Alistair Darling, Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, says he is absolutely certain Iceland will pay Britain back for its reimbursement of lost savings in Icesave; the question is just what the conditions will be.
Darling told the BBC’s Politics Show it does not serve British interests to push too hard against a small country.
He was asked when he believes Iceland will pay Britain back and answered that it will take several years. It is not possible to demand immediate repayment from a small country with the population the size of Wolverhampton, he said.
Britain is trying to be reasonable, Darling stated, but that the money is repaid sooner or later is not up for negotiation. He added though that the British side would not benefit from Iceland’s isolation and instead wants the country to be a part of Political Europe.
Both the UK and the Netherlands made it immediately clear following Saturday’s referendum that they want to continue hammering out a workable deal with the Icelandic government – probably starting again this week.
Negotiation with the Terrorist ? This time it seems that a tripartite agreement is possible. When ? Prolonging the negotiation would be more expenses accrued. How much ? Interest and payment . Duration ? In every way whatever it is, it will cost more money.
So it looks like the the Icelandic people (if not the politicians) are finally starting to tell the truth – they never intended to pay the minimum guarantee at all –
http://www.mmr.is/files/1003_tilkynning_Icesave_abyrgd.pdf
Expecting honourable behaviour from an Icelander is like reading Shakespeare to your cat – a complete waste of time and he only respects you the less for it.
“Expecting honourable behaviour from an Icelander is like reading Shakespeare to your cat – a complete waste of time and he only respects you the less for it.”
I wouldn’t sweat about; nobody would pay for anything if given the choice.
Maybe Darling had his DNA checked and discovered he is a Viking terrorist?
Andy, either you dont understand icelandic or you cant read.
“Maybe Darling had his DNA checked and discovered he is a Viking terrorist?”
You may be right, i always thougt he was one of the “Good guys”, like Bliar, Brown, Bush etc, but he may be a evil Viking terrorist after all.
Axel, it is true I don’t read Icelandic but the link I posted has been explained to me as an opinion poll taken on Mon 2010-03-08 where, when asked what proportion of the Icesave debt/claim Icelandic taxpayers should pay, ~60% responded that nothing should be paid, ~37% responded that some fraction of the total should be paid and the rest that all should be paid. I take this to mean that 60% or so of the respondents do not wish to pay anything towards resolving the Icesave debacle and would rather put the money towards a new 4 wheel drive vehicle perhaps? Probably a Toyota rather than a Range Rover this time I would imagine.
The seizing of assets carried out under the “Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001″, used to be part of the “Emergency Laws Re-enactments and Repeals Act of 1964″.
The old law doesn’t sound quite so bad does it? Do we negotiate with, er, re-enacters or repeallers? Public Relations disaster.
But at least AD sounds a bit conciliatory.
Try reading this blog by Rebel Economist:
http://reservedplace.blogspot.com/
@Andy
Would that be a Toyota with an accelerator pedal problem. Fast forward at high speed, no risks considered. A throwback to the cause of Iceland’s current problems?
Andy says:
March 8, 2010 at 2:23 pm
” So it looks like the the Icelandic people (if not the politicians) are finally starting to tell the truth – they never intended to pay the minimum guarantee at all –
http://www.mmr.is/files/1003_tilkynning_Icesave_abyrgd.pdf ”
This opinion poll does describe Icleandic people’s frustration with the whole situation and shows how poorly whole Icesave ” deal ” was handled in what UK and Holland did try to pull with the ” Ragnar Hall ” issue+ and the original rapacious 5.5 % interest rates.
But most of all it is a reaction to useless Red-Green government currently sitting in our government seats who have made such a poor handling of this situation and such a bad job at explaining why accepting government guarantee for IceSave minimum deposits is right thing to do.
( Of which I am one of people that things paying for IceSave minimum is right thing morally to do but over last year current governemnt has made such a horrible train wreck out of ” negotiations ”
— and dealing with us tax payer that are the one that will pay for it –
that 93.2 percent did vote against the “deal ” in March 6 referendum++.)
As I have said before Icelanders pay they debts. And now Darling at least acknowledges this truth.
It is shame for International reputation of UK and Holland that they did continue with this actions of acting as bully until the last minute — when it was too late to regnegotate before referendum did make it clear that the current Red-Green government is completely against the people and tax payer of Iceland.
My only question is when the mounting calls for resignation of Red-Green government do reach they crescendo will they ask EU commission for help to keep in they seats ?
They have no honour at all in not resigning after referendum when that is what they said they would do. They have done nearly every thing as wrong as is possible.
A reasonable attitude from Darling at this late hour ( which is good to see ) after two years of rapacious bullying is though too little and too late.
