Talk:Icesave dispute

Past tense
lotsa past tenses are used in this article, what is that about? --62.251.21.22 (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Disregard of Icelandic Taxpayers
the article disregards that icelandic taxpayers will be providing the "full refund" every other country is recieving, creating discrimination as Icelandic citizens have lost, on average, 33% of their savings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.149.9.9 (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't disregard it at all – it is simply untrue. Physchim62 (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really know what the OP was trying to say here. It is, of course, true that the nation hardest hit by the collapse of the Icelandic banks is (duh) the people of Iceland. Lots of people had a substantial part of their savings in the various&mdash;heavily promoted&mdash;funds of the banks. Those funds were decimated in the collapse. I'm not sure where the 33% number comes from or whether it is correct. It could plausibly be correct under some definitions. But this is material that would probably better be handled in the 2008–2012 Icelandic financial crisis article. Haukur (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As I'm sure you realise, I'm not disputing that individual Icelanders are the worst hit by this fiasco, merely the assertion that Icelandic taxpayers would end up paying the full cost of compensation. Physchim62 (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed, of course. Haukur (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Outdated information
At the moment the article concentrates on the legal struggle to resolve the Icesave Dispute. In fact, at least in the Netherlands and the UK most customers were compensated by now and the situation with Kaupthing Edge in Germany also seems to be close to a solution.BjoernZ (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Icesave agreement, NPOV issues?
An Icesave settlement agreement has been negotiated and is being discussed at Althing, the Icelandic parliament. This agreement is only vaguely discussed in the article. There has been a lot of discussion about it, especially in Iceland as many Icelanders feel it's unfair. International media are increasingly covering the Icelandic side of the case and a recent leading article in Financial Times was sympathetic to Icelanders. I wasn't able to find the leader but this article discusses it: []. This article, although arguably not from a major source, covers the Icelandic POV and provides a link to an opinion article by Iceland's PM which was published on FT: []. I would argue that given the recent developments, this article is somewhat not from a NPOV as it doesn't really discuss the Icelandic POV. I would improve it instead of putting the blame on other Wikipedia editors but I have some very strong opinions on the matter and I feel like a more neutral perspective is needed. Or I don't know. 66.117.142.227 (talk) 03:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Size aparently does matter
Since the Darling and his bullywhip have stated, that the UK only guarantees deposits inside the UK, isn't it the pinnacle of hypocrisy to demand reparations to UK savers from abroad? All the best! 157.157.70.111 (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

skewed legal discussion
This is taken straight from the EU laws. Directive 94/19/EC "stipulate that the level and scope of cover offered by a home Member State scheme to depositors at branches located in another Member State should not exceed the maximum level and scope offered by the corresponding scheme in the host Member State"

This says straight that even if local authorities and corporations have coverage in the homestate, the coverage should be the same as in the host state. this in regards to the larger corporations and local authorities not being covered under britains own scheme.

also, straight from the laws them selves "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"

The authorities should NOT be held responsible as long as the scheme has been set up and been recognized, which it must have been to be able to set up branches in both britain and holland. see

"Whereas in principle this Directive requires every credit institution to join a deposit-guarantee scheme; whereas the Directives governing the admission of any credit institution which has its head office in a non-member country, and in particular the First Council Directive (77/780/EEC) of 12 December 1977 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions (1) allow Member States to decide whether and subject to what conditions to permit the branches of such credit institutions to operate within their territories; whereas such branches will not enjoy the freedom to provide services under the second paragraph of Article 59 of the Treaty, nor the right of establishment in Member States other than those in which they are established; whereas, accordingly, a Member State admitting such branches should decide how to apply the principles of this Directive to such branches in accordance with Article 9 (1) of Directive 77/780/EEC and with the need to protect depositors and maintain the integrity of the financial system; whereas it is essential that depositors at such branches should be fully aware of the guarantee arrangements which affect them;"

More arguments against the national responsibility for the non-solvency of the banks.

Directive 94/19/EC, Article 3,1 "- the system must not consist of a guarantee granted to a credit institution by a Member State itself or by any of its local or regional authorities"

These parts above, i would be happy if someone could add them, i dont know how to make them "pretty" with boxes for the law quotes etc

This whole page lacks, in my opinion, almost all the legal arguments for icelands refusal of coverage.

Although this may all be too late, since the iceland Althingi has just passed the so called ICEsave law, which accepts the debt. Over 10% of the nation have already signed a petition for the president to veto these laws though. Davidolafsson (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi David. As far as I know, the position of the English and the Dutch was indeed that the scope of protection offered by Iceland within Iceland should not exceed that of the foreign (i.e. Dutch/English branch).
 * Following this, the moment Icesave (a branch of Landsbanki) went bankrupt and Landsbanki too Iceland could basically do 2 things. Let it go bankrupt and have both the Icelandic and the English/Dutch clients solve the problem; or provide equal protection to all.
 * The first option was impossible for Iceland, as that would mean (together with the Kaupthing bankruptcy) that the majority of normal Icelandic citizens would loose all their money, including money needed to pay rent, energy and food. In other words, if they would have taken this approach the would have reduced homestate Iceland economy to a barter economy. Thus the Iceland government created new Landsbanki in which only part of the account of (old) Landsbanki (Icesave was part of this bank) were rescued.
 * This made Iceland as a state taking up responsibility for its own population and guaranteeing the money. As far as I know, the English and the Dutch then stated: If you take responsibility to protect your own account, you as a state are now also responsible for the foreign accounts. I.e Iceland made itself responsible by reimbursing its own citizens. (Note that some parties in the Netherlands seriously considered opening a case against Iceland as they considered the creation of New Landsbanki some kind of bankruptcy fraud as part of the claims (those by Icelandic citizens) were given preference over those of others (the English and Dutch account holders) - The current deal also helped prevent that)
 * So I don't think the argument you present is a clear cut as you brought it. Iceland had to save its homeland economy, but in doing so made itself responsible for the foreign accounts too.  Arnoutf (talk) 09:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Although i see the reasons and logic you are pointing too, the single strongest point has to still be that the nation cannot be the security for the insurance scheme. it says so quite clearly "- the system must not consist of a guarantee granted to a credit institution by a Member State itself or by any of its local or regional authorities" This to me says clearly that the state itself should never fall victim to such a situation as it is now. Davidolafsson (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * True, if the Icelandic state had not adopted responsibility for the savings security (by creating New Landsbanki) I am sure that the legal position of the Dutch and English would have been hopeless.
 * All in all, I understand your position, but it seems that the Icelandic government found no support for your legal position. Note that apart from the un-ethical the blackmail in relation to IMF support - EU entry; the Dutch government stated they would be starting international legal action against Iceland if the treaty would not be ratified, so the Dutch think their legal position is strong enough.
 * We just have to be very careful here not to engage in interesting discussion that in the end come down to original research. So if you can find legal reports supporting your idea, of course that would make a case for adding this alternative view. But by synthesising this ourselves, or adopting it from the media, I think we do not follow the idea of verifiability. Arnoutf (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Point of Dec 2009 bill?
I can't quite reconcile these two sentences from the article's last two paragraphs:
 * On 28 August 2009, Iceland's parliament voted 34–15 (with 14 abstentions) to approve on a bill (commonly referred to as the Icesave bill) to repay Great Britain and the Netherlands more than $5 billion

vs.


 * In December 2009, the Althing passed a bill to repay the $5bn to the United Kingdom and the Netherlands[84]. However, massive protests followed, culminating in a petition to put the issue before a referendum[85]. On January 5, 2010, the bill was vetoed by the Icelandic president.

Why the need for the Dec 2009 bill; wasn't the Icesave bill already in place to pay out $5bn? What difference would the Dec 2009 bill have made? Why did Icelanders protest the Dec 2009 bill but not the Icesave bill? AxelBoldt (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Both bills agreed on most things (payback 2015-2024; 5.5% interest) but the August bill had the additional condition (set by parliament) that payback would be dependent on the recovery of Icelandic GDP and would be limited at a maximum yearly payback at a fraction of economic growth. And that all remaining debts (i.e. that portion of the debt that could not be repaid according to above restrictions) would be cancelled in 2024. The Dutch and English did not accept these additional conditions (put in place unilateraly by the Icelandic parliament) requiring renegotiation and a new bill; the December bill. Arnoutf (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not quite true. The loan agreements have been modified to include the repayment cap. However, the new bill removes the limit date on the state guarantee. It was never true that the debt would be "cancelled" in 2024 if it wasn't paid back, but the August bill said that the Icelandic State would no longer guarantee the debt after 2024, which was unacceptable to the British and the Dutch. Physchim62 (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a more complete comparison published by the Icelandic Parliament. Physchim62 (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Matters related to Icesave
1. Icelands total national debt, it's just simply astronomical. Alot of people are unaware of this and think that Iceland stands and falls with this whole Icesave mess. It wouldn't be brave to estimate that Icelands complete debt is something like six times bigger than Icesave is so Icelands hole is much deeper than people realize and certainly much much deeper than Icesave only. --Here2Disrupt (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Iceland's sovereign debt (ie, the debt of the Iceland state) is still lower than many EU countries, especially when you consider that Iceland's pensions were fully funded before the economic crisis (unlike most EU countries). The killer is Iceland's domestic debt, ie the debts which had been run up by Icelandic companies and households: these truly are astronomical, especially as most of the debt was denominated in foreign currencies.
 * Icesave will have no effect whatsoever on the Icelandic sovereign debt until 2016 and, even then, the effect (if any) will be far less than the €3.8bn headline figure. Physchim62 (talk) 09:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

