Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Fishman

Iceland And Eu Membership

Recommended Posts

://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/07/29/more-members-of-parliament-against-the-icesave-deal/

More head-burying from our friends in the North.

No Icesave deal - no EU membership - simple.

(I resisted the temptation to type an 's' on the end of the last word as per the growing trend).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/07/29/more-members-of-parliament-against-the-icesave-deal/

More head-burying from our friends in the North.

No Icesave deal - no EU membership - simple.

(I resisted the temptation to type an 's' on the end of the last word as per the growing trend).

Its far more serious that that. The will be in violation of the EFTA agreement - they went to final binding arbitration and lost. So failure to stick to the Icesave repayment will mean being kicked out. No free trade, Icelanders lose their right to work in the EU and have to return home. All sorts of problem with exporting. Forget any chance of a return of their financial sector..

Icelanders though are, apparently incredibly stupid, with an over powering sense of their superiority.

Edited by Peter Hun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gordon Brown destroyed the Icelandic economy when he used terrorism legislation to freeze the assets of their main and totally solvent bank sending it into collapse.

The man ruined the economy of one of our oldest allies and one of the most pro-UK countries in the world. All for a political stun to grab a headline and make it look like he was doing something about Icesave, that was even after the Icelandic government had confirmed it would reimburse UK savers in Icesave anyway. I detest that man absolutely, what sort of a monster destroys an allies economy to grab a headline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"one of our oldest allies and one of the most pro-UK countries in the world"

The country we went to war with in the early 70s over fishing rights. You are having a larf?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The country we went to war with in the early 70s over fishing rights. You are having a larf?

Loads of them were Nazi-sympthisers in WWII, to boot.

Still, I have a certain admiration for them. As long as they've got their cod and geothermal water and SeXy WoMeN, they can repudiate their debts and stick two fingers up at the rest of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The country we went to war with in the early 70s over fishing rights. You are having a larf?

Wellll, bit of a spat granted. But they used to love us, or at least they did when I visited.

Thats all gone now Gordon nuked their banking system for a headline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Loads of them were Nazi-sympthisers in WWII, to boot.

Still, I have a certain admiration for them. As long as they've got their cod and geothermal water and SeXy WoMeN, they can repudiate their debts and stick two fingers up at the rest of the world.

Well, we had invaded them in May 1940.

p-o-p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wellll, bit of a spat granted. But they used to love us, or at least they did when I visited.

Thats all gone now Gordon nuked their banking system for a headline.

They loved us because we were hosing money at them; it was only ever cupboard love. Gordon was right to take revenge for the cod war, IMO. They say its a dish best served cold..................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gordon Brown destroyed the Icelandic economy when he used terrorism legislation to freeze the assets of their main and totally solvent bank sending it into collapse.

The man ruined the economy of one of our oldest allies and one of the most pro-UK countries in the world. All for a political stun to grab a headline and make it look like he was doing something about Icesave, that was even after the Icelandic government had confirmed it would reimburse UK savers in Icesave anyway. I detest that man absolutely, what sort of a monster destroys an allies economy to grab a headline.

This is rubbish.

The Icelandic banks were already in the sh1t. It was only when they collapsed and said they could not repay UK depositors their money that the UK froze some assets in London owned by one of those banks to try to stop UK citizens losing even more of their money.

I don't see a problem with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/07/29/more-members-of-parliament-against-the-icesave-deal/

More head-burying from our friends in the North.

No Icesave deal - no EU membership - simple.

No biggie

The Icesave deal is really irrelevant since the Icelandic people will never vote to join the EU anyways..

We already know that this whole EU bid is pointless since we will never be able to keep our fishing grounds to ourselves.

Our fishermen did not go on collision course with HM frigates just to see english and spanish boats returning to what is now one of the last sustainable fishing grounds in Europe..

In Cod we trust :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wellll, bit of a spat granted. But they used to love us, or at least they did when I visited.

Thats all gone now Gordon nuked their banking system for a headline.

they loved your money, same as they loved any tourist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No biggie

The Icesave deal is really irrelevant since the Icelandic people will never vote to join the EU anyways..

We already know that this whole EU bid is pointless since we will never be able to keep our fishing grounds to ourselves.

