the capitol of this country, Reykjavík (one official province, under one mayor, municipal council, etc.) into two constituencies. Until 1999/2000, this had been an undivided constituency for over a century. The division was virtually enforced in the working committee for a revision of our elections law, as witnessed by one of its members, Ms. Kristín Sigurđardóttir, representative of the then Women´s Party (Kvennalistinn), in a radio interview; an amendment of the undue difference between the proportional weight of the votes in rural and urban constituencies (cf. no. 3 below) was denied to those members of the board pressing for that amendment, except if they yielded to the demand of the representatives of our largest political party, the Independent Party, Sjálfstćđisflokkurinn, that Reykjavík be divided in two constituencies. – The awkwardness of this action manifests itself in the fact that not until the last couple of days before election day is it possible for Iceland´s Statistical Bureau (Hagstofan) to decide a demarcation line between the two constituencies Reykjavík North and Reykjavík South (as they have to be equal in size, viz., in their number of voters). – The sheer injustice, and party-political guarding of self-interest, implied by the named division, shows itself in the effect that a whole 7–8% of the voters in this capitol can thus be reduced to no influence at all in the results of the election, whereas, if they were all united in one constituency, some 4–4.5% of the votes would suffice for having an MP elected. This state of affairs is clearly profitable for the largest parties, and disadvantages the smaller ones.
  2. A 5% "threshold" was adopted with those same laws, barring any political party from having supplemetary parliamentary seats (uppbótarţingsćti), if the total percentage of votes among the whole electorate in Iceland does not exceed 5%. It is notesworthy that such a party does also have to fulfil the requirement of having at least one regular MP elected locally, by his constituency. Yet, the percentage of three members of the Alţing among the whole number of MPs (63) is only 4.9%. – The consequence of this unnecessary requirement is, first, that new parties have very slight chance of crossing that wall (or threshold); second, that this interacts with the effect of opinion polls for making people take it for granted that a vote cast on such a party is, in advance, a "dead" one. – In justification of the 5% rule it has been asserted that extremist political parties have to be barred from entering Parliament. But the actual fact is that there are no such parties in this country, and are unlikely to become a reality, let alone to gather wide support among the population.
  3. The constituencies themselves are so unequal in the weight of influence of their voters that this has already drawn the attention of the OSCE to this fact, which shows itself, e.g., in that the voters inhabiting the North-West constituency have a double weight of influence as compared to the voters in the South-West constituency; and the Reykjavík constituencies are also disproportionally represented in Parliament in an almost similar way.
  4. In the election law it is stipulated that any party going for elections in the whole of the country has to offer no less than 63 men and women running for seats in parliament, plus 63 as their substitutes, and also to provide a list of 63 x 30 to 40 recommending persons who must not recommend any other party´s runners for parliament (if they do, their signatures will be ignored on both or all the relevant parties´ lists). This means, in a country of only about 310,000 people, that somewhere between 1,890 up to 2,520 persons need to recommend each such a list, which is a heavy burden on new parties which are in the process of making themselves known, usually with almost no party funds, and in several ways discriminated against by the state of affairs which reigns in this area of our electoral rights.
  5. The power to call a new election with a very short notice, like the forthcoming one, is a further cause for a concern about democratic rights in this country to be compromised or even jeopardized, cf. no. 4.
  6. The largest parties in this country have been receiving a whole lot of contributions from the State, well over 300 million Icelandic krónur (IKR) in this year, and also from firms (up to a maximum of 300,000 IKR), from individuals, and even from the boards of the communes, which of course should be apolitical in matters such as this one, and yet have not been so: political representatives on commune councils have made the communes support one or a very few among the political parties, in such proportion as their own caprice decides. – Even worse still, the political parties are getting direct state money, from taxpayers pockets, proportionwise according to the parties´ size (in the number of MPs), and we are not talking here about the salaries of the MPs themselves, which is an entirely different matter. – Those state contributions to the old (or "established") parties which are already represented in Parliament do not wait until after the elections, whereas other parties running for Parliament get nothing contributed from the State except if they exceed a certain percentage of votes, and especially if they get a member or more elected to the Alţing, yet only after the elections and in a proportion to the number of their votes and MPs. This is a great cause of disadvantage for new parties who can hardly ever compete with the advertising campaign of the wealthy "established" parties.
  7. A scandal has arisen owing to huge secret contributions being made to two of the largest political parties in the year 2006, Samfylkingin and, especially, Sjálfstćđisflokkurinn, the latter one receiving two grants of 30 million IKR each, from one of our largest banks, Landsbankinn, and from the corporation FL Group (active in avaiation etc.). Allegations have been made that this is under an even darker shadow of suspicion due to those two firms´ interest connections to large energy firms which were being founded and starting new initiatives which depended to a large degree on consultation and contracts being made in 2007 with representatives of that same political party. Two voices were raised in Pariament yesterday claiming that those large contributions were virtually an attempt at bribery.
  8. The different parties or organizations running for Parliament have for a long period of time been disproportionally represented in the State media, the old parties having the upper hand at most levels. A complaint to this effect has already been briefed to the OSCE, I believe.