2. No sovereign nation can be forced to pay up anything really and those were privatized banks receiving foreign currency and operating abroad, I can not see how those Icesave accounts had anything to do with the Icelandic government. --Here2Disrupt (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Much of the Icesave money was effectively brought to Iceland in the form of loans to Icelandic companies and households. When the Icelandic government nationalized Landsbanki's Icelandic operations (now known as NBI), it separated these debts from the deposits which supplied the money. There was a long, long debate over the terms of compensation for the nationalization, which really ought to feature in the article as well. To be brief, the compensation has now been agreed, and the compensation agreement is undoubtedly the reason why Britain and the Netherlands agreed to the cap on Icelandic state repayments over Icesave.
 * Between the remaining Landsbanki assets (estimated at £4bn) and the compensation to be paid by NBI, there should be enough to pay about 90% of the top tranche of secured creditors, which includes the Icesave bill. The Icelandic state will make up the difference (but only for the Icesave deposit insurance, not for the rest of the secured debts). Physchim62 (talk) 09:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One sees this 90% estimate a lot but it's important to realize that this isn't money on hand for anyone - it will take years to sell off the assets to maximize value and meanwhile the Icesave debt accrues substantial interest. It's the interest payments that have a lot of people in Iceland worried. Haukur (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the assets themselves also accrue interest, something that seems lost on Icelandic commentators. It's ridiculously simple to see that the debt would never be paid off under the GDP cap if all the money had to come from the State, yet the UK and Dutch governments have accepted the GDP cap on the state guarantee (ie, on payments from the general budget). That must mean that the UK and Dutch governments are convinced that most of the money will come from Landsbanki assets (either the assets outside of Iceland or the compensation from NBI). Physchim62 (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Iceland can't use the Landsbanki assets to pay the interest costs. Even if the assets would prove to be worth more than 100% of the needed money, Iceland would still be out some 120 billion ISK for interest payments. And that's the a very optimistic scenario indeed. Haukur (talk) 12:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The assets are going to accure very little interests and are going to be sold off on a firesale. The Dutch and the UK governments did accept that GDP cap but without any time limit, meaning that the thing could just keep on rising indefinantly and Iceland might be paying off this extortion for the next 500 years. --Here2Disrupt (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You might as well read Morgunblaðið if you want to believe that sort of rubbish. This is not extortion, it is an attempt at state-sponsored theft. The figures quoted opposite come from Landsbanki's second-quarter 2008 interim financial statement. Notice the huge disparity between the deposits taken in pounds sterling and the UK assets generated by them, even if one assumes that all the loans in GBP were made in the UK. Notice also that there were far more loans made in ISK than deposits in that currency. Landsbanki was fuelling a credit bubble in Iceland based on foreign deposits, that is funelling money from abroad into Iceland. Now the theives-in-chief pretend that they can keep the capital gains they made from selling (often quite literally) the family properties at the time of the boom, and that the poor buggers who paid them the money will effectively have to pay twice. No point in looking across the North Atlantic for the source of Iceland's problems, it is far, far closer to Reykjavík. Physchim62 (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It can be argued that the creation of New Landsbanki is bankruptcy fraud, i.e. taking out some part of a bankrupt company to the benefit of some of the people the company owns money to; in this case only Icelandic nationals. The British and Dutch realised that declaring this as fraud by the Icelandic government would mean that about 1/3 of the Icelandic citizens would see all their money blocked overnight, including household money essential to pay the rent, the heating and buy food. That the British and the Dutch wanted some compensation for their own citizens is not more than logical; if this was played out completely fair all assets of Landsbanki would be split according to money owned equally (in time and amount) between the Dutch British and Icelandic. The Icelandic people should be thankful that the British and Dutch did not exercise their right to declare the moving of assets from Landsbanki to New Lansbanki fraud, as that would have meant that the Icelandic domestic crisis would be much much worse. Arnoutf (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's unfair to call it bankruptcy fraud, as the Icelandic government (even the previous bunch of crooks and their cronies) has always admitted that it would have to be compensation paid for the nationalisation of the Landsbanki assets in Iceland. However the first proposal put forward by the adminstrators of what is now NBI, suggested that two-thirds of the book-value of Landsbanki's assets in Iceland would have to be written off: needless to say, this was not well received by the creditors, but it says a lot about the integrity of the people involved. Even with a new government in place, the compensation agreement was not concluded until October 2009, almost exactly a year after Landsbanki was nationalised. Official details of the agreement seem to have disappeared from Icelandic government sites in the last few days, one wonders why. Physchim62 (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Icelandic agreeing that compensation should be paid distinguishes it from fraud. However, it can be argued that this distinction depends on acceptance of the agreements with the creditors (i.e. UK and NL). The Presidents veto is blocking these agreements pushing back everything into the grey area. Arnoutf (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Those were PRIVATE banks not state owned doing business in foreign countries in foreign currency. And I'm supposed to pay you suckers something for doing business with a private company. I think not, doesn't work like that profits privatized and the debts nationalized. Take that begging elsewhere.--Here2Disrupt (talk) 01:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's an extremely uneducated opinion that you just expressed there. The state has paid for any and all valuables transfered to New Landsbanki from the old one, it would even be willing to hand over the New Landsbanki to Holland and Brittain but they do not want it, they claim that running a bank just isn't something that their institutions are designed to do but if they did well then your argument would be impossible to even suggest. The same was done with Kaupthing and Glitnir, there were created Nýja Kaupþing later Arion banki and Íslandsbanki and those were turned over as working enterprises to the owners of the debt that the old companies owe. This "FAVOUR" which the Brittish and Dutch are supposed to have made for us is just utter rubbish. 1/3 of all Icelandic citizens having their money blocked, give me a break I need one from such uneducated opinions of people that simply shouldn't be talking about something they know nothing about. As for all the debts that those banks made abroad and the accusation that they were simply stolen out of the banks it is one that I actually agree with but if you want that money back then just go round up Jón Ásgeir and Björgólfur Þór, they'll return it to you after a day or two of torture. I on the other hand a hard working innocent Icelandic citizen don't owe you foreigners a God damn thing and if you want something from me then come and get it, I'll be here waiting.--Here2Disrupt (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also before you attempt to write up any more bullshit stating that Iceland did something illegal with the way it split up the banks then bear in mind that a EES court ruled that Icelands emergancy laws did not violate EU directives and were legally imposed.--Here2Disrupt (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My comment was definitely more "uneducated" then naming the British-Dutch position extortion. There is something to both sides; and Iceland had a decade of being the richest country in Europe based on gambling through its banking system. Now they lost all. Sad but nobody forced Iceland to liberalise the banking system to the extent that it could destroy a national economy. Arnoutf (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The UK and the Dutch are using the IMF and the EU to put pressure on us, threatening us with the most unbelievable far fetched nonsense as well as making other more credible but equally immoral threats. The nonsense coming from these countries has been so far reaching that Gordon Brown himself said in front of the British parliment that he intended to make the people of Iceland pay for the debts of the Singer-Freidlander bank. A bank which was operated, run and registered in Britain and nowhere else, his position on that matter has not to my knowledge ever been repeated by anyone else so Britain is hardly going to start banging on our doors know regarding that institution but the gibberish regarding the matter that came from the man just goes to show the ruthlessness and the despicable hate that you British people have for us as well as your urges to extort us. You're not getting a penny from me though, not now, not ever.--Here2Disrupt (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

3. A national referendum in Iceland is scheduled sometime in March regarding this matter and that is a very unique and notable thing, perhaps we should find some way of mentioning it. --Here2Disrupt (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, we should mention it, the article is a few days out of date in that respect. The referendum will probably be held on 20 or 27 February. Physchim62 (talk) 09:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The exact data is not determined yet, but it is indeed interesting. Arnoutf (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Early repayment

 * Moving this down from the previous section, as that discussion is getting very long Physchim62 (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that Iceland can't use the Landsbanki assets to pay the interest costs. Even if the assets would prove to be worth more than 100% of the needed money, Iceland would still be out some 120 billion ISK for interest payments. And that's the a very optimistic scenario indeed. Haukur (talk) 12:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not true. Any money that the Tryggingarsjóður receives from the liquidation of Landsbanki can be used (indeed must be used) to pay off the debt (interest and/or capital, see ), and that can happen at any time. Physchim62 (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, as far as the agreement is concerned and you're technically right that an early repayment could be made. But the point that Icelandic commentators stress is that TIF has, by Icelandic law, no claim to compensation for the interest costs. Haukur (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The tryggingarsjóður doesn't have any sort of an absolute priority claim to the assets of Landsbanki so it is not going to recieve everything that comes from the liquidation of the bank. The problem is that it's going to take years, might even take a decade to sell all of the properties held by Landsbanki and while that process is ongoing interest is going to accumulate on the ammount agreed to be repaid to the UK and Holland and the interests on those loans they are not even priority claims to the estate of Landsbanki so the insurance fund is not going to recieve any money at all to pay for those interests leaving Iceland with a huge bill to take care of. Another thing is that the interests of the Icesave loans agreed to by Icelands negotiation comittee are Insanely high, for the first 7 years they ammount to 7% but when Iceland starts to pay off the loans the interest drops to 5,55% and that's still insanely high. Iceland isn't obligated to pay for any of this by neither Icelandic law or EU directives and seeing how the British and the Dutch have complicated this matter into oblivion with their pride and greed I do not think that Iceland should pay even one penny to those nations, it should as a matter of fact seize Landsbankinn and send the UK and the Dutch a bill for all the mess that they've made. The British and the Dutch always had the option to be reasonable about these matters and to do handle this in a diplomatic way but instead they decided to bully little Iceland around, they made their decisions and they should now have to live with them.--Here2Disrupt (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Tryggingarsjóður has a top level claim on the assets, but it is not the only entity with such claims, that is true. I believe that Tryggingarsjóður is the simgle largest top level creditor, but I don't have a source to prove it. As for "insanely high" interest rates, they're rather lower than were being charged in the domestic market for ISK loans before the crisis! Ah, but then it was the Vikings who were earning the money, the established families reaping the benefits of huge asset inflation, and the Icelandic government taking in the (ridiculously low) tax returns from the banks. How times can change... Physchim62 (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One thing is highrisk shortterm domestic loans to individuals another completely different thing is a longterm international loan to a sovereign state. Iceland has no money to give to the UK or the Netherlands and this whole hardball bullshit which those nations have given us it's really just politically motivated rubbish, you want our sovereignty, that's the endgoal for you EU nations, you're not going to get that either really so just forget about it. You can feel free to round up Jón Ásgeir and Björgólfur Þór on the other hand, the ones that acctually have your money, you can find them walking the streets of London or driving them in Luxury vehicles.--Here2Disrupt (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My fellow countryman here nicely illustrates one thing which seems lost on foreign commentators and news sources - the Icelanders most opposed to the Icesave agreement are also the ones most opposed to EU membership for Iceland. When Iceland is threatened with EU delays as a consequence of Icesave delays the Morgunblaðið editor and his friends are crying with some very dry tears.


