The prize for the most promising business venture was given to Hordur Orri Grettisson of Laxey, for the deal of the year to Hjorleifur Jakobsson of Askja, for leadership in business to Thorsteinn Mar Baldvinsson of Samherji, for entrepreneurship to Finnur Adalbjornsson and Sigridur Maria Hammer of Forest Lagoon (Skogarbod), and for social initiatives to Jon Gudni Omarsson of Iceland Bank. A portrait of Thorsteinn Mar Baldvinsson by Sigurdur Saevar Magnusarson was unveiled at the Gala Dinner.

Deirdre McCloskey. Photo: Policy Exchange.

RNH Academic Director, Hannes H. Gissurarson, Professor Emeritus of Politics at the University of Iceland, attended a meeting of the Mont Pelerin Society in Marrakech in Morocco 7–10 October 2025. The MPS was founded by Friedrich A. von Hayek in April 1947. Its founding members included Milton Friedman, George J. Stigler and Maurice Allais, who were all to receive the Nobel Prize in Economics, as did Hayek. Other prominent founding members were Frank H. Knight, the father of the Chicago School of Economics, Ludwig von Mises, the father of the Austrian School of Economics, the philosophers Karl R. Popper from England and Bertrand de Jouvenel from France, the political theorist Herbert Tingsten and the economist Eli F. Heckscher from Sweden, and the economists Trygve Hoff from Norway, and Luigi Einaudi from Italy (who became President of Italy in 1948). Shortly afterwards, Ludwig Erhard, the author of the German economic miracle, and Reinhard Kamitz, the author of the Austrian economic miracle, joined the MPS. In the 1980s and 1990s, other successful reformers joined, including Sir Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson from New Zealand, Vaclav Klaus from the Czech Republic and Mart Laar from Estonia. Some Nobel Laureates alongside the four founding members have belonged to the MPS, Gary S. Becker, Ronald H. Coase, James M. Buchanan and Vernon Smith in Economics and Mario Vargas Llosa in Literature. Prominent writers have also been members, including Otto von Habsburt, the heir in 1916–1918 to the Austrian-Hungarian throne, and Henry Hazlitt from the United States. The MPS has from the beginning sought to be a forum for discussions about freedom, its problems and prospects. Gissurarson attended his first meeting at Stanford in 1980, invited by Hayek. He became a member in 1984 and was on the Board of Directors in 1998–2004.

The Marrakech meeting was held at the Es Saadi hotel, and the theme was ‘Reaching New Audiences for Classical Liberalism’. The MPS President, Professor Deirdre McCloskey, addressed the opening dinner. Sessions were devoted to various topics, such as the dissemination of classical liberalism through cultural creations, the relationship between islam and liberty, and the challenges to the open society. At a luncheon Professor Peter J. Boettke and Dr. Nils Karlson debated whether classical liberals were progressing in the right direction. Professor Gabriel Calzada, former MPS President, addressed the closing dinner which took place in the Soleiman Palace. The Chatham Rule applies to meetings of the MPS which implies that direct quotations from talks are not allowed. The Marrakech meeting was ably organised by Dr. Nouh El Harmouzi from Morocco and Michel-Kelly Magnon from Canada. On the last day of the meeting, the participants went on an excursion around Marrakech, visiting the Bahia Palace and other places.

Gissurarson used the opportunity to meet a few friends of Iceland, including Dr. Eamonn Butler from the Adam Smith Institute in London, Dr. Barbara Kolm from the Austrian Economics Center in Vienna, Dr. Phillip Magness from the Independent Institute in Oakland, Dr. Tom Palmer from Atlas Network in Washington DC, Dr. Nils Karlson from Ratio Institute in Stockholm, Professor Alberto Mingardi from IULM in Milan, and Terry Anker from Liberty Fund, Indianapolis. On one free evening, the Nordic participants had dinner together, all from Sweden except Professor Gissurarson. From left: Susanne Karlson, André Dammert, Professor Lotta Stern, Gissurarson, Nils Karlson, Anders Ydstedt, and Professor Carl-Gustaf Thulin.

Júlíus Viggó Ólafsson.

