President of Iceland, Olafur Ragnar Grimsson’s decision not to sign the Icesave Agreement into law yesterday has already drawn responses from other countries, including the UK.
The Times reports that the British treasury is potentially considering seizing Landsbanki’s remaining assets in Britain as reimbursement for Iceland’s Icesave debt.
The Icelandic president’s decision means the law will go into force, but must be voted on by the public before 5th March, if parliament chooses not to repeal the bill instead. Sources last night indicated that the government intends to continue pushing the existing bill and will therefore introduce a bill on a national referendum to parliament this Friday. If the nation votes ‘no’ (as polls indicate it will), the current Icesave Bill would be pushed beyond resurrection and the bill passed by parliament and the President in August, but rejected by the UK and Netherlands, would come back into force.
In the meantime, British and Dutch authorities intend to meet and establish a joint position and course of action on the matter. The British delegation will be led personally by Chancellor Alistair Darling and Banking Minister Lord Myners.
In related news, Norway has said its promised loan to Iceland will definitely not be paid out before the national referendum has been settled.
I hope this will all be resolved, as I’m very fond of Icelanders, Netherlanders and Britons as well.
People can say whatever they want, but ultimately if Iceland walks away from repaying these loans, I don’t see how people from Iceland can expect that others around the world will ever be able to have faith in doing business with them.
To Bromley86:
>>>>So it may be Krona, but it has to be convertible into Euros at the rate back 0n/0501/1999. Quick internet search gives 80.6 as the Jan average, which gives 21k euros. So that’ll be where the 20,887 figure comes from and explains why it’s not the 20,000 required by the 1994 directive.
The real “solution” was to transfer immediately 500B Icelandic krona’s to into new accounts, to pay everyone out, and just dispatch the whole problem away.
The local economy and the new banks would have been partially protected, by limiting the withdrawals from these new accounts, which was exactly what was done with the Icelandic depositors, hence no chance of accusing Iceland of discrimination.
Afterwards, we would just have this “minor” problem of 400 thousand European depositors MAD AS HELL at us, with all their worthless kronas. But what the heck, they were always going to be mad at us anyway, right? :-)
You are right, on the 20878 krona amount. Thats where it originally came from.
Thanks Bjarni :) . As we agreed back when it first became apparent, the Ragnar Hall issue is a pretty serious one.
As to the Krona thing, the rest of the paragraph clarifies that:
“This amount shall be linked to the EUR exchange rate of 5 January 1999″
So it may be Krona, but it has to be convertible into Euros at the rate back 0n/0501/1999. Quick internet search gives 80.6 as the Jan average, which gives 21k euros. So that’ll be where the 20,887 figure comes from and explains why it’s not the 20,000 required by the 1994 directive.
—————
@Fisy. Can we agree on a modified version of Godwin’s law? If you can’t respond to the questions without comparing the poster to Peter, then you’ve lost :D .
(And that wasn’t meant as an attack on Peter. I’ll stay out of your spat.)
But responding to the points that you do respond to:
The need for a parliamentary vote on the Icesave obligation surfaced very late in the day. If Mathiesen was aware that that was the case, then he should have made Darling aware of it. It seems just as likely to me that he was not. Either way, his responsibility to communicate, not Darling’s to find out. I utterly disagree with your position, as usual :) .
Okay. I refer you to the bond idea that was being mooted (by Iceland of course; the UK & NL said no every time it was mentioned).
From my reading of it, the sole aim of this bond was to avoid a state guarantee. Feel free to read up on it yourself though on island.is, docs 60-66.
First mention I know of 4th April, last one (where Roberts spanks Gestsson for being a naughty boy) was 15th May. I think that covers most of the negotiating phase under the current government (I suspect you’ll enjoy that fact :) ). Time that could have been better spent estabilishing that there was no way that the UK/NL side would accept a time-limited state guarantee and, more importantly, nailing the Ragnar Hall issue.
It was obvious that the Haarde government had to be dragged to a position where they backed the guarantee. As you know. If they hadn’t dragged their feet so much and then wasted effort on the legality of the freezing order, then they could have secured an agreement before they were kicked out.
Dear Mike (UK Nordic analyst), so all the talk about all the money in circulation being initiated by burdening up debt is fiction. Everybody is wrong, and the Times never wrote such a thing, and using the head equals us with scary Hitler. Sorry, the old psycho-tricks won’t catch anymore. Sorry, we are aware of the private money system, and this knowledge will not go away.
For example how do you try to make “unhappen” this recent article in Italy. What if the real masters TELL into our face, that we are bent over, and they hope we cannot do a thing about it. What if the lamppost and rope industries will get a huge upswing in the next months.
That provocation sovereignty of the currency in private hands
http://www.ilgiornale.it/economia/provocazione_quella_sovranita_moneta_mani_private/11-12-2009/articolo-id=406009
“The Bank of Italy is by no means “the Bank of Italy”, that is ours, the Italians, but a private bank, like other central banks including the European Union, which are owned by large banks, while taking deliberately misleading the people bearing the name of the State for which to produce the money.”