 * But let's not make this too personal. The various Icelandic legal arguments may well be hogwash but that's not really for us to say - WP:NPOV suggests we need to represent all opinions fairly. Haukur (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not completely the case. WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE clearly state we should only list mainstream opinions (E.g. the hollow earth theory should not be reported on articles on the earth).
 * Also per WP:NPOV all sides shoud be represented fairly, but the suggestions made always tend to be made to state that the Icelandic people are unfairly punished and that the English and Dutch tax payers have to suffer for the profits made by the Icelandic owned banks prior to the collapse. We (the Dutch) are already suffering for our own problematic banks, e.g. we had to buy our Belgian owned system bank ABN-AMRO for way too much money to keep our financial system intact. Perhaps Iceland can take over the losses on that bank? Arnoutf (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you spell out your analogy more clearly? What views on the Icesave dispute do you feel are analogous to the view that the earth is flat? Haukur (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "extortion" for one. But my point was a bit more procedural on your statement that we should "represent all opinions fairly". We should represent mainstream opinions fairly, but stay away from conspiracy theories (per FRINGE and UNDUE). The Icelandic worries with this deal should be noted, but fairly and neutrally. Arnoutf (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is certainly some fringe conspiracy theory material floating around but I'm not sure if the 'extortion' view can be equated to a 'flat earth' view. Extortion means using coercion to obtain goods from someone not legally obliged to give them. That coercion is being used in this case is manifest and it is a mainstream view in Iceland, even among legal experts, that the Icelandic state does not have a clear legal obligation to bail out TIF. This is probably a less mainstream view outside Iceland but it has been taken up by some foreign commentators. Matthew Yglesias talks about an "extortion racket" and recent articles in the Financial Times have been sympathetic to the Icelandic legal arguments. Haukur (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(redent) The Icelandic legal arguments, insofar as they come from qualified commentators (which most of them don't) should be given the respect they deserve. And why not as well the opinion from Iceland's own Central Bank. "The economy will be fully able to fulfil the Icesave agreements. An assumed 75% recovery ratio on Landsbanki assets, prudent economic policy, and a sizeable trade surplus during the period 2009-2018 will further enhance this capability. There should be an ample margin in the foreign exchange reserves for the entire period." That comment was made, in writing to the Althing, on July 17, that is before the first Icesave bill, before the deal on liquidation of Landsbanki assets and before the acceptance of the GDP-growth cap by Britain and the Netherlands. Not a dickie-bird about that in the Icelandic comments of the last few days, and many gross errors as to the loan agreements which could have been corrected with a simple visit to the website of the Althing. Wikipedia should give Iceland the impartial coverage of these matter that Icelandic citizens deserve, because their own media sources seem utterly incapable of even reading press releases from Icelandic state institutions, let alone doing simple interest calculations! Physchim62 (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The CBI analysis has been extensively covered by Icelandic media and remains hotly debated - its detractors see it as an overly rosy scenario. Haukur (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My dear boy, I do not see how you can consider yourself such an expert on this matter. Lets start at the beginning those predictions from the central bank that Iceland will be able to pay everything no problem are based upon predictions of unprecedented profits from export the likes Iceland has never seen before why during an economic depression is Iceland supposed to become so profitable? Is it the enourmus demand from abroad, get real. Here you can see a realistic calculator for the repayment of the Icelandic debts and input the variables yourself http://mbl.datamarket.net/icesave/ . The Icelandic government is also on a mission to convince the nation to just take the deal and move on so that our application to the EU will be successfull, statements from Icelandic institution can't honestly be taken too seriously. Especially from the central bank since it is practicly run by the IMF.--Here2Disrupt (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "My dear boy", why should I accept your analysis over that of the Central Bank of Iceland? That is your great weakness here. Physchim62 (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Example of fringe and conspiracy theory is posted above. Arnoutf (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

New article needed?
There is a ton of new information coming out regarding Icesave and reactions to it for example I think taht a news story regarding the reactions of Ögmundur Jónasson which appeared today is something which needs to get incorporated into the article but doing so is no small challange perhaps another article should be written about the matter or a stub or something of the sort made.

The article which I read today and found interesting can be read here http://visir.is/article/20100115/FRETTIR01/18579445 Ögmundur: Svíar handrukkarar Breta og Hollendinga

A translation of the relevant parts of it would go something like the following:

Ögmundur: Swedes the dirty collectors of the British and the Dutch.

The congressman Ögmundur said some harsh words following a press release by Fredrik Reinfeldt the prime minister of Sweden.

Skyldu Svíar skilja að Íslendingar véfengja greiðsluskyldu sína? Skyldu Svíar sklija að greiðsluskilmálarnir eru ósvífin þvingunarúrræði? Skyldu Svíar skilja að þeir eru orðnir handrukkarar Breta og Hollendinga?"

„Kannski finnst Reinfeldt forsætisráðherra það vera í góðu lagi að gerast handrukkari. En hvað skyldi sænsku þjóðinni finnast um þetta nýja hlutverk sitt? Hvað skyldi þjóðinni sem átti Olov Palme finnast um að vera komin í fótgöngulið fjármagnsins gegn fólkinu? Skyldu menn almennt átta sig á því að viðhorfsbreytingin í Evrópu á meðal almennings er vegna þess að fólk er farið að stilla dæminu svona upp: Annars vegar hinir eignalausu. Hins vegar þeir sem töpuðu innistæðum sínum. Almennt finnst fólki ekki sjálfgefið að hinir eignalausu, eða þeir sem eru lasburða og þurfa á velferðarþjónustu að halda, verði látnir blæða til að hinir missi ekki spón úr aski."

Do the Swedes understand that the Icelanders question their obligation to pay? Do the Swedes understand that the paymeant terms are shrewd coercion tactics? Do the Swedes understand that they have become the dirty collectors of the Brits and the Dutch?

Perhaps prime minister Reinfeldt thinks that it's ok to try and strong arm the Icelandic nation. But what does the rest of the Swedish nation think about this new role of theirs? What would the nation that had Olov Palme think about having joined the foot soldiers of the capital against the people? Do men perhaps generally realize that the change in perspective in Europe amongst the common people is because people are starting to put the equation up like this: On one hand those void of possesions. On the other those who lost their deposits. Generally people don't think that it is selfgiven that the one who have nothing or those who are weak and in need of social help be made to bleed so that the others don't lose a penny.

An intersting read and well clearly the material ammasing regarding this matter and the many different sides and perspectives of it seem to be too big for this article to fully do it justice. What do you guys think?--Here2Disrupt (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What is it you exactly propose? In my view the link above seems to be part of the Calimero complex exhibited by several Icelandic editors on this topic. As that view seems to be strong in Iceland it probably deserves a few lines here, on in another article on the Icelandic crisis. But I do not see a separate article around this. Perhaps it would help if you suggest a name for that article, because it is not exactly clear to me what the artilce should be about. Arnoutf (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks memo
Wikileaks has a purported classified memo from the U.S. embassy dated 13 January 2010 on the subject of the Icesave crisis. One possibility raised is a loan from Norway to cover the debt. Hopefully someone more familiar with the situation can make more sense of the issues discussed. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The people of Iceland won
This matter is now history, Icelanders won, crooked politicians and foreigners lost, that's all there is to it really. This matter is now over, sure there will be continued negotiations and such for the sake of appearances but the UK and the Netherlands are never going to be able to blackmail Iceland for any of the funds that they were hoping for. Perhaps they'll receive something from the fallen banks but that's all they'll get.

I think that it isn't really balanced to put the referendum into a subsection of the article along with march talks since the referendum wasn't just notable for this matter but a unique phenomenon which has not been seen before on this planet, truly an historic event. The referendum should have its own section.

