The Icelandic government needs to submit a new Icesave bill by the beginning of next week in order to prevent the UK and the Netherlands bringing a lawsuit over the imposition of emergency laws in Iceland. Such a lawsuit could result in Iceland’s international investment ratings being reduced to junk status, according to Visir.is
The freezing order on the deposit insurance fund which is supposed to cover Icesave runs out on 23 October.
Visir.is reports that it is not possible to extent the freezing order and if the Icesave issue is not concluded to the satisfaction of all three countries by the 23 October, it is clear that the fund will not be able to cover its obligation. The insurance fund reportedly contains ISK 17 billion; but the amount it would theoretically have to pay out is closer to ISK 800 billion.
According to a joint report by the Central Bank of Iceland and the Ministry of Economic Affairs created for the Prime Minister’s office, the insurance fund’s potential bankruptcy would have serious implications. The fund could expect lawsuits to be filed against it and also against the Icelandic state for having discriminated against depositors based on their geographical location.
The British and Dutch could, in other words, effectively subpoena the Icelandic state over its emergency finance laws. Such a lawsuit could, according to the report’s authors, result in Iceland’s investment rating being reduced to junk.
According to the report, the government now has 12 days in which to conclude the Icesave deal and head off potential lawsuits. It will take Althingi (the national parliament) at least three to five days to pass the bill, which means the bill would have to be prepared and submitted no later than next Monday.
The Prime Minister reportedly wishes to close the matter before the freezing order expires, although some other MPs still want to take the whole Icesave issue to court to establish what Iceland’s legal obligations are toward the Netherlands and the UK.
(IceNews note: although this story appears to be quite significant, at the time of writing Visir.is was the only major news website covering it.)
Holy crap, this deadline seems to have crept up on everyone! And a reminder of the things wrong with Iceland’s emergency laws (for those who didn’t read this legal opinion a while ago):
http://www.island.is/media/eydublod/Forgangsr-LegalOpinion_-_SuperPriority_-_PM.pdf
Despite the presence of that bell, the Icelandic politicians do like to natter away in parliament and virtually bore opponents into submission.
Nothing like a “bit of ” pressure to inspire focus on the matter at hand
Holy crap.
At least Icesave UK was available for UK residence only. So if service was based on geographical location – so should be compensation.
That means Landsbanki deposit guaranty applies to depositors who kept money at “regular” Landsbanki accounts not Icesave accounts.
“Holy crap. At least Icesave UK was available for UK residence only. So if service was based on geographical location – so should be compensation. That means Landsbanki deposit guaranty applies to depositors who kept money at “regular” Landsbanki accounts not Icesave accounts.”
Holy crap, that must be the kind of faulty logic that got Iceland into a mess in the first place – did you ever work in Landsbanki’s compliance department?…
LOL!!
Alexander – I recall the debate where you explored IceSave and the guarantee.
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/02/10/entranced-by-banking/
>I don’t know about Britain – and I think that government there is clean and honest and full of integrity etc.
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/02/10/entranced-by-banking/#comment-64569
Perhaps that was an example of a number of things you may have misunderstood!
>What exact guarantee did you get? What does it say? In small letters in particular as you’re well aware – evil hides in details. And you also should be aware that “I assume” doesn’t have much value in legal terms.
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/02/10/entranced-by-banking/#comment-64585
Well I would have hoped that as a consequence of the subsequent exchanges within this thread – you would have comprehended the clear nature of the liability.
It would seem that the issue is clear cut, and as Knowless said – “Nothing like a “bit of ” pressure to inspire focus on the matter at hand.”
How about paying Icesave and overturning all the legislation stealing off foreigners?
Jóhanna should not have wasted the time on the fantasy EU application process and other Social Democrat pet projects when should have been geting the consensus of Althingi of the IceSave deal… at very least. ( I wont even talk now about reconstruction of the banks.. )
It is not just to her but the two other factions within Social Democrats that caused this mess over Icesave ” deal ” by they EU at any cost idea and focus on they pet projects .. And of course Steingrímur J’s lack of principals an interest only of staying in power in the coalition.
Her and Steingrímur J. Red-Green coalition does not have much more time to live.
As Bjarni has made clear in other posts — and he is very good at explaining * why * things are rolling in direction they are — this is the last chance for UK and Holland accept the current IceSave deal.
