The Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt told Reuters this week that Sweden will not pay more of its loan to Iceland out before the successful completion of the IMF review. The IMF review has, however, been delayed again.
Reinfeldt says he has spoken directly with his Icelandic counterpart, Johanna Sigurdardottir, and informed her he believed all the other Scandinavian Prime Ministers agreed with him that Iceland should pay its foreign debts.
“We want Iceland to stand by these international debt obligations and in return, we will stands by our promises,” he said.
When Visir.is asked Minister for Trade Gylfi Magnusson why the IMF looks set to delay its Iceland progress report, he said it is almost certainly due to Icesave and the delay in waiting to see what happens at the national referendum.
The World vs Iceland.
Irrelevant but.. “”The Wall Street bank JP Morgan Chase has reignited a political furore over City pay packets by disclosing that it will hand out $9.3bn (£5.73bn) to its investment banking staff around the world”"
What was the Icesave deal? £3.4bn?? Makes you wonder hmm??…
SWEDEN YOU DID THE RIGHT THING OF WITHOLDING AID TO ICELAND FOR THE SAKE OF THE INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL SITUATION ICELAND HAS TO PAY ITS DEBT IN A SHORT OR LONG TERM IT CANNOT MAKE ANY STUPID EXCUSE WAKE UP ICELANDERS NO BODY IS ON YOUR SIDE IF YOU DON;T PAY.
Another gentle reminder to Icelanders that a “no” vote may not be in their best interests.
Plenty of people are on the side of Iceland ‘Bankrupt Nation’.
Iceland should not pay a debt it does not rightfully owe, despite any international pressure.
“Iceland should not pay a debt it does not rightfully owe”
You are aware that, as the Icelandic banks collapsed, they illegally transferred available funds from foreigners’ accounts to Icelanders’ accounts? The funds were stolen from foreigners accounts. It’s not just a debt that Iceland owes, it’s an apology for the original criminal theft. Wake up and smell the coffee.
To Grim Reaper:
>>>>Another gentle reminder to Icelanders that a “no” vote may not be in their best interests.
You do not know people in Iceland very well, if you think this will have any effect on the outcome in the national referendum. In fact, I think most countries would never give in to outside threats, when deciding matters of national importance. If anything it will have the opposite effect.
Iceland is already committed to honor all our obligations, including paying for Icesave in full. Remember, that old Landsbanki has estimated assets of 6.4B Euros, which is more than enough to cover the IceSave ‘debt’ of 4.0B Euros.
UK/Netherlands will always get the full 6.4B Euros even if the current Icesave agreement is voted down in the national referendum. If they want something more, the agreement must be fair and equitable in order for it to be accepted by the population of Iceland. Until then no deal!
The pressure being put on Iceland by various countries will guarantee a no vote in the referendum.
As a Brit who had money in icesave(fully repaid)I would hope Iceland does stand up to these bullying tactics.
There is no doubt that certain(many?)individuals broke the law and should already be in jail.However you cannot punish a whole country for the illegal actions of private individuals.
As for an apology-well it took the British government almost 40 years to apologise to the thalidomide families so you might have to wait for that!
Iceland,UK and Holland should agree to mediation where,hopefully,a deal,where Iceland isn’t bankrupted,can be agreed.
The interesting part of all this is the British and Dutch refusal to allow Iceland to include an option to pursue the legal path in an agreement.This surely signifies that they both believe there is a fair chance they wouldn’t win any legal case and Iceland wouldn’t be obligated to pay any of the money.
Excellent circular argument here. The IMF said last time around that its review was delayed because the Nordics required Iceland to stand up to its commitments.
Now Sweden is saying they’ll wait for the IMF review, which will wait for Sweden, etc.
Jim wrote :
>You are aware that, as the Icelandic banks collapsed, they illegally transferred
>available funds from foreigners’ accounts to Icelanders’ accounts? The funds
>were stolen from foreigners accounts.
I do hope that you have actual evidence of that. The exact opposite has been stated very clearly and never disputed 10th October 2008 :
http://www.landsbanki.is/english/aboutlandsbanki/pressreleases/?GroupID=720&NewsID=13336&y=0&p=1
“News and Notifications – Friday, October 10, 2008 6:08 PM
Statement from Landsbanki Íslands hf
Landsbanki did not transfer funds from the UK to Iceland
Due to press reports and claims concerning fund transfers between Landsbanki subsidiaries and the parent company during the period leading up Icelandic financial enterprises being placed in receivership by the Icelandic FSA, as provided for by newly adopted legislation, Landsbanki would like to state the following:
1. No such transfers were made between Heritable Bank and Landsbanki during the period in question and Heritable Bank remained fully financed.
