wren Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 ... So let me turn the question back on you. If your council tax bills for the next 10 years were going to be higher, would you still be cheerleading Iceland reneging on the debt? They chose Icelandic accounts for the higher interest, but the interest was higher for a reason: extra risk. Can nobody take responsibility for their own financial decisions? The government even recommended Icelandic banks to LAs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygnus Alpha Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 No of course, not. British taxpayers should say f*ck off to other people's debt's just like the icelandic taxpayers have. Exactly! So why are you so keen for Iceland not to meet it's debt obligations to the UK Government and certain local councils. Nottingham City Council lost £42m. Should they just write it off? Or should the Icelandic Government pay it back (over a period of time of course). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 Exactly! So why are you so keen for Iceland not to meet it's debt obligations to the UK Government and certain local councils. Nottingham City Council lost £42m. Should they just write it off? Or should the Icelandic Government pay it back (over a period of time of course). Some peopel have promised others time, energy and money without asking. It's wrong. The end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkG Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 Or should the Icelandic Government pay it back (over a period of time of course). The Icelandic government has no money to pay anything with; why should Icelandic taxpayers be forced to slave away to pay for bad decisions by British councils? Icelanders would be crazy to vote to load themselves up with other peoples' debts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygnus Alpha Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 They chose Icelandic accounts for the higher interest, but the interest was higher for a reason: extra risk. Can nobody take responsibility for their own financial decisions? The government even recommended Icelandic banks to LAs. I agree with you there apart from the last bit. I'm not sure that the Government did recommend Icelandic Banks to Local Authorities. Tory Councils (and most of them are Tory) tend to do what they like with their money, rather than listening to what Brown and Darling have to say on the matter, Anyone would think that Tory Councils were trying to blame someone else and not take responsibility for their own financial decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huw Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 So let me turn the question back on you. If your council tax bills for the next 10 years were going to be higher, would you still be cheerleading Iceland reneging on the debt? As for the council tax bills -- A. pretending that Iceland can/will pay this money back will not reduce our council tax bills and B. the amounts on deposit from councils were far in excess of guarantee caps in any case, so the whole thing is beside the point. So instead of lamenting over spilled milk, I would be looking at how the money came to be placed in an unsafe bank, and what needs to be changed to stop it from happening again. As far as I'm aware the EEA rules that led to this have not been reformed, nor will they be as long as Iceland is demonised instead of analysing what really went wrong. It's not just the EEA -- why did councils put their money into what was clearly a risky proposition (if I could see enough to steer clear with my few 10s of K, why not a council CFO with their millions?) Did they have a statutory obligation to obtain the highest interest rate? If so then the problem partly came out of our very own rules, and we need to address that too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Cook Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 (edited) Exactly! So why are you so keen for Iceland not to meet it's debt obligations to the UK Government and certain local councils. Nottingham City Council lost £42m. Should they just write it off? Or should the Icelandic Government pay it back (over a period of time of course). I'm not cheerleading "Iceland" renaging on their debt. I am cheerleading Icelandic taxpayers refusal to take on someone else's debt. British taxpayers should also say f*ck off to other people's debt's just like the icelandic taxpayers have. It strikes me you are less bothered about ice save depositors getting their money back and more bothered that it is going to be you that has to take on the responsibility for gauranteeing those depositors when you would much rather it was some anonymous icelandic taxpayer. Presumably because you are only too aware that the British taxpayer is far too meek to kick off like the Icelandic taxpayer has. In other words, you "concern" for depositors is a cover for a concern for yourself. Edited January 9, 2010 by Steve Cook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Cook Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 Some peopel have promised others time, energy and money without asking. It's wrong. The end. yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygnus Alpha Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 The Icelandic government has no money to pay anything with; why should Icelandic taxpayers be forced to slave away to pay for bad decisions by British councils? Icelanders would be crazy to vote to load themselves up with other peoples' debts. Mark, the Icelandic Government nationalised the assets of these banks so there are assets there. They have chosen not to sell these assets in the market which is exactly the right decision as they would get firesale prices. That is why they should be given a period of time to repay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urdur Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 I agree with the first bit. But if the Icelandic Government guaranteed the deposits up to 20,000 euro, they should pay shouldn't they? You would demand that if it was your money. But you are happy that I as a taxpayer stump up the money whenever the Icelandic taxpayer doesn't fancy it. Here's the thing...the Icelandic Government said "We will guarantee deposits according to Directive 94/19/EC on deposit guarantees. Now just what does the Direktive say? Whereas this Directive may not result in the Member States' or their competent authorities' being made liable in respect of depositors if they have ensured that one or more schemes guaranteeing deposits or credit institutions themselves and ensuring the compensation or protection of depositors under the conditions prescribed in this Directive have been introduced and officially recognized. There is no State Guarantee on deposits..if