A report on the effects of British anti-terrorism legislation on Iceland has been released. It is believed Icelandic companies were impacted by ISK 5 billion due to the British government’s actions during the banking crisis.
The report was distributed to Icelandic parliamentarians yesterday and claims that the total loss inflicted by the UK at the time is around ISK 2-9 billion (EUR 12.5-56 million) — but probably around five billion (EUR 31.1 million).
The UK government imposed restrictions on Landsbanki and Iceland itself at the height of the banking crisis in 2008 in an effort to stop money being sent “into a black hole” in Iceland. The British government has consistently claimed that the law used was entirely appropriate; but it was a law rooted in anti-terrorism legislation and was harshly criticised within Iceland. Such restrictions on capital flow are highly unusual and damaging between neighbouring allied nations; but London maintains that they were justified at the time the Icelandic banks were imploding.
The new report’s author asserts that the results are a guide only; largely because of how difficult it is to draw a line between the impacts of the terrorism laws and more general impacts related to the collapse. Despite the qualifications, it is still clear that the British actions did negatively impact the Icelandic economy at its most fragile moment.
40 company managers were interviewed for the report, Visir.is reports. In the interviews, they were asked about how the terrorism legislation affected their businesses. The emphasis was placed on Icelandic import and export companies, and banks and financial services companies were excluded. The researchers also took information from the Central Bank of Iceland and the FME national financial regulator and economics experts. The report also goes into the wider impacts of the restrictions and foreign media coverage of them.
Opposition Independence Party MPs first requested such a report a year ago and the report presented was compiled on the initiative of the Ministry of Finance. IFS Analysis conducted the research, expert analysis and production of the report.
A related article over on Icelog:
http://uti.is/2011/10/how-much-did-the-collapse-cost-iceland/
>>>What is happening is Brumley doing his best to not acknowledge what is there in front of him from 17th October 2008 and me being disappinted in that.
This is not the case Fisy, I just happen to disagree with you. I’ve even quoted from the original order to support what I’ve said. It also happens to be the same position I took back in 2008, so it shouldn’t be all that surprising to you.
In fact, if you want to talk about one of us doing their best not to acknowledge something, perhaps you’ll recall that you promised to comment on the Kaupthing judicial review. Seem to remember that you (a) said you thought UK courts would be fair (b) kept saying Kaupthing was faultless and sunk by the evil UK government and then (c) failed to comment on the review, other than to say you were taking your time to make sure you got it right.
Axel wrote :
>If i were Fisy i would focus on the crimes committed against the Icelandic people by the
>bankers and politicians, this argument over details of the terrorist law use is silly, this whole
>matter is trivial.
This thread is about the parliament report which is about the financial damange to Icelandic people and companies of that law’s use.
( As you know from my hundred of other posts here I do focus on other issues in the appropriate place threads for that — including the ongoing investigations by our Special Prosecutor on the experts from Eva Joly did recommend. )
THere is no arguiing over the details — if so you have misread. What is happening is Brumley doing his best to not acknowledge what is there in front of him from 17th October 2008 and me being disappinted in that.
Because really I do expect better from him given his usual facts based argumenting.
If i were Fisy i would focus on the crimes committed against the Icelandic people by the bankers and politicians, this argument over details of the terrorist law use is silly, this whole matter is trivial.
The confusion in the the early stages of the crash are probably understandable to some degree, and the damage is already done and there is nothing we can do about it.
What we can do about the thieving bankers and rotten politicians is more interesting.
Unfortunately the majority of people seem to see everything trough tunnel vision.
Bromley wants the gods to trow a small piece of the cake they stole from him back, ca 30%, that would be fair thinks Bromley.
Of course they will not pay, so someone else is going to have to.
Fisy wants the old rotten stinking gang of thieves and morons back at the wheel, if lucky they may even reward him for the loyalty.
You’re always a little too quick to cry “ad hominem” Fisy. William was deliberately selective in his reading, and drawing attention to this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
Anyway, back to the issue.