The meeting hall of the Icelandic House of Museums (Safnahusid) was packed on Saturday 4 October when Students for Liberty Europe and RSE, the Icelandic Research Centre for Social and Economic Affairs, jointly held a conference on ‘The European Union: Friend or Foe of Liberty?’ Breki Atlason, the Icelandic coordinator of Students for Liberty, chaired the meeting, while Professor Emeritus Hannes H. Gissurarson, on behalf of RSE, introduced the speakers and directed the questions and answers period. Júlíus Viggó Ólafsson, economics students at the University of Iceland and the leader of Young Independents, gave a short opening address. He said that young people were increasingly rejecting the Left, both in Iceland and elsewhere, but that even if some of them turned to national conservatism, it was important that they did not reject economic freedom, the engine of progress. Dr. Eamonn Butler, former Director of the Adam Smith Institute in London and the author of several books on classical liberal themes, spoke first in the former session. He is an old friend of Iceland, being one of the few who publicly protested against the use of an anti-terrorism law against Iceland during the 2008 Icelandic bank collapse. Butler said that Brexit, the exit of Great Britain from the European Union, was for him and other Brexiteers about regaining control of their own country, instead of seeing it transferred it to a non-transparent, undemocratic, non-accountable bureaucracy in Brussels. Brexit was, he submitted, a success in that indeed Great Britain had regained her sovereignty, but what he and other Brexiteers had underestimated was the sheer malevolence of the Brussels bureaucrats who had tried to make the process as difficult and cumbersome as possible.

From left: Breki Atlason, Eamonn Butler, John Fund, and Ragnar Árnason.

When introducing John Fund, Editor of National Review and commentator on Fox News, Professor Gissurarson quoted the old Chinese curse: May you live in interesting times. Indeed, the Americans now lived in interesting times, he said. Fund spoke about the rise of populism in North America and Europe. It signified a widespread feeling, he said, that the ruling elites on those two continents were ignoring the interests and ideas of ordinary people, not least the worry that left-wing extremists and religious zealots from afar were imposing their views on others. Fund added that the Icelanders were facing a historic decision about the European Union: whether or not to transfer control from Reykjavik to Brussels. If they decided to defy the elites, it would be noted all over the world. Fund was interviewed by Morgunbladid on 4 October and by RUV, the government broadcasting station, on 6 October where he mainly discussed American politics.

Ragnar Árnason, Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Iceland, pointed out what he regarded as obvious: You only decide to join an association if you think that it will benefit you in some way. In his estimate, the costs for Iceland of joining the European Union were much greater than the benefits. Iceland was one of the most prosperous European countries, like two other non-members, Norway and Switzerland, and therefore she would be a net contributor to the European Union. She had great natural resources, undoubtedly coveted in Brussels. Moreover, Iceland did not have to join the EU in order to ensure her security: She already had a defence treaty with the United States and she was a member state of NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. If Iceland became a member country, she would have no more say on European affairs than other small European countries which had, as everybody could observe, negligible influence. Árnason added that even if it was concluded that the benefits of membership would slightly outweigh the costs, there was an additional invisible cost which was that under the circumstances of uncertainty, the decision was almost irreversible. Therefore, even if the benefits were estimated to outweigh the costs, it would be rational to postpone a decision until it was clear what the future would hold. There was more to lose from the decision to join if it turned out to be wrong than there was to gain from it if it turned out to be sensible.

Árnason Slides

A lively discussion followed the first session. Dr. Daniel Mitchell of the Freedom and Prosperity Association in Washington DC spoke first in the second session. He pointed out that the gap between living standards in the United States and the European Union had increased in the last few decades. The EU countries had stagnated, and this was, he submitted, because they enjoyed less economic freedom and suffered higher taxes than the United States. He illustrated this with a lot of graphs whose data were all from respected sources such as the World Bank. The EU was a sinking ship, he said. It might have been sensible by the poorer nations of Europe to join the EU to ensure their security and to improve their legal framework, but it made no sense for Iceland. After the conference, Mitchell wrote a blog about it.

Mitchell Slides

Siri Terjesen.

