Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

exiges

Icelanders Tell The Uk To Gtf

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13022524

Icelanders have rejected the latest plan to repay the UK and Netherlands some 4bn euros lost when the country's banking system collapsed in 2008.

Partial referendum results show 58% voting no, and 42% supporting the plan.

"The worst option was chosen. The vote has split the nation in two," Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir said on state TV.

It is the second time a referendum has rejected a repayment deal, and the case will now go to an international court.

Landsbanki ran savings accounts in the UK and Netherlands under the name Icesave and investors there lost 4bn euros (£3.5bn; $5.8bn).

When it collapsed in 2008, the British and Dutch governments had to reimburse 400,000 citizens - and Iceland had to decide how to repay that money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel sorry for the Icelandic public but I disagree. This is a bad thing. No one forced the Icelandic government to guarantee the deposits of Icesave customers. They freely entered into a legal contract. To prevent a repeat of this mess we need clearer financial laws, greater international co-operation, firmer accountability and stronger sanctions against financial negligence and fraud. People should not be allowed to walk away from the debts so easily, whether they're an individual, a company or an entire country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel sorry for the Icelandic public but I disagree. This is a bad thing. No one forced the Icelandic government to guarantee the deposits of Icesave customers. They freely entered into a legal contract. To prevent a repeat of this mess we need clearer financial laws, greater international co-operation, firmer accountability and stronger sanctions against financial negligence and fraud. People should not be allowed to walk away from the debts so easily, whether they're an individual, a company or an entire country.

agree for individuals and companies, not for countries. Why? Because the individuals who sign FOR the country are not the ones who have to pay the price - they are usually long gone and retired with their nest eggs. If lenders knew that unreasonable loans would not be paid off, then they would be less inclined to make them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious as to how much the British have borrowed from the Icelandic banks... All I ever seem to hear is how much we had on deposit. But surely the main problem was how much they lent out? Who borrowed it all and couldn't pay it back?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for them. They have it spot on - there is no obligation on private individuals to honour the bad debts of private banks, and their government has no ability to commit them.

And as for harming their chances of joining the EU, well it's good news all over for them isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for them. They have it spot on - there is no obligation on private individuals to honour the bad debts of private banks, and their government has no ability to commit them.

And as for harming their chances of joining the EU, well it's good news all over for them isn't it?

Even if you were to argue that the populations should stand for the governments debts, in the icelandic constitution it says all such matters are chucked into a referendum if there is an issue.

Any democratophile feels aggrevied by this hasn't got a leg to stand on, this isn't small print, this is massive, obvious print.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

agree for individuals and companies, not for countries. Why? Because the individuals who sign FOR the country are not the ones who have to pay the price - they are usually long gone and retired with their nest eggs. If lenders knew that unreasonable loans would not be paid off, then they would be less inclined to make them...

The expectation from lenders was, and still is, that any credit they create can at some point in the future converted into Fiat money. It doesn't matter whether that credit was created by a reasonable leverage of customer deposits are created out of thin air. Whatever they do, no matter how fraudulent it is, they expect not to have a black hole in their books and that any losses or shortfalls will be met by states and citizens.

That is the bottom line. The system is completely and utterly bust. And corrupt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if you were to argue that the populations should stand for the governments debts, in the icelandic constitution it says all such matters are chucked into a referendum if there is an issue.Any democratophile feels aggrevied by this hasn't got a leg to stand on, this isn't small print, this is massive, obvious print.

Didn't know that. That means anyone arguing they made their investment on the basis of an Icelandic state undertaking on the contract didn't do their research properly so deserves to lose out.

Yes, it's absolutely an enormous principle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel sorry for the Icelandic public but I disagree. This is a bad thing. No one forced the Icelandic government to guarantee the deposits of Icesave customers.

Correct.

They freely entered into a legal contract.

Wrong.

They didn't enter into a contract to protect all deposits. There was a very small and limited depositor protection scheme. Other governments took it upon themselves to make big payouts.

I speak as someone who saw the madness of 2005, thought the banks will end up in trouble, took the trouble to check up on depositor protection, and put my money somewhere it attracted a lower interest rate than Icesave but enjoyed depositor protection. Not that I thought it safe even there: the prospect of a bank bust too big for a taxpayer bailout seemed alarmingly real. A small building society seemed the lowest risk: even if it got into trouble (which it hasn't), it wouldn't risk dragging anything more down with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't know that. That means anyone arguing they made their investment on the basis of an Icelandic state undertaking on the contract didn't do their research properly so deserves to lose out.

Yes, it's absolutely an enormous principle.

http://www.government.is/constitution/

It's pretty good and sucinct, as constitutions go.

Article 5

The President shall be elected by direct, secret ballot of those who are eligible to vote in elections to Althingi.

Article 26

If Althingi has passed a bill, it shall be submitted to the President of the Republic for confirmation not later than two weeks after it has been passed. Such confirmation gives it the force of law. If the President rejects a bill, it shall nevertheless become valid but shall, as soon as circumstances permit, be submitted to a vote by secret ballot of all those eligible to vote, for approval or rejection. The law shall become void if rejected, but otherwise retains its force.

It's obvious to anyone with half a brain that if this president doesn't fire the bailout into oblivion, he'll just get sacked and replaced by someone who will. No use crying about it, international lenders, it's right here in big old black and white.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO. There should not have been a guarantee and depositors should have lost their money. I knew when I put cash in Icesave it might be ever so slightly dodgy, I took the words of strangers like Martin Lewis and ignored the warnings from places like Moneyweek. To expect now for the Icelanders to shoulder the responsibility for the recklessness of mine and others inept financial decision making process at the time is the height of bad economics.

