Given the date of that quote, I think it’s fair to say that he was referring to the Soviet Union. I suspect Winston would be a little more bullish when the risks of war-war are almost entirely bourne by the other side :) .

http://blogs.ft.com/economistsforum/2010/02/icesave-a-potential-solution/

If Norway wants to help us out they could buy assets from Landsbanki to speed up the sale process, there are some good bits in the collection, like a 40% stake in Iceland foods Ltd for example,
the money from the assets would collect interests to counter the 3,38% interests UK and NL are paying for the loan they took to pay depositors until the funds could be payed out to UK and NL.

Switzerland and Norway are not in the EU and have experience dealing with the rules for the free trade area. It is expertise that matters. Both countries also have good reputations as negotiators and conciliators.

Is Norway biased? They are willing to loan Iceland money to help with the crisis.

“Jaw jaw is better than war war ” – Winston Churchill.

All sides should keep talking.

Campbell was just mentioned briefly, which might not be the impression that you’d get from this IceNews article.

Without re-watching it I can’t be certain, but I’m pretty sure he wasn’t putting Campbell forward as a good choice for Iceland, he was merely giving him as an example of someone with the right skill set.

What difference would it make, unless you are suggesting they these two countries would be biased. Well, Norway is probably biased against Iceland due the apparently fact that they have been ripped off by Iceland and Switzerland is probably happy to see the back of a problematic banking nation that sullies their business.

And don’t forget, even when Iceland choose the arbitrators from the EEA to decide on its liability to pay the Icesave depositor protection scheme, it still lost.

Alastair Campbell as the Voice of Iceland? Scary! But very effective…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHsVCE0-smE&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QKHtW7KtoU&feature=channel

– since then of course they do not want to go back on what they said then because EU burecracy never goes back on its policy even if it is wrong unless it is dealing with large EU country that has its senior civil serveant in COREPA or is big EU budget net contributor :

“We were a couple of days away from a complete catastrophe which would have been ten times worse than the current situation. The risk of a collapse in the European banking system was high,” admitted Finland’s Finance Minister, Jyrki Katainen, in an interview+ with the Finnish newspaper Savon Sanomat on September 8, 2009.

The decision to sacrifice Iceland probably contributed to saving the EU banking system at the last minute.

Last summer Ingibjörg Sólrún Gísladóttir, who was Iceland’s Foreign Minister at the time when the Icelandic banks fell, said that++ “the main reason why it was not possible to take the matter to the courts was because there could not be any doubt that deposits were guaranteed If it would have been agreed to get a court ruling it would have created a legal uncertainty whether there were any deposits guarantees.”

Gísladóttir said that such uncertainty would have given depositors in Spain, France or elsewhere a reason to doubt the guarantees and withdraw their savings. In other words that there would be run on EU banks.

So in other words Iceland and the Icelandic people were simply sacrificed to save the EU banking system from collapses as a result of a flawed EU legislation which they are not at all responsible for.

+http://www.savonsanomat.fi/uutiset/talous/selkä-seinää-vasten/481252

++http://www.dv.is/frettir/2009/6/24/Ingibjorg_Solrun_Domstolaleidin_er_ranghugmynd