Hagfræðingarnir Gylfi Zoëga og Jón Daníelsson skrifa um lærdóma sem hægt sé að draga af Icesavemálinu á vefinn Voxeu. Í greininni segir meðal annars:
„The population of Iceland has refused – for the second time – to pay the minimum guaranteed deposits of UK and Dutch depositors in its failed Icesave high-interest accounts. This would have reimbursed the governments of the UK and Netherlands for unilaterally compensating savers in Icesave, the failed Icelandic bank operating accounts in these two countries.
The terms of the deal negotiated between the governments of Iceland, the UK, and the Netherlands were fair and reasonable, offering much better terms than those offered to Eurozone states needing bailouts. In spite of this, the deal has been rejected by Iceland’s voters.
The refusal does not seem to be based on cold and rational economic calculations. After all, the amounts of money are small, even for a country the size of Iceland.
The reasons for the refusal were essentially emotive. The population, by 60% to 40% with a high turnout, rejected the agreement because they refused to have ordinary people meet the obligations created by a failed private bank. Other reasons include nationalism, worries about future taxes, a rejection of future EU membership and a desire for legal clarity. If a court rules against Iceland, we expect Iceland to pay the amount mandated by the court, likely to be much higher than stipulated in the negotiated settlement.
The outcome is inconvenient to European governments since if the UK and the Netherlands prevail in a court case, it might eliminate the constructive ambiguity the EU prefers on deposit insurance and integrated financial markets.
Similarly, a loss in court, or alternatively not taking this to court would help establish the principle that a European country does not have to honour some obligations expected of them by the EU. It also might encourage those seeking to default on sovereign debt in Europe.
Indeed we suspect that the UK and the Netherlands along with the EU will find both winning and losing the court case almost equally unpalatable. The failure to find a negotiated settlement is therefore surprising, especially given the small amounts involved.“
