Correspondence with the Commission of the European Union

        

Stjórnarskráin

Áskorun til forseta  Íslands

Peningastefnan

Icesave-vextir

 

 

    

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate General Internal Market and Services

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Financial Stability
Head ofUnit

 

Brussels, 10.02.2012
MARKT H4/SS/ms Ares (2012)s-163283
 

Mr. Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson
Mr. Pétur Valdimarsson
Laugarásvegur 4
104 Reykjavík
Iceland

E-mail: [e-mail]

 
  Subject: Complaint Nr. CHAP(2011) 2011 related to alleged breaches of
               the EEA Agreement by the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.
 

Dear Sirs,

  

Thank you for your letter of 20 December 2011.

  

In this letter you come back with the same issues that have already been dealt with in previous correspondence with this service.

  

As indicated to you in our letters of 27.07.2011 and 24.11.2011, the factual and legal circumstances described by you do not show any infringement of EU law by the British or Dutch authorities that would justify a Commission's action pursuant to Article 258 of the TFEU.

  

I therefore confirm that your complaint Nr. CHAP(2011)2011 has been closed.

  

 

Yours faithfully,
 

Nathalie de Basaldúa

 

Contact: Silvia Scatizzi, Telephone: [phone], [e-mail]

______________________________________________________________________

   

 

 

 

 

Samstaða þjóðar    NATIONAL UNITY COALITION                                                               Baráttusamtök fyrir sjálfstæðu ríki á Íslandi    og fullveldisréttindum almennings.    Stöndum vörð um Stjórnarskrá Lýðveldisins.

  

Commission of the European Union
Attention: Silvia Scatizzi
Rue de la Loi 200
B-1049 Brussels
BELGIUM                                        

Your: MARKT H4/SS/ms Ares(2011)s- 1367350
  
                                                                                    Reykjavík, 20. December 2011 

Third letter of complaint to the Commission of the European Union, concerning breaches of the EEA Agreement by the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Complaint No. CHAP(2011) 2011.

  

Dear Ms. Nathalie de Basaldúa.

  

We wish to thank for the letter from the EU Commission dated 24^th November 2011. Having carefully examined your arguments on behalf of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, we wish to submit following additional remarks regarding our complaint.

  

1.    We understand the political motivation behind your arguments, leading to refusal to acknowledge that the accused states breached Iceland’s sovereignty, infringed the EEA Agreement, violated international human rights, broke an EU agreement with Iceland and waged an economic warfare against a NATO founding member.

   

The Brussels Agreement from 14 November 2008.

  

2.    The Brussels Agreement between Iceland and the European Union is a legally valid document, done on a ministerial level. You are right that the Agreement is of a high level “political nature” which just makes its content more important and completely undisputable. The document is an International Agreement done in accordance with Public International Law.

  

3.    The Commission has not produced any evidence which should hinder the European Court of Justice to acknowledge the factual importance of the Brussels Agreement. The Agreement proves that all parties involved accepted that Iceland’s “unprecedented difficult situation” called for unprecedented assistance by the European Union, as well as the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.

  

4.    Because of the “unprecedented difficult situation”  of Iceland the European Union promised to “continue to be involved and consulted”. Furthermore, the European Union as well as the United Kingdom and the Netherlands promised to provide necessary help “concerning financial assistance for Iceland, including the IMF.”  The exact wording of the Agreement is as follows:

  

The acceptance by all parties of this legal situation will allow for the expeditious finalization of negotiations underway concerning financial assistance for Iceland, including the IMF. These negotiations shall be conducted in a coordinated and consistent way, and shall take into account the “unprecedented difficult situation” of Iceland and therefore the necessity of finding arrangements that allow Iceland to restore its financial system and its economy. The EU and the EEA Institutions will continue to be involved and consulted on this process.

  

5.    Further prove can be given, that the Brussels Agreement was of a high level political nature as well as constituting a legal document under Public International Law. We wish to advice, that on 05 December 2008 the Alþingi (Legislative Assembly of Iceland) passed a resolution based on the Brussels Agreement, stating Alþingi’s legal position towards the Icesave claims of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Furthermore, the financial arrangements made by Iceland at the end of the year 2008 with the International Monetary Fund were based on the Brussels Agreement. The fact that these important and high profile actions rest on the Brussels Agreement make it abundantly clear that the Agreement was far from being “purely of a political nature” , as your statement says.

   

6.    It can be firmly stated that the “general principles” of the European Court of Justice do not apply to the “unprecedented difficult situation” of Iceland. There exists no doubt that the Brussels Agreement proves that our cases against the United Kingdom and the Netherlands are worthy of deliberations by the European Court. One way or the other, our cases will be dealt with by the court.

  

Discretion of the European Court of Justice.

  

7.    We appreciate that you confirm our understanding, that the Icelandic state can on its own undertake action against the guilty states of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, under Article 259 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). This will undoubtedly be done, once the country is out of the current “unprecedented difficult situation”. In the meantime, we as individuals insist on freely exercising our human rights of having our three cases tried before the European Court of Justice and for that purpose refer to Article 258 of TFEU.

  

8.    The European Court of Justice has repeatedly expressed: “In accordance with its case-law, the Court may of its own motion examine whether the conditions laid down in Article 226 (169) EC for bringing an action for failure to fulfil obligations are satisfied.” Examples:

  

Case C-52/08 Commission v the Portugal [2011], paragraph 40: 

In accordance with its case-law, the Court may of its own motion examine whether the conditions laid down in Article 226 EC for bringing an action for failure to fulfil obligations are satisfied.

Case C-195/04  Commission v Republic of Finland [2007], paragraph 21:

However, the Court may of its own motion examine whether the conditions laid down in Article 226 EC for bringing an action for failure to fulfil obligations are satisfied.

Case C-98/04 Commission v United Kingdom [2006], paragraph 16:

It is appropriate at the outset to note that the Court may of its own motion examine the question whether the conditions laid down in Article 226 EC for the bringing of an action for failure to fulfil obligations are satisfied.

Case C-525/03 Commission v Italian Republic [2005], paragraph 8:

It is appropriate at the outset to emphasise that the Court may of its own motion examine the question whether the conditions laid down in Article 226 EC for the bringing of an action for failure to fulfil obligations are satisfied.

Case C-417/02 Commission v Greece [2004], paragraph 16:

In accordance with its case-law, the Court may of its own motion examine the question whether the conditions laid down in Article 226 EC for the bringing of an action for failure to fulfil obligations are satisfied.

Case C-439/99 Commission v Italy [2002], paragraph 8:

It should be noted at the outset that the Court may consider of its own motion whether the conditions laid down in Article 226 EC for an action for failure to fulfil obligations to be brought are satisfied.

Case C-362/90 Commission v Italy [1992], paragraph 8: 

As a preliminary point, it should be noted that the fact that the Italian Government formally pleaded the inadmissibility of the action only in its rejoinder cannot prevent the Court from examining this issue. The arguments relied upon in that respect by the Italian Government had already been submitted in its defence, in which it had formally contended that the action be dismissed. The Commission therefore had the opportunity to answer those arguments in its reply. Furthermore, and in any event, the Court may of its own motion examine the question whether the conditions laid down in Article 169 of the Treaty for the bringing of an action for failure to fulfil an obligation are satisfied. 

   

 9. (a) Liability claims against the United Kingdom and the Netherlands will arise from the breaches of these states against Iceland.                                                                 The enormous damage done to Iceland by the United Kingdom and the Netherlands is in the order of IKR.10.000.000.000.000. This equals about EUR.200.000 per person living in Iceland. One of the consequences of the crimes done by the United Kingdom and the Netherlands is massive emigration from Iceland. Since 2008, yearly emigration from Iceland equals all births in the country. This would equal 10.000.000 people emigrating from the European Union over a three years period.

                 

10. (b) The affected European Community rules involved in our cases are very important.                                                                                                                             The accused states breached Iceland’s sovereignty, infringed the EEA Agreement, violated international human rights, broke an EU agreement with Iceland (Brussels Agreement) and waged an economic warfare against a NATO founding member. If this list of crimes is not enough for deliberations by the European Court of Justice, the Court should be abolished immediately.

  

11.(c) A ruling by the European Court of Justice, against the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, will serve as a preventive measure of repeated occurrence.                                                                                                                               These states will continue their colonial behaviour unless they receive the punishment which they deserve for their grave infringements of human rights. These states have for hundreds of years used force against Iceland, not to mention all other peoples which they have harassed. If these powers are not stopped they will be encouraged by the leniency.

  

Concluding remarks.

  

12.In view of the proofs that we have provided, it should not be too difficult for the Commission to do a genuine investigation of our cases against the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. We refer to our previous letters, whose content does not need to be repeated. We remind that if the Commission is not convinced of the atrocities committed by the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, it should consult with the official sources in Iceland, mentioned previously.

   

13. Summing up our arguments, we accuse the United Kingdom and the Netherlands of:   

• having breached Iceland’s sovereignty,
• infringed the EEA Agreement,
• violated international human rights,
• broken an EU agreement with Iceland and
• waged an economic warfare against Iceland - a NATO founding member.

Refusing to acknowledge these facts will only add to the widespread disillusion amongst the people of Europe about the future of the European Union.                        
 

  

 

Citizens of Iceland.

 Sincerely.

 

Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson                      Pétur Valdimarsson
 Laugarásvegur 4                                    Lækjarhvammur 20  
104 Reykjavík                                         220 Hafnarfjörður    
       Iceland                                                    Iceland                            

   

 _____________________________________________________________________
    Skrásett heimilisfang: Laugarásvegur 4, 104 Reykjavík   -   Netföng: [e-mail] / [e-mail]
______________________________________________________________________

   

 

 

 

    

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate General Internal Market and Services

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Financial Stability
Head ofUnit



 

  

Brussels, 24/11/2011
MARKT H4/SS/ms Ares (2011)s - 1367350

 

Mr. Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson
Mr. Petur Valdimarsson
Laugarásvegur 4
104 REYKJAVIK
Iceland
E-mail: [e-mail]

 
Subject: Complaint Nr. CHAP(2011) 2011 related to alleged breaches of
               the EEA Agreement by the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.

 

  

Dear Sirs,

  

I refer to your complaint Nr. CHAP(2011)2011 concerning alleged breaches of the EEA Agreement by the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.

  

We have carefully examined the additional information provided in your second letter of 25 September 2011. However, our conclusion regarding the requested opening of an infringement procedure remains unchanged. In the Commission's view the information you provided does not show any infringement of EU law and does not justify the commencement of a procedure in European Court of Justice ("ECJ").

  

In the first place, we would like to stress that the Court of Justice has clarified that the action under Article 265 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union cannot be exercised by individuals against the failure of the Commission to initiate infringement proceedings in accordance with Article 258 of the Treaty (1). In addition, according to Article 258 of the Treaty and the jurisprudence of the EJC (2) the question of whether to bring an action against a Member state is in the "entire discretion" of the Commission. In light of such broad discretion, be advised that the ECJ has consistently refused (3) actions against the Commission for declining to commence an infringement procedure on the basis of a private complaint (Article 265 TFEU).   