When introducing the two last speakers, Siri Terjesen, Professor of Economics at Florida Pacific University, and Gale Pooley, Professor of Economics at Utah Tech University, Professor Gissurarson reminded the audience of another Chinese saying: Lit the candle instead of just cursing the darkness. These two speakers were going to talk about hope, the possibility of a better future for young people despite bureaucrats and demagogues, the conditions for progress, economic growth, improved living standards. Terjesen explained to the audience the great benefits of encouraging entrepreneurship by moderate taxes and an efficient but light regulatory framework. Pooley introduced a new way of thinking about living standards. It was not in terms of money, not even money adjusted to the price level. This was thinking in terms of ‘time price’ which was money price divided by hourly income. Progress was that it was taking lesser and lesser time to earn the money to buy goods. For example, for the time you had to work in 1952 to buy an air conditioning unit, you could in 2024 for the same time get 45. 5 units. For the time you had to work in 1900 to buy one bottle of Coca Cola, you could in 2023 for the same time get 55.2 bottles. Pooley emphasised the creativity of human beings, as he had done in his recent book, coauthored with Marian Tupy, Superabundance.

Terjesen Slides

Pooley Slides

Snorri Másson.

Snorri Másson, Member of Parliament for the Centre Party, made some brief closing remarks. He said that a massive onslaught on the freedom of speech had taken place in the West in recent years, under the banners of wokeism and cancel culture. It was crucial for young people to resist this onslaught. It should never be forgotten that freedom was also the freedom to express unpopular opinions. After the conference, RSE invited all the participants to a reception on the premises where a lively discussion took place again. In the evening, the foreign speakers and the leadership of Students for Liberty Europe attended a barbecue at Professor Gissurarson’s home, where Einar Arnalds Kristjánsson was in charge of cooking. Lukas Schweiger, a former Chairman of Students for Liberty Europe and an Austrian resident in Iceland, Halla Margrét Hilmarsdóttir, a veteran of Students for Liberty Europe, and Gísli Valdórsson, project manager at RSE, also helped organise the conference and contributed much to its success.

Gissurarson then discussed the lack of democracy and transparancy in the present EU institutions, especially in the EU Commission, and in the Court of Justice of the EU. He suggested that the EU should be reformed and the Subsidiarity Principle should be reinstated as its guiding principle. He outlined six ideas to reform the EU: 1) the Commission should be turned into an ordinary civil service, 2) legislative power should be partly returned to national parliaments and partly transferred to the European Parliament, 3) the European Parliament should be split into two chambers, one the present European Council, the other one the present Parliament, 4) penalities should be applied to the governors of the European Central Bank if they break the rules in its Charter (as they have blatantly done), 5) the Court of Justice of the EU should be split into two, a Subsidiarity Court only about whether that principle was broken, and another Court, dealing with other issues, and 6) judges should not be selected from a pool of euroenthusiasts, but from the ranks of experienced judges.

Gissurarson observed that Iceland, a remote island in the north, was never a part of the continental project, the decision by the French and the Germans to stop their endless wars. He recalled the history of the Icelandic Commonwealth, where chieftains and farmers had emphasised Icelandic exceptionalism. It was no coincidence, Gissurarson added, that the three richest countries in Europe, Switzerland, Norway, and Iceland, were all outside the EU. He also discussed a remarkable speech given by euroenthusiast Guy Verhofstadt in Iceland on 21 September where he said, quite firmly, 1) that the EU should become a superpower competing with the US and China, and 2) that the member states had to be all in or all out, as the EU was not a menu from which you could choose what you wanted, as the British had imagined.

Gissurarson then briefly introduced the speakers at the forthcoming conference, commenting that perhaps they could help the audience to understand some important issues: Dr. Eamonn Butler on Brexit; John Fund on American politics; Professor Ragnar Árnason on arguments for and against Iceland joining the EU; Dr. Daniel Mitchell on the stagnation in the EU compared to the US; Professor Siri Terjesen on the hope that creativity and entrepreneurship provide for young people; and Professor Gale Pooley on the remarkable findings of his new book on Superabundance.