The sad thing is that the precedent has already been set and the moral hazard is in place. Due diligence is a thing of the past and the banks are free from scrutiny because every man, his dog and his bank are backstopped by a government guarantee. The taxpayer is responsible for the irresponsible, and the irresponsible are responsible for nothing.

In a good economy the incompetent fail and the competent succeed. In our economy the competent pay for the incompetent to succeed. This is end-game economics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To have a functioning financial system with rewards for successful investments.. we also have to accept that some investments will turn out to be losses. Baby boomers are refusing to accept that, they feel every investment should be a winner, and if not the government should step in and compensate them for all losses plus interest they were promised by someone.

Its sort of the mentality all children are above average, and all investments are winners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for them. They have it spot on - there is no obligation on private individuals to honour the bad debts of private banks, and their government has no ability to commit them.

And as for harming their chances of joining the EU, well it's good news all over for them isn't it?

Odd the BBC report a top treasury official saying they are going to persue further...this means more court action, and if we win, the Icelandics will have to pay much much more in interest and costs.

He also went on that the UK taxpayer was obliged to bail the savers.

He is wrong on both counts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To have a functioning financial system with rewards for successful investments.. we also have to accept that some investments will turn out to be losses. Baby boomers are refusing to accept that, they feel every investment should be a winner, and if not the government should step in and compensate them for all losses plus interest they were promised by someone.

Its sort of the mentality all children are above average, and all investments are winners.

not boomers...voters are not making the decision...weak politicians are...jsut watched Boris on Sky, had to stop as in every answer he gave about banking, he said he waned regs, but didnt want the city to miss out on being competitive.

Being competitive and cutting corners with fraudulent schemes is not being competitive at all....its fraud.

the 8BN in bonuses paid THIS year to bankers..would have covered the iCELANDIC payout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These debts are those of private banks and have nothing to do with the people of Iceland.

At last, we see a people standing up to the Financial terrorists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if you were to argue that the populations should stand for the governments debts, in the icelandic constitution it says all such matters are chucked into a referendum if there is an issue.

Any democratophile feels aggrevied by this hasn't got a leg to stand on, this isn't small print, this is massive, obvious print.

So why were any of this countries financial institutions aver given a banking licence in this country, given it was obvious that their government could not follow through on any guarantees?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why were any of this countries financial institutions aver given a banking licence in this country, given it was obvious that their government could not follow through on any guarantees?

light touch and high interest rates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To have a functioning financial system with rewards for successful investments.. we also have to accept that some investments will turn out to be losses. Baby boomers are refusing to accept that, they feel every investment should be a winner, and if not the government should step in and compensate them for all losses plus interest they were promised by someone.

Its sort of the mentality all children are above average, and all investments are winners.

Not quite true.No one would keep any money in any financial institution without some kind of guarantee. Maybe the guarantee is more for the countries banking system than for the depositers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does the icelandic prime minister appear to think repaying the debt is a good idea if it's such a bad idea? Or is she just pretending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite true.No one would keep any money in any financial institution without some kind of guarantee. Maybe the guarantee is more for the countries banking system than for the depositers.

the guarantee comes from themselves...their ability to keep paying tax to bail themselves out is true communism.

All a bank should offer is a safe place to store your cash, free from robbery, and if they want to offer some interest, an opprtunity to pool your savings with others and make a productive investment...which could go wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does the icelandic prime minister appear to think repaying the debt is a good idea if it's such a bad idea? Or is she just pretending.

Its not her debt to repay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for them. They have it spot on - there is no obligation on private individuals to honour the bad debts of private banks, and their government has no ability to commit them.

And as for harming their chances of joining the EU, well it's good news all over for them isn't it?

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does the icelandic prime minister appear to think repaying the debt is a good idea if it's such a bad idea? Or is she just pretending.

My understanding is that the money is question is the sum due to cover deposits under the EEA passport system set up in the 1990s which was transposed into Icelandic law in 1999. It does not cover the full bailout of depositors carried out by the UK and Dutch governments

http://eng.idnadarraduneyti.is/laws-and-regulations/nr/1165

As such it is more than a purely banking matter but an issue of a nation state reneging on an agreement under international law. As such the matter is likely to wind up in the international courts. While of course there is nothing new in countries violating treaties such actions always have consequences. In this instance for good or ill it means that Iceland is going to find it harder to access funds in the IMF and elsewhere if it needs them. This may or may not be a bad thing depending on your point of view. Of course, Iceland might find friends amonst the BRIC nations who could provide funding but this will come with similar strings attached and some of these nations may prove to be even more unforgiving and rather less peaceful if the Icelanders have it away with their cash.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icesave_dispute#cite_note-ISlaw-62

I have to say I find the logic of some of the people applauding this decision as bizarre since the people getting shafted are not the international banking system or even the Dutch and British governments but the people of Britain and the Netherlands who have now seen billions of pounds/euros of their tax money effectively purloined.

BTW it should be pointed out that there were more than few Sell To Renters on this site back in 2008 with money in the Icelandic banks who had their sorry ar*es saved when HMG bailed them out.

The rest of you can cheer as much as you want but your paying for it suckers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 312 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

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.