Our fishermen did not go on collision course with HM frigates just to see english and spanish boats returning to what is now one of the last sustainable fishing grounds in Europe..

In Cod we trust :)

Hmm. Most important industry in Iceland... fishing -- no. 1.

Most important industry in UK... fishing -- no. 78,855,456.

ok, fair point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Icelanders though are, apparently incredibly stupid, with an over powering sense of their superiority.

You guys really don't have a clue what has been going on over Icesave..

As for a sense of superiority, well let me fill you in on the BLACKMAIL that the UK and Dutch governments are trying to enforce on the Icelandic PUBLIC..

7. August 2008

UK Treasury sends a letter to the minister of business affairs in Iceland asking him about the status of the Icelandic deposit guarantee scheme.http://www.island.is/media/frettir/04.pdf

20. August 2008

The minister of Business answeres the letter stating that should the Icelandic deposit scheme not be able to meet minimum payment, then the Icelandic government would assist the scheme in covering payments.http://www.island.is/media/frettir/05.pdf

5. October 2008

A letter is sent to te UK Treasury promising that Iceland will meet it's obligations as by the EU directive..http://www.island.is/media/frettir/06.pdf

7. October 2008

A phone conversation between Alistair Darling and the Icelandic minister of finance..

“We have the [deposit] insurance fund according to the Directive and how that works is explained in this letter and the pledge of support from the government to the fund.“ (Mathiesen is referring to the letter sent to the British Government the day before.)

8. October 2008

The British Government uses anti-terrorism powers to freeze Icelandic assets in Britain. Referring to his telephone conversation with Arni Mathiesen from the day before Alistair Darling, states on BBC radio that morning: “The Icelandic government, believe it or not, have told me yesterday they have no intention of honouring their obligations here […] But I have decided in these exceptional circumstances that we will stand behind those depositors so they get their money back.â€

October 2008

Virtually no money could be transferred in or out of Iceland due to the freezing order in the UK. Apparently most money transfers in Europe go through London and since no bank in the UK dared to transfere money in and out of Iceland everything froze. Icelandic students abroad had to get emergency loans from foreign governments and their schools to be able to eat.

Late October 2008

Icelandic law professors insist that the EU deposit directive does not imply state guarantee..

The Icelandic government insists to take the matter to court to resolve the issue.

November 2008

Iceland sends in application to the IMF, which continuously drags on scheduling the application for the director board.

The Icelandic government is by this time starting to fear about not being able to get food oil and medication to the country due to lack of foreign currency.

It becomes apparent that the UK, Holland and Germany are blocking the IMF application.

Iceland gives in and sends an extra Memorandum of understanding to the IMF stating it will resolve unresolved matters and honor it's deposit guarantee without going to court.

The IMF approves Icelands application.

December 2008

The Icelandic parliament grants permission to negotiate with the UK and Holland, with the conditions that Icelands horrible circumstances will be kept in mind.

June 2008

The IceSLAVE deal is presented..and the bits and pieces start to see the light of dawn..

Iceland can not go to court unlike the UK and Holland.

Iceland has to agree to a state guarantee giving way for the UK and Holland to our natural resourses.

Should Iceland fail on a payment an ANY OTHER loan, then the UK and Holland can call in the loan.

Iceland agrees to the minimum deposit amount, but the UK and Holland still get half of the banks assets.

Iceland pays all legal costs for both Holland and UK.

Here's the best part...EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN ICELAND HAS TO PAY 8000 POUNDS FOR A PRIVATE BANK.

OH and we are still waiting for the second loan from the IMF scheduled in February..wonder why :blink:

The Dutch phone regularly to insist we close the deal..

and the Nordics won't lend us money unless we pay IceSLAVE..

So why do you suppose Europe has united against us to prevent us from being able to take matters to court..

I'TS BECAUSE THERE IS NO STATE GUARANTEE ON EU DEPOSIT GUARANTEE SCHEMES.

Europe knows very well that their own laws are fawlty and won't risk run on banks all over the continent by creating uncertainty about the schemes.

Really if there was a state guarantee on bank deposits, then why do you suppose that Iceland has to pass a special bill through parliament in order to grant a state guarantee..

At least we now know how the Germans felt in Versaille..a defeated nation..

Lets wait and see :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm. Most important industry in Iceland... fishing -- no. 1.

