As far as I can see, this is simply not true:

“the Iceland state has accepted their responsibility to be the guarantor of the Icesave debt.”

Sure, they’ve *conditionally* accepted responsibility. The first Icesave law did that. Likewise, they’ve accepted responsibility if they can get the right deal on the loan.

That’s not the same as accepting responsibility to be the guarantor. If the UK does not offer them sufficiently good terms, they will walk away from the negotiating table and go to court. In that court they will state that they do not accept the responsibility. If the court rules in their favour, they won’t have to accept responsibilty. I admit that, at this point, I make an assumption that they would not accept responsibility :) .

All of which is confirmed in the quotes I gave. The quotes you supply merely confirm that Iceland is negotiating, which no one would dispute.

What an utter silly thing to write.

“Perhaps you’d like to summarise your position?”

I have stated quite clearly that the Iceland state has accepted their responsibility to be the guarantor of the Icesave debt. Iceland has not accepted that they are legally or morally responsible. They do NOT have to. There is NO requirement for them to wear sackcloth and ashes. All that is required by the UK/NL, is that Iceland accept the responsibility as guarantor and act on it. And Iceland has every right to negotiate the terms of the settlement. The process is ongoing.

The links which you have bizarrely offered as some part of an argument to counter what I have written – in fact support exactly what I have written.
The first of which from 26May 2010
http://www.eftasurv.int/media/internal-market/LFN-Icesave.pdf

“The Icelandic Governmenton the one hand and the UK and Dutch Govemmentson the other, have been negotiating the reimbursements of the part of the UK and Dutch pay-outs to the depositors of Landsbanki that were within the responsibility of the Icelandic deposit guarantee scheme. To date, these negotiations have not resulted in an agreementbeing reached”

Then secondly you offer the link to the Business Week article which also supports what I have written

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-09-08/iceland-won-t-settle-icesave-dispute-at-any-price-.html
Which states clearly the negotiations have been ongoing, Iceland are negotiating a settlement, but
“We want to find a negotiated solution, but we aren’t willing to negotiate at any price,”
“It’s a bilateral dispute which we are in the process of solving, either through negotiations or other means,” Arnason said. “And it will be solved. Iceland is going to participate in the wider world.”

Let’s assume for the moment that you’re not trolling.

I linked to that with the, I would say, reasonable assumption that we were all on the same page. Even those of us who have such divergent opinions as myself & Fisy.

Clearly this is not the case.

Pretend that I didn’t mention the BW article. Perhaps you’d like to summarise your position?

You have provided plenty of information, some/much of that information is indisputable, but that information does not vindicate the opinion you have offered.
For example, the relevant extracts from that Business Week article do not support your opinion.
You deduce that it supports your opinion, that deduction you make, is defective.
As long as you vehemently claim that the BW article supports your opinion, then on that alone, the rest of your debate that you offer as a rational argument, remains dubious.

Bull. I’ve provided plenty of evidence for my position. Unlike you.

“If Iceland is responsible, thats the end of it”
You are beginning to sound like a preacher pumping the bible on the pulpit.

Instead of dealing in the actual factual content of an article you presented to support your point, you persist in presenting your own surmises as the valid truth.

An alternative to not negotiating with the Iceland State, is for the UK/NL to take the ample assets of Landsbanki in the UK and call it quits. The assets of the failed should meet the amount of the first claimants, aka the Icesave debt.

The Iceland state have every right to negotiate their corner over the terms of the agreement.
I have no idea why the Iceland Finance Minister is mentioning going to court over the terms of the agreement. I have no idea because it is not explained.
The Business Week article is sparse with actual details.

Sure, I concede, it is possible that Iceland would force a court case in order to somehow try to get a loan directly to the TIF from the UK government at a certain rate. Note that I say “TIF” and not “Icelandic government”, as that was one of the arguments that I’ve seen here (although not a compelling one to me, insofar as I understood it) that the UK government should be compelled to loan the Icelandic TIF at the same rate it loans to the UK FSCS. Of course, no court in existence could force a sovereign state to offer a loan to another at a set rate.