On the occasion of the publication of Líndal’s book, The Icelandic Literary Society, jointly with the Institute of Medieval Studies at the University of Iceland, the Institute of Law at the University of Iceland, and RSE, the Research Centre for Social and Economic Affairs,  held a colloquium at Edda, the house for the ancient Icelandic manuscripts on the University of Iceland campus, on 23 September 2025. Two foreign speakers discussed the contributions of Snorri Sturluson and Sigurdur Líndal to political and legal theory. Ditlev Tamm, Professor Emeritus of Law at the University of Copenhagen, described the old Nordic legal tradition of which Líndal had written much, and pointed out similarities between it and the traditions in many other European countries, for example Hungary. One important principle in that tradition was Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus approbetur (what touches all must be approved of by all) which the American revolutionaries in 1776 interpreted as: no taxation without representation. The question was however how much of the Nordic tradition was really from the Middle Ages, and how much was constructed under the influence of romantic nationalism in the nineteenth century.

Dr. Tom G. Palmer, the International Secretary of Atlas Network, to which almost 600 think tanks around the world belong, also discussed the significance of the principle Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus approbetur, which was, he argued, one of the most important pillars of modern democracy. It was given a pithy form, he said, in the Polish-Lithuanian Republic of Nobles, Nic o nas bez nas (Nothing about us, Without Us). Palmer also mentioned the reflections on politics by Cicero in his book On Duty which showed, he suggested, some striking similarities with the famous speech by the Icelandic farmer Einar of Thverá in Snorri Sturluson’s Heimskringla, where Einar points out that kings turn out differently, some well and some badly, so it was necessary to constrain their power, especially their power to tax and to engage in warfare.

Gudlaugur Thór Thórdarson, fmr. Foreign Minister, Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, fmr. President of Iceland, and Prof. Hannes H. Gissurarson at the reception following the meeting.

A lively discussion followed the two papers. Lilja Alfredsdóttir, former Minister of Education, recalled the description by Tacitus in Germania about the self-government of the German tribes which seemed very similar to the system of the Icelandic Commonwealth. Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, the former President of Iceland, emphasised the Germanic heritage of the Nordic and Anglo-Saxon nations which had been particularly relevant in Snorri Sturluson’s time when it had come into conflict with the attempts by the Norwegian kings to establish centralised power, under the influence of ideas from the south of Europe. This Nordic and Anglo-Saxon heritage had again become relevant in our time, Grímsson said, when attempts were being made to establish centralised power in Brussels. Gudni Ágústsson, former Minister of Agriculture, pointed out that Snorri Sturluson had been brought up in the famous site of learning Oddi, and that perhaps he had something to do with the writing of Njal’s Saga, in Gudni’s opinion the best Icelandic saga. Hannes H. Gissurarson who led the discussion responded that Snorri had written Egil’s Saga which was very anti-royalist in spirit, but that possibly his nephew, the historian Sturla Thordarson, had written Njal’s Saga which was not at all hostile to royalty. The difference between Snorri and Sturla had been that Snorri wanted to maintain the independence of Iceland, which she had enjoyed for three centuries, whereas Sturla was very much the king’s man.

The meeting hall at Edda was packed. The meeting was chaired by Gardar Gíslason, former Supreme Court Justice, whereas the publication of Líndal’s book was supported by RSE, the Icelandic Centre for Social and Economic Research. After the meeting, RSE hosted a reception at the premises, and in the evening it invited the speakers and organisers of the event to dinner. From left: Haraldur Bernhardsson, Director of the University of Iceland Institute of Medieval Studies, María Jóhannsdóttir, widow of Prof. Sigurdur Líndal, Prof. Ditlev Tamm, Prof. Anna Agnarsdóttir, Sigurgeir Orri Sigurgeirsson, who designed the book, Elisa Eyvindsdóttir, editor of Úlfljótur, Prof. Hannes H. Gissurarson, Prof. Ragnar Árnason, Dr. Tom G. Palmer, Gardar Gíslason, fmr. Supreme Court Justice, and Salka Sigmarsdóttir, editor of Úlfljótur.

The day before the colloquium, Professor Hannes H. Gissurarson published an article in Morgunbladid, Our Contemporary, Snorri Sturluson, where he argued that Snorri’s ideas were still relevant: government by consent, the right of rebellion (now interpreted as the right regularly to vote those in power out of office), no taxation without representation and a foreign policy that the Icelandic nation should be the friend of all, but the subject of none.