An opportunity for the UK and Dutch and Icelandic governments to get a fair deal done was lost, which is a real shame.
But it is most the fault of Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir and Steingrímur J for doing such a poor job of they work in communiating and also appointing people work on this matters.
+http://www.slideshare.net/hjalli/the-icesave-dispute-priorities-and-division-of-claims UK and Holland ” trying it on ” to gain EUR 0.8 – EUR 1.2 billions * more * than is the intention of the IceSave deal as it was negotiated.
++Based on 62.7 percent of registered voters :
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/03/07/official-confirmation-of-huge-iceland-no-vote-in-icesave-referendum/
http://www.mmr.is/files/1003_tilkynning_Icesave_abyrgd.pdf
This has to do with guarantee, abyrgð means guarantee,
not if iceland should pay or not.
About this Toyota bs, google Ford Pinto to see how Americans responded to factory problems, there is a list of fatal problems with US cars as long as the history of their production.
One thing is for sure, Iceland could call itself a rich country because of the money they took from european savers during many years. Now they will be a pain in the +ss to pay back.
The only truth is that whatever happens, icelanders will never ever in a million years see that kind of money again. They will have to gain it with their own work. THEY WONT BE ABLE TO LIVE AS RICH PEOPLE WITH THE SAVINGS OF EUROPEAN WORKERS… NEVER EVER!!
This has to do with guarantee, abyrgð means guarantee,
not if iceland should pay or not.
Google translation is pretty cumbersome, but it’s pretty clear what people meant when they answered “no” to:
Icelanders should guarantee payments to Depositors in Landsbanki
(Icesave) in the UK and the Netherlands?
What possible other interpretation could you put on a “no” to that question?
——————-
The summary:
Almost 60% of respondents say that Iceland should not have to guarantee payments to Depositors in the UK and the Netherlands
MMR explored the attitudes of people to whether it teldi that Iceland should be guaranteed payments for Depositors in Landsbanki (Icesave) in the UK and the Netherlands? Of those who took positions were 59.4% who said that Iceland should not have to guarantee such payments, 37.3% said that Iceland should guarantee the payments in part and 3.3% said that Iceland should to guarantee payments to owners of deposits in full
Bromley86 says:
Google translation is pretty cumbersome, but it’s pretty clear what people meant when they answered “no” to:
Icelanders should guarantee payments to Depositors in Landsbanki
(Icesave) in the UK and the Netherlands?
What possible other interpretation could you put on a “no” to that question?
———————-
You would have to understand the question before attempting to understand the answer.
As was explained, It is not a question, should icelanders pay or not.
The question is
Do icelanders bear the responsibiliy of the payments?
An emphatic 59.4% – no, not at all.
An answer I think you will find in any country and especially one like Iceland that will be in hock for a generation bailing out the speculators. Public opinion is hostile against these bank bailouts are they any less hostile elsewhere?
Imo, there is a rather large 37% who think they bear responsibility for a part of the debt.
Even though a majority of Icelanders don’t believe they bear the responsibility they are prepared to take on the debt and hope (on a wing and a prayer) that the confiscated Landsbanki assets will cover much of the obligation.
I would accept a limited state guarantee,
one that would not put any state assets in Iceland at risk, and would only cover 20k per account for a limited period of time.
After that time we could discuss the situation again if the problem had not been resolved, if this would work, then i would pay the debts of a failed private bank, (bridge the gap between UK/NL and LB assets, with depositor priority guaranteed), not because i want to, but because we are being forced to do that.
The way this “negotiating” process has been handled, how this “debt” came to our doorstep and the collaboration of Britain and the Netherlands, having the IMF, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Norway backing them up to force/starve Iceland into accepting a deal that will ruin the country makes me wonder if this deal we rejected would be categorized as Odious debt, and there for illegal and invalid.
http://www.odiousdebts.org/odiousdebts/index.cfm?DSP=subcontent&AreaID=3
@Axel
I’m not sure that the Icesave agreement could be classified as an Odious Debt in the strict sense.
“”If a despotic power incurs a debt not for the needs or in the interest of the State, but to strengthen its despotic regime, to repress the population that fights against it, etc., this debt is odious for the population of all the State.”
The situation here is that you have a lot of other countries interpreting financial regulations differently from your own perspective (i.e. Is a government responsible for a portion of the losses of a bank if the deposit insurance scheme is unable to cover the losses?).
It would seem to be more of a debt incurred under duress from outside influences. It may be odious, but I don’t think it is an “odious debt” in the strict definition.
“I would accept a limited state guarantee,
one that would not put any state assets in Iceland at risk, and would only cover 20k per account for a limited period of time.”