Most important industry in UK... fishing -- no. 78,855,456.

ok, fair point.

You don't have a fishing industry anymore..what little you had left after not being able to plunder Icelandic waters anymore is in ruins due to overfishing.. :lol:

The spanish have already begun talking about the "treasure" the is the Icelandic fishing ground according to their media and how they must keep spanish interests in mind when negotiating with Iceland on this matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its far more serious that that. The will be in violation of the EFTA agreement - they went to final binding arbitration and lost. So failure to stick to the Icesave repayment will mean being kicked out. No free trade, Icelanders lose their right to work in the EU and have to return home. All sorts of problem with exporting. Forget any chance of a return of their financial sector..

Icelanders though are, apparently incredibly stupid, with an over powering sense of their superiority.

I'm not sure that all the above follows. Even if they got kicked out of the EEA, I reckon that arrangements would be made to enable Iceland to continue to do business internationally. It's in nobody's interest to see a trading partner excluded, employees deported, etc. and such acts would also go against the grain of the "Great European Project" -- an idea with which those in positions to decide these things, are greatly enamoured.

As for them worrying about the return of their financial sector ... that would be in the sense of the monster coming back to life at the end of the movie, right? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7. October 2008

A phone conversation between Alistair Darling and the Icelandic minister of finance..

“We have the [deposit] insurance fund according to the Directive and how that works is explained in this letter and the pledge of support from the government to the fund.“ (Mathiesen is referring to the letter sent to the British Government the day before.)

Here's the whole thing. The key part IMO:

Darling: Do I understand that you guarantee the deposits of Icelandic depositors?

Mathiesen: Yes, we guarantee the deposits in the banks and branches here in Iceland.

Darling: But not the branches outside Iceland?

Mathiesen: No, not outside of what was already in the letter that we sent.

Darling: But is that not in breach of the EEA-treaty?

Mathiesen: No, we don't think so and think this is actually in line with what other countries have been doing over recent days.

If he'd come out and said, "Yes", then the subsequent asset-freezing would not have happened IMO. The letter to which he refers stops short of making a clear guarantee, talking instead of offering "support in raising the necessary funds." And the remainder of your post confirms that it is indeed questionable whether the guarantee being sought, was on offer.

Don't get me wrong, I have a great deal of sympathy with the plight of the Icelandic people, with the prospect that they will be impoverished to pay off a private bank's debts, and/or seduced into surrendering long-term rights as the price of avoiding extreme short-term hardship. I hope they will be able to tough it out while keeping their sovereignty and an independent currency.

Edited by huw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's the whole thing. The key part IMO:

If he'd come out and said, "Yes", then the subsequent asset-freezing would not have happened IMO. The letter to which he refers stops short of making a clear guarantee, talking instead of offering "support in raising the necessary funds." And the remainder of your post confirms that it is indeed questionable whether the guarantee being sought, was on offer.

Perhaps, but that does by no means excuse the action they took.

The fact of the matter is that the deposit guarantee scheme is a private entity and in a normal situation when an bank goes bust, the remaining banks are supposed to cover what the bankrupt bank cant cover by granting a loan. In the Icelandic case, all the banks went bust in 3 days so there were no banks to cover the deposits. Thus the Icelandic finance minister says the state will offer support to the scheme in getting loans in order to pay out. He doesn't say that the Icelandic state would pay up, which is what Darling wanted to hear simply because the state isn't supposed to pay.

Darling could also have given the Icelandic government a little bit of breathing room while they were dealing with a national crisis. One can't always get clear and cut answeres in those kind of situations simply because of all the caos.

Their actions were completely unappropriate and completely unforgivable.

Here´s what the House of commons Treasury commitee had to say on this matter in a report releasin in May..

"We note that the published transcript of the Chancellor’s conversation with the Icelandic Finance

Minister does not confirm that the Icelandic Government had stated that it would not

honour its obligations but we have seen no evidence to contradict the Chancellor’s view

that UK depositors and creditors were unlikely to be protected to the same extent as

Icelandic ones."