  

Our analysis of your additional information based on the relevant EEA and EU law provisions, is the following.

   

a)    General.

  

In relation to the Agreement of the 14 November 2008 that you mention, we would like to point out that this agreement is purely of a political nature and has no legal effect. Therefore, the Commission cannot take it into account in the analysis of your complaint.

  

We underline once more that the ECJ has clarified that the existence of an infringement must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion. (4) It is therefore outside the Commission's remit to verify a situation that no longer exists.

  

We acknowledge the jurisprudential development of exceptions to this "general principle" that you address in your letter. We would point out however that there is no proof that any of the exceptions would apply in this case. In particular, there is no evidence that either the Freezing Order of 2008 revoked by the British authorities in June 2009 or the rulings of the Amsterdam District Court of 13 October 2008 continue to produce effects and that any liability claims against these Member States can arise from the alleged breaches. Specifically, we are not aware that the Icelandic authorities governing the Landsbanki Islands winding-up proceedings encounter any difficulty in exercising their rights under the Winding Up Directive 2001/24/EC with respect to the bank branches in London and Amsterdam. On the contrary, we have recently noticed an announcement from Landsbanki Islands stating that the recovery process and the sale of the estate assets are successfully proceeding (5).

   

b)    Landsbanki Freezing Order.

  

As indicated in our letter of 27 July 2011, the Landsbanki Freezing Order 2008 of the UK Treasury was revoked by Statutory Instrument 2009 N. 1392 of 10th June 2009 and any potential incompatibility of its provisions with EEA or EU law has thus been eliminated. With regards to this point, your argumentation in the additional letter is based exclusively on the premise that the UK has wrongfully used the term "terrorism" and its derivatives in applying it to Iceland and Landsbanki. We stress that this in itself, even if assumed to be true, does not lead to violation of the Directive 2001/24/EC or any other EEA or EU law. Consequently, the Commission cannot conduct any legal proceedings against the UK authorities in relation to this Order.

   

c)    Dutch Court rulings.

  

As explained in our previous letter, it is the Commission's conclusion that the rulings of Dutch Courts and the information provided by you do not indicate a violation of the principle of equivalence or principle of effectiveness that would require the matter to be brought before the ECJ. Your second letter does not provide any additional relevant information that would require further elaboration of our previous conclusions. We therefore confirm that the action by the Dutch authorities does not indicate any infringement of EU law and can therefore not lead to opening of an infringement procedure.

   

d)    FSA Supervisory Notices.

  

With regards to the FSA Supervisory notices of October 3rd, 6th and 10th, we agree that the first two notices were rescinded by the Notice of Rescission of 20 July 2010. For the reasons elaborated above we conclude that any potential incompatibility of these notices with EU law has been eliminated and cannot lead to opening an infringement procedure.

     

We fully agree that the Notice of Rescission has expressly left in effect the requirements of the third Supervisory Notice dated 10 October 2008. However, the content of this Notice requires Landsbanki to take certain precautionary measures in consequence of their breach of liquidity requirements. Specifically, these requirements are to "preserve all information and documents", "deal in an open and cooperative way with the [Financial Services Compensation] Scheme" and to "take reasonable steps to ensure that its agents /.../ preserve such information". In our view, these obligations are in no way contrary to the provisions of the Directive 2001/24/EC which relate to the reorganisation process and measures and the opening and winding-up proceedings. On the contrary, these requirements imposed by host Member State (UK) guarantee that potential future decisions of the home Member State (Iceland) will be recognized and given effect in the host Member State as requested by Directive 2001/24/EC (Article 9).

  

There is no assertion or evidence that these requirements prevent Landsbanki from accessing its assets in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, since the United Kingdom had decided to compensate British depositors of Landsbanki through its own deposit guarantee scheme, it is only natural that it needed to take reasonable measures to ascertain the amount of these deposits which it did in part through the third Supervisory Notice. In our view, such proceeding has not violated any provision of the Directive. Moreover, the Commission has found no other EEA or EU law potentially being infringed by the mentioned notice.

  

In view of the above, we confirm that the examination of your complaint does not show any infringement of EU law by the British or Dutch authorities and will therefore not lead to opening infringement proceedings. Should you have further elements that might show the existence of an infringement, we would ask you to provide us with these elements within four weeks of the receipt of this letter. In the absence of such elements, your complaint will be closed within this deadline.

 

Yours faithfully, 

Nathalie de Basaldúa
 

(1) See case C-72/90 Order of the Court of 23 May 1990, Asia Motor France v Commission of the European Communities and case C- 247/90, Order of the Court of 7 November 1990. Maria-Theresia Emrich v Commission of the European Communities.

(2) Case 7/68 Commission v. Italy [1968] ECR423.

  

(3) E.g. case 247/87 Star Fruit Co. v. Commission [1987] ECR 291-302.

  

(4) See, inter alia judgements of 27 October 2005, Commission v. Italy, C-525/03, ECR1-9405, point 14, and of 6 December 2007, Commission/Germany, C-456/05, ECR 1-10517, point 15).

  

(5) News announcement from Landsbanki Islands hf. - Creditors meeting 17.11.2011.

             

  
 
Contact: Silvia Scatizzi, Telephone: [phone], [e-mail]

______________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

Samstaða þjóðar    NATIONAL UNITY COALITION                                                               Baráttusamtök fyrir fullveldisrétti almennings og sjálfstæði Íslands.    Stöndum vörð um Stjórnarskrá Lýðveldisins.

 

Commission of the European Union
Attention: Silvia Scatizzi
Rue de la Loi 200
B-1049 Brussels
BELGIUM                                                             Your: MARKT H4/SS/cr Ares (2011) 
 



                                                                                  Reykjavík, 25. September 2011  
 

Complaint No. CHAP(2011) 2011 to the Commission of the European Union.
 
In reference to the letter from the EU Commission dated 27^th July 2011, we wish to submit additional remarks regarding our complaint No. CHAP(2011) dated 25^th June 2011.
 
 
General remarks.

1.  The fierce economic attack by Britain and the Netherlands, starting in October 2008 and continuing for almost two years, is without any precedent. This fact was confirmed by the European Union during the French Presidency of the EU 1 July – 31 December 2008. An agreement to this effect was reached on 14^th November 2008 with Britain and the Netherlands, under leadership of the French finance minister Christine Lagarde. According to the agreement these states should »take into account the unprecedented difficult situation of Iceland and therefore the necessity of finding arrangements that allow Iceland to restore its financial system and its economy«.

  

2.  The EU Commission does not have authority to make judgement in the name of the European Court of Justice. Only the Court itself can decide if there can be found any settled cases which resemble the unprecedented situation of Iceland. This fact makes it necessary that the Court processes our complaint. The European Court of Justice has repeatedly expressed its dismay with untimely case rejections of the Commission.

  

3.  Article 232 of the EU Treaty states: »Any natural or legal person may, under the conditions laid down in the preceding paragraphs, complain to the Court of Justice that an institution of the Community has failed to address to that person any act other than a recommendation or an opinion.« Accordingly, if the Commission fails to address our complaint, we will take our cases direct to the European Court of Justice.

4. In its letter of 27.07.2011, the Commission states the finding that our »complaint does not show any infringement of EU law by the British or Dutch authorities and will therefore not lead to opening infringement proceedings«. This surprising conclusion seems to be partly based on a General Principle of the European Court of Justice. This General Principle can be stated thus: »the existence of an infringement must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion«.

  

5.  The Commission fails to mention that on several occasions the European Court of Justice has expressed Exceptions from the General Principle. These Exceptions specify that an infringement case is admissible and indeed desirable, independent of the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion, provided that one out of three conditions is fulfilled:

  

a)   The affected Community rules can be considered very important.
b)   Liability claims against the Member State can arise from the breach.
c)   The ECJ ruling can serve as a preventive measure of repeated occurrence.

   

6.  In the three cases where Britain and the Netherland infringed the jurisdiction of Iceland and breached the EEA agreement these conditions were clearly met. Not only was one of the conditions met but all three of them. Therefore it is in the interest of the future of European Union that the European Court of Justice finds our cases admissible and reaches a factual verdict. The Commission should not shy away from preparing the cases and bringing them to ruling of the Court.

 

  

Cross-border banking within the European Economic Area.  

  

7.  In cross-border banking within the European Economic Area, reorganisation and winding up of branches of credit institutions is under the jurisdiction of the home Member State. This is firmly established in Directive 2001/24/EC. Accordingly, reorganisation and winding up of Landsbanki branches in Britain and the Netherlands belonged to the jurisdiction of Iceland and not the host Member State jurisdiction. Directive 2001/24/EC states:

Article 3. Adoption of reorganisation measures - applicable law.
 
1. The administrative or judicial authorities of the home Member State shall alone be empowered to decide on the implementation of one or more reorganisation measures in a credit institution, including branches established in other Member States.
 
2. The reorganisation measures shall be applied in accordance with the laws, regulations and procedures applicable in the home Member State, unless otherwise provided in this Directive.
 

Article 9. Opening of winding-up proceedings - Information to be communicated to other competent authorities.
 
1. The administrative or judicial authorities of the home Member State which are responsible for winding up shall alone be empowered to decide on the opening of winding-up proceedings concerning a credit institution, including branches established in other Member States.
 
A decision to open winding-up proceedings taken by the administrative or judicial authority of the home Member State shall be recognised, without further formality, within the territory of all other Member States and shall be effective there when the decision is effective in the Member State in which the proceedings are opened.
 
Article 10. Law applicable.
 
1.  A credit institution shall be wound up in accordance with the laws, regulations and procedures applicable in its home Member State insofar as this Directive does not provide otherwise.  

  

8.  An infringement of EU law by authorities of Britain and the Netherlands is therefore obvious, since the jurisdiction of Iceland was breached by these states. We present three separate cases where the jurisdiction of Iceland was breached and consequently an infringement was done against EU law.

  

  

The FSA Supervisory Notices of October 2008. 

  

9. On October 3^rd, 6^th and 10^th of the year 2008, the Financial Supervisory Authority (FSA) in Britain issued Supervisory Notices (SN) which effectively put the London branch of Landsbanki into default administration. These Supervisory Notices infringed the jurisdiction of Iceland and were thus illegitimate. They thereby constituted a breach of existing rules of the treaty governing the European Economic Area.

  

10. On 20^th July 2010 the FSA rescinded the Supervisory Notices from October 3^rd and 6^th but that of 10^th October is still in force at this date. Therefore, the General Principle »the existence of an infringement must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion« does certainly not apply in this case. The breach by Britain of the jurisdiction of Iceland is still in existence and has not been amended.

  

  

The HM Treasury freezing orders of October 2008 against Iceland.

