Don’t think that’s generally true Fisy. You seem to have had a bug about this since that time you kept insisting that I read and understand the ECB regulations without you actually making a point first.

It is interesting to see that Mike has read the same report as you and come to a very different conclusion.

>I take all of your evidence with a huge pinch of salt.

Again we see you habit of selective reading. When it benefit your argumenting you go into the amazing detailed reading of subjects.

When not, it is too old or it is boring to you, etc etc..

But I do hope that we will get to bottom of things related to this debate about EU and Icelandic regulation and supervision in this thread with some good fact based argumenting :
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/09/28/british-and-dutch-stance-on-icesave-hardening/#comment-104260

I do however believe that your attitude towards Oddsson is directly relevant to any discussion about him. As I can’t remember you saying a single bad word about him, I take all of your evidence with a huge pinch of salt.

I Fisy wrote :
>>I use the straw men description correctly Brumley

Brumley reply :
>Nope. You’ll be unsurprised to hear that I’ve checked with wiki and you really don’t

Another desperate attempt to subvert and redirection the discussions. So I will post answer here in this thread. I will use the same source you are saying you used :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Example

“Straw man arguments often arise in public debates even when less flawed arguments could be found to support the same position.
? (Hypothetical) prohibition debate:
Person A: We should liberalize the laws on beer.
Person B: No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.

The proposal was to relax laws on beer. Person B has exaggerated this to a position harder to defend, i.e., “unrestricted access to intoxicants”.[3] The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern: 1. Topic A is under discussion. 2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A). 3. Topic A is abandoned.”

So how exactly Brumley does your post here in context of discussion I was bringing up.. :
:
>> topic B : “Rough guess: Your position is Oddson is blameless and it’s all the EU. My position is that the government of Iceland (i.e. effectively Oddsson) was to blame for the situation being allowed to occur.”

.. not straw men ?

When the subject and evidence I did reply and give to you was this subject and statement ( which course you never have yet comment on properly ) :

> topic A : ” any deviations that did come from Davið or Geir were * more * conservative and carefull than the Brown model or EU regulations. ”

Instead of replying to the evidence you did reply by coming up with that straw men quote about Oddson being blameless and your position about Icelandic government Oddsson being to blame .

You was doing classic straw man argumenting, Brumey.

But you will note Brumley that in the thread over where+ Mike and I are going to discuss this exact topic of FME and EU regulations in more details.

Maybe there you will come with tail between legs and actually stop sounding more and more like you do, as if you argumenting partner of Peter – London.

+http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/09/28/british-and-dutch-stance-on-icesave-hardening/#comment-104260

http://icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=16539&ew_0_a_id=353716

I have given you actual quotes from men that actually have experience in area, including the very detailed report from Kaarlo Jännäri who as I say is extermely experienced in the EU banking and securities regulation — and was there when this EU regulations was being formed.

Brumley writes :
>I simply don’t believe Jannari when he says, “it is easy to assert that the Icelandic
>banks’ expansion abroad should have been restricted, but in the European Single
>Market framework and?>with the European Passport, this was simply not something that could be readily >accomplished within the existing legal environment.”

Where exactly does belief sit in this ?

Either he is an expert giving his analysis or he isnt.

It is pretty clear he is someone that know the regulations. Well.

This man, Kaarlo is not some EU skeptic but ++ pro European Union ++ member state for Iceland. He is an independnet profressional man asked to apply his knowledge of the bankling regulations of EU and EFTA as he did get in Nordic area as Director General of the Financial Supervision Authority in Finland 1996 – 2007.

You had better Brumley do better than this and come up with actual proof that he says is wrong. Not some spitting in direction of ” the devil crook Davið “.

You claims as they do get shorter and short do become more and more the incredible ones that require at least credible proof of what you are saying.

That is getting fewer and farer between with each day that passes.

That is just a sound bite. Both of your idea you write there is simply a straw man.

Every time there is some discussion of facts and responsibility of EU regulation, split of Iceland central bank and creation of FME ( Icelandic FSA ) and the privitazation of banks then suddenly it becomes how Davið is all seeing devil figure with his huge blue hand was responsible for all of the actions of all these different people.

That everyone in business in Iceland and government must have been Davið puppet controlled from his own huge blue hand.

This simply is ridiculous nonsense. It is just need for a single figure by the left winger to be there for their two minutes of hate.

Rough guess: Your position is Oddson is blameless and it’s all the EU. My position is that the government of Iceland (i.e. effectively Oddsson) was to blame for the situation being allowed to occur.

I simply don’t believe Jannari when he says, “it is easy to assert that the Icelandic banks’ expansion abroad should have been restricted, but in the European Single Market framework and
with the European Passport, this was simply not something that could be readily accomplished within
the existing legal environment.” Iceland makes it’s own laws, although perhaps that’s what he means by “existing”.

But even allowing that that was true, Oddsson was heavily involved in the privatisation that set the stage for this. I know that you like to blame the PP chap, but even if the balance of power was with him (and I’m not saying that’s the case), Oddsson said nothing. That in itself is enough to damn him, IMO.

Brumley86 wrote :
>Sorry, but sometime intelligent arguments just aren’t necessary :) .

Only if you don’t have any in reply which you clearly dont. I am beginning wonder if your and Peter – London do not come from same basic school of argumenting.

Let me quote for you from two sources for you. Something you could easily do your self but you lack of interest in this facts.

Exhibit A.. Kaarlo Jännäri report ( retired Director General of the Finnish Financial Supervision Authority ) :

p. 10. “Iceland has been a member of the European Economic Area (EEA) since 1994. In effect, EEA
membership means that Iceland must incorporate the European Union directives and regulations in
the financial field into its legal framework. Accordingly, Iceland has implemented EU legislation
through its own laws and regulations. The only major omission until recently was the Directive on
Financial Conglomerates, which was not fully implemented by the FME until September 2008. This
may have been a handicap for the supervision of the complicated financial structures that were built
around the major banking groups. In practice this was not considered to be a problem.”

“.. Unfortunately, the single European financial market construction has some major deficiencies that
have surfaced in the present global crisis. In many respects, the crisis in Iceland is a manifestation of
these deficiencies.”

p. 12 “The 1999 separation of banking supervision from the CBI was
carried out under circumstances that were quite different from those reigning today. It was then an
international trend and fashion to separate the central bank and its monetary policy function from
micro-level supervision of individual institutions. This trend has continued until recently.”

p. 16 “Had the
supervisory authorities tried to intervene and forcefully tried to stop this development, they would in
all probability have failed, as they lacked the legal authority to intervene. Iceland, like the other
Nordic countries, is a nation where the actions of the authorities must be based on law.
Discretionary powers are strictly limited. In retrospect, it is easy to assert that the Icelandic banks’
expansion abroad should have been restricted, but in the European Single Market framework and
with the European Passport, this was simply not something that could be readily accomplished within
the existing legal environment.”

Exhibit B.. Ingimundur Friðriksson ( Governor of the Central Bank of Iceland ), paper: The banking crisis in Iceland in 2008 page 10 :

“For several years, the Central Bank of Iceland’s rules on liquidity
facilities have been largely modelled on those of the ECB. I say
largely because for quite a while the Icelandic rules were rather more
stringent than those in Europe – that is, the Central Bank of Iceland set
stricter requirements concerning eligibility of collateral…”

http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/02/06/the-banking-crisis-in-iceland-in-2008/