2. No transfers were made from Landsbanki London Branch to the parent company in Iceland during the period in question; on the contrary, Landsbanki Íslands hf. transferred substantial funds to its UK branch during this time to fulfil its Icesave commitments.
Landsbanki would like to emphasise in particular that reports of this matters and statements to this effect by UK Government officials do not apply in any way to Landsbanki. ”
>It’s not just a debt that Iceland owes,
>it’s an apology for the original criminal theft. Wake up and smell the coffee.
If you mean the theft of Landsbanki London branch and Heritable monies still sitting in London UK banks accounts and at Bank of England because of the original anti-terrorist act freezing order by Brown and Darling you may have a point.
( Or of course the taking of Kaupthing Edge money and gift of it to ING and taking of Kautphign Singer and Friedlander for no good reason. )
But you have none about Icelandic governement, or Icelandic people.
Accussations have been made about customers of Kautphing sending large sums out of London that week — it seems Robert Tchenguiz ( UK based business man ) owned entities did transfer money away from London for example.
But that is not to do with Icelandic banks but runs on * all * banks in London at the time, because as City Minister Paul Myners disclosed on that Friday, 10 October the UK was ” ‘very close’ to a complete banking collapse after ‘major depositors’ attempted to withdraw their money en masse.”+ :
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=470349&in_page_id=2
That had nothing to do with Icelanders. We just were a conveniencet excuse to redirect attention away from just horrible horrible problems of UK banks at home.
Jim ( I guess it really is you posting ) I guess you must have forgotten this posts that make it clear about Icelanders not having foreign depositors money. it is profressional bond holders who are ones effected by Icelandic emergency law of October 2008 :
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/06/iceland-president’s-icesave-decision-drawing-harsh-international-response/#comment-109269
” 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.”
Jim, you did post in this thread so I assume you saw Bjarni post explaining facts of situation …
I emphasize :
” No foreign money was used for this purpose, and no cash was paid out to depositors. ”
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/09/28/british-and-dutch-stance-on-icesave-hardening/#comment-94648
” It is also a misunderstanding that Icelanders got PAID 100% out of the Kaupthing hf. pot. During the first week of October last year, the whole banking system in Iceland was in immediate danger of collapsing. Credit lines where being canceled, the Central Bank was running out its foreign currency, and bank branches in Iceland where fast running out of cash.
The emergency laws where then successfully passed and used to stop the immediate crisis, by promising 100% guarantee of deposits, but at the same time placing severe limits how much cash people were allowed to withdraw. Later, strict restrictions on foreign exchange currency trade was instituted, that still apply today.
All the new banks, including the central bank, had to be refinanced again by the government, which is now running massive deficits as a result. No foreign money was used for this purpose, and no cash was paid out to depositors.
The new banks will also issue a bond to the bankruptcy proceedings of the old banks, covering the difference of the estimated recovered assets versus liabilities they took over.
The reality of the situation is, that Iceland was cut off financially from the rest of the world during the crisis, and was forced to take the emergency measures by itself to keep the economy floating.
Today, Iceland has almost no foreign currency reserves left, massive debts and deficits, and is also being pressured to take on even more debt, to pay for IceSave and other creditors. Due to its limited ability to increase foreign export revenues, it will have very little chance of paying those debts, and sovereign default within few years is unfortunately very likely. “
Netherlands have that petition and , here’s one from UK :
” Save the People of Iceland – the Official Petition
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/tell-a-friend/6394263 ”
Interesting image there of UK and EU feet stomping on Iceland. Wonder wher the image came from ?
Bjarni:
This is not about “outside threats”. It’s just a sign that Sweden isn’t sure weather or not to trust Iceland to repay the loans it has asked for to be able to keep living above its means.
Getting big loans from Sweden is not a right. If the loan is denied Iceland has no one but itself to blame.
Let’s admit it, and accept that the “business/politician Vikings” are stiring the country straight into 3rd world country status. Fisrt they robbed people from other countries, second they want to borrow money from the IMF and not pay the people they robbed but they keep insisting on the loans so they can rebuild the country because they don’t want to sell the assets they bought with the stolen money….BS!!!