Here following lead of Bjarni above ( hope its okay Bjarni ) I will post links to most recent post so you can find them :
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/09/skarphedinsson-and-moratinos-icesave-has-no-impact-on-eus-treatment-of-application/ ( 4 )
* http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/09/eva-joly-to-dutch-media-netherlands-being-arrogant/ ( 11 )
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/08/joint-nordic-statement-on-iceland-loans-next-week/ ( 9 )
* http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/08/government-bill-for-a-national-referendum-on-icesave-legislation/ — policy advise for clueless Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir and Steingrímur J.
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/08/lithuania-follows-latvian-lead-by-expressing-support-for-iceland/ ( 21 )
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/08/british-fishing-towns-fear-iceland-politics-will-affect-jobs/ ( 12 )
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/08/iceland-finance-minister-on-nordic-charm-tour/ ( 2 )
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/07/icesave-should-not-sour-nordic-relations-iceland-fm/ ( 16 )
* http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/07/latvian-fm-wades-into-icesave-argument/ ( 29 ) — welcome to propaganda posting alias ‘ west ‘ of other posters here..
* http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/07/the-emergence-of-icesave-empathy-for-iceland-in-uk-media/ ( 46 ) — another meaty issues facts thread
* http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/07/bbc-newsnight-interview-with-the-icelandic-president/ ( 33 ) — Ólafur Ragnar gets Paxoed. Program features poor research by Economics Editor Paul Mason and his team — be ashamed Paui, very ashamed
* http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/06/iceland-and-uk-ministers-to-hold-meeting-this-evening/ ( 27 ) — at last one of the many obviously UK government working posters here comes clean and comes out publicly
* http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/06/icesave-misunderstanding-in-the-foreign-media/ ( 50 )
* http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/06/iceland-president’s-icesave-decision-drawing-harsh-international-response/ ( 57 )
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/06/iceland-fm-declines-india-trip-with-president/ ( 5 ) — Össur Skarphéðinsson acting like a child
* http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/05/government-iceland-still-committed-to-debt-repayment/ ( 49 )
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/05/fitch-lowers-iceland-credit-rating-to-junk/ ( 11 )
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/05/business-as-usual-for-icelandic-government-for-now/ ( 25 )
* http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/05/is-iceland-without-icesave-allies/ ( 56 ) – more meaty facts and discussion
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/05/declaration-by-the-president-of-iceland/ ( 4 )
* http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/05/icesave-agreement-rejected-by-icelandic-president/ ( 65 ) — a particuly juicy thread
Where I put a star * I indicate threads very much worth reading.
To Bromley86:
>>>>I’ve forgotten what the RH issue was, but I remember thinking that it was valid. Something to do with balancing payments in the event that the TIF recovers more than the FSCS?
In case you really want to recollect, it concerned the handling of each individual depositor claim. Should it treated as one single claim, according to bankruptcy law practice in Iceland, of which the Iceland TIF would get the first 20K Euros, and UK/Netherlands the rest, or should it be treated as two separate claims, that are then treated equally.
The Icesave agreement specifically states, that even if TIF gets the first 20K, according to Icelandic law, it would then have to pay it back to FSCS/DNB.
>>>>Never! :) If Iceland, as you think, doesn’t challenge the legal requirement for a state guarantee, then the EU legislation requires payments in nice, useful Euros.
Well, technically [again :-)], according to the 1999/98 laws on TIF, in article 10 it specifies:
“…each claim up to ISK 1.7 million shall be paid…”
http://www.tryggingarsjodur.is/modules/files/file_group_26/log/log-98-1999-ens.pdf
For some strange reason, the Icelandic government decided to play nice on this issue, and not just write a check for a cool 500 Billion Icelandic kronas to cover Icesave :-)
Bromley this above post was seing you starting slide into Peter London territory.
It is disappointing to see. I will let other poster here reply as I am sure they will to that.
But I do take issue with this one.
>Because going on everything that Icelandic policians have said, they have never agreed with you.
In what way? I lost you now.
>One reason why this issue is taking so long to solve is that both Icelandic governments tried their damndest to avoid the guarantee.
How so?
You know that for example Árni Mathiesen in his conversation with Darling could not be more explicit about the guarantee because he was legally not able to make such a guarantee due to Icelandic constitution.
( And that is something that Darling should have known that makes Darling look even * worse * in what he did say the day after about Iceland no honouring its commitments )
Let’s see the facts you have on other cases. For example with this Red-Green govenrment who have bent over backwards on IceSave ” deal ” you would think that they were jellyfish.
It wasn’t a staw man Fisy. It was a question with parameters.
Really? That may be your opinion, but I suspect that it isn’t the opinion of a sizable chunk of Icelanders. Has there been any discussion or statement by a politician about what would be the aim of a court case?
Because going on everything that Icelandic policians have said, they have never agreed with you. One reason why this issue is taking so long to solve is that both Icelandic governments tried their damndest to avoid the guarantee.
Good luck with that. I’d assume that you cannot take someone to court to force them to loan you money at a rate that you like, but then I can’t definitively say that non-discrimination rules agree with that. I’d be amazed though.
Still, if you go down that route, then don’t expect a payment holiday. And those terms are only for 3 years.
I’ve forgotten what the RH issue was, but I remember thinking that it was valid. Something to do with balancing payments in the event that the TIF recovers more than the FSCS?
Never! :) If Iceland, as you think, doesn’t challenge the legal requirement for a state guarantee, then the EU legislation requires payments in nice, useful Euros.
Same answer to your point about waiting until LB assets are sold.