 

11. On October 8^th and 20^th of the year 2008, HM Treasury of Britain infringed the jurisdiction of Iceland, by issuing Orders called The Landsbanki Freezing Orders (S.I.2008/2668 and S.I.2008/2766) The freezing orders were directed towards:
 
(a) Landsbanki Íslands,
(b) Landsbanki Receivership Committee,
(c) Central Bank of Iceland,
(d) Icelandic Financial Services Authority,
(e) Government of Iceland.  
 
The freezing orders were of such enormity that they were directed against the whole Icelandic state and thus the entire Icelandic people. 

  

12. The Freezing orders were based on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which is a law established in wake of the terror attacks on 11^th September 2001 (9/11 attacks) against the United States of America. This law is explicitly intended to combat crimes of major proportions against the United Kingdom and specifically to meet the threat of terrorism. A dispute of commercial nature with a single bank does certainly not constitute a threat to be fought off by the use of anti-terrorism legislature. The Freezing Orders were in force until 15^th June 2009, or in more than 8 months. 

  

13.The United Nations General Assembly has since 1994 used following political description of terrorism: 
 
»Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.«
 
This description of terrorism hardly fits any of the institutions hit by the wrath of HM Treasury.

  

14. Reference is made to the European Council’s Framework Decision of 13^th June 2002 on combating terrorism (3), which defines terrorism as described in following points:
 
(a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;
(b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
(c) kidnapping or hostage taking;
(d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;
(e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;
(f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;
(g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, floods or explosions the effect of which is to endanger human life;
(h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource the effect of which is to endanger human life;
(i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed in (a) to (h). 

 

15. One must stretch the imagination very far in order to reconcile the HM Treasury’s view of terrorism with any accepted definitions. Indeed, we maintain that Britain’s decision to brand the Icelandic institutions as seats of terrorism is pure fabrication. It is clearly a violation of internationally accepted human rights and comes nowhere close to internationally accepted definitions of terrorism. The application of Anti-terrorism law by one state of the European Economic Area against another state of EEA, can not be ignored but must be thoroughly investigated by the European Court of Justice.

    

  

Netherlands’ infringement of the jurisdiction of Iceland. 

  

16. On 13^th October 2008 the Amsterdam District Court (Rechtbank Amsterdam) declared emergency regulations applicable to the Dutch branch of Landsbanki. This was done at the request of the Dutch Central Bank (De Nederlandsche Bank) and the ruling was based on Dutch law. The court appointed administrators to handle the affairs of the branch, including all assets and dealings with customers. These rulings infringed the jurisdiction of Iceland and were thus a breach of Directive 2001/24/EC. 

  

17. The illegal administrative proceedings of the Amsterdam Court continued for 18 months, or from October 13^th 2008 until 13^th March 2010 when the Amsterdam District Court finally decided to lift the emergency application. It took the court this long to discover that the banking license of Landsbanki had not been revoked and that the basis for its ruling was non-existent. It is still to be determined if the ruling was caused by incompetence or deliberate infringement of the jurisdiction of Iceland.

     

  

Concluding remarks.  

  

18. We have shown that Britain and the Netherlands infringed the jurisdiction of Iceland and thus dishonoured Directive 2001/24/EC. These states breached the EEA principles of “free movement of capital” and “the freedom to provide services”. The breach by Britain of the jurisdiction of Iceland is still in existence and has not been amended. 

  

19. We furthermore maintain that the Netherlands took part with Britain in a conspiracy to deny Iceland access to international financial markets. It is documented that these states have used their access to the International Monetary Fund and the European Investment Bank to illegally deny Iceland financial loans and economic advice. These actions are additional breaches of the EEA principles.

  

20. We have pointed out that the European Court of Justice is not only concerned with implementation of EU regulations, but is also occupied with basic principles which manifest themselves in following three situations: 
 
  The affected Community rules can be considered very important.
  Liability claims against the Member State can arise from the breach.
  The ECJ ruling can serve as a preventive measure of repeated occurrence. 

  

21. The use by Britain of a law called the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, against interests of all citizens of Iceland must be investigated by a competent court of law. The European Court of Justice will surely appreciate the opportunity to rule on the legality of such a grievous act by a member state of the European Union. 

  

22. This letter is an addition to our earlier complaint to the Commission, dated 25 June 2011. As stated in our previous letter, we offer our full cooperation with the Commission in order to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion. We stress the importance of our complaint to all the citizens of Europe. 

                                    Citizens of Iceland.
 
                                         Sincerely.  

  

       Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson                      Pétur Valdimarsson
       Laugarásvegur 4                                    Lækjarhvammur 20
       104 Reykjavík                                        220 Hafnarfjörður
       Iceland                                                   Iceland

 _____________________________________________________________________
    Skrásett heimilisfang: Laugarásvegur 4, 104 Reykjavík   -   Netföng: [e-mail] / [e-mail]

 

 

              

 

    

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate General Internal Market and Services

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Financial Stability
Head ofUnit



 

 

Brussels, 27/07/2011
MARKT H4/SS/cr Ares (2011)

 

Mr. Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson
Mr. Petur Valdimarsson
Laugarásvegur 4
104 REYKJAVIK
Iceland
E-mail: [e-mail]

 
Subject: Complaint Nr. CHAP(2011) 2011 related to alleged breaches of
               the EEA Agreement by the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.
 

Dear Sirs,
 
I refer to your complaint Nr. CHAP(2011)2011 concerning alleged breaches of the EEA Agreement by the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.
 
We have carefully examined the information provided in your letter of 25 June 2011. Our analysis of your complaint based on the relevant EEA and EU law provisions, is the following.
 
The Landsbanki Freezing Order 2008 of the UK Treasury was revoked by Statutory Instrument 2009 N. 1392 of 10th June 2009. Since the contested order has been repealed, any potential incompatibility of its provisions with EEA or EU law has been eliminated. As a consequence, the Commission cannot conduct any legal proceedings against the UK authorities in relation to this Order.
 
It's important to recall that according to settled case- law of the Court of Justice, the Commission, in exercising its powers of monitoring compliance with EU law, has the function, in the general interest of the Union, of ensuring that the Member States give effect to the Treaty and the provisions adopted by the institutions and of obtaining a declaration, of any failure to fulfil the obligations deriving therefrom with a view to bringing it to an end. The Court has thus clarified that the existence of an infringement must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (see, inter alia judgements of 27 October 2005, Commission/Italy, C-525/03, ECR 1-9405, point 14, and of 6 December 2007, Commission/Germany, C-456/05, ECR 1-10517, point 15). It is therefore outside the Commission's remit to verify a situation that does no longer exist.
 
As regards the ruling of the Amsterdam District Court referred by you, we would point out that according to settled-case law, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to designate the courts and tribunals having jurisdiction and to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive from EU law, provided, first, that such rules are not less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence) and, secondly, that they do not render virtually impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Community law (principle of effectiveness) (see case C 129/00 Commission /Italy, ECR 1-14637, point 25). The information provide by you do not show any violation of these principles in connection with the ruling of the Amsterdam Court quoted by you.
 
In view of the above, we regret to inform you that the examination of your complaint does not show any infringement of EU law by the British or Dutch authorities and will therefore not lead to opening infringement proceedings. Should you have further elements that might show the existence of an infringement, we would ask you to provide us with these elements within two months of the receipt of the present letter. In the absence of such elements, your complaint will be closed within this deadline.
 

Yours sincerely,
 
Silvia SCATIZZI

  
 
Contact: Silvia Scatizzi, Telephone: [phone], [e-mail]

______________________________________________________________________

                                    
 

 

 

 

Samstaða þjóðar    NATIONAL UNITY COALITION                                                               Baráttusamtök fyrir fullveldisrétti almennings og sjálfstæði Íslands.    Stöndum vörð um Stjórnarskrá Lýðveldisins.

 

Commission of the European Union
(Attn: Secretary-General)
Rue de la Loi 200B-1049
Brussels
BELGIUM 
 

                                                                                             Reykjavík, 25. June 2011


    
Inquiry and preliminary complaint:
  
Regards the EU Commission’s responsibility to investigate and process a complaint directed at Britain’s and the Netherland’s breach of the EEA principles of “free movement of capital” and “the freedom to provide services”.
 
1.    According to the EEA Agreement, “free movement of capital” and “freedom to provide services” are fundamental rights granted to all citizens of the EEA states.
 
2.    According to Article 109(1-5) of the EEA Agreement, the EU Commission has the obligation to monitor the fulfilment of the agreement by EU states. Complaints regarding the performance of EU states shall be directed to the EU Commission and shall be examined by the EU Commission and brought before the European Court of Justice.
      
3.    We citizens of Lýðveldið Ísland are of the opinion that Britain and the Netherlands have breached these aforementioned fundamental rights of the EEA Agreement by their actions directed at Icelandic interests, starting in the autumn of 2008.
 
4.    On 8^th October 2008, the British Government issued Order No.2668, called The Landsbanki Freezing Order 2008. The order was based on a law against terrorism and is called Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.

5.    The freezing order was of such enormity that it was in fact directed against the whole Icelandic state and thus the entire Icelandic people. Following parties were specified as terrorists by the Freezing Order:
  
(a) Landsbanki Íslands,
(b) Landsbanki Receivership Committee,
(c) Central Bank of Iceland,
(d) Icelandic Financial Services Authority,
(e) Government of Iceland.

6.    We maintain that besides breaching the EES Agreement, Britain is guilty of infringement of Icelandic jurisdiction, illegal economic coercion, illegal use of anti-terror legislation and violation of human rights. We furthermore maintain that Britain took part with the Netherlands in a conspiracy to deny Iceland access to international financial markets.
 
7.    We remind of the British military occupation of Iceland during 10^th May 1940 – 7^th July 1941. We also remind of the Cod Wars which Britain has regularly waged against Iceland. As a matter of fact, throughout the history of Iceland, Britain has frequently used forceful means to further its interests against Iceland, a nation which never has had any military defences.
 
8.    On 13^th October 2008 the Amsterdam District Court (Rechtbank Amsterdam) ruled that since the Dutch branch of Landsbanki was without banking authorization it should be put under the administration of De Nederlansche Bank, which is the central bank of the Netherlands. The duration of the administration was decided to be 18 months.
 
9.    On 8^th March 2010 the Amsterdam District Court dismissed an application by the DNB administrators of the Landsbanki branch to extend the term of administration. As a result, the regulations ceased to apply on March 13^th 2010. It took the court 18 months to discover that the banking license of Landsbanki had not been revoked. The proclamations to this effect by DNB had been proven lies and Landsbanki had in fact held a banking license from 1886.
     
10.We maintain that the decision of the Amsterdam District Court on 13^th October 2008 constituted an infringement of the jurisdiction of Iceland. As a consequence authorities in the Netherlands breached the EEA principles of “free movement of capital” and “the freedom to provide services”.
     