0:3 me think ;)
grim. Are you sure you are not confusing interests of politicians/bankers with interests of people?
Down with the IMF! Down with the New World Order!
Learn the truth…
http://www.infowars.com
“You are aware that, as the Icelandic banks collapsed, they illegally transferred available funds from foreigners’ accounts to Icelanders’ accounts? The funds were stolen from foreigners accounts”
Or so you say, i would like to see you proof that,
i believe it was the other way around, i know that 500 bn isk emergency loan was transfered to UK some days before the crash, it never came back,
this is a fact that can easily be proven, dont make statements you cant back up.
“It’s not just a debt that Iceland owes, it’s an apology for the original criminal theft. Wake up and smell the coffee”
Iceland owes no one anything, the Icelandic state did NOT guarantee the icesave accounts,
British gov decided to increase the guarantee per account from 20k to 50k the day before they froze landsbanki assets to maximize the damage, Wank*r Bos increased the guarantee to 100k, a very stupid move, they can get the bl**dy bank, but never a cent from Icelanders,
stop crying Jim, start taking a hole for your Labor party, if you start right now it will be deep enough in May when it will be needed.
Way to go Bjarni.
Also, Iceland has no clear legal obligations to pay up.
Icesave was Landsbanki’s branch in the UK and the Netherlands it was a private bank with no Icelandic state guarantee for the depositors. Therefore Icesave was a private financial firms operating under the watch of the national regulators of UK and Holland. A law was passed in Iceland August 2009 that gave a state guarantee and agreement to pay but the terms were not accepted by UK and Holland. The loan of GBP 720 billion by Britain and Holland is hypocritical because Iceland never asked for or approved the loan.
08/01/2010 | 11:51
Legal Uncertainty on Iceland’s Icesave Responsibility
Dr. Michael Waibel of the University of Cambridge and Lauterpacht Centre for International Law wrote in an article published on FT.com today that “Iceland has no clear legal obligations to pay up,” referring to the Icesave agreement with the UK and the Netherlands. “The UK would likely face substantial obstacles in court.
Norwegian-French magistrate Eva Joly, who serves as a consultant to Iceland’s special prosecutor, said in the RÚV interview that there is nothing in the laws saying that there must be a state guarantee on the obligations of deposits in a private bank, in this case Landsbanki. Joly suggested that Icelandic authorities establish an international arbitration to solve the Icesave dispute with assistance from the European Union. The dispute is not just Iceland’s problem, she reasoned, but the problem of Europe as a whole.
Jan 9, 2010 in General, Holland, Iceland, MBL
Eva Joly, the MEP and white collar crime fighter now assisting Iceland’s Special Prosecutor, was interviewed this week in the Dutch NRC Handelsblad. Below is one of the statements she made from the transcript of the interview relating specifically to Iceland.
“The handful of banks that led that island to its doom are all private enterprises. When they collapsed, at the end of 2008, they had ten times more money in their current accounts than the state. The government was left powerless. There are about 330,000 Icelanders and most of them had nothing to do with this. But now the banks’ deficits have become the state’s deficit, affecting everybody. This is theft of public money.”
Way to go Bjarni.
Also, Iceland has no clear legal obligations to pay up.
Icesave was Landsbanki’s branch in the UK and the Netherlands it was a private bank with no Icelandic state guarantee for the depositors. Therefore Icesave was a private financial firms operating under the watch of the national regulators of UK and Holland. A law was passed in Iceland August 2009 that gave a state guarantee and agreement to pay but the terms were not accepted by UK and Holland. The loan of GBP 720 billion by Britain and Holland is hypocritical because Iceland never asked for or approved the loan.If the UK and the Netherlands do not want to be reasonable Iceland should take the matter to the International court then let’s see how much they get.
Daily News
08/01/2010 | 11:51
Legal Uncertainty on Iceland’s Icesave Responsibility
Dr. Michael Waibel of the University of Cambridge and Lauterpacht Centre for International Law wrote in an article published on FT.com today that “Iceland has no clear legal obligations to pay up,” referring to the Icesave agreement with the UK and the Netherlands. “The UK would likely face substantial obstacles in court.
Norwegian-French magistrate Eva Joly, who serves as a consultant to Iceland’s special prosecutor, said in the RÚV interview that there is nothing in the laws saying that there must be a state guarantee on the obligations of deposits in a private bank, in this case Landsbanki. Joly suggested that Icelandic authorities establish an international arbitration to solve the Icesave dispute with assistance from the European Union. The dispute is not just Iceland’s problem, she reasoned, but the problem of Europe as a whole.