Instead of quoting the clarification note, perhaps you’d do better quoting the Freezing Order? Or are you being deliberately selective as well?
————-
Frozen funds
5. For the purposes of the Order, “frozen funds” means:
(a) funds owned, held or controlled by Landsbanki; and
(b) funds relating to Landsbanki and owned, held or controlled by:
(i) any of the Authorities; or
(ii) the Government of Iceland.
————-
We’ve been over whether it was the right law to use or not. It was. Period. There have always been freezing provisions in UK law and this was just the current iteration of that.
>And quoting somebody who was an SNP mouthpiece and who disappeared >immediately after that Glasgow election took place doesn’t make your case.
Ad homimem does not suit you Brumley. I expect better from you.
What I did quote was directly from HM Treausry guidance clarifcation note which any one can read here :
landsbanki notice 171008
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/finsanc_landsbanki_notice171008.pdf
There is no political interpreting needed. Just reading it directly does show how bad the original October 8th order was. The simple text of the order itself is ” my case “.
Brumley wrote:
>Clarifications were necessary because people were misinterpreting the order, but it
>is obvious from the original what was required.
Obvious ??!!!
Clarifications were necessary from UK Treasury because Brown and Darling had told them to use a law and a list intended for a different purpose despite what was later claimed.
That is why the actions of the UK Treasury putting whole country on that list did cut us off from trade becasue — other than JP Morgan that did deal with our Central Bank– banks elsewhere they did not know what the hell UK Treausry meant.
The clarification issued on 17th October stands on its face as evidence of how unclear things were because if they were so clear then why in the gods name would the Treasury NEED to issue that memo that had to spell out the ” basic points ” if as you say it was ” obvious from the original what was required “.
No reasonable person can interpret it they way you are saying it. Dont be dishonest and try to downplay it !
Much of our trade was with EU country and UK — that stopped for whole country October 8th and 17th October because we could not pay money out or receive it !!
Only after Indefence made their campaign was the sanctions list ammended on 22nd October 2008.
http://web.archive.org/web/20081027102932/http://www.indefence.is/News/News/~/NewsId/13
” On Tuesday evening 21st October, the Landsbanki bank was still on the list of financially sanctioned regimes. The “Icelanders are not terrorists” campaign was launched early on Wednesday morning 22nd October. In less than three days, more than 45,000 individuals added their names to the campaign’s petition against the British government’s action. This amounts to 15% of the entire population of Iceland. “
>>>So laws are worthless if a group of people brake them ?
Clearly, the answer to that is “yes” if those laws are not enforced.
@Fisy.
Nice try, but I’ve never said that the situation wasn’t bad for Iceland. Just that the UK government was entitled to protect it’s interests. Are you saying that in law the UK froze all transfers to and from Iceland? Because you would be wrong if you did.
Clarifications were necessary because people were misinterpreting the order, but it is obvious from the original what was required.
And quoting somebody who was an SNP mouthpiece and who disappeared immediately after that Glasgow election took place doesn’t make your case.
>>>Landsbanki was not wiring money out of London to Iceland . . . unacceptable action against Landsbanki and Icelandic people
I don’t know if they were or not, nor whether they intended to or not. Bet they were though. But I do know that they couldn’t after the freezing order. One is a position of risk to the UK economy, the other is not. That is all that matters. Again, for the 101st time, action against Landsbanki and the Icelandic government in its position as manager (which is entirely acceptable), not against the Icelandic people.
>>>Where you get this ” largest relative to GDP in world ” idea from Brumley?
Come on Fisy, you know this. Assets:GDP. Switzerland something like 8-9 times, Iceland something like 10 times. Even if Switz was instead slightly ahead or if there’s another world-leader, the point stands.
And we’re not talking about government taxes here, but rather the power of the banks in Icelandic society. You’re surely not going to claim that they had only 2.5% of that :) .
Fisy said, “I find you posts misleed and show gaping misunderstanding of many topic Axel but usually I understand what you are saying. Now I don’t understand at all.”