11.We furthermore maintain that the Netherlands took part with Britain in a conspiracy to deny Iceland access to international financial markets. It is documented that these states have used their access to the International Monetary Fund and the European Investment Bank to illegally deny Iceland financial loans and economic advice. These actions are additional breaches of the EEA principles.

We ask the EU Commission to consider our Inquiry and preliminary complaint concerning the illegal behaviour of Britain and the Netherlands against the Icelandic people. We have avoided detailing our accusations and forwarded only a few references to EEA laws and regulations. We consider the Commission capable of providing the legal references. However, if required we would be happy to provide a more detailed complaint.
 
Besides asking the Commission to undertake an investigation of our cases against Britain and the Netherlands, we also ask the Commission to prosecute these cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union. As with the investigation, we are more than willing to cooperate with the Commission in this respect.
 


                                               Citizens of Iceland.
 
                                                       Sincerely.


        Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson                       Pétur Valdimarsson
        Laugarásvegur 4                                     Lækjarhvammur 20
        104 Reykjavík                                          220 Hafnarfjörður
        Iceland                                                     Iceland 
 

 _____________________________________________________________________
    Skrásett heimilisfang: Laugarásvegur 4, 104 Reykjavík   -   Netföng: [e-mail] / [e-mail]

 

Third letter of complaint to the Commission of the European Union

 

 

Samstaða þjóðar    NATIONAL UNITY COALITION                                                               Baráttusamtök fyrir sjálfstæðu ríki á Íslandi    og fullveldisréttindum almennings.    Stöndum vörð um Stjórnarskrá Lýðveldisins.

  

Commission of the European Union
Attention: Silvia Scatizzi
Rue de la Loi 200
B-1049 Brussels
BELGIUM                                        

Your: MARKT H4/SS/ms Ares(2011)s- 1367350
  
                                                                                    Reykjavík, 18. December 2011 

Third letter of complaint to the Commission of the European Union, concerning breaches of the EEA Agreement by the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Complaint No. CHAP(2011) 2011.

  

Dear Ms. Nathalie de Basaldúa.

  

We wish to thank for the letter from the EU Commission dated 24^th November 2011. Having carefully examined your arguments on behalf of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, we wish to submit following additional remarks regarding our complaint.

  

1.    We understand the political motivation behind your arguments, leading to refusal to acknowledge that the accused states breached Iceland’s sovereignty, infringed the EEA Agreement, violated international human rights, broke an EU agreement with Iceland and waged an economic warfare against a NATO founding member.

   

The Brussels Agreement from 14 November 2008.

  

2.    The Brussels Agreement between Iceland and the European Union is a legally valid document, done on a ministerial level. You are right that the Agreement is of a high level “political nature” which just makes its content more important and completely undisputable. The document is an International Agreement done in accordance with Public International Law.

  

3.    The Commission has not produced any evidence which should hinder the European Court of Justice to acknowledge the factual importance of the Brussels Agreement. The Agreement proves that all parties involved accepted that Iceland’s “unprecedented difficult situation” called for unprecedented assistance by the European Union, as well as the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.

  

4.    Because of the “unprecedented difficult situation”  of Iceland the European Union promised to “continue to be involved and consulted”. Furthermore, the European Union as well as the United Kingdom and the Netherlands promised to provide necessary help “concerning financial assistance for Iceland, including the IMF.”  The exact wording of the Agreement is as follows:

  

The acceptance by all parties of this legal situation will allow for the expeditious finalization of negotiations underway concerning financial assistance for Iceland, including the IMF. These negotiations shall be conducted in a coordinated and consistent way, and shall take into account the “unprecedented difficult situation” of Iceland and therefore the necessity of finding arrangements that allow Iceland to restore its financial system and its economy. The EU and the EEA Institutions will continue to be involved and consulted on this process.

  

5.    Further prove can be given, that the Brussels Agreement was of a high level political nature as well as constituting a legal document under Public International Law. We wish to advice, that on 05 December 2008 the Alþingi (Legislative Assembly of Iceland) passed a resolution based on the Brussels Agreement, stating Alþingi’s legal position towards the Icesave claims of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Furthermore, the financial arrangements made by Iceland at the end of the year 2008 with the International Monetary Fund were based on the Brussels Agreement. The fact that these important and high profile actions rest on the Brussels Agreement make it abundantly clear that the Agreement was far from being “purely of a political nature” , as your statement says.

   

6.    It can be firmly stated that the “general principles” of the European Court of Justice do not apply to the “unprecedented difficult situation” of Iceland. There exists no doubt that the Brussels Agreement proves that our cases against the United Kingdom and the Netherlands are worthy of deliberations by the European Court. One way or the other, our cases will be dealt with by the court.

  

Discretion of the European Court of Justice.

  

7.    We appreciate that you confirm our understanding, that the Icelandic state can on its own undertake action against the guilty states of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, under Article 259 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). This will undoubtedly be done, once the country is out of the current “unprecedented difficult situation”. In the meantime, we as individuals insist on freely exercising our human rights of having our three cases tried before the European Court of Justice and for that purpose refer to Article 258 of TFEU.

  

8.    The European Court of Justice has repeatedly expressed: “In accordance with its case-law, the Court may of its own motion examine whether the conditions laid down in Article 226 (169) EC for bringing an action for failure to fulfil obligations are satisfied.” Examples:

  

Case C-52/08 Commission v the Portugal [2011], paragraph 40: 

In accordance with its case-law, the Court may of its own motion examine whether the conditions laid down in Article 226 EC for bringing an action for failure to fulfil obligations are satisfied.

Case C-195/04  Commission v Republic of Finland [2007], paragraph 21:

However, the Court may of its own motion examine whether the conditions laid down in Article 226 EC for bringing an action for failure to fulfil obligations are satisfied.

Case C-98/04 Commission v United Kingdom [2006], paragraph 16:

It is appropriate at the outset to note that the Court may of its own motion examine the question whether the conditions laid down in Article 226 EC for the bringing of an action for failure to fulfil obligations are satisfied.

Case C-525/03 Commission v Italian Republic [2005], paragraph 8:

It is appropriate at the outset to emphasise that the Court may of its own motion examine the question whether the conditions laid down in Article 226 EC for the bringing of an action for failure to fulfil obligations are satisfied.

Case C-417/02 Commission v Greece [2004], paragraph 16:

In accordance with its case-law, the Court may of its own motion examine the question whether the conditions laid down in Article 226 EC for the bringing of an action for failure to fulfil obligations are satisfied.

Case C-439/99 Commission v Italy [2002], paragraph 8:

It should be noted at the outset that the Court may consider of its own motion whether the conditions laid down in Article 226 EC for an action for failure to fulfil obligations to be brought are satisfied.

Case C-362/90 Commission v Italy [1992], paragraph 8: 

As a preliminary point, it should be noted that the fact that the Italian Government formally pleaded the inadmissibility of the action only in its rejoinder cannot prevent the Court from examining this issue. The arguments relied upon in that respect by the Italian Government had already been submitted in its defence, in which it had formally contended that the action be dismissed. The Commission therefore had the opportunity to answer those arguments in its reply. Furthermore, and in any event, the Court may of its own motion examine the question whether the conditions laid down in Article 169 of the Treaty for the bringing of an action for failure to fulfil an obligation are satisfied. 

   

 9. (a) Liability claims against the United Kingdom and the Netherlands will arise from the breaches of these states against Iceland.                                                                 The enormous damage done to Iceland by the United Kingdom and the Netherlands is in the order of IKR.10.000.000.000.000. This equals about EUR.200.000 per person living in Iceland. One of the consequences of the crimes done by the United Kingdom and the Netherlands is massive emigration from Iceland. Since 2008, yearly emigration from Iceland equals all births in the country. This would equal 10.000.000 people emigrating from the European Union over a three years period.

                 

10. (b) The affected European Community rules involved in our cases are very important.                                                                                                                             The accused states breached Iceland’s sovereignty, infringed the EEA Agreement, violated international human rights, broke an EU agreement with Iceland (Brussels Agreement) and waged an economic warfare against a NATO founding member. If this list of crimes is not enough for deliberations by the European Court of Justice, the Court should be abolished immediately.

  

11.(c) A ruling by the European Court of Justice, against the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, will serve as a preventive measure of repeated occurrence.                                                                                                                               These states will continue their colonial behaviour unless they receive the punishment which they deserve for their grave infringements of human rights. These states have for hundreds of years used force against Iceland, not to mention all other peoples which they have harassed. If these powers are not stopped they will be encouraged by the leniency.

  

Concluding remarks.

  

12.In view of the proofs that we have provided, it should not be too difficult for the Commission to do a genuine investigation of our cases against the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. We refer to our previous letters, whose content does not need to be repeated. We remind that if the Commission is not convinced of the atrocities committed by the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, it should consult with the official sources in Iceland, mentioned previously.

   

13. Summing up our arguments, we accuse the United Kingdom and the Netherlands of:   

• having breached Iceland’s sovereignty,
• infringed the EEA Agreement,
• violated international human rights,
• broken an EU agreement with Iceland and
• waged an economic warfare against Iceland - a NATO founding member.

Refusing to acknowledge these facts will only add to the widespread disillusion amongst the people of Europe about the future of the European Union.                        
 

  

 

Citizens of Iceland.

 Sincerely.

 

Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson                      Pétur Valdimarsson
 Laugarásvegur 4                                    Lækjarhvammur 20  
104 Reykjavík                                         220 Hafnarfjörður    
       Iceland                                                    Iceland                            

   

 _____________________________________________________________________
    Skrásett heimilisfang: Laugarásvegur 4, 104 Reykjavík   -   Netföng: [e-mail] / [e-mail]
______________________________________________________________________

   

Tilraun stórveldis til ævarandi yfirráða yfir Íslandi – fyrir 100 árum !

 

 

Samstaða þjóðar    NATIONAL UNITY COALITION                                                               Baráttusamtök fyrir sjálfstæðu ríki á Íslandi    og fullveldisréttindum almennings.    Stöndum vörð um Stjórnarskrá Lýðveldisins.

                           Áskorun til forseta Íslands

  

   

    

Tilraun stórveldis til ævarandi yfirráða yfir Íslandi - fyrir 100 árum !  

   

    

    

Þegar Friðrik VIII Danakonungur kom til Íslands 1907 skipaði hann valdamenn í nefnd til að semja sambandslög, sem tryggja myndu völd Danmerkur til frambúðar yfir Íslandi. Sambandsnefndin var skipuð þingmönnum beggja landa og skilaði 14. maí 1908 uppkasti að lögum um ríkisréttar-samband Danmerkur og Íslands. Almennt gengur þessi tillaga undir nafninu Uppkastið.

  

 Sambandslaganefndin 1907 – 1908.

Úr Heimastjórnarflokknum:      Jón Magnússon 1859-1926  Lárus H. Bjarnason 1866-1934 Steingrímur Jónsson 1867–1956 Hannes Þórður Hafstein 1861-1922     Úr Þjóðræðisflokknum: Jóhannes Jóhannesson 1866-­1950 Stefán Jóhann Stefánsson 1863­-1921 Skúli Thoroddsen 1859-1916.