Ohhh yeah before I hit Save I want to thank the British and Dutch editors of Wikipedia that have edited this article for the interest that they have shown.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your point in relation to this article being? Arnoutf (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I did make an edit suggestion did I not?--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No you did not, unless you think that a remark "The referendum should have its own section" is a suggestion. This "suggestion" implies that a lot of text about the referendum should be added, as the amount of text on the referendum as it is now, if not enough for a separate section. You have not given suggestions about this text, but anyway I am not convinced (at all) that the referendum needs that much attention in this specific article. The referendum is basically an internal Icelandic issue, which has limited influence on the international dispute. Arnoutf (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is true that I have not given a suggestion about the text for the referendum section but I have suggested that one be made regardless and that is a change suggestion that other editors can perhaps give some consideration. As for the referendum not deserving attention it has its own article, perhaps you should ask for its deletion if you feel that way? I will tell you though this referendum was not just a domestic Iceland thing, this is the first time in history that a nation has voted in a national referendum regarding the payment of its sovereign debt or alleged sovereign debt. Just imagine what happens if other countries follow Icelands example? Oh I'll go ahead now and make the new section, I'm sure that we can make the article better together so tell me what you think of the change.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The referendum has its own article, as do many referendums with international significance. As the Icesave dispute is obviously not over yet, the treatment of the referendum in this article should be in summary style with a link to the longer article. My opinion is the the Icelandic people have lost, yet again, and have been betrayed, yet again, by so-called politicians who only represent the interests of a tiny minority of the population, the same politicians who allowed the bubble to reach such enormous proportions in the first place: but that's just my opinion, it is a valid as that of  [sic]. Physchim62 (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I may be getting offpoint here but the people of Iceland losing yet again? Having been betrayed again by politicians? These are interesting thoughts. By saying this you are I believe stating that Icelanders would have won if they had accepted the deal and voted yes and that Icelandic politicians betrayed the nation by swaying it towards the no vote. I personally an Icelandic man can not find a single shread of longing for seeing this Icesave money paid from the taxation of everyday Icelanders to the UK and Netherlands governments, soulsearching doesn't make me either believe that we are responsible for those funds or that we owe them. If voting no was a loss then voting yes would have been a victory but voting yes for something which I do not want to see happen, I can not see how that could possibly have been a victory for the Icelandic nation. As for the politicians that fought Icesave, some of them were indeed filthy crooks that shouldn't be sitting in parliment but in jail while others such as the newcomers in Hreyfingin are very hard to associate with responsibility for the crash. It is my honest belief that this unfortunate matter is now firmly behind us and that nothing more will come of it, I wouldn't be surprised to see the government attempt to pull some more crazy stunts though, Samfylkingin is not an every day political party for the common man or the elite but more like a religious cult with fanatics that are extremely unpredictable. Another thing is that the people of Iceland have indeed not won yet, the fact of the matter is that our government is as courageous and strong as an ant, the criminals are walking free and being handed back their big companies that have now been freed from debt and are getting ready to rule, mule and mute us common Icelanders yet again. The people of Iceland have a long way to go before achieving some meaningful victory but it gave us hope to win one small battle along an seemingly endless path.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

On the risk of staying off topic. I hear no Icelandic national protesting when your GNP soared by taking the money of (a.o. Netherlands and the UK). The current situation is that for the profit of Icelandic bankowners (operating within the democratically approved Icelandic legal system, i.e. approved by the majority of Icelandic nationals) the UK and the Netherlands tax payers (who had no say whatsoever over Icelandic law) have to pay. Does that sound fair? Anyway, I think the proposed section is fine and neutral, I have moved it to the back as it is the latest in the chronological order. Arnoutf (talk) 09:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I won't be answering these remarks regarding a lack of protest from Icelandic nationals, profits or who should pay with any other words than that I think that you're WAY off base here.


 * As for the article and the changes that we have made to it recently I think that we are on some right track with it but that it obviously needs some heavy polishing in order to become something to be proud of. I don't think I'll work on it any in the next few days but perhaps next when I take a look at it others will have gotten the job done.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We'll probably not agree about whose fault it is and who will have to pay, but let's continue to cooperate to write a good, balanced article, and not discuss opinions. Cheers. Arnoutf (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is an obvious problem with the latest edit to the article. A. The Icesave referendum is under the section Attempts at solution and while you may have preserved the "timeline" the referendum was not an attempt at solving the matter in the conventional sense. B. Above the subsection Icesave referendum there is a subsection called February/March 2010 negotiations and March 6 referendum, the Icesave referendum was the March 6 referendum and two have two subsections whos name refer to the same matter doesn't make the article look good.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Re (B) I renamed the section, you are completely right.
 * Re (A) A valid remark, the referendum is not an attempt at solving the issue. However, if this is the case it should be in another larger (lvl 2) section (e.g. the legal arguments section), or if its effect is major it might be upgraded to a level 2 section in itself (I am not sure this will be the case for this specific article and where in the article I don't know right now). Since I am not clear what the effect of the referendum will be I would suggest to leave it as a lvl3 subsection under attempts at solution for now (as I know no better place, a suggestion is welcome). In a few months time we might have clearer idea what to do with it. Arnoutf (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The December Althing Bill was certainly an attempt at solving the dispute, and the referendum was formally a part of that legislative process, so I don't see any problem at leaving the discussion under the current header. The referendum was the failure of the autumn 2009 attempt: as such, I would suggest it goes above the February/March negotiations section. It's not quite chronological, but it is more logical. Physchim62 (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Feb-Mar negotiations were timed prior to the referendum to make it irrelevant. So for that reason I would opt for lea ving it before. Alternatively, we might want to compress the section Feb-Mar into a single line something like "In the weeks preceding to the referendum an attempt was made to come at a new agreement, making the referendum irrelevant. This did however fail and the referendum was held at March 6" as the negotiations may prove to be hardly relevant in the larger picture. Arnoutf (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