I, the undersigned, have written extensively on these different points and topics on my two websites, http://jonvalurjensson.blog.is and http://blogg.visir.is/jvj/, and am ready for a further information on this very important issue of interest for those who have at heart equal democratic rights in Iceland.

Jón Valur Jensson, theologian, researcher and writer, Reykjavík.


mbl.is Kosningaeftirlitsmenn ÖSE hafa tekiđ til starfa
Tilkynna um óviđeigandi tengingu viđ frétt

Censorship

Their hearts have their reasons no mind understands,

Not bowing to arguments' rightful demands.

How long can I wait 'till they yield in their pride?

Or who gave them power to push me aside?


Pútínsmyndin glćsilega er í loftinu!

Missiđ ekki af henni! LESIĐ HÉR: Kerfi Pútíns, 2/2. – Nýbirt vefgrein: Dćmi um hroka 'ríku' bankanna: okkur var sagt ađ skipta um tungumál! – og ţessi: The financial crisis and Iceland’s dispute with Mr Brown’s government on the Icesave accounts.

Ekki eru allir Bretar Brown

G. Tómas Gunnarsson skrifađi pistil međ ţessari yfirskrift. Ţar um yrki ég: // A certain blogger mediated to us a new adage: 'Ekki eru allir Bretar Brown', meaning: Not every Briton is a Brown, which gave rise to this versification:

  • Someone lousy let us down,
  • unloosed on us his dirty tricks.
  • En ekki' eru allir Bretar Brown.
  • Ţví bryđ ég enn mitt Weetabix.
  • Margir vaskir eru án
  • atvinnu sinnar – horfiđ lán.
  • En ekki' eru allir Bretar Brown,
  • ţótt brygđist illa (ţvílík smán!). 
  • Not every Brit is called a Brown
  • (relax!), nor lets whole nations down.
  • Just one devalued our crown,
  • assisted by his Darling Clown.

Read my articles on the dispute between the British government and Iceland here. Lesiđ greinar mínar um bankakreppuna hér: Viđskipti og fjármál.


Iceland and the financial crisis; Icesave and the crackdown of the banks, and British claims against this country

You are warmly invited to read my articles, relevant to the above-mentioned topics, in my website section English, texts in;  among them, these are the last but not latest:

The weight of UK claims against the nation of Iceland are 3–4 times heavier than the Versailles treaty burdens on Germany

Mr. Gordon Brown is still trying to get away with murder

Amending biased news at Sky on Gordon Brown the bank-seizer 


The weight of UK claims against the nation of Iceland are 3–4 times heavier than the Versailles treaty burdens on Germany

  • "The people of Iceland should not have to suffer unnecessarily from the consequences of decisions made by the billionaire owners of the Landsbanki nor the rage of the British government."

So writes Mr Gylfi Zoëga, professor of economics at Birkbeck College and the University of Iceland, in his article in The Financial Times, Oct. 13: Iceland and the hazards of internet accounts.

The British government has made things almost as bad as possible. Declaring, as Prime Minister Gordon Brown did, that Iceland is 'bankrupt', was both in itself a shameful lie, and proved devastating to Iceland's reputation, with the result of damaging even more our borrowing credentials, increasing our remaining banks' overall difficulties considerably in result. Gordon Brown's next step was to close the British based Singer and Friedlander bank which directly brought about the downfall of its parent bank Kaupţing, Iceland's largest firm, with the loss of Ł2,5 billion in shares, and the total bankruptcy of several other large corporations in Iceland. An accelerated spiral of redundancies followed suit.