We are very different you and I, and because you support and defend what i want to destroy, it is not hard to see why you find my way of thinking wrong and misleading.
“Are you saying that the carry trade didnt happen ?”
Yes, there was never any foreing capital involved, just ISK diguised as foreign currency.
When people took loans from the banks or their finacing companies the last few years before the crash, the standard question was, “what basket of currency do you want” the most popular was Yen/SF, people were not even asked if they wanted a loan in ISK.
The reason why people took those loans was lower rates and they were not indexed to inflation.
No foreign currency loan was ever paid out in currency, only in ISK.
When the banks collapsed and the new commercial banks were set up by the state, those loans had to be put int the storgreidslukerfi of the CB, and it was put in there as foreign currency, even though it was all in ISK, that should not have happened.
Looks to me like the CB supported fraud that should have been obvious to them, to assist the banks in robbing the nation.
I wish i could create foreign currency to lend to people with interest, but is suppose that could be illegal.
http://silfuregils.eyjan.is/2010/08/18/gunnar-tomasson-spurningar-um-erlend-lan/
http://www.pressan.is/Frettir/Lesafrett/voru-thusundir-bila-seldir-undir-bordid-og-allt-svart-liklega-of-sodalegt-til-ad-hreyfa-megi-vid-thvi
Axel wrote :
>Remember when Max Keiser made the show+ about Carry Trade in Iceland as >predicted its downfall in 2006-7.
>This is nonsense+.
>There was never any Carry trade, Icelandic bonds in ISK were registered in the
>CB as foreign currency, illegally.
+http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/08/26/icelandic-state-not-responsible-for-icesave/#comment-266349 People And Power 2007: Money Geyser. And its not nonsense.
I find you posts misleed and show gaping misunderstanding of many topic Axel but usually I understand what you are saying. Now I don’t understand at all.
Are you saying that the carry trade didnt happen ?
>He was talking about the power within Icelandic political life of the banks when they >were the largest relative to GDP in the world. Perhaps he should have said that the >government was almost a bank-run enterprise?
During the peak years 2005 – 2007 the extra income to state treasury was around 2.5% of GDP+.
Where you get this ” largest relative to GDP in world ” idea from Brumley?
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2011/03/15/nearly-500-questioned-by-iceland-bank-crash-investigators/#comment-547758
Brumley wrote :
>>The UK government imposed restrictions . . . Iceland itself
>Only in its capacity as manager of Landsbanki.
Still even knowing for long time that between October 8th and 17th October this did paralyse all money to from Icelandic people and companys from all around the wolrd not just from London you still do try to make out this was just the ” storm in tea cup “.
Even though you know that is not how it was.
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2008/10/29/portraits-of-icelandic-terrorists-exhibited/#comment-33240
” why if it was clear that only Landsbanki was effected, did HM Treasury after pressure by bankers worldwide (and of course Geir Haarde and colleagues) on 17th October have to release a detailed 44 point, five page official follow-up notice ‘clarifying’ such basic points as:
“…The Order is specific to Landsbanki and does not freeze the funds of any other Icelandic banks. It does not affect Icelandic companies with no links to Landsbanki.
… This Order works in a different way to, and has a more limited effect than, financial sanctions regimes, because the prohibition on making funds available only applies to “frozen funds” (as defined in paragraph 5 above) rather than all funds. This ensures that the Order only relates to the movement of Landsbanki assets (including debts owed to Landsbanki).
… As the Order does not relate to funds other than frozen funds (i.e. Landsbanki funds), it does not restrict normal commercial transactions between the UK and Iceland, other than those involving such frozen funds.
… Under the Order, the Authorities and the Government of Iceland are included as “specified persons” for the purpose of the prohibitions. The effect of this is not to freeze Icelandic Government assets in the UK or to prevent all payments from the UK to the Icelandic Authorities.”
