Which arguments Fisy? You’ve not posted anything about the result of the court case, instead preferring to ignore it.

http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/07/06/icelandic-krona-appears-to-be-doing-well/#comment-200421

http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/05/29/landsbanki-law-suit-could-see-icesave-payout-cut-to-30-percent/

http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/06/19/foreign-currency-car-loans-confirmed-as-illegal-in-iceland/#comment-200433

Address arguments not the man, as ad hominem does not suit you well.

And don’t forget that far from trying to stop the banks the Icelandic government was publicising and justifying the opening of Icesave in a road show in the City of London. As Mike (Nordic Analyst) said the regulator argued very strongly that Icesave was a good idea.

Claims from Icelanders that the FME ‘couldn’t stop the banks expanding’ are irrelevant if they didn’t want to stop them and in fact positively encouraged them.

What rest of the banking system? Iceland had already done for 2 out of 3 of the banks before the UK got involved.

And the court review of the decision to close KSF shows that there were a lot of extremely serious problems before the freezing order against Landsbanki. Sure, the freezing order and associated comments may have nailed it, but last time I read the report that really didn’t appear to me to be decisive.

A fallacy Fisy.

All the information available to us indicates that the French (and presumably the other country, although that’s by inference only as we have nothing on it) merely managed to delay the Icesave entry into their market. Once there, the supervision and regulation would have been entirely in the Icelandic court. How you can argue otherwise is a mystery, especially if you believe that the lead regulator in the home state is restrained by EU legislation.

Which leads on to:

Landsbanki branches is an area where there was * not * this kind of discretion because of the freedom of establishemnt pillar ( Articles 43 to 48 EC )

Having plumbed the depths of the introductory paragraph on Wiki, I noticed this. “With the proposed legislation, the Commission wants to reduce the barriers to cross-border trade, principally by doing away with the service industry regulations of individual EU Member States, unless those regulations are non-discriminatory; objectively justified on the grounds of public interest; and proportionate.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_on_services_in_the_internal_market

Seriously, I’m getting flashbacks to when you asked me to read up on ECB regulations to prove your assertion that the ECB had tried to take down Kaupthing.

Regarding the Jaanari report, my reading of it is that he merely says that the Icelandic banks could not be restrained given the way the Icelandic regulatory system was set up. Nothing to stop the government changing Icelandic law so that discretionary powers were not strictly limited. That interpretation is backed up by statements like “[The IMF] concluded as well that the authorities’ legal powers are weak, as the FME does not have the authority to intervene and take over a bank” [p.18], which indicates that it was within the Icelandic government’s power to grant that to the FME.

See also:
The FME, too, was too small to supervise a complex banking system like that in Iceland. The powers of the supervisors were too limited, and the Nordic tradition of jurisprudence did not allow much leeway into discretion.

and

The supervisors were too timid and lacked legal authority in their
efforts to intervene in these developments, but the overall national pride in the success of the banks would probably have made it futile even to try while the going was good and success followed success. [p.37]

Both those seem to me to be pinning the blame on Iceland’s system, rather than saying that the EU forced it to do (or not do) anything.

Please point to me where its says the icelandic regulator cannot be give complete control over its banks by the Icelandic Parliament?
After all, Iceland nationalised its banks so it obviously has control over them, if it wanted to.

However, claiming that ‘Iceland was powerless to stop Icesave operating abroad”, is ridiculous given the fact that the icelandic authorities were DEMANDING that Holland and the UK allow Icesave in. Plus, lets not forget, your beloved party while in government was publicising Icesave and the depositors guarantee.

This is the reason why Darling demanded 200m GBP from Matiesen

http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/12/16/landsbanki-under-restriction-due-to-fsa-regulations-before-terrorist-laws-applied/

No attempt seems to have been made to solve this bank problem, the British closed Landsbanki and a few days later they enforce Terrorist laws and tell the world they will seize icelandic assets where ever they can, that brought down KB and the rest of the banking system.