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/09/30/iceland-health-minister-resigns/#comment-94923
I hope you do by now realize the Icelandic mentality in general. We will not be bullied and our patience has its strict limits. Particularly when their is unfairness involved.
I know many of negotiationors particularly in UK are so young ( and so in love with Bananas ) that they have no history to fall back on.
Once the time expires public opinion will snap shut like a iron bear trap. The Red-Green coalition will then be written as small foot note in history of this country.
And the Icelandic next government will see this case in court.
Which is what Icelanders want. Then we will actually get judges to rule on this whole messy situation.
I repeat.. which is what public want more every day, and what UK and Holland current goernments ** do NOT ** want ( and course EU commission does not want either ).
UK propegandists also clearly think that the more mud they spread about Kaupthing the less impact the results of the UK High Court review on Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander will have. They are wrong.
IMF is showing that some countries are more equal than others. That is such a huge mistake as it goes against its charter and makes it look what it doesnt want to look like. It had a chance to show that its policy would ** work ** here
Instead it gave in to larger members of it and every one in the world can see this, but not in a way that will make IMF or EU or individual member state of EU look good at all.
>The fund could expect lawsuits to be filed against it and also against the
>Icelandic state for having discriminated against depositors based on their
>geographical location.
>The British and Dutch could, in other words, effectively subpoena the
>Icelandic state over its emergency finance laws. Such a lawsuit could,
>according to the report’s authors, result in Iceland’s investment rating being reduced to junk.
Taking the unamended IceSave deal will bancrupt Icelandic nation. That is not just a change to credit rating but actual real bancrupcy.
Any thing else is better. Because there is chance of justice.
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/10/07/professor-iceland’s-place-in-eea-endangered-by-icesave/#comment-95421
You really have been trying hard recently Jim. All your posts say ” I am trying hard to convince Icelandic government who I know reads here “.
Well, you’ve posted it a couple of times as if it is silver bullet…
But what you link to is Dutch lawyer opinion. I do not say that he is entirely wrong in his case law but I can give you a lawyer’s opinion that says the opposite of him :
Mishcon de Reya Solicitors UK ( March 29 2009 ):
http://www.island.is/media/frettir/MB_290309.pdf
“We understand that the UK Government is anxious that the matter not be referred to
the courts for an independent determination and therefore we suggest that the
uncertainty on the position referred to above, coupled with the UK’s unwillingness to
risk an adverse determination in an independent court, could produce a useful a
negotiating tool.”
etc.
What matters is what judges decide. And they know more than lawyers. And they are the impartial third party. Lawyers do not rule on law.
And by the gods it is clear that this IceSave case is going in front of them. UK and Holland negotiaters now ensure that is is a certainty.
One thing to note about that Mishcon de Reya paper (aside from never put “Confidential” on anything you give to the Icelandic government ;) ), is that it is a preliminary view rather than a considered opinion; they repeatedly encourage the government to seek an opinion.
Not that I’m saying that it is incorrect.
“You really have been trying hard recently Jim. All your posts say ” I am trying hard to convince Icelandic government who I know reads here “.”
Unfortunately, the majority of MPs in Iceland’s parliament don’t want to resolve the dispute – and I suspect that only a judge spanking them will eventually persude them!
“And by the gods it is clear that this IceSave case is going in front of them”
Praise the Lord, for only He shall pass judgement on the Icesave sinners who failed their obligations to fellow men. May the sinners’ souls suffer in eternal hell and those who attempted resolution rise up immortal and sing with angels.
> Mishcon de Reya Solicitors UK ( March 29 2009 ):
>http://www.island.is/media/frettir/MB_290309.pdf
Oh, come on… That document is just a draft note: see the solicitor’s qualifiers about having just 3 days to review the supplied documents before drafting the note and recommending that a qualified barrister’s opinion should be sought instead! If that’s the best thing you can find to counter Prof Mathijsen’s formal legal opinion, then you’re clutching at straws. Got anything more convincing (eg that references relevant case law)?…
Fisy,
“But what you link to is Dutch lawyer opinion. I do not say that he is entirely wrong in his case law but I can give you a lawyer’s opinion that says the opposite of him :
”
Professor Mathijsen is actually a belgian, so he is in no way involved in the dispute as you suggest.
He was asked to write a legal opinion because he is an expert in this field.
