@Vitaliy_Kiselev Having sovereignty over your monetary policy is only good if domestically you have a government that has the wider section of the population's interest in control. Many Icelanders are tired of how the fluctuations in this tiny currecy (krona) affect their living standards, sometimes intentionally.

It's quite sickening to see how "expert economists" abroad such as Paul Krugman who want to argue against the Euro for their own reasons try to use the case of Iceland as an example of how fast a recovery can happen in a country with it's own currency, as opposed to for example Ireland. They usually fail point out at what cost this is.

The Icelandic krona fell 40% with the crash. In an economy that has to import almost all consumer goods, this means a massive reduction in people's living standard (more than many foreigners think, in fact, because almost all debts are indexed to the inflation here - meaning debts grow insanely with inflation for the borrower).

A common trick for the capitalists in Iceland, who get rich mostly by exporting fish, is to agree to raise the workers' wages, but then use their puppet's in government to lower the value of the local currency - getting everything back this way.

Many Icelandic workers are tired of this, and for this reason they like the idea of abolishing the national currency. Johanna Sigurdardottir is desperately trying to win support for joining the EU, playing on Icelander's sentiments in the regard. She is part of a minority that wants to join the EU and so she uses this dramatic language.

My opinion is that the most important question is who are controlling the monetary policy and for the benefit of what sector of society. Not what is the technically smartest monetary policy.

Oh, crap, I'm in iceland,