"Although the Icelandic banking system was vulnerable to the crisis that has affected

the international financial system since 2007, the actions of the UK Government in

making statements on the capacity and willingness of the Icelandic Government to

provide assistance to non-Icelandic citizens, whether or not such statements were

accurate, turned the UK Government from being a seemingly passive observer of

events, to an active participant in the market. Given the volatility of the situation, and

the vulnerability of Icelandic banks at the time, it appears that the Icelandic Authorities

found the UK Government’s approach ultimately unhelpful"

"The use of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 had considerable

implications for the Icelandic authorities in maintaining a functioning financial

system. We call on the Treasury to consider how appropriate the use of this legislation

would be in any similar circumstances in the future. The use of this Act inevitably

stigmatises those subject to it and a less blunt instrument would be more appropriate."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps, but that does by no means excuse the action they took.

The fact of the matter is that the deposit guarantee scheme is a private entity and in a normal situation when an bank goes bust, the remaining banks are supposed to cover what the bankrupt bank cant cover by granting a loan. In the Icelandic case, all the banks went bust in 3 days so there were no banks to cover the deposits. Thus the Icelandic finance minister says the state will offer support to the scheme in getting loans in order to pay out. He doesn't say that the Icelandic state would pay up, which is what Darling wanted to hear simply because the state isn't supposed to pay.

Darling could also have given the Icelandic government a little bit of breathing room while they were dealing with a national crisis. One can't always get clear and cut answeres in those kind of situations simply because of all the caos.

Their actions were completely unappropriate and completely unforgivable.

Here´s what the House of commons Treasury commitee had to say on this matter in a report releasin in May..

"We note that the published transcript of the Chancellor’s conversation with the Icelandic Finance

Minister does not confirm that the Icelandic Government had stated that it would not

honour its obligations but we have seen no evidence to contradict the Chancellor’s view

that UK depositors and creditors were unlikely to be protected to the same extent as

Icelandic ones."

"Although the Icelandic banking system was vulnerable to the crisis that has affected

the international financial system since 2007, the actions of the UK Government in

making statements on the capacity and willingness of the Icelandic Government to

provide assistance to non-Icelandic citizens, whether or not such statements were

accurate, turned the UK Government from being a seemingly passive observer of

events, to an active participant in the market. Given the volatility of the situation, and

the vulnerability of Icelandic banks at the time, it appears that the Icelandic Authorities

found the UK Government’s approach ultimately unhelpful"

"The use of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 had considerable

implications for the Icelandic authorities in maintaining a functioning financial

system. We call on the Treasury to consider how appropriate the use of this legislation

would be in any similar circumstances in the future. The use of this Act inevitably

stigmatises those subject to it and a less blunt instrument would be more appropriate."

I'm aware of Icelands plight and I really hope things will get better for the Icelandic people. Still I think that the Icelandic Government had a large responsibility regarding the Icesave drama. The Icelandic banks were very much supported by the Icelandic Government. They guaranteed the first 20.887 euro explicitly and insisted on full access to the Dutch market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps, but that does by no means excuse the action they took.

The fact of the matter is that the deposit guarantee scheme is a private entity and in a normal situation when an bank goes bust, the remaining banks are supposed to cover what the bankrupt bank cant cover by granting a loan. In the Icelandic case, all the banks went bust in 3 days so there were no banks to cover the deposits. Thus the Icelandic finance minister says the state will offer support to the scheme in getting loans in order to pay out. He doesn't say that the Icelandic state would pay up, which is what Darling wanted to hear simply because the state isn't supposed to pay.

Darling could also have given the Icelandic government a little bit of breathing room while they were dealing with a national crisis. One can't always get clear and cut answeres in those kind of situations simply because of all the caos.

Their actions were completely unappropriate and completely unforgivable.

Here´s what the House of commons Treasury commitee had to say on this matter in a report releasin in May..

"We note that the published transcript of the Chancellor’s conversation with the Icelandic Finance

Minister does not confirm that the Icelandic Government had stated that it would not

honour its obligations but we have seen no evidence to contradict the Chancellor’s view

that UK depositors and creditors were unlikely to be protected to the same extent as

Icelandic ones."