Who commissioned Prof Mathijsen to give his opinion?
Niels correctly state :
>Professor Mathijsen is actually a belgian
Yes I am sure that his passport does say it, but he speaks Dutch and is part of Flemish Community.
I expect he thinks him self as Dutch just as Brumley thinks himself as English. Which is how it should be.
Point is that lawyers will give you an opinion based on your point of view as one paying they retainer. That is whole point of the professional lawyers. They represent ** you ** that pays them to make your case the best.
I am not talking rough nationalism here do not misunderstand me. ( will leave that to ” my friend ” Peter – London and I am sorry to see it more and more too of steveservaes ).
Point is lawyers and solicitors are not impartial. Holding up that opinion as Jim does as some kind of silver bullet is just silly.
The judge(s) will decide. Not lawyers. That is why we have judges — who are impartial. Lawyers are not.
And as I say, Brown government and Balkenende negotiators are ensuring it goes to such judges.
Which is fine with Icelandic people. And next governments.
steveservaes
>How about paying Icesave and overturning all the legislation stealing off foreigners?
How about Brown and Darling compensating share holders of Kautphing for stealing away Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander ?
And the same for holding up that GBP 550 millions from sending back to KSF IoM.
In first two cases — a judge will decide it.
But not in the 3 rd thanks to UK FSA, Mr Darling and his cabinet colleagues trying to keep it out of the HIgh Court case.
I think that Ernst & Young adminstrators of KSF in UK are trying they best for all creditor that include now KSF IOM. Why half of the GBP 550 millions to you depositors instead of all, it is not clear to me.
But UK FSA acted so differently in this case than they did with Brandford and Bingley in IOM it really stinks that they then say they cant interfere in administration process after FSA kept quiet to IOM regulators knowing that they were going to take KSF down. Something they did not do in Bradford and Bingley IOM case when that UK bank was taken over in UK by treasury.
Details of Petition:
“The UK Government used clandestine and secret means to freeze £550M of sterling assets in the UK banking system during the recent Icelendic crisis. The UK court papers related to this action are sealed and not able for UK voters or tax payers to view. Therefore I implore and request that these papers be made public to understand : (a) Did the Uk government act rashly ? (b) Is the UK Government & Treasury hiding the truth ? (c) Basic representation – for a UK Taxpayers – “show us the money”.
http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page20205
More from me on this :
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/05/19/iceland’s-kaupthing-bank-talking-tough-over-debtors/#comment-76806
and here does Bjarni explain too about Kaupthing hf and KSF situation :
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/05/25/icesave-deal-tantalisingly-close-iceland-finance-minister/#comment-78196
and clean up some mixing up of people getting carried away down wrong path and muddying waters :
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/09/28/british-and-dutch-stance-on-icesave-hardening/#comment-94604
>Brumley thinks himself as English
British actually :) .
>Who commissioned Prof Mathijsen to give his opinion?
That’s a good question. I can’t see a hint in either the doc or the island.is link text.
Fisy seems to know a fair amount about this guy, but the one thing that I noticed when looking him up is that he literally wrote the book on EU Law (although the one review on Amazon didn’t think much of it).
Knowless wrote :
>Who commissioned Prof Mathijsen to give his opinion?
Can you guess ?
http://www.island.is/media/eydublod/Minnisblað_Um_forgangsrett_innstædutryggingasjoda_i_throtabu_LI.pdf
It is quite funny to ( in almost sad ironic way ) to read Indriði Haukur commentary in that official letter on what Prof Mathijsen does in his opinion — what exactly do he expect ex burecrat EU commissioner to do ?
Indriði H and and Steingrímur J. should know better. Example :
“…Mathijsen also examines the phrase “emergency laws” when assets were transferred to the new banks to full insurance on deposits in Iceland, and points out that the question has arisen whether this is discrimination. He tries not to answer the question, but points out that by law have all deposits, Icelandic and foreign, been given priority over other claims. ”
http://www.emrc.be/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=18&Itemid=36
“Professor of European Law at the University of Brussels and Managing Partner of the law firm Euro Legal EEIG (Brussels), Pierre Mathijsen possesses extensive experience within the European institutions. Director at the European Commission’s DG IV (Directorate General for Competition) from 1968-1977, Prof.. Mathijsen was subsequently named Director General of DG XVI (Directorate General for Regional Policy). About the same time, he was elected to the Board of Directors of the European Investment Bank in Luxembourg (1977-1986). After leaving the European Commission, he served as General Dele Gate of the European Confederation of Food and Drink Industries of the EEC (1986-1989). Since 1990 his professional activities as a partner in Euro Legal EEIG and member of the Brussels bar have been devoted to pan-European legal affairs and promotion of commercial relations between EU & non-EU companies within EMRC.”