Jan 9, 2010 in General, Holland, Iceland, MBL
Eva Joly, the MEP and white collar crime fighter now assisting Iceland’s Special Prosecutor, was interviewed this week in the Dutch NRC Handelsblad. Below is one of the statements she made from the transcript of the interview relating specifically to Iceland.
“The handful of banks that led that island to its doom are all private enterprises. When they collapsed, at the end of 2008, they had ten times more money in their current accounts than the state. The government was left powerless. There are about 330,000 Icelanders and most of them had nothing to do with this. But now the banks’ deficits have become the state’s deficit, affecting everybody. This is theft of public money.
Iceland should pay up! Say no more.
WAKE UP (BRENTON) ICELAND HAS NO HELP ABROAD IF ITS DOES NOT PAY ITS DEPT MAYBE YOU HAVE NOT BEEN ABROAD SO YOUR VISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL IS LIMITED. SWEDEN IS THE HEAD OF THE NORDIC BLOC SO IF SEWDEN DOES NOT WANT TO BORROW ANY MONEY TO ICELAND TELL ME WHICH COUNTRY CAN LET ME TELL YOU THE TRUTH GO TO ASK CHINA HE CAN DIG ICELAND OUT OF THIS MESS BUT ICELAND HAS TO GIVE SOMETHING IN RETURN.
bjarni where are this so called landsbanki assets? where tell me,its a mirage actavis has just gone under the nose of iceland govt to Deuchte bank,the state of affairs at sedlabanki are really worse i wish icelanders knew,vote yes for the loans to come vote no for your own peril remember 40 jobs r being losed every day in island.
Icesave issue can be renegotiated after the vote i beleve there is a line in the agreement that says so.
Lobby groups should force the govenment to change the laws to attract FDI thats the only way to spur economic growth.
or islanders can go zimbabwe style start using dollar or euro in trade no permission needed to use this currencies.
To mazarin /.se:
>>>>This is not about “outside threats”. It’s just a sign that Sweden isn’t sure weather or not to trust Iceland to repay the loans it has asked for to be able to keep living above its means.
Getting big loans from Sweden is not a right. If the loan is denied Iceland has no one but itself to blame.
I do agree that Iceland does not have a “right” to a loan from Sweden. And Sweden does have the right to make sure, if it offers a loan, to make sure the loan is not used for stupid things, such as Iceland living above its means. No arguments there!
What we have problem with, is that Sweden and some of the other Nordic countries, have not actually looked at the Icesave agreement that Iceland is being pressured to accept.
The terms of this agreement is UNACCEPTABLE to large majority of the Icelandic population, as has been discussed here on Icenews.is in detail (Ragnar Hall issue, interest payments, relinguishing of legal rights, seizure of assets, etc., etc.).
As Sweden must already know, by offering their loan, but then tying it to signing of this specific agreement, they are being USED by the UK/NL governments to apply pressure on Iceland to accept outcome we consider extremely unfair and not based on existing laws and treaties.
That Sweden, our Nordic neighbour, is willing to take active part in this pressure tactic, without even first checking the actual facts, is of course very dissapointing to us. But, as I mentioned before, this ‘threat’ by Sweden will NOT have any effect on the outcome of the national referendum.
To mazarin /.se:
Few more questions for you:
Have you actually read the original and the new Icesave agreements?
Have you gone over the numerous legal analysis that available of the agreements and determined if they are based on the actual legal obligation Iceland has according to existing laws and treaties?
Have you read up and educated yourself on what the Ragnar Hall issue is actually about? (critical reason behind the Icelandic opposition to the Icesave agreement)
Have you looked at how the interest is computed on the IceSave ‘debt’ and do you consider that a fair treatment?
If you have done all this, I would love to hear about what your opinions are. It is what we in Iceland would have done, if Sweden had been in the same situation.
Fisy wrote:-( Or of course the taking of Kaupthing Edge money and gift of it to ING and taking of Kautphign Singer and Friedlander for no good reason. )
On the contrary, there were very good reasons for shutting down KSF, as the High Court made clear. I’ll quote from Alex’s commentary on the judgement, which appeared in Icenews – Daily News on 21 October 2009.