Why if everything was fine and dandy, were these ‘clarifications’ necessary? I think the reason is pretty damn obvious. It was because the government of Iceland, and the Icelandic financial system, including its banks, and Icelandic companies were interpreted in the world of finance to have been included. ”
Landsbanki was not wiring money out of London to Iceland. Apparently Kauthping was the bank that FSA reported did it the week before and was used as excuse by Brown and lesser degree by Darling for this unacceptable action against Landsbanki and Icelandic people –
and the whopping damanging lies that Brown did tell on TV during that time.
Bromley said “He was talking about the power within Icelandic political life of the banks when they were the largest relative to GDP in the world. Perhaps he should have said that the government was almost a bank-run enterprise?
A large part the debts and the assets were fake, the size of the 3 banks was never 10 fold Iceland GDP, just a lot of fraud, very little real money.
Remember when Max Keiser made the show about Carry Trade in Iceland as predicted its downfall in 2006-7.
This is nonsense.
There was never any Carry trade, Icelandic bonds in ISK were registered in the CB as foreign currency, illegally.
That is why the foreign currency loans were deemed illegal and converted to ISK.
Those loans doubled or tripled in the crash, and the banks were very aggressive in collecting those loans, destroying people and families in the process.
The reason why the banks lost this case in the Supreme Court is that they could not show any documents to prove this Carry trade business ever took place, simply because it never did.
The Icelandic Supreme court has issued a subpoena to force PriceWaterHouseCoopers to submit to the court the documents and working papers related to Landsbanki 2005-8, Vignir Rafn Gíslason employee of PWC must testify and submit all working papers. http://haestirettur.is/domar?nr=7548
A small group of people tried to steal a whole country, breaking the law countless times in the process.
http://mondediplo.com/2011/08/02iceland
“The constitution is worthless if there’s an effective conspiracy to put the interests of a part of a nation ahead of those of the rest.”
So laws are worthless if a group of people brake them ?.
Peter said “The banks were the economy of Iceland ”
No, they feed of the real economy, the people are the economy, creating the only real wealth.
“he two are inseparable when there is so much money involved. If there is no connection with the state and the banks, why has it has so much effect?”
The most hardened criminals in the financial sector realize that if they can merge commercial banking with Casino banking they have a choke hold on the real economy to squeeze it for money if when the debt they create comes back to bite them in the ass.
In Iceland’s case we put the banks into administration, started new banks that were commercial only and bought the commercial operation out of the estates for bonds with a state guarantee.
The 3 dead banks were a burden, a cost to society.
“If banks are private businesses, then they should have gone bust and nobody but the banks employees and stupid foreign investors should have been affected.”
They did go bust, and as private businesses.
There is not much investors could have done to see this coming, due diligence is of little use if the whole game is rigged and everyone is in on the game except those who are in the real economy.
Rating agencies, media, central banks, politicians,
those who provide legal framework, regulators etc.
None of this just fell from the skies, its not that simple.
“Not wrong, I was talking about the DEBTS not the fake assets the banks used to borrow that debt”
The debts who exist because of real money being lured into the banks by systematic fraud is now in places like Bjorgolfs Money Heaven, and other British taxhavens.
Spookie..
“You are wrong on both counts, none of the banks had state guarantee, so the state is not on the hook to bail them out.”
The banks were the economy of Iceland (and the UK for that matter), its not a state guarantee so much as bailing out the currency. The two are inseparable when there is so much money involved. If there is no connection with the state and the banks, why has it has so much effect?
If banks are private businesses, then they should have gone bust and nobody but the banks employees and stupid foreign investors should have been affected.
But its not like that is it?
“The second issue is also wrong because the assets..”
Not wrong, I was talking about the DEBTS not the fake assets the banks used to borrow that debt
>>>You are wrong on both counts, none of the banks had state guarantee, so the state is not on the hook to bail them out.
He wasn’t talking about the guarantee (BTW, when the hell is that court case going to start?). He was talking about the power within Icelandic political life of the banks when they were the largest relative to GDP in the world. Perhaps he should have said that the government was almost a bank-run enterprise?