"Although the Icelandic banking system was vulnerable to the crisis that has affected

the international financial system since 2007, the actions of the UK Government in

making statements on the capacity and willingness of the Icelandic Government to

provide assistance to non-Icelandic citizens, whether or not such statements were

accurate, turned the UK Government from being a seemingly passive observer of

events, to an active participant in the market. Given the volatility of the situation, and

the vulnerability of Icelandic banks at the time, it appears that the Icelandic Authorities

found the UK Government’s approach ultimately unhelpful"

"The use of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 had considerable

implications for the Icelandic authorities in maintaining a functioning financial

system. We call on the Treasury to consider how appropriate the use of this legislation

would be in any similar circumstances in the future. The use of this Act inevitably

stigmatises those subject to it and a less blunt instrument would be more appropriate."

It's the bold bit that I think was the problem ... the "preferential" treatment of one set of EEA citizens (domestic ones) over others -- the pain should have been spread evenly among all depositors. It's comparable to a bankrupt promising partial, devalued payment to his family/friends, and nothing to anybody else; it would be reasonable for the other creditors to seize assets, if they were able to do so.

I'm aware that this came out of the currency in which deposits were made, but the issues of foreign-currency liabilities should have been thought through beforehand by Icelandic politicians and regulators (and is the sort of thing that they seldom seem to think through regardless of nationality).

I agree that the use/naming of that particular act was most unfortunate ... the fact that it had "Terrorism" in the title while also containing legislation covering areas that manifestly had nothing to do with Terrorism, led to the appearance that Iceland was being slurred in a way that should not have happened.

On the other hand, somebody was (is) going to get impoverished to pay for the failure of the private Icelandic banks; the UK state was quite correct IMO to act to ensure that this was, as far as possible, not its own citizens (they have quite enough domestic private banks to be impoverished for ;) )

Frankly the underlying problem comes out of international rules that permit small countries to run banking systems beyond their capacity to support, and obliges other countries to allow the resulting banks to do business on their territory. It's not just Iceland that's been doing this; Iceland just happens to smaller and weaker than most, and the first to be caught out.

Edited by huw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One way or another the EU will steal all your fish and natural resources. You can vote against it as many times as you wish - that's where you're headed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, we had invaded them in May 1940.

p-o-p

To make sure that the island didn't fall under the thrall of the nazi jackboot... with bases to stike out at the north atlantic convoy... stategic aquisition I'd call it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's the bold bit that I think was the problem ... the "preferential" treatment of one set of EEA citizens (domestic ones) over others -- the pain should have been spread evenly among all depositors. It's comparable to a bankrupt promising partial, devalued payment to his family/friends, and nothing to anybody else; it would be reasonable for the other creditors to seize assets, if they were able to do so.

I'm aware that this came out of the currency in which deposits were made, but the issues of foreign-currency liabilities should have been thought through beforehand by Icelandic politicians and regulators (and is the sort of thing that they seldom seem to think through regardless of nationality).

I agree that the use/naming of that particular act was most unfortunate ... the fact that it had "Terrorism" in the title while also containing legislation covering areas that manifestly had nothing to do with Terrorism, led to the appearance that Iceland was being slurred in a way that should not have happened.

On the other hand, somebody was (is) going to get impoverished to pay for the failure of the private Icelandic banks; the UK state was quite correct IMO to act to ensure that this was, as far as possible, not its own citizens (they have quite enough domestic private banks to be impoverished for ;) )

Frankly the underlying problem comes out of international rules that permit small countries to run banking systems beyond their capacity to support, and obliges other countries to allow the resulting banks to do business on their territory. It's not just Iceland that's been doing this; Iceland just happens to smaller and weaker than most, and the first to be caught out.

Huw, you talk a lot of sense.

Iceland has been, until recently, in the control of a small clique of politicians, bankers and industrialists - probably numbering no more then 20.

The Icelandic people should be directing their anger at this group of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is rubbish.

The Icelandic banks were already in the sh1t. It was only when they collapsed and said they could not repay UK depositors their money that the UK froze some assets in London owned by one of those banks to try to stop UK citizens losing even more of their money.

I don't see a problem with that.

No your talking rubbish, Nulabour propaganda in fact.

They use anti-terror legislation to freeze the assets of a perfectly solvent Icelandic bank because another un-connected bank owed some money.

How would like it if when Northern Rock went bust America decided to freeze all assets at your bank which was again totally unconnected citing terrorist fears. You then lost most of your savings due to unconnected events in another bank which just happened to operate in the same country.

Just attempt to justify it.

Gordon is a moron, and destroyed Iceland for a headline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   289 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.