Danir:   Jens Christian Christensen 1856-1930 Niels Andreas Christian Andersen 1849-1919  August Herman F.C. Goos 1835-1917 Hans Nicolai Hansen 1835-1910 Peter Christian Knudsen 1848-1910 Christopher Krabbe 1833-1913 Niels Peter Madsen-Mygdal 1835-1913 Henning Matzen 1840-1910 Niels Thomasius Neergaard 1854-1936 Anders Nielsen 1862-1914 Anders Thomsen 1842-1920 Niels Kristian Johansen 1850-1915

 

 

Um Uppkastið var fullkomin samstaða innan Sambandsnefndarinnar, nema hvað Skúli Thoroddsen hafnaði því alfarið. Fulltrúar Íslendinga þóttust hafa sýnt mikla snilld við samningana og náð glæsilegum árangri, með því að samþykkja að grundvallaratriði samningsins yrðu óuppsegjanleg. Þar með yrði tryggt að yfirráð Danmerkur yrðu ævarandi, nema til kæmi vopnuð uppreisn gegn hinu erlenda stórveldi.

  

Þegar Uppkastið var birt Íslendingum kom í ljós eindregin andstaða landsmanna. Kjölturökkum Danaveldis tókst ekki að telja Íslendingum trú um að Uppkastið væri glæsilegt samkomulag. Stuðningsmönnum Uppkastsins var hafnað í Alþingiskosningum haustið 1908, með afgerandi hætti. Nær 60% kjósenda kusu frambjóðendur sem höfnuðu Uppkastinu. Af 34 þjóðkjörnum þingmönnum á Alþingi voru 24 andvígir Uppkastinu eftir kosningar. Þegar þing kom saman samþykkti það vantraust á Hannes Hafstein ráðherra konungs og völdu sinn eigin ráðherra, Björn Jónsson ritstjóra.

  

Hefur nokkuð breytst á 100 árum ? Koma ekki Icesave-samningarnir upp í huga lesenda ? Ennþá eru kjölturakkar erlends valds að störfum við valdastofnanir landsins. Ennþá gerir þetta fólk “glæsilega samninga” fyrir hönd þjóðarinnar, en almenningur afþakkar við fyrsta tækifæri. Mikinn lærdóm má draga af gerð Uppkastsins og þeim móttökum sem það fekk hjá þjóðinni. Hættum samningagerð við Evrópusambandið um innlimum landsins og drögum okkur út úr Evrópska efnahagssvæðinu.

  

Raunar er Evrópusambandið búið að segja upp samningnum um EES, með því að neita Íslandi um að reka sín mál gegn nýlenduveldunum fyrir Evrópudómstólnum. Réttarfarslegar stoðir Evrópska efnahagssvæðisins eru brostnar. Þar að auki hefur utanríkisráðherra landsins Össur Skarphéðinsson gefið yfirlýsingu um að Stjórnarskráin sé daglega brotin með EES-samningnum. Ráðherranum er sjálfsagt ljóst að brot á Stjórnarskránni eru landráð. Samningurinn um Evrópska efnahagssvæðið er ekki lengur í gildi. Um samskipti Íslands og Evrópusambandsins gildir því fríverzlunarsamningur landanna, frá 1972.

   

Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson.

   

---<<<>>>------<<<>>>------<<<>>>------<<<>>>------<<<>>>------<<<>>>------<<<>>>---

 

Uppkastið Millilandanefndin fyrri

 

 

Þetta uppkast að nýjum lögum um samband Íslands og Danmerkur

var sent með símskeyti til íslendskra dagblaða (blaðskeytasambandinu) 14. maí 1908.

Sama dag var eftirfarandi íslendsk þýðing birt í Lögréttu.

  

Uppkast að lögum

  

um

  

ríkisréttarsamband Danmerkur og Íslands.

  

14. maí 1908.

 

1. gr. Ísland er frjálst og sjálfstætt land, er eigi verður af hendi látið. Það er í sambandi við Danmörku um einn og sama konung og þau mál, er báðir aðilar hafa orðið ásáttir um, að telja sameiginleg í lögum þessum. Danmörk og Ísland eru því í ríkjasambandi, er nefnist: Veldi Danakonungs. Í heiti konungs komi eftir orðið Danmerkur: og Íslands. 

2. gr. Skipun sú er gildir í Danmörku um ríkiserfðir, rjett konungs til að hafa stjórn á hendi í öðrum löndum, trúarbrögð konungs, myndugleika hans og um ríkisstjórn, er konungur er ófullveðja, sjúkur, eða fjarstaddur, svo og um það, er konungdómurinn er laus og enginn ríkisarfi til, skal einnig gilda að því er til Íslands kemur. 

3. gr. Þessi eru sameiginleg mál Danmerkur og Íslands:

 

I. Konungsmata, borðfje ættmanna konungs og önnur gjöld til konungsættarinnar.

 

II. Utanríkismálefni. Enginn þjóðasamningur, er snertir Ísland sjerstaklega, skal þó gildur fyrir Ísland, nema rjett stjórnvöld íslendsk samþykki.

 

III. Hervarnir á sjó og landi ásamt gunnfána, sbr. þó 57. gr. stjórnarskrárinnar 5. jan. 1874.

 

IV. Gæsla fiskveiðarjettar þegnanna, að óskertum rétti Íslands til að auka eftirlit með fiskiveiðum við Ísland, eftir samkomulagi við Danmörku.

 

V. Fæðingarrjettur. Löggjafarvald hvors landsins um sig getur þó veitt fæðingarrjett með lögum og nær hann þá til beggja landa.

 

VI. Peningaslátta.

 

VII. Hæstirjettur. Þegar gerð verður breyting á dómaskipun landsins, getur löggjafarvald Íslands sett á stofn innanlands æðsta dóm í íslendskum málum. Meðan sú breyting er eigi gerð, skal þess gætt, er sæti losnar í hæstarjetti, að skipaður sje þar maður, er hafi sjerþekkingu á íslenskri löggjöf og kunnugur sje íslendskum högum.

 

VIII. Kaupfáninn út á við.

 

4. gr. Öðrum málefnum, sem taka bæði til Danmerkur og Íslands, svo sem póstsambandið og ritsímasambandið milli landanna, ráða dönsk og íslendsk stjórnarvöld í sameiningu. Sje um löggjafarmál að ræða, þá gera löggjafarvöld beggja landa út um málið. 

5. gr. Danir og Íslendingar á Íslandi og Íslendingar og Danir í Danmörku njóta fulls jafnrjettis. Þó skulu forrjettindi íslendskra námsmanna til hlunninda við Kaupmannahafnar háskóla óbreytt. Svo skulu og heimilisfastir Íslendingar á Íslandi hjer eftir sem hingað til vera undanþegnir herþjónustu á sjó og landi. Um fiskiveiðar í landhelgi við Danmörku og Ísland skulu Danir og Íslendingar jafn rjettháir meðan 4. atr. 3. gr. er í gildi. 

6. gr. Þangað til öðru vísi verður ákveðið með lögum, er ríkisþing og alþingi setja og konungur staðfestir, fara dönsk stjórnarvöld einnig fyrir hönd Íslands með mál þau sem eru sameiginleg samkv. 3. gr. Að öðru leyti ræður hvort landið (um sig) að fullu öllum sínum málum. 

7. gr. Meðan Ísland tekur engan þátt í meðferð hinna sameiginlegu mála, tekur það heldur ekki þátt í kostnaði við þau. Þó leggur Ísland fje á konungsborð og til borðfjár konungs-ættmenna hlutfallslega eftir tekjum Danmerkur og Íslands. Framlög þessi skulu ákveðin fyrir fram um 10 ár í senn með konungsúrskurði, er forsætisráðherra Dana og ráðherra Íslands undirskrifa. Ríkissjóður Danmerkur greiðir landssjóði Íslands í eitt skifti fyrir öll 1 miljón og 500 þús. kr., og eru þá jafnframt öll skuldaskifti, sem verið hafa að undanförnu milli Danmerkur og Íslands, fullkomlega á enda kljáð. 

8. gr. Nú rís ágreiningur um það, hvort málefni sje sameiginleg eða eigi, og skulu þá stjórnir beggja landanna reyna að jafna hann með sjer. Takist það eigi, skal leggja málið í gerð til fullnaðarúrslita. Gerðardóminn skipa 4 menn, er konungur kveður til, 2 eftir tillögu ríkisþingsins (sinn úr hvorri þingdeild) og 2 eftir tillögu alþingis. Gerðarmennirnir velja sjálfir oddamann. Verði gerðarmenn ekki á eitt sáttir um kosningu oddamannsins, er dómsforseti hæstarjettar sjálfkjörinn oddamaður. 

9. gr. Ríkisþing og alþingi geta hvort um sig krafist endurskoðunar á lögum þessum, þegar liðin eru 25 ár frá því er lögin gengu í gildi. Leiði endurskoðunin ekki til nýs sáttmála innan 3ja ára frá því að endurskoðunar var krafist, má heimta endurskoðun að nýju á sama hátt og áður, að 5 árum liðnum frá því er nefndur þriggja ára frestur er á enda. Nú tekst ekki að koma á samkomulagi meðal löggjafarvalda beggja landa innan tveggja ára frá því er endurskoðunar var krafist í annað sinn, og ákveður konungur þá með tveggja ára fyrirvara, eftir tillögu um það frá ríkisþingi eða alþingi, að sambandinu um sameiginleg mál, þau er ræðir um í 4., 5., 6. og 8. tölulið 3. gr., skuli vera slitið að nokkru eða öllu leyti.

 

---<<<>>>------<<<>>>------<<<>>>------<<<>>>------<<<>>>------<<<>>>------<<<>>>---

 
______________________________________________________________________

   

Framkvæmdastjórn ESB þiggur ráðgjöf hjá ríkisstjórn Íslands

 

 

Samstaða þjóðar    NATIONAL UNITY COALITION                                                               Baráttusamtök fyrir sjálfstæðu ríki á Íslandi    og fullveldisréttindum almennings.    Stöndum vörð um Stjórnarskrá Lýðveldisins.

                           Áskorun til forseta Íslands

  

   

    

Framkvæmdastjórn ESB þiggur ráðgjöf hjá ríkisstjórn Íslands.  

   

    

Undanfarna 8 mánuði höfum við Pétur Valdimarsson átt í líflegum skoðanaskiptum við Framkvæmdastjórn Evrópusambandsins (Commission of the European Union). Við gerðum þá kröfu að Framkvæmdastjórnin rannsakaði ólöglegar aðgerðir Bretlands og Hollands gegn Íslandi haustið 2008. Jafnframt gerðum við þá kröfu að Framkvæmdastjórnin ákærði nýlenduveldin fyrir Evrópudómstólnum (European Court of Justice).