I haven’t seen the most recent law (link anyone?), but I thought the payment cap was still in there but that the state guarantee remains in force until the loan is repaid (rather than expiring in 2024).
Peter – London ( not Krakow now ) posting from bedsit shared with Derek Draper again :
>“EU commission does not want to see this matter in court. Or in front of
>any impartial third party. Ever.”
>
>True, but only because its already gone to final arbitration and Iceland lost.
>There is no legal option open to Iceland and Iceland has accepted that.
You keep trying to push this nonsense don’t you. I think this is the 16th time you have done so since middle of last year here on IceNews boards — and each time I or Bjarni do correct you.
Luckily for the truth it seem we do never tire of posting facts here when such falsehoods keep on coming from you.
There are so many post where you do post this particular falsehood and then you are rebutted.. which ones to choose ?
Okay how about this one :
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/12/28/third-and-final-icesave-debate-begins/#comment-107434
Oh, and this one :
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/12/28/third-and-final-icesave-debate-begins/#comment-107543
Most recent time I think..
“The personal opinion of the [ EU ] nominees does not commit either the respective appointing authorities nor those of Iceland.”
http://www.island.is/media/frettir/31.pdf ( item 1 )
>Fisy. Let’s assume after the “no” referendum that the UK/NL get bored of the negotiations and that it goes to court.
You are setting up the straw men again.
UK/NL want to avoid court like the swine flu. If they did not want to avoid it they would already have this in court.
It is Icelanders that do want this seen in front of impartial 3rd party. You notice that Uk and Holland never talk about court. Now it’s talk about ” getting EU commission ” involved.
>If Iceland wins, then there’s no debt.
It is a real stretch to think that any court would want to be in front of would rule that Iceland would no liability particularly as that would not be what our side would come into the court case arguing about.
In any court cases it will be about the interest rate and payment period and Ragnar Hall issue.
Although there is nothing in 94/19/EC Directive on deposit insurance that says the state is responsible for the guarantee when looking at all matters I think that any court will rule these things for sure :
i) liability of our fund ( TIF ) is strictly limited to the minimum amount EUR 20,887 per depositor (GBP 16,827.99) i.e. Ragnar Hall issue would definately be enforced correctly .
ii) that 5.5% interest is too much as it is more than the rate that a loan was given to UK’s Financial Services Compensation Scheme for same reasons+.
iii) Regarding payouts that UK and Holland must take they payments in Icelandic Krona.
Or it might rule that UK and Holland must wait until the dissolved estate of Landsbanki has been fully recovered over next 10 years to get they money in GBP and EUROs.
iv) If the interest rate was more reasonable I think that then it would not need as we did agree in August law this need to cap payments based on our GDP growth. Really this was a fix to original agreement as interest rate is so high.
+http://www.fscs.org.uk/industry/funding/ i.e. the UK Financial Services Compensation Scheme ( FCSC) like Icelandic TIF does not have funds sufficient for its obligations either so it also has been given a loan by UK Treasury at 12 month LIBOR for GBP plus 30 additional basic points, i.e. for now that is just over 1.5 percent interest.
To Bromley86:
>>>>The counter to this, of course, is that Iceland didn’t bother to discuss it’s actions with the UK either.
The Icelandic government definitely got their failing grade in the communications department also, along with the UK/Netherlands government. There were several better options available, if the governments had worked together to resolve the issues, but instead everyone failed here.
>>>>Limiting withdrawals to Krona would just be another way of recycling the UK deposits through the Icelandic economy and not really, I suspect, in the UK’s interest even if it had ever been mooted.
Correct, but this WAS the option that was being offered to domestic customers, so if UK/Netherlands had wanted the SAME treatment, this probably could have been worked out. Iceland would probably have suffered higher inflation as a result (from more kronas in circulation), but this would have been much better option than total crash of the Icelandic economy and currency.
The limitations on withdrawals in kronas, would probably have had to be even more restricted for everyone involved, foreign or domestic, just to avoid the Icelandic central bank running out of kronas also.
To Leo:
>>>>Hmm, I find it hard to interpret what apparently happened on October 6th 2008. If I read you correctly, the icelanders who had accounts with Landsbanki were told they still had their money in ISK, but could only withdraw it slowly/partially. Is that correct?
Yes, that is correct, not only for Landsbanki customers, but for all the Icelandic banks after the crash. Basically the Icelandic government ran almost immediately out of foreign currency, and would also have run out of Icelandic kronas, if the bank run in Iceland had not been averted.
>>>>How do you compare that to what happened to UK/Dutch people with accounts with Icesave (basically the name of Landsbanki in those countries) who could not access anything and could not get any money whatsoever from the bank?
As far as UK/Customers customers with foreign currencies accounts, they were actually in much more similar situation than people actually realize, that is very limited withdrawals in foreign currency.
Still today, you are not able to withdraw freely from foreign currency accounts in Iceland, unless it is done in Icelandic kronas or within the current foreign currency restrictions (about 2500 pounds per month IF you can show legimate reason for doing so, travel, foreign purchase, etc.).
>>>>Fair treatment would have been equal access for UK, Icelandic and Dutch people to their accounts. But that is not what happened as far as I can tell. Icelanders got more than their UK/Dutch counterparts.
