Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, President of Iceland, has announced he will hold a press conference at 11.00 tomorrow morning. Four days have now passed since the President was presented with the Icesave Bill passed by parliament. Since that time, he has met with political leaders, as well as representatives of the InDefence Group who want him to reject the Bill and therefore send it to a national referendum. There is still no evidence to predict what the President intends to do.
Comments are closed.
Visir has reported that Grimsson has refused to sign the law.
That should cut Iceland’s external debt down quite nicely. No more Nordic ot IMF loans for a start :) .
Bjarni said:
“Also, a simple comparison, the total number of Icesave depositors 400000+, to be guaranteed by a country with a population of only 320000, reveals that this clearly was never going to work, no matter what anyone said or promised.”
A guarantee is a guarantee, there is no discussion on that issue. Retrospectively redefining the English language to suit your circumstances is a trait that has defined Iceland in this affair.
The money that British depositors placed under the protection of the Icelandic government has the words “I promise to pay the bearer, on demand the Sum of xx Pounds” printed on it.
It does not say anything about “You shouldn’t believe us because we are only a tiny island and can’t pay your back”
Did the Icelandic government provide warnings about the number of depositors and the amount deposited against the amount it could repay if the banks failed? No, it promised to honour the guarantee and promised that “Icesave is a safe place for your money”
Fisy
Please leave off the personal attacks, I long ago gave up replying to your ramblings, however I understand you hold some personal responsibility for getting your country into this mess so I understand you want to cover your tracks.
I have no personal interest in this beyond personal curiosity, not being an Icelandic or UK tax payer.
MSE quotes this:
“all the Nordic countries have an arrangement where they will step in and help any one of the participating countries that are in trouble so there is an additional layer of reassurance and cover”
If that is so,is there any chance that the Nordic loans will be actually a grant/written off once the Icesave deal is approved? Surely this would be expected and completely fair if Iceland really can’t afford to pay its debts as claimed?
has only two options should sign or not sign if you do pem the country in ruin but will suffer sanctions at foreign
To Terry – ‘the original’:
>>>>So we not only pay for your guarantee failure, but also to investigate and prosecute your criminals!
The ‘export vikings’ and the banks were mainly operating outside Iceland. It will therefore take a lot of effort by agencies in multiple countries to pull these investigations off and produce some real results.
>>>>Would you like for them to be imprisoned within the UK, so we can pay for their board and lodging costs also? : )
If they have committed offences in UK and you can prove them, then yes please!
Bjarni
Thanks for the summary of the position as you see it. It was helpful.
>”First, never ever believe any independent web-site that says that any investment is safe or that any bank is fully guaranteed. It just doesn’t exist.
The documents with the final authority on the matter, the laws for the TIF and the EU directive, were all publicly available at the time”.
Well, maybe so – but I’m not a forensic accountant, and would say that I exercised reasonable vigilance as a regular consumer.
You refer to ‘investments’ – and as you know Bjarni – IceSave was about ‘deposits’ with guarantees.
I fully appreciate what you say about the ability of any guarantee compensation scheme to function in the event of a systemic failure – perhaps that is why other countries stepped in to support their banks. Even amongst smaller countries. I recall Knowless making a comment about Irelands ‘bluff’ – but it has succeeded, so far.
https://www.icenews.is/index.php/2008/12/01/pm-haarde-icelanders-remember-acts-of-friendship/#comment-52933
And currently Neils is currently pursuing this issue within another thread.
https://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/12/30/the-icelandic-parliament-althingi-says-yes-to-icesave/#comment-108539
>”This brings up another point, that is most of the “export vikings” and the former bank managers do not live in Iceland (or have moved away).
In fact, many of them now live in the UK or other European countries such as Luxembourg. This could facilitate other countries to bring in their considerably stronger investigating powers to find out if any local laws were broken, or there was fraud being committed. We have had news here that the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) in UK, is looking into at least some parts of the banking crash, but I do not know how extensive the investigation is”.
So we not only pay for your guarantee failure, but also to investigate and prosecute your criminals!
PS: Would you like for them to be imprisoned within the UK, so we can pay for their board and lodging costs also? : )
Politicians in the UK and the Netherlands depend on voters too. If Iceland does not pay its debts, Iceland will be punished.
To Terry – ‘the original’:
>>>>I was reassured by comment confirming my money was guaranteed –
First, never ever believe any independent web-site that says that any investment is safe or that any bank is fully guaranteed. It just doesn’t exist.
The documents with the final authority on the matter, the laws for the TIF and the EU directive, were all publicly available at the time.
Also, a simple comparison, the total number of Icesave depositors 400000+, to be guaranteed by a country with a population of only 320000, reveals that this clearly was never going to work, no matter what anyone said or promised.
I hope all the people that were responsible for spreading misinformation about what exactly was guaranteed, and providing false security to people, will in the end, be brought to justice.
In Iceland there are multiple avenues that are being pursued, although some peoples opinion, this has taken too much time:
The Icelandic parliament investigating committee (Rannsóknarnefnd Alþingis) has now been at work for many months and is expected to release its report in February. It has warned its results will not be pretty. There has already been discussion, that a special court (Landsdómur) as specified in the constitution, may have be convened if any of the government officials are implicated.
