The second referendum on the Icesave bill was held on 9 April. The details of the question asked are provided here. They state:

The question put in the referendum will be as follows:

The Act No. 13/2011 provides for authorisation to the Minister of Finance to approve the agreements which were signed in London on 8 December 2010 on guarantees for reimbursement by the Depositors’ and Investors’ Guarantee Fund of Iceland to the governments of the UK and the Netherlands of the cost of minimum insurance to the holders of deposits in the branches of Landsbanki Íslands hf. in the UK and the Netherlands and the payment of the instalments and interest on those obligations.

The Act was passed by the Althingi on 16 February 2011, but the President of Iceland withheld his approval of it.

Should the Act No. 13/2011 remain in force?

The reply options will be:
Yes, it should remain in force.
No, it should become void.

Well, it seems as if the people have voted ‘no’. Indeed, according to the figures here, it seems as if only one of the country’s six electoral districts voted ‘yes’.

The effect is that the negotiations will go to the courts.

Previously, I reported that the Icelandic Supreme Court had invalidated the elections to the proposal Constitutional Assembly. The parliament has now resolved the situation by creating an ad hoc Constitutional Council. IceNews reports that the 25 people elected to the Constitutional Assembly will be appointed to the Constitutional Council.

In addition, IceNews reports that two deputies have resigned from the Left-Green parliamentary group to serve as independents. This means that the government is formally supported by 33 deputies, whereas there are now 30 in opposition. In addition, former Semi-Presidentialism in Europe contributor, Gunnar Helgi Kristinsson, is reported as saying that at least one more Left-Green deputy may leave the party, thus making the government’s situation increasingly precarious.

The second referendum on the Icesave bill is to be held on 9 April.

Once again, the supposedly powerless Icelandic president has used his constitutional prerogatives. Similar to the situation a year ago, President Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson has vetoed the revised version of the so-called Icesave Bill. This is the bill that formalises the deal between the Icelandic government and foreign creditors.

Last year, the president’s decision to veto the bill provoked a referendum. In the vote, the government’s proposal was defeated and a new bill had to be drawn up. There were negotiations between the government and the Dutch and UK creditors and the current Icesave Bill was the result. President Grímsson has now rejected this bill and forced a referendum.

In his message, Icenews reports that President Grímsson justified his decision by saying that there was public support for a new referendum. The President did acknowledge that the new bill represented a better deal than the previous one. However, he said that even though parliament had passed the new bill by a large majority (44 votes to 16), because the government had not changed since the previous referendum and because the public was involved in the previous decision, there should again be a referendum.

This is the third time an Icelandic president has provoked a referendum. President Grímsson has been responsible for all three decisions.

The Reykjavík Grapevine is reporting that the Supreme Court of Iceland has ruled last November’s election to the constitutional assembly to be invalid. A small number of people filed a complaint to the Court. The complaint concerned procedural issues regarding the voting process. The Court upheld the complaint.

Needless to say, the decision has thrown the whole process of constitutional revision into disarray. Prime Minister Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir has assured people that there will be a constitutional assembly. However, it appears as if a new law will have to be passed, rather than just rerunning the elections. Alternatively, it may be possible simply to appoint an assembly.

The constitutional assembly was due to meet in two weeks time.

On 27 November Iceland elected a constitutional assembly. There were just over 500 candidates for 25 places. The turnout was only 37%.

The Reykjavík Grapevine has provided a list of those elected, including brief biographical details. As far as I can see, five of the representatives believe that constitutional reform should have something to do with a clarification of the roles of the executive, legislature and judiciary and a couple envisage more specific reforms such as the direct election of the prime minister.

Obviously, if such issues were to be adopted, then there would most likely be changes to Iceland’s semi-presidential system.

On Saturday, Iceland held a national gathering or assembly. It comprised 1,000 people chosen at random from the electoral register. Those randomly chosen included the prime minister, Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir. In the end, 950 people attended.

As per a previous post, the national assembly was chosen so that citizens had the opportunity to identify the aspects of the constitution that they would like to see addressed. Their conclusions will shape the proceedings of the constitutional parliament that will be elected later this month and that will meet in February.

The assembly’s website lists the various areas that were discussed and the findings. Under the heading ‘The Division of Powers’, the following points were noted: “Ministers shall not serve as members of parliament along with their ministry post … The power of the President of Iceland shall be reconsidered and a decision shall be made regarding his veto. There should be a time limit to the membership of parliament”. So, it could well be that the constitutional parliament will debate changes that affect the role of the president.