As I said earlier, if there had been a real possibility to offer ALL the customers, foreign and domestic, the same option, that is limited withdrawals in kronas under strict restrictions, then everyone would have been MUCH BETTER off.
But, as I said, after passing of the emergency laws by Iceland and the subsequent freezing order by the UK, along with the demand of immediate payment to depositors by the UK/Netherlands governments, this option was unfortunately no longer possible.
>For Iceland, this was unfortunately never possible because of the unilateral actions that the UK government took on October 7-8th.
The counter to this, of course, is that Iceland didn’t bother to discuss it’s actions with the UK either. It perceived a threat (correctly, of course) and acted. However, it was definitely giving out “it’s everyone for themselves” vibes and didn’t appear to be interested in a cooperative approach.
Limiting withdrawals to Krona would just be another way of recycling the UK deposits through the Icelandic economy and not really, I suspect, in the UK’s interest even if it had ever been mooted.
@ Bjarni
Hmm, I find it hard to interpret what apparently happened on October 6th 2008. If I read you correctly, the icelanders who had accounts with Landsbanki were told they still had their money in ISK, but could only withdraw it slowly/partially. Is that correct?
How do you compare that to what happened to UK/Dutch people with accounts with Icesave (basically the name of Landsbanki in those countries) who could not access anything and could not get any money whatsoever from the bank?
Fair treatment would have been equal access for UK, Icelandic and Dutch people to their accounts. But that is not what happened as far as I can tell. Icelanders got more than their UK/Dutch counterparts.
“The EU deposit guarantee schemes were not designed for this kind of case.”
True, it was probably not envisioned that a country would reneged on a guarantee. There is no leeway in the concept of a guarantee.
“EU commission does not want to see this matter in court. Or in front of any impartial third party. Ever.”
True, but only because its already gone to final arbitration and Iceland lost. There is no legal option open to Iceland and Iceland has accepted that.
To Leo:
>>>>Question 1: Did the Icelandic government pay out money to the Icelanders who had deposits in these Icelandic banks with the money from the scheme, and additional money from the Icelandic treasury itself?
No, it did not! This is actually a common misunderstanding. There were actually almost no payments made. The emergency laws that were passed on October 6th, were used calm the fears of the population about a bank run (which almost happened), and at the same time put very strict restrictions on withdrawals on bank deposits in Icelandic kronas, and moratorium on withdrawals in foreign currency.
In the end the emergency actions were successful and payments from TIF were therefore never performed in Iceland.
>>>>On the one hand, the Icelandic government does pay out money from its treasury to the Icelanders to compensate them for the losses of Icesave. Which strongly suggests that it is indeed a government guarantee, right?
There were NEVER any payments from from the treasury to Icelanders to compensate for any deposits, Icesave or other. On a side note, the Icesave accounts never existed in Iceland and most people there had never heard of them at all.
>>>>But at the same time, the Icelandic government discriminates against foreigners and refuses to help them in the same way it helped its own citizens. And despite EU/EEA regulations that require them to help everyone equally?
If it would have been acceptable to UK/Netherlands I am sure a deal could have been worked out that the IceSave deposits would have been frozen in the original accounts, and limited withdrawals in Icelandic kronas under severe restrictions would slowly have been introduced later when things calmed down (which is what happened in Iceland).
For Iceland, this was unfortunately never possible because of the unilateral actions that the UK government took on October 7-8th.
Fisy. Let’s assume after the “no” referendum that the UK/NL get bored of the negotiations and that it goes to court.
If Iceland wins, then there’s no debt. But, in the meantime, the Nordic and probably the IMF loans will have been held up and the Icelandic economy damaged. Perhaps that works in Iceland’s long-term favour; I don’t know.
The other possibility is that the UK/NL win. Then the debt is immediately due and there is no requirement for the UK/NL to offer any loan at all, let alone one with generous repayment terms.
Presumably at that point a 5.5% loan would look like a good deal?
Leo,
>Its called the deposit guarantee scheme, which was even validated by the fact that the icelandic government did reimburse their own citizens.
It is comments like this that point out exactly to core of why this case desperately should be in a court where evidence can be presented by both sides within fair process in front of impartial 3rd party.
The EU deposit guarantee schemes were not designed for this kind of case.
After Ireland did guarantee its own banks 100% for 2 years but the rest of foreign owned banks up to EUR 100,000 they did change the way it was done for all other EU membe state unilaterally.
EU commission does not want to see this matter in court. Or in front of any impartial third party. Ever.
Which is why they did act in they bad faith — and usual kangeroo court way — against Icelandic govennment with ” binding arbitration ” attempt in Novemember 2008 that Iceland did withdraw from when they realized they were to be Shanghied.
To Court !
I’m old enough to remember the “cod wars” when Iceandic minesweepers fired on British trawlers fishing in international waters. Relations have never been good between us and this action of your President will cement that intolerance. You are very foolish to follow his lead.
“Never has so much been owed by so few to so many”
I like this. It should become the Icelandic motto. Actually, the Icelandic banking fiasco required people with special talents.
@Bjarni
One last time. Ok, so the deposit scheme was set up as a “PRIVATE foundation with NO LEGAL authorization to transfer the guarantee obligation over to the Icelandic government”. Let’s go with that.
Question 1: Did the Icelandic government pay out money to the Icelanders who had deposits in these Icelandic banks with the money from the scheme, and additional money from the Icelandic treasury itself?