The constitution is worthless if there’s an effective conspiracy to put the interests of a part of a nation ahead of those of the rest.
>>>The second issue is also wrong
But then you back up precisely what he was saying. Value was deliberately extracted from the banks by their owner/managers and depositors, bondholders and shareholders (and to an as-yet undetermined degree, the government, and therefore the people of Iceland) were left with a pile of crap.
Peter said, “In most countries that is true, but in Iceland it was especially so given they were running up to 10x GDP.”
You are wrong on both counts, none of the banks had state guarantee, so the state is not on the hook to bail them out.
The politicians work under the constitution, that piece of legislation is the base everything else is built on, they can not do anything that goes against the constitution unless they change it, and that is not a easy task.
Nothing they do that goes against the constitution binds the Icelandic people, same goes for other law law braking or criminal activity.
It is noted in the constitution that MP’s and other officials are personaly responsible for their criminal activities.
The second issue is also wrong because the assets of the 3 banks were enormously overrated, for example when Kaupthing fell it was trading for 700 kr a share, in reality it should have been ca 7 kr a share.
This bubble was created with fraud, for example, some hand picked people were given bullet loans from the bank to buy shares, where the capital and interest were to be paid at the end of the loan period, the only collateral were the shares themselves.
Thorgerdur Katrin, the minister of education and in several commities has a husband who is a ex handball star and worked for Kaupthing, he got a 1 bn kr bullet loan to buy shares.
It could be argued that this not only is a market manipulation, but also might put a MP on the banks payroll, as they get dividends from the bank without any risk.
Many politicians and special friends got the same deal, the banks also had companies like Stim buing their own shares, for money lent to Stim by the banks.
“The cabal/gang/mafia running Iceland gave the banks to each other and are not about to prosecute themselves and their friends.”
This is correct, and its far worse than i ever imagined possible.
I have come to the conclusion that human idiocy, specially for antisocial psychopaths in politics is infinite.
“but of course Brown and Darling thought the banks and state were the same thing.”
In most countries that is true, but in Iceland it was especially so given they were running up to 10x GDP. The official UK/EU attitude was that the Icelandic banks were ‘almost’ state run enterprises
“A large part of that money was also stolen, the rest was lost in twist that was played out after the crash.
Again no one seems to be interested.”
Which partly proves my point. The cabal/gang/mafia running Iceland gave the banks to each other and are not about to prosecute themselves and their friends.
Peter said “Its was a law designed to prevent organised crime, as such it was highly appropriate.”
I disagree, I see those bankers more as terrorists than simple thieves, after seeing the damage they caused, and keep causing, the terrorist law was very appropriate, and only an absoult idiot would demand damages because of the effects on the Icelandic private banks.
What was unfortunate was how this was done by Brown and Darling, dumping on the whole country when they should have made it clear from the start that this was only about the banks, but of course Brown and Darling thought the banks and state were the same thing.
Owners and special friends could rob the banks and be automaticly bailed out by the state.
The odd thing is how enormously important it is for some people to force those debts on Icelandic taxpayers but have no interest whatsoever in finding out what happened to all the money that went missing during the crash and shortly after it.
For example this interview Bromley posted in another thread
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySep2RO-eLM
Sigrun Davidsdottir mentions information from the Report of the Special Investigation Commission where Darling talks about money being taken out of banks, from Kaupthing, first 600 million pounds, then 1,6 billion pounds, none of this money came back.
The same applies to Landsbanki, large amounts of money leaving the bank, and no one seeems to have the slightest interrest in finding out where it is.
Kaupthing got a 500 million euro emergency loan from the Icelandic central bank at the same time all this was going on, that went to Kaupthing Luxembourg.
A large part of that money was also stolen, the rest was lost in twist that was played out after the crash.
Again no one seems to be interrested.
Its was a law designed to prevent organised crime, as such it was highly appropriate.
>The UK government imposed restrictions . . . Iceland itself
Only in its capacity as manager of Landsbanki.