The assembly’s website also provides useful details of the whole revision process.

More details are emerging about the process of constitutional review in Iceland.

Iceland Review reports that the Icelandic parliament has appointed a constitutional committee. The committee has decided that a national assembly will be held on 6-7 November to discuss what elements of the constitution it is most important to review. The national assembly will comprise 1,000 people chosen at random from the electoral register.

Following the national assembly there will be an election on 27 November for a constitutional parliament, which will meet in February 2011. The parliament will comprise about 25 and 30 people. It seems as if the election will choose individuals and not party lists.

The constitutional committee will collate the findings of the national assembly and present them to the constitutional parliament.

It is unclear what the process will then be. Presumably, parliament will have to approve any recommendations for change and there may be a referendum. However, it is not clear how binding the recommendations of the constitutional parliament will be.

In any event, this is democracy at work indeed and it seems to be part of a general move towards greater public participation in the decision-making process via a system of national and regional assemblies. (See here.)

In Iceland, local elections were held on 29 May. They produced a surprise result.

In Reykjavík, a new party, Besti Flokkurinn (Best Party), which is a party that EU Observer calls a “comedy political party” and whose policies apparently include “a polar bear for the Reykjavik zoo, free towels at all swimming pools” etc., has become the largest party on the town council, winning 34.7% of the vote, just ahead of the Independence party. The Best Party will have 6 seats on the 15-seat council. Wikipedia provides the full results here. IceNews reports that the leader of the Best Party will become mayor after forming an alliance with the Social Democrats.

In terms of the national vote, Reykjavík Grapevine is reporting the following:

Independence Party – 37.4% (up from 23.7% in the 2009 parliamentary election, but down from 41.6% at the 2006 local election).
Social Democrats – 22.1% (down from about 30% at both the 2009 parliamentary election and the 2006 local election)
Progressive Party – 10.9% (down from 14.8% at the 2009 parliamentary election and 11.8% at the 2006 local election)
Left-Greens – 9.6% (down from 21.7% at the 2009 parliamentary election and 12.6% at the 2006 local election)

The rest of the votes seems to be going to the Best Party, other parties and independents, all of which did much better than four years ago.

The Social Democratic prime minister, Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, described the results as a ‘shock’.

The prime minister of Iceland, Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, has recommended that the powers of the Icelandic president be reduced. Specifically, and in a clear allusion to events earlier this year, Icenews reports that she has recommended that the president no longer be able to provoke a referendum.

The topicality of the proposal lies in the fact that it may be debated in the forthcoming ‘constitutional parliament of citizens’. A bill providing the legislative framework for such a parliament is currently before the Alþingi.

In this context, the prime minister’s comments are interesting in two ways.

Firstly, I had assumed that the constitutional parliament would focus on social/citizenship issues rather than the separation of powers. However, clearly this is not ruled out.

Secondly, as we all know, the Icelandic constitution represents the biggest gap between the written constitution and the ‘material’ constitution in practice. The president has tremendous constitutional powers, but, in practice, does not exercise them at all. So, while removing this specific presidential power might reduce one element of the president’s authority, the wording of the constitution in general would still be utterly presidential. This means that if a future president so wished, s/he would still have the constitutional grounds to act powerfully. It is only by convention that this does not happen. Remember that President Ólafur Grímsson is the first president to provoke a referendum. Before him, it had been assumed that, by convention, a president would not use such a power. So, if this power is taken away, then why should not the whole constitution be reworded to make sure that the president truly has no power, either materially or legally?

In Iceland the so-called Icesave referendum was held on Saturday. Recall that the referendum was precipitated by President Grímsson’s decision to veto the Icesave Bill in early January. Information about the Icesave issue/debacle/dispute can be found here.

As reported in a previous post, the earliest indications were that the referendum would be close and even that the president’s veto might be overturned. However, the final result was somewhat different to say the least.

Iceland Review gives the final figures for the referendum:

Registered voters: 229,977
Voting: 144,231 (62.72 per cent)

Blank ballots: 6,744 (4.7 per cent)
Invalid/spoilt ballots: 491 (0.3 per cent)
Voting Yes: 2,599 (1.8 per cent, or 1.9 per cent of the valid votes cast)
Voting No: 134,397 (93.2 per cent, or 98.1 per cent of the valid votes cast)