Reykjavík Grapevine - 19.07.2013, Síða 6

By Ingibjörg Rósa Björnsdóttir
Iceland | News
The Sexy, Exciting Fishing Fees Saga
Where else could a tedious, un-sexy issue like fish-
ing fees become such a hot debate but in Iceland? It
makes sense, though, as fishing amounts to just over
40% of Iceland's GDP (down from as much as 90% a
few decades ago). And what’s the fuss all about now?
In short: last year, the then-reigning coalition gov-
ernment of the Social Democratic Alliance and Left-
Green passed a bill that increased the fee charged to
fishing quota owners significantly, from 4.5 billion
ISK to an estimated 13 billion. In return, family al-
lowance and interest relief were raised, plans were
set in motion to start developments on transportation
improvements (such as a tunnel to Norðfjörður in
the Northeast), and to increase financial support to
various smaller industries and trades, such as tour-
ism, film production and the science- and technology
development fund.
women and children, no wait,
quota owners first!
The fisheries and quota owners were less than
thrilled at the prospect. The Federation of Icelandic
Fishing Vessel Owners (LÍÚ) claimed the indus-
try was being put to its knees; that several fisheries
would go out of business and be forced to discon-
tinue some of their fish processing plants around
the country, rendering hundreds unemployed.
LÍÚ organised massive protests that, among other
things, entailed sailing a fleet of vessels to Reykjavík
harbour—where they blew their horns incessantly for
days on end—staged rallies in front of Alþingi, and
pleaded to the president to veto the bill. While their
efforts certainly raised a lot of attention, they were
ultimately to little avail, with the bill passing despite
LÍÚ’s massive outcry.
However, the full force of the new law wasn’t
scheduled to take effect until later this year, resulting
in traditional LÍÚ ally the Independence Party mak-
ing the revoking of the law one of the main points
of their platform for this spring’s election. The party
won the popular vote, forming a coalition govern-
ment with the election's other victors (slash long-time
collaborators) the Progressive Party in May.
It came as no surprise, then, when the new gov-
ernment approved a new bill presented by the Min-
ister of Fisheries and Agriculture on June 12, which
effectively revoked the fishing fee law and reduced
the fees significantly. The newly instated minister,
Sigurður Ingi Jóhannsson, insisted that by doing so
he was responding to the fact that smaller fisheries
could not pay such high fees without considerable
loss of income, because their profits this year were
so far much lower than had been estimated. In effect,
Sigurður Ingi went as far as saying that last year’s bill
was “technically flawed.”
Considering that the Progressive Party’s cam-
paign promise was to immediately tackle the prob-
lems of indebted homeowners—it was in fact their
biggest platform point—many were startled when the
coalition announced that homeowners’ debts couldn't
be “corrected” right away, and that they’d form a
committee to look into the matter in the fall.
This former priority of the Progressives, which
arguably won them the seat of Prime Minister, was
postponed, due to “lack of available funds,” while a
priority was placed on passing the new fishing fee
bill—which severely limits the state’s income—dur-
ing Alþingi’s short summer session.
Large portions of the general public were, to say
the least, not amused. A petition was launched on Ice-
land’s National Day, June 17, to protest the decision
and challenge the president to veto the bill if it were
passed by Alþingi, forcing a referendum where the
nation would make the final decision on the matter.
The petitioners’ hopes were high, as President Ólafur
Ragnar had set a precedent by refusing to sign new
laws three times while in office: a bill meant to re-
strict corporate ownership of media in 2004 (the bill
was withdrawn and never went to referendum) and
the notorious IceSave bill, which was rejected two
times in a referendum during the previous govern-
ment’s four-year reign. Ólafur Ragnar had further-
more stated in interviews during his 2012 presiden-
tial campaign that fisheries management, a long-time
point of contention for the Icelandic nation, was espe-
cially suitable for referendum.
Keep digging
The outside world also seemingly supported this out-
come. When IMF delegates visited in June, as part of
the fund’s regular audit of Iceland’s economy, they
reviewed the fishing fees and concluded that they
would not prevent investment in the sector, which has
been the government's primary argument for revok-
ing them. In fact, the IMF recommended the fee be
maintained, while noting that it was still waiting to
see a detailed plan for household debt relief. As for
the general public, a recent survey by newspaper Fré-
ttablaðið revealed that 70.5% of the population op-
posed reducing the fees.
It should be noted that the new law does not entail
completely slashing the fishing fees, or even reduc-
ing them to what they were before. According to the
new bill, the estimated return to the state treasury for
2013 to 2014 is 9.8 billion ISK, 4.2 billion ISK less
than what the fees would have yielded under the old
law. However, while Iceland has recovered remark-
ably from the economic collapse over the past four
years, the state’s budget is tight, and the loss of 4.2
billion ISK will make a considerable dent.
All eyez on Óli
Iceland’s proverbial eyes were thus clearly fixed on
President Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson. Would he or
wouldn’t he? After a period of speculation, Ólafur
Ragnar announced a press meeting on July 9, five
days after the fishing fees bill was passed by Alþingi.
In a short statement, Ólafur Ragnar announced that
he would be signing the bill, declaring that he didn’t
consider such a matter fit for a referendum, since
technically it regarded taxation. It would be hard to
maintain direct democracy and referendums on deci-
sions that would affect taxation and state revenue, he
said, explaining to the reporters in the post-statement
Q&A that they had just probably misunderstood
whatever it was he was supposed to have said while
campaigning for presidency in 2012 (“...due to their
nature, relatively few matters are better suited for a
referendum as those to do with the quota system,” in
case you were wondering).
Iceland’s constitution is a rather confusing docu-
ment. There are no clear rules or regulations regard-
ing what can and can’t be channelled to a referendum,
so for every one of his decisions, Ólafur Ragnar (who
remains the only Icelandic president to have used this
veto power) usually just goes by his own interpreta-
tion or “gut feeling.”
And this is exactly what he did.
“If you don't like gay people you must really hate straight
people—because they make them.”
– Reykjavík Mayor Jón Gnarr on his public Facebook page, July 12
Mayor Jón Gnarr has long been a staunch supporter of gays, bisexuals and trans people, showing
his support by—amongst other things—annually participating in the Gay Pride march in drag. The
Mayor was outraged by the anti-gay laws recently passed in Russia, where individuals can now be fined for promoting
information “directed at forming non-traditional sexual setup,” and where it is now illegal to say gay relationships
are equal to heterosexual ones. Jón Gnarr added in his status update: “Dear Duma. Your religion is more dangerous
than homosexuality. Gays are fun. You and your church are just scary.” He went a step further last week, proposing
to the Reykjavík city council that the city end its relationship with Moscow, its sister city since 2007. The proposal is
still being discussed but Jón Gnarr’s opinion has won praise from the international gay community, with many, many
commenters on Grapevine’s story stating that Reykjavík has one gutsy Mayor!
“We knew about this rule before we went but simply
didn’t reach an agreement on who should give up his
delegation seat for a woman.”
– Progressive Party MP Karl Garðarsson, Alþingi, July 2
We were all cringing with embarrassment a few weeks back, when the Icelandic delegation at the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) in Strasbourg was scolded for failing to include a single
female representative—according to PACE’s rules, at least one delegate has to be a member of “the under-represented
sex” in the nation’s parliament.
The Icelandic delegation consisted of Karl Garðarsson, newly elected MP for the Progressive Party; Brynjar
Níelsson, newly elected MP for the Independence Party, and Ögmundur Jónasson, MP for the Left-Green Movement
and former Minister of the Interior.
When Brynhildur Björnsdóttir, MP for the Bright Future Party, enquired why the delegation had made this mis-
take, Karl answered in all honesty that…the gang couldn’t decide on who should miss the trip to Strasbourg. What a
great vote of confidence in your female party members! Karl then added that somebody should be appointed by the
Parliament to handle such matters and make a ruling when the parties can’t reach an agreement on their own. Really?
You can’t solve it yourselves? All it takes is for one guy to raise his hand and say: “Hey, I’m not indispensable, I’m
sure the ladies in my party can do just as good a job as me! Here have my seat.” *insert swear words*
Last week was significant in Iceland’s political history. President Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson decided to sign a bill into law that had caused so much controversy
that more than 35 thousand Icelanders signed a petition urging him to veto it and send it to a national referendum (see: IceSave). There were heated discus-
sions, even filibustering, in Alþingi before the bill was passed, and the subject remains the water cooler topic in every single workplace in Iceland.
And it’s about fish.
by Ingibjörg Rósa BjörnsdóttirThey Said What?
”A new petition has
been launched, urging
Ólafur Ragnar Gríms-
son to resign from his
post as president. At
the time of writing, it
has gathered just over
1,600 people have
signed.”
Photo by Sigtryggur Ari Jóhannsson/DV
6The Reykjavík Grapevine Issue 10 — 2013