The European Commission issued today its Progress Report on Iceland. The report assesses economic and political development in Iceland from February to October 2010, and recapulates the issues that need to be addressed in the upcoming accession talks. The Progress Report´s key findings are that Iceland meets all political and economic criteria for EU membership.
Iceland is a stable democracy with strong institutions. The report welcomes amendments to the Judiciary Act which strengthen the independence of the Icelandic judiciary as regards the appointment of judges. Furthermore, the reports acknowledges the important work done by the Special Investigation Committee of the Parliament of Iceland, and the Office of the Special Prosecutor, in the aftermath of the financial crisis. The report recognizes that while there are diverging views in Iceland on the prospect of EU accession, public support for the accession has indeed increased.
The Progress Report extensively describes the economic development and prospects in Iceland. It points out substantial progress already achieved, such as in lowering inflation and interest rates, ensuring monetary stability and trade surplus, and reducing public debt. However, the report also illustrates that vulnerabilities still remain in the financial sector and unemployment continues to be a key concern.
The report covers the 33 chapters of EU law that are the subject of the accession talks. It is acknowledged that Iceland already has adopted a large part of EU legislation into Icelandic law through the Agreement on the European Economic Area.
On 15 November the screening process will officially start in Brussels. There, experts from Iceland and the European Commission will meet in order to discuss, chapter by chapter, legislation in Iceland and in the EU with the aim of defining outstanding issues. Subsequently, Iceland and the EU will formulate their negotiating positions and actual negotiations on individual chapters will commence.
The Progress Report can be found here: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/press_corner/key-documents/reports_nov_2010_en.htm
>However stealing is too strong because they will get some back
Right. So A owes B £100. A becomes insolvent and, under normal rules, could pay B only £20. The government steps in to change priority so that C (who just happen to be depositors that the government have to bail out) has priority. B now gets £1.
Which part of the removal of that £19 is not theft?
And what’s the relevance of JP Morgan? If I didn’t know better, I’d say you were trying to shift the blame away from the current IP with the mention of foreign firms and Haarde governments :) .
>It does not have a relationship to a case bought by people effected at all. WHERE DID IT COME FROM ?
Regarding EFTA SA, that letter is referenced to case 65560. I found this:
You’ll note that that case was opened when the crisis occurred by the EFTA SA on their own initiative. Using the Occam’s Razor principle, I conclude that this is not evidence of UK/NL pressure :) .
Not sure what point you wanted to make with the address, but perhaps the mission was the most convenient delivery location?
Anyway, I don’t see why you’d think this letter was an attempt to block a court case. It offered Iceland an opportunity to go to court, if it so desired. Plainly it did not. (Note that I’m not saying that the UK/NL wanted to either, but don’t pretend that Iceland wanted to because otherwise it’d be in court by now.)
>Peter Ørebech+ the Norwegian has understanding of EEA from EFTA point of view
Interestingly Oystein-Norway, who seems to be both pretty knowledgeable and from Norway, had this to say about Orebech:
“As far as I can understand, he simply does not understand/discuss the Icesave problem. I think he is writing as a politican, not professor.”
It’s unsurprising that some believe as Orebech does. If there was no possible case, then this would have been sorted out years ago.
He did write it after there was the .. surprise .. extension of the 2 month deadline
( Here is where Peter Orebech analysis was mention here at IceNews :
And here was in August 2010 direct reply and anlysis of what Kurt Jager did write from Peter Ørebech :
Peter Ørebech+ the Norwegian has understanding of EEA from EFTA point of view and so it was very intereesting to read it when it came out as it so directly responds to Kurt Jager.
We know this because the only mention of this 26th May 2010 opinion is on page 10 of the EFTA suiverllance authority decision of 15 Dec, where it just states it was sent with again no connecting it to any ongoing cases ( see p 10, section 40 ).
“EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION of
15 December 2010
to close seven cases against Iceland commenced following the receipt of complaints against that State in the field of capital movements and financial services ”
This decision does not close out all of the cases but it does close out the two emergency laws issues with EFTA Suivellance Authority :
” First, the legislative amendments of 6 October 2008 granting depositors priority ranking in insolvency proceedings over that of other unsecured creditors (see Article 6 and 9 of Act No. 12512008 on the Authority for Treasury Disbursements due to Unusual Financial Market Circumstances etc.).
Second, the various decisions of the Icelandic Financial Supervisory Authority (‘the FME”) to transfer assets and liabilities from the failed banks to newly established entities, taken on the basis of Article 5 of the said Act (“the FME measures”). ”
I agree with Bromley that the bond holder were made to take a financail loss by these emergency laws ( as Haarde government was helped to draft them by JP Morgan ).
” The government of Iceland had stolen from bondholders of Landsbanki. ”
However stealing is too strong because they will get some back — they are just low in the queue like unsecured general creditors are — and as we can see this is going through the review of independent third parties .