But far more likely would be the situation that I’d wager everyone other than you thinks of when they hear Fisy say “To court!”. That is:

1. The Icelandic government does not accept that they are legally responsible.
2. They do accept that they are morally responsible and will take on the debt, although only at the right cost to Iceland.
3. So, if it goes to EFTA court, Iceland’s first argument will not be that they want X% with Y years grace, but rather that they are not legally responsible and don’t have to pay a penny.

The EFTA SA (the people responsible for initiating the court proceedings, if it happens) letter makes it quite clear that Iceland is currently in breach of its obligations, not because it hasn’t agreed a rate for some loan but because it hasn’t honoured the guarantee. This is the last formal reply by Iceland to the EFTA SA (note the relatively recent date):

“In its letter of 23 March 2010 to the Authority, the Icelandic Government stated after having described the implementing Act no. 9811999 “The Icelandic State has therefore fully complied with its obligations under Directive 94/19/EC. The Government has no further obligations based on the Directive than to set up a Guarantee Scheme in line with the Directive.”

http://www.eftasurv.int/media/internal-market/LFN-Icesave.pdf

So I think my interpretation of what Iceland would try to do in a court case is closer to the mark than yours. This comment “That is not on the table” is clearly not the case.

BTW, at the risk of flogging the issue, this . . .
“That Business Week article supports the view that Iceland is not arguing responsibility, they are arguing about the contract terms of that responsibility.”
. . . is nonsense. If Iceland is responsible, then that’s the end of it. It doesn’t get to force anyone to lend it anything. On the other hand, if the responsibility element is part of the negotiations, then Iceland has a bargaining chip.

So clearly the negotiations, for Iceland, are all about conceding responsibility in return for exceptionally good loan terms. The alternative is to go to court where Icland has a possibility of winning, in which case it gets out of jail free, but also a possibility of losing, in which case there is no obligation for the UK/NL (or the IMF/EU/China/markets) to loan Iceland anything at less than market rate. Market rate for Ireland is currently over 9% with no grace, and I suspect (but have no knowledge) that markets would prefer to lend to Ireland today than Iceland after a contrary ruling re. Icesave. In that situation Iceland would be facing immediate sovereign default.

“The reported lack of agreement has to with the terms of the loan, not the loan in principle, or the requirement of the Iceland state to honour the Icesave debt.”

is that Iceland won’t settle at any price and could go to court in pursuit of better terms of repayment.”

There is no obligation for UK/NL to offer a loan to repay – what you acknowledge is a debt. So how can this issue be subject to legal consideration?

The reported lack of agreement has to with the terms of the loan, not the loan in principle, or the requirement of the Iceland state to honour the Icesave debt.

“You seem to be saying that Iceland has accepted responsibility, but ignore that they have yet to actually pay the money to the UK/NL. If it is contingent on the loan negotiations, then they have accepted nothing. That article supports this by confirming that Iceland still considers going to court to get a ruling on their responsibility or otherwise as an option. If they go to court, and if the ruling is that the state is not responsible, then all the talk of moral responsibility will be worthless as there’s no chance that Iceland will honour the guarantee”

Iceland has accepted to (and are engaged in) negotiating the terms of repayment. They are not negotiating the principle of repayment. That is not on the table.
You are assuming that the mention of going to court by Iceland’s Economy Minister to resolve the Icesave negotiations has to do with a last ditch attempt to avoid the principle of repayment. There is nothing in that article to suggest that.
The clear line outlined in the article you linked
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-09-08/iceland-won-t-settle-icesave-dispute-at-any-price-.html
is that Iceland won’t settle at any price and could go to court in pursuit of better terms of repayment.
That Business Week article supports the view that Iceland is not arguing responsibility, they are arguing about the contract terms of that responsibility. Those contract terms are not to do with the principle amount but it would appear to be the interest terms on the principle amount..