ITN entry
Comments here would be appreciated.--Chaser (away) - talk 03:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Confusion
In the Collapse of the Haarde government and elections section; there is a list of proposals, etc. but no meaningful discussion of how they differ. Are we to know that $5 billion (why denominated in dollars when none of the accounts likely were) is the same as so many pounds, kronur, or euro. Is it more or less, and various numbers quoted are meaningless in relation to USdollars - what exchange rate, and when. As an American, I would much rather have had the same number of Euros in 2007 as now. Would someone who knows something about this fix it, please. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The people of Iceland won II
It's sad how British and Dutch editors made all these edits to the article in their anger and said all these nasty things in this thread when the case was of course that Iceland was innocent after all, the emergency legislation put in place by the Icelandic parliament had the effect that Dutch and British account owners received far more funds from the fallen bank than they otherwise would have, but no that wasn't enough, the Dutch and the British also wanted Interests and huge payments for alleged legal costs. So the Dutch and the British were happy that the Icelandic legislation was on one hand giving them more money than the 20.000 that were supposed to be covered by the "insurance scheme" but on the other hand wanted to get their filthy hands on "even more money", soooo honourable(not). People that had their $$$ in stocks at those times lost a bundle, people who had their $$$ in real estate lost a bundle, bonds, etc.... those who had their funds in the Icesave accounts got all their back after a little while but Noooo that of course wasn't enough... it's always okay to violently Demand more isn't it(even if you are by no means entitled to it)? This article needs to be rewritten from A to X it's biased with a bunch of lame and stupid accusations against Icelandic people when the whole Icesave matter was in fact all an illegal and immoral attack against Iceland and Icelanders. Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have just been reading the entire article from A to Z, and do not agree with your claim that it is biased nor on your request entirely to rewrite the article. As a Dane you can consider me as fairly neutral in this case, and I can actually see and understand the case from both sides. The ruling by the EFTA court just say, that Iceland per its signed EFTA agreement was legally committed to respect its obligations under Directive 94/19/EC, to set up a bank deposit scheme. Iceland indeed had set up such a deposit scheme, but the problem in October 2008 was that it basically went bankrupt due to a systemic failure of 85% of banks on Iceland within few days. The move by the Icelandic state was then rapidly to protect all Icelandic savers by removing their assets to "new version of your 3 previous banks" now being owned by the government, and then leave the foreign branches of the banks bankrupt without paying the foreign savers their guaranteed deposit. The Netherlands+UK deposit schemes then entered and did the repayment of guaranteed deposits to Dutch+UK savers having lost all their savings in the bankruptcy. When Netherlands+UK governments then reasonably asked the Icelandic state to cover these payments as a last resort, stepping in to cover the obligations of the bankrupt Icelandic "guaranteed deposit" scheme, the Icelandic parliament finally agreed to do that as per the December 2009 bill, which however was not signed by the president, and thus instead submitted for the subsequent two Icelandic approval referendums in March 2010 + April 2011, where 59% of the Icelandic voters rejected the bill. This meant the case was now left for the EFTA court to rule on, as any other normal legal dispute between EU/EFTA members. This was standard procedure when you consider the leading events taking place in 2008-2011, nothing was wrong with that, it was only to be expected in this type of an exceptional and unsolved case.
 * Fortunately for Iceland, the EFTA court in its ruling per 28 January 2013 found, that the EC Directive 94/19 did not oblige the EFTA states to enter as a last resort to cover obligations by their established "guaranteed deposit" scheme in the event of a systemic bank failure having caused a bankruptcy of the "guaranteed deposit scheme". Hence, the Icelandic should not cover these losses towards UK+Netherlands, despite of being guilty of having setup a scheme that had failed big time on what it had promised. If the foreign branches of the Icelandic banks had been established as fully owned subsidaries with a foreign nationality, the financial control of these banks (and hence also the "guaranteed deposit schemes") would be a matter for the foreign authoraties to monitor and be responsible for. As the Icesave was not established as UK subsidary and Dutch subsidary in the two respective states, the legal responsibility to control their financial health and sustainability was the sole responsibility for the Icelandic state. The truth is, that the Icelandic state failed big time to do this in a timely and appropriate manner, and hence the Icesave business was founded on way too risky structures, and when the Global Financial Crisis suddenly peaked in September 2008 at the international level, causing a new more strict situation where money could only be borrowed by fully solvent banks who could account for all their assets, then the Icesave suffered a sudden death.
 * The fact that the court ruled, that the Icelandic state did not have to cover the losses of their established and now bankrupt "guaranteed deposit scheme", does not mean that the Icelandic state was without responsibility for the losses. Clearly the Icelandic state had failed to enforce propor control and restrictions on the risky financial transactions performed by the privately owned Icelandic banks. The court ruling however only say: The EC regulation (fortunately for Iceland), do not mean the state should be reponsible to cover for the obligations of its bankrupt "guaranteed deposit scheme" in the event of a systemic bank failure at the national level. Or in other words, private savers in any EFTA/EU state could not back in 2008 trust the nationally established "guaranteed deposit schemes" to work in the event of a systemic bank failure at the national level. It was only meant/assured to work for the scenario with only a few single banks going bankrupt, and not when more than 67% of the banks in a certain nation were going bankrupt in the one and same strike. As a bonus info -which is not directly relevant to the Icesave dispute- I can even inform you that the EC directive subsequently has been revised so that sovereign states now also are supposed in the future to enter as a last guaranteerer for the deposit guarantee scheme of their national bank sector. So according to the new revised EC directive Iceland would have been responsible to guarantee the repayments to UK+Netherlands, but as the EC directive back in 2008 did not have this paragraph included the end result was that Iceland got off the hook in the Icesave case. The bottom line of this long dispute is, that the British and Dutsch tax payers now has to pay for the lost guaranteed deposits which shall be paid to the British+Dutch savers (previously having lost all their money in the bankruptcy), because of the fact that the Icelandic guaranteed deposit scheme went bankrupt due to a systemic bank failure. This case is neither black nor white. As far as I understand the case, it will now be the "August 2009 bill" which will regulate the matter, and ensure a partly repayment of owed money to the British+Dutch tax payers by the Icelandic state. Although not being legally obliged to do so according to the EFTA court ruling, the Icelandic state can still be claimed to be morally obliged to do this partly repayment, due to their role of having failed to control and restrict the risky business conducted by its banks in the pre era of the bank crisis (Sep.2005 - Sep.2008). Danish Expert (talk) 08:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You shouldn't be editing anything obviously. Coming up with some crazy original research of 16% and such. Landsbanki covers Icesave 100%, what the UK and the Dutch wanted from Iceland was some crazy interest and legal fees, at no point in time did the Icelandic government say that Britain would only get 16% of Icesave and that the Icelandic government would keep the estate of Landsbankinn for itself, that would have been insane highway robbery. Good god, man I actually took the time to read all that mumbo jumbo that you wrote, you can't just read a few articles and things and then start editing Wikipedia about the subject. You obviously know nothing about the matter at all. The banks went to their creditors. The assets of Landsbanki covers Icesave 100%+ therefor our "Deposit Guarantee Scheme" doesn't have to pay a single króna and is thereby Not bankrupt. And seeing as the Landsbanki covers Icesave 100% the British and the Dutch tax payers are not paying anything due to Icesave. And you claim to be somehow neutral? You're just trying to convince yourself of that cause no one else would believe it.Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 11:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * First important fact to remember (which you apparently is not aware of), is that the amount of "minimum deposit guarantees" to be coved by the Icelandic deposit guarantee fund, which you now claim will be 100% covered by liquidation of Old Landsbanki assets, even in that case would not completely cover the losses for UK and Dutch tax payers but only a fraction at respectivly 51% for UK and 79% for Netherlands (due to the fact that minimum guarantees are up to £60,000 in UK and €100,000 in Netherlands, while the Icelandic scheme only required repayment of a minimum guarantee at aprox. €20,500 per account holder) . Moreover a minimum deposit guarantee fund normally has to repay account holders having faced a complete account loss due to a bankruptcy: Immediately (and not seven years later). Hence, this is all together some valid reasons that fully justifies, why the UK and Dutch state asked for interest payments also to be covered and paid for by the Icelandic state. Please remember, that the UK+Dutch state actually repaid all accountholders in the Icesave branch immediately in Q4-2008 on behalf of the Icelandic deposit guarantee fund, because of the fact that this fund did not have any cash left to pay them with at that point of time. The hard facts reveal, that UK in total has repaid all the Icesave account holders in Britain £3.5bn and then in a humble way asked the Icelandic state to guarantee for a repayment of £2.35bn + interest rates. From any neutral point of view, this can not be described as being greedy or unfair!
 * According to the Freezing of assets in the UK chapter in our WP article, it has also been clearly established, that the Icelandic Finance Minister made this statement to the UK Chancellor on 7 October 2008, that Iceland would: Guarantee the deposits in the banks and branches here in Iceland, but not guarantee the deposits in the foreign offices of Icelandic banks and branches. Thus the starting point was, that no guarantee paymentes would be transferred at all by the Icelandic state. If you read the entire WP article and subarticles, this is also the main message being left on the board. You are 100% correct that the subsequent dispute and negotiations between the Icelandic government and the UK+Dutch government was all about how big interest rates for the provided loans should be. But the Icelandic government's December 2009 bill reflecting the acceptance to repay the entire €3.8bn of owed guarantees was never enacted (due to being rejected by two referendums in a row). So the thing that currently regulates the matter is apparently now the passed "August 2009 bill, and the amendment to that bill outlined that the cash repayment in best case only would constitute 16% of the owed guarantees to be repaid during 2017-2023 (at least this is what my calculation show if the provided calculation scheme claimed by the listed reference in our WP article is correct). If an additional amount of the guarantees will be covered by the liquidation of positive frozen assets, this would be important also to include as info in our article. If such info indeed exists (as you have claimed in the EDIT summary), then please add this info in conjunction with the clarifying lines I have already written, for the purpose of providing some further clarification on the subject. Danish Expert (talk) 12:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