  

Fram að þessu hafa samskiptin við Framkvæmdastjórnina að mestu verið á málefnalegum nótum. Við höfum flutt málstað Íslands í þremur bréfum, á samtals 14 blaðsíðum. Framkvæmdastjórnin hefur tekið sér góðan tíma til að svara erindunum - einn til tvo mánuði hverju sinni og svarað efnislega, þótt frá upphafi hafi verið ljóst að ætlunin var að hafna erindi okkar.

  

Nú bregður svo við, að í síðasta bréfi Framkvæmdastjórnarinnar er ekki reynt að svara með efnislegum rökum, heldur berst okkur nú stuttorð neitun. Við vitum að við höfum kveðið Framkvæmdastjórnina í kútinn, með sterkum rökum. Engar efnislegar forsendur eru fyrir að neita kröfu okkar um rannsókn og ákærum fyrir Evrópudómstólnum. Hvað hefur þá breyzt hjá Framkvæmdastjórninni, sem veldur því að engar ástæður eru tilgreinar í bréfi hennar og að rök okkar í síðasta bréfi hljóta enga umfjöllun ?

  

Fyrir liggja upplýsingar um að Framkvæmdastjórnin hefur verið í sambandi við utanríkis-ráðherra Össur Skarphéðinsson um kærur okkar. Afstaða þessa Íslendska ráðherra er okkur einnig kunn. Hann ráðlagði Framkvæmda-stjórninni að hafna kröfu Íslands um rétta málsmeðferð, sem er í fullu samræmi við samninginn um Evrópska efnahagssvæðið. Ráðgjöf ráðherrans var á þá leið að það þjónaði hagsmunum Evrópusambandsins bezt að svara kærunni með þögninni einni, eins og ríkisstjórn Íslands bregzt við öllum fyrirspurnum sem til hennar er beint. Framkvæmdastjórn ESB hefur þegið ráð Össurar Skarphéðinssonar og fylgt háttum ríkisstjórnar Íslands.

Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson.

   

---<<<>>>------<<<>>>------<<<>>>------<<<>>>------<<<>>>------<<<>>>------<<<>>>---

  

Ref. Ares (2012)s-154867 - 10/02/2012

 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate General Internal Market and Services

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Financial Stability
Head ofUnit

Brussels, 10.02.2012
MARKT H4/SS/ms Ares (2012)s-163283
 

Mr. Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson
Mr. Pétur Valdimarsson
Laugarásvegur 4
104 Reykjavík
Iceland

E-mail: [e-mail]

 
Subject: Complaint Nr. CHAP(2011) 2011 related to alleged breaches of
               the EEA Agreement by the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.
 

Dear Sirs,

  

Thank you for your letter of 20 December 2011.

  

In this letter you come back with the same issues that have already been dealt with in previous correspondence with this service.

  

As indicated to you in our letters of 27.07.2011 and 24.11.2011, the factual and legal circumstances described by you do not show any infringement of EU law by the British or Dutch authorities that would justify a Commission&#39;s action pursuant to Article 258 of the TFEU.

  

I therefore confirm that your complaint Nr. CHAP(2011)2011 has been closed.

  

 

Yours faithfully,
 

Nathalie de Basaldúa

 

Contact: Silvia Scatizzi, Telephone: [phone], [e-mail]

______________________________________________________________________

   

Christian IX: Kundgjörelse angaaende Forfatningslov for Island.

  

 

Samstaða þjóðar    NATIONAL UNITY COALITION                                                               Baráttusamtök fyrir sjálfstæðu ríki á Íslandi    og fullveldisréttindum almennings.    Stöndum vörð um Stjórnarskrá Lýðveldisins.

                           Áskorun til forseta Íslands

  

   

    

Christian IX: Kundgjörelse angaaende Forfatningslov for Island.  

   

    

---<<<>>>---

 

  

Hafði Christian IX »fri Magtfuldkommenhed« ?

   

    

---<<<>>>---

  

  

Allerhöjeste Kundgjörelse til Islænderne

angaaende Udstedelsen af en Forfatningslov

for Islands særlige Anliggender.

  

  

  

  

Vi Christian den Niende &c. G.V. [et cetera Gjöre Vitterligt]:

  

Det i afvigte Aar forsamlede Althing har i en allerunderd. Adresse henvendt sig til Os med Andragende om, at Vi — i Overensstemmelse med hvad der ogsaa er udtalt i en af samme Althing indgiven Petition — vilde give det indeværende Aar en særegen og forhöjet Betydning for Islænderne ved at skjænke Islaud en Forfatning, som tillægger Althinget fuld lovgivende og finansiel Myndighed, og iövrigt saa frisindet som muligt.

  

Vi have herefter paany ladet den islandske Forfatningssag blive Gjenstand for den nöjeste Overvejelse, og som Frugten heraf have Vi paa en af Aarets förste Dage med Vort Kgl. Navn beseglet en Forfatningslov for Islands særlige Anliggender, i det Væsentlige bygget paa det Althinget i Aaret 1871 forelagte Forfatningslovforslag, men med særlig Hensynstagen til de i Althingets foranförte Petition fremhævede Indstillingspunkter.

  

Idet Vi kundgjöre dette for Vore tro og kjære Undersaatter paa Island, föle Vi Trang til at udtale Vor allerh. Tilfredshed med, at det islandske Forfatningsværk, hvorpaa der saalænge har været arbeidet, saaledes nu er bragt til en endelig Afslutning, og tillage Vor Paaskjönnelse og Tak for den Tillid, som Landets Repræsentation har vist Os ved paa den anförte Maade at betro den endelige Ordning af denne vigtige Sag til Vor Forsorg.

  

Det er Vort Haab, at den Gave, Vi saaledes af »fri Magtfuldkommenhed« have skjænket Island, vil af  Vore tro Islændere blive modtaget med det same Sindelag, hvoraf den har sit Udspring, og at det vil erkjendes ikke blot, at der ved Forfatningslovens Udarbeidelse er bleven taget det störst mulige Hensyn til de fra Island fremkomne Önsker, saavidt som de have kunnet forenes med Opretholdelsen af den bestaaende Statsorden og med Nödvendigheden af, at den heromhandlede Lov fremtræder i en Form, der svarer til dens Væsen som en endelig Forfatningslov, men at der ved Forfatningens Indhold overhovedet er indrömmet Vore kjære Undersaatter paa Island et saadant Maal af Frihed og politiske Rettigheder, at Betingelserne for en kraftig og heldbringende Udvikling af Landets aandelige og materielle Kræfter derved ere tilvejebragte.

  

For at imidlertid den Sæd, der er nedlagt i Forfatningen, kan komme til at bære Frugt, er det nödvendigt, at Folk og Regjering slutte sig sammen, for i Endrægtighed at arbeide hen til det fælles Maal, Landets Fremgang og Velvære, og Vi stole trygt paa, at Vore tro Islændere ved en forstandig Brug af den dem skjænkede Frihed ville understötte Vore Bestræbelser, for at dette Maal kan blive naaet.

   

Særlig tilfredsstillende har det derhos været Os, at Fuldbyrdelsen af den her omhandlede vigtige Akt overensstemmende med Althingets Önske har kunnet finde Sted netop i det Aar, da Erindringen igjennem et Tidsrum af 1000 Aar föres tilbage til Islands förste Bebyggelse og dermed til Begyndelsen af et Folkeliv, der særlig ved Bevaringen af Forfædrenes Sprog og den historiske Ihukommelse af deres Idræt har havt saa stor Betydning for hele Norden.

  

Idet Vi i Anledning af den forestaaende Höjtidelighed sende alle Vore tro og kjære Undersaatter paa Island Vor Hilsen og Vore bedste Önsker om Held og Lykke for Landets Fremtid, knytte Vi dertil Haabet om, at det Vendepunkt i de islandske Forfatningsforhold, som nu vil indtræde, ogsaa engang maa i Historien blive betegnet som en betydningsfuld og velsignelsesrig Begivenhed for Island.

     

  

  

Givet paa Amalienborg den 14. Februar 1874.

  

Under Vor Kongelige Haand og Segl.

  

CHRISTIAN R.

  

(L. S.)

  

(L.S. = Locus Sigilli = staður innsiglis)

 

>>><<<

 

Fundarboð »SAMSTÖÐU ÞJÓÐAR« 11. febrúar 2012

  

 

Samstaða þjóðar    NATIONAL UNITY COALITION                                                               Baráttusamtök fyrir sjálfstæðu ríki á Íslandi    og fullveldisréttindum almennings.    Stöndum vörð um Stjórnarskrá Lýðveldisins.

                           Áskorun til forseta Íslands

  

   

    

Fundarboð »SAMSTÖÐU ÞJÓÐAR« 11. febrúar 2012

Laugardaginn 11. þ.m. kl 14.00 í Perlunni

  

Hinn 28. janúar 2011 voru stofnuð grasrótar-samtökin »SAMSTAÐA ÞJÓÐAR gegn ICESAVE«. Hafin var barátta gegn lagasetningu um forsendulausa skattlagningu. Ætlun ríkisstjórnarinnar var að láta Íslendskan almenning greiða ólögvarðar kröfur Breta og Hollendinga.

  

»SAMSTAÐA«. vann að því að safna undirskriftum landsmanna að áskorun til forseta landsins um að haldið yrði þjóðaratkvæði um Icesave-III-lögin. Síðan tók við það starf að útskýra fyrir almenningi nauðsyn þess að fella lögin í þjóðaratkvæðinu 09. apríl 2011.

  

Þegar sigur í þjóðaratkvæðinu var í höfn, var ákveðið að þinglýsa félaginu »SAMSTAÐA ÞJÓÐAR«. Þinglýsing félagsins og þessa gæfuríka nafns hafði oft verið rædd á fundum samtakanna en ekki orðið af framkvæmd fyrr en næði skapaðist til þess um mitt ár 2011. Skráning félagsins var gerð 13. júlí 2011.

  

Þinglýsingin var gerð til þess að félagið »SAMSTAÐA ÞJÓÐAR« væri tiltækt til varnar margvíslegum óhæfuverkum  gegn þjóðinni. Formlegt félag er af mörgum ástæðum nauðsynlegt, til að standa fyrir langvarandi hugsjónabaráttu í þágu þjóðarinnar.

  

Baráttumálin sem liggja fyrir eru mikilvæg og ákveða þarf hvernig starfið verður skipulagt:

  

1. Ríkisstjórnin ætlar að láta þjóðina greiða ICESAVE, nú með lögsókn fyrir EFTA-dómstólnum.
2. Ríkisstjórnin linnir ekki tilraunum til að innlima Ísland í Evrópusambandið.
3. Halda verður áfram tilraunum til að fá kæru Íslands gegn Bretlandi og Hollandi tekna fyrir hjá Evrópudómstólnum.
4. Herða þarf baráttuna fyrir úrsögn Íslands úr Evrópska efnahagssvæðinu.