Not surpisingly there is different interpretation on this here :
http://www.banque-france.fr/gb/supervi/telechar/2000_deposit.pdf
“It is accepted that deposit guarantee schemes are neither meant nor able to deal with systemic banking crises, which fall within the Remi of other parts of the” safety net “, eg supervisors, central bank, government.” p179
This is analysed as usual with the good knowledge by Bjarni here :
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/09/19/icesave-discussion-returns-home-british-and-dutch-ideas-on-table-in-reykjavik/#comment-94113
Bottom line… it needs to go in front of impartial judge(s). Only ones not want it are UK, Holland and EU commission.
You can be sure that EFTA Council would not be against this being in front of judge nor our other fellow EFTA states.
You will note that EFTA Surveillance Authority has not had any such things to say about this whole situation since they were shanghied into kangeroo court opinion which they wanted nothing to do with:
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/08/25/icesave-bill-enters-last-round-of-talks-in-iceland/#comment-90951
The Icesave loan is from the British, Dutch and German governments. Funny how Germany gets forgotten when they are the most strict about the terms..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3491442/UK-Treasury-lends-Iceland-2.2bn-to-compensate-Icesave-customers.html
Fisy
>As Bjarni has made clear in other posts — and he is very good at explaining * why * things are rolling in direction they are — this is the last chance for UK and Holland accept the current IceSave deal.
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/09/30/iceland-health-minister-resigns/#comment-94923
>I hope you do by now realize the Icelandic mentality in general. We will not be bullied and our patience has its strict limits. Particularly when their is unfairness involved.
I know many of negotiationors particularly in UK are so young ( and so in love with Bananas ) that they have no history to fall back on.
Once the time expires public opinion will snap shut like a iron bear trap. The Red-Green coalition will then be written as small foot note in history of this country.
And the Icelandic next government will see this case in court.
Which is what Icelanders want.
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/10/12/icesave-time-running-out-for-icelandic-government/comment-page-1/#comment-96115
> Point is that lawyers will give you an opinion based on your point of view as one paying they retainer. That is whole point of the professional lawyers. They represent ** you ** that pays them to make your case the best.
The judge(s) will decide. Not lawyers. That is why we have judges — who are impartial.
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/10/12/icesave-time-running-out-for-icelandic-government/comment-page-1/#comment-96156
Both yourself and Bjarni have been hard selling the present Icelandic unilateral deviation from the original agreement as a ‘once in a lifetime’ opportunity.
I agree with your opinion of lawyers, and would include other expert witnesses – including the medical profession – who demonstrate a position – where opinions can be purchased, in the same manner as a Taxi journey – to take you to the destination of your choice.
Judges, whilst not subject to commercial pressures, never-the-less are human, and as such are not infallible.
Should the Dutch and UK accept the final – not to be repeated special ‘Sale’ offer – then, I would feel that Iceland had been allowed to further renege on its obligation.
Equally, Iceland – if ‘signed up’ to the original agreed deal – may ‘ad nauseam’ complain of being bullied by the UK and Netherlands.
I’m sure our young banana eating negotiators know when to say No… and although tiresome and delaying – presumably more to the detriment of Iceland – as IMF, Dutch UK, and other support may be abated during the legal process… But if legal process is the option of choice – so be it.
“Who commissioned Prof Mathijsen to give his opinion?”
I could not find an answer to this. My guess is Icesaving,a group of wealthy dutch depositors in Icesave who had more than 100.000 euro in Icesave.
They have started proceedings against Iceland based on the thesis that treatment of foreign depositors was discraminatory
Actually I checked their site and they announced to launch a complaint with european autorities because of ‘discrimination’.
Peter -London said:
“The Icesave loan is from the British, Dutch and German governments. Funny how Germany gets forgotten when they are the most strict about the terms..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3491442/UK-Treasury-lends-Iceland-2.2bn-to-compensate-Icesave-customers.html
———————————————
??