You are talking about something that you don't know anything about, coming up with crazy conclusions and editing a wikipedia article. Is this the way that Wikipedia is supposed to be written? A bunch of misinformation by people that don't have a clue about what they're talking about? In that case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_surgery here I come. Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No, you are absolutely wrong! My essay provided above is a pretty good summary of the case. It is written by a neutral observer, and certainly does not deserve your rejection and harsh words. The GDP growth cap previously displayed by our WP Article was also accurately reflected when compared to how it was written by the provided reference. This evening when I took time to read the actual AUG-DEC 2009 repayment law at the Althingi website, this primary source however clearly proofed, that the reference we previously had used in the WP article unfortunately did not manage to describe the repayment scheme in an accurate way. To be frank, the way it was described was actually very far from the truth, but your claim that liquidated assets would be paid back directly to the UK+Dutch government as part of the agreement was also a hoax (as these assets according to the agreement should be treated as seperate income for the Icelandic state, and would not comprise a direct element of the deposit repayment scheme).
 * The first new fact that I found written in the AUG-DEC 2009 repayment law, was that the growth cap scheme was actually a much more complicated "maximum repayment cap", compared to the initial description. It was supposed to work in this way, that starting from 2008 the IMF should each year calculate the increased Icelandic GDP growth measured in Pound stirling and euro (according to Eurostats method), and then accumulate these figures from year to year. Then in 2016+2024 the UK government in each of those two years should receive 2% of the accumulated GDP growth number, and for the seven years 2017-2023 it should each year be equal to a 4% maximum of the accumulated GDP growth number. For Netherlands the exact same calculation principle for the maximum repayment applies, except that the percentage numbers are always half as big compared to the situation for UK.
 * The second fact I found, was that the first "AUG 2009 repayment law" had stipulated that if the entire obligations had not been repaid by Iceland in 2024 through the law-outlined repayment scheme (which the Icelandic Central Bank however firmly believed it would), then the remaining obligations would in this case be nullified. In the December 2009 revision of the "repayment agreement" this paragraph was changed, so that remaining repayment obligations would just be prolonged so that the Icelandic state was granted a new extra 5 year repayment to fulfill its commitments, where the same repayment calculation principle should apply (and if needed these 5 year repayment prolonguations would continue indefinately, until the point of time where the entire debt had been repaid). According to the "AUG 2009 repayment law" appendix (and documents submitted during parliamentary proceedings), the Icelandic Central Bank at that point of time expected, that the liquidation of the Icesave assets by itself would return 75% of the "minimum guarantee deposit obligations" to the Icelandic State (in best case scenario the assets could cover 100%, but in the worst case scenario it could also be 50%), which would mean the net debt for the Icelandic state in the most likely scenario only would comprise a value equal to 25% of the "minimum guarantee deposit obligations". As far as I understand the law text, these asssets will however not in any way affect the "repayment agreement", but only affect the Icelandic states net debt and financial health in general (accounted for as positive financial assets).
 * I will ASAP update the article with my new findings. One remaining pussle, we however still need confirmation about, is what kind of "repayment agreement" actually applies today? I started out by assuming that only the "August 2009 agreement" applied today, as this was the only one to be enacted by parliament and presidential assent, while the subsequent agreements all were rejected by referendums. From the status note at the Althingi website, it however appear this law has been repealed in 2010 (due to the subsequent law being voted for and rejected in the referendum). So it is really a mess. Moreover, we also have a paragraph stating, that if the EFTA court at some point of time ruled, that the Icelandic state was not liable to repay deposits to foreign depositors, then the Althingi would have the right unilateraly to reduce the cap repayment limits. But this paragraph was only formulated this way in the enacted "August 2009 agreement" and changed to something different when it was later mutually agreed with UK+Netherlands (in the deal that never was enacted by the Icelandic people). It is really almost impossible to figure out, what version of the repayment agreement applies today and according to what document? If anyone of you can help to clarify this complicated situation, it would really be great. Danish Expert (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You want to know so I'll tell you. The assets of LBI ehf are being sold and their value is being used to pay the governments of the Netherlands and the UK as well as other 1st priority claims the assets of LBI ehf are expected to cover 100%+ of all priority claims so those who have none priority claims can also expect to receive some payments. In the EXTREMELY unprobable case that the assets of LBI ehf do not cover those priority claims 100% then the depositers insurance fund of Iceland will be used, in case the DIF doesn't cover those priority claims then they'll simply will not be covered, again it is extremely unprobable that the assets of LBI ehf won't cover the 1st priority claims 100%. The law that you are referring to was later recanted since the Dutch and the UK governments did not accept its terms. You can find it under Brottfallin lög(Laws that have no longer apply.) http://www.althingi.is/lagas/brottf.html http://www.althingi.is/lagas/139b/2009096.html . Since you didn't have atleast these facts straight as well as many others I do not believe that you should be editing this article. Your additions to this article haven't been productive and honestly I think you should revert them. I'd like to help this article and edit it but I've already spent too much of my scarce valuable time on this thing and doing Wikibattle with uninformed misguided individuals such as yourself isn't really too pleasant or enjoyable. Enjoy making a joke of this and other wikipedia articles so that people will get their heads filled with disinformation when reading the online dictionary.Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * After my read today of additional articles, I am now able fully to clarify the current Icesave repayment situation. The fact is, that the Icelandic Depositors' and Investors' Guarantee Fund (Tryggingarsjóður) did not have sufficient money to pay the minimum guarantees to UK+Dutch savers in October 2009 when the old Landsbanki (and its UK+Dutch Icesave branch) went bankrupt. Subsequently (as you already know) the UK+Dutch governments attempted to close a deal where the Icelandic state should enter as a last resort, and pay the owed money to the UK+Dutch governments (who had already with the purpose to maintain financial stability made the payment of minimum guarantees in advance to the "money robbed" UK+Dutch savers - on behalf of Tryggingarsjóður or the Icelandic state). None of these deal attempts however succeeded, due to the rejection by the Icelandic people through the two referendums in 2010+2011. With the judgment by the EFTA court on 28 Jan 2013, it was ruled the Icelandic state had no legal responsibility to pay money on behalf of Tryggingarsjóður. After reading additional articles with the response by Icelandic politicians, the result now is that the Icelandic state in no way will help Tryggingarsjóður to repay its owings to the UK+Dutch state. Moreover this Icelandic article also claim that Tryggingarsjóður already have repaid the UK+Dutch state 93.5% of what it owes. Currently the Tryggingarsjóður is still drop by drop receiving money from the liquidation of old Landsbanki assets, which is a lengthy ongoing process, so they might indeed now soon be able even to repay 100% of the minimum guarantees to the UK+Dutch state. So currently the only remaining question in the case is, that the UK+Dutch state now shall close an agreement with Tryggingarsjóður about the amount of interest rates they shall also be obliged to pay. If this is not already regulated by the Tryggingarsjóður statute or EC 94 regulation (which is something I havent checked yet). Phew, all this fuss and drama reflected by the international media, and then the bottomline show that the remainig fight is not about repayment of €3.8bn (as it was portrayed by all international media), but actually indeed only a story about, that the UK+Dutch state want the Icelandic state to gurantee repayment of the interest rates related to the Tryggingarsjóður's delayed repayment of the €3.8bn. This is actually quiet funny. Also if you see it from the opposite side. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 13:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As you can see from the time stamp, my reply was written simultaniously with the above reply by IVP. So sorry if I repeated the points. My last additional comment however is, that IVP should refrain to launch so disrespectfull assults, against other hard working fellow wikipedian editors. If you visit my edits to the article, you will learn they were all 100% good and reflected what the already listed references had claimed. Through my stubborn and additional quest to find the facts, I have managed to dig up quality sources (posted in this talkpage debate) that all indeed help to clarify the situation and provide the facts. Instead of insulting me, you should be greatfull for me help to improve the article. I will very soon start to implement and update the article with the new references and my new findings about the subject. Please remember, that I did not write the article. I have been looking into this article only since 28 January, and have now managed to find references that can improve it on several points. You should be greatefull, and I advice you in the future to be far more polite! Danish Expert (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Wait a second. He sees the light, surprise surprise. Ok, you were able to see the ligth so I was apparantly mistaken about you and maybe I should have used a kinder tone in my writings. But yes, a court has now ruled that Iceland followed all directives, that those directives were correctly implemented and adopted and that Iceland is innocent of differentiating between depositors. Therefor Iceland is simply put innocent and has no obligation to pay any interests or legal fees. There will be no further negotiations between Tryggingasjóður and the UK or Dutch government and they will be paid no interests or legal fees. But yes when you take into account that the UK and the Dutch have been damaging Icelandic interests demanding things that they had no legal right to demand then it must be admitted that the whole Icesave matter was in fact all an illegal and immoral attack against Iceland and Icelanders and any article about the subject should be written to reflect those facts.Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Appoligy accepted. I fully understand your frustration, whenever the truth is not being correctly reported. Lazy journalists are often to blame, but sometimes politicians also have their own way to twist the truth by omitting important details when they speak. In this Icesave dispute, the light first had to travel through a cloud of volcano ashes before it reached the shores of Denmark. My attention for the case was first ignited when I watched the Danish TV news at the evening of 28 January, where they incorrectly presented the story by saying: "The European court today ruled that the Icelandic state do not have to repay the €3.8bn to UK and Netherlands in the Icesave dispute. Iceland can now thanks the 59% of the public voting no in the 2011 referendum, for having saved the country for this big money payment." Most international articles and news from 2010 and 2011 also mis-portrayed the situation as it was a matter of voting yes/no if the Icelandic state should pay €3.8bn (equal to €12.000 for each Icelandic person) - as was even reflected by the official wikinews box below:


 * To be honest I dont know if it was some wild spinning politicians or bad lazy journalists who were responsible for this. But as the story was mis-portrayed in most of the foreign media, I agree it might have damaged Icelands image in the international world. For my own record, I personally felt disappointed and baffled when the Danish TV news informed me about your referendum decisions back in 2010+2011, because they presented the story wrong - also back then! As a Dane I truly love the Icelandic people (we are all Vikings), so despite of your referendum desicisions (which most people in Denmark did not understand at that point of time), I have always continued to be happy about the fact that the Danish government at no point of time during the dispute threathened to withdraw our financial loan package to Iceland. Now when the truth has been revealed for me, about what you actually held referendums on in 2010+2011, I can fully understand your decisions. Now it all make a lot more sence. Sorry for writing such a long personal essay, but I just felt like it was time to reveal how this "news case" has hit the shores of Denmark. I am a highly educated and intelligent Dane who always pay attention to details, so I can assure you my initial misunderstanding of the status on this "Icesave case" has nothing to do with a personal reception/neglection mistake, but instead it has everything to do with the fact that international journalists were not good enough to report me the correct story from the start. In regards of the article, I have for a start updated the August 2009 bill (Icesave bill 1) section, and will soon also update the lead section. Danish Expert (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Ragnar Hall and priority of creditor claims
After using several hours to look further into the background and facts on the 3 Icesave bills, I have now more or less completed the update of the article's Attempts at solution chapter. Most important detail that previously had not been reported at all, was that the Icesave bill 1+2 actually also had equalled the priority claims for all creditors against the Landsbanki receivership. According to Icelandic law, the coverage of minimum guarantee deposits in a bankrupt bank will always have a first and exclusive priority. If one of the first two Icesave bills had been accepted by all stakeholders, it would have equalled the creditor priorities and thus introduced a significant amount of extra unfair payment for the Icelandic state (due to only 51% of the €4bn minimum guarantee deposit loan in that case would have been covered by the Landsbanki receivership, compared to the outlook for 100% being covered if the Icesave bill 1 or 2 was not passed). The Icelandic state was not obliged to cover this extra implied liability - neither per its own law nor per any international law. This was the main reason behind the fact, that the Icelandic government in mid-January 2010 decided to re-open the negotioans with UK+Netherlands (by establishing a new broad consensus negotiation committee - with representation by all five political parties in the Icelandic parliament), and of course also the reason why 98% voted NO to the bill in the first Icelandic referendum (as the negotiation attempts had failed to produce a fixed/better repayment agreement). I have found and added high quality references for all of this in the chapter, and it now reflects this info in a very accurate and neutral way. If nobody objects within the next two days, I will consequently also remove the POV tag at the top of the article.

By the way, it is also an interesting fact that 8 supreme court judges (incl. Ragnar Hall) advocated for the Icelandic electorate to vote yes at the Icesave bill 3 referendum, as the previous issue with the wrong equalization of creditor claims had now been solved -and more reasonable terms offered (i.e. long repayment time + a low 3% interest rate). They argued that it was not worth the risk to vote NO to this relatively cheap deal, as their could very well (in the event of the repayment agreement not being enacted) be a significant risk that the EFTA court then shortly afterwords would make a ruling against Iceland, pointing out that Iceland should have accepted to agree on the much more reasonable terms offered by Icesave bill 3. So despite the fact that Ragnar Hall believed that Iceland was not legally obliged to pay the accrued interest rates for the slowly repaid minimum guarantees, he had the oppinion it was better to swollow such a small undangerous pill, compared to the huge penalty pill the EFTA court might end up forcing the Icelandic state to swallow if they just found a glimpse of "partly guilt" of the Icelandic state having acted irresponsibly in the Icesave case. I will of course soon also add two updating lines about this in the "Icesave bill 3" chapter. Finally, I will also remember to add the promised status note, that Iceland as of January 2013 now has repaid 93% of the €4bn big minimum deposit guarantee package and is tracked soon to reach the 100%. Everything recoved in excess of these minimum deposit guarantess, will of course go to all the remaining landsbanki creditors (first at the priority level, and only at the last step funds will finally also flow to those only being categorized to posses General Claims). The total amount of claims against the Landsbanki Receivership equals ISK 3031 bn (€17.9bn), of which the priority claims equals ISK 1318 bn (€7.8bn), so the lower claims (i.e. the additional "excess claims" filed by the Dutch and UK state) is only likely to be covered partly.