The special prosecutor along with Eva Joly has also been investigating multiple people for various financial misdeeds, and is expected to start handing out indictments in the next few months. These cases are by their nature, extremely difficult to prove, so it is not very clear what the final results of those cases will be.
The Icelandic Tax Revenue Service has been investigating 100´s of companies and individuals, that may have submitted wrong tax returns. This may end up being were most of banking and “Viking” business people are likely to be caught, for not reported their ill-gotten ‘income’, just like Al Capone :-).
All the people that will be indicted, will of course hire the best legal help there is, so its likely that these cases will drag on for quite a long time, before we know the results.
This brings up another point, that is most of the “export vikings” and the former bank managers do not live in Iceland (or have moved away).
In fact, many of them now live in the UK or other European countries such as Luxembourg. This could facilitate other countries to bring in their considerably stronger investigating powers to find out if any local laws were broken, or there was fraud being committed. We have had news here that the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) in UK, is looking into at least some parts of the banking crash, but I do not know how extensive the investigation is.
Good joke, Bjarni ;-)
I did notice that Alistair Darling went on TV today and made the following statement:
“what we’re asking is that there is a reimbursement [and] it is over a reasonable time period”
This is actually good news, since both of these points are already accepted by Iceland. In fact the reimbursment for IceSave was agreed already back in November 2008, when Iceland decided to apply for the IMF assistance.
The fierce opposition against the new IceSave agreement laws by the Icelandic population, was instead much more about the “Ragnar Hall” issue (creditor priority according to Icelandic bankruptcy laws), and the high interest rate 5.55% thats being charged on the the whole 4B Euros during the next 15 years.
If Alistair Darling really meant what he said, then that would be an opening for a new IceSave agreement to be negotiated, if the Icelandic President decides against signing the laws.
Before people do start posting same stuff here already answers in other discussion, here is also some good debating going on this thread :
https://www.icenews.is/index.php/2010/01/02/world-watching-iceland’s-president-grimsson/
( And please do take every thing that Peter – London do post with the big pinch of salt. Search for nearly any thread that he does post into which has some replyies for why. )
Peter – Not being a gambling man – I put my money (within guarantee limit) into IceSave.
I was reassured by comment confirming my money was guaranteed –
http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2008/04/01/icesave-how-safe-are-your-savings-facts-and-myths/
Sorry to regular posters for going over old ground.
I’m going to disagree with you Peter, and guess that the President will go for the ‘collective’ option – where it goes to referendum.
But hey, I got it wrong with IceSave .
As with the run-up to the Althingi vote on December 30th, I am not going to try to predict what the Icelandic President is going to decide tomorrow.
I am glad though, he spent few days thinking over the issue, before making the final decision. Its important to remember, that the President CANNOT veto any laws, he can only accept or decline to sign them.
If he decides to sign the laws, that will be the end of this particular dispute. The new Icesave guarantee agreement will become the law of the land, as constitutionally there is no more steps that can be taken to oppose it.
The Nordic loans will then be released from their “hold”, the IMF program will continue, and the Social Democrats will put all their efforts into pushing the EU application forward. We will probably not hear much more about IceSave in the news until if (or when) at some point Iceland will get into trouble with one of their loans.
If, on the other hand the President declines to sign the laws, lot of things will happen, some of them seemingly contradictory and confusing to people.
First, the Icelandic government may fall, possibly even immediately. The Left-Greens desperately wants to keep it going, so its more likely that it will be up to the Social Democrats whether it folds. If that happens, the President will have to decide whether to call a new election (not particularly good timing) or try to get some other parties to form a new government, or even form a government outside the parliament.
if the government survives, then it has to decide what to do next. It has two options, either withdraw the new laws (in which case the previous laws from August come back into force), or let them go to a national referendum.
The problem with the national referendum, is that as we found out in 2004, that there really isn’t any laws available, that specify exactly how to implement it. It seems on the face of it to be easy thing to do (just have a national vote and then count the votes to see which side got most votes), but last time the lawyers had a field day complicating the issue. Expect a lot of very confusing news if this happens.
If the national referendum goes ahead and accepts the laws, then thats it again, case closed. If the referendum on the other hand fails, then the previous laws from August regarding the Icesave guarantee come back into effect (important point).
In that case (referendum fails), the ball goes back to the UK/Netherlands to see what their response is. They basically have 3 options:
– They can still accept the Icesave guarantee laws from last August.
– They can cancel the original Icesave agreement from last June, according to the terms of that agreement.
– They can continue to apply pressure on Iceland to renegotiate the Icesave agreement once more on their terms. This is likely to be lot more confusing though, the third time around, as the political situation in Iceland is likely to be very unclear, which will make it difficult to reach a new agreement.
In the background of all this, will be the situation that Iceland still faces some very serious economic challenges, in addition to the Icesave dispute.
For example, in 2010 the Icelandic government will need to spend about 40% of its revenues on loan payments and 57% in 2011, when a very large 1B Euros loan payment becomes due. This will of course not be possible, so somehow Iceland will have to receive new loans to avoid default.
If, as its been reported, he refuses to sign its will mean the loan offer is automatically withdrawn then there can’t be a referendum.
I would make a guess he will not reject the bill as it would be un-democratic to go against the wishes of parliament without there being the option of a referendum.