there was then why has the Icelandic Parliament just passed special laws to create one? Here's another proof...a report about European deposit schemes released by the EU in 2007.. http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/bank/docs/guarantee/annex3_en.pdf Annex III details the differences between these European schemes..Section D2 details weather a Government guarantee is present. Here's what the report says about the UK and Holland.. Holland Guaranteed by Government/Central bank................NO UK Guaranteed by Government/Central bank................NO Gordo the Clown however decided without consulting anyone in Iceland that these deposits would be covered.. Since then he has been collecting that "debt" with the support of the EU notably Nordic EU members, and has managed to halt all international aid towards Iceland for 9 months. No one in Iceland, not even the Government accepts that Iceland has any Legal obligations to pay this "dept" but up to this day Britain has refused to take the matter up in an independant court.. The Icelandic Government has obviously given up due to the country desperately needing the funds promised from the IMF and the Nordics, and the Icelandic public thinks we should at least do all we can to pay back simply because we think it is morally the right thing to do... BUT..we refuse to do it on Gordo's rediculous terms..hence the referendum..It simply was the only tool the Icelandic people were left with to stop that ***hole from ruining this country again in 2016.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libspero Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 So let me turn the question back on you. If your council tax bills for the next 10 years were going to be higher, would you still be cheerleading Iceland reneging on the debt? I wouldn't want to pay more.. I didn't risk any money in an icelandic account for exactly the reason it collapsed. The icelandic government maybe should pay, although they didn't directly cause the problems. they only took over the banks to prevent total failure. The people who definately should pay are those who gave/gambled their hard earned money to people who had no ability to pay them back. But the UK government already gave them our money because it was all "a bit unfair". So it's all a total mess. Ultimately the UK government gave our money to the depositors so we are the ones left holding the can. They have gambled our money on the hope that Iceland will pay us back. All we can do is sit and eat popcorn while Iceland decides whether to give us the finger or not. The depositors have their money, Iceland has its money, the UK government has nothing.. don't they say possession is 9/10ths of the law? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygnus Alpha Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 I'm not cheerleading "Iceland" renaging on their debt. I am cheerleading Icelandic taxpayers refusal to take on someone else's debt. British taxpayers should also say f*ck off to other people's debt's just like the icelandic taxpayers have. It strikes me you are less bothered about ice save depositors getting their money back and more bothered that it is going to be you that has to take on the responsibility for gauranteeing those depositors when you would much ratehr it was some anonymous icelandic taxpayer. In other words, you "concern" for depositors is a cover for a concern for yourself. Hang on a minute. You want to say f*ck off to other people's debts but the consequences of that is that UK taxpayers have to pay. Of have you not figured that out yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 Hang on a minute. You want to say f*ck off to other people's debts but the consequences of that is that UK taxpayers have to pay. Of have you not figured that out yet? no, the UK taxpayer doesn't have to pay. Simply stop the stealing. It has to sooner or later because it's destroying everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 I'm not cheerleading "Iceland" renaging on their debt. I am cheerleading Icelandic taxpayers refusal to take on someone else's debt. British taxpayers should also say f*ck off to other people's debt's just like the icelandic taxpayers have. Yes It strikes me you are less bothered about ice save depositors getting their money back and more bothered that it is going to be you that has to take on the responsibility for gauranteeing those depositors when you would much rather it was some anonymous icelandic taxpayer. Presumably because you are only too aware that the British taxpayer is far too meek to kick off like the Icelandic taxpayer has.In other words, you "concern" for depositors is a cover for a concern for yourself. And yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkG Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 (edited) You want to say f*ck off to other people's debts but the consequences of that is that UK taxpayers have to pay. British taxpayers are free to tell Gordon Brown to ****** off too. Edited January 9, 2010 by MarkG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 (edited) Hang on a minute. You want to say f*ck off to other people's debts but the consequences of that is that UK taxpayers have to pay. Of have you not figured that out yet? The population of Britain is over 60 million; the population of Iceland is that of Scunthorpe. To expect Icelanders to pay is to hang what would be the equivalent of trillions to us around their necks. Edited January 9, 2010 by 1929crash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygnus Alpha Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 The population of Britain is over 60 million; the population of Iceland is that of Scunthorpe. To expect Icelanders to pay is to hang what would be the equivalent of trillions to us around their necks. Yeah that's a fair point. But an emotional one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygnus Alpha Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 British taxpayers are free to tell Gordon Brown to ****** off too. Neither Iceland nor Britain paying would be great. But it's a heads or tails situation Mark. If you don't want Iceland to pay, then Britain pays. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 Neither Iceland nor Britain paying would be great. But it's a heads or tails situation Mark. If you don't want Iceland to pay, then Britain pays. No. Why don't you just say that all stealing is wrong, no one pays and failures fail like they should. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkG Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 Neither Iceland nor Britain paying would be great. But it's a heads or tails situation Mark. If you don't want Iceland to pay, then Britain pays. If a million Britons turned up outside Parliament with pitchforks and burning torches, do you really think that Brown would be stealing their money to give to people who made risky 'investments' in foreign bank accounts? Icelanders don't seem to have any problem with that kind of behaviour, but Britons don't yet seem pissed off enough to make their anger felt where it matters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted January 9, 2010 Author Share Posted January 9, 2010 Hang on a minute. You want to say f*ck off to other people's debts but the consequences of that is that UK taxpayers have to pay. Of have you not figured that out yet? So all you're worried about is the narrow interest of the UK taxpayer? So much for principles. Bottom line, we're the ones with the total knobster at the Head of Government, so it's our fault. The British people should just refuse to pay their tax, write "F*ck off giving this all to the banks" on their tax returns and put it in an envelope addressed to "*****, London" and it would be on Browns desk the next morning*. And it's a principled position to say that the only people who should lose their money when a banks goes bust are the owners and the investors. Quite how people who lived on the same Island should be responsible is beyond me. * with acknowledgements to Peter Cook, "Derek & Clive Live". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Cook Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 (edited) Hang on a minute. You want to say f*ck off to other people's debts but the consequences of that is that UK taxpayers have to pay. Of have you not figured that out yet? Let me explain this as clearly as I am able as you seem to be having a more than a little difficulty understanding. No-one should be held responsible for someone else's debts without having first given their permission. It doesn't matter whether they are Icelandic, British, or Martians. Edited January 9, 2010 by Steve Cook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygnus Alpha Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 Here's the thing...the Icelandic Government said "We will guarantee deposits according to Directive 94/19/EC on deposit guarantees. Now just what does the Direktive say? Whereas this Directive may not result in the Member States' or their competent authorities' being made liable in respect of depositors if they have ensured that one or more schemes guaranteeing deposits or credit institutions themselves and ensuring the compensation or protection of depositors under the conditions prescribed in this Directive have been introduced and officially recognized. There is no State Guarantee on deposits..if there was then why has the Icelandic Parliament just passed special laws to create one? Here's another proof...a report about European deposit schemes released by the EU in 2007.. http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/bank/docs/guarantee/annex3_en.pdf Annex III details the differences between these European schemes..Section D2 details weather a Government guarantee is present. Here's what the report says about the UK and Holland.. Holland Guaranteed by Government/Central bank................NO UK Guaranteed by Government/Central bank................NO Gordo the Clown however decided without consulting anyone in Iceland that these deposits would be covered.. Since then he has been collecting that "debt" with the support of the EU notably Nordic EU members, and has managed to halt all international aid towards Iceland for 9 months. No one in Iceland, not even the Government accepts that Iceland has any Legal obligations to pay this "dept" but up to this day Britain has refused to take the matter up in an independant court.. The Icelandic Government has obviously given up due to the country desperately needing the funds promised from the IMF and the Nordics, and the Icelandic public thinks we should at least do all we can to pay back simply because we think it is morally the right thing to do... BUT..we refuse to do it on Gordo's rediculous terms..hence the referendum..It simply was the only tool the Icelandic people were left with to stop that ***hole from ruining this country again in 2016.. You are confusing two separate issues. One is the UK compensation scheme which you are correct in saying is not Government Guaranteed. It is the Financial Services Compensation Scheme which is funded by an industry levy. The second think is the Iceland guarantee. In order for an EFTA country's bank to be allowed to operate in the EU it needs to have a compensation scheme in place. So perhaps you would like to tell us about Iceland's guarantee that allowed it to operate in the EU. You're probably right about Gordo being a clown. Our Government are far from perfect. But shouldn't you also throw some stones at your own Government too instead of blaming 'outsiders' all the time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urdur Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 Yes, the money was taken by the Icelandic Government. The assets of those loans to British operating retailers now belong to the Icelandic Government. So no I don't believe you. Ahemmm....Do you know what the assets of Landsbanki will be used for once sold???? Obviously not...THEY WILL BE USED TO PAY THE UK AND HOLLAND..... So no..Iceland has not stolen anything from you.. The problem is that since we don't know the value of these assets until after they have all been sold, the Icelandic government has to sign a loan for the whole amount. The intrests on that loan each year is enough to run our health care system for 6 months plus the fact that this is foreign currency we are talking about here...We simply aren't able to collect enough pounds to pay unless we virtually stop all import to the country.. I'm sorry but to expect a country to sign a check for an X amount of money is simply unacceptable... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygnus Alpha Posted January 9, 2010 Share Posted January 9, 2010 So all you're worried about is the narrow interest of the UK taxpayer? So much for principles. Bottom line, we're the ones with the total knobster at the Head of Government, so it's our fault. The British people should just refuse to pay their tax, write "F*ck off giving this all to the banks" on their tax returns and put it in an envelope addressed to "*****, London" and it would be on Browns desk the next morning*. And it's a principled position to say that the only people who should lose their money when a banks goes bust are the owners and the investors. Quite how people who lived on the same Island should be responsible is beyond me. * with acknowledgements to Peter Cook, "Derek & Clive Live". It's a good job someone is worried about the UK taxpayer isn't it. You dole scroungers don't have to worry about that of course! (joking) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.