  

  

Góðir félagar við höfum þegar unnið góða sigra

og megum ekki láta þreytu eða uppgjöf stöðva okkur.

  

Mætum á fundinn laugardaginn 11. þ.m. kl 14.00 í „Perlunni“ til þess að ræða þessi mál. Allir stuðningsmenn eru velkomnir.

  

Með baráttu kveðjum !

  

Stjórn »SAMSTÖÐU ÞJÓÐAR«

   

      


    

Barátta fyrir sjálfstæðu ríki á Íslandi.

Barátta fyrir fullveldisréttindum almennings.

Stöndum vörð um Stjórnarskrá Lýðveldisins.

>>><<<

 

Undirlægjuháttur fyrir erlendu valdi og framandi hugmyndafræði.

  

 

Samstaða þjóðar    NATIONAL UNITY COALITION                                                               Baráttusamtök fyrir fullveldisrétti almennings og sjálfstæði Íslands.    Stöndum vörð um Stjórnarskrá Lýðveldisins.

                           Áskorun til forseta Íslands

  

   

    

Undirlægjuháttur fyrir erlendu valdi og framandi hugmyndafræði.

  

Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson.
  
Hver vetrar-stormurinn af öðrum gengur yfir landið, en góðar vonir standa til að þeir muni ganga hjá og valda landi og þjóðlífi litlum skaða. Hægt er að horfa til hækkandi Sólar og vona að smádýr landsins, svo sem fuglar og kanínur muni þrauka erfiða tíð sem dýrategundir, þótt margir einstaklingar falli í valinn.

  

Einn er þó sá vetrar-stormur sem ekki eru horfur að muni hjaðna og nefnist hann: Undirlægjuháttur fyrir erlendu valdi og framandi hugmyndafræði. Allt frá upphafi byggðar Íslands hafa fyrirfundist í landinu einstaklingar sem ekkert vita sælla en þjóna erlendum herrum og framandi hugmyndum. Á síðustu áratugum hefur þetta ógæfufólk rottað sig saman í Alþýðuflokki og síðar Samfylkingu.

  

Á síðustu árum hafa hins vegar þjóðhollir Íslendingar heldst átt sér skjól í félögum sem borið hafa nafnið Samstaða. Þannig var Samstaða um óháð Ísland stofnað 29. ágúst 1991 og var markmið félagsins að berjast gegn aðild Íslands að Evrópska efnahagssvæðinu (EES) og gegn innlimun landsins í Evrópusambandið (ESB). Þrátt fyrir að ekki tækist að hindra aðild Íslands að EES-samningnum, lifði baráttuandinn áfram og stofnun Heimssýnar 27. júní 2002 var framhald Samstöðu um óháð Ísland.

  

Til Samstöðu þjóðar gegn Icesave var stofnað 28. janúar 2011, sem óformlegra grasrótarsamtaka. Eftir stóra sigra í baráttunni gegn Icesave-kröfum nýlenduveldanna, var 13. júlí 2011 stofnað skrásett félag undir nafninu Samstaða þjóðar. Tilgangur þess er að halda uppi merkinu gegn Icesave-kröfunum, sem Icesave-stjórnin ætlar að halda til streitu og almennt að berjast fyrir stjórnskipulegum hagsmunum þjóðarinnar.

  

Nú bregður svo við að stofnaður hefur verið stjórnmálaflokkur undir nafninu Samstaða – flokkur lýðræðis- og velferðar, án heimildar frá skrásettum handhöfum samstöðu-nafnsins. Stefna þessa stjórnmálaflokks er einnig í hróplegri andstöðu við stefnu Samstöðu þjóðar, því að eftirfarandi málsgrein er í stefnuskránni:

  

Samstaða telur að við núverandi aðstæður sé hagsmunum Íslands best borgið utan ESB en leggur áherslu á að samningaviðræðunum verði lokið án tafar og niðurstaðan fari í þjóðaratkvæðagreiðslu.

  

Þessi afstaða er óskiljanleg þeim sem hlúa vilja að sjálfstæðu ríki á Íslandi. Okkar krafa er afdráttarlaus um að aðlögun Íslendska stjórnkerfisins að háttum Evrópusambandsins verði tafarlaust hætt. Samstaða þjóðar getur því ekki tekið neinn þátt í hinu nýgja framboði, þótt vafalaust megi finna eitthvað nýtilegt í stefnu þess.

    

Til Samstöðu þjóðar gegn Icesave var stofnað 28. janúar 2011,

 sem óformlegra grasrótarsamtaka.

Eftir stóra sigra í baráttunni gegn Icesave-kröfum nýlenduveldanna,

var 13. júlí 2011 stofnað skrásett félag undir nafninu Samstaða þjóðar.

>>><<<

 

Christian IX »gaf« Íslendingum stjórnarskrá af sínu »frjálsa fullveldi«

  

 

Samstaða þjóðar    NATIONAL UNITY COALITION                                                               Baráttusamtök fyrir fullveldisrétti almennings og sjálfstæði Íslands.    Stöndum vörð um Stjórnarskrá Lýðveldisins.

                           Áskorun til forseta Íslands

  

   

    

Christian IX »gaf« Íslendingum stjórnarskrá af sínu »frjálsa fullveldi«

  

   

Allt frá því að Christian IX konungur af Danmörku “gaf” Íslendingum stjórnarskrá 05. Janúar 1874, hefur orðið “fullveldi” verið fyrirferðamikið í umræðu um stjórnskipun landsins. Að því er ég bezt veit kemur “fullveldi” fyrst fyrir í rituðum heimildum síðar þetta sama ár, en það er að finna í auglýsingu sem konungur sendi frá sér af tilefni “gjafar” stjórnarskrárinnar.

  

Í auglýsingu konungs er talað um »frjálst fullveldi« sem væntanlega merkir “algjört fullveldi” sem er óþörf endurtekning á þeirri staðreynd að fullveldi er óskiptanlegt og er því ávallt að öllu leyti í höndum eins aðila, til dæmis konungs, hóps höfðingja eða almennings. Hins vegar geta fullveldisréttindi legið víða, en fullveldishafinn einn getur ákveðið hvaða stjórnarfarslega fyrirkomulag er viðhaft. Fyrirkomulagið ræðst oftast af því sem fullveldishafanum þykir hagkvæmt.

  

Í lýðveldi fer lýðurinn/almenningur með fullveldið (sem á ensku nefnist sovereign power). Þetta merkir að allt stjórnskipulegt vald á Íslandi er í höndum almennings, þar á meðal löggjafarvaldið. Ekki er hagkvæmt að þjóðaratkvæði fari fram um öll lagafrumvörp og því er forsetanum – umboðsmanni almennings – falið að undirrita lagafrumvörp. Ef forsetinn verður þess áskynja að almenningur er ekki sáttur við lagafrumvarp, þá ber honum að vísa því í þjóðaratkvæði, í samræmi við 26. grein Stjórnarskrárinnar.

  

Hugtakið »fullveldi« er því einfalt og skýrt, nema í málflutningi þeirra sem reyna að villa um fyrir fólki og telja mönnum trú um að stjórnarfar í landinu sé annað en Stjórnarskráin staðfestir. Fremstir í flokki þeirra sem vilja afnema lýðveldi sem stjórnarfar á Íslandi eru svo nefndir þingræðissinnar. Þeir vilja koma á höfðingjaveldi og hefur orðið nokkuð ágengt við að sölsa undir sig vald, í trássi við afdráttarlaus ákvæði Stjórnarskrárinnar.

  

Fyrrnefnda auglýsingu, sem Christian IX birti í dagblöðum landsins á árinu 1874, getur að líta hér fyrir neðan.

  

Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson.

    

---<<<>>>---

  

  

KONUNGLEG AUGLÝSING TIL ÍSLENDINGA.

  

  

Vér Christian hinn Níundi...gjörum kunnugt:

  

Alþingi, sem saman kom árið, sem leið, hefir í þegnlegu ávarpi til Vor farið þess á leit, að Vér — samkvæmt því, sem einnig er látið í ljósi í bænarskrá frá inu sama Alþingi — vildum gjöra yfirstandandi ár enn þá atkvæðismeira fyrir Íslendinga með því að gefa Íslandi stjórnarbót, er veitti Alþingi fullt löggjafarvald og fjárforræði, og sem að öðru leyti væri svo frjálsleg, som framast væri unnt.

  

Vér höfum síðan á ný látið sem nákvæmlegast íhuga stjórnarskipunarmál Íslands, og er árangurinn af því orðinn sá, að Vér einn af inum fyrstu dögum ársins með Voru konunglega nafni höfum löghelgað stjórnarskrá um in sérstaklegu málefni Íslands, sem að mestu leyti er bygð á frumvarpi því til stjórnarskipunarlaga, sem lagt var fyrir alþingi árið 1871, en þó hefir sérstaklega verið tekið tillit til þeirra atriða, sem tekin voru fram í fyrnefndri bænarskrá Alþingis.

  

Jafnframt og Vér birtum þetta Vorum trúu og kæru þegnum á Íslandi, finnum Vér hvöt til þess að lýsa yfir allrahæstu ánægju Vorri með, að ið Íslendska stjórnarskipunarverk, sem svo lengi hefir verið starfað að, þannig er nú alveg til lykta leitt, og sömuleiðis viðurkenning Vorri og þakklæti fyrír traust það, sem fulltrúar landsins hafa auðsýnt Oss með því að fela það fyrirhyggju Vorri á þann hátt, sem sagt var, aðkoma fullnaðarskipun á um þetta mikilvæga málefni.

  

Það er von Vor, að Vorir trúu Íslendingar taki á móti gjöf þeirri, sem Vér þannig af »frjálsu fullveldi« höfum veitt Íslandi, með inu sama hugarfari, er hún er sprottin af, og að það verði viðurkennt eigi að eins, að þá er stjórnarskráin var samin, hafi verið tekið svo sem unnt var tillit til þeirra óska, sem fram eru komnar frá Íslands hálfu, að svo miklu leyti, sem þær gátu samrímzt við það, að þeirri stjórnarskipun ríkisins, sem nú á sér stað, yrði haldið óbreyttri, og þá nauðsyn, sem á því er, að lög þau, sem hér ræðir um, komi fram í því formi, sem samsvari eðli þeirra sem endilegra stjórnarskipunarlaga, heldur einnig, að Vorum kæru þegnum á Íslandi sé með stjórnarskránni yfir höfuð veitt svo mikið frelsi og þjóðleg réttindi, að skilyrðunum fyrir öflugum og heillaríkum framförum landsins bæði í andlegum og líkamlegum efnum sé með því fullnægt.

  

En eigi sáðkorn það, sem falið er í stjórnarbótinni, að geta borið ávöxtu, þarf til þess, að lýður og stjórn leggist á eitt um að vinna að því í eindrægni, sem er sameiginlegt mark og mið hvorutveggju, som er framfarir og hagsæld landsins, og treystum Vér því staðfastlega, að Vorir trúu Íslendingar með því að neyta hyggilega frelsis þess, sem þeim er veitt, vilji styðja viðleitni Vora, til þess að þessu augnamiði verði náð.

