Bjorgvin G. Sigurdsson felt compelled to comment openly against Nout Wellink’s recent remarks that Iceland lied to him over Icesave.
Iceland’s former Minister of Trade, Bjorgvin G. Sigurdsson wrote an open letter which was published in the Dutch de Volkskrant newspaper. He told mbl.is that he saw his action as urgently necessary in the face of very serious allegations made against the former Icelandic government, and indirectly at him personally.
Dutch National Bank head Nout Wellink recently told his country’s parliamentary investigation into the Icesave collapse that the Icelanders had lied to him over the state of Landsbanki and the stability of Icesave. He also shunned any personal responsibility for the collapse, saying that European rules prevented him from doing anything to stop Icesave’s rapid expansion.
Sigurdsson disputed both points, saying that the Icelandic government never lied to Dutch authorities – and least of all his Ministry of Trade, which is in control of the FME national financial regulator.
He also pointed out that Wellink did not mention any Icelandic individual, ministry, office or institution in his accusation. His use of the word ‘Icelanders’ was unacceptably vague, Sigurdsson believes, and could simply mean Landsbanki itself – which could perhaps have been expected to lie under the circumstances.
On the second point, Sigurdsson said that despite European cross-border banking laws, every country was still ultimately in charge of its own banking sector. If the Dutch regulators had serious concerns over Icesave before the crash, there were more options available to them than were used, he believes. Sigurdsson illustrated his point by saying that French regulators had blocked Icesave from opening up in France precisely because of their fears for Landsbanki and the wider Icelandic banking sector. Wellink had the same powers available to him as the French central bank did, the former Icelandic minister wrote.
Nice smack down!
I found this on a dutch news site. Apparently DNB is having proof of the fact that they were lied to by icelanders.
This was issued in response to the letter sent by mr. Sigurdsson.
http://www.nu.nl/economie/2182150/nieuw-bewijs-wellink-ijsland.html
These proofs have ben handed over to news channel RTL-Z
It is mentioned that this evidence shows that the icelandic ministry of economic affairs promessed the UK 2 days before the crash that i would offer assistance in case of a failure of Landsbanki.
Moreover the icelandic side continued to claim that it would be ‘ unthinkable’ that any icelandic bank would fail.
Also the icelandic government promessed that it would prop up the icelandic deposit guarantee fund to make sure it would meet the minimal (20k) standard.
That’s what the article writes.
that IT would offer assistance in case of a failure of Landsbanki.
….of coure :-)
Sigurdsson illustrated his point by saying that French regulators had blocked Icesave from opening up in France precisely because of their fears for Landsbanki and the wider Icelandic banking sector.
It’s very strange that this has, as far as I’m aware, not surfaced before. Given that a significant part of the issue is who was responsible for what, I find it incredible that Iceland has not made known before now that France refused to let Landsbanki in.
I can only assume that this occurred in around August 2008, when the state of the Icelandic economy was much clearer than March 2008.
If the Dutch regulators had serious concerns over Icesave before the crash, there were more options available to them than were used, he believes.
Such as what? From memory, the only thing a host authority could do about a passported bank was say that they did not believe that the home country was correctly regulating it. At that point they could block it from their country.
But can you imagine the effect of the UK or NL saying that about Iceland? The whole banking sector would have sunk without a trace. Okay, so that happened anyway, but there was at least a chance that it wasn’t going to be as bad as it was.
Is this the same guy who sent these letters to the UK treasury?
http://media.rtl.nl/media/financien/rtlz/2010/021110ijsland2.pdf
“If needed the Icelandic Government will support the Depositors’ and Investors’ Guarantee Fund in raising the necessary funds, so that the Fund would be able to meet the minimum compensation limits in the event of a failure of Landsbanki and its UK branch”
http://media.rtl.nl/media/financien/rtlz/2010/021110ijsland1.pdf
Interesting material.
These proofs have ben handed over to news channel RTL-Z
The “proofs” are going to be those that Michel links to. No lies told there as, if you read them carefully (and if your name is not Fisy – see our long-running dispute on this point :) ), they say things like “support”, “assisting” “may provide liquidity” etc.
Although I have to say that “unlikely, event that the board of the DIGF could not raise the funds on the financial markets” may be stretching credibility and approaching an outright lie :) .