How does that reflect on the statement that it was a private scheme?
It seems to me that you are trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, the Icelandic government does pay out money from its treasury to the Icelanders to compensate them for the losses of Icesave. Which strongly suggests that it is indeed a government guarantee, right? But at the same time, the Icelandic government discriminates against foreigners and refuses to help them in the same way it helped its own citizens. And despite EU/EEA regulations that require them to help everyone equally?
“Never was so much owed by so many to so few”, Winston Churchill.
Or, in the case of Iceland:
“Never has so much been owed by so few to so many”
I wish everyone in Iceland all the best, if it was up to me I would just forget about the money and write it off, the national debt is big enough already, a few billion more sure wouldn’t hurt us as much as it would hurt you.
Many people here feel the same way so don’t worry too much, there’s a solution for everything and I’m sure things will work out in the end..
Take care everyone!
Sven, what makes you think that the US wants Iceland as the 51 st state. Not even Norway wants Iceland and Norway has lots of money Icelanders are partly of Norwegian descent.
To Leo:
>>>>except that those two neighbours did get prior written authorisation. Its called the deposit guarantee scheme, which was even validated by the fact that the icelandic government did reimburse their own citizens.
One more comment on this point. As you are probably perfectly aware of by now, the Icelandic deposit guarantee scheme was specifically setup as PRIVATE foundation, with NO LEGAL authorization to transfer the guarantee obligation over to the Icelandic government.
That legal obligation was only accepted AFTER the crash, when the first IceSave guarantee laws were passed in August 2009. That is why I said “without PRIOR written authorisation.”
To james:
>>>>In future all countries will understand that the Iceland govt. does not have the authority to take decisiosn on behalf of its population. We apologise for making that foolish mistake.
Correct. If any government clearly goes against the will of their people, we have this minimal protection available in the Icelandic constitution. It has only been used once before.
To Leo:
>>>>except that those two neighbours did get prior written authorisation. Its called the deposit guarantee scheme, which was even validated by the fact that the icelandic government did reimburse their own citizens.
This doesn’t make much sense. Icelandic government did not reimburse anyone, as it ran out of foreign currency. We are still operating under severe currency restrictions. Even if you have foreign currency in a bank account, you cannot only take out very limited amounts, with authorization.
People were allowed to keep their krona deposits in the bank, but with restrictions on withdrawals. We would have been perfectly happy, if the option was on the table to pay all the foreign depositors in Icelandic kronas.
>>>>Iceland might have had a case if it had told its own citizens that it was not liable for the guarantee scheme and had let all the deposits of icelanders in the icelandic banks evaporate as well. But it didn’t do that, now did it?
Every country has responsibility and the right to keep its financial system up and running, face of calamity, and according to the recent EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) ruling, this emergency action was valid.
To Sven:
>>>>The answer is to forget the european union, look to the United States, become the 51st state, and all debts will be paid, and MacDonalds will return to Iceland in force.
Right on!!! :-)
The answer is to forget the european union, look to the United States, become the 51st state, and all debts will be paid, and MacDonalds will return to Iceland in force.
@Bjarni
except that those two neighbours did get prior written authorisation. Its called the deposit guarantee scheme, which was even validated by the fact that the icelandic government did reimburse their own citizens.
Iceland might have had a case if it had told its own citizens that it was not liable for the guarantee scheme and had let all the deposits of icelanders in the icelandic banks evaporate as well. But it didn’t do that, now did it?
To Bjarni
you elected your govt to represent you. It was not forced to join the EEA or to sign up to the passport arrangement. In future all countries will understand that the Iceland govt. does not have the authority to take decisiosn on behalf of its population. We apologise for making that foolish mistake.
“The more accurate analogy would be, that your two neighbors made an agreement with your bank, without getting prior written authorization to you”
Not so, the icelandic people have retrospectively decided that the actions of their government was not to their liking. They allowed and supported bank privation by electing a government that did this. They agreed to the bank guarantee by NOT objecting to it.
Nobody from Iceland, AFAIK, rasped any objection when the finance minster said ” your deposit in Icesave is safe because it is guaranteed by the Icelandic government”.
The government actions were done on behalf of the icelandic people – that’s what you agreed to when you voted for them.
To james:
>>>>OK. I will tell my bank that I will pay my mortgage but instead of the very generous 7 year holiday and 5.5% interest rate being offered to Iceland(That is very similar to my current mortgage,even though this Iceland loan is actually an unauthorised overdraft normally payable at much higher rates on a daily basis) I have decided that if I dont earn enough and cant pay the mortgage after 15 years then I keep the house!!
The more accurate analogy would be, that your two neighbors made an agreement with your bank, without getting prior written authorization to you, that you in case of their bankruptcy, you would guarantee their payments also, even if your own house was burned down recently by your son. The bank is threatening to bankrupt you and your children, unless you sign a new loan to cover the neighbors losses also.
No bank in the world would lend money for 15 years with a 7 year payment holiday and allow the debt to be treated as fully paid if the debtor can not pay it off in 15 years. Nor would a debtor find a bank so charitable as to only ask for a proportion of the debt, which is what UK has done by only seeking compensation for retail savers.Or to lend for only 5.5% considering that the UK govt is an unwillingly lender.