“The court ruling pointed out that the UK financial regulator, the FSA and Kaupthing negotiators reached an agreement after exhaustive negotiations on 4-5 October 2008 that Kaupthing would increase Singer & Friedlander’s cash position in stages. The FSA did inform Her Majesty’s Treasury (the UK finance ministry) of this decision.
The EUR 500 million loans from the Central Bank of Iceland came on 6th October. The day before (5th), Kaupthing had promised to pump GBP 186 million into KS&F (around half the loan value) on the 7th October. In reality, only GBP 36 million ended up in London. As previously reported by Visir, the FSA believed that the additional GBP 150 million had been frozen by the Central Bank of Iceland.
But according to other sources, this was not true. Visir.is reports that the entire loan was paid out; but that Kaupthing used the money to shore up its operations elsewhere in Europe. Among others, a portion of the funds went to Sweden and another chunk was used to save Kaupthing Edge in Germany. This comes as a surprise because Kaupthing managers themselves pointed out that Singer & Friedlander would be the key to the bank’s survival.”
and
“On the day after Glitnir’s nationalisation, on the 30th September, GBP 37 million was taken out of Kaupthing Edge bank accounts in the UK. This massive withdrawal triggered a ‘code red’ on the state of Singer & Friedlander. In response, Singer & Friedlander announced it would increase its funding from Kaupthing by an additional GBP 1.1 billion; but the mother company could not provide such funding.
The FSA later agreed to accept GBP 1.25 billion in smaller chunks, as stated above.
It was at this time that Kaupthing made desperate attempts to sell S&F to JC Flowers. The negotiations failed partly because Kaupthing promised the FSA it would transfer GBP 175 million “within hours” on the 7th October. The funds, however, never arrived.
On the 8th October, the FSA learned of the failed JC Flowers deal, but accepted Kaupthing’s new promise to send GBP 300 million; but that too never arrived. By this time, the patience of the British government was exhausted and later that day the government decided to take over Singer & Friedlander and transfer all its assets to ING Direct in the Netherlands before it fully collapsed.
This timeline of developments seems to be accurate and is backed up by documentation presented during the High Court hearing. However, during the entire process last autumn, Kaupthing leaders were assuring the world the bank’s overall liquidity was strong and the chances of collapse were extremely remote.”
If that’s not sufficient reason to close a bank, I don’t know what is. You don’t tell lies to the regulators and make promises that you can’t keep if you want to stay in business.
The post-article discussion was notable for the conspicuous absence of any comment by the usually vociferous Fisy.
Here’s the link.
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/10/21/kaupthing-loses-claim-against-british-government/
“Way to go Bjarni.
Also, Iceland has no clear legal obligations to pay up.”
I don’t know if this is true, but I’m positive that the rest of the world has no legal or moral obligation to give or lend Iceland any more money.
To stunner:
>>>>bjarni where are this so called landsbanki assets?
You can find the most up-to-date information on Landsbanki assets, here in these reports:
http://lbi.is/Uploads/document/LBI_report_on_moratorium_021209.pdf
http://lbi.is/Uploads/document/LBI_creditors_meeting_presentation_031209.pdf
List of all the reports from the winding-up committee can be found here:
http://lbi.is/creditorinformation/creditormeetings/
It would be a real slap in the face for all Nordic countries past efforts. If they let democracy get in the way of loaning the money. UK and Dutch interests are not those of Nordic countries.
So far what i’ve seen in fellow Nordic countries is maintaining the status quo before burning any bridges. No need to **** off UK if we don’t have to. Although i do wish for more strict commenting that this is a matter of Nordic unity and nothing will get in the way of it.
Greets from Finland.
Bjarni writes:
“What we have problem with, is that Sweden and some of the other Nordic countries, have not actually looked at the Icesave agreement that Iceland is being pressured to accept.”
Really? In a previous post Bjarni you asked people to stick to actual verifiable facts. I find it amazing that you can show that no one in Sweden has read the Icesave agreement.
I’m just wondering: Do Icelanders really think that every other country in the EU is mistaken and only Icelanders can correctly interpret EU law? If so, it must be similar to believing in persecuted faith.
Bjarni:
No i haven’t really bothered to read the entire texts and all the fineprints. There are people that are paid to do those things, i leave it to them, i stick to the main points as i see them.
I do assume that the Swedish government has read up on the icesave agreement and are aware of it’s contents. I know Iceland claims it’s unfair, and recieved some support from international experts, but it’s far from agreed upon that Iceland has any rightful complaints on this, UK/NL’s claims have been supported by experts aswell.