There may be still case for appeal and review but the specifcs are all argued carefully in this decision of the EFTA survelliance authority.
Which leads us back to the opinion letter on 26 May 2010 from Kurt Jager.
If as seems clear it did NOT come out of any of the existing complaints then were did it come from — simplest answer is that it did NOT suddenly come out of thin air — from Kurt Jäger deciding to write it suddenly because he though it needed said.
Instead it is simpler conclude that it was written at behest of the parties to this disupte on EU side — British and Dutch, represeneted in these matters by the EU commission.
Notice its timing — just as those British and Dutch governemnts of Brown and Balkenende on the way out.
They need it to be said — but then they lost the balls to take matter to court.
But now with new govenrments in, and IceSave III agreement that came as result mainly from Cameron government negotiations we do see some thing more reasonable with the old kicked out of UK and Holland and an actual negotiating team on Icelandic team led by Lee Bucheit :
Brumley did write :
>It had little to say on Icesave. Just something I think we already knew:?“The European Commission indicated that it supported the legal analysis of ESA.”
Hardly suprising given that EU commission were putting pressure to get that opinion.
Bromley86 did write :
September 10, 2010 at 2:21 pm
” >@Fisy. Where was the evidence that Terry asked for? Neither link contained >anything to back your assertion about Commission pressure on the EFTA SA. ”
In other post did Terry ask after I wrote:
“ Since then the UK and Holland have continued to pressure including EU commission pressure on EFTA surevillance authority as much as can be to stop it going to court. ”
for me to ” Please provide evidence. ”
LETS TAKE OCAAM’S RAZOR POINT OF VIEW.
You notice after initial opinion on matters which came from complaints which are given by they reference number Case No: 6584 and 6674 and 66793, 66794, 66795, and 66797 , 66935 , outgoing EFTA Survelliance Authority College member Kurt Jäger did write that formal notice opinion letter on 26 May 2010 :
” Letter of formal notice to Iceland for failure to comply with its obligations under the Act referred to at point 19a of Annex IX to the EEA Agreement and Article 4 of the EEA Agreement ”
It was addressed you notice to ” Icelandic Mission to the EU ” in Brussels.
It does not have a relationship to a case bought by people effected at all. WHERE DID IT COME FROM ?
In my mentioning back in May I did lay out
>So within 2 months we are likely to see this case into the machinery of the EFTA Court.
>Which is just fine — to court at last!
>( Even though the British [ Brown / Darling ] and Dutch [ Balkenende / Bos ] governments did want to avoid that at al cost. )
Sadly not but it is not surprising. It did not go to court in that time.
Why? Because this decision came completely out of thin air from pressure of EU commission and was not tied to the specific complaints in process.
[…] Iceland is a stable democracy with strong institutions. The report welcomes amendments to the Judiciary Act which strengthen the independence of the Icelandic judiciary as regards the appointment of judges. Furthermore, the reports acknowledges the important work done by the Special Investigation Committee of the Parliament of Iceland, and the Office of the Special Prosecutor, in the aftermath of the financial crisis. The report recognizes that while there are diverging views in Iceland on the prospect of EU accession, public support for the accession has indeed increased. Ice News […]
” The report covers the 33 chapters of EU law that are the subject of the accession talks. It is acknowledged that Iceland already has adopted a large part of EU legislation into Icelandic law through the Agreement on the European Economic Area. ”
But that actually means
i ) that we will have to put in 100% of EU regulations (Directives ) from what we have now of 10% under EFTA with all the costs and restrictions of that,
ii ) we will have less than 0.4% influence and we will not get the EURO any time soon because our state debt is too high for next years to meet the criteria ( no way we can join ERM-2 in next years even if wanted to ).
What waste of time and tax payer money ( both here and from EU commission budget of the acession team from pockets of EU tax payer ) in this application process that is more like a door bell prank by Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir and Steingrímur as the months wear on :
This doesn’t appear to be correct:
“It points out substantial progress already achieved, such as in . . . reducing public debt.”
It talks about restructuring public debt (i.e. delaying payment), but the only talk of actual levels of public debt is about how it has increased from pre-crisis levels (duh!).
It had little to say on Icesave. Just something I think we already knew:
“The European Commission indicated that it supported the legal analysis of ESA.”
Bloomberg’s take on the report highlights the weakness of the recovery:
“Prospects for even a mild recovery remain uncertain” and “The EU pointed to a “significant” threat that the 2011 deficit will be wider than planned, saying Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir’s budget is based on optimistic growth and revenue assumptions that may not pan out.”
Anyway, Most icelanders do not care about the accession they just want to benifit from European Economic area and always refusing many things that come from Europe .And most politicians are brain washing this little nation .Could iceland Survive if it is no more within the European Economic area too ? why not making a referundum .As many think this is the best country in the world,That can stand on its own .