Nor would the bank then provide additional funds through the IMF and EU, which the UK is also doing or will do. As the UK is very keen for Iceland to recover from this situation. So in reality the UK is going to be significantly out of pocket. This is really “smoke and mirrors” to make it look like Iceland has repaid a debt so that the Internatianal Financial System is not undermined by Icelands refusal to pay a liability. Once Iceland signs up to the loan on UK/NLs terms significant funds will flow from IMF/EU to help Iceland.
On Jan 7, 2010, Fisy said:
‘james’ write :
>I’m going to do what Iceland has done and tell my bank that I will not be paying off my mortgage on my house. When they want their money back I’m going to say its not fair I’m only one person and you are a big bank!
Drop this crude attempts at propoganda please ‘james ‘.”"
OK. I will tell my bank that I will pay my mortgage but instead of the very generous 7 year holiday and 5.5% interest rate being offered to Iceland(That is very similar to my current mortgage,even though this Iceland loan is actually an unauthorised overdraft normally payable at much higher rates on a daily basis) I have decided that if I dont earn enough and cant pay the mortgage after 15 years then I keep the house!!
This was in the FT today:
Check out this link:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dd0831a4-fafa-11de-94d8-00144feab49a.html
Tis in the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/poll/2010/jan/06/should-iceland-repay-icesave-debt
so dont belive tha everytinh is in chaos and that the sky will fall on us if we dont accept this deal, Yes to pay NO to this deal.
‘james’ write :
>I’m going to do what Iceland has done and tell my bank that I will not be paying off my mortgage on my house. When they want their money back I’m going to say its not fair I’m only one person and you are a big bank!
Drop this crude attempts at propoganda please ‘james ‘.
You know well enough if you read any on this site comments and articles that Icelander do pay they debts and that this is all about terms of current law passed December.
We already have commited to pay back our obligation for IceSave in August law passed. This referendum will not change that, only perhaps it will make the terms of payment worse.
But in any case pay our debts we have already committed to do.
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/06/icesave-misunderstanding-in-the-foreign-media/#comment-109052
To the people of The Netherlands:
Please do not join the UK when trying to get payment from Iceland regarding the IceSave-accounts. The Netherlands should do their own negotiatons as the people of Iceland have much bigger sympathy with The Netherlands claim.
This due to the fact that Brown imposed the antiterrorist-act on Iceland(a non military country!) without any warning, causing huge financial damage which should equal the amount wanted by Brown.
The disappointment of the Icelandic people with the IceSave-bill is the the fact that Brown of UK is blackmailing Iceland to waive it´s right for financial claims for the damage caused by the antiterrorist-act.
Jorge said:
“any chance of having that translated into english.”
You can’t talk. Have you checked the errors in your comment? No question marks, no capital letters?
I’m going to do what Iceland has done and tell my bank that I will not be paying off my mortgage on my house. When they want their money back I’m going to say its not fair I’m only one person and you are a big bank!
You guys need to think about the many UK charities that look after our elderly and sick, our companies that are being made bankcrupt, and our councils that between them have lost billions to the Iceland fraud.
This money has not been recovered from Iceland or the UK government. Also the UK government has reimbursed significantly more to retail savers than it is claiming from Iceland.
Apropos of references to “debt slavery”, Iceslaves, and other objectors to the way debt and interest payments work, you will be glad to know that you have good historical backing …
http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch08.html
Cap Matifou clearly comes from that line of thinking with his reference to a web page highlighting the role of Jewish money lenders.
I anticipate some well-informed references to usury (banned by the Bible no less) and paper money next. Bring on President Andrew Jackson!
And by the way – the earth is flat.
Runar said:
“any chance of having that translated into english.
learn to spell before you start discussing other countries economies mate. and while you are on about no use of airspace most flights to the UK to and from the US go through Icelandic air space so maybe we can ban them!!!”
Runar, or, …, or … : M e r r y C h r i s t m a s ! ! ! !
Do not judge the nation, remember only few Icelander who created this mess. Those who stolen the money, those greedy bankers who called them self bussiness men. so why should the ordinary, innocent peoples take the responsibily for their crimes? put your self into the icelander shoes then you will understand the situation.
Cap Matifou,
The Times never said any such thing, that is a fiction. Apart from anything else the issuance of ‘debt free’ money simply means hyperinflation, not prosperity.
Just look at the Weimar Republic and Zimbabwe, both countries that followed your advice…….
As a Frenchman, I am quite neutral. The present banking crisis has been caused by a lowering on state controls on the banks, borne by winds coming from UK and USA.Icelandic bankers were not worse than Lehman Bros, and a lot better than Madoff
I Hope an agreement will be found… After all, I like Iceland and I would be very happy to have your country as a EU member
Why are the brits and dutch whining? If their investors decided to put money into a private Islandic bank that was not backed by a sufficiently large deposit insurance scheme its the investors problem. The scheme is private and not Island Government backed (in accordance with the EEA agreement). The Icelandic Government should thus not be held responsible.
As a fellow Nordic, I think Iceland should refuse to pay the British and Dutch blackmail ransom and we should back them: give them loans if IMF is unable to lend and block any EU moves to mess with the Icelanders (SWE, FIN and DEN are members).
What is needed is to convince our politicians (especially on the left, as they want to make Iceland a bad example of what happens if you go free market).