>Is this the same guy who sent these letters to the UK treasury?
Yes, and which of course did get a lot of debating by me with Brumley over what is meant and the horrible actions of Brown and Darling that came after.
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/02/16/kaupthing-sweden-sold-to-finns/comment-page-1/#comment-67865
This strike in the press from the Dutch government machine is all happening, despite what you might want to believe Niels, as a direct result of Eva Joly poking hard at the Dutch in public and getting French MEP Alain Lipietz to speak publicly about this back in the start of January.
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/09/eva-joly-to-dutch-media-netherlands-being-arrogant/
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/10/icesave-explored-from-different-angles-on-icelandic-tv/
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/12/lipietz-rejects-rejection-of-his-icesave-rejection/
To Bromley86:
>>>>The “proofs” are going to be those that Michel links to. No lies told there as, if you read them carefully …, they say things like “support”, “assisting” “may provide liquidity” etc.
>>>>Although I have to say that “unlikely, event that the board of the DIGF could not raise the funds on the financial markets” may be stretching credibility and approaching an outright lie :) .
I agree with both points by Bromley86. Words like “support”, “assisting”, and “may provide”, are not same as providing an absolute guarantee. But they were definitely skating on thin ice when they stated:
“In the, our view unlikely, event that the board of the DIGF could not raise the funds on the financial markets, we would assure you that the Icelandic government would do everything that any reasonable government would do in such a situation, including assisting the Fund in raising the necessary funds, so that the Fund would be able to meet the minimum compensation limits.”.
The date of the letter, August 20th, 2008 was of course before the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy in September (when the debt markets completely froze), but the Icelandic government must have realized by then that doors were closing, and it was really not that “unlikely” anymore, that DIGF would indeed not be able to raise funds in the financial markets.
On the other hand, it is of course difficult to determine what exactly was in their minds at the time. Maybe they really were so ignorant of what was happening around the world, that they still believed it was “unlikely”.
It is interesting to note though, is that they never promise to step in and provide any funding directly by the government. It is all about “assisting” the Fund “raising” the necessary funds.
BTW, this is how I would have worded the paragraph if I had been running the trade ministry:
“It is of course very clear that DIGF does not have enough funds to meet the minimum compensation limits, in case one of the three main banks in Iceland suffers a failure. If that happens, the board of the DIGF will therefore be forced to raise the funds on the financial markets. We would assure you that the Icelandic government would do everything that any reasonable government would do in such a situation, including assisting the Fund in raising the necessary funds, so that the Fund would be able to meet the minimum compensation limits.”
Little straight talk always helps! :-)
“This strike in the press from the Dutch government machine is all happening…”
Do you also have an opinion on who really shot JFK?
>>>>This strike in the press from the Dutch government machine is all happening, despite what you might want to believe Niels, as a direct result of Eva Joly poking hard at the Dutch in public and getting French MEP Alain Lipietz to speak publicly about this back in the start of January.<<<<
I dont think so to be honest, its all happening because of the parlementairy investigation into the financial crisis. Because icesave is a relatively minor issue in the Netherlands compaired to the brake-up of ABN and the downfall of DSB. And not something the population could bothered to care to much about.
Especially since Eva Joly and Alain Lipietz are not verry well know in the Netherlands, and therefore have very minor abilities to influence the public opion here.
Also i dont think the parlement here is in anny doubt about how to handle the icesave issue because the opposition is even more unfriendly then the goverment in this regard.
Bezoeker83 is right. In NL hardly anybody knows Eva Joly andLipietz is even unkonown in his own country. It is just a minor issue.
Moreover nobody in NL cares very much what 2 rather obscure french members of the european parliament think about us.
it just seems that mr. Sigurdsson has trapped himself in a web of lies.
His claim that France denied Icesave access tot he french market has been denied by Banque de France in an official statement:
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/02/icesave_row_escalates_france_d.php
Normally I would call mr. Sigurdsson a clown but this situation is so sad that other words are more appropriate. I feel sincerely sorry for the icelandic people that they had such worthless people running their country.
BTW: Fisy, are you suggesting that Eva Joly ‘ steered’ mr. Lipietz into making his (unfounded) statements?