And then Mr Brown's new almost coerced (and certainly bullied) new Versailles treaty conditions: The claims of Britain equal around 3 million Icelandic kronur for each and every Icelander, i.e. Ł15,663, which means that each family of four will suddenly add over Ł62,000 to their debts, if the British special team in Reykjavik, negotiating a deal with Iceland on the Icesave deposit accounts, will have its way.

Other nations should be aware of the affliction and hardship the British government is ready to lay upon the shoulders of ordinary Icelandic citizens due to the financial adventurism of a few banking gamblers which operated in the British isles under the rather un-keen eye of the the Financial Services Authority. Witness, again, Professor Zoëga:

  • The Financial Services Authority could have warned about Icesave, limited its scope or shut it down altogether. They did not do any of these things. The reason that the British government is so enraged is that the government itself, in the form of the local authorities, invested hundreds of millions of pound in Icelandic banks.

To add insult to infamy, having recourse to anti-terrorist law against Iceland, listing us with al-Qaida, Northern Korea and others of that ilk, was another hostile, incredibly short-sighted action made by Brown's government. The news to-day (AP, AFP et al.) is that Mr Martin Shining, a specialist at the UN Committee of Human Rights, has sharply criticized Great Britain for this misuse of anti-terrorist law against the people of Iceland.

In fact, Sir Howard Davis, director of LSE, one-time deputy governor of the Bank of England, "has attacked the Britain's "beggar-thy-neighbour" behaviour towards Icelandic banks as he called for an overhaul of financial regulation," according to this article on The Telegraph website to-day: Telegraph Former FSA head Howard Davies attacks Britain's response to Iceland, on which I shall be writing in one of my next few articles. Together with your own best, objective economists, and with the Conservatives, we will ensure that Mr Brown will not get way with murder in his dealings with the innocent ordinary citiens of this country.

British citizens!  Be aware that your own government does not act according to due legal procedure, and that it is already heaping upon itself not just the rage of the Icelandic nation but also a costly prosecution for having brought down Iceland's largest and wealthiest firm.

A reorientation is perhaps still needed. Prof. Zoëga again: 

  • The population of Iceland has suffered immensely from the failure of its banks; pension funds have been hit heavily; the country’s money market funds have been wiped out, thus also the savings of a very large number of people. Thousands of workers are losing their jobs, the foreign exchange markets have collapsed and the country is facing the very real possibility of not having adequate food and fuel in coming weeks.
  • During this period of crisis the British government decided to attack Icelandic businesses in Britain to protect the interests of Icesave customers by invoking anti-terrorism laws rather than contacting Icelandic authorities to seek clarification and collaboration. This resulted in the loss of assets which makes it more difficult to compensate Icesave account holders fully. This act was followed by formal negotiations in which the British representatives are seeking to make the Icelandic nation repay Icesave deposits beyond the deposit insurance scheme.

Remember now that only in 1984 did Germany complete paying up its war debts according to the Versailles peace treaty. At the same rate, considering the 3–4 times heavier burden laid on Icelanders due to the crackdown of our banks (partly the blame of Messrs Gordon Brown and Alastair Darling!), it would take at least some 200 years for us to pay up – even the grandchildren of those two just-named Hon. notorieties would not live the day when the British would let us out of our debts' prison!

Or, rather, this is Mr Brown's proposed justice. We, however, can't bow to such unreasonable, merciless, callous, utterly unfair, outrageous demands. We will rather outvote our democratically elected authorities than let them give you such a bargain at the cost of our dear country and beloved children.

Try and put yourselves in our footsteps, if you possibly can. A society almost 200 times larger than Iceland's, having itself advised its local communities to invest 'wisely' in Icesave, should really accept its own large share in the restitution costs due to be paid back to the afflicted Icesave customers. Or was this all about revenge, or gaining more votes in the cheapest of ways? That method certainly did not work last time, when it took just one short, insulted bloke from World War I to set Europe upside down again.


« Fyrri síđa | Nćsta síđa »

Innskráning

Ath. Vinsamlegast kveikiđ á Javascript til ađ hefja innskráningu.

Hafđu samband