Even if Sweden secretly thought Iceland was in the right (i very much doubt that though) it’s still very risky to lend money to someone who might end up being economically blacklisted. We might aswell bet all the money at a casino. Without an IceSave agreement, we simply don’t know weather or not we can trust that Iceland will be able to (or want to, apparently you can have referendums in Iceland on weather or not to pay back your debts) pay us back.
To Mike (Nordic analyst):
>>>>Really? In a previous post Bjarni you asked people to stick to actual verifiable facts. I find it amazing that you can show that no one in Sweden has read the Icesave agreement.
Well, the challenge has been thrown. :-)
Will someone from Sweden that has actually read the Icesave agreement, knows the answers to the questions I posed for mazarin, and still thinks Iceland should sign it, please step forward!
>>>>I do assume that the Swedish government has read up on the icesave agreement and are aware of it’s contents.
Has anyone in the Swedish government voiced their opinions publicly on the actual terms of the agreement, or has there been any analysis in the press on it?
>>>>I know Iceland claims it’s unfair, and recieved some support from international experts, but it’s far from agreed upon that Iceland has any rightful complaints on this, UK/NL’s claims have been supported by experts aswell.
Again, has there been any analysis published in Sweden that tries to determine whether the agreement is actually fair or unfair for Iceland?
>>>>Without an IceSave agreement, we simply don’t know weather or not we can trust that Iceland will be able to (or want to, apparently you can have referendums in Iceland on weather or not to pay back your debts) pay us back.
This comment unfortunately shows how little you really know about what is going on in Iceland. The referendum is NOT about whether Iceland will pay any debt back. It is about whether this particular IceSave agreement is acceptable to the Icelandic people or not.
As has been discussed here in other threads, the old Landsbanki has assets estimated to be close to 6.4B Euros. According to the current Icesave agreement only HALF of those 6.4B Euros will actually be used to cover Iceland’s share of the Icesave obligation (3.2B Euros), while the rest goes directly to UK/NL to cover their deposit insurance on amounts above 20K Euros.
This means the Icelandic taxpayers will be forced to cover the difference, as well as all the interest that is accrued on this ‘debt’. This legal trickery (Ragnar Hall issue) goes directly against Icelandic bankruptcy laws, and is the main reason the Icesave agreement is considered so fundamentally unfair in Iceland.
We are NOT voting against paying for our debts. We are voting against an agreement that forces us to pay MORE than our debt actually is.
CORRECTION:
The number in the parenthesis should have been (4.0 Euros). The whole sentence should therefore have been:
According to the current Icesave agreement only HALF of those 6.4B Euros will actually be used to cover Iceland’s share of the Icesave obligation (4.0 Euros), while the rest goes directly to UK/NL to cover their deposit insurance on amounts above 20K Euros.
To make sure the original sentence is understood correctly, here it is reworded with more details:
According to the current Icesave agreement only HALF (3.2B Euros) of those 6.4B Euros will actually be used to cover Iceland’s share of the Icesave obligation (deposits up to 20K, total 4.0B Euros), while the other half (3.2B Euros) goes directly to UK/NL to cover their own deposit insurance on amounts above 20K Euros.
To west:
>>>>”Also, Iceland has no clear legal obligations to pay up.” I don’t know if this is true, but I’m positive that the rest of the world has no legal or moral obligation to give or lend Iceland any more money.
True, no one is obligated to lend money to Iceland. Basically, Iceland is in the same situation as anyone else that has too much debt. The only way we can hope to pay it back is to take on even more debt (this is true even without Icesave).
The danger with that approach, is that at some point in the future, it will simply become too much, and the whole house of cards will then come falling down. So there is a strong argument to be made, that Iceland should take the sovereign default now, rather than wait, when the situation will be even worse.
To Jimbo (original Jim):
>>>>I’m just wondering: Do Icelanders really think that every other country in the EU is mistaken and only Icelanders can correctly interpret EU law?
Actually, we do believe we are right on the legal issues, and would therefore like to see the dispute resolved in front of an independent European or international court. If everyone else in EU think they are right, they should not be scared of that option.
As Fisy says, lets go to court! :-)
Bjarni:
The situation in Iceland and in particular IceSave has been covered extensively in Swedish press, yes.