As a note, few deposit insurance schemes are large enough to cover systemic failure (not even the British or Dutch). Also, a large reason why the failure happened was because the UK decided to freeze Icelandic assets in the middle of the crisis. Should the UK compensate Iceland instead?
Jorge said:
“Iceland has made its choice, we in the U.K have heard your reponse! Now the U.K. shouid be heard! The E.E.A agrement between Iceland and the EU shouid be termnated. The E.F.T.A agreement between the EU shouid be termnated. The EU apllcation shouid be veoted. The IMF loans shouid be veoted. The Icelandic abassdor shouid be given 24 hours to leave, the british abassdor shouid be recalled! An economic blockad against Iceland shouid begin along with sactions. And no use of are airspace!!”
any chance of having that translated into english.
learn to spell before you start discussing other countries economies mate. and while you are on about no use of airspace most flights to the UK to and from the US go through Icelandic air space so maybe we can ban them!!!
The way out is the issuance of debt free money, to ensure the exchange of work and goods. This is what Lincoln did 145+ years ago, drawing the following fourious commentary from the London Times (telling basicly a secret, how to break away from debt slavery):
“If that mischievous financial policy, which had its origin in the North American Republic, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without a debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed, or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.”
http://www.trosch.org/law/fed-paper-money.html
To Peter – London:
>>>>The UK Treasury is looking at seizing bank assets, that’s the most likely outcome of this situation – it would be a perfectly acceptable solution
This is almost comical. The foreign loans that have already been collected by the Landsbanki winding-up board and any future amounts that will come in, are kept in account in the UK already and will be used to make the IceSave loan payments anyway. This was one of the first thing that was offered by the Icelandic negotiation committee and it was not accepted.
If the UK Treasury decides to seize the money, they will simply be seizing it from themselves. The Dutch government, on the other hand, might not be so happy with this unless UK is willing to share.
>>>>any shortfall would be still due to be repaid.
Dream on! :-)
If you have been following at all what has been happening for the past year, you should have realized already that NOTHING will be paid, unless there is an agreement on the table that will be lawfully accepted and passed into law. That is the ONLY way possible, according to the Icelandic constitution.
Norway adopted what it liked from EU’s paper crap and it gives EU much money yearly for maintaining its EFTA status and for being involved as less as possible. ;)
Svært bra.
Good point Peter. All the Iceland supporters should send a cheque so that Icelanders can once again go on a shopping binge.
“Look at discussion boards – majority fully supports Iceland.”
Ask them to send a check to pay for the Icesave bill, see how many support Iceland then. Thought less comments on websites are free and have zero affect on the outcome.
“This way, we would be sure that any results would be acceptable right from the beginning.”
The UK Treasury is looking at seizing bank assets, that’s the most likely outcome of this situation – it would be a perfectly acceptable solution, any shortfall would be still due to be repaid.
To Tony:
>>>>There must be some way to come to an amicable solution to this and become strong friends and allies again.
Yes, there is if we can get out of this posturing and name-calling by the politicians and wannabes. Take the Icesave guarantee laws from last August 2009 (that were passed easily by Althingi and accepted by most of the population) as the basis, and renegotiate them.
This time around DO NOT use the old negotiation team by the Icelandic government (which has shown itself to be completely incompetent in the first two rounds).
Instead Iceland should pull together a new negotiation team (maybe with some members from InDefence), that represents the will of the people. This way, we would be sure that any results would be acceptable right from the beginning.
all this Gb\Nl threats for what? They are acting like criminals. If Iceland do not pay we will do this and we will do that. I think that british pm was Tony Blair not Tony Soprano, do, any of them including Brown or Darling do not like the room of court. Icelanders should no be scared of primitive threats. They should remain independent in complete meaning of this word and reminde GB\NL that Iceland is not their colony. This time has gone like distant past.
What the ***k does this “international response” mean? It’s only politicians (who are scared for their future) and ***** reporters who need big headlines. Look at discussion boards – majority fully supports Iceland.
“AMAZING a country that actually listens to the voice of the people.Rightly or wrongly i find something rather refreshing about that.
- ray, epsom, 5/1/2010 17:0″
fried-Jan Unger said:
“Where was your government when it should have stepped in to prevent Icesave from operating as it did in the UK, or does England not have any checks and balances, a Bank of England, regulatory institutions and financial system monitoring and guarantees?”
The UK and Dutch regulator were bypassed as the bank used the passport scheme. The UK/NL cannot stop EEA banks operating. They exploited the EEA agreement in order to extract the maximum deposits without UK/Dutch regulation, breaking agreements with the Dutch regulator on the way.
This was done with the full connivance of the icelandic regulator and its is the entire reason for the Icesave debt falling on the Icelandic nation.
“Iceland has made its choice, we in the U.K have heard your reponse! Now the U.K. shouid be heard! The E.E.A agrement between Iceland and the EU shouid be termnated. The E.F.T.A agreement between the EU shouid be termnated. The EU apllcation shouid be veoted. The IMF loans shouid be veoted. The Icelandic abassdor shouid be given 24 hours to leave, the british abassdor shouid be recalled! An economic blockad against Iceland shouid begin along with sactions. And no use of are airspace!!”
Great Diplomacy! A cup of ‘tea’? HAHAHA
As with the NL, there was little that the UK government and regulators could do. Almost all the regulation was to be done by Iceland.