    

Einkar geðfelt hefir það þar að auki verið Oss, að framkvæmd þessarar mikilvægu gjörðar samkvæmt ósk Alþingis hefir getað átt ser stað einmitt á því ári, er þess verður minnst, að 1000 ár eru liðin síðan Ísland first byggðist, og að þá hafi byrjað þjóðarlíf, sem einkum með því að halda við máli forfeðranna og færa í sögur afreksverk þeirra, hefir verið svo mikilsvert fyrir öll norðurlönd.

  

Um leið og Vér í tilefni af hátíð þeirri, sem í hönd fer, sendum öllum Vorum trúu og kæru þegnum á Íslandi kveðju Vora og Vorar bestu heilla- og hamingjuóskir landinu til handa um ókominn tíma, sameinum Vér því vonina um, að sá tími muni koma, að umskipti þau á stjórnarhögum Íslands, sem nú standa til, verði einnig talin í sögunni sem atkvæðamikill og happasæll viðburður fyrir Ísland.

  

  

Gefið í Amalíuborg, 14. dag febrúarmánaðar 1874.

  

Undir Vorri konunglegu hendi og innsigli.

  

CHRISTIAN R.

  

(L. S.)

  

(L.S. = Locus Sigilli = staður innsiglis)

 

>>><<<

 

Framundan er harðnandi barátta um Lýðveldið og embætti forseta

  

 

Samstaða þjóðar    NATIONAL UNITY COALITION                                                               Baráttusamtök fyrir fullveldisrétti almennings og sjálfstæði Íslands.    Stöndum vörð um Stjórnarskrá Lýðveldisins.

                           Áskorun til forseta Íslands

  

   

    

Framundan er harðnandi barátta um Lýðveldið og embætti forseta.

  

Fyrst birt í Morgunblaðinu 01. febrúar 2012.

 

Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson.
  
Flestum landsmönnum mun ljóst, að 1918 varð Ísland sjálfstætt konungsveldi, með Kristján X sem konung sameiginlega með Danmörku. Þessi konungur fór með fullveldisrétt þjóðarinnar þar til lýðveldið var stofnað 1944. Með nýrri stjórnarskrá færðist fullveldisrétturinn úr höndum konungs til almennings á Íslandi.

  

Lýðveldi nefnist það stjórnarform þegar fullveldisréttur þjóðar er í höndum almennings. Forseti lýðveldisins er umboðsmaður þjóðarinnar innan stjórnkerfisins. Hann er handhafi framkvæmdavaldsins, en jafnframt er hann eftirlitsmaður með löggjafarvaldinu. Af 81 grein Stjórnarskrárinnar fjalla 30 greinar eingöngu um verksvið forsetans. Forsetinn fer með vald til þingrofs (24.gr.) og vald til að vísa lagafrumvörpum til þjóðaratkvæðis (26.gr.). Jafnframt skipar forsetinn ráðherra og leysir þá frá störfum (15.gr.). Forsetinn er eini valdhafi landsins sem kjörinn er almennri kosningu.

  

Frá 1944 hefur okkar ágæta stjórnarskrá formfest lýðræði sem stjórnarfar landsins, þótt valdastéttin hafi rangtúlkað mörg ákvæði hennar. Sem dæmi um þessar tilraunir til að rugla landsmenn í ríminu, má benda á nafngiftina “fullveldisdagur” um 01. desember 1918, þegar þjóðin STAÐFESTI fullveldisrétt Kristjáns X. Hins vegar náðist 1918 fram viðurkenning á sjálfstæðinu og 01. desember ætti því að nefnast “sjálfstæðisdagur”. Fullveldið var síðan HEIMT úr greipum konungs með stjórnarskránni frá 1944 og því ætti 17. júní að nefnast “fullveldisdagur”.

  

Þessi fölsun á nafngiftum er auðvitað smámál, í samanburði við þá vanvirðingu á efnisatriðum Stjórnarskrárinnar sem viðgengis hefur allar götur frá 1944. Þingræðissinnar hafa komist upp með að sniðganga mörg ákvæði Stjórnarskrárinnar, sem er forskrift okkar að lýðræðinu. Þingræðissinnar hafa í heitstrengingum um að afsala sjálfstæði landsins til risans í austri og afnema formlega fullveldisrétt almennings. Þeir hafa jafnvel uppi áróður um að embætti forsetans verði lagt af. Slík krafa lýsir vilja til að lýðveldið verði lagt niður og að í staðinn verði höfðingjaveldi formfest, öðru nafni þingræði.

Áskorun á Ólaf Ragnar Grímsson.

Við þessar aðstæður er öðru mikilvægara, að þjóðin geti fullkomlega treyst að forseti lýðveldisins fylgi Stjórnarskránni og láti ekki fulltrúa hins erlenda valds komast upp með bellibrögð. Við vitum að núverandi forseti, Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson hefur þann dug og þann skilning á stjórnskipun landsins sem þarf til að mæta atlögunni. Ef nýr maður kemur að Bessastöðum, veit enginn hvort hann muni líta á sig sem umboðsmann almennings og vörzlumann lýðræðisins.

  

Íslendsk þjóð getur ekki tekið áhættu með að embætti forsetans lendi í höndum fólks sem tilbúið er að fórna sjálfstæði landsins og fullveldisrétti þjóðarinnar á altari framandi hugmyndafræði. Ekki má henda að barátta genginna kynslóða verði að engu gerð með hirðuleysi, eða í nafni stundarhagsmuna. Að beztu manna yfirsýn er því skorað á forsetann Ólaf Ragnar Grímsson að gefa kost á áframhaldandi setu á forsetastóli.

Stjórnarskráin er fjöregg þjóðarinnar.

Ekki eru margar þjóðir sem eiga alvöru stjórnarskrá, eins og við Íslendingar. Ákvæðið um þjóðaratkvæði samkvæmt 26. greininni, er einn af dýrgripum þessarar þjóðar og það ákvæði bjargaði okkur frá Icesave-kúguninni. En í Stjórnarskránni er aðra dýrgripi að finna og þar á meðal er 24. greinin um þingrof og 15. greinin um ráðherraskipanir:

  

24. grein. Forseti lýðveldisins getur rofið Alþingi, og skal þá stofnað til nýrra kosninga, áður en 45 dagar eru liðnir frá því er gert var kunnugt um þingrofið, enda komi Alþingi saman eigi síðar en tíu vikum eftir að það var rofið. Alþingismenn skulu halda umboði sínu til kjördags.

15. grein. Forsetinn skipar ráðherra og veitir þeim lausn. Hann ákveður tölu þeirra og skiptir störfum með þeim.

Þegar hvorki meirihluti Alþingismanna né ríkisstjórn landsins njóta trausts þjóðarinnar, verður forsetinn að hafa styrk til að beita þeim úrræðum sem Stjórnarskráin leggur honum í hendur. Við flestum blasir, að mikil mistök voru gerð í Alþingiskosningunum 2009. Til þings völdust of margir óhæfir frambjóðendur, sem dag hvern virðist leggja sig fram um að valda tjóni.

  

Icesave-klafinn sem þetta fólk vildi umfram allt leggja á almenning er bara eitt dæmi af mörgum. Sannast hefur, að undirgefni við Evrópusambandið var orsök þessarar óþjóðhollu tilraunar. Framundan er lokaorusta um sjálfstæði landsins, sem enginn skyldi fyrirfram telja auðunna. Framtíð þjóðarinnar hangir raunverulega í bláþræði. Nærsti forseti verður að hafa dug til að losa þjóðina við gagnslaust fólk, sem of lengi hefur hangið á ríkisspenanum. Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson er manna líklegastur til að uppfylla þessa kröfu almennings.

    

Að beztu manna yfirsýn er skorað á forsetann

Ólaf Ragnar Grímsson

að gefa kost á áframhaldandi setu á forsetastóli.

>>><<<

 

Þórarinn Þórarinsson: Þjóðin er æðri Alþingi !

 

 

Samstaða þjóðar    NATIONAL UNITY COALITION                                                               Baráttusamtök fyrir fullveldisrétti almennings og sjálfstæði Íslands.    Stöndum vörð um Stjórnarskrá Lýðveldisins.

                           Áskorun til forseta Íslands

  

Þjóðin er æðri Alþingi !

 

Fyrst birt í Tímanum 15. desember 1992.

Þórarinn Þórarinsson (1914 – 1996), Alþingismaður 1959 – 1978.

 

  
Dagana 20.-23. maí 1944 fór fram tvíþætt þjóðaratkvæðagreiðsla á Íslandi.

• Í fyrsta lagi voru greidd atkvæði um niðurfellingu sambandslagasamningsins við Dani.

• Í öðru lagi voru greidd atkvæði um nýja stjórnarskrá, sem fól í sér að konungssambandinu við Dani yrði slitið og í staðinn yrði Ísland lýðveldi og kosinn forseti í stað konungs.

Báðar tillögurnar voru samþykktar nær samhljóða. Meginefni þessara atkvæðagreiðslna var það að færa æðsta valdið inn í landið. Síðan hefur engin breyting verið gerð á þeirri skipan.

  

Nú liggur hins vegar fyrir Alþingi frumvarp um róttæka breytingu á þessari skipan. Samkvæmt því á að færa umtalsverðan hluta æðsta valdsins úr landi, eða verulegan hluta löggjafarvaldsins og talsverðan hluta framkvæmdavaldsins og dómsvaldsins.

  

• Hér er átt við frumvarpið um Evrópskt efnahagssvæði. Það er tvímælalaust stærsta og örlagaríkasta mál, sem hefur legið fyrir Alþingi síðan 1944.

  

Eins og nú horfir getur forseti Íslands, Vigdís Finnbogadóttir, staðið frammi fyrir þeim vanda innan fárra daga að ákveða hvort hún á að veita því endanlegt samþykki eða vísa því til þjóðarinnar.

  

Þetta er tvímælalaust stærsta ákvörðun sem Íslendskur þjóðhöfðingi hefur þurft að taka. En hvers vegna hefur forsetanum verið fært þetta vald ?

  

Það er vegna þess, að höfundar stjórnarskrárinnar hafa talið, að þegar mest reyndi á væri vald þjóðarinnar æðra en vald þingsins, og þess vegna ætti forsetinn að hafa vald til þess að skjóta málum til hennar.

 

 

Vigdís Finnbogadóttir brást vonum þjóðarinnar 1994.

 Í stað þess að gæta fullveldisréttinda almennings

fórnaði hún þeim fyrir vinsælir hjá valda-aðlinum.

 Þegar þjóðin stóð frammi fyrir Icesave-kúguninni 2011,

sýndi Vigdís aftur sitt rétta andlit

með stuðningi við kjölturakka Evrópusambandsins.