BTW: Fisy, are you suggesting that Eva Joly ‘ steered’ mr. Lipietz into making his (unfounded) statements?
I don’t know about Fisy, but I’d suggest that there was something odd about that whole interview. She was almost excited about introducing him, although that might just have been because he was late, and was under the mistaken impression that he was involved in the drafting of 94/19/EC.
She’s crossed the line between advisor and advocate both before and after that interview. When she has crossed that line, she’s got basic facts wrong.
On the subject of the French blocking of Icesave, what do you make of Edgar du Perron’s claims in that article that France & another country blocked Icesave?
In the UK parliament a politician can state a lot of things but the one thing he-she can’t do is call another politician a liar -:)
The DNB would have to be the most naive bunch ever to run a Central Bank if that is all there is to support their version of what constitutes proof.
Bromley,
I read about the claim of Du Perron. However there are not any details nor sources.
And I think he has to be more specific . Which other country and how exactly did they block it?
Even if France, some way or other, managed to block Icesave, they did violate EU/EFTA law by that and moreover, their present statement would be a lie.
I think we need a lot more details about this matter .
btw I read an interesting entry on Du Perron on the general banking weblog in NL:
http://bank.blog.nl/dnb/2010/02/11/icesave-laat-de-echte-du-perron-nu-opstaan
The article points out a strange paradox in the behaviour of mr Du Perron.
Recently he wrote a big report on the question if NL had had the opportunity to stop Iceasve. it was a very long and tedious juridical piece ending with the conclusion that dutch authorities did not have sufficient legal means to stop icesave.
And now he concludes that France and another country were able to block Icesave.
At the same time France denies that any such thing happened and no evidence is given about this third country.
Nor is there any explanation for mr. du perrons inconsistent behaviour in this matter.
Other good threads of posting open on this subject :
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/02/04/secret-info-to-jeopardise-icesave-court-hopes/
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/02/07/dutch-icesave-anger-‘understandable’/
Niels wrote :
>it just seems that mr. Sigurdsson has trapped himself in a web of lies.
>Normally I would call mr. Sigurdsson a clown but this situation is so sad that other words are more appropriate. I feel sincerely sorry for the icelandic people that they had such worthless people running their country.
I think that we will have to wait more information before we can come to fair conclusion about Björgvin G’s alleged lying or not.
More facts needing help on here :
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/02/07/dutch-icesave-anger-‘understandable’/#comment-114698
@knowless
A UK member of parliament can’t use the word liar in parliament when referring to another member of parliament. Other forbidden insults are “blackguard” and “scoundrel”. Civil servants and the banking authorities can use whatever language they choose provided they don’t leave themselves open to libel or slander charges.
The unfortunate thing about all this is that is does not contribute to a sensible debate and it distracts from negotiating an acceptable solution. I suggest less dwelling on past events and more focus on a solution.
Fisy:”I think that we will have to wait more information before we can come to fair conclusion about Björgvin G’s alleged lying or not.
”
That is true but I do not think that ‘high standards’ are applying here :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02hu-OQEns0
Hi Niels so is there any new facts about this facts and invesgitation into the ” lies ” allegations of Mr Wellink ?
Or now that the press has had its nice ” Iceland lies ” there is the feeling there in Netherlands that no further facts are needed ?
Fisy,
I could not find very much in the press about it.
But it is not a very big issue overhere. People are more interested in the skating contests at the olimpics.
However, I think it is prety clear from the events so far that at least landsbanki and probably the icelandic regulators too have made statements to DNB which were not very truthfull (if you allow me to phrase it like this; I am not saying that they were deliberately lying, even though I do have my suspicion).
As for the reaction of mr. Sigurdsson, we have an official denial from Banque de France that there was a french connection regarding Icesave and mr. Du Perron has taken back his statement about it.
So now it seems the ball is back with mr. Sigurdsson.
If it is really true that there have been protracted negotiations between Landsbanki and Banque de France there should be at least emails or protocols from meetings whcih mr. Sigurdsson could present in order to back his claim.
So far he has been silent.
Fisy, you said:” Or now that the press has had its nice ” Iceland lies ” there is the feeling there in Netherlands that no further facts are needed ?”
I think quite a lot of facts were presented in the official report about the contacts between DNB and Landsbanki that I linked to and made a timeline from.