You are welcome to try to operate a banking system with no deposit guarantees, but I am afraid that you will experience runs on banks that really shouldn’t happen. You talk of using your head and common sense, but in a world of imperfect information the correct and rational response to any little question over a banks stability, real or imagined, is to withdraw your money. That means that individual rational depositors as a group behave like herd animals and cause the very collapse of the bank that they were worried about.
Since when did anyone expect the media to give a fair report, especially the media here in the UK. If you want to read a fair assessment, go to the BBC. It is true that the Icelandic government is responsible for these debts. However, the UK and the Netherlands need to show more solidarity with the people of Iceland on this issue. We are ALL victims of the greedy bankers. We were ALL lied to. We have ALL been cheated by the promises made by the go-get-it capitalists. The UK itself is in a very difficult financial position and will be facing a German style decade of very low growth and austerity to put things right. There must be some way to come to an amicable solution to this and become strong friends and allies again. We must not punish the ordinary people of Iceland or the UK. Is there any way we can confiscate all the deposits in the disgusting rich tax havens, such as Liechtenstein and the Cayman Islands. Let’s punish the rich. They got us into this mess. I have been to Iceland three times and the welcome there extended to British people is second to none. I hope this will be the case when I return.
@ Fried-Jan Unger
The Dutch and UK authorities did not have the option to refuse Icesave access to the Dutch/UK banking system.
There are EU/EEA regulations that state under which conditions banks from other countries (i.e. Iceland) must be allowed access. Therefore the UK accepted Icesave. Among those conditions was that the original country of the bank had a certain oversight on its banking sector and a deposit guarantee scheme. Iceland had those, so Icesave could not be refused access.
But apparently, Iceland cannot be trusted to actually comply with the international agreements it has signed, because now they try to avoid their obligations when it no longer suits them.
Now I fully understand you are upset with the whole situation. But it really is a result of the choices that Iceland has made over the past years/decade. You have noone to blame but yourself. The people of Iceland elected a government that agreed to these international agreements. That same government instated a Central Bank which was evidently incapable of monitoring its own banks properly, while at the same time guaranteeing all the deposits held in those banks. And unfortunately, but unavoidably, the people of Iceland are in the end the ones paying the price for it because of the leaders you elected.
Investing in a country when it is financially weak is a long standing and profitable tradition.
There are lots of valuable resources in Iceland and no doubt plenty of capitalists looking to profit on it.
It seems the UK media has misled the internationl to believe that Iceland will not fulfill its obligation because the president vetoed the Icesave bill. Icelandic government should correct this distorted fact immediately, and explan to the international world about the bill containing what kind of harsh conditions these two super greedy countries sharing the same trousers ask for from the tiny nation.
It is a fact that Iceland is facing now a new critical dilema, yet the people of the nation should know clearly what they really want, to sign the Icesave bill and comprimise to the big nations or to reject it for the sake of nationalism despite of more isolation from the world and worsen internal economic situation.
One thing is for sure none of these choice are easy to make.
Iceland may face a very tough winter of fate, yet when the winter comes, can the spring be far away?
Afram Island!
Ref. On Jan 6, 2010, annoyedofmanchester said
Where was your government when it should have stepped in to prevent Icesave from operating as it did in the UK, or does England not have any checks and balances, a Bank of England, regulatory institutions and financial system monitoring and guarantees?
What makes you think that Icelanders should compensate for the greed and Incompetence of English individuals and what’s with a little self reliance and personal responsibility?
Where do I see all your London brokers up in court on criminal charges for fraud against investors and depositors?
If your child burns its hand on the stove, do you tell him it’s not his fault and sue the stove producer, or do you teach the child that the stove is hot and should not be touched without a wand?
You want me to go on???
The fact of the matter is that you would most likely be the first to cry “wolf” if the reverse were true and all UK tax payers were forced to foot the bill for Icelandic depositors with English banks, after the Iceland government, ahead of things and of its own accord, had compensated these depositors and then would force the UK to step out of the EU unless they would pick up the tab!!!
It’s a sliding scale all of us are on, when pointing fingers has taken over from using your own head and common sense.
With kind regards,
Fried-Jan Unger
Arnhem, The Netherlands
How is it in Iceland with a president hat seems quite set on NOT joining the EU and all the benefits that come along with that membership????? to me it sounds insane. I hope that the people of Iceland will realise that if they vote NO on this referendum it will say yes to their own declining economy and accept that decline as their own fault and will distance themselves further from th EU and risk their membership in the EU. Consequently they should little or no help from the EU and may even have sanctions invoked in trade or other areas that will affect the economy even worse than at present.
Iceland has made its choice, we in the U.K have heard your reponse! Now the U.K. shouid be heard! The E.E.A agrement between Iceland and the EU shouid be termnated. The E.F.T.A agreement between the EU shouid be termnated. The EU apllcation shouid be veoted. The IMF loans shouid be veoted. The Icelandic abassdor shouid be given 24 hours to leave, the british abassdor shouid be recalled! An economic blockad against Iceland shouid begin along with sactions. And no use of are airspace!!
One of the adverts that accompanies this website says “Looking to invest in Iceland?”. Who is going to do that when your President refuses to reimburse the UK Govt for stepping in when Iceland defaulted on its deposit guarantee scheme?