John Locke

RNH Academic Director Hannes H. Gissurarson, Professor Emeritus of Politics at the University of Iceland, was interviewed in Gisli Freyr Valdorsson’s popular podcast on Wednesday 27 August 2025. They discussed how classical liberalism could be defined and defended. Gissurarson pointed out that this was traditionally regarded as a set of political ideas developed by John Locke, David Hume, and Adam Smith, but he added that in fact the roots of classical liberalism were much older, derived from the old Germanic ideas of government by consent and right of rebellion, described by Snorri Sturluson in Heimskringla. Government provided three indispensable services, to keep law and order, to defend people against internal and external threats, and to ensure a decent life for those unable to provide for themselves, in other words a safety net. Probably government only needed about 15 per cent of GDP, Gross Domestic Product, to finance the provision of these three kinds of services. Gissurarson recalled the old adage, No taxation without representation. This implied, for example, that corporations should not pay taxes because they had no right to vote. Again, taxes should only paid on income, either as a value-added tax or as a flat personal income tax. It was unfair to tax income from capital gains because then those who had saved were punished whereas those who had consumed all their income were spared and thus rewarded. It was double taxation.

Gissurarson recalled the story of King Eric of Pomerania. He had in 1429 introduced the Sound Dues on ships crossing the Sound between Denmark and Sweden. Later, when he had been deposed, he became a pirate on Gotland, an island in the Baltic Sea. The interesting question was whether there was any moral difference between the income he exacted as king from ships crossing the Sound and the income he derived as pirate from robbing ships crossing the Baltic. Was the former not taxation without representation and therefore theft by taxation, and the latter plain and simple theft? Gissurarson also recalled that the well-known philosopher G. E. M. Anscombe had taught that the main task of political philosophy was to distinguish the state from the mafia, both entities promising protection for a fee.

Gissurarson said that the main difference between economic liberalism and socialism was shown in their approaches to poverty. The liberals sought to enable people to get out of poverty, whereas the socialists wanted to help people remain poor, by making poverty more tolerable. What was essential for the liberals was help to self-help, making people independent and prosperous. Gissurarson added that the two main arguments for private property were that what everybody owned, nobody cared for, and that good fences made good neighbours. He was in favour of private property rights to natural resources, but the private property right which was most important was the right people had in their own persons, their abilities and skills.

In this wide-ranging interview Gissurarson emphasised that of course he supported the free immigration of individuals who wanted to contribute and were willing to follow the law of the land. But Europe had recently experienced the mass immigration of people who did not share Western values: they did not accept equal rights for women and sexual minorities, they considered work-shirking entirely appropriate, and they had grown up in a culture of violence. The European voters did not want such immigrants to take over their countries or parts of them, and if the political parties did not listen to the people about this, they would simply be voted out of office. Gissurarson pointed out that the last general elections in Iceland were seminal in that the radical left which had been represented in Parliament since 1937, and often enjoyed the support of 10–20 per cent of the votes, had not got even one member elected. He also pointed out that in the past the Independence Party had largely unified the right in Iceland, but that now there were four parties more or less playing the same role, the much-reduced old party itself, the Centre Party, the Reform Party, and the People’s Party.

Gissurarson said that he was at present completing an assignment for the Brussels think tank New Direction: an anthology of conservative-liberal political thought in the Nordic countries from 946 to 1945, selected, edited and introduced by him. It had been two years in the workings.

Gissurarson Article in Nordisk Tidskrift

This northern liberalism was articulated in the works of Icelandic chronicler Snorri Sturluson (1179–1241) who described the conflict between the Norwegian (and Swedish) kings and their subjects who insisted on the two ancient principles of government by consent and the right of rebellion. Later John Locke was to build a whole system upon those two principles, in his justification of the 1688 Revolution in Britain which was made in order to defend ancient liberties against a king who craved absolutism. This system was further elaborated by David Hume with his conception of justice, spontaneously developed as a response to limited altruism and natural scarcity, by Adam Smith with his case for free trade, and by Edmund Burke with his polemic against attempts at destroying all ancient institutions instead of reforming then gradually.

Gissurarson recalled that eleven years before Smith published his great treatise on the Wealth of Nations, a Finnish pastor, Anders Chydenius (1729–803], as a member of the Swedish Parliament, Diet of the Four Estates, in 1765 had published a tract with essentially the same arguments for free trade. Chydenius had also been instrumental in abolishing censorship and introducing freedom of religion in Sweden. In the nineteenth century, Swedish liberals deposed a king in 1809 and wrote a relatively liberal constitution the same year. They reinforced the rule of law, abolished the guilds and most restrictions on trade, and in 1866 replaced the Diet of the Four Estates with a Parliament. Sweden, between 1870 and 1970, experienced a high and sustained rate of economic growth and became one of the richest countries in the world.

In the nineteenth century, the third great liberal appeared, the Danish poet, pastor and statesman Nikolai Frederik S. Grundtvig (1783–1872). When the Danish king in 1848 transferred his absolute power to the people, Grundtvig saw it as a necessary task to educate the people in so-called People’s High Schools so they could become responsible citizens. He was a nationalist, but a non-aggressive one. For example, he thought that only the Danish-speaking part of the contested Schleswig should belong to Denmark. Nationality had to be chosen, not imposed. Grundtvig’s nationalism was about respecting and developing the national heritage, the history, language, literature, folk songs and folkways, of one’s own country. When Denmark had lost Norway, in 1814, and Schleswig and Holstein, in 1864, he emphasised that she should grow within her own borders, as a nation proud of her identity and achievements.

Gissurarson emphasised that conservative liberalism was not only the product of individual writers, but that it was also embodied in Nordic practices, first and foremost the rule of law, and a strong civil society, full of voluntary associations and local communities. The Royal charters of the late Middle Ages also acted as constraints on arbitrary power. It showed how strong was the conservative-liberal tradition of liberty under the law that it was able to withstand both the seventeenth century assault of the kings, claiming power by the grace of God, and the twentieth century assault by Social Democrats, claiming power by the will of the people. Today, the Nordic nations are some of the freest nations economically in the world, and the happiest ones as well. They have cast off the yoke of Social democracy in the same way as they cast off the yoke of absolutism and in the same way as the English, gradually from Magna Carta in 1215 to the 1688 Revolution, cast off the Norman yoke and returned to their Saxon freedom, a part of the Germanic heritage of all Northern peoples.

Other speakers at the summer school included Hungarian professor Ferenc Hörcher who defended moderate conservatism in the spirit of Roger Scruton, Croatian MEP Stepan Bartulica who criticised the centralisation in the European Union, New Direction Senior Adviser Robert Tyler who described the conservative views on the nation state, French professor Jean Luc Coronel de Boissezon who presented the conservatism of Joseph de Maistre and Louis de Bonald, Swedish Oikos adviser Arvid Hallén who argued for an alliance between right-wing liberals and conservatives, English Professor James Orr who gave a defence of conservative values, and Mateusz Morawiecki, former Prime Minister of Poland, who discussed the current state of affairs in Europe. Many lecturers expressed worries about asylum seekers in Europe who refused to follow the laws and conventions of their host countries. This might even lead to local soft civil wars. They emphasised the conservative support for the family, church, and nation. Fifty students attended the school, while many more had applied.

As a parlour game, the lecturers were asked to name seven books that they would recommend. Gissurarson mentioned Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burke (1790),  Socialism by Ludwig von Mises (1922), The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich A. von Hayek (1944), The Open Society and Its Enemies by Karl R. Popper (1945), Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand (1957), The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1974), and Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick (1974). Both teachers and students at the summer school agreed that the venue, Chateau de Thorens, was superb.

In recent years, AB has published three novels by Ayn Rand, We the Living, The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged, books by Hannes H. Gissurarson, now Professor Emeritus, on several issues, such as the Icelandic Communist Movement and the Impeachment Trial of former Prime Minister Geir H. Haarde, books by Matt Ridley and Johan Norberg on the grounds for optimism about economic development, and reprints of anti-communist books of the Cold War, including Essays on Communism by Bertrand Russell, Out of the Night by Jan Valtin (Richard Krebs), El campesino by Valentín González, Baltic Eclipse by Aants Oras, and I Chose Freedom by Victor Kravchenko.

According to tradition, the shareholders held a dinner after the meeting. From left: Thórdís Edwald, Baldur Gudlaugsson, Sigrídur Snævarr, Ármann Thorvaldsson, Hannes H. Gissurarson, Jónas Sigurgeirsson, Karítas Kvaran, Kjartan Gunnarsson, and Rosa Gudbjartsdóttir.