Don't vote, it only encourages them. ~Author Unknown

Ok so after yesterdays miserable blog I got some rather tough questions....


From Maja, what my take is on our PM´s gaff in the hiring of the senior person in the prime ministers department.  You see what happened was that there were a number of applicant 5 (I think) that were rated equally, only one of these was a woman.  In Iceland there is affirmative action legislation which states when in doubt hire the woman (in order to improve on gender equality within the government bureaucracy).  They hired a bloke, the woman had recourse through the system to challenge the decision, the high court or whoever (sorry, I find this whole thing so silly I haven't really investigated it completely), came down on her side.  That is, according to the law - she should have gotten the job.  What makes matters worse for our PM is that she was rather vocal when a similar situation occurred a few years ago (when she was in opposition) and she asked for the minister in questions resignation. Her stance now is that she felt she could not go against the recommendations of the committee that was set up to sort out the applicants and appoint someone to the job.  Another thing that makes this rather murky is that the woman in question was previously the assistant to the current PM´s former party leader - so who knows what background these two already have.  So, in answer to Maja's question - our PM has yet again proved that she is very good at foot in mouth, seeing the splinter in the other person's eye and also lousy in facing the fact that she fucked up.  I have always admired Jóhanna for her determination and will - now I am starting to think that these positives make her life a misery - I often think that she over compensates for what she sees as her weekness ie a woman in politics... she should be a role model to both the men and the women in this country - be tolerant - not go off ranting and raving and take the hits when they come and be strong enough to stand  up for what she believes in.  If the guy was the best guy for the job then there is something wrong with having affirmative action laws... Maybe these need to be reviewed.  But..... as I am libran I can do buts..... there were 4 women in the selection committee - in my books women have always been their own worst enemies - somehow it seems that women in power often don't like other women around them - they see them as threats, why, I don't know... just through my experience it is unfortunately often the case.  We want equality - but for us - sorry ME, not the other women, who may come in to our area of influence and somehow undermine us.... sorry ME... well thats my rant on that one.


ICESAVE.  hmmmm have been pondering this one a lot.  Over the past months I have often felt that it is my heart that is saying no and my head is saying yes.  My head says yes, because by signing the agreement we are going into the known.  We will know almost (but not really) how much we have to pay and for how many years.  The crux is though - is there any obligation for the Icesave debt to become a sovereign debt.  According to all my very basic and really quite useless knowledge of law (well UK law - which we inherited in Aus) there was always a thing call Buyer Beware or caveat emptor.  This has largely been overriden in consumer law with warranties and consumer protection - so that some shafty salesman can't sell you something useless, however it still exists in business transactions, that it is the duty of the buyer in a business to business transaction to investigate the company from which he is buying from.  Icesave was a bank that promised interest rates many points higher than those of normal high street banks and so attracted a lot of investors with money that wanted to see high returns on their investments.... I again, go back to another common saying - if it seems to good to be true then.....   I again, can only go back to my own experience, shortly after arriving in Iceland I decided to take out extra superannuation... there were a number of options being offered by the bank ranging from low risk internal investments based on government bonds or very high yielding returns with investments in foreign and local shares... my choice, the low risk govt bonds... why - because I did not trust the banking infrastructure in Iceland... on paper they looked brilliant - but rub the surface and you could see that there were a lot of "slight of hand" movements on the balance sheet - re-evaluation of foreign assets, over valuations of shares in other companies (which happened to somehow be connected - Exxon anyone?)  Anyway, getting back to Icesave and my vote, the bank was in a highly risky enterprise - the investments in Britain and Holland were being used to cover debt elsewhere and creating new debt in other places... there was nothing behind it - a child could have seen it - so cavear emptor - you should have bloody known it was dodgy.... anyway, then the banks collapse, Icelandic depositors were covered by government.  Icesave in Holland and Britain was an Icelandic bank - it had not changed it's legal home and entity to a UK or Dutch one... However, the dutch and UK governments intervened and said that they would cover the 20.000 euro maximum that is ensured under EU law... they decided this all on their own... they could have let the depositors chase the money to the Icelandic fund, but that fund was pretty much not able to cope with that many and did not have the money to cover all the depositors....  Now they (the UK and Dutch governments) want this money back with interest, understandable... however... is it right that this should become a sovereign debt - ie that the Icelandic government (read the Icelandic people) should be liable for the risks and gambling undertaken by the Icelandic banks.  To this my heart says NO.  ... and increasingly my head is getting in agreement with my heart.   So what happens if we say no.... well two things... or maybe three... we go back to negotiations, the UK and Dutch governments take Iceland to the European or in our case the EFTA courts ..... or..... nothing.  So if we go to court what then?  A lot of lawyers will be rich, fat and happy (but they already are anyway - and we have a heap of lawyers here... at least three universities that graduate a bundle every year) We may lose, and have to pay the brits and dutch what they paid out and probably with interest (similar to the agreement we are being asked to sign now - or the interest rates may be higher) and if we do lose this means that a precedent has been set for countries taking on the collapse of banks as sovereign debt - is this what the other European countries want???  Governments can not continually be having to bail out banks - Ireland, Portugal, Spain - they are all having problems today - what would have happened in America if the government had bailed out and become liable for the investments in their investment banks???  


Yep so I guess I will be voting no and will live with the repercussions.


In other news I am also against Iceland joining the EU, it's broken and we have nothing to add and nothing from them will add to improving my lot here...


And if you are all still with me then I will do a YOU YOU as Jomamma asked... 


Judith - list three things that you like about Maja and Maria and me and three things that you think that we should do (in your honest opinion) to make life that much more enjoyable....