That isn’t a guarantee, its condition payment terms. Icelanders didn’t want to allow their government to guarantee its banks it should have stopped them offering it in the first place. Attempting to revoke it for a class of depositors after the event doesn’t cut it really.
Which again raises the issue of why Icelanders are not in uproar that the government guaranteed domestic borrowers, same banks, different treatment. If the banks were private, why were these depositors singled out for preferential treatment?
Axel, you fail to mention one of the most ‘odious’ aspects of this whole affair, the absolute guarantee given to Icelandic domestic Landsbankii depositors after the transfer of the bank to state control. They were customers of a ‘private bank’ just like the Dutch and British customers. Why were they treated differently?
All 3 of our banks fell in the same week, leaving us with no financial system, we had to open the Icelandic banks to prevent chaos and panic, certain to become a reality in a coplete meltdown,
only an idiot would have frozen the banks.
This is nothing compared with the destruction of Kaupthing bank and the theft of Singer and Friedlander, or the Heritable bank who is expected to recover 120%, hardly a bank heading to bankruptcy before being attacked by the British authorities,
All Britsh banks recieved help from the British authorities, except the ones owned by Icelanders, they were declared terrorist banks and destroyed/robbed.
This is nothing compared with the destruction of Kaupthing bank and the theft of Singer and Friedlanderi>
Strange, not what the High Court said:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/2542.html
they were declared terrorist banks
Bull, and if you honestly believe that then there’s no hope for you.
Of course, as Landsbanki was an Icelandic bank, there’s absolutely no reason why the UK should or would have bailed out Icesave. Regarding KSF, I suspect that it makes more sense to look at Northern Rock than any of the others, i.e. the bank was taken from its owners. But I’d like to see someone make a case for why the British taxpayer should have put money into KSF without taking ownership.
I don’t know anything about Heritable, but where did you get that 120% from? A quick look at the most recent creditors’ report shows write downs of assets, which makes 120% recovery seem unlikely. i.e. Residential mortgages written down from £690m to £477m.
http://www.heritable.co.uk/Uploads/Documents/news/Third_6_Month_Report.pdf
“Bull, and if you honestly believe that then there’s no hope for you.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaupthing_Singer_&_Friedlander
“On 8 October 2008 the UK Treasury used the Banking (Special Provisions) Act 2008 to transfer Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander’s Kaupthing Edge deposit business to ING Direct, a wholly-owned subsidiary of ING Group, the remainder of Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander’s business was put into administration”
Singer and Friedlander and the Heritable bank were British banks.
http://icelandweatherreport.com/2009/12/parliament-in-chaos-as-new-documents-on-icesave-appear.html
“The freezing of the assets of Heritable was a huge deal at the time, as UK authorities used anti-terrorist legislation to do so and placed the Icelandic Central Bank on a list of terrorist organizations that included Al-Qaeda. The CB was soon removed from the list, but Landsbanki itself remained on there for months.”
http://www.heritablesavings.co.uk/
Axel wrote
“All Britsh banks recieved help from the British authorities, except the ones owned by Icelanders, they were declared terrorist banks and destroyed/robbed.”
Ireland – as others supported banks to prevent collapse. Anglo Irish having 10 UK branches was nationalised by the Eire government (as Northern Rock by UK government).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7832203.stm
What is the difference between Iceland and Ireland? A lot more than one letter and six months, as the now somewhat tired joke suggested.
“What is the difference between Iceland and Ireland? A lot more than one letter and six months, as the now somewhat tired joke suggested.”
I don’t know much about Ireland’s misfortunes, but it seems to me they have made a few mistakes, some of them may be repairable though.
The joke is really funny, Iceland and Ireland are in many ways comparable, but Britain is not that different, lets wait 6 months and see if we can include Britain in this joke as well ;)
The freezing of the assets of Heritable was a huge deal at the time, as UK authorities used anti-terrorist legislation to do so and placed the Icelandic Central Bank on a list of terrorist organizations that included Al-Qaeda. The CB was soon removed from the list, but Landsbanki itself remained on there for months.”
Alda got it wrong. Heritable was not frozen – see my comment in that article you link to.
Singer and Friedlander and the Heritable bank were British banks.
Yes. Your point? My “bull” comment was aimed at your “terrorist bank” statement. As I said, by all means make a case that KSF was not similar to Northern Rock (another British bank) and should instead have been treated like [insert British bank here].
But you’ll need to overcome Lord Justice Richards’ comment, “Finally, it has not been contended that the actual decision to make the Transfer Order was an unreasonable one on the information available to the Treasury, and any such argument would be plainly doomed to failure. For my part, I have difficulty in seeing what other decision the Treasury could reasonably have taken in the circumstances.”