The linked article does not refer in any way to Germany being more strict about the terms.
From that link Fisy supplied (translated by Google) it looks like the Icelandic government commissioned Mathijsen:
“Given the importance of Europe right in this matter was requested legal opinion on it from Dr. Pierre Mathijsen, professor at the Vrije Universiteit Brussels”
http://www.island.is/media/eydublod/Minnisbla%C3%B0_Um_forgangsrett_innst%C3%A6dutryggingasjoda_i_throtabu_LI.pdf
BTW, Fisy, that link that Bjarni provided is talking about the ability of deposit guarantee schemes to fund their obligations and even states that they’ll need to rely on governments. Not really sure how that helps your argument. Certainly it does not represent a different interpretation.
>The linked article does not refer in any way to Germany being more strict about the terms.
Not that I can speak for Peter, but I do remember reading a report on the arbitration process by an Icelandic chap that cast the Germans as the most unyielding.
Also, I think that the newpaper report that Peter links to is out of date. Certainly, there’s been absolutely no mention of the Germans in the past few months. Perhaps it related to KE in Germany that was a branch rather than a subsidiary? That has (or will be), I believe, been fully settled by the sale of Kaupthing assets.
“Not that I can speak for Peter, but I do remember reading a report on the arbitration process by an Icelandic chap that cast the Germans as the most unyielding.”
Thats the article I was referring to.
The key point – what has a happened to Germany on this issue. I can’t see that they are no longer involved, one of their banks is owed 25Billion Euro I seem to remember.
I suspect they are simply keeping a low profile, but this is a EU/Iceland issue.
“But if legal process is the option of choice – so be it.”
Fisy obviously thinks Iceland has nothing to lose, but the first court case will be against Iceland and it will lose. So the there will be a worse case scenario, paying back the icesave money immediately via forced assets sales and no-IMF loan. Add to that the exit from the EFTA and the repatriation of any Icelanders working in the EU and you have a nice ****storm.
>Holding up that opinion as Jim does as some
>kind of silver bullet is just silly.
I didn’t hold it up as some kind of silver bullet, or any kind of magic bullet, or even a kindly mullet! I held it up as an example of high-quality legal opinion from an expert in the field, and wondered if there were counter opinions of similar high-quality (referencing specific case law, etc).
>The judge(s) will decide. Not lawyers.
Indeed. That’s a key difference between a legal opinion and a legal judgement.
>why we have judges — who are impartial.
LOL…
Jim said:
>Holding up that opinion as Jim does as some
>kind of silver bullet is just silly.
“I didn’t hold it up as some kind of silver bullet, or any kind of magic bullet, or even a kindly mullet! I held it up as an example of high-quality legal opinion from an expert in the field, and wondered if there were counter opinions of similar high-quality (referencing specific case law, etc).”
————————————————
Do you have a fundamental disagreement with the (rejected) terms of repayment bandied about by Iceland?
Professor Mathijsen is an absolute authority on european law.
A legal opinion is off course not a ruling by a judge but a renowned expert who has a specialization in a specific area of law generally knows a lot more about it than a judge.
Therefore, such legal opinions will have some influence on a juridical ruling.
BTW according to Bromley icelandic authorities were the ones who asked for this legal opinion !?
Ok, finally gossip became a fact
Google translation
[quote]14/10/2009
Press Release
Following consideration of the request of the Government of Iceland to Russia to provide financial support amounting to 500 million the Government of Russia decided to refrain from providing the requested funds.
This decision is dictated by the need to curb growth in public spending in the situation of budget deficit.
Press Service of Ministry of Finance of Russia [/quote]
http://www.minfin.ru/ru/press/press_releases/index.php?id4=8287
“Do you have a fundamental disagreement with the (rejected) terms of repayment bandied about by Iceland?”
Yes, Iceland’s amendments are indeed fundamentally disagreeable. For example:
- Why should the state guarantee expire in 2024? I cannot see any reasonable justification for that. It is certainly not based on ability-to-pay, for it would be easier to repay if both the guarantee and repayment period were extended, not restricted.
- Why does Iceland insist on retaining the option to seek legal redress on its Icesave obligations? For the dispute to be resolved, there must be agreement on both sides to waive rights of redress.