This has for sure been an interesting case to jump into. The article indeed needed many important updates, but I think we now have the most important points included. I will soon also update the lead with the major info points. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * According to the latest status update from the Landsbanki receivership per 30 Sep 2012, the total value of assets had grown with 36% to ISK 1517 bn (€9.0bn) from the previous amount of ISK 1104 bn (€6.5bn) on 30 Apr 2009. The estimated value of LBI’s assets is therefore now ISK 200 bn (€1.2bn) higher than the estimated priority claims. As of 5 Oct 2012, the receivership board has already liquidated and repaid to creditors with priority claims, a total amount of ISK 660 bn (€3.9bn) in three partial payments, which is equal to 50% of all priority claims as defined by Art.112 of Bankruptcy Act no.21/1991. I will now also try to find the exact numbers so far paid to DIGF/TIF, if possible, just to counter check if the claimed 93% repayment as of January 2013 indeed is correct or a hoax. Danish Expert (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This morning I had time to investigate the case a bit further. In the Landsbanki receivership's Q3-2012 financial report, I have found two extra interesting pieces of info, which both are related to the Icelandic law for Financial Instistutions nr.161/2002 (amended by law 44/2009 on 22 Apr 2009). First info is, that the amendment for the Landsbanki Receivership has defined 22 Apr 2009 as the starting reference date for calculation of interest/costs related to the unpaid creditor claims, which will be accepted as claims but only as secondary claims (in the same category as other General claims). Second info is, that all claims in foreign currency per the Icelandic law will be repaid to those creditors only in ISK according to the officially noted currency exchange rate on 22 Apr 2009. This mean that the fluctuations in currency exchange rates is no longer a risk for the Landsbanki receivership but solely a risk and burden to bare for the creditors having claims in foreign currency. The document I have linked to above, also compare how the exchange rates were on 22 Apr 2009 and today, and reveal that foreign creditors seeking repayment exchanged to their foreign currency as per 30 Sep 2012, in addition will get this extra currency loss/gain for their money (compared to 22 Apr 2009): Canadian dollars = 19.4% loss, Pound sterling = 4.8% loss, US dollars = 5.1% gain, Euro = 5.6% gain. In other words, the repayment of creditor claims is immune towards any currency exchange risks for the Landsbanki receivership. Some of the foreign creditors are winning and others are loosing from this rule, about fixing the foreign currency rates to their noted value on the "first receivership day", but that's how it is. On the bottom line its just bad luck for the Canadian creditors, that they during the past 4 years had such a god-damn strong Canadian currency. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 11:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

This is just to bump a short note, that I have now added the new chapter named Landsbanki liquidation and repayment of claims to the article. It reflects how the repayment situation is as of 31 Dec 2012, where 86.0% of the (formerly disputed) Icelandic minimum deposit guarantees now have been repaid to the UK+Dutch authoraties, which are representing the claims on behalf of the Icesave retail customers. This mean, that the quarterly account of the Landsbanki receivership could not confirm/verify the earlier claim stated by an Icelandic politician that 93.5% had now been covered, although I indeed found his claim came close to match the factual world.

In regards of how the partial creditor claim repayments are conducted, it was also worth to note that these are not transferred as an ISK-converted currency, but instead transferred as a "foreign currency basket" equal to the currency mix that the Landsbanki receivership holds on the day where the partial repayment is conducted. In that way, all creditors with the same priority are treated equally, as they receive the same currency mix (with a shared equal currency exchange risk), no matter what currency unit original being held by their submitted claim. In regards of the chapter, I do not plan to add anymore material. The idea from now on, is of course to update the chapter around 4 times per year, shortly after the Landsbanki receivership have released their next quarterly financial status report with updated figures. Danish Expert (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

What did Iceland save by not signing Icesave 3 ?
This is a quiet funny question, compared to all the media fuss during the Icesave dispute. I today made the calculation by adjusting the input data for the old Icesave calculator, with valuta exchange rates being fixed on their old rate on 22 Apr 2009. The input was also changed for asset value = ISK 1517bn with recovery percent 100%. As the calculation show, the total payment value the state would have needed to pay in 2016-2024, would based on the adjusted data only have been €0.37bn in real money (equal to 4.2% of the Icelandic GDP in 2008), or if discounted with the expected 6.5% Icelandic inflation rate it would only equal €0.19bn (which corresponds to 2.2% of the GDP in 2008). This is only a minor fraction, compared to what several Icelandic politicians campaigned that Iceland would face if voting YES at the Icesave bill 3 referendum in April 2011. Moreover, it is also quiet funny that all the fuss about the equal footing of creditor priorities (which was a part of Icesave bill 1+2), also would barely have caused any difference for the calculation (due to all priority claims now being certain to be fully repaid directly by the guarantee found). If we (just for comparison) change all priority claims to equal footing, then it woould only have resulted in a slightly higher repayment, with the Icelandic state being asked to pay €0.46bn in real money, which is the same as €0.24bn if discounted with the expected 6.5% Icelandic inflation rate. So basically this entire case has only been a loud fight for biscuit crumbs. For UK+Netherlands it has also been a ridiculous low amount to insist continuing a great diplomatic dispute to pursue. If you ask me, this case has been totally blown out of proportion. If handled better by all parties, I think all of the fuss really could have been avoided. But thanks for entertaining me. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * To put the case further into context, the costs for doing legal proceedings at the EFTA court has been reported to be around €0.17bn (of which the UK and Dutch treasury shall now cover respectively 2/3 and 1/3, while Iceland cover none of the costs due to winning the case without remarks). Danish Expert (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * After I finally also have been reading through the Icesave bill 3, the deal actually was even sweeter compared to the liability calculation listed above at €0.37bn in real money. The details I was not aware of, was that the Guarantee Fund (Tryggingarsjóðs) as part of the deal was obliged to compensate the Icelandic state with ISK 20bn and that they also had a positive yield from their assets claims towards Landsbanki equal to ISK 33bn (as a possibly excess value also being transferred to the Icelandic state). Moreover the deal introduced an interest moratorium for the Icelandic state in the first 3 quarters of 2009, which mean the state would have saved a further ISK 16bn in interest rates. When all these extra ISK 69bn are added as extra income for the Icelandic state, this actually more than counterways the additional interest liabilities towards UK+Netherlands at ISK 59bn. In rough numbers the Icelandic state would now as of 30 Sep 2012 (because of the fact that the Landsbanki asset figures lately have greatly approved to cover 100% of the priority claims), in fact have received a surplus of ISK 10bn (€0.06bn) if the referendum had approved Icesave bill 3. Please note this outcome (due to the recent rise in asset values) actually surpasses the ISK 12bn payment, that previously was outlined by the 2011 bill as the net price for the Icelandic state in the best case scenario the government could imagine at that point of time. This story just keeps getting more and more fun to reveal. Iceland refused a deal where it could actually have earned money from the banks (routed through Tryggingarsjóðs)! It would have been a win-win situation for all 3 states! Instead you punched UK+Netherlands in the head, and left them with a bloody nose. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Bradley Manning
Are this statement from Bradley Manning in the Wikileaks court case interesting?
 * "...on 14 February 2010, I found the cable 10 Reykjavik 13, which referenced the Icesave issue directly. The cable published on 13 January 2010 was just over two pages in length. I read the cable and quickly concluded that Iceland was essentially being bullied diplomatically by two larger European powers. It appeared to me that Iceland was out viable options and was coming to the US for assistance. Despite the quiet request for assistance, it did not appear that we were going to do anything. From my perspective it appeared that we were not getting involved due to the lack of long term geopolitical benefit to do so....I felt that I would be able to right a wrong by having them publish this document.... I navigated to the WLO website via a TOR connection like before and uploaded the document via the secure form. Amazingly, when WLO published 10 Reykjavik 13 within hours, proving that the form worked and that they must have received the SigAct tables." Link to the Guardian article.

Snori (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2013‎ (UTC)


 * From the perspective that the Wikileaks case is not already mentioned by the Wikipedia article, and that we still lack detailed info about a what level this US "document memo" was analyzed and evaluated politically, I think it is best not to mention it or jump to any conclusions. The personal perception of the Icesave case and/or Bradley Manning's personal perception of the grounds for the lack of actions by US, is irrellevant. If the Wikileaks "document memo" explicit refer to the US grounds for having made certain decisions/positions (at the diplomatic/political level) in the Icesave dispute, then this would however qualify to be mentioned by our Wikipedia article. Otherwise it would only be speculation - and not qualify.
 * As an outside observer of the case, I would not be surprised if the Icelandic government indeed also had diplomatic talks with US about possible financial assistence. This would only be normal (to have talks with all external partners) in the situation Iceland experienced in Q4-2008, where Iceland needed financial assistance at the best possible terms. It is also no surprise that US preferred not to get involved, as their is no earlier precedence for US to interfere with financial rescue loans to European countries. These rescue loans are handled by IMF and by bilateral support from within the European countries ourself. US probably also decided it would be to the benefit of them politically to stay neutral in the Icesave dispute, considered that Europe have a long history of being capable of solving our own problems without outside interference, considered that US would not risk any short-term or long-term damage by deciding to stay neutral (as Iceland from the US perspective did not posses any high level US geopolitical importance economically/millitary-strategicly that would justify for a direct US interference that would bypass the normal bilateral dispute handeling among its internal allies in NATO - and probably also as Iceland ultimately by the end of the day would get all needed economic help by Europe+IMF and be able peacefully/legally to solve its dispute with its European partners - and as it would be logical to assume Iceland would not get offended by a neutral US position on the matter due to a common mutual understanding that US with nothing really at risk having made the decision not to interfere in the dispute against its closest allie Britain).
 * This last written part of my reply in the paragraph above, however only constitute my own personal opinion and analysis of the case, and would only qualify as material for the Wikipedia article if we had explicit references for it. For the moment, I think it is best not to mention the case at all in the article, as it would leave more questions than answers - and as it did not in anyway impact the Icesave dispute. If you disagree with me and think it did have some sort of impact, then my suggestion would be that we only mention it in the article somewhat indirectly with 1 carefully worded line, that briefly states: "A wikileak document about the US diplomatic position on the Icesave dispute (as of 13 January 2010) was leaked in February 2010. The leaked document did however not reveal any controvercial new matters and presumably did not impact the Icesave dispute in any way." The second line would of course need an additional reference, but I am sure it is possible also to find such a reference if you search the web. For the moment, I however prefer not to write anything about it at all in the article. Danish Expert (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Brevity
The Summary is probably 4-5 paragraphs too long. I know it's a complex subject, and hat's off to DE for getting into the detail, but the Summary definitely needs a rewrite. I suspect the rest of the article could do with a trim as well. Of course, easier said than done; I know it'll take me a while to work up the will to do it. Bromley86 (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. In regards of the length of the article, I think the complexity of the subject and the fact that it cover several notable events throughout 5 years, mainly justify the current length and format. If someone has the energy to do it, a reduction of the words in the subchapters into a more slim format with only "main/summary info" (with some of the details being moved to the already listed sub-articles), could indeed be done. It would however in that case, always be at the risk that readers then would be left without knowing the most important set of details to understand the Icesave dispute and how it progressed through the years, after only reading the content of the main-article itself. If we trim down the main-article too much (and/or forget to write appropriate summary lines), then readers will not understand the Icesave dispute, unless they anyway visit and read the chop-out details in the sub-articles. So we should be careful not to over-trim, and if we trim, then it is important both to formulate new carefully crafted summary lines in the subchapters of the trimmed content AND also remember to copy-move/integrate all the removed previous written "detail lines" into the sub-articles. This will take a lot of time to go through, and not something I personally have time to help with. If someone has the ambition/time to do it carefully and correct, then I agree the quality of the article and its readability indeed could benefit from such treatment. If done incorrect, then the quality of the article will deteriorate.


