Paying the debts caused by dishonest bankers?, Highlight "decency and solidarity of the people?," Pay a fair price?, "Uncertain wait for a trial? These are some questions that Icelanders, some 230,000, had to resolve in his heart before the referendum last week. They had to decide whether their country should accept a pact reached with Britain and the Netherlands to return the nearly 4,000 million euros paid to London and Amsterdam to compensate more than 320,000 citizens after the collapse of Icesave.
The subsidiary of Iceland's second largest bank, Landsbanki, was nationalized in 2008 after the collapse of the banking system. The result was 'no', and the Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir, has warned that the economic and political chaos continue in the country. From the rest of the world, the people's response has been elevated to almost a revolution.
Many admire how this small country in the North Atlantic has managed its crisis, and the force that the public has played in it. Until October 2008, its economy had been remarkably successful, but was cemented and after shaky pillars mainly speculation. In a few days, the banking system collapsed, after which the government chose to nationalize.
In 2009, the ultra-liberal government was forced to resign by public pressure, seasoned with a resounding pan. The second big show of power were made in the previous referendum on the Icesave case, when more than 90% of voters also said 'no'. In the weeks before the second ballot, a few days ago, the debate has been intense, and coincided with a moment in which the government is extremely fragile.
After the Parliament, controlled by the coalition of the Social Democratic Alliance and the Left Green Movement, a majority had approved the pact that Iceland will pay its debt, the recent 'no' suggests a political reading. There is a widespread belief in the country suggests that most of those who rejected the pact are followers of the opposition parties.
However, some argue that this position for much of the public will bring more harm than good. "I think Icelanders have made the wrong decision. Three countries reached an agreement, so it is always better than going to court. I think we should end the matter like civilized people," he told elmundo.
Sveinn Arnarsson is a young university. He complains that "Iceland has said no to a good deal and now could lose to justice and be forced to pay much more yet." Bryndis, an Icelandic professional who prefers not to give his last name, agrees: "I voted yes, was a good deal that we could pay our debts in a decent manner and make clear to the world that our word is trustworthy." So, why the majority voted no? As outlined in the referendum on the web page created by the Institute of Law of the University of Iceland, the British and Dutch demands are unfair and not based on the law, and that the agreement involves a significant economic risk.
For others, the 'no' has exploited the emotional arguments under the banner of 'do not have to pay the debts of the unsavory characters that led to the ruin of the country. " Meanwhile, in Iceland is growing uncertainty about the future, and that's something uncomfortable for the practicality of the mentality of the islanders "I do not want any uncertainty in my life, not take the money of others, but I like to play craps , as now we have left the matter to court.
We're playing with the financial life of an entire nation, "laments Arnarsson. Another of the unknowns that are created following the 'no' is what will happen with the negotiations of accession of Iceland to the European Union, which resolve this issue is a condition. The European Commission, in a joint statement of Commissioners for Enlargement, Stefan Füle and Financial Services, Michel Barnier, has played down, partly because no time while progressing in other chapters of the discussions.
Let's wait. 
The subsidiary of Iceland's second largest bank, Landsbanki, was nationalized in 2008 after the collapse of the banking system. The result was 'no', and the Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir, has warned that the economic and political chaos continue in the country. From the rest of the world, the people's response has been elevated to almost a revolution.
Many admire how this small country in the North Atlantic has managed its crisis, and the force that the public has played in it. Until October 2008, its economy had been remarkably successful, but was cemented and after shaky pillars mainly speculation. In a few days, the banking system collapsed, after which the government chose to nationalize.
In 2009, the ultra-liberal government was forced to resign by public pressure, seasoned with a resounding pan. The second big show of power were made in the previous referendum on the Icesave case, when more than 90% of voters also said 'no'. In the weeks before the second ballot, a few days ago, the debate has been intense, and coincided with a moment in which the government is extremely fragile.
After the Parliament, controlled by the coalition of the Social Democratic Alliance and the Left Green Movement, a majority had approved the pact that Iceland will pay its debt, the recent 'no' suggests a political reading. There is a widespread belief in the country suggests that most of those who rejected the pact are followers of the opposition parties.
However, some argue that this position for much of the public will bring more harm than good. "I think Icelanders have made the wrong decision. Three countries reached an agreement, so it is always better than going to court. I think we should end the matter like civilized people," he told elmundo.
Sveinn Arnarsson is a young university. He complains that "Iceland has said no to a good deal and now could lose to justice and be forced to pay much more yet." Bryndis, an Icelandic professional who prefers not to give his last name, agrees: "I voted yes, was a good deal that we could pay our debts in a decent manner and make clear to the world that our word is trustworthy." So, why the majority voted no? As outlined in the referendum on the web page created by the Institute of Law of the University of Iceland, the British and Dutch demands are unfair and not based on the law, and that the agreement involves a significant economic risk.
For others, the 'no' has exploited the emotional arguments under the banner of 'do not have to pay the debts of the unsavory characters that led to the ruin of the country. " Meanwhile, in Iceland is growing uncertainty about the future, and that's something uncomfortable for the practicality of the mentality of the islanders "I do not want any uncertainty in my life, not take the money of others, but I like to play craps , as now we have left the matter to court.
We're playing with the financial life of an entire nation, "laments Arnarsson. Another of the unknowns that are created following the 'no' is what will happen with the negotiations of accession of Iceland to the European Union, which resolve this issue is a condition. The European Commission, in a joint statement of Commissioners for Enlargement, Stefan Füle and Financial Services, Michel Barnier, has played down, partly because no time while progressing in other chapters of the discussions.
Let's wait.
No comments:
Post a Comment