I’m having difficulties finding a single piece where the british/dutch claims have been described as unreasonable. The Icelandic position seems to have pretty much zero support by the swedish media and banking world. I haven’t really noticed any sympathy for Iceland in other nordic media either actually.
You seem to be pretty much alone in your conviction that you’re being bullied and unfairly forced to pay back the money you owe.
What you have to understand is that you’re not in any position to set the conditions for repayment. That’s the privilege of the creditor.
It doesn’t really matter if the conditions are very unfavourable to you.
If UK/NL wants to bundle in the condition that all icelanders must jump on one leg for a year – they can. Their loan – their conditions. If the terms are not acceptable then you can always reject it and see them confiscate your assets instead. Either way, you owe them money and they are going to get it back one way or another.
The key question is actually how likely this situation is.
If the Dec agreement was signed into law (proper law, not the pretend signed-into-law that it is at the moment :) ) all that needs to happen to fix this is for an Icelandic court to rule for what we both see as the common sense approach (TIF gets paid first, no pari passu) and for an EFTA court to confirm it.
In fact, why isn’t an Icelandic court doing that right now just in case. This is kinda important :) .
To mazarin /.se:
>>>>I’m having difficulties finding a single piece where the british/dutch claims have been described as unreasonable.
Has there been any press at all in Sweden, where the Icesave agreements themselves are actually analysed, irrespective of which side they supported?
>>>>The Icelandic position seems to have pretty much zero support by the swedish media and banking world. … You seem to be pretty much alone in your conviction that you’re being bullied and unfairly forced to pay back the money you owe.
The only thing we are asking, which should be a reasonable request, is that people in Sweden actually read the agreements, and form their own opinion based on the actual facts, before trying to demand we accept them.
>>>>It doesn’t really matter if the conditions are very unfavourable to you. If UK/NL wants to bundle in the condition that all icelanders must jump on one leg for a year – they can.
Actually, if that option was offered, we would probably rather accept that, than the current agreement. :-)
>>>>If the terms are not acceptable then you can always reject it and see them confiscate your assets instead.
This looks increasingly like what is going to happen in the referendum. The trouble for UK/NL if they try to start confiscating assets, is that the main foreign assets are from old Landsbanki anyway, and those are theirs anyway. If they just take the 6.4B Euros plus maybe few other relatively minor foreign assets they can find, we would actually be quite happy with that solution. We would then of course consider that final payment of the 4.0B Euros ‘debt’.
>>>>Either way, you owe them money and they are going to get it back one way or another.
On the current path this dispute is taking, it looks increasingly likely, that unless UK/Netherlands are willing to negotiate or go to court, they will only get the Landsbanki 6.4B Euros, which is already theirs. If they want anything more than that, it will require an agreement that is acceptable by the Icelandic people.
To Bromley86:
>>>>all that needs to happen to fix this is for an Icelandic court to rule for what we both see as the common sense approach (TIF gets paid first, no pari passu) and for an EFTA court to confirm it.
It may not be that simple, as was pointed out by Ragnar Hall himself after the new laws became public. The ‘problem’ with the specific clause 4.2(c) you are referring to is that it may not hold up at all in court as it is written.
This legal ‘issue’ is described quite well in the Mischon de Reya report on pages 22-24:
http://www.althingi.is/pdf/umsogn.php4?lthing=138&malnr=76&dbnr=835&nefnd=fl
What we want is for UK/Netherlands to agree this should never have been put into the agreement in the first place. If they want any IceSave agreement accepted in Iceland, they will simply have to remove the whole thing.
mazarin /.se said:
> “The situation in Iceland and in particular IceSave has been covered extensively in Swedish press, yes.
I’m having difficulties finding a single piece where the british/dutch claims have been described as unreasonable. The Icelandic position seems to have pretty much zero support by the swedish media and banking world. I haven’t really noticed any sympathy for Iceland in other nordic media either actually.
You seem to be pretty much alone in your conviction that you’re being bullied and unfairly forced to pay back the money you owe”.
Good post mazarin – Iceland is fulfilling the maxim – “There are none so blind, as those that will not see.”
>The real question is, why does Landsbanki has a much lower total recovery rate (36%) on their assets, than the other two Icelandic banks?
I have always been surprised that we did not see the loan book for Landsbanki yet.
I expect it is that because the asset freezing of London branch assets has had much more effect than many do expect.
i think icelandic should pay all foreigns debat but in same time punish all finance crimer,its will improving not happy again in future,