 * In regards of the current length of the lead summary, I agree the 6th+7th paragraph was a bit too detailed. Thus, I have now cooked it further down and merged it into one paragraph. Beside of that, I however think the lead carry an appropriate length and that the listed summary info is fully needed, given the article's current state. It provides a full summary of the main events described in the article, which is needed and nice to read through at the start of the article, before you start reading the subchapters below step by step (and risk getting lost in the series of events if you do not know the full context straight from the start). We should also keep in mind, that the acceptable length of the lead and its number of needed paragraphs is always proportional with -and often decided by- the length of the article. It is also a fact, that WP:LEAD does not command us to limit the lead to a certain number of paragraphs, as it only list a general guideline for the lead of long articles to be limited to 4 paragraphs, while emphasizing that this "limit" in special cases (with a broad topic or complex article) indeed can be exceeded. If you do not like to read a full blown lead, then an alternative format could however also be, that we instead create a new "introduction" subchapter in the article entitled "Main events in the dispute" (being more or less a direct copy of the current lead). In that way the top lead could be limited into only giving readers the "short general introduction" you seek (with a length of 2 paragraphs), while leaving the "full introduction" (with a length of 6 paragraphs) to be listed beneath as the subchapter entitled "Main events in the dispute". On the other hand, I however fear the reader then will feel it would be redundant to have such a special format with a "short lead summary of a full blown introduction summary below". If you think the alternative two-way summary format would be good, then please let me know, and I will give it a shot. Otherwise, I suggest we continue only to have one summary (as given by the current lead) in the article. Danish Expert (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The summary clearly needs to be trimmed. I don't want to tag the article, but as it stands it is a vio of the WP:MOS. The trimmed material should be incorporated into the body of the article, so that nothing is lost. This would improve the readability of the article. Jus  da  fax   12:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Today I have trimmed the last 6th paragraph of the lead. But as it stands now, I disagree the 6 lengthy lead paragraphs violates WP:LEAD. The policy say that:
 * "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview, which define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline —not an absolute rule— the lead should normally be no longer than four paragraphs."
 * My opinioin is, that given the complexity of the articles content and the fact that it span over five years (incl. subarticles about the Landsbanki bankruptcy, British law action to freeze Icelandic assets, three elections, EFTA court case, and the Landsbanki Receivership), then it is also OK for the lead to feature 6 paragraphs. To present a correct summary of the dispute, I think we need to include the context details that we currently have in the lead. The dispute becomes very confusing and impossible to understand from reading the lead, if it does not contain these important context details. As I mentioned in my reply above, the only alternative option where I can imagine only having a very short 2 paragraph lead would be, if we copy the 6 current paragraphs into a new first section of the article entitled "Summary of main events in the dispute". To be honest, I am however unsure if the majority of readers will prefer such a solution (with first a brief summary lead, followed by a full summary section below). I tend to believe most readers will prefer the current format with a full lengthy 6 paragraph lead. But please let me know by posting counter arguments, if you disagree. Danish Expert (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Icesave dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081222103814/http://www.independent.co.uk:80/news/business/news/lawyers-head-to-iceland-to-get-cash-back-958345.html to http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/lawyers-head-to-iceland-to-get-cash-back-958345.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Icesave dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icesave.co.uk/savings-range.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081010184234/http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0%2C27753%2C24467268-31037%2C00.html to http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0%2C27753%2C24467268-31037%2C00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kauppalehti.fi/5/i/talous/uutiset/etusivu/uutinen.jsp?oid=2008%2F10%2F15262&ext=rss
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081012075147/http://www.sedlabanki.is/Default.aspx?PageID=183 to http://www.sedlabanki.is/Default.aspx?PageID=183
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081212010509/http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/uksi_20082668_en_1 to http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/uksi_20082668_en_1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090227041134/http://opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2001/ukpga_20010024_en_1 to http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2001/ukpga_20010024_en_1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217112339/http://www.tryggingarsjodur.is/modules/files/file_group_26/arsreikningur%202007_enska.pdf to http://www.tryggingarsjodur.is/modules/files/file_group_26/arsreikningur%202007_enska.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090802083208/http://www.efta.int/content/legal-texts/eea/EEAtext/EEAagreement/at_download/file to http://www.efta.int/content/legal-texts/eea/EEAtext/EEAagreement/at_download/file

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Icesave dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090803075400/http://www.efta.int/content/legal-texts/eea/JCdecisions/1994-english/18-94.pdf/at_download/file to http://www.efta.int/content/legal-texts/eea/JCdecisions/1994-english/18-94.pdf/at_download/file
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722022710/http://www.tryggingarsjodur.is/News/7219/ to http://www.tryggingarsjodur.is/News/7219/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004220940/http://www.lbi.is/library/Opin-gogn/skyrslan/Q2%202013%20-%20LBI%20open%20site.pdf to http://www.lbi.is/library/Opin-gogn/skyrslan/Q2%202013%20-%20LBI%20open%20site.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130526225549/http://www.lbi.is/library/Opin-gogn/skyrslan/Q3%20Financial%20information%20open%20site.pdf to http://www.lbi.is/library/Opin-gogn/skyrslan/Q3%20Financial%20information%20open%20site.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090212063034/http://www.iceland.org/info to http://www.iceland.org/info

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Icesave dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130526225605/http://www.lbi.is/library/Opin-gogn/pdf/DNB%20-%20M%C3%A1l%20nr%20341_2011-enska.pdf to http://www.lbi.is/library/Opin-gogn/pdf/DNB%20-%20M%C3%A1l%20nr%20341_2011-enska.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.tryggingarsjodur.is/modules/files/file_group_26/fr%C3%A9ttir/Act_No125-2008.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011062730/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/statement_chx_081008.htm to http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/statement_chx_081008.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081021203340/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/fin_sanctions_landsbanki.htm to http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/fin_sanctions_landsbanki.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.citywire.co.uk/personal/-/news/markets-companies-and-funds/content.aspx?ID=316803&re=3902&ea=180442
 * Added tag to http://frettir.ruv.is/frett/hlustudu-ekki-islensku-nefndina
 * Added tag to http://frettir.ruv.is/frett/hlustudu-ekki-islensku-nefndina
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722021624/http://english.forseti.is/media/PDF/10_01_05_declaration_w_sign.pdf to http://english.forseti.is/media/PDF/10_01_05_declaration_w_sign.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.advice.is/?page_id=48
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110419135703/http://www.lbi.is/library/Opin-gogn/skyrslan/Q4%20Financial%20Information%20-%20open%20side.pdf to http://www.lbi.is/library/Opin-gogn/skyrslan/Q4%20Financial%20Information%20-%20open%20side.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Icesave dispute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081208050318/http://www.depers.nl/economie/207052/Icesave-wint-de-renteoorlog.html to http://www.depers.nl/economie/207052/Icesave-wint-de-renteoorlog.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tryggingarsjodur.is/modules/files/file_group_26/fr%C3%A9ttir/Act_No125-2008.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140421064747/http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_GB/uk/services/corporate-finance/90698ed08affd110VgnVCM100000ba42f00aRCRD.htm/ to http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_GB/uk/services/corporate-finance/90698ed08affd110VgnVCM100000ba42f00aRCRD.htm/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130329142914/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/fin_stability_icelandic_banks_ksf_report_250612.pdf to http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/fin_stability_icelandic_banks_ksf_report_250612.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081010152544/http://www.ruv.is/heim/frettir/frett/store64/item230323/ to http://www.ruv.is/heim/frettir/frett/store64/item230323/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090802095802/http://www.sedlabanki.is/?PageID=287&NewsID=1920 to http://www.sedlabanki.is/?PageID=287&NewsID=1920
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090801090312/http://www.sedlabanki.is/?PageID=967 to http://www.sedlabanki.is/?PageID=967
 * Added tag to http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/print/014137.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)