- Etc…
I found an interesting statement form Sedlabanki which claims that iceland will be fully able to pay its icesave debt:
http://www.sedlabanki.is/?PageID=287&NewsID=2189
Neils – I suspect that different people wrote the second and third paragraphs of that statement:
“…subjected to considerable uncertainty…also considerable uncertainty…All of these uncertainties…which themselves are still very uncertain…”
“The following are the main conclusions regarding Iceland’s external debt: The economy will be fully able to fulfil the Icesave agreements.”
Jim,
That is very well possible and I also get the impression that people who wrote this statement did not have a clue. After all, they are undermining the icelandic position in the negotiation about the icesave deal. Why should the Althing insist on all these amendments when Iceland would be able to pay back the icesave debt easily, even in case of a negative scenario?
“people who wrote this statement did not have a clue”
Whether there were one or several authors, you are undoubtedly right on that point. But I suspect they’re still in their jobs and advising the Icelandic government on Icesave, which explains a lot…
On Oct 15, 2009, Jim said:
“Do you have a fundamental disagreement with the (rejected) terms of repayment bandied about by Iceland?”
Yes, Iceland’s amendments are indeed fundamentally disagreeable. For example:
- Why should the state guarantee expire in 2024? I cannot see any reasonable justification for that. It is certainly not based on ability-to-pay, for it would be easier to repay if both the guarantee and repayment period were extended, not restricted.
- Why does Iceland insist on retaining the option to seek legal redress on its Icesave obligations? For the dispute to be resolved, there must be agreement on both sides to waive rights of redress.
- Etc…
———————————————
Thanks for clarifying your personal opinion on the matter.
I wondered what your position was. It is obvious that your interests as expressed do not share in the welfare interests of Iceland as a nation at present nor the future.
Mathematical formulas and vulture like corporate cold analysis do not quite capture the state of a bankrupt nation who stand as guarantor to a fantastic sum of money.
It doesn’t take a master to work out that the overall levels of debt are simply unsustainable.
A south american revolutionary said:
“I better die standing up, rather than living on my knees”
England and Holland have put Iceland on it’s knees, and Iceland has decided to live like this, on its knees, and since we are down there we leak you boots too.
If they pass another bill, it will be just with every condition the brits and ducth put on the table.
“It is obvious that your interests as expressed do not share in the welfare interests of Iceland as a nation at present nor the future.”
Au contraire, mon ami, au contraire. It’s in Iceland’s best interests to resolve the dispute and I just hightlighted what’s necessary for that to happen.
Easy said:
A south american revolutionary said:
“I better die standing up, rather than living on my knees”
Please, leave out the heroic comparisons.
Maybe a more appropriate saying would be “If you can’t do the Time, don’t do the Crime”. Your country perpetrated a massive financial fraud from the highest government official to the lowest consumer of government services your people have benefited from it.
Remember, countries are merely asking for their money back and unless there is some sort of leverage Iceland is point blank refusing to do so. KSFIoM customers have a parental guarantee from the Icelandic parent bank which is, of course, worthless.
Knowless said:
>Do you have a fundamental disagreement with the (rejected) terms of repayment bandied about by Iceland?
>Mathematical formulas and vulture like corporate cold analysis do not quite capture the state of a bankrupt nation who stand as guarantor to a fantastic sum of money.
>It doesn’t take a master to work out that the overall levels of debt are simply unsustainable.
I’m not sure what your position is relative to this issue.
Do you accept Iceland is responsible for the sum alleged, as stated by Netherlands and UK, or are you saying that Iceland simply cannot repay the sum (or both)?
@Peter:
I acctually ment it in an ironic way, Iceland has been acting like if we had choices, whan we acctually have none, we messed up with the wrong people, last october(year) when the icelandic goberment declared full of arrogance “we wont pay”, I remember very well I told my wife at thet very moment, “Iceland has just right now dig it’s own tomb” “they have just answered the wrong thing to one of two countries you don’t answer like that” (you should know whos the other country) At that moment of time Iceland had actually belived their own lie that we were something more than a remote island in the middle of nowhere full of nothing but farmers and fishermen, and thought we could talked back to England(in our deffence it’s cultural, every Icelander belives (s)he is the king of the world)and of course you can talk back but there are consequences, we thought we could cheat billions of euros and pounds out of people and there wouldn’t be any consequences, and you mentioned something very important that today averybody is forgeting:
“from the highest government official to the lowest consumer of government services your people have benefited from it.”
