• An acceptable solution in a dispute which it is important to resolve as soon as possible.
• The risk involved in submitting the matter to a court would be great.
• Rejection could result in an outcome that would be financially less advantageous, delay the rebuilding of the economy, damage Iceland’s reputation and undermine the country’s economic and political interests in the international forum.

If the Majority says "YES"

• The Icesave Agreements will be signed and will take effect.
• After this, payments will have to be paid according to the terms of the agreements, insofar as they are not covered by the assets of the Guarantee Fund and Landsbanki Íslands hf.
• The international dispute over the Icesave settlement will be at an end.

Principal uncertainties:

• What payments will be received from the winding-up of Landsbanki Íslands hf.; the final amount to be paid by the Icelandic State will depend on how much is obtained for the assets of the estate and when the money will be available.
• The final decision as to whether the Guarantee Fund’s claims against the estate of Landsbanki Íslands hf. will take precedence over other claims (cf. the provision generally associated with Ragnar H. Hall, Supreme Court Attorney).
• A final ruling by the courts on the validity of the ‘emergency act’ (the Act No. 125/2008), and thus whether deposit holders’ claims are to take precedence over other claims against the estate of Landsbanki Íslands hf.
• Future developments in the exchange rate and economic growth as well as other economic factors which will have an effect on the debt burden under the Icesave Agreements.
• When the winding-up proceedings against Landsbanki Íslands hf. will be completed.
• Whether there will be any unpaid balance of the debt in 2016 and if so, how large it will be and how much the interest on it will be.

• The British and Dutch demands are unfair and are not based on firm legal foundation.
• The economic risk involved in the agreements is great.
• Iceland has the right to have the matter judged by the courts; the financial risk involved is within acceptable limits and this course of action need neither damage Iceland’s reputation nor the rebuilding of its economy.

If the Majority says "NO"

• The Icesave Agreements will not take effect.
• The repayment of the deposit guarantees in connection with the Icesave accounts will remain a matter to be settled between the governments of Iceland, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, and also the Guarantee Fund.
• The EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) has declared that it will continue with the examination of a breach of contract case against the Icelandic State and refer it to the EFTA Court. The case might also be brought before the courts in Iceland.

Principal uncertainties:

• How the matter will be brought forward, separately, by the Icelandic, British and Dutch governments.
• Iceland could be convicted of a breach of the EEA Agreement.
• The outcome of actions for compensation which the British and Dutch governments might bring before the Icelandic courts.
• A final ruling by the courts on the validity of the ‘emergency act’ (the Act No. 125/2008), and thus whether deposit holders’ claims are to take precedence over other claims against the estate of Landsbanki Íslands hf.
• The British and Dutch governments might insist that the Icelandic State guarantee the repayment of the deposits in full, and not merely the minimum deposit guarantee amounts.
• The payments that will be received from the winding-up of Landsbanki Íslands hf., and when this money will be available.
• The British and Dutch governments might apply political or economic pressure on Iceland in the international forum.