I'm Icelandic, here are a few notes from the top of my head.

-- Iceland is not an EU member. Iceland is a part of EFTA (European Free Trade Association) and Schengen (border control) but not a full member. An application to join the European Union has been filed by the Icelandic government but it is generally considered to be a first step in negotiations as opposed to being a commitment to join.

-- Iceland did not go bankrupt. At no time did the Icelandic government default. Support from the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and the other Scandinavian nations along with cutbacks in government spending and tax raises prevented that. The Icelandic National Bank did at one point go "technically" bankrupt but was bailed out by the government.

-- The currency in Iceland is the krona (ISK) not the Euro.

-- The Icesave accounts where created by Landsbankinn to increase deposits and liquidity and to reduce reliance on long term financing, they were not designed to "attract foreign investors". The interest rate was about 9% and they were mostly popular with individuals and local councils looking for short term interest on on-hand cash.

-- The correct names of the Icelandic banks where Landsbanki, Kaupthing and Glitnir. They are now named Landsbanki, Arion bank and Islandsbanki respectively.

-- While I agree that there was protest I think that using the word "riot" is overkill. I think that what stands out is that a group of young activists were arrested for trying to enter the parliament against the orders of the police and that windows in the parliament building were broken by stone throwing. A couple of thousand people gather outside the parliament building for a few days to make noise and listen to speeches.

-- The public voted against the Icesave deal because the there were unresolved legal issues around it. The EU/EFTA legislation states that each member state must set up a deposit-insurance fund to cover losses caused to depositors in case of bank bankruptcy. The legislation does not mandate that the government insure the deposits, only that the deposit-insurance fund is correctly set up. The Icelandic government did set up the fund in accordance with the legislation and therefore there was doubt as to whether or not the Icelandic government was legally liable for the Icesave deposits to begin with. The problem was that if Iceland's interpretation of the law would be confirmed the whole banking system in Europe would have been at risk, since it would have meant that there was no effective security in place for depositors. Therefore there was tremendous pressure on both sides to resolve the matter without going to the EFTA court. The Icelandic people felt that the legal ambiguity on the legality of holding the Icelandic government responsible meant that if any repayment was to be done it should be shouldered by both parties. The deal the British and Dutch authorities pushed was in no way fair, with the interest rate being significantly higher than the long term rates of the ECB (European Central Bank).

-- The consensus in Iceland was and is that the Icesave debt should be repaid (if only for moral reasons) - but only on fair terms and according to EU legislation.

-- The statement "they decided to draft a new constitution that would free the country from the exaggerated power of international finance and virtual money" is total fabrication. Re-working the constitution has been on the agenda in Iceland for the last 10 years with various committees putting forth suggestions. The only difference is that after the awakening that followed the crash it was decided to have a national referendum to allow people to vote a special Constitutional Council. The council actually did it's work in a very transparent manner, using Facebook and other social media to publish drafts and gather feedback. The newly created constitution is currently waiting for parliamentary updates and approval (see http://stjornlagarad.is/english/).

-- There is a misconception that the people of Iceland rose up and refused to bail out the banks. The Icelandic government has spent billions of dollars to save the financial system resulting in higher taxes and cuts in public service. The big difference is that instead of using the bailouts to save existing companies the government created new legal entities that took over the obligations and assets of the bankrupt entities, essentially splitting the banks up into two (bankrupt old company and a new company in major ownership by the government and creditors). That way the old banks will go through bankruptcy proceedings (with creditors loosing the most) and the new banks (that received the bailouts) will be partly or majorly owned by the government, which can at a later point sell it's ownership to recoup some of the bailouts.