The last part of this coment is very impportant because today has become very popular to play the card of:
“I didn’t buy a Land Rover, I didn’t buy a brand new flat, I was not invited to the party”
when in fact we all enjoyed the ride, at some point or another some way or another but we ALL enjoyed the ride.
So my point was that Iceland deserves to be put down on its knees, there is no other way we as a nation will learn(90% of people still so full of themselves), but as much as I’m convinced we deserve that and as much as I’n convinced that Iceland WILL ACCEPT the Icesave deal with every condition England and Holland ask for (and not because we are very honorable but because we have no other options as we pretend to have, this is a ruined nation controlled by a handfull of incompetent farmers, so is either that or sit on a trash can for the next generation or two) I also wish they acctually had the b@lls they say we have and the viking blood and the strong they say we icelanders are to reject it, but then again I’m beeing ironic, again.
“I’n convinced that Iceland WILL ACCEPT the Icesave deal with every condition England and Holland ask for”
There’s no chance that Althingi MPs will be given the opportunity to ratify the original agreement again. And no chance that a majority of MPs would actually ratify it. There’s a greater chance of Gordon Brown tossing his caber with Johanna Sigurdardottir.
Johanna Sigurdardottir???
In this case would be the opposition MP’s because because Johanna is ready more than ready with lube and butter ready, if this Icesave deal passes(wich it WILL) will be because of her forceing it. Unfortunatelly(for us) One way or another one thing is FOR SURE England WILL get its money back, you can bet on that, the easy way or the hard way but they WILL GET their money back.
I’m missing something from these posts. And that is this: Can Iceland balance their exports and imports at the current [government controlled] currency exchange rate? If it can, then it can “renege” on the [supposed] requirement to pay off the Icesave debts.
All the talk of legal opinion or international courts or moral requirements are irrelevant.
Reneging on the Icesave debts [if that is what it is] is simply like a country declaring bankruptcy and moving on. No one could do anything about it if Iceland doesn’t need foreign exchange [ie. money]. Britain and Netherlands would just have to accept it. No?
“Britain and Netherlands would just have to accept it. No?”
Most deffenetly. Just one problem, they won’t accept it, they will get their money back for sure.
Another point, just the interest on the bonds of foreign investors, sucks up whatever surplus we could get in exports, so the krona would keep on dropping.
mikec
See:
http://www.sedlabanki.is/lisalib/getfile.aspx?itemid=7317
The bottom of page 7 shows the balance of payments. The country is paying out enormous amounts of money in the form of interest payments on a variety of financial instruments. The trade balance is indeed in the black but it is swamped by the negative income balance. Irrespective of the Icesave deal Iceland cannot unilaterally (and arbitarily) write off those debts (many of them either with the government directly or guaranteed by the government). A further factor is that a large amount of that debt is in the form of ISK-denominated bonds which mean that the currency couldn’t be arbitarily kept at its current level without the use of forex reserves. Those reserves ae currently supplied by other countries (through various swap deals and previous commitments).
Without the Iceasve deal there is no IMF deal; without an IMF deal, foreign currency reserves will be wiped out, the currency would collapse (currency loans would balloon), inflation would hit a few million per cent (think of the indexed loans) – all personal wealth in Iceland would be wiped out – and there would be a queue of creditors (some of them sovereign states) waiting to pounce on anything Icelandic that shows its face outside Iceland. Without any trade, fuel imports would stop, medicines could not be imported, and spare parts and chemicals needed to keep power stations, tractors, fishing boats etc would stop. All very apocalyptic – it would never get that far.
If you want an example of a country that has gone down that route then think of Zimbabwe.
However, it appears as if Icelanders are seriously thinking of joining Zimbabwe as one of the pariah nations of the world: they are blaming others for their misfortunes and they think they can tell the IMF to get lost.
“There’s no chance that Althingi MPs will be given the opportunity to ratify the original agreement again. And no chance that a majority of MPs would actually ratify it. There’s a greater chance of Gordon Brown tossing his caber with Johanna Sigurdardottir”
Agree.
Easy, stop saying “We” and dont refer to yourself as a Icelander, you are not,
if you hate Iceland so much go back to E-Europe ,
i feel sorry for you, its sad to see someone so broken and bitter, I am sure that if you wish the Icelandic goberment can help you out somehow,
like giving you a patch for your leaking boots or whatever you whine about in your rants above,
if “the people we are dealing with” scare you so much, then leave, go cry somwhere else.
Pretty close mike. The only issues are the IMF loan and what it is for (banks, defecit, currency support) and any risk to inclusion in the EEA (and to a much lesser extent the EU/eurozone).
HAHAHA!!! @Jim.
Just fresh fom the oven MBL.is and Eyjan
“Samkvæmt heimildum Morgunblaðsins hafa íslensk stjórnvöld fallist á að fyrirvörum þeim sem Alþingi samþykkt í sumar verði breytt og að Íslendingar taki á sig auknar byrðar frá því sem þá var gert ráð fyrir. Forystumenn ríkisstjórnarflokkanna munu telja sig hafa meirihluta á þingi fyrir málinu.”
What were you saying??? oh yes this is what you said:
“There’s no chance that Althingi MPs will be given the opportunity to ratify the original agreement again. And no chance that a majority of MPs would actually ratify it. There’s a greater chance of Gordon Brown tossing his caber with Johanna Sigurdardottir.”
http://eyjan.is/blog/2009/10/17/nidurstada-fengin-i-icesave-malinu-fjarlaganefnd-kollud-saman-i-fyrramalid/
The british have accepted that we take it to a court, but if the court rules in favor of Iceland We istill have to pay.
IS THIS A JOCKE??? what a way to put a country on its knees!!! This is the must humiliating thing i have ever heard, and the worst is that we will accept it hahaha!!! of course we won’t lose our pride!! It’s like telling to a person:
OK, I will kiss you but you can not touch me, you have to wear a paper bag on your head and you can not tell anybody, that is himiliating on itself, but you know what is the most humiliating thing of this? if she says …Yes, but kiss me!!!(yess, yes to everything you want but please!!! give me the money!!! really no shame no dignity, well after all, no choice.
“Britain and Netherlands would just have to accept it. No?”
Indeed. As a sovereign country, Iceland can ultimately do what it wants and even ignore all court judgements. Just like it ignored the Icesave arbitration judgement, for example. However, the UK and Netherlands are also sovereign countries and, after more compelling judgements are obtained and no compromise is forthcoming, will then feel justified in selling off the earmarked foreign Icelandic assets. It could get dirty, low and nasty…
On Oct 17, 2009, Easy said:
“I actually meant it in an ironic way”
Sorry, its difficult to spot that in these sort of discussions.
“One way or another one thing is FOR SURE England WILL get its money back, you can bet on that, the easy way or the hard way but they WILL GET their money back.”
This is true. GB forgave African debt, but many other politicians before refused to do so for decades even though the argument was far more compelling. In fact there is no argument whatsoever for the UK to forgive Iceland’s debt and once the Labour party is removed the Conservatives will be far less tolerant.
“No one could do anything about it if Iceland doesn’t need foreign exchange [ie. money]. Britain and Netherlands would just have to accept it. No?”
No. Iceland is dependant on imports and exporting to the EU, it has overseas assets that can be seized, such as the loans of the nationalised banks and the pension fund. Iceland has lost the ‘moral’ argument by treating domestic depositors preferentially and given up its legal right to contest the EFTA ruling. Although the general public are discussing whether they should accept the Icesave deal at all, the politicians know that they have already accepted it and can only discuss the terms – but don’t have the guts to spell it that out to the voters.
“So my point was that Iceland deserves to be put down on its knees, there is no other way we as a nation will learn(90% of people still so full of themselves)”
Axel said:
“Easy,… go back to E-Europe ,
i feel sorry for you, its sad to see someone so broken and bitter, I am sure that if you wish the Icelandic goberment can help you out somehow,
like giving you a patch for your leaking boots…go cry somwhere else.”
Jim said:
“There’s no chance that Althingi MPs will be given the opportunity to ratify the original agreement again. And no chance that a majority of MPs would actually ratify it. There’s a greater chance of Gordon Brown tossing his caber with Johanna Sigurdardottir.”
I rest my case.
“It could get dirty, low and nasty…”
Those words describe modern politics.
>Those words describe modern politics
As opposed to the golden age of politics?
“As opposed to the golden age of politics?”
Good point