Robert Wade, prófessor við London School of Economics og áhugamaður um íslensk málefni, skrifar béf í Financial Times í dag. Wade segir að besti kosturinn í Icesave deilunni sé nú að kalla til sáttasemjara, það sé heldur ekki við Íslendinga eina að sakast í málinu heldur eigi eftirlitsstofnanir í Hollandi og Bretlandi líka sök. Wade telur líka að þjóðaratkvæðagreiðslan á Íslandi verði til lítils gagns, íslenska ríkisstjórnin þurfi að fá svigrúm til að draga Icesave 2 einfaldlega til baka:
— — —
Sir, The Icesave issue is caught between two contradictory narratives – “profligate country refuses to accept the consequences of its banking regulators’ folly” and “big bullies wield big stick on tiny country”.
The first step to a resolution is to recognise that the blame lies on the Dutch and British side as well as the Icelandic side. For example, when the Dutch central bank allowed Icesave to open a branch (as distinct from a subsidiary) in late April 2008, it ignored the February 2008 report of the Basel Committee on Bank Supervision that laid out new responsibilities for the regulation of branches on the part of host country regulators. (Previously the regulation of branches was the responsibility of the home state, not the host.) The Dutch central bank would have been much more cautious had it done the investigation that those new responsibilities entailed.
On the Icelandic side, the government was clearly wrong to promise the UK Financial Services Authority in mid 2008, when the FSA wanted to close the UK Icesave branch, that it would ensure sufficient funding for the deposit insurance scheme in the event of any difficulties.
On the British side, the FSA was wrong to take the promise at face value, since even a cursory check of assets and liabilities against Iceland’s tax base would have shown the promise to be less than credible.
Icesave is a classic case for third-party mediation. The mediator should be a politician or ex-politician from a European country who carries high respect for judgment and integrity (the equivalent of Paul Volcker or George Mitchell in the American polity), and who can mobilise support within the European Union.
An offer of mediation from such a person might help to break the stalemate. In particular, it would be a sufficiently new development to allow the Icelandic government to withdraw the legislation that the president refused to sign, obviating the need to put the matter to a referendum – whose outcome is only too unhelpfully predictable.
The British, Dutch and Icelandic governments should accept such an offer as the least bad option.
Robert H. Wade,
London School of Economics,
London WC2, UK
