Source:
BBCIcelanders have rejected the latest plan to repay the UK and Netherlands some 4bn euros lost when the country's banking system collapsed in 2008.
Partial referendum results show 58% voting no, and 42% supporting the plan.
"The worst option was chosen. The vote has split the nation in two," Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir said on state TV.
It is the second time a referendum has rejected a repayment deal, and the case will now go to an international court.
Read more:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13022524
Some background:
Iceland votes on Icesave-Landsbanki repayment
Icelanders are voting in a referendum on the latest plan to repay the UK and Netherlands for costs incurred when its banking system collapsed.
The country overwhelmingly rejected a previous repayment plan, which was put to a referendum last March.
The new deal offers less onerous repayment terms, but opinion polls suggest it will again be rejected.
...
The British and Dutch governments had to reimburse 400,000 citizens who lost savings - and Iceland must now decide how to repay that money.
/... Or so the BBC pronounces:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13022524--
Iceland, fight this injustice
Saturday's referendum is a chance for Icelanders to strike at the conspiracy that leaves us all bailing out financiersOn Saturday the Icelandic people vote in a referendum on whether the Icelandic state and thus the citizens should guarantee the so-called Icesave claim. Icesave was a bank deposit account that promised market-leading interest rates. When the bank failed, the question arose if the Icelandic depositors' guarantee fund – a private institution financed by the banks – should have taxpayer backing. Instead of letting depositors lose their money or even wait for compensation from the bankruptcy estate, the governments of the UK and Netherlands (where the Icesave products where marketed) decided to reimburse depositors from their own countries. The reimbursement included the full principal, while the recklessly high-interest profits of the risk-seeking depositors were thrown in as a bonus.
Then the British and Dutch authorities went to the Icelandic government and claimed, with reference to EU regulation, that the compensation was in fact the responsibility of the Icelandic taxpayer and that Iceland had to reimburse the British and the Dutch in full.
...
In a similar vein, the people of Ireland, Greece, Portugal and other EU nations have had to accept a total guarantee of all loans made by commercial lenders, thus leaving both financial institutions and bondholders free of all responsibility. Why is this? Has this been discussed properly? Is the idea that taxpayers should necessarily guarantee private lenders a commonly accepted proposition? Is reckless lending supposed to be without consequence?
Instead of applying the customary methods of writing off debt, it seems that an invisible consensus has been created – reminiscent of Chomsky's phrase of the "unconscious conspiracy" – that the financial excesses and reckless lending of the past decade shall be carried forward by the taxpayers into the unforeseeable future. As a result, citizens across Europe are facing extreme cuts in public services, tax rises and massive rises in unemployment.
/... The Guardian explains:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/08/iceland-referendum-conspiracy-financiers?INTCMP=SRCH--
And, as an aside:
...The opposing yes and no camps have been running a fierce campaign battle, and the national conversation has been completely dominated by the dispute. Indeed, mention the word "Icesave" to Icelanders, and most want to run for cover. Which is why the matter of the "golden geese" last week provided something of a welcome respite.
The story took most everyone by surprise. Ten mega-rich investors from the US and Canada had contacted Icelandic authorities and were pledging to invest up to $15bn into our cash-strapped economy. All they wanted was a teeny-weeny favour in return: Icelandic citizenship for themselves and their children.
To the glib observer, the deal certainly sounded attractive. The tycoons' Canadian attorney, one David Lesperance, gushed to Iceland's national public-service broadcaster RÚV that the group had been so taken with the country that they wanted to "join team Iceland". They were, he said, "motivated beyond money" and were primarily looking to invest in the country for political and philanthropic reasons.
When the reporter sounded doubtful, he quickly added that they were also concerned about the number of nuclear power plants being built where they lived, and about their children being drafted into the military. Neither of which would happen if they lived in Iceland.
/...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/07/icelandic-citizenship-golden-geese