3 ms·

A little bit of backstory in case anyone's interested. This endeavor started out as a constitutional congress, members having been elected in a low turnout elec

A little bit of backstory in case anyone's interested. This endeavor started out as a constitutional congress, members having been elected in a low turnout election in late 2010. For some legal-technical reason the election was illegal and therefore the powers that be decided to appoint the congress elects to a committee instead. All this was done as an appeasement response to public anger following the economic downturn in 2008. A clever, if expensive, political ploy as it made the government look like it was making an effort. The reality is that it makes no difference whether or not this committee makes any changes, anything they decide will be non-binding and advisory only. Most people in this country think the whole thing is monumentally pointless, being as there aren't many contentious issues in the current constitution to begin with.

AnthonBerg 15y ago
Icelander here. This endeavor started out as a constitutional congress, members having been elected in a low turnout election in late 2010. For some legal-technical reason the election was illegal and therefore the powers that be decided to appoint the congress elects to a committee instead. True. The reason the election was disqualified was debatable at best, but it was due to a lawsuit by some IMO rather slimy true-blood partisans of the highly corrupt opposition party Sjálfstæðisflokkur; The lawsuit involved technicalities in the voting process. The courts are appointed by congress representatives - very many from Sjálfstæðisflokkurinn. The judiciary appointment process here is IMO ethically problematic, to say the least. All this was done as an appeasement response to public anger following the economic downturn in 2008. Interpretation, not fact. A clever, if expensive, political ploy as it made the government look like it was making an effort. Interpretation, not fact. The reality is that it makes no difference whether or not this committee makes any changes, anything they decide will be non-binding and advisory only. Not strictly false, but is very difficult for the current govermnent to totally ignore the results of the committee; The election may have been low-turnout for example, but the committee process has been high-profile. Most people in this country think the whole thing is monumentally pointless, Interpretation, not fact; IMO even a rather biased interpretation. ... being as there aren't many contentious issues in the current constitution to begin with. And this is where you go to far IMO. You cannot state that as fact. There exist in fact long-standing and very public arguments here about: The separation of powers, judiciary appointment, a highly disputed clause about the president's power to impede legislation (it's very fuzzy and highly open to interpretation - this MUST be clarified), human rights, media, etc. etc. etc.

AnthonBerg 15y ago

Icelander here. This endeavor started out as a constitutional congress, members having been elected in a low turnout election in late 2010. For some legal-technical reason the election was illegal and therefore the powers that be decided to appoint the congress elects to a committee instead. True. The reason the election was disqualified was debatable at best, but it was due to a lawsuit by some IMO rather slimy true-blood partisans of the highly corrupt opposition party Sjálfstæðisflokkur; The lawsuit involved technicalities in the voting process. The courts are appointed by congress representatives - very many from Sjálfstæðisflokkurinn. The judiciary appointment process here is IMO ethically problematic, to say the least. All this was done as an appeasement response to public anger following the economic downturn in 2008. Interpretation, not fact. A clever, if expensive, political ploy as it made the government look like it was making an effort. Interpretation, not fact. The reality is that it makes no difference whether or not this committee makes any changes, anything they decide will be non-binding and advisory only. Not strictly false, but is very difficult for the current govermnent to totally ignore the results of the committee; The election may have been low-turnout for example, but the committee process has been high-profile. Most people in this country think the whole thing is monumentally pointless, Interpretation, not fact; IMO even a rather biased interpretation. ... being as there aren't many contentious issues in the current constitution to begin with. And this is where you go to far IMO. You cannot state that as fact. There exist in fact long-standing and very public arguments here about: The separation of powers, judiciary appointment, a highly disputed clause about the president's power to impede legislation (it's very fuzzy and highly open to interpretation - this MUST